|
19/02/05 | By Jonathan J Joslin | Download a presentable pdf version of this article
The Biggest 360° Degree Quest For LGBT Equality
Are LGBT lobby groups fighting for equal rights, by aspiring to obtain the highest moral goals, or for un-equivalent partiality in special rights at half measures? Just like Section 28, the law that lobby groups laboured fifteen years to abolish, The Civil Partnership Act lawfully construes same sex relationships "As Pretend".
For decades, lobby groups and activists have been condemning governments and religions, for restricting or disallowing all vital and fundamental rights of a community and minority, from a social prejudice of the dehumanising ideals of self-superiority, based on sexuality. The Civil Partnership Act is the first ideal answer to immediate legal support for same sex couples, who dream of joint insurances and inheritance safety nets throughout life, should one of them die. But these couples are having every standard, principle and human dignity taken away from them by LGBT civil rights groups, who believe immediate political and partial ideality for booby-trapped special rights, to be a fundamentally more important answer, than equal rights.
Are LGBT lobby groups and activists really fighting for equality, to support a minority suffering an oppression based on the non-existence to equal treatment over difference? Or are they just snatching at everything the government is offering them, and turning a blind eye to the acceptance of inequality with difference over treatment, in an attempt to obtain the highest believable “victory points” in winning over the LGBT populous and politicians. By making statutory commercialised political statements, that these are things that bring equality forward, they run a race to gain poll position in a monopolised LGBT hierarchy of political status, with a purpose of those who support them, would resolve the group’s desperate need for funding.
The Civil Partnership Act will be in force later this year, but what exactly is the Civil Partnership Act, and do the LGBT public have any idea what this new law construes their relationships as. Lobby groups have been promoting Civil Partnerships as the biggest victory point, and a step closer to equality. But this new law is not equal right, because its certainly not any form of marriage. Lobby groups have been promoting the Civil Partnership Act as a law that gives next of kin status. This law does allow Civil Partners to gain over a third of all the same entitlements as a married couple, in relation to being next of kin. But regardless of all the entitlements, the main basis of this law under the interpretations and amendment section’s, in its legal writing, Civil partners are not next of kin by the lawfully expressed grounds of a relationship.
The interpretation and amendments sections of any legislation should be the first part of any written law that one should read, because it is those sections, that lay down an underline premise for the entire legislation, to update old Acts and bring them forward to the new. And yet, not only has no lobby group or activist made any comments on these sections throughout the entire consultation period, and they have completely ignored every person and politician that stated; "this does not give next of kin status". When any words, terms, labels, or classifications are used in the writing of law, they will only be construed through law in relation to their official statutory vocabulary meaning, and not by what people believe they would, could, should, or might mean. For example there are many sections like:
Civil Partnership Bill [HL] 2004 Chapter 33, SCHEDULE 27 Section 261(1)
[How Appropriate]→ MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS: GENERAL
Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (c. 20`)
19 In section 41 (interpretation), in the definition of "relative" after "by marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957 (c. 58)
21 In section 1 (records of deaths, births and marriages among armed forces and service civilians and their families overseas), in subsection (1), for "and marriages solemnised," substitute "marriages solemnised, and civil partnerships formed,".
Statutory Meaning of Solemnised: A duly serious and dignified ceremony to an eternal loving oath between two people
Marriage: An Established ceremony of an intimate eternally loving union between two people, for the purpose living together, and often to have children.{the marriage of true minds}.
Any legislation, or Act when using the term "or", is a terminology of segregation, to give one defined option or the other. This law when it states the additional amendments to past laws, like "add or Civil Partnership", it is stating there is another form of expression of a “legally” binding relationship. When a legislation gives "new" terminology in the writing of law, whether it is for a new law, or additions to past Acts, it is a protocol with legal definition to explain the expression of the new terminology, because without further expression, it leaves the lawful writing of legislation to be ambiguous. For example, above, it states: in subsection (1), for "and marriages solemnised," substitute "marriages solemnised, and civil partnerships formed."
By protocol in the construction of any legislation, it is statutory to give reason by definition as to "why" only marriage is solemnised, and "Why" civil partnerships are formed. "what is the difference between the two”? These are terms used to define the personal relationships of the couples taking up either marriage or a partnership. When it comes to the legislation, lawful writing will not give two completely different classifications to mean exactly the same thing. It is statutory to remove ambiguity, by explaining that difference in any new sections, amendments, or clauses. So where is the expression by definition to explain why they are formed, not solemnised to lay down the premise of a couples relationship who are taking up this so-called partnership.
One example is CHAPTER 6 MISCELLANEOUS AND INTERPRETATION
The amendment to the Registered Births Deaths and Marriage Act 1965.
