"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

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