Antitheism is not the answer

As a gay Christian, you can often feel that you have your feet in two different camps that are often at war with each other.  For many gay Christians, the Christians in our past don't accept us after we share about who we truly are. Their thinking is often that this is a lifestyle "choice" that we have made, and have turned away from godly living (if that is their theology, they don't recognise that that is the human condition, and so we're all in the same boat).  So we may find ourselves without a faith community behind us, as we struggle to find a way forward in our faith.

On the other side of the fence is the LGBT community that welcomes us, but often struggles to accept our faith, because they have been exposed to cruel judgement and ostracism by many in the Church or - worse yet - subjected to attempts to "pray the gay away" or been coerced into "gay conversion therapy" or even being convinced to enter into a relationship with someone from the opposite sex in an attempt to "bring out the straight in you."  In my case, it was all three, which made for a rather dismal chapter of my life, where death became the only hope of release, and fear of hell became the only reason I chose not to end life at my own hands.  If they don't encounter such malevolent behaviour, they're often only too aware of the very negative messages in the press by outspoken anti-gay Christian lobbying groups or church groups.  It's easy to understand why many members of the LGBT community don't have a faith, and don't want one.  But that is often not the gay Christian's understanding of faith for them.  For many, despite the judgements, it will be what has kept them going.

So, you can see that if you happen to both be gay and have a faith, it's not a particularly easy place to be in. However, for many, as much as being gay is part of our identity, so is having a faith, and we're often presented with having to choose one of two options ... either we abandon our faith, or we try and find a way to exist with one foot in each camp.  Some may choose to leave their faith communities (sadly, sometimes they're forced out).  Some will join new faith communities that are inclusive, but many retain some connection with faith and struggle to find a way forward. (How good it would be if churches were able to look past the fear and the judging and the dogma, to see this need for nurturing.  Welcome these people back as they are, and - IF there is changing to be done - let God do it.  You may not be comfortable with them, or their partner, or their social lives, but they're God's children, as much as anyone else, and they often have no spiritual home to turn to.)

I have many friends who are not Christian, but respect my choice to be a Christian (for - at the end of the day - that is the choice ... my sexual identity is not). I also have some friends that don't respect my faith, and that can sometimes be difficult. I respect someone else's choice to not follow a faith, and I respect that they have every right to be atheist, but it can hurt to hear friends speaking against all people of faith, and blaming all believers for the Church's attitude to the LGBT community.

Some people portray all religion as irrelevant, harmful, and don't think it has anything good to say.  In many cases that may be true.  But, there are as many different ways of believing as there are people ... each person has a different experience of faith and a different way of expressing that.  Many people of faith are working hard to bring change from within, and make our communities of faith more inclusive places.

The danger of painting all people of faith with the same brush, and by declaring faith irrelevant is that by doing so, you silence the voices of those within that institution or faith who are fighting for equality and inclusion.  The only way to effectively bring change is to continue engaging with people, affirm positive change where you see it, inform viewpoints where you can, and support those members of the LGBT community who are struggling to maintain relationships on both sides of the fence.

Russia's ruthless victimisation of it's LGBT community

Watching Hunted on Channel 4 Dispatches tonight was truly chilling.

Using Russia's anti-gay law (allegedly only aimed at silencing gay propaganda), gay people are being hunted openly like prey, being kicked, beaten, humiliated, raped with sticks & bottles, made to drink urine, shot at and killed.

Russia doesn't have a law that covers hate crimes ... We were shown a man that was filmed shooting a gay man in the face was let off with a suspended sentence for hooliganism.  Another man went to court for attacking a gay man with a stick, with clear photographic evidence provided ... his case has been postponed for 18 months and he walked free.  His victim was taunted and humiliated outside the courtroom.  When it gets to 24 months the case will be chucked out.  A group of guys hung around outside an LGBT film festival, taunting women entering the building, offering them corrective rape, and "gift" bags containing rope, soap and a card instructing them to kill themselves and cleanse the world of their "filth".

Russia is lawless, without mercy, without any decent human rights & without a conscience, and sending any athletes or tourists to such a place is irresponsible.

