Churches unite against gay rights
A large organisation has today signalled its support for the Catholic Church in demanding exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation. Is it the NSPCC? Childline? Save the Children? Non-Catholic Adoption agencies? Perhaps a letter from a large group of philosophers, arguing for the inherent goodness of discriminating against somebody on the basis of their sexual orientation? Who would possibly want to be seen standing up for bigotry? It is of course the Church of England.
It's all to do with 'rights of conscience', you see. Imagine if the fire brigade said they wanted to refuse employment to homosexuals - 'freedom of conscience' wouldn't wash for a minute. There's a petition on the Downing Street website asking the Prime Minister to implement legislation as it stands, without exemptions. I don't know whether these kinds of petitions are all that useful, but I've signed it. Pass it around.
I was interested to see yesterday's letter from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor's letter (thanks to Tom in the comments for finding a copy) as I wanted to know whether he attempted to justify his position. He did. The key paragraphs are:
We place significant emphasis on marriage, as it is from the personal union of a man and a woman that new life is born and it is within the loving context of such a relationship that a child can be welcomed and nurtured. Marital love involves an essential complementarity of male and female.
We recognise that some children, particularly those who have suffered abuse and neglect, may well benefit from placement with a single adoptive parent.
However, Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life, a teaching shared not only by other Christian Churches but also other faiths, means that Catholic adoption agencies would not be able to recruit and consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.
I'm finding this strangely difficult to get my head around. Firstly, I think he's saying that marriage is always preferable, but he doesn't back this up with anything. Then he says marriage is always between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can have a child, which doesn't follow. That's just an arbitrary definition; 'two people who love each other' would make more sense. It has the insidious implication that same-sex couples cannot love each other as much. He then says that sometimes it's ok to put a child with a single parent, despite the lack of 'marital love'. Finally there's the 'I think this because I think this' argument, without any attempt at justification - why should we listen to 'Catholic teaching about the foundations of family life' if you can't explain the reasonings behind it? I'm not in your club! As justifications go, it's pretty pathetic.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York today sent a letter supporting the Cardinal. It makes no attempt to justify bigotry, instead resorting to...well, let's see.
Many in the voluntary sector are dedicated to public service because of the dictates of their conscience.
In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.
The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.
Bullshit. Everybody acts according to the dictates of their conscience, but the problem is that people contradict each other. If somebody thinks it's fine to murder people they don't like, would the Archbishops argue for freedom of 'conscience' there? If not, why? How is it different? Presumably because there would be demonstrable harm that justifies taking action against them. Everybody would agree (including them, apparently) that unfair discrimination against homosexuals constitutes demonstrable harm, but their counter-arguments show no such evidence of harm to themselves. What would actually happen if Catholic adoption agencies gave children to same-sex couples? Who would suffer? The churches have provided no evidence at all that this would harm anybody, aside from baseless insinuations that children need the love of both a man and a woman. Even they don't have the nerve to come out and say 'it offends God', because they'd be rightly ignored. Instead they come up with this 'rights of conscience' nonsense, which is just 'I want to behave like I do because I just do', and in this case is a thin veil for 'I don't like gay people'. There are no 'rights of conscience' - they made them up.
On numerous occasions in the past proper consideration has been given to the requirements of consciences alongside other considerations contributing to the common good, such as social need or human rights - the right, for example, of some doctors not to perform abortions, even though employed by the National Health Service.
So what? Mistakes would never be rectified if precedent were a valid argument. Good to see that human rights are at least something to be weighed against freedom of conscience, though, even if they lose out in the end.
It would be deeply regrettable if in seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against, a climate were to be created in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation.
Ah, we should stop criticising Ruth Kelly. I'm not criticising her because of her faith affiliation, I'm criticising her because her arguments make no sense. Again, we're meant to assume that criticism of arguments from faith is in some way shameful, when it's actually completely reasonable. But I wouldn't say she's not fit to hold public office - she gives every impression of being a very intelligent and competent woman, it's just that the evidence seems to suggest she has a blind spot when it comes to faith-related matters.
As you approach the final phase of what has, until very recently, been a careful and respectful consideration of the best way in which to introduce and administer new protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in England and Wales, we hope you, and cabinet colleagues, will do justice to the interests of the much wider grouping of interests within the nation that will be affected.
There are more of us religious people than there are gay people! I'm not actually sure that's true. How many people are gay? About 1 in 10? And how many people are practicing Christians? Only 7% of people attend church regularly, and how many of them are actually as homophobic as their leaders? I'm not convinced the wider grouping of interests isn't being served perfectly well, although that hardly matters - what's important is that the arguments make sense.
It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest.
Political interest? What? This is just emotional blackmail.
And that conditions are not inadvertently created which make the claims of conscience an obstacle to, rather than the inspiration for, the invaluable public service rendered by parts of the voluntary sector.
If your conscience tells you that there's something wrong with being gay, I'm perfectly happy for you not to work in the voluntary sector. But you can, of course, do what you like as long as you have reasonable arguments to back it up. It's nice, being able to do what you like, don't you think?
