Monday 17 December 2012

"With kind regards..."

Following on from my letter in the Portsmouth News, I received the following email in my inbox at work:
Hi
I read your letter in the 'News' regarding the recent proposal to redefine marriage, which the Prime minister is supporting.

I am in my early 60s a former nurse and I have been married for 43yrs, I am also a committed Bible believing Christian of the Anglican community.

 I have worked with Homosexuals and have a relative of my husband who is Homosexual, who we are very fond of.

No-one likes or today is permitted to use the word unnatural, as in the Bible Romans 1 verse 26 states. During my nurse training in the 1980s (as a mature student, ) we were told the rectum is only one cell thick therefore not suitable for anal sex. My husband's relative has been hospitalised with an anal fistula, others I have known have also suffered trauma.During my nursing course the stoma nurse teaching us about stoma and stoma care told us about practising Homosexuals who had bowel surgery resulting in colostomies their partners using their stoma sites for sex, resulting in damage to the stoma. Obviously I am talking about the male homosexual, the verse in Romans mentions women too.

The issue too is the redefining of marriage as we know it, there has been a petition with thousands of signatures that seems 'to be pushed under the carpet' the Conservative government appears to be needed to be known as 'trendy' obviously so we loose sight of all the other issues relevant to our society at present, such as poverty unemployment etc.

I hope you will read this email and look again at the scriptures.

Kind regards


__________________________________________________________________________


I gave myself a day to calm down, and then responded as follows:


Dear ****

Thank you for responding. This is obviously a very sensitive subject for a lot of people, but - as such - is one we need to try and approach carefully, allowing each side to speak their concerns, but in a way that doesn't negate the view of the other.
 
I am interested that people that struggle with the relationships of LGBT people always seem to focus on anal sex, when that is so irrelevant.  Straight couples do not have to have their relationships defined by the sex that they do or don't have, the sexual techniques they employ in the bedroom, how often they copulate or whether they are capable of producing offspring or not. Straight couples are able to share about their relationships openly and honestly with other people, and those people then celebrate their love.  It seems that, all too often, when a gay person shares that they've fallen in love, people seem to fixate on anal sex and how much that disgusts them, or - in their view - is biologically wrong. 
What should be celebrated, is that - in these difficult times, the person has managed to find a soul mate, fall in love, and that they're able to share their life's journey with a special partner.  Their relationship may involve sex, and may even involve some difficulties in the bedroom (like any relationship), but it does not define their relationship ... their love does.  People fall in love with other people, not because they have a penis or a vagina, but because they find a kindred spirit.  And nobody can control who they fall in love with. 
I wonder if you're still operating under the impression that LGBT people somehow have the freedom to choose whether or not they have relationships with the opposite or the same gender, and have somehow decided for the same gender because of a weakness of character or bad decision-making.  This is clearly not the case.  Nobody would willingly decide to put themselves through the constant humiliation, judgement, ostracisation and dehumanisation of being seen as 'less worthy' than other people.
Regarding your Scriptural reference, I'm afraid that that's a debate that is not helpful, and that neither of us would be capable of approaching objectively.  Ultimately, there are always several ways of reading a passage, and also applying that passage.  We now no longer apply the same importance to passages that speak about pork, shellfish, hairstyles or mixed fabrics, but society all too often proceeds to use passages from those same books to judge the LGBT community.  Paul's writings, too, can be taken in a variety of ways, and it is crucial to be aware of the different possible meanings and interpretations, taking Paul's context & own doctrinal hobby horses into account.  We could argue the Scriptures endlessly, but I think it most helpful to suggest that each side is aware that the other reads the Scriptures differently, and - ultimately - what matters is the other person's faith, and that is as authentic as our own, and we shouldn't try and force them to be exactly as us, as we are all wonderfully, and individually made.
 
If you wanted to look further into the Scriptural issues, I couldn't recommend enough that you watch Matthew Vines' lecture (1 hour 7 minutes) on YouTube.  Matthew is a very sensitive and sensible young man, who took 2 years out of his studies to look at the Scriptures in depth, from both sides.  You can view his lecture here http://youtu.be/ezQjNJUSraY .  You may not agree with all that he says, but I feel it's important to be aware of the other side of the discussion. 
You proceed to discuss some of the mechanics of anal sex and some teaching you received in nursing a long time ago.  There are ways around the issues you mention and there are sex aids that can be safely used to enhance and protect.  There is little merit in discussing the intricate mechanics of sex, because it is so unique to each couple, and even straight couples struggle to find a sexual rhythm and technique that works for them.  As I say, what defines a couple is their mutual love, not sex. 
At the core of it, I think that is the issue.  I'm aware of the Coalition for Marriage campaign and the signatures gathered.  The Coalition for Equal Marriage did the same thing.  The government was aware of both campaigns, and also gave opportunity for people to respond on the official government consultation web page.  As a result of the official consultation, the decision has been made to move forward. 
Both sides have had their viewpoint heard, and the signatures and opinions you mention have been taken into account, but there is no feasible reason to prevent Equal Marriage going ahead, when there will be protections in place for those faith communities that don't want to participate in it.  Their rights will be protected, but the right to Equality will also be extended to the LGBT community, who are currently treated as second-class citizens, without the legal protection that marriage affords straight couples. 
It's quite tragic that, when a lesbian or gay couple expresses their love openly, they are faced with a barrage of comments about anal sex, their inability to breed, or - in recent months - accused of wanting to harvest children for sex rings, or destabilise society and reduce us all to barbarianism or cannibalism.  They simply desire to live and to love and to have the opportunity to do that openly, honestly, and without fear or prejudice. 
Let's not forget that the "Institute of Marriage" you refer to has changed endlessly over millenia.  It used to be a financial contract where people actively sought to marry above their station, in order to secure the future of their families.  These financial contracts were solemnised by the state.  Polygamy was allowed, child brides were allowed, concubines and male sex slaves were allowed.  When the Church took over the marriage ceremony, it was because the wealthy wanted to be a part of a popular new growing organisation, and the Church wanted to control their weddings, in an attempt to influence society.  Only then, did marriage move into the Churches and begin to have liturgical parts attached to what was always a civil contract. 
It is time to allow people who love each other the opportunity to express that.  It's not an argument that's new ... when mixed marriages were first on the card, we were told then that black people were going to come and steal away society's children for sex rings, we were told that society would break down, that the races would be weakened and that it was against Scripture, because God designated different races and to mix it up was viewed as an abomination:
  • Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."
  • Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."
  • Deuteronomy 23:2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
The interracial marriage debate is, sadly, still ongoing, but I think it fair to say most people would say that people have the right to fall in love and that colour shouldn't be a barrier to that, and that those who say anything against a mixed marriage would be guilty of racism.