What's more chilling than Russia's cruel & inhumane treatment of it's LGBT community, is how many countries & big corporations choose to stay silent. Coca Cola and McDonalds, as sponsors for the Sochi Winter Olympics, have remained consistently silent on Russia's appalling treatment of it's LGBT community, ignoring pleas to speak out.  In addition, both have had very embarrassing PR battles where they've missed opportunities to respond to a lot of negative publicity (or - in Coca Cola's case - one publicity stunt even fed homophobia ... and rather than correct the error, they took the site down, and made some thin statement about standing for equality.  However, these statements are empty unless they actually STAND for equality.

Thankfully, some companies are now beginning to speak out ... among them AT&T (article here) & a neat little publicity stunt by Brewdog Brewery in Scotland (article here). In addition, major US investors are now adding their voice to the throng calling for large corporations to hold Russia accountable, rather than pour money into a country which is hunting & victimising the LGBT community (article here).

If you want to view the programme, here's a link to the video.  If that link doesn't work, it may be that you need to go to the Channel 4 Dispatches website (here) and search for "Hunted".

My thoughts on cases involving Christian B&B owners ...

I often get asked for my opinion on the legal cases involving Christian business owners & equality legislation. I think it's a sort of spiritual litmus test that the askers (sometimes students, sometimes strangers, sometimes Christian, sometimes not) use to gauge my theological views, without directly asking me if I'm gay, or pro-gay.

There has been much publicity around the case of Peter & Hazelmary Bull, the Christian B&B owners who turned away Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, a gay couple who are in a Civil Partnership, because they didn't allow unmarried couples to share a room (for eg., here are links in the Huffington Post & the Pink News). There was also a lot of publicity around the case of Susanne Wilkinson, a B&B owner in Berkshire who turned away, Michael Black and John Morgan, a gay couple on the basis of their sexuality.

Susanne Wilkinson's case happened about a year before the Bulls', so I'll focus more on the Bulls, as their case is more recent. The Bulls argued that they turned Steven & Martyn away because they have a policy of not allowing unmarried couples to share a room in their B&B, and Steven & Martyn weren't married, therefore were turned away.  The problem with that is that that in itself is illegal ... you can't turn away unmarried couples if you run a B&B, but even more so, because Steven & Martyn were as married as they could legally be at the time as a gay couple. They were a legally committed couple, in a monogamous relationship, and yet were still turned away.  This suggests that they were turned away for being gay, which is also illegal.

The case presents an interesting dilemma for Conservative Evangelical Christians who argued that there was no need for Equal Marriage, because Civil Partnerships offered the same privileges and protections as marriage.  If that was true (Which it isn't! This video explains the differences!), then Peter & Hazelmary Bull should've permitted Steven & Martyn to stay in the room they'd booked, as they were in a committed Civil Partnership, which Conservative Evangelicals argued was the legal equivalent of marriage. The fact that Peter & Hazelmary Bull made a distinction between Civil Partnerships & Marriage shows exactly why the right of Marriage had to be extended to all, regardless of gender preference or gender identity, to prevent committed gay couples from treated as second class citizens.

As a result of the legal findings, there has been an outcry from Conservative Christian groups in defence of the Bulls, stating that they should be allowed to choose who stays in 'their home', without having their faith attacked.

The problem is this ... a B&B is NOT your home. It's a hospitality business, and - as such - has to adhere to equality legislation which protects the public against discrimination. It was also not the Bulls' faith which was under attack, but their decision to use their faith to discriminate against someone for being who they are.  The Bulls (& any other person of faith who runs a business - hospitality or otherwise) can believe whatever they want. Their beliefs can influence their own lives, and even guide their moral code, but they absolutely cannot use that turn away people, just on the basis of who they are, whether that be gay, bi, trans, White, Black, Asian, British, foreign, Muslim, Sikh, or anything else that may not fit with their belief system.

If the Bulls are legally allowed to turn away gay couples from their B&B, it opens the doors for business owners everywhere to use their faith to deny services or products to innocent people.  That means that we could end up with conservative people of various faiths refusing to serve people of another faith, gender or race group on the basis of their faith, using historic scriptures about gender laws, dress codes, faith battles, unclean people, chosen races, mixing with unbelievers, etc., etc.. Why stop there? If we allow believers to exclude customers who don't fit their belief system, why shouldn't we allow business owners from conservative political groups to refuse to sell to foreigners or non-whites, because they sincerely believe these groups are not good for their country (even if it is mistaken, misinformed and bigoted, it could be a belief as firm as any faith)?

