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

Pride

Here's a sentence I wasn't expecting to write today:

I should have been going to Bristol's Pride, but other plans got in the way.

Pride. It's never been my thing, as I've discussed on these pages before. My sexuality is incidental, not fundamental, to my identity. My politics have primarily been about other issues. 

Pride. It's something that I find a difficult concept in relation to being gay, as I do of *just being* Scottish or British. But just as I'm proud of things many Scots and Brits have done and contributed to the world, I cannot ignore the achievements of those who have blazed a trail for equality.

So I find myself reappraising my view of Pride. I may not have been converted to a Rainbow-flag waving activist*, and I still don't fit into any of the stereotypical gay "tribes" but I do owe a debt of gratitude to those who marched in less open times, and blazed a trail for equality.

I still harbour reservations as to whether Pride as we know it now serves a purpose in advancing equalities; and whether it, or the main LGBT campaigning groups, have a wide enough view of the issues. Whatever; at the very least, it's an opportunity for a party and a festival for those who like that sort of thing.

But it's also an opportunity for something else - something I do take Pride in. It's a chance for Liberal Democrats to celebrate the role they have played in advancing Equal Marriage in the UK. With the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act advancing through Parliament, we have a good story to tell about how Lib Dems in government have pushed it onto the agenda and through the legislative process despite deep divisions on the benches of our coalition partners.

The bill is far from perfect but it is a step forward towards equality within the country; and is a firm example of how we are seeking to build a Fairer Society by participating in government.

And so, today, for the first time, I find myself wishing I had been at Pride. Still, there's always next year...

Andrew

*I don't think I'll ever get the thing about the rainbow flag.

Let's Get Married...

So, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has passed through the Commons and now goes on the House of Lords for further consideration. Step by step, we're moving forward to more a equal, a more civil society.

It's not over yet - and the bill is not perfect, even before it's trip to the Lords - but this Government is making progress towards establishing Equal Marriage as a lasting social legacy of the 2010-15 Parliament.

Many thanks are due to Lynne Featherstone for pushing this onto the Government's Agenda. For all Labour's self-congratulatory tweeting tonight, this would never have been before the Commons without Liberal Democrats in Government. (The divisions in the Conservative Party on the topic would have precluded a sole Tory administration taking it on.)

So much done, much still to do; although some of the associated issues - Heterosexual Civil Partnerships, recognition of Humanist Marriages, equality for Trans- people - may be easier to address outside the context of this bill, once rumours of the collapse of civilisation have been proved to be wholly wrong*.

Anyway, I didn't think I was going to get as many words out as this - and instead had prepared a video. So now you get both a blogpost and some music to enjoy. Here's The Proclaimers with Let's Get Married. Look out for the line which (unwittingly) answers those critics who ask why Gay people would want to get Married when they can get Civilly Partnered:

"Yeah, it's just a piece of paper but it says I love you..."

Andrew

* That's not to say I don't want all those things, or that I don't still want them in this Bill, more a recognition that the way things have gone we need to be thankful for what we have, and continue the fight for the things we don't yet.

Tuesday Tune - A(nother) Equal Marriage Special

If it's too late at night for you for Shakespeare (see my last post) - here's Sinatra instead:

As the man says, Love and Marriage: it's an institute you can't disparage.

Andrew

Anthology 40 - An Equal Marriage Special

Ugggh! Love Poetry... pass the boke bucket, puh-leeese...

What?

What's that you say? Parliament's voted for what? Equal Marriage? OK, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill? Oh, why didn't you say? I know the perfect poem to mark the occasion... 

Sonnet 116 by William Shakespeare

Let me not to the marriage of true minds 

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O, no, it is an ever-fixed mark,

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wandering bark,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

       If this be error and upon me proved,

       I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Andrew

The Grinch Who Stole Christmas

Christmas. A time for "Peace and Goodwill" to all men. A time for reconciliation. A time for understanding. A time of tidings of great joy, for all the people.

Well, so you may think; but the highest ranked Catholic clergyman in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols (pictured above) used his Christmas Homily at last night's Midnight Mass to launch another broadside at the Government and at Equal Marriage. Furthermore, he attacked those who wish to enter into a marriage which isn't "creative of new human life."

