Pray for equality

The Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement have issued the following call to action in support of Equal Marriage:
______________________________________________________________

1)  Join the Rally for Marriage Equality on Monday 3rd June from 5.30pm  at the statue of George V in Old Palace Yard, London SW1, diagonally opposite the main entrance to the House of Commons.
2)  Pray. The Evangelical Alliance along with other Christian groups that oppose marriage equality have published a call to prayer. Here is our response using the same format that is being printed in GayStar News:
Please pray:

• That the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will become law and that it will be promoted in society for the good of all.
• That on Monday 3 June a majority of Peers will vote in favour of the bill.
• For the Equal Love Campaign and all the other LGBT Christian organisations as they campaign to remove the exclusion of same sex couples to marriage.
• For parliamentarians and others in public life to have the courage to stand up for their convictions for equality.
• For the news media, that they would report the issue widely, fairly, and accurately.
• That the real benefits of opening up marriage to same sex couples would be publicly known and properly discussed.
• That people would not face discrimination or be perpetrators of discrimination, in the workplace or elsewhere, because of their sincere beliefs about marriage.

Open prayer is encouraged, but this written prayer may also be of help:

Loving God,

We thank you for the gift of marriage which you established at the dawn of time, to be a blessing for all generations throughout the earth, down through the ages.

We pray that you would fill each and every marriage with your love and grace, and that every couple would know the joy that comes from sharing and giving.

We thank you for establishing marriage to be a secure and stable environment for raising children and becoming all you have called us to be.

We pray, as you have commanded us, for those in positions of civil authority.

We ask that you would bless our nation as the Government seeks to open up marriage to make it available to all your children.

We pray that our government will act with wisdom and righteousness, promoting marriage for all couples to whom you have given the gift of love for each other so that marriage will truly become what you want it to be - for the good of all people.

We pray for our nation, as our government seeks to open up marriage, that they will embrace this change. And we pray for ourselves, that we would speak out in support of equal marriage with gentleness and kindness, but also with courage and confidence.

In the name of Christ Jesus our Lord we pray.

Amen.

______________________________________________________________

I won't be able to make the vigil, but I will be praying.  I'll be praying for equality, inclusivity and victory of good over evil.  Our faith is a faith based on the person of Jesus, the great practitioner of social inclusion.  Following his example, ours is a faith that includes the tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, lame, the children, the guilty, the social outcasts, the political outcasts and those on the religious fringes.

To be closing ranks and excluding others based on their identity is not a Christian principle. It may be one that can be Biblically backed up by a select extraction of verses, but that is an incorrect use of Scripture to enforce views that are not in keeping with our radical, inclusive faith.

Praying for equality for all!

"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.

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

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.

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.