Sadly, it is still acceptable for people to judge a Lesbian or Gay couple, and do so openly, knowing that they won't be challenged.  They are able to make comments that belittle the couple, negate their love, call it illegitimate, ungodly or wrong, and use their arguments and their interpretation of their scriptures to back up their viewpoints and deny the couple the opportunity to live openly in a loving relationship.  They face a life of insecurity, of being designated as second-class citizens, who can be refused visiting rights in hospital, or inheritance rights or financial recognition.


I pray that that will change. I pray that people will be able to celebrate their love openly, to live freely, and to express their love, without fear of being devalued, dehumanised or beaten up. That they may be able to commit to each other for life, without being told that that commitment is less valuable than other peoples', and that they cannot have the same legal protections as "normal couples".

I do hope that you will try and watch Matthew's video, and I pray for a softening of your heart. I cannot commit this much time to any further replies, but feel free to send comments and I'll respond when I can.

With kind regards
Andy
__________________________________________________________________________

It's a little clumsy & I do rattle on endlessly, but I wanted my response to be authentically "me". I have pasted it here, as the sender will have received it.
__________________________________________________________________________

I then received the following response:
Dear Andy

Thank you for your email.

I think you have misunderstood my email, I am not anti homosexual or lesbian people, but against the redefinition  of marriage as this present proposal from the government, promotes.
& my response:
Hi ****

Thank you again for contacting me. I understand what you're saying, but many don't understand the inequalities in the law at the moment, when it comes to Civil Partnership.

The fact is that they just don't offer the same protection as marriage does;

  • Civil partners can be refused visiting rights in hospital if a loved one is taken ill, on the basis that they are not blood relatives or married partners. They can also be refused information, and so can be faced with the reality that their life partner may be in a serious condition, and they would have no way of finding out or of visiting them.
  • If something happens to a Civil Partner while abroad, they may be stranded without information or access to their partner - even if the country they are visiting recognises Equal Marriage, simply because they did not have a 'Marriage', but rather a Civil Partnership.
  • If you want to leave your belongings to your lifelong partner, as a Civil Partner, your bereaved partner faces higher inheritance taxes, and - in some countries - exorbitantly so, on the basis that the person is not 'related' by law.
  • If you write your lifelong partner into your will, if there is any animosity between your family and your partner, your family can contest that will and successfully prevent your partner inheriting, because Civil Partnership does not have the same legal protections as marriage.
  • Civil partners can not leave their pension to their partners, in the same way that straight married couples can, and face lower payouts and higher deductions.
  • Aside from the simple fact that people don't propose to become "Civilly partnered" and friends don't refer to a celebration of their union as a "Civil celebration".  That language encourages people to view the relationship as somehow 'less than'.

A society where these inequalities and insecurities exist for same-sex couples does not make for a more stable society, but is in itself the reason for the breakdown of family values and social morality ... it makes it more difficult to love and to commit.  It also makes the families of same-sex couples less secure.  The children in those families (whether by adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, fostering or from a previous relationship) know the love of their parents, and are loved no less, but have a less secure place in society, because society does not want their parents to have access to a simple word.
The following link explains (briefly) some of the legal differences between Civil Partnership & Marriage: http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM
I think it was well put by a colleague of mine, whose words were something like, "I've been married for over 40 years, and I find it quite insulting that people somehow think that two strangers being allowed to marry is somehow going to make my marriage any less secure or meaningful."
Again, with kind regards
__________________________________________________________________________

It's a little bit reminiscent of conversations in the former century that started like this, "I'm not a racist, but ..." Be interesting to see how this pans out.

Tuesday 11 December 2012

Why I BELIEVE FIRMLY in Equal Marriage ...



I was asked by a contact at the Portsmouth News to respond to some comments made about the government's Equal Marriage proposals (article here).  Here is the letter I sent. I don't know if it'll be used, but I wanted to include it in my blog, to keep the coversation going. Equality needs a voice.