I've generally kept out of the religious aspects of this debate: my own experience of faith is the subject of a separate (long-intended but still unwritten) blog-post. I've no problems with churches teaching that Homosexual acts are wrong - if that's what they (as I) believe scripture teaches*. I've no problem with them not wanting to perform marriages for gay, lesbian or bi couples, if that's what they believe is right - or is God's will. But I do have a problem with them - effectively - seeking a veto over the civil definition of marriage.

Marriage is a social and civil institution - and one in which churches have a big part. Indeed, the churches are part of the reason that marriage has been - and remains, despite falls in numbers conducted over the years - such a popular state. There is an irony then, that they wish to deny access to an institution which they believe is central to society to a chunk of society who want to also share in it. That an institution they believe is essential to a strong society should be exclusive to Heterosexuals only.

But this is the crux: Marriage is a civil institution as well as a religious state. Religious groups (and primarily the churches) come at marriage from a theological viewpoint. They seem unwilling (or incapable) of separating the civil from the religious aspect of marriage. As a result, their arguments against are either irrelevant to the issue of Civil Marriage or spurious.

I believe, therefore, that the Archbishop - and other prominent church figures - would do well to remember the words of Christ when commenting on the issue of Civil Marriage:

"Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." 

- Mark 12 v17

But so much of the debate on Civil Marriage - what about the terms of the debate within the church. What understanding is there of those who juggle their faith and their sexuality?

There are many people of faith, that clearly wish for any commitment of marriage to be performed before their God(s) and not just the state, family and friends. For those in churches whose teachings prohibit this, then they must continue to argue their views inside the framework of those institutions. There are, of course, religious organisations that do, which may provide an alternate home for those who feel marginalised in their current spiritual homes.

As an outsider, it strikes me that the leaders of the major churches would do well to acknowledge that there are those in society - and in their churches - whose lives have taken a different direction form what they consider the "ideal". And that what they expect from the church - especially if they are a believer - is sensitivity, understanding and respect.**

The Archbishop has used a chance to do this in such a way as to rub yet more salt in the wounds of those already struggling with the teaching of the Catholic Church - and to insult those of us outwith it. In speaking of the true meaning of Christmas, he says:

"...Surely it means that all true human loving is now seen to be rooted in, and expressive of, the love which is God, which is seen in this stooping low by God to show us the fullness of that divine love. Surely it means that the love of husband and wife, which is creative of new human life, is a marvellously personal sharing in the creative love of God who brings into being the eternal soul that comes to every human being with the gift of human life." (emphasis mine)

And he goes on to say:

"Sometimes sexual expression can be without the public bond of the faithfulness of marriage and its ordering to new life. Even governments mistakenly promote such patterns of sexual intimacy as objectively to be approved and even encouraged among the young." (emphasis mine)

If this issue had any place in the Christmas message - and one has to question how it does - it should be to seek to reach out and heal some of the hurt that the debate has caused. To acknowledge that strong words do have the power to cause real pain and seek to provide some salve for the wounds. Instead, the Archbishop has sought to carry on the fight against a change in Civil Law which will not affect the Catholic Church this side - one suspects - of Hell freezing over. And, additionally, to steal some Christmas cheer from many within the church, and outside.

Andrew

*I'm not in favour of them teaching this in Schools, but then I'm also not in favour of state-funded religious schools.

**Such sensitivity and respect should be two-ways: something that is often forgotten on my side of the debate.

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...

Ticket No. 30 - My Question Time Experience Part 1...

It's a programme which politicos love and hate - probably in roughly equal measure. Each week, the Question Time roadshow rolls into a new town and the hot topics of the week are debated. Sometimes, the mix of guests leads to a constructive debate and some light being thrown on the subjects considered. More often than not, there is more heat than light, the balance of the debate is skewed, your point of view is not adequately represented and you end up frustrated and irritable. But yet, you find yourself drawn back again and again...

This week, the circus arrives in Bristol and your correspondent has a ticket. Having filled in the online application a week and a half ago, I got a phone call yesterday confirming some more details, asking what current issues I was interested in, my views on them, and requesting I e-mail the first of my potential questions. A card will be provided on Thursday for a second question.