Section 136 [INTERPRETATIONS]
In Section 56(1) the expression “Relative” in the 1965 Act, In section 56(1) of the 1965 Act (interpretation), in the definition of relative, at the end, insert “ A Civil Partner and “anyone” related to the civil partner of the person as regards whom the expression is being construed.
Statutory Meaning of Relative: 1, Considered of having significance in relation to something else; but not absolute {they live in relative comfort}
Why bring "the definition of a Civil Partnership" forward with amendments to the definition and expression of a family’s "relatives", and not in an amendment to sections explaining marriage, to add additional expression of solemnised commitment. What should have brought it forward in line with past Act’s, is in the Section of interpretations to add an extra expression to the definition of "marriage" not "relatives". The following that should have been added to any past Registrations of Death Birth and Marriage Acts, was, in addition to the expression of "solemnised marriage" and at the end of paragraph 1(a) add, "or a Civil Partnership."
This is not about what Civil Partners are entitled too, it’s about they are construed as. Every Heterosexual marriage law directly states, explains, construes, marriage between to people "is a life long committed solemnised relationship" which is based on eternal marital monogamous LOVE. Which this law gives nothing of the kind, and defines the entire basis of a same sex relationship between two people, within a civil partnership to be nothing more or less, "than a summarily significant status, but non-absolute relevance to each other". Which is exactly what any relatives legal position and defined status is [Brother or Sister in-law] to any family. This is a legal defined status that is "not defined" as any relationship based on a solemnised commitment and eternal marital love.
And this is demonstrated in plethora of amendments were it states:- after "is married to" insert ", or a civil partner of,". And:- in relation to parties “to” a marriage, or to two people who are civil partners “of “ each other. It is exactly the same premise as the Local government Act 1988, containing Section 28, that lobby groups exhausted 15 years to abolish 2a 1(b) of Section 28 that classed same sex relationships as pretend. Unfortunately, through years of experience in research on activist, lobby groups, and going to LGBT conferences, I’ve found that lobby groups still have absolutely no idea what Michael Howard meant when he wrote “pretend relationships” into Section 28. Instead they have been pursuing the expression “pretend” in relation to a lobby groups belief, that the oppression is a sexual apartheid. A theoretical premise designed by Bisexual activists, that Heterosexuality is as much of a choice, and that the world’s population is born Bisexual, and that sexuality as whole, is preference. Don’t take my word for it, one only needs to look up LGBT group websites, and read their literature on sexuality.
However, believe it or not, many gay men and women not only disapprove, but disbelieve without question in such a premise that Heterosexuality is an unchangeable inherent nature only towards the opposite sex from birth. Heterosexuals believe in that premise for a very good reason, but prejudice or not, Heterosexuals believe the planets population is a totally Heterosexual race, with an inherently nature only to the opposite sex. Which means; the largest percent of Heterosexual society believes Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with a natural feeling to be eternally monogamously in love with the same sex. I truly believe Michael Howard should spell it out to LGBT rights groups "what exactly pretend meant”, because I know his expression of “pretend” meant he believed there was as much between two people in a same sex relationship, as there is between a shopkeeper and a customer.
Even though the Partnership Bill explains the legal status of civil partnerships between two people, is the same as "Relatives", is does allow the partner to inherit his or her partner’s estate, as a married couple do. But, in simple English; civil partnerships are neither husband’s, wives, or next of kin regardless of sexuality and entitlements. Which is something they would need to be, if they were to defined in this law, or any law, as anything even remotely equivocal to a solemnised Relationship. There are dozens of amendments giving where old acts stated husband or wife or spouse, to add at the end of the clauses, either “or a Civil Partner, or “A‘s” and “B’s”. It was these interpretations and the last amendment sections, that allowed MP's in early 2004, to trash the whole Bill with provisions for Heterosexuals in forms of relationships that are not based on eternal marital love like a brother looking after a father, and not one rights group figured it out, and if any have figured it out, they haven't told anyone.
It is equally the same as Section 28's 2a 1(b), that classed Homosexual relationships as a pretend relationship. And if you are confused to what exactly that means, the answer to any confusion is in the self-evident answer to the following question: "what makes a genuine family relationship, in relation to a pretend family relationship?
Clue: Answer begins with the letter “L”.
The Civil Partnership Act doesn’t need to state the term pretend, to construe the exactly same meaning, and Civil Partnerships are not even construed as a solemnised commitment, let alone state it. Regardless of its legal benefits, with or without the name marriage, or added amendments to bring the old inline with the new, politicians have never stopped been misogamist’s to same sex relationships with a hateful need to ban same sex marriage, and never wanted Civil Partnerships in the first place.