Dear Sir / Madam

I am saddened by the response of many Christians and churches to the government’s consultation on Equal Marriage.  As an ordained member of the Church of England clergy, I stand wholeheartedly behind the Prime Minister’s stance on Equal Marriage.

My understanding of the proposal is that it will aim to allow loving same-sex couples to enter into loving, long-term, committed marriages, with the full legal protection that marriage offers.  No more of the strange terminology of attempting to say that someone is “civilly partnered” to someone else, and no more of the differentiation in society where a Civil Partnership is somehow less than a marriage.

If I could look at some of the arguments against Equal Marriage:

  • Those who argue against Equal Marriage, stating that Civil Partnership is the legal equivalent of marriage, but with a different name, don’t understand the legal complexities and the differences between the two.  The fact is that Civil Partners don’t enjoy the same legal protection and provision as married couples.
  • Those who state that Equal Marriage is against their faith, need to understand that it is against THEIR INTERPRETATION of their faith (or someone else’s interpretation passed along to them). There are other ways of reading Scripture, other ways of interpreting tradition, and other ways of being Christian. The existence of the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, Accepting Evangelicals, Two:23, Courage UK, Inclusive Church and other groups in the UK – not to mention International groups are evidence of that.
    I also really struggle with people of faith, who state that they accept the LGBT community, but then label their loving relationships as a perversion of family values, with catastrophic consequences for the future.  In statements like that, it won’t be the message of acceptance that the LGBT community hears, and it certainly won’t instill (& hasn’t instilled-) in them the desire to explore faith.
  • Those who try to panic people into believing that the proposed changes will result in churches being forced to conduct same-sex marriages have either not read – or not understood – the proposals, and haven’t looked at history.
    There are churches the whole world over that won’t perform marriage ceremonies for people who are divorced, as a matter of conscience.  They have the freedom to do so, and the divorced couples seek another church. This matter is no different.  The consultation was simply looking at whether or not some faith communities should be allowed to opt in, if they wish, the same way some choose to remarry divorcees.
  • Finally, I struggle with those that play the numbers game; that state that the LGBT community should not be allowed Equal Marriage, because they are in the minority? I thought the purpose of Equality legislation was precisely to protect minority groups.  The majority already have a voice, and already enjoy a privileged place in society by virtue of being the majority. We should be concerned with ensuring that minority groups are treated as equal, and allowed to be full, contributing, equal & fully human members of society.

It is because of my faith that I strongly believe in extending marriage to same sex couples, in order to affirm in them the possibility of knowing the fullness of love and expressing that to each other and their community.  To me, that’s more in line with my faith and the love of God, than any message of exclusion could be.

I also firmly believe that Equal Marriage will strengthen our communities and our families, and make sure that those families that are currently viewed as inferior & hidden, are able to flourish.

With kind regards

Saturday 8 December 2012

Agents against change ...

While we're on the topic of tiring of people who want to oppress the LGBT community & keep them separate & make sure they can't live openly, honestly and freely as committed & married couples in society, I tire of their nonsensical arguments.

When they can't appeal to reason & open communication, they resort to scaremongering, such as saying the LGBT community is going to cause a breakdown in the moral fibre of society, they will be harvesting straight couples' children for the gay cause, somehow allowing two people to marry will result in people wanting to marry animals, etc., etc..  With these points they merely show themselves to be fools.

When they can't scare people into following their points of view, they resort to trying to convince people that the LGBT community is not deserving of equality, because they are somehow not whole people ... they are not created in God's image, they are sexual deviants who should be shown (or trained) how to be 'normal', they are a result of a broken world and should be pitied but not equal.  With these arguments they just show themselves to be bigots, wanting to get people to side with them, because they're somehow superior (ie. school bully mentality).

If that doesn't work, then they resort to the argument that the LGBT community has never had equality before, and things have been ok, so why change now?  We've never had equal marriage before, so why introduce it now?  Of course, if this argument had been successful with other equality issues in the past, we wouldn't have women in the workplace, mixed marriages, the disability discrimination act and we'd still have slavery.  This is never a good argument against change and just shows them to be irrational and bigoted.

On BBC Breakfast this morning, MP Peter Bone claimed that Equal Marriage should not be introduced, because it wasn't in the Conservative Party Manifesto (appealing to the 'Why introduce change now' method of reasoning).  I'd like to address this fallacy.  It was indeed in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2010 - A Contract for Equalities (page 14), where it states:
We support civil partnerships and will
recognise civil partnerships in the tax system.
our plans to end the couple penalty in the
tax credits system and to introduce a new
system of flexible parental leave will apply
to all couples, regardless of whether they are
heterosexual or same sex couples.
We will also consider the case for changing the
law to allow civil partnerships to be called and
classified as marriage.
It was also covered by the press (see Pink News article here), so can't have been a surprise.

However, this has already been covered with Peter Bone by the LGBTory group (covered in this article by Pink News).  This seems to show another strategy that those against Equal Marriage attempt to employ ... they ignore the evidence, and keep making their claims, in the hope that saying it often enough will convince people of it's truth.

They're running out of reasons to oppress ... I'll be interested to see what comes up next.

Friday 7 December 2012

Oppressor or Oppressed

I want to be patient and understanding with people who are against Equal Marriage. I want to engage in sensible and sensitive conversation with them and reach a deeper understanding of each others' viewpoints. I want to ... I really do.

