Russia: Leading the Way in the Treatment of Homosexuals

..at least that's a viewpoint endorsed by whoever operates the Twitter account at the "Campaign For Marriage".

 

My interest was piqued when I came across this tweet:

Oh, I thought, what could this be? Well, it turned out to be this:

Well, the pictures were pretty, if you like that sort of thing... In case the type is too small for you, it says:

"I have already said that the sex education will follow to include Homosexual sex. I cannot believe I am saying this but we need to follow the example of Russia and ban homosexual propaganda." [emphasis added]

But what of Russia, it is a member of the G8 and a modern democracy nowadays, isn't it...

 

...well, that's not quite the take on it in Amnesty International's latest report. Here's what it has to say on the subject of discrimination in Russia:

"Discrimination on grounds such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion or political affiliation remained widespread. Discriminatory legislation targeting LGBTI individuals was introduced in several regions and proposed at the federal level. A law banning “propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexualism and transgenderness among minors” came into force in St Petersburg in April. Similar laws were also introduced in Bashkiria, Chukotka, Krasnodar, Magadan, Novosibirsk and Samara regions, and tabled before the State Duma. A number of public LGBTI events were forbidden and participants dispersed by police.

 

"Across Russia, LGBTI individuals and members of various minority groups continued to face attacks. Such attacks were not effectively investigated by the authorities, and the perpetrators often unidentified.

• On 4 August, four men forcibly entered an LGBTI club in Tyumen and physically and verbally assaulted several customers. Police detained the attackers. When the victims came to the police station to file complaints, they were left in the same room with the perpetrators, who continued to threaten them and were later released without charge."

And it's not as if this has been an isolated occurance which could be put down to a rogue operative of the Twitter account. I didn't have to go too far on the Campaign for Marriage feed to find these gems:

Now, I don't know who or what is behind the Campaign for Marriage - it says it is "inspired" by the Coalition for Marriage and uses a logo which is similar although not the same. The first example, however, is a clip from this Facebook page in the name of the Coalition for Marriage.

 

The Coalition for Marriage is "an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it." - including many Church of England Bishops, Clergy from other denominations and religions, Peers and MPs. As to the supporting organisations, this is less obvious but it includes (or have links with) CARE, the Evangelical Alliance and the Christian Medical Fellowship.

 

Will they, or the Coalition itself, codemn the sentiments evident on the Campaign for Marriage Twitter feed?

 

Andrew

Equal Marriage: Everyone's Invited

"Is not marriage an open question when it is alleged, from the beginning of the world, that such as are in the institution wish to get out; and such as are out wish to get in."

Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1850

So that's it then, society is doomed. The government has formally announced (after heavy trails at the weekend, and an emergency question in the commons yesterday) that not only is Equal Civil Marriage to be legislated for but religious organisations will be able to opt-in and offer Equal Religious Marriages too. 

Beyond this, the Church of England and the Church in Wales will be outside of the option to "opt-in" with Equal CoE/CiW Marriage made illegal - effectively meaning that this issue will have to come back to Parliament if they ever want to pursue this issue themselves.

Civil Partnerships will remain single-gender arrangements, but there will be provision made to allow these to be converted to marriage. There is also provision for transgendered people not to have to their marriages forcefully annulled when they apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate.

So that's it; we're headed off to Hell in a Handcart. Society is now in the grip of Secularists and Sodomists. Political Correctness HAS gone mad and God has been jettisoned in favour of granting rights to every minority that shouts loud enough. Our Christian heritage has been traduced, and traditional marriage has been devalued.

The arguments against Marriage Equality range from the spurious ("the European Court will force Churches to hold gay marriages") to the ridiculous ("it's a first step to legalised Bestiality and Necrophilia"*). I'm sure many of them were deployed when Civil Partnerships were introduced, yet somehow society has survived.

At their root though, they boil down to a fear that a once dominant position in society has been eroded and their influence has been diminished. If marriage were to be redefined - and church marriages ultimately allowed - they would be marginalised further. The majority know how minorities are treated - those in the campaign against equal marriage are desperate to avoid becoming the minority.

This fear may be real but the forecast calamitous results of Equal Marriage are not. In reality, what today has done has opened up the possibility for hundreds of thousands of men and women that they, too, will be able to have their relationship recognised by the state in exactly the same way as their straight family, friends, colleagues.