Well, until the end of 2003 when voting on Civil Partnerships completely changed, when politicians realised same sex civil partnerships would be immune to inheritance tax. Then the whole prospect of Partnerships became so inviting, they helped LGBT lobby groups over promoted it. If civil partnerships are cohabiting relatives, then this would be a perfect engine for Heterosexuals in “any form of relationship whatsoever” to avoid inheritance tax…
Why should a politicians son or daughter who live away from their widowed parent, pay immeasurable thousands with an inheritance tax of 40% on any estate over £263.000 upon the death of the parent. Inland Revenue have an Inheritance tax "catch 22" nightmare of having to be paid, before any estate can be sold off. For example if an estate is worth around £400.000, the inhereitance tax rate between £400.000 & £263.000 would be around £58000 to be paid, before the estate can be sold, and if your broke, its a nightmare nobody wants to contemplate. Unless your civil partners living together, then you won’t need to pay a penny, let alone loose 40% over £263.000 on your kids inheritance…
What contains the most advantages to prejudice politicians; Misogamy to same sex relationships, or push Civil Partnerships?
Who’s your daddy?
Why did misogamist politicians to gay marraige, vote for Civil Partnership as well trash it with further provisions?....
Civil Partnerships is the government’s kind way of directly discriminating against the LGBT population without an attitude, and with the biggest direct national political statement that the LGBT community are not equal, and will never be equal, and that Homosexual relationships have absolutely nothing to do with eternal monogamous love. A prospect which would be ludicrous to gay men and women.
But Ben Summerskill; chief executive of the lobby group Stonewall said. "This is the moment we fought so hard for. At last, lesbian and gay couples can begin to plan their future lives together". Deputy Minister for Women and Equality Jacqui Smith, said; ""This legislation is going to make a real difference to these couples, and it demonstrates the government's commitment to equality and social justice. It opens the way to respect, recognition and justice for those who have been denied it for too long.''"
If this legislation is the government’s belief on commitment to equality and social justice for the LGBT community, then they believe in this equality and social justice from a completely different perspective than the LGBT community. Why can't the LGBT community and its rights groups see that? Opposing prejudice politicians and all religious groups to the LGBT civil rights agenda, have always stated; "that Homosexuality is nothing more than a life choice of same gender sexual conduct, between persons who are "unchangeably" and inherently Heterosexual".
I find what makes sexuality is an inherent connection to a particular gender or genders, and something you cannot eradicate, ignore, disregard, or turn off. If any person was to close their eyes and tried not to think about sex ever again, or if they tried not to fall in love, or tried to make every effort to work against feeling sexual for a particular gender-(male/female); they would still know that if they ever did, what that gender or genders are, that they would only be inherently connected too. It's this inherent connection that makes sexuality, not the behaviour that acts on it, and Heterosexual society understands that premise, even to the point they base every argument against Homosexuality on it. So why can't the LGBT lobby groups do the same?
However, believe it or not, many gay men and women not only disapprove, but disbelieve without question in such a premise that Heterosexuality is an unchangeable inherent nature only towards the opposite sex from birth. The prejudice Heterosexuals that believe the premise, believe the planets population is a totally Heterosexual race, with an inherently nature only to the opposite sex. Which if any person was to ask any Heterosexual "what is Heterosexuality", this is the most common answer you will get from a Heterosexual. Which means; prejudice Heterosexuals believe Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with feeling eternally monogamously involved with the same sex. I truly believe the government should spell it out to LGBT rights groups "what Heterosexuality is", but rights groups would still disbelieve them without question. Although many Heterosexuals find it implausible for someone to be completely sceptic to the prospect, that Heterosexuality is nature only to the opposite sex…
For the past forty five years of fighting for civil and human rights, politicians and religions have been stating Heterosexuality is a inherent nature only towards to opposite sex. So however much any gay man or women want to disbelieve that premise without question, if that's what Heterosexuals believe, would it not be logical to look at the writing of legislation from that perspective only, when bigoted politicians right these laws. Because if Heterosexuals believe in what they say they are, they will only write law from that perspective; to be understood and construed though any court of law from that perspective. Yet in the entire history of fighting of civil rights, not one lobby group or activist has ever done that. Instead they have only look at the writing of legislation from the premise that the oppression is sexual apartheid, which is not the premise that this law will be construed on by the government.