But, the more I read some of the comments and outbursts against Equal Marriage, the more I'm struggling to take them seriously, when they're claiming that the introduction of Equal Marriage would be a violation of their rights and would result in them being oppressed or forced into performing things they morally object to.

I'm struggling to be patient and take them seriously, because I find it strange that they keep crying for the permission to continue oppressing others, because to be denied that would be a form of oppression against them.

An online dictionary offers the following description, which may be informative:
op·press  (-prs) tr.v. op·pressed, op·press·ing, op·press·es 1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority.

In case that doesn't help, I'd like to offer a few handy points that may help people understand the difference between the oppressed and the oppressors:
  • Have you ever been stopped from marrying the person you love?
  • Have you ever felt that nervous excitement when you begin to fall in love with someone, but been unable to tell them, in case they don't share your attraction and will publicly humiliate you, or beat you up?
  • Despite that, have you met someone and entered into a loving, long-term relationship, but been unable to hold the hand of the person you love in public, for fear of being beaten up?
  • Have you ever been told it would be better for you to marry someone you're not attracted to and don't love, because others would find that more acceptable than marrying someone of the same gender?
  • In trying to defend the act of stopping you marrying the person you love, have you had your love compared to beastiality, paedophilia, necrophilia, incest or adultery?
  • Have you been turned away from a faith community for being honest about who you are?
  • Have you ever been told that a faith community will accept you for who you are, and after joining, discover that there are conditions such as not ever telling them when you feel lonely, are attracted to someone, start dating and fall in love?
  • If you happened to have been a part of a faith community before you shared honestly with that community about who you were, were you then shamed and kicked out of that faith community?
  • If you weren't kicked out of your faith community, were you subjected to humiliation as they prayed regularly that God would change you into someone they were more comfortable with?
  • Have you had allegedly well-meaning people suggest that you submit yourself to "reprogramming", so that they can attempt to get you to forget your identity and change you into someone they find more acceptable?
  • If, despite all the odds, and the people who hate you, and say that you disgust them, you manage to meet someone and fall in love, have you then had to keep them a secret and lie about who they are to friends, family and colleagues, even though you're desperately proud of them, for fear of being kicked out of your job or your home?
  • Have you, as a result of placing your trust in someone and, sharing with them about your identity or your partner, suffered that horrible reality of losing your family or your career (or both)?
  • Have you had to live for years in secret with your partner, because either (or both) of your families don't want to know about your beloved partner ... even though you both love and nurture each other ... simply because they don't like your partner's genitalia?
  • Have you ever been turned away from a hospital when trying to visit your beloved, or trying to obtain information about your beloved, because your partner happens to be the same gender?
  • Have you been banned from giving blood, even if you've only ever had sex with ONE person, in a stable relationship, WITH a condom?
  • When you manage to put up with all of that, meet someone who you love and who loves you back, and despite all odds, you stay together until you die, are you likely to have your spouse pension be smaller than your colleagues, because you happened to be in a relationship with someone of the same gender that society wasn't comfortable with?
  • When, tragically, one of you passes away, will you face the reality that you may lose the ability to leave your possessions to each other, and care for the remaining partner, because the deceased's family may disagree and may want their possessions and finances.
If you can't answer "Yes" to the above, then you're unlikely to be the oppressed.  My guess is that most of the people who are crying out about the unfairness of Equal Marriage have not faced many (or any) of the above horror scenarios.  Sadly, however, the LGBT community faces them every day.

If you still mistakenly think that you're possibly going to be oppressed by the introduction of Equal Marriage, let's get a few things straight:
  • Nobody is going to force you to marry someone you don't want to.
  • Nobody is going to force any church / mosque / synagogue or other faith community to perform a same-sex marriage, if that community doesn't want to.  All over the world, churches exist that won't perform marriages for divorced people, and they have the freedom to make that decision.
  • However, just as you may believe that God is against Equal Marriage, there are many who believe firmly that God is for it, and also use Scripture to back up their views.  So, those communities that WANT TO perform these ceremonies, MAY be able to (it's not guaranteed ... it's just in discussion) ... in the same way that some churches choose to perform the remarriage of divorcees.
  • Despite your views, IF you get invited to a same-sex wedding, nobody is going to force you to attend. People the world over turn down wedding invitations every day, and the sky doesn't fall.
  • And, please, rest assured, unlike your office banter, the LGBT community are extremely unlikely to want to share anything about their sex lives with you, so if what happens in their bedrooms enters your mind at all, it's probably purely down to you.
  • Contrary to popular scare-mongering, nobody is going to be recruiting children to the LGBT community ... but children will be encouraged to be themselves, without the fear of being disowned, excommunicated, beaten up or driven out.
I hope that clears things up somewhat.  If you're not the oppressed, then there is only one other group you fit into.  Also, please please PLEASE remember the importance of straight allies in all of this.  If you support the LGBT community, please let it be known.  Your voice is needed.  Blog, petition, sign, write to your MPs ... whatever, but remain engaged and help improve the lives of others.

Thank you.

Wednesday 5 December 2012

Equal Marriage and Henry Smith MP

I recently contributed to a request to petition the MP for Crawley, Henry Smith, to vote in favour of Equal Marriage ( http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/henry-smith-mp-vote-in-favour-of-equal-marriage ).