The answer is, of course, 'no' ... Peter & Hazelmary Bull and Susanne Wilkinson and their contemporaries have to adhere to the law and offer the same services and products to all members of the public, regardless of faith, gender, gender orientation, relationship status, age, race, language, etc., etc..

If the Bulls & Mrs Wilkinson and any other Christian B&B owners want to be able to use their faith to turn people away, then the only way I can think that they may be able to do that, is to re-brand their business as a retreat house serving only Christians (They would have to limit themselves even more to only serving Conservative, Evangelical Christians, at that, because there are plenty of Christian business owners who believe in inclusion & equality). If they do that, then they cannot advertise themselves as a B&B.  If they do advertise themselves as a B&B, then that B&B is not your personal family home. You may happen to live on the premises, but the only bit that is actually your home is the private apartment bit you live in, separated from the public bedrooms ... The rest is a place of business.

I'm sure the Bulls are a lovely couple, who are acting with the best of intentions, but their actions are being informed by a Conservative Evangelical Christian agenda that is often more concerned about power and political control than about faith, often spending big money influencing & lobbying politicians in the USA, UK & abroad, in an attempt to control policy makers.  Hundreds of thousands are spent lobbying and fighting equality, often using fear-mongering to gather support (for eg. watch this Human Rights Commission video about the US group National Organization for Marriage, or this film exploring the relationship between American Conservative Christians & Africa)

In their own words, the UK's Christian Institute has paid the legal fees for Mrs Wilkinson & the Bulls ("Mrs Wilkinson’s legal defence was paid for by The Christian Institute, a national charity that protects the civil liberty of Christians," & "The Bulls’ appeal to the UK Supreme Court, to be heard next month, is supported by The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund."). Wouldn't it be a much better use of time and money, if the same resources were spent fighting to protect the lives & freedom of LGBT people in places like Russia, Uganda or Nigeria, or do they not deserve life because they identify as LGBT?

In my opinion, I don't think this is solely about religious freedom; It's couched in arguments about religious freedom, but this is more likely about powerful lobbying organisations fighting to gain and/or retain money, influence and power.  It's sad to see how much hatred the conservative evangelical camp has towards the LGBT community.  They may say they 'love the sinner, hate the sin', but that's misguided & impossible ... gay people are not straight people with an addiction to same-sex intimacy, they are people only capable of same-sex intimacy ... it's how they were born. To deny them any intimacy with someone of the same sex is to deny them the hope of companionship, a relationship and a family. To expect them to conform to that kind of miserable, lonely existence, in order to be a part of your worshipping community is not acceptance, it's a sentence.  It's also a double standard ... they expect chastity from the LGBT community, but will put up with sexual & marriage indiscretion and infidelity from straight members of their communities.

I wish the Bulls & the Wilkinsons all the best, but their future should not involve Bed & Breakfasts, unless they offer hospitality to all.  They should consider seeking some other form of income, or open retreat houses (of which there are already plenty).  As business owners, they should absolutely be held professionally and legally accountable for their discrimination.

However, they should not victimised or become victims of hate crimes, but they should also not be the pawns of large lobbying groups, seeking to use their lives to gather publicity and gain control.

Gospel of Intolerance: American Evangelicals Finance Uganda's Antigay Movement

This makes for truly chilling viewing, but is worth watching:

Roger Ross Williams is Director of the feature-length film, God loves Uganda.

Luke 6:45
A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

- New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of ...

For a change, I'll start and end this post with a verse from the Bible, that's worth bearing in mind when reading some of the comments. As always, verses are best applied contextually, considering the context of the reader, the writer and the verse's own context, but as the Fundamentalists are often fond of quoting single verses in support of their exclusive arguments, I think it only fair to put these two verses here, as they can speak volumes into the situation.

(With apologies for the wealth of links in this post, but I wanted to give them as a means of reference & elaborating on points.)

_________________________________________________________

Luke 6:45
A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

- New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

_________________________________________________________

The arguments against Equal Marriage are becoming more and more ludicrous and increasingly detached from reality.  Surely this is a good thing ... if these people make themselves known, we can begin to get them the specialist help and attention they sorely need.  Clearly, they are incapable of coherent thought, have lost their grip on reality, and pose a significant threat to themselves & others.

