I didn’t get much sleep last night, due to a combination of  self-induced late night and being awake ridiculously early. The long and the short of it is that going to sleep at half 12 and being wide awake by half 6 doesn’t particularly put me in the mood for a run.

So I’ve plodded through the day, feeling very resistant to this whole Juneathon lark. ‘Why don’t you just give up now?’ asked the little voice in the back of my head.

One nap later and I still wasn’t particularly in the mood to go out. Then it dawned on me, it’s day 2, DAY 2; there’s no way I can throw in the towel just on day 2.

So I got out, trotted out a couple of miles and kept my Juneathon dreams alive. Well, at least for another day.

Stats:
Today:
Distance – 2.22 mi; Time – 18:05; Pace – 8:09/mile

Juneathon so far:
Distance – 4.36 mi; Time – 35:23; Pace – 8:07/mile

For those not already familiar with it, Juneathon is a challenge to jog and blog every day in June. It’s also the warmer version of Janathon, which I successfully completed at the beginning of the year.

What does it hold in store this year then? Well, January was dominated by flat hunting, and June will be dominated by flat moving as they finish building our new abode. I should be moving in the second half of the month, so fitting in daily runs will be an interesting juggling exercise.

The good part of moving? New places to run. Most excitingly of all we’ll be moving much closer to the river, so you can expect some excited blogs about running along the Thames before too long.

But enough about the future, how about today? I successfully leapt dragged myself out of bed for a pre-work run. It’s still only te third since January, so not too far, but still not a bad effort considering.

That said, my legs felt a bit leaden this morning, so I’m already very aware that this first week or so is going to be particularly tough as my body adapts to running regularly again. But I’m ready for the roller coaster that lies ahead.

Stats:
Today:
Distance – 2.14 mi; Time – 17:18; Pace – 8:05/mile

Juneathon so far:
Distance – 2.14 mi; Time – 17:18; Pace – 8:05/mile

Anyway, today that all changed. Today I went for my first run since 31 January. Yes, that’s right, my first run since the end of Juneathon.

So, how did it feel? Well, it started surprisingly well, and I was very quickly (and pleasantly) surprised to discover that my pace is bizarrely bang on its Janathon average: 7:46/mile. How on earth have I managed that after nigh on 4 months without running a single mile?!?

That said, I also discovered that my abs are really ready for me to push myself like this (they did complain a bit as I did my little 2.2 mile circuit) and that I need to remember to properly hydrate. The latter may or may not have been the cause of the former, I’m just not entirely certain.

A good start though (and significantly better than that on New Year’s Day, after my last running lazy bout, although I was also hangover then). Next up, a day’s rest and then another similar length run on Wednesday before I hit Juneathon head on this Friday.

Stats:
Distance – 2.21 miles; Time – 17:12; Pace – 7:46/mile

What I came across, and remembered from the time of the 2010 election, is the Conservative Contract for Equalities. Now, admittedly, this is not the party manifesto (as the Coalition for Marriage is technically accurate, if some nit picking to point out), but it is a supplement to  the manifesto, and is regardless a commitment that was made during an election campaign:

Now, at the end of the campaign, we are setting out our side of the bargain: what we will do if we win the election. [...] And we are saying clearly in this contract that if we fail to make progress in these areas, if we do not deliver on our side of the bargain, then vote us out in five years time.

So it certainly sounds like this contract is to carry the weight of a manifesto commitment, which is good, given what it says about same-sex marriage:

We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.

So far, a clear mandate then for a Conservative-led government.

Now, as neither of the other main parties made such a commitment, you might think there’s scope for saying this mandate is incomplete in a parliament where the Conservatives do not have a majority. But the government is only seeking to legislate for same-sex marriage in England and Wales, as that’s all it has the power to do. And if we look at just England and Wales, we see that the majority of MPs are Conservatives (305 out of 573).