I'm warming to the petition. 753 signatures so far.
Faith groups demanding to be exempt from anti-bigotry legislation
Lobbyists in a meeting with the minister for Women and Equality:
Ruth Kelly: Our vision is of an equal, inclusive society where every citizen is treated with respect and where there is opportunity for all. We want to measurably improve the lives of all of those who are discriminated against. Our task is to promote equality for all regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or belief, age or personal disability. This is why we are implementing legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. A bank can't sack somebody for being gay, but can refuse a mortgage application on this basis. It's wrong, insulting to reasonable thinking people everywhere, and a genuine violation of individual rights. Does anybody have any questions?
The BNP: Hello. We hate gay people. Can we be excluded from this legislation, please?
Ruth Kelly: Get the hell off my planet.
The Church: Hello. We hate homosexuality, but can forgive homosexuals themselves, obviously. Can we be excluded from the legislation, please?
Ruth Kelly: Sure thing.
The BNP: Hey. What?
Ruth Kelly: It's their religion, retards.
The BNP: Huh. Oh, did we mention we have a magic thimble that tells us to hate homosexuality? Obviously we can separate homosexuality from homosexuals, just like it's practically possible to hate the colour of people's skin, not the people themselves. Are we good? Can we be excluded?
Ruth Kelly: ...
Obviously, that's not very funny. Because the whole thing isn't bloody funny.
Years ago I saw Tony Blair in a commons debate over Section 28 - the Local Government Act that said local authorities would not "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". The Conservatives wanted to keep it due to their mostly being compassionless dinosaurs with no sense of decency concerned about 'family values', then Tony Blair stood up and said Section 28 was a piece of bigotry, and it would be removed. I didn't know all that much about politics, nor had I thought much about my own stance on this kind of discrimination, but his response was so clearly right, so purely and unambiguously the correct thing to do, that it was obviously the way of the future.
Yet today Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly are apparently trying to exempt faith-based organisations from anti-bigotry legislation. You know: the most powerful, vocal and ubiquitous anti-gay groups in the country. It's just so completely absurd, and contrary to Labour principles, that I almost find myself assuming there must be some decent argument from the other side that I've missed. What are the arguments for their side? It helps to get a little clarification on the legislation itself:
The proposed measures would ban discrimination over the provision of goods and services, meaning, for example, that hotels which banned gay couples from sharing a room could be prosecuted. In turn, gay bars would also have to be open to straight clients. More broadly, the rules potentially affect everything from fertility clinics' right to refuse lesbian couples IVF treatment to whether the tourism industry can promote heterosexuals-only honeymoon resorts, drawing several Whitehall departments into the row.
Some have argued that there's no point, that why would gay people want to stay in an obviously hostile hotel? Why should a gay bar be forced to be open to straight clients? I think this is full of crap - tolerance has to protect itself, and see Jo's post for more - but the Church's arguments don't even have such verisimilitude:
Faith schools have, however, led the protest, arguing that the rules could affect teaching about sex or require them to let gay groups hold meetings on their premises after hours. Catholic adoption agencies fear being forced to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Catholic church, which regards homosexuality as a sin, has suggested adoption agencies would close down rather than obey.
They'd have to let gay groups hold meetings on their premises after hours? Diddums! How terrible! Goodness, just think of the consequences of such a horrific requirement! And you'd have to change how you teach about sex? How on earth are you teaching it at the moment? By avoiding homosexuality altogether? If adoption agencies would rather close down than obey, that sounds like good riddance to me.
These are the same faith schools, bear in mind, that say things like:
The Church’s approach to education as a whole, while admitting of diversity of practice in the light of particular local circumstances, is one founded on a notion of inclusiveness rather than separation from the community. The composition of its school population, especially in primary schools where parents generally want their children educated close to home, will reflect the composition of the neighbourhood and must therefore be inclusive of all ethnicity, belief and social class. The Church will seek to develop its provision as part of a wider partnership with communities. Its schools will seek to engage actively with all parents and to be distinctively welcoming to them.
Well, isn't that just bollocks. This, also from the 2001 Archbishops' Council Report, is more appropriate:
If the Church schools are at the centre of the Church’s mission, their work must derive from the mission of the whole Church. In a sentence, the Church’s mission is to open up people to what God desires for them: Church schools are places where a particular vision of humanity is offered.
Bit different from providing a tolerant, inclusive education when you put it like that. Isn't it obvious that schools of a religious character have a built-in predisposition to their own moral failings? Isn't it obvious that many are going to raise children indoctrinated with the bigotry that pervades the major religions?
The Church's arguments are an evasion. They don't address the substance of the legislation nor the assumption behind it, namely that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. Of course they don't bring this up. There are no valid counter-arguments; the only argument they have is that a magic thimble in the sky gives them orders. Nobody who uses that kind of argument has any business being involved in the creation of law, and it's always possible to separate the argument from the faith behind it, if it's valid. Labour is rejecting its principles by considering exemptions, and we're simply better than this. Aren't we?
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
