I've not blogged much recently despite wanting to say quite a bit. Other voices can sometimes say it better than I can and I do try and share those voices on my twitter stream.

David Laws resigned from the cabinet the other week after the Telegraph revealed he had been claiming expenses for rent paid to his partner against the rules. They claim that they weren't intending to reveal that his partner was male and therefore pull Laws out of the closet but it's hard to see how that could work in any meaningful way.

[Update to add:] David Laws has commented fully on his relationship and his outing. I recommend you read that article.

There were three defenses which seemed to get wheeled out:

• He not fit definition of 'partner'
• It cost less than it would if I'd rented from someone else
• I did it to hide the relationship and my sexuality

The first argument is a difficult one. Laws now admits they had been together for about 10 years, he had moved house with him, he had re-mortgaged his own home to help him buy the new one (which I can't help but think may have some beneficial interest concerns) - all of these point towards a relationship which any 'common sense' reading would suggest should fall into a definition of 'partner'. Laws points to the lack of shared financial arrangements (except the re-mortgage) and the separate social lives (if this is another casualty of the closet it is yet another tragedy of this affair) as reasons for the non-partnership. I can accept that it may be difficult to identify a point where someone becomes a partner - moving in may be one, but as Laws was lodging/renting before they became involved it becomes a more difficult proposition, however there are clear points where Laws could have re-assessed the situation - when he moved with his partner, when the rules changed and payments to partners were excluded from claimable expenses and when the expenses shitstorm hit particularly spring to mind.

Of course, I don't know the nature of their relationship and there could very easily be other major complications - "living together as spouses or civil partners" is a very hetronormative definition implying levels of exclusivity, publicness and possibly some (mutual) dependence/support.

The second argument does feel a bit of a non-argument. It doesn't change the fact that he did claim or the relationship. It is mitigation for the public and to argue for a more lenient outcome from ISPA. And it is relevant for both those purposes, but in arguing whether he did wrong... it's irrelevant.

Finally, the truly tragic argument - that he didn't want his relationship and sexuality to be known. That a member of the Liberal Democrats doesn't feel able to share this with his colleagues is sad. But understandable. Unlike Ben Bradshaw, I understand that being closeted is a horrible place to be but one which is necessary for some people. I don't like it and believe that part of liberation is about getting to the point where coming out is unnecessary, universal and accepted. This is also merely an argument of mitigation.

There are suggestions out there that Laws could have avoided all this by simply not claiming. With hindsight, yes, probably. At the time, the rules changed and Laws, if he accepted his relationship fell into the definition of 'partner', may well have felt that stopping claiming at that point would be tied to the rules change and so therefore to his relationship. Who would have done this? I may be naive here but I struggle to answer that one. Even the Telegraph during the expenses scandal would have been hard pressed to justify outing him for following the expenses rules.

Which brings us to Summerskill. Ed Fordham, writing on Lib Dem Voice, suggests that Summerskill has, like Bradshaw, passed judgement on Laws' desire to stay in the closet. Like Bradshaw, Summerskill seems to display an absolute lack of understanding of why people stay in the closet. This is would be worrying from the head of the UK's largest LGB Rights organisation. Would be worrying if we didn't already have Summerskill talking about "deciding to be gay", the accepting that LGB people should be excluded from protection from harassment and the general direction that Stonewall is going towards supporting only the rich gay man/lesbian woman in otherwise hetronormative relationships.

But that is not the only thing that concerns me about this Guardian article. Take

And tutored observers have sometimes thought he might be gay too. (How many straight men have perfectly flat stomachs at 44?)

Spot the 'joke' there? The 'joke' relying on stereotyping gay men. The 'joke' suggesting that gay men are obsessed with appearance and that we have flat stomachs. Arghhhh!!!!!

Now, if this were a funny article or coming from a comedian then it would be funny. Unfortunately for Summerskill, this is the only 'joke' in the article. It's coming from a man meant to be representing LGB rights. In an article complaining about how a closeted person cannot (apparently) represent LGB people. That makes it insulting.

Fordham questions whether it is time for Summerskill to leave Stonewall and for stonewall to look again at what it should be. The problem with this is that Stonewall is not a membership organisation. The total involvement it wants from the LGB community is donations. Oh, and getting them to change policy to, for example, become LGBT - forget it.

So I have high hopes for the Outrage! AGM in July. I haven't agreed with everything Outrage has done in the past (particularly with regards to outing people) and it's lack of organisation has made it a bit inaccessible, a queer conference, a plan of action, movement to push beyond what Stonewall deems us worthy of - I can't wait!

I also don't know that I can afford it. Because of our train system I can't get down until noon on the Sunday so I need to stay in London on the Saturday night. If anyone can suggest a cheap place to stay or can offer to put me up (yeah, with my huge readership) on Saturday 3rd July I'd be extremely grateful (e-mail me).

Alex
x x