Mr Smith responded to petitioners, by stating that he was a civil libertarian, and supportive of Civil Partnerships, but felt that changing the law to allow for Equal Marriage "does not appreciate others sincerely held beliefs about what constitutes marriage to them."

I felt I wanted to respond politely to Mr Smith, and penned the following email on 5 December 2012.

Dear Mr Smith

I read your response to the petition with interest, and thank you for taking the time to respond.

I would like to address, if I may, your points that Civil Partnership offers the same protection as Marriage.  This is a fallacy that some seem to attempt to spread in the hope that it will somehow convince people that the Equal Marriage issue is somehow not deserving of their attention, and not worthy of revision.

As Civil Partners, my partner and I have been together for 4 years, and "Civilly Partnered" (such awkward terminology when you're in love, not a business partnership) for 6 months.  Under the current laws, at the end of our lives together, should one of us die, the other only has a legal right to inheriting the others possessions IF the deceased partner's blood family don't want them first.  And - in many cases - even making up a will stating that you want your partner to inherit your possessions, can be successfully contested by potentially embittered blood relatives.

There are also legal issues around inheritance and inheritance tax, which heterosexual married couples don't face when inheriting, and inequalities in the provision of pension benefits to the surviving partner when compared to heterosexual couples.

If you could spare 4 minutes of your time, this simple video explains SOME of the legal differences. http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM

Putting aside the legal and the financial and the desire to make sure your loved one is taken care of should you pass away, in many instances, a same-sex partner can be denied the most basic things, like visiting rights in hospital or information about their loved one, should they be hospitalised or taken into care.  In at least one alleged case, the hospitalised person passed away and the family arranged a funeral, without their life partner even knowing that they had died.

This obviously sounds - and is - horrific, but not far-fetched, when you consider the relationship breakdown between many LGBTQ people and their families when they come out.

Again, if you could spare 11 minutes of your time for this tragic and true account of a young couple, it will highlight some of what same-sex couples go through because Civil Partnership does not offer the same protection as marriage: http://youtu.be/pR9gyloyOjM

At the end of the day, the slogan for the Coalition 4 Equal Marriage campaign sums it up well (albeit a bit too brief and simplistic to explain some of the gravity of the situation): "'Separate but equal' is not equal".

I look forward to hearing back from you and continuing this conversation. In the interest of open & honest communication, I should inform you that I may tweet / blog about your response.

Kind regards
Revd. Andy Marshall


I received a reply fairly quickly from his office, but they wanted to know my postal address.  When I responded with my address, they saw that I did not live in Crawley, and I was informed that "Parliamentary Protocol dictates that only your elected local representative can assist you with policy concerns and so I would urge you to contact your local Member of Parliament, Mike Hancock, directly."

To which I offered this response:
Dear ......
I was afraid you would say that.  My local MP, Mike, is fully behind Equal Marriage, so I don't need to contact him about this matter.

However ... Mr Smith splits his time between working for his constituents and working in Parliament, and The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament states that: "6.  Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents." (Section III. Duties of Members ... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/1885/188502.htm#a3 ). As Mr Smith's vote on the matter will directly affect me, I would still appreciate the matter being brought to his attention.

I eagerly await his reply.

With kind regards
Andy

I would like to encourage as many of Mr Smith's Crawley constituents to write to him as I can, so that he's aware of the full weight of the matter, and I would also like to encourage all citizens to continue to engage with their local politicians, and the Prime Minister about this important matter.

Not supporting Equal Marriage would be a grave loss for equality.  To finish, I'd like to offer a couple of quotes:
Hillary Clinton, "Democracy is not just about reflecting the will of the majority. It is also about protecting the rights of the minority." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18846208)
Or Maureen Walsh, an American Republican, we should all be "Speaking against the vocal majority on behalf of the rights of the majority." (http://youtu.be/cE3kXkUolzc)

The majority already have a voice. We need to encourage the minority to speak up, and we need to ensure they have the safety to do so, and then we need to not just listen, but HEAR.

Wednesday 21 November 2012

Anglicans & (non) equality ...


There was a time - years ago - in South Africa, when the Anglican Church elected Desmond Tutu, a wonderfully gifted & godly man, as it's leader, in a country that sought to oppress and silence all people of colour under apartheid. I was proud to be an Anglican then.

Since then, the Anglican Church has systematically focused on who it can exclude from it's pews & pulpits, whether that be gays, lesbians, transgendered people or women.

The Church of England is now happy to 'allow' women to minister, as long as they don't ever feel called to the Episcopate, and as long as - in many cases - they offer their ministry for free as NSM's or work under a man.  It is also happy to allow LGBT people to minister, as long as they look and act like straight people, and either remain single or sign a document stating that their relationships are purely platonic.

I have not been proud to be Anglican for a long time. Sad and shameful times

Sunday 4 November 2012

Homophobes and bigots?

Some people are desperately upset that Cardinal Keith O'Brien has been awarded Stonewall's Bigot of the Year award, and feel the word is too strong and counter-productive.
He has described same-sex marriage as a grotesque subversion, and said that it would "denegrate society", and has accused homosexual people of being "captives of sexual aberrations." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_O%27Brien#Views_on_homosexuality )

By his language and his own subversive tactics, he has - like it or lump it - shown himself to be a bigot, identified by his actions & words ( http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/RhetoricalFallacy_SameSexMarriage.png ). What amazes me is why he's so upset by it ... surely if he set out to be an enemy to the LGBT community, the fact that he's achieved that should - for him - be a source of pride?