No LGBT rights group has even contemplated the simplest questions, as to why the government refuse same sex marriage laws, and state marriage is founded on the soul basis of procreation. If marriage is solely founded on the procreation of children, why is divorce legal, unless the children have perished, or moved on? Why is it legal for Heterosexual couples biologically, or by circumstance incapable of having children of their own allowed to marry? Or even couples "unwilling" to have children allowed to marry? If it is solely for the procreation of children, why is that soul prospect not written into any contract, or ceremony of holy matrimony based on the Bible? Isn’t marriage based on a more logical deep-seated purpose, like LOVE? Doesn't the maternal need for procreation in all men or women regardless of sexuality, not come from the founding principle feeling of wanting to marry the other person in the first place? If the main soul purpose of marriage is for the purpose of procreation, not love;, why find a monogamous partner or feel the need to fall in Love, or even feel the need to get married? If it is solely about procreation not love, why not just find someone, or anyone, no matter who and just procreate? But then again, would that not eradicate, devalue and destroy the moral basis of Heterosexual marriage, or any marriage?
As with the Civil Partnership Bill, and like any law, when any words, terms, labels, or classifications are used in the writing of law, they will only be construed through law in relation to their official statutory vocabulary meaning, and not by what people think or believe they would, could, should, or might mean.
For Example: The official statutory vocabulary meaning of:
"HOMOSEXUAL";
1,) People with feeling and or attraction towards persons of the same sex.
Equal to meaning of Heterosexual, and carries only inherent and immutable characteristics, and absolutely no characteristics of behaviour or choice. Because of its official statutory meaning, 'Homosexual' is a name; it is not a word, term, label, or political classification. And it is the only name on the planet that would legally support the LGBT community in written law. Official Meaning of a Name: All who go under that name; a clan, family, race, people or minority; within the meaning or the terms of the name.
The official statutory vocabulary meaning of ;
"SEXUAL ORIENTATION" [Political Classification] "Towards Persons Of The Same Sex."
Sexual, 1,) The act of sex relations, in relation to between the sexes. (Self explanatory)
Orientation; 1) An act or instance of orienting or being oriented. (A deciding choice of direction)
2) a, A persons attitude or adjustment in relation to circumstance, politically or psychologically. (A Conditioned direction)
(A logical legal vocabulary translation of) SEXUAL ORIENTATION, As it is construed in legal writing within the Equality Bill and Sexual Orientation regulations 2003.
"A Conditioned or Conscious Choice of "Sexual behaviour": towards persons of the same sex.
When any minority is defined in the writing of law with words, terms, labels, or classification, any past or future laws written in relation to that minority, will only be construed in written law to that legally defined definition. It was this political classification implemented into the Equality Bill and the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003 that gave politicians a political advantage, and statutory provision to add the amendment to relatives in the 1965 Act, with the interpretation section of the Civil Partnership Bill.
The reason this happened, was because within the consultation of creating the sexual orientation regulations, Barbara Roche over turned 91% of the votes of the groups involved in the consultation who wanted to keep the original name Homosexual in the Equality and Sexual orientation regulations 2003. And then she went a step further; on the 28 of November 2002, Mrs Roche banned the name Homosexual from the minister’s legal statutory vocabulary, because "one" LGBT group out many, said the [Quote] "LGBT community finds the "word" Homosexual clinical, offensive and abusive". Which means in a claims court, a Homosexual can no longer use written law to define him or herself as a Homosexual, and must now use this directly discriminatory classification. It does not define Bisexuality or Heterosexuality as a conditioned of conscious choice, because those names are still allowed to be used in a claims case as they were not banned from the ministers statutory vocabulary.
Although I really do wonder why Barbara Roche who has been a barrister for nearly 28 years, who was called to the bar in 1977, spent nine month doing a consultation to find the right words and terms to use in this law. When all she had to do was open a statutory law book on legal definitions to know what names, terms, labels or classifications are the right ones to fully support the LGBT community in written law, since she always say's she fully supports them, and then explain them to rights groups in case there was any doubt. But the entire UK minority of Homosexuals alone, [Not Bisexuals or trans-gendered or Heterosexuals], have now been classed and defined by law, as a sexual act, and all aspects of genuine sexuality, and minority, have been eradicated from law, thanks to LGBT rights groups and Mrs Roche. Not one rights group seems to have figure it out, and lobby groups still have absolutely no idea what sexual orientation means. They also have no idea what it means when prejudice Heterosexual politicians endlessly and directly state: "Homosexuality is wrong, it is abnormal, and unnatural choice to be that way, and there is no moral equivalence between Homosexuality & Heterosexuality".
Do LGBT lobby groups know what that choice is in relation to, and what would make that moral equivalence? Is really about a sexual apartheid based on ideals of superior sexual behaviour on who went left or right in life on their sexuality [meaning a premise that Heterosexuality is as much of choice], or is it about a belief based on a premise, that a particular inherent connection to same sex does not exist... Just like many gay men and women who "disbelieve" without question the premise, that Heterosexuality and Homosexuality is an inherent nature to “one gender” only, from birth.