Here are some of the more ludicrous arguments given publicly recently (in most cases, I've copied the text from the headlines or subheadings of articles that are linked at the end of each bullet point ... some, but not all, words are my own):

• Firstly, the seemingly particularly hateful Lynette Burrows, who claimed in a debate at Oxford University that children should be with "straight sluts and drug addicts," rather than "Sodomites"! http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/30/lynette-burrows-children-should-be-with-straight-sluts-and-drug-addicts-rather-than-sodomites/
• Lavinia Sealy, the Conservative chair of Surrey County Council says she is “fundamentally opposed” to equal marriage and that it will have “negative consequences for “families and children” – she also claims “there are lots of gays in the media” and “if anybody speaks out, you’re rubbished.” http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/30/surrey-council-tory-chairwoman-says-same-sex-marriage-is-dangerous-to-children-blasts-gays-in-the-media/
• Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has told students in Surrey that allowing gay couples to marry would be like sanctioning incest. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/28/exclusive-defence-secretary-philip-hammond-links-incest-with-same-sex-marriage/ although he's now saying that he didn't claim that, with some opposition from the students he was speaking with http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/28/philip-hammond-denies-same-sex-marriage-incest-claims/
• Anthony Ozimic, a member of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, a lobby group opposed to abortion rights, says the teaching of equal marriage in schools would lead to the “promotion” of gay lifestyles. He claimed allowing schools to teach their students about the topic will “confuse and mislead children about the nature and meaning of sexuality,” and that marriage has always been “heterosexual”. He also described same-sex marriage as a “category error” and that homosexuality is “not natural” and said “homosexuals are promiscuous”.
  http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/21/video-anti-abortion-uk-activist-says-homosexuals-are-promiscuous-and-equal-marriage-will-confuse-children/
• Just this morning, I was made aware of this guy, who says "David Cameron is an anti-Christ", the UK is evil and all those who support Equal Marriage "will go to hell".  He feels so strongly about Equal Marriage that he's planning on sleeping rough on the night the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is discussed in Parliament ( https://twitter.com/kleephotography/status/296902362658910209/photo/1 ). He's also recorded this particularly interesting video about his feelings on the matter http://youtu.be/m9bTtLPBAfU 
• We all know the Catholic church's official stance of being particularly strongly against Equal Marriage (or equality for women, or transparent accounting, or accountability for it's leaders).  Their homophobic views are often not mirrored by those in the pews (who have often been pressured into signing the petition against Equal Marriage, en masse, during church services), and who have been writing into the Catholic publication, The Tablet, stating their disapproval.  Nevertheless, these views are sidelined, while their leaders bombard the press with letters and press statements that are increasingly ludicrous (and, I hope, futile!).
  One of the most recent statements comes from Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, of San Francisco, who stated that 'gay marriage is like male breastfeeding'?! http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/archbishop-says-gay-marriage-male-breastfeeding290113
  Their own Pope Benedict said in a speech that "gay people are not fully developed humans" http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/pope-says-gay-people-are-not-fully-developed-humans280912
  Indeed, he dislikes gay people so passionately, that he used his speech on World Peace Day to describe same-sex marriage as "a threat to justice and peace," adding that "it will spark harm for society." http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/14/pope-uses-peace-day-message-to-attack-same-sex-marriage/
  They changed tack a little recently, when they pushed out a document, stating that they recognised "that gay couples make loving parents but they must be banned from marriage."  http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/29/catholic-church-we-recognise-that-gay-couples-make-loving-parents-but-they-must-be-banned-from-marriage/
  Although, sense & reason should depart shortly, because there's been a last-ditch call to action by the Archbishop of Southwark, the Most Rev Peter Smith, who says “the time to act is now,” and has initiated the printing of another million postcards (coercing faithful members to litter letterboxes, churches & streets) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9830044/Gay-marriage-Catholic-Church-tells-priests-time-to-act-is-now.html
  In addition, they've issued a document which alludes to teachers in Catholic schools being demoted or dismissed if they are in a same-sex relationship ... The document states “a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the church…can be removed from office.” http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/28/catholic-church-warns-gay-teachers-they-risk-the-sack-if-they-marry-or-enter-into-civil-partnerships/

When you look at all of that, it's amazing that they get away with all of this openly and freely, without facing the consequences of their abuse. However, they are quick to claim that they're the victims of inequality, and they are being bullied by the pro Equal Marriage folk. Last time I checked, nobody was calling them incestuous, perverse, promiscuous Sodomites that are not fully developed humans, and are threatening justice & peace, bringing harm to society, endangering children.