I'd like to say he will move on, but the worry is that the Catholic Church seems to be growing increasingly bigoted, withdrawn, exclusive & arrogant.
Many Catholics are themselves struggling with the fact that their church is retreating back to times of clergy-are-all ministry, and 'Father always knows best', and 'Don't question authority'.

Who knows where it will end, but we shall continue to be a thorn in their side until their attitudes change.  This is not because of a desire to be militant, but because by their attitude to who we are, they can only experience us as such ... yet who we are is all we can be.  Theirs is the choice.

Thursday 24 May 2012

What is sin?

Someone posted the following comment on our www.out4marriage.org (video link here):

Equal marriage encourages sin.
You should know that if you've read the Bible AND you are listening to God.
If being a sodomite isn't sinful, is fornicating?
If being a sodomite isn't sinful, is adultery?
What is sin in YOUR opinion?

This is my response:
To offer an overly simplistic answer to a complex issue:

Adultery is the betrayal of a committed marriage relationship and fornication typically refers to consensual sex between non-married adults. Neither deals with people actually desiring to love and commit to each other.
Surely, people who deny equal marriage to same-sex couples are - in fact - encouraging these behaviours, outside of committed loving marriage.

As far as I'm concerned, sin is deliberately acting in a way which harms others or harms your relationship with God.

Committing to love someone for life does neither of those ... however, pointing fingers at others & creating a distance between them and their Creator, does both of those.


Consider the words of Matthew 18:6-7:
Causing to stumble
6 ‘If anyone causes one of these little ones – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung round their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

They then responded:
" creating a distance between them and their Creator "

Whatever I say doesn't create distance between a person and their creator but sin does. Christ died to close the distance between God and man but expects believers (and gives them the ability) to know what sin is. Your analysis of what sin is, is not correct.
Judging the behaviour of people who have no Christian profession is futile but those that profess Christ ought to be judged from within so they stop sinning.

To which I responded:
It does create a distance if your words cause them to abandon their faith because they believe that they are unwelcome.

I wouldn't want to be responsible for that. I would much rather affirm and include, and leave it to God to judge.

Romans 2:1-4
God’s righteous judgment

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realising that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

________________________________________________________________________

It's interesting to me that the person will refuse to interact with references from Scripture when offered in defence of the LGBT community, but will happily quote them when wanting to condemn.  This is much more about a personal agenda that drives the use of Scripture, than it is about obedience to Scripture.

Equal Marriage

The government's consultation has brought much out in the open ... some good ... a lot bad.

The good:
  • It's raised awareness of just how poorly Civil Partnership measures up to marriage, and how big the legal inequalities are.  Very few people, including members of the LGBT community, were aware of this.  This has been the primary reason that those who campaign against it have been able to quote that "The gay people I know don't want equal marriage" ... it's not that some gay people actually think they have all they need in law, it's that they don't know how much they're currently discriminated against & not protected by their country's laws.  This is changing.
  • As a result, it's also encouraged many people to engage more with the politics of equal rights - members of the LGBT community, as well as supporters & allies.  It's also encouraged a lot of straight people to sit up and say, we think of it as marriage ... our friends are not getting 'Civil Partnered', they're getting married.
  • It's even encouraged many faith groups (Christian & other) to step in and say that - altough the consultation only affects Civil Marriage, they would like to perform same-sex marriages, which is a wonderful affirmation for the LGBT members. 
The bad:
  • Sadly, the whole process has encouraged people to make increasingly alarming & bigoted remarks, and to feel perfectly justified in doing so.  People have been equating gay marriage to beastiality & paedophilia once more, and claiming that the LGBT community ultimately want to normalise gay lifestyle, because they want to recruit the straight community's children.  Comments like this are obviously unhelpful, untrue and profoundly unintelligent.
  • It has also encouraged a lot of bigoted comments by people, using sections of Scripture as their motivation, and using Scripture to communicate their own political viewpoints, rather than the other way round.  Perhaps this is why people are feeling they have permission to verbally abuse the LGBT community once more ... because people are telling them that God is on their side.
  • Unfortunately, there is also a concerted effort to scare people into a delirious frenzy because the very fabric of their human existence is apparently going to be threatened by two people of the same sex declaring their love for each other publicly, and receiving the support of their communities & the legal protection of their country.  People are being told that making this positive step will undermine family values and cause a breakdown in society ... which is obviously not the case.
  • Amazingly, some MP's are claiming that they've not heard of any LGBT person who wants Equal Marriage! Evidently they must not have televisions, radios or computers.  Or perhaps they somehow feel less guilty about denying people's rights if they pretend there are no people whose rights are being denied. They just don't exist, therefore I cannot be harming them.
Personally, I would like to hope that people make the right decision for the safety of all members of society. A government should not be encouraged to deny the rights of any segment of society, no matter how small, because doing so would be unpopular. The nature of the law is that it SHOULD protect minority groups, precisely because they're minority.
  • Society will not fall apart because gay people marry. On the contrary, it will encourage greater commitment of relationships, will encourage people to be more honest and open about their lives. It will affirm families, because gay households will be secure places to live and raise children.
  • Those who struggle with the term 'marriage' and don't want to emulate it, but instead want to pursue a civil partnership will still be able to do so (and indeed, this should be extended to straight couples, too), while those who wish to marry will be able to do that.
  • Contrary to the scare-mongering, religious organisations & faith groups will NOT be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they don't wish to.  There are many churches who currently will not marry divorcees, or - in some cases - couples where one partner is not a member of the faith, until they profess that faith. This is not challenged and they are not fined or forced.  Same sex marriage will be no different.  And provided it's communicated honestly, with respect, I think it's right that people be allowed to stand by their convictions.  The law protects their right to do so ... why should the law not be allowed to protect the relationships of LGBT people, too.
  • At the end of the day, it's not about straight people being forced to do anything ... it's about whether or not we believe the LGBT community are equal citizens, worthy of equal protection under the law. To deny the LGBT community the right to equal marriage, is to use the power of the majority to bully the minority.
I hope that equality will prevail, but I'm realistic enough to know that history is littered with examples where the majority have felt too uncomfortable to change the status quo and have instead decided to maintain the status quo where the minority are less equal.