Does anyone see a familiar developing occurrence from both sides of the debate, because it makes me wonder just who's damnation is Just? Or is this problem of incredulity & scepticism, people who are either “incapable or unwilling” to even look past their own self-evident nature, to actually look at the issue of sexuality objectively. Is this a unique mental barrier that every human being has, called human arrogance, which psychologists like call a self-reinforcing delusion. Because for the past forty five years, the LGBT community have been displaying, promoting, campaigning, and stating their relationships are based on a natural drive and true love for the same sex, meaning an inherent connection to the same sex. Which, regardless of sexual behaviour, I believe is an existence that Heterosexuals are completely and totally incapable of achieving, even by choice. And like incredulity & scepticism, it works both ways.
Some LGBT rights groups are waiting for the day that scientific institutions genetically prove Homosexuality to be inherent, while religion endlessly demands the need for 100% genetic evidence in proving it to be naturally inherent first, to justify the LGBT fight for civil rights. But no one has even realised the mind boggling insanity, that there has never been one scientific research institution in the history of the planet, that ever proved it was a choice in the first place, to have a justified legal need to spend endless tax payers money on genetically proving an inherent nature of an already existing minority, that Heterosexuals are incapable of achieving such an existence themselves, even by choice.
Civil rights like to emulate on a so-called ungrounded statistical belief that the LGBT community have excelled in the fight for equality, because of the exponential recognition, and acceptance of the LGBT community. But the question needs to be asked; recognised and accepted as what exactly?
There’s no difference in the conditioning of a prejudice stigma between the largest percent of society that believe its wrong, or OK to choose to go against your unchangeable Heterosexual nature to be that way, when Heterosexuality & choice has nothing to do with it. [Not that I expect many to believe that.] With every LGBT's political agenda and strategy, that implies, construes or promotes any form of same sex sexuality or relationship as a sexual preference, choice or sexual orientation, it gives full direct confirmation to the oppositions bias and prejudice perceptions, beliefs and ideals to continually act against them. Many of these acts are being done by politicians who fully support the LGBT civil rights agenda, because they believe its OK for a person to choose to go against their unchangeable Heterosexual nature. Which is most likely why, so many politicians believe they are “committed to equality and social justice”, without realising their actually committed to the complete and total opposite.
The LGBT community are no longer fighting an oppression based the non-existence to equal treatment over difference, they're now bowing down to deifying difference over treatment, as rights groups devalue every ounce of human dignity of the LGBT community. Unfortunately the true voices of the LGBT community who would rather slit their wrist’s than take up a civil partnership, are being silenced by groups of the civil rights agenda and coalition, who shout "victory point" to every snatch and grab on anything remotely equivocal to the basic human rights they've been denied, and shout "diversity hero’s" to politicians who are pressed to offer a tiny piece of inviting hypocrisy. When in reality, it’s a financial race of catch 22 between the groups who monopolies the civil rights system to gain poll position in an LGBT hierarchy of political status for commercial investors they open their arms to. Who, with a generous wallet, gives the highest financial results to the group’s desperate need for funding, are given a seat of power in setting the political agenda. And in the process, throwing away every principle and ounce of integrity to gain it, even if it means keeping the ones they fight for in the gutter to obtain it. While members of the LGBT public, with blind faith in lobby groups, who hope to take up a civil partnership, are completely unaware what this law defines their relationships as.
LGBT lobby groups have now, with the help of the powers that be, set themselves up in the worst possible position, by allowing themselves to be dealt the dangerously unplayable card in the biggest discrimination game of the new millennium. Without realising the facts of reality, that neither side of “any debate” is infallible. Because now, once again, they have had their relationships defined as "PRETEND", but this time, lobby groups have indorsed the government’s actions to establish it, where they will never again, be able to convincingly demand "equality".
When did fighting for the highest fundamental moral goals, become a misnomer to the need to accept special rights. I believe the aspiration in all people to obtain the highest moral goals, is what achieves EQUALITY, not half measures with partiality, that is not even remotely equivocal.
Along time ago, I believe it was one of the worlds greatest activists 'Martin Luther King' who said; [ "The right time to push for equality is always now, today, regardless of the stones in our way, because the perfect time never comes. There will always be those with everything , telling those without, to hold off, wait, take your time, don't rock the boat, here take this crumb, and come back next year, when we will, for sure, be willing to give you another... perhaps."]
Download a presentable pdf version of this article |