Perhaps the silver lining in all this is that now that these comments are coming out in the open, people can finally get to see these people for the deluded, discriminatory, hate-filled manipulators of power that they are.

To expand on this, this is a very compelling and enlightening video by Roger Ross Williams, featuring the Revd. Kapya Kaoma, speaking about how money donated by American evangelicals helps to finance a violent anti-gay movement in Africa, and sheds light on the desire for power over politics, finances, entertainment and spirituality. http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/01/22/opinion/100000002020130/gospel-of-intolerance.html?WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0130-L20&nl=el

Roger Ross Williams is Director of the film, "God Loves Uganda" (http://www.godlovesuganda.com/), a feature-length, in-depth look at the evangelical campaign to change African culture with values imported from America’s Christian Right.

Compare the above comments with the comments from somebody like Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu who recorded this message ( http://youtu.be/NV-9EjzmpE0 ) for the OUT in Africa film festival a few years ago, where he speaks about the blessing of our sexuality, or this video where he speaks about homosexuals ( http://youtu.be/Zhu_ryd3Dak ).

Consider also the very measured study by Matthew Vines, looking sensitively & sensibly at both sides of the discussion ( http://youtu.be/ezQjNJUSraY ).

Bear both of these people (and hundreds of thousands of others who offer support & love because of their faith) in mind, in the light of the Scripture verse at the top of this post, and the one below:

_________________________________________________________

Matthew 7:15-17
15 ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognise them. Do people pick grapes from thorn-bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

- New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

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.

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.

A gay priest's story ...