So the majority of MPs in England and Wales belong to a party that during the election promised to consider changing the law to introduce same-sex marriage in England and Wales.

If that isn’t a political mandate, then I’m not sure what is, and that is a question that I’ve politely asked the Coalition for Marriage to answer.

As is so often the case from gay marriage opponents, he makes three fundamental errors, that can only help the cause of those of us who believe in full marriage equality:

1. Claiming allowing same-sex marriage ‘fatally weaken’ marriage as a whole. This will always sound like what it is, utterly ridiculous.
2. Focussing on a supposed lack of public support, despite the evidence (in particular polling by Populus which showed 66% support for gay marriage). Furthermore, he bizarrely claims it is undemocratic for our democratically elected government to enact legislation.
3. Having a homophobic tone that goes beyond just that issue of marriage, You just need look at his argument that marriage is an essential cornerstone to society, but that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The implication is clear: homosexuals can’t be part of the cornerstone of society.

I for one am very happy to see such obvious mistakes continuing to be made by Lord Carey. The only effect his words can truly have is to win the hearts and minds of the tolerant to full marriage equality, who will see his article for what it is: full of hate and without any logic to it at all.

I’ve always had the greatest of respect for Attitude magazine for seemingly doing the same; keeping party political leanings out of their editorial style. Particularly in the lead up to 2010′s general election, when they featured interviews with all three party leaders, I was proud that the UK had a gay magazine willing to treat me like an adult, capable of making up his own mind.

So what has this got to do with Ken? Well, this morning I’m disappointed that while the magazine remains politically balanced, the companion twitter feed seems not to be. Yes, they decided to weigh in on Ken:

Ken Livingstone is probably the most longstanding pro gay UK politician in history. Don’t believe the twisting of his bad choice of words

I for the record am willing to admit Ken’s pro gay record. At the same time, I’m willing to express my concerns at his association with Yusuf al Qaradawi and his support for Lutfur Rahman, and I think any balanced commentary would be wise to point out the good as well as the bad.

More than that, I believe that words matter. The journey towards LGB equality is about just that now: the debate over the use of the word marriage; the unacceptability of using the word ‘gay’ as a playground insult. To dismiss Ken’s ‘bad choice of words’ without expecting an apology is party political.

We read time and again about the damage done by words that aren’t intended to be homophobic; about tragic suicides that result from homophobia, whether it’s intended or not. That more than anything shows what effect words can have.

I don’t want the young LGBT population of London to be able to read that word riddled, without knowing that Ken has put his hands up and apologised.

Before my comments descend into a mass of quotations of Boris, I want to say this. Yes, what he said in 2001 was foolish and thoughtless, but he has now become unashamedly pro gay marriage. That for me is enough to show that he believes he was wrong to think how he once did and to send that message to Londoners.

I hope I’ve successfully walked a tightrope this morning and treated my readers like adults who are capable of making up their own minds. I’m disappointed that Attitude didn’t seem to even bother trying last night.

if Britain is to have a figure who epitomises our country’s inherent tolerance and open-mindedness I’d pick Sentamu above anyone else in public life.

Tolerant and open-minded? Perhaps Fraser missed this at the weekend:

Don’t legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron (Telegraph)

In which, of course, Sentamu compared the PM to a dictator for his movement to legalise civil gay marriage. How tolerant and open minded of him to suggest that politicians should ignore majority public opinion.

It’s disappointing, but not surprising, to see that Anne Widdicome has written for the Express about helping those who aren’t glad to be gay. She argues that psychotherapists should be able to offer conversion therapy to those who want it without the fear of being struck off. It’s easy to see what I’ve found infuriating.

What’s particular infuriating is her suggestion that any professional should just accept someone’s priorities without trying to alter them. If I go and say I’m deeply unhappy being gay, they shouldn’t help me to come to terms with my sexuality, but should help me stop being gay.