It will send a message to young gay, bisexual and lesbians that society acknowledges them as equal citizens.

It even allows some of us who are a bit longer in the tooth to imagine (in our less cynical moments at least) that should the circumstances arise, we too could walk up the aisle to declare solemnly and take this man as my lawful wedded...**

A more equal society - with recognition and protection for all minorities - is not to be feared. Such protection should, rightly, extend to those people and organisations who feel they, too, are becoming a minority. Those of us who are in the ascendancy must bear that in mind - the aim is an equal civil society, not a homogenised one. 

Those who do not wish to celebrate Equal Marriage need not, and should not fear compulsion. They, though, should accept that equality before the law - and before a legal definition of marriage -  is good for everyone. Ultimately, they have created an institution that people want to be part of - why fight to keep them out?

Andrew

* Polygamy is normally in this list too - omitted here as there are people for whom such an arrangement works well and, in due course, we should look at recognising their relationships in law too.

**There's another blogpost in there somewhere, but once upon at time I harboured such notions as meeting someone and settling down for the long term. When CPs were introduced I probably still had such thoughts but they long since dissipated. Perhaps I should park my cynicism and become a bunny-boiler...

In which I agree with the Coalition for Marriage...

On their website, right above where you can sign their petition supporting "the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others [and] opposing any attempt to redefine it" they have a section of text which says this:

"People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. The Government will be launching a public consultation on proposals to redefine marriage. This will provide an opportunity for members of the public to make their views known."

I agree. People shouldn't feel pressurised to go along with it, particularly not if that is due to "Political Correctness". People should be free to express their views. The Government is launching a public consultation and there will be a chance for the public - and groups like "C4M" - to make their views known.

So, there you have it, I agree with the Coalition for Marriage... That, though, is pretty much as far as my agreement goes.

Under a headline that says "Marriage is Unique", the coalition then proceed to argue that it is, in fact, common: 

"Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father."

I don't have enough knowledge to argue whether children do do best in a married household - I believe this is questionable, especially in those households where parents resist divorce for religious or moral reasons, or stay together "for the sake of the children". And I believe that non-married households can also provide good environments for children. I know for a fact, though, that there will be very little data comparing married heterosexual couples with children and married homosexual couples with children and determining whether there is a difference in level of care and love.

Marriage, apparently, reflects the complementary natures of men and women - does this mean that woman are well suited to housework? And do they think that couples in a homosexual relation cannot have complementary natures too... I'd suggest that most relationships, regardless of the gender of the people involved, rely on the parties being complementary.

It is true that in most societies marriage has been between Men and Women but this is a comment on those societies and the historic prejudice against homosexuals rather than on the virtues of heterosexual marriage itself. The argument that this is the way it's always been is an argument for belief in a flat Earth or for the Earth being the centre of the Universe - and it neglects the fact that many societies have arrangements for real, or defacto, polygamy including many of those in the Old Testament.

This appeal to a questionable tradition of monogamous marriage is interesting - as the next section on the website warns of the "profound consequences" of broadening a definition of marriage to same-sex couples is the slippery slope argument. Have a guess where C4M believe we may end up...

"If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?"

No doubt, if that isn't scary enough, Bestiality and Necrophilia will be hot on it's heals.

I don't understand how broadening the definition and scope of marriage will sideline "traditional marriage". Do they believe that such a move will put off heterosexual couples from getting married themselves? And, whilst it would be sad if people felt they couldn't adopt or foster in such a situation (not sure how or why in this context) or that they couldn't in conscience perform their jobs, this is not a reason for society not change and develop. At the end of the day, this consultation is about Civil Marriage and the council officials responsible need to be able to exercise the law without letting their personal views get in the way - or leave.

Finally, C4M claim that there is "no need to redefine" marriage as:

"Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us."

Perhaps Civil Partnerships do have all those benefits... but, at the end of the day they are not marriage. No-one has a right to redefine marriage but society does. Those in  favour of this move are not seeking to redefine marriage in any case - merely to open it up to many more people. To change the legal definition, not the institution itself.

So perhaps I don't agree with the Coalition for Marriage after all...

Andrew

You can read a piece by Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone here and I anticipate returning to this topic soon.