(Any ranty frustration manifested here is aimed at the situation, not at you :-) )
To be honest, my feeling is that nothing anyone says about poly or bisexuality at this stage will make any difference at all to this round of eventual legislation. It feels to me like the things I'd personally want to alter about it (such as the limitation to same-sex relationships) are there due to a cultural/political momentum which isn't going to be swayable at this point in politics. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my impression.
If you can show me something specific that you think we have a chance of getting in this round of legislation, which we're not already getting, and which is worth getting, then I'd be interested - in what that might be, and in questioning what kind of approach might make that outcome more likely. But right now, I don't see anything in that category. The whole thing is already headed in a particular direction, and has been since before the consultation document was issued: quasi-marriage for people in long-term same-sex couple relationships. That's it. 99% of the debate is about how that might be implemented, and making sure that no little loopholey corners get left out to make it not quite equivalent to marriage in terms of rights.
So when you ask (of bi & poly) are they mutually inclusive/exclusive for purposes of the consultation? my answer is They're both INVISIBLE for the purposes of the consultation! Bi people will benefit directly from this legislation only when they're in long-term same-sex couple relationships, so what is there to ask for that's bi-specific?
I'd really like it not to mention gender at all, but I don't get the sense there's any chance of that at this stage.
Even the rather interesting question of whether you can register and not have your details publicly accessible seems to have pretty much been decided already: registered partnerships will be a matter of public record, and if that means you're outed to the local homophobes, tough luck. Allowing mixed-sex couples to register could be part of a solution to that - but current politics are against it (e.g. rhetoric about "undermining marriage").
So for me at this point, it's more like: I just feel like putting it on record that, while this is very useful legislation for many reasons, there are still relationships which it doesn't do anything to support... even while they say fine words about upholding "the importance of interdependent, stable relationships". It's important to me to say that some people are still left out. At least I might be able to influence them to acknowledge that, in the contextual fine words, even if I can't influence them to do something about it at this point.
And when I'm saying I'd like to encourage people to write in, it's not really because I think we need to be working on making this legislation more bi-friendly, or something like that. It's partly because I think it's important to say "Hooray for rights for same-sex couples, a step in the right direction, thank you and well done". And it's partly to indicate what I feel is still missing, even if it doesn't get implemented for years yet.
Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. On the one hand, fuckin' ace, something resembling equal rights for gay people (even though it's not really equal, 'cause that would be gay marriage). On the other hand, I and a lot of my friends are entirely invisible in all the rhetoric around this. Going to that meeting really brought it home to me what it means to live outside the conventional structures which the system endorses and promotes.
So, yeah, if you can suggest to me something specific we ought to be asking for, I'd be interested. And I'm well aware of the advantages of not conflating bisexuality and polyamory, so I shan't mix them together in how I write it. But I'm finding it hard to relate the tactical/strategic questions you're talking about to what I think is going on in this arena right now. Comments on that welcome.
Anyway, I should really stop writing this, and write my commentary for the government instead :-)
no subject
To be honest, my feeling is that nothing anyone says about poly or bisexuality at this stage will make any difference at all to this round of eventual legislation. It feels to me like the things I'd personally want to alter about it (such as the limitation to same-sex relationships) are there due to a cultural/political momentum which isn't going to be swayable at this point in politics. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's my impression.
If you can show me something specific that you think we have a chance of getting in this round of legislation, which we're not already getting, and which is worth getting, then I'd be interested - in what that might be, and in questioning what kind of approach might make that outcome more likely. But right now, I don't see anything in that category. The whole thing is already headed in a particular direction, and has been since before the consultation document was issued: quasi-marriage for people in long-term same-sex couple relationships. That's it. 99% of the debate is about how that might be implemented, and making sure that no little loopholey corners get left out to make it not quite equivalent to marriage in terms of rights.
So when you ask (of bi & poly) are they mutually inclusive/exclusive for purposes of the consultation? my answer is They're both INVISIBLE for the purposes of the consultation! Bi people will benefit directly from this legislation only when they're in long-term same-sex couple relationships, so what is there to ask for that's bi-specific?
I'd really like it not to mention gender at all, but I don't get the sense there's any chance of that at this stage.
Even the rather interesting question of whether you can register and not have your details publicly accessible seems to have pretty much been decided already: registered partnerships will be a matter of public record, and if that means you're outed to the local homophobes, tough luck. Allowing mixed-sex couples to register could be part of a solution to that - but current politics are against it (e.g. rhetoric about "undermining marriage").
So for me at this point, it's more like: I just feel like putting it on record that, while this is very useful legislation for many reasons, there are still relationships which it doesn't do anything to support... even while they say fine words about upholding "the importance of interdependent, stable relationships". It's important to me to say that some people are still left out. At least I might be able to influence them to acknowledge that, in the contextual fine words, even if I can't influence them to do something about it at this point.
And when I'm saying I'd like to encourage people to write in, it's not really because I think we need to be working on making this legislation more bi-friendly, or something like that. It's partly because I think it's important to say "Hooray for rights for same-sex couples, a step in the right direction, thank you and well done". And it's partly to indicate what I feel is still missing, even if it doesn't get implemented for years yet.
Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. On the one hand, fuckin' ace, something resembling equal rights for gay people (even though it's not really equal, 'cause that would be gay marriage). On the other hand, I and a lot of my friends are entirely invisible in all the rhetoric around this. Going to that meeting really brought it home to me what it means to live outside the conventional structures which the system endorses and promotes.
So, yeah, if you can suggest to me something specific we ought to be asking for, I'd be interested. And I'm well aware of the advantages of not conflating bisexuality and polyamory, so I shan't mix them together in how I write it. But I'm finding it hard to relate the tactical/strategic questions you're talking about to what I think is going on in this arena right now. Comments on that welcome.
Anyway, I should really stop writing this, and write my commentary for the government instead :-)