I've opted to raised Equal Marriage as my first question and, after some consideration, decided on the following form of words to raise it:

"Does the panel agree with the Minister for Woman and Equality that "the Government should not stop people getting married unless there's very good reason and being gay isn't one of them"?"

From my understanding of the panelists confirmed so far, three would agree with the statement and one - the Secretary for State for Defence, Philip Hammond - doesn't.

The other issue I've mentioned that I'm interested in is the Justice and Security Bill - an issue which the member of the production team I spoke to seemed unaware of. That is a) worrying and b) possibly an indication that a question on the topic may not be a flyer. This news regarding the Data Communication Bill could be fertile ground though - I'll have to see if it is in the main news by Thursday, having been charged to "monitor the news".*

The ticket advises that I should be "ready to participate" - unfortunately I don't think this will include the exasperated shouting that Question Time so often engenders. Let's hope I can behave! I'll probably be watching the show and tweeting along when I get back from the recording and will hopefully blog about my experience on Friday.

Andrew

*Although giving I'm spending three hours of Thursday itself in the cinema to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I'll not be monitoring as much as I should!

Being Gay is bad for your Mental Health...

... or so claims the new Archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia. The BBC reports that the Archbishop-designate said in a speech on Religious Freedom and Equality:

"If what I have heard is true about the relationship between physical and mental health of gay men, if it is true, then society has been very quiet about it.

"Recently in Scotland there was a gay Catholic MP who died at the age of 44 or so and nobody said anything and why his body should just shut down at that age, obviously he could have had a disease which would have killed anyone, but you seem to hear so many stories about this kind of thing.

"But society won't address it."

Quite aside from the hurt and upset this statement has obviously caused to the family and friends of David Cairns, particularly his partner Dermot Kehoe, the new Archbishop's words have wider implications.

The statement starts from a position of ignorance ("If what I've heard is true...") and doesn't progress much beyond that. It's almost like starting a story with "I was chatting to this guy in the pub and he reckons...

After the initial statement linking the physical and mental health of gay men (and I've checked Wikipedia, but it doesn't tell me where Tartaglia got his medical qualifications from), the Archbishop leaps from the general to the specific to suggest that although David Cairns could have had a disease which killed anyone, well he was only 44 and he was a known gay, so well he must have had mental issues which caused physical complications. AND WHY WON'T ANYONE SAY ANYTHING?

Obviously, there's a conspiracy of silence. Shhh.... don't tell anyone the gays are all unhappy and ill in the head.

Actually, Tartaglia has 2 half points:

1. There is a link between being gay and mental health. But not the one he thinks. There are higher instances of mental health issues amongst gay people - but that does not prove a causal relationship
2. There is a large amount of silence on this matter. Something I've bemoaned before, when Attitude magazine clumsily tried to explore the issue.

I'd suggest that societal attitudes to Homosexuality - not least those of the Roman Catholic Church - are a contributory factor to the issue of mental health amongst those who are gay. And for as long as people like Archbishop Tartaglia choose to address the issue in the way he did, the more damage he will do to cause of both Religious Freedom and Equality.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has today published plans for Equal Marriage despite the campaigning of the Roman Catholic Church and others. It's a move that will do more for Religious Freedom and Equality than any amount of misinformed moralising and demonising ever will.

Andrew

Homecoming: A Video

Earlier this year I posted this on the campaign for equal marriage and earlier this month I posted this picture of the cover of attitude posing the question "Have you heard the one about the Iraq Veteran who can fight for his country but not get married?"

Now, a video has been produced in support of the campaign for equal marriage, which takes up the theme of being able to serve one's country but not to marry one's partner. It's called "Homecoming" and you can find more about on the Pink News, here. More seriously, you can find the government's consultation on the subject here.

Just one warning for the emotionally disposed, I fear this is supposed to be quite sentimental. If you're that way inclined, keep a Kleenex handy:

Andrew

A Question for You...

Other than following occasional links to stories on the Pink Paper, I don't read the gay press. It must be about 5 years since I last bought a copy of Attitude and much longer since I got an issue of GT!

Purchasing a copy of the Radio Times in Sainsbury's Local earlier, however, I did happen to notice the cover of this month's issue:

I think the question posed says it all...

Andrew