Mike & I will be Civil Partnered in June 2012 ... a day which for us (& our friends & families) will be one of the greatest days of our lives, the day where we publicly declare our love & commitment to love each other for life. It will be an affirming day & a loving day, and a true celebration of love.  It does, however, sadden us that we can't get married, which is what all our friends and family are calling it.  The language, to them, is marriage.  The law doesn't allow it, but they've called it marriage from the word go.  We could wait to see what happens with the government consultation, but we want to commit to each other.  If equal marriage does go through, we will apply to change our Civil Partnership to a marriage.

It also saddens us that we can't include our faith fully in that ... we are being forced to separate our commitment into a secular registration ceremony, and then had to hunt around for a church that we thought would be willing to allow us to have some sort of ceremony where we can pray & be prayed for. It's a bit ludicrous that I'm ordained as a priest, and can't bring my relationship into my denomination. It's quite shameful that we can't even call our service a 'blessing', because the public line is that the Church of England does not officially 'bless' same sex unions.  It'll bless battle ships, park benches, donkeys, cats, dogs, jewellery & buildings ... but not a loving and committed same-sex couple.

That, to me, feels extremely discriminatory ... "you and your relationship are of less worth than concrete or trinkets".

As a result, it felt like the right thing for us to record a video in support of the http://www.out4marriage.org/ campaign, which hopefully will also serve as a bit of encouragement for the LGBT community from a person of faith, when they're encountering so many negative messages at the moment, and being told they are abominations, disordered, ill, sick, etc., etc..

I hope the government do the right thing.  I hope the faith communities do the right thing.

"Equal, but different, just isn't equal."




Link to the government consultation: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/
Link to the Coalition 4 Equal Marriage: http://www.c4em.org.uk/
Link to the Out 4 Marriage page: http://out4marriage.org/
Some further discussion about the Bible & the LGBT community: http://youtu.be/ezQjNJUSraY
Some of the differences between Civil Partnership & Equal Marriage: http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM

