Just over ten years ago, the Rainbow Parliament came to town, full of Greens, Socialists and independents. Of the new rainbow intake, just one still remains at Holyrood: Patrick Harvie. His first act, more or less the moment he’d taken the oath, was to propose legislation for civil partnerships – in fact, it was soon enough for the Herald’s cartoonist to draw Patrick with his hand in the air saying “I hereby swear my allegiance to the queens”.
The outrage was widespread, and not just from the usual suspects. Even the less reactionary parts of the media complained that this wasn’t what Greens were elected to do – surely they should just be talking about conservation or climate change? They moaned that Robin wouldn’t have done this, neglecting the fact that it had been a Green manifesto pledge, and that Robin had made the exact same arguments during the previous session.
Just three years prior to that, Scottish Ministers had been the subject of the bad-tempered Keep The Clause campaign, Brian Souter’s hateful effort to try and marginalise LGBT youngsters at school. They’d stuck to their guns, but why would anyone at Holyrood want to kick off another controversy in this area, they asked? It’s too soon. It’s not a big deal. Who cares?
Although Patrick’s Bill wasn’t successful, it did get Holyrood talking about the issue, and it helped ensure that the Scottish Parliament fully debated the issue, and voted in support of the principle, before Westminster passed legislation for the whole UK. Just a year later civil partnerships were approved UK-wide.
Today, as the Scottish Government publishes a bill to deliver equal marriage (with some flaws), supported by the leadership of all five parties at Holyrood, it’s hard to believe how radical it was just ten years ago to propose civil partnerships. This country isn’t free of prejudice or inequality, nor will it be when this bill passes, but on no other issue I care about have I seen such rapid progress. Patrick: you deserve a glass of something fizzy today.
#1 by Juteman on June 27, 2013 - 7:33 pm
Only right wing groups, and religious folk seem to get worked up about this subject.
The rest of the population couldn’t care less. Let everyone live the way they want to, as long as no harm is done to others.
Re marriage, the woman always gets the kids after a divorce. I know.
How will that work? 🙂
#2 by theeforsakenone on June 28, 2013 - 12:36 pm
Not all religious folk (Many I know of, including myself) were bothered by it. It was a false war over nothing. If some religions wish to solemnise same-sex
marriages then they should have the right to do so under religious freedom.
Equally, I’m completely fine with the legislation passing so long as those religions who do not wish to participate cannot be forced to do so.
#3 by James on June 28, 2013 - 12:38 pm
Absolutely, I think that’s fine. Although I slightly wonder what would happen if some horrible faith group said they didn’t want to marry mixed-race couples – would we allow that discrimination? And if not, why discrimination by gender?
#4 by Juteman on June 28, 2013 - 2:55 pm
Re your mixed race comment, James.
Wasn’t the Baptist movement in the American South a reaction to not being welcomed in certain ‘white’ churches?
Maybe gay folk should start their own church?
#5 by James on June 28, 2013 - 3:08 pm
Churches are entirely voluntary organisations – this only arises because they have the power to officiate over legal ceremonies.
Pingback: End of Term – Scottish Roundup