I’m particularly struck by the contrast today, as LGBT History Month gets underway. After all, let’s not forget that one of the most significant moments in our community’s history, and that we celebrate each year on IDAHO (the International Day Against Homophobia, 17 May) is the removal of homosexuality from the WHO’s international classification of diseases.

My sexuality is not a disease; it is not something to be ‘cured’ by a therapist. For that reason is right and proper that no-one offering such a cure should be allowed to practice as a psychotherapist or, at the very least, offer their ‘cure’ in that capacity. To do so is to give it a stamp of medical authority, something it clearly does not have.

We have come so far, and that’s something I hope to reflect on this month as my own contribution to the celebration of LGBT History Month. But articles like Anne Widdecombe’s are often a sobering reminder that the case for equality has not been universally accepted. We may be living in the 21st century, but the opinions of some people seem more medieval.

• I’ve been running for 31 days in a row (but you already knew that one!) clocking up a total run time of 7:51:24
• I’ve run over 60 miles in a single month (well, 60.59 to be precise) despite having not run since 9 October prior to that
• I’ve discovered a pace that I just hadn’t realised was in me, the kind of pace that might actually help me to achieve my two target times for the year (sub 45 minutes for 10k and sub 1:40 for a half). My final average pace for  the month is 7:46/mile. Not fast enough over the month, but I did start off much slower, as my weekly paces show:
  • Week 1: 8:16/mile
  • Week 2: 7:55/mile
  • Week 3: 7:40/mile
  • Week 4*: 7:26/mile
  • 20.15 miles 2:29:38
• I’ve (nearly) bought a flat (subject to contract et al).

*Up until the end of the month

Stats:

Today
Distance – 1.96 miles; Time – 14:14; Pace – 7:17/mile

Final Janathon Stats
Distance – 60.59 miles; Time – 7:51:24; Pace – 7:46/mile

It seems utterly remarkable that the biggest triumph of this programme was for Amal Fashanu to secure an interview with a top footballer. I’m personally astounded that that should be significant enough to be considered a breakthrough. This is particularly contrasted by the openness of the Rugby world as Gareth Thomas and other recent retirees sit and discuss his sexuality and how big a non-issue it is.

Given this seeming reluctance to talk, I’m no longer surprised by this blood boiling, narrow-minded and homophobic article about the documentary that appeared on Football365 yesterday. Let me pick out one particularly flabbergasting quotation for you:

What is not considered here is that maybe there are almost no gay footballers. Maybe they’re put off early or don’t fancy it. The old canard about “one in ten people being gay” is trotted out, but is there really any reason to suppose that any profession should have a representative proportion of gay participants?

Or, to put it another way, let’s just pretend there aren’t. As my brother (a statistician who recently completed his Ph.D.) put it on Twitter last night, ‘The idea that there are no openly gay players because there are no gay players is laughable in the extreme’.

This code of silence seems to extend beyond the players. The programme’s researchers managed to find a gay official who was willing to talk to the programme, but pulled out because the Professional Game Match Officials Board wouldn’t allow him to talk to the media.

Furthermore Amal managed to meet with someone at the FA, none other than their equalities manager (why not someone more senior?). What pray tell did she have to say, well apparently they have a four year plan (no details were given of what it actually entailed) and they’re focussing on the grass roots where ‘millions of people play the game’. It’s so nice to know they’ve decided to focus their efforts on where millions play it, rather than where billions watch it. After all, the Premier League reportedly has a global TV audience of 4.7 billion every year.

As John Amaechi pointed out (and I did too in a post a couple of days ago) British football has the resources to solve the problem of homophobia if they so choose. The fact of the matter is that they don’t as is perfectly evident by both their paltry efforts thus far and the reluctance to engage with the issue or this programme.

The tragedy of Justin Fashanu’s suicide is that 15 odd years later nothing has changed. The UK does not have an out professional footballer, and even more disgracefully there’s no evidence that anyone really seems to care.

If you missed Britain’s Gay Footballers, it will be available on iPlayer until next week.