A friend, when discovering that I was gay and in a relationship, expressed that it was a bit of a shock and asked if others were shocked when they found out.  This was my rather lengthy reply and is another telling of my story, which you may know some of, through previous entries. "I guess I did shock a few people when I came out, but not really when I started dating. I told a number of friends when I came back to PE after my first year in the UK when I'd had time to come to terms with it, but it wasn't a big surprise for many of them ... the pieces just fell into place I guess. To be fair, my own journey was so traumatic and took so much of my emotional, physical, spiritual and mental energy, that I can't really worry about how someone will receive the news. At the same time, I don't broadcast it, because I know some would struggle with it, but I can only be who I am, and when they find out, I can't take on their struggles as well ... they need to walk their own journey. I have always known I was gay, but tried to suppress it for many years (28 of them). I guess I have to admit that my work/life balance was unhealthy, but I poured myself into my youth work as a way of hiding from myself. I frequently worked 18 hour days and believed I was being committed and pious, but occasionally I caught up with myself and despised who I saw. I even tried seeing a psychologist for 2.5 years and putting myself through a "Healing from homosexuality" course that was organised by someone that had been on the Living Waters / Desert Streams courses, with financial support from one of the pastors at Harvest Christian Fellowship. All that transpired was that the psychologist got me to sever my links with my family, because he believed it was all down to nurture and imperfect family relationships, and the "healing" course left me feeling hopelessly inadequate and guilty, because I wasn't being healed. It was also unhelpful when the guy who ran the course couldn't admit that he was still a gay man struggling with his need for companionship, not a healed straight man, and even less helpful when he became attracted to me and stopped talking to me. LOL. It was an extremely dark period in my life, where I believed that I could never know love and companionship unless I put myself and some poor woman through the sham of a marriage without intimacy. I couldn't do that to someone else, and I could no longer run from who I was, so I faced a life of loneliness and hiding the real me. At the same time, I knew that I was called to ministry, but that the institution I worked for would never accept me, so I had to hide from them, too. My emotions were all over the place and I was an overworked, exhausted, lonely and miserable wreck, who occasionally went from extremely low to manic. I often thought of death as my only escape from the desperate loneliness and used to ponder suicide as a better alternative to an indeterminate number of lonely and unhappy years, and I remember sharing with my friend, Tim, my Methodist friend, that the only thing keeping me alive was the belief that the hell I was in was somehow better than the hell I would go to for being gay. So, yeah ... not a great place to be. All of this was going on at the time I first met you guys. You were a breath of fresh air and a joy and you energised my ministry at the time, but all of this was going on in the background. When I moved to St Hugh's in Newton Park, things had become even darker for me and Eddie Daniels who was the Rector at the time, reassured me that I could share anything with him in confidence and he would support me. Against my better judgement I let my guard down and shared some of what was going on inside me with him. He made all the right noises and promised to support me, but then I discovered he was going to parishioners behind my back and starting rumours that I was sexually involved with a lot of the guys at St. Cuthbert's ... Neal, Dylan, Gregg, Mike ... and Tim, my Methodist friend, and JP, one of the young adults at St Hugh's. Good guys who I was very close to, but they're all straight and just close friends. They were all very good about it when I told them what rumours were going about, and offered to take the matter to court, but I was too scared of being forced to publicly come out, so I never did. Eddie used this and kept spreading the rumours, and when I eventually plucked up the courage to confront him, hoping he would back down, his defence was, "I am your Rector and I'll do whatever I want." He then forced me into a relationship with a woman I was close friends with, which ruined our friendship and broke her heart. After that relationship failed, and it broke her heart, he even tried to force us to live together in the parish house, which I think was abominable and - even worse - the leaders in the parish saw no wrong in his actions. So, I decided the most mature thing would be for me to hand in my resignation and ask Bishop Bethlehem Nopece to move me to another parish, which I did in a perfectly adult way, meeting with the Bishop before resigning and explaining the situation to him, and him agreeing with me and saying he would find me a parish to go to. I wrote to Eddie, explaining honestly that I was saddened we could not work together, but wished him well in his ministry and wished to move on in three month's time (the suggested notice period in the Anglican Church). He responded by kicking me out of the parish immediately, without any chance to say goodbye to the congregation and without any formal farewell. Obviously, the parish then assumed that I had done something worthy of such banishment, and combined with the rumours, Eddie was making a pretty good job of ruining my reputation and my chance at ministry in Port Elizabeth.  It also didn't help that Terry Beadon, who'd moved parishes, then felt it important for him to post a letter to the congregation on the noticeboard, telling them I was being disciplined for being bad and calling for them to pull together behind Eddie. When the matter went to the Bishop, I presented evidence to him and two of his advisors.  None of them knew my side of the story (not that they asked) and they agreed that Eddie was acting irresponsibly and irrationally. However, I also discovered that rank is more important than honesty and justice, and the Bishop didn't challenge Eddie's rapid removal of me, and also didn't keep to his promise to find me another parish, so I was left without a parish to work in, without a way to publicly clear my name (unless I took the matter to court and made it public knowledge that I was gay - something I wasn't ready for). So I was left to deal with it, in silence and on my own. Robbie, a friend of mine, took me into his parish in Walmer, where I worked for 6 months.  