Wednesday 18 April 2012

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

As Mike & are planning our Civil Partnership in a few week's time, I've been following the public outcry by SOME people in SOME OF the Christian churches against the prospect of Equal Civil Marriage with a degree of sadness. I would love a marriage ... it is a deep public expression of our love for each other, with the community gathered around us, pledging their support. We can't have a marriage, because the law doesn't yet offer it.  Many think that Civil Partnership is the same as marriage, but it isn't (see http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM). I also don't see why some Christians are being so outspoken and bitter about it, when the proposal is about CIVIL marriage equality. It wouldn't affect them, and they would not be forced to perform same sex marriages, in the same way that some churches can refuse to remarry divorcees without repercussions.
I don't believe that Christianity is exclusive or judgemental, and I think people have got it wrong.  To explain this better, I will include the conversation between myself and a facebook friend...
Sam:
Hi Andy, noticed you've been putting a lot about Facebook on this issue. I'm not coming to start an argument, I just genuinely want to know how you (and I guess how Tutu too!) would interpret a verse like this from the NT? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-27&version=NIV
Me:
Hi Sam,
No offence taken, as I couldn't expect you to understand how deeply hurtful and exclusive the common interpretation of these verses are for gays, lesbians, bisexual & transgender people. In my view, there are a grand total of 6 ver...ses in the whole of Scripture that COULD speak of homosexuality, but whether or not they do is arguable.
For a start, as I say, there are only 6 verses, while there are hundreds that deal with behaviour in straight relationships that get overlooked. Why is the religious right focusing on loving gay relationships, but not being outspoken about other issues condemned in Scripture like divorce, adultery, etc.? Why are they focusing on condemning loving, consenting relationships, based on a POSSIBLE interpretation of 6 verses, when there are bigger Biblical issues like corruption, murder, war, poverty, deception, etc., etc.? Why are they focusing on excluding the LGBT community from discovering the loving, inclusive nature of Christ's love, while ignoring other commandments to not eat pork or wear mixed fabrics, or marry their deceased brother's widow, etc., etc.?
If ALL Scripture is infallible, what gives them the freedom to decide which bits they can enforce or not enforce.
Think for a moment, that they did not understand Homosexuality as we do, when they wrote Scripture. They didn't even have a term for it. As far as Paul was concerned, these were straight people engaging in sexual practises with other stra...ight people of the same sex.
Clearly that would be unnatural, but he had no idea that there could be people who were not straight, or who could only love people of the same sex, because that was how they were made.
Consider what it would be like, if you were only able to love someone of the same sex, and people told you that that was wrong. How would facing a life of loneliness feel to you? If you were told that you were unable to love a woman ... where would that leave your desire for a future and happiness? Celibacy has to remain a higher CALLING, not a sentence.
And then, think, if the term "Homosexual" didn't exist, where did it come from ... which translater decided on that possible translation, when they could have used words that translate to mean someone who is morally weak or someone who uses... power to get sex. Is the current exclusion of the LGBT people, and the attempt to enforce their loneliness in order to belong, based on a possible mistranslation?
Can we afford to exclude from the faith, an entire segment of the community, based on what may not be an accurate translation?
Sam:
Hi Andy, Yeah I totally agree with all of that. I think there are much more important issues that we need to focus on as Christians. And it goes without saying that Christian persecution of the LGBT community is outrageous and horrible.
I'm also pleased we agree all scripture is infallible. And I agree it's not always easy to interpret the OT law and how it applies. I think most people would make a distinction between moral and cultural laws which would help iron out some of what you mentioned about pork, fabrics etc...though not all of it.
It's your second comment that really gets to the heart of the issue, I think. Although I have to admit I've never encountered the view that the above scripture was about straight people engaging in sexual practises with other straight people. Surely by definition, sexual practises between 2 straight people would mean they were gay? (I assume you don't mind me using terms of straight/gay, let me know if you do and I'll happily change. Have to be careful as some find them offensive.)
Paul was a devout Jew who knew the Torah inside out so if the OT verses didn't actually mean that homosexuality was morally wrong - wouldn't he correct them? And wouldn't Jesus? Again - I'm just asking the question, not trying to get at anyone. I really appreciate you taking the time to write a detailed response as I have yet to discuss this with anyone and have been somewhat afriad of doing so for coming across as a nasty homophobic so and so and adding to the unfortunate stereotype that christians hate gays. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I'm pretty sure that homosexuality was being practised in places like Corinth and Paul would have known about it. I've also yet to see any scholarly work that says the NT hasn't translated words around homosexuality correctly.

Do either of your links talk about this issue of mistranslation further? For me, as someone who believes in scripture as the ultimate authority, it's where I'd like to focus my reading.
Me:
I don't think they mean the same thing ... two straight people of the same sex engaging in sex does not make them gay, and would not be thought of as natural. It is also not the same as two people of the same sex who fall in love. I'm uncomfortable with the obsession on genitalia and the ignoring of deep love. Homosexuality has always been around, but not with the same level of understanding as we have now. Paul would not have understood that people are born gay, and can only fall in love with others of the same sex. He would have made the assumption that they were straight and choosing to do gay things (which is the misconception people still make ... that it is somehow a choice). It is definitely not a choice, and if it was, with the struggles and the bullying and the hatred they receive, most would choose to be straight. People are gay because they can only be gay. And it's not about sex ... it's about identity, and who they fall in love with.
Both of the links deal with the Scriptures.
Me:
I should add that in the current understanding of sexual identity, two people of the same sex engaging in sexual activity could mean any number of things, but in Paul's understanding, I think he assumed that they were straight and engaging in unnatural behaviour, rather than being aware of any other way of being.
I also think that, for me, the core of the matter is about love, and who people are able to love, and how we support that. Some of the ignorant comments coming out about this potentially leading to the legalisation of paedophilia, beastiality or rape, are obviously unhelpful and incorrect, as they are about malicious and harmful behaviour, and not about love between consenting adults in love with each other.
As for the infallibility of Scripture, I agree, but I think we may have different angles on it. I view the WHOLE of Scripture as infallible, not necessarily all the parts thereof. So, I think as a whole, Scripture is a guide to life and a witness of the love of God for all of creation & the saving grace of God through Christ. But where the parts can potentially be used to disagree with that core message, I disagree.

Surely the best way to encourage healing, wholeness and family values, and at the same time, discourage promiscuity, is to allow people to enter into loving long-term relationships that they can be open and honest about, without having to hide them.
Sam:
I take your point but I can also see why people would want to preserve and not re-define what marriage is. I'll respond to the rest of it later :)
Me:
Indeed, but Marriage is not a Christian instution. It's origin is in secular, civil contracts between wealthy people or rulers. When Christianity became popular under Constantinople, it was brought inside Churches, because the wealthy wanted to show they had religious approval. It was also brought into churches to try to encourage openness.
The current consultation is about Civil Marriage, not religious marriage. So it is wrong for some Christians to assume that they own the whole of marriage, when historically they only have involvement in the very recent history of marriage as a whole.
No churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages, and will still be able to marry, bury, baptise & confirm who they wish to (in the same way they can now, and many churches have the practise where they won't remarry divorcees, and have the freedom to do so).

But same sex couples will have the opportunity to have Civil Marriages, with the same protection that offers to the rest of society. Because, at the end of the day, a Civil Partnership is not the same as a marriage (see http://youtu.be/vT6I72W9SMM )