However, I had no desire to remain in the Diocese of Port Elizabeth anymore and told Rob that before I made any rash decisions, I needed a year out overseas, maybe at a Theological College, maybe even a monastery. Coincidentally (God-incedentally!), 48 hours later Rob had a phonecall from a monk he'd never spoken with before, asking if he knew of any young clergy who were available to do a year's exchange in the UK at a Theological College - owned by a monastery!! Obviously, I jumped at the chance, and that's how I ended up in the UK in 2002. It was at Mirfield that I first encountered Christians in ministry who were gay and not ashamed about it, and began gently being honest with myself and others about who I was. I realised that I couldn't fight the fact that I was called to ministry and I couldn't renounce my faith. But I had also spent a long time trying to run from who I was and change who I was, and I couldn't do that either. So I had to realise that I was both Christian who was called AND gay. Not easy, but unavoidable. So I would have to try my best to be faithful to both. To practise my faith in a way that was inclusive and to share that inclusive faith with others who were being told that their faith would not accept them. At the same time, I needed to live my life as a gay person who was being true to my faith.  I have to recognise that I'm gay - I can't hide it, I can't pretend to be anything else and I don't need to be. I didn't choose to be gay and given the choice I probably wouldn't have, but it's who I was and I needed to be honest in my relationship with God as much as with other people. So I need to responsible about that and represent gay people to my faith as much as the other way round. It's a difficult gap to bridge ... on one side, gay people are extremely hurt by the Church (global, not just Anglican) and are forced away from it and it's alleged good intentions ("loving the sinner not the sin" is really just another way of saying, "you can belong as long as you act like one of us") and there's a lot of bitter feeling. On the other side, the Church is very distrusting of gay people and operating with loads of misconceptions, such as gay people are somehow straight people who choose to have sex with people of the same sex, or that all gays are paedophiles (when, in fact, paedophiles are paedophiles, and they may be straight or gay), or even that gay people are somehow trying to recruit straight people (if it was that easy to change orientation, then gay people could become straight and save themselves a lot of grief!).  I also operates under the misconception that being gay is purely about genital intercourse, and not about falling in love and sharing your life with someone you love, where physical attraction MAY form part of the story, but is not the whole. So, sitting between the two camps can be difficult ... I have a lot of Christian friends who don't like gay people and I have a lot of gay friends who don't like Christians. I try to be frank and unashamed of who I am to both of them. So I've reached a place of finding a purpose in who I am, rather than trying to hide it or run from it. At the same time, I'm alarmed that the Church as an institution is become increasingly hateful, exclusive and alarmist when it comes to it's dealings with the gay community, and I need to recognise that I may not always be able to be in ministry, but as a wise friend of mine once told me, "always remember that you were called to serve God, but not necessarily with a dog collar." I am still in ordained ministry, but work as a University Chaplain. That enables me to work in an institution which is inclusive and in which I can be myself, but also to do a lot of good work with the LGBT students and the students of faith, and with students who struggle with either or both. I find it very diverse, challenging and interesting. For now, I'm happy in Chaplaincy. We'll have to wait and see how long I remain in full-time ministry. If anything, what I went through in Port Elizabeth broke my love affair with it. I love ministry, but I don't need to be a part of an institution that deals with people in that way. So, my work/life balance has improved remarkably. I now spend time investing in me as well, which is nice. I also decided to start dating in 2003, as I couldn't continue living life miserably and lonely. I was nervous at first, and was probably damaged goods, but met some great guys who are still friends, broke one or two hearts and had mine broken once or twice along the way. How very normal. ;o) I met Mike in 2008, and we hit it off straight away. He's absolutely lovely, and we've both had an interesting time, learning to trust someone else with our deepest emotions. I'm very lucky to have met him, and I'm not letting go anytime soon. Obviously, we have our abrasive moments, but that's relationships. I'm saddened that I can't share that joy with everyone ... and that I need to watch what I say and how we act in public. We can't hold hands, we have to watch eye contact. We can't even sit too close. There are some functions I can't take him to and I sometimes feel I've betrayed him when I introduce him as a friend, rather than my partner, but sadly, that's the way things go from time to time. Thankfully, however, there are places and friends with whom we can be ourselves and just be normal, which is great. It's been a helluva rollercoaster ride, but I'm thankful for where I am now and for the opportunities I get to just be me, and the opportunity to finally have someone who loves me for me and not the me I think they want to see."

"God works DESPITE the Church, not because of it ..."

Time and time I am reminded of the above phrase, and in fact rely on it to stop me becoming disillusioned by the bigotry, politics and power struggles within the Church.

The Anglican church in Port Elizabeth has again proclaimed it's love of bigotry and regression http://www.epherald.co.za/article.aspx?id=467360

Unfortunately, what the person who wrote the article forgot to state was that it's not all Anglicans that are opposed to gay clergy or gay marriage, but only those who have a limited understanding of Scripture and find it too uncomfortable to read it inclusively.

Thankfully, there are many who are willing to recognise that Theology is not always comfortable and should always be practised in a way that is relevant to both the current context and it's original context ... even if that is not the way it was taught to you. That's what discovering truth is ... and thankfully there are many who are happy to discover it.

Bizarre...

Who would have thought they would ever see the day when footballers were better at expressing God's will than the pope? I guess it ties in with the commonly felt notion that football stadiums are the new cathedrals. Perhaps footballers have now become the proclaimers of Good News to the masses, and the pope is now an overpaid, overly dramatic individual with an over-full wardrobe, a distorted sense of reality and a home that's oversized? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/beckham-fights-antigay-prejudice-1228180.html