Gays vs Mormons

Proposition 8 may have passed in California (at least for now), but the consequences have been disastrous for the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons, who donated the largest chunk of the $70 million which won the the homophobic Yes On 8 campaign:

In the coming days, a string of protests are planned across California, as campaigners mount a robust PR war against the Utah-based church. Many will picket services tomorrow.

“We should have got nasty a long time ago,” said Mr Lindsey, who is originally from a Mormon family. “I’m not going to be polite any more, I’m not going to step around my belief that this is a nasty church with disgusting views which managed to buy an election. I don’t care if it’s people’s religion. I’m going to stand up and fight it.”

For the Mormon Church, it threatens a PR nightmare. The gay rights lobby boasts scores of prominent celebrity supporters who have already pledged vociferous support to the campaign to overturn Proposition 8.

Behind the scenes, the mood is turning increasingly ugly. “If they’re going to vote away my rights based on fear and ignorance and prejudice, I’m going to give them something to be fucking scared of,” read a message posted on the online bulletin board Queerty.

The Mormon Church is in damage limitation mode. “No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information,” it said in a statement.

Noone should be vilified eh? So your church, which was directly responsible for the rescinding of people’s rights, should in turn not face any consequences for its actions? I wonder how many times the LDS Church thinks it can get away with this type of behaviour – the ERA in the 70s and now this:

The LDS Church’s campaign to pass Proposition 8 represents its most vigorous and widespread political involvement since the late 1970s, when it helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It even departs from earlier efforts on behalf of traditional marriage, in which members felt more free to decide their level of involvement.

It’s ironic that the Mormon Church should set itself against gay rights in such a big way, because it really is a power struggle by one minority against another, which will only end up in causing damage to them both:

Affirmation assistant executive director David Melson says the church has done damage to its own members and its reputation. “Win or lose, the actions of the church over the past 90 days will result in damage to the LDS Church in California and beyond from which it may take a generation or longer to recover,” he says.

It’s a religious attack on the secular position of the state in people’s lives, and Bishop Gene Robinson reveals the new president-elect, a religious man, does not support such intrusions by organised religion into civil society:

“He and I would agree about the rightful place of religion vis-a-vis the secular state. That is to say, we don’t impose our religious values on the secular state because God said so. Our faith informs our own values and then we take those values into the civil market place, the civil discourse, and then you argue for them based on the Constitution. You don’t say to someone, you must believe this because this is what God believes.

“I think God gives us our values and then we argue for those on the basis of the Constitution and care of our neighbour.”

The common refrain however is the irony of how a church which was historically picked on for being different, and a minority, is now picking on another minority for being different:

Mormons understand a little bit about getting picked on for being different.
Tales of Haun’s Mill, Reed Smoot and Mitt Romney fill Sunday School and Family Home Evening lessons. Years of violence and lampooning and soft bigotry drive The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ historical narrative. Persecution is in the psyche of the people.
But now the victims seem to have turned into the aggressors – and over, of all things, an alternative definition of marriage.
“This is a church that has been persecuted for its flavor of Christianity, for its past marriage practices, for its past religious practices. And here they are turning around and persecuting another group of people,” says Jay Redd, a gay lapsed-Mormon movie director whose San Francisco marriage ceremony was featured last week in Salon. “I feel like it’s very shortsighted, and it’s not a very Christian way of treating people.”

It is indeed hugely ironic that a sect which once championed an alternative to ‘traditional’ marriage is now attacking others exercising their constitutional (in California) rights to do just that. Others however argue that the LDS Church is being quite consistent in other respects:

“I don’t think the church ever compromised on its sense that marriage is the institution through which families are formed and people are saved,” says Sarah Barringer Gordon, a scholar of the law of church and state who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law.
Comparing polygamy to gay marriage, she says, “in many church members’ eyes is comparing apples and oranges. You can’t compare gay marriage to polygamy.”

The LDS Church though is hardly united in its anti-gay campaign:

Mormons, who make up just two per cent of California’s population, have raised nearly half of the $22.8 million collected in support of Proposition 8. Conversely thousands of their fellow church members have asked that their names be removed from church records so as not to be involved with an organisation that is perceived as being anti-gay.

There are so many issues in play it’s no wonder that the argument is now being fought between the gay community and Mormon Church on the streets. One minute the issue is religious – that because Mormons believe marriage is for procreation, same-sex marriage being amalgamated within the model of marriage used by heterosexuals is unacceptable. It’s not just narrow-mindedness about sexual orientation, it’s narrow-minded about the role of sex within marriage. But above all it’s a case of religion trying to influence secular civil society, to make government responsive to the church, which (a bit late) gay rights groups are now attacking in the numerous protests spiralling out against the LDS Church because of their bankrolling of Prop 8.

This was a general election fought on social change – the emergence of a black president is evidence of that. And it’s interesting to see a religious organisation at the tail end of social change suffering from having seemingly pushed too hard and one too many times against equal rights for minorities and social change. It feels very much like a Stonewall riots moment – the gay community has taken one substantial hit too many and society as a whole is rejecting it. While large scale demonstrations continue in California and increasingly throughout the United States against Prop 8, the case against it in the Californian Supreme Court continues, The Governator speaks out against it, as do a substantial number of state legislators. Arnie’s suspicion is that the state Supreme Court will simply strike Prop 8 down, or pass the responsibility for changing the constitution to the legislature, which will decline to do so. Let’s not just hope they do, but watch a malicious religious organisation tear itself apart because of what it tried to do. Keith Olbermann is right:

The Murder of Michael Causer

On July 25th Michael ‘Mikey’ Causer was attacked at a party and then had his head literally beaten in in the street outside. He suffered terrible head injuries merely for being gay and on August 2nd he died of them. Of course the mainstream media has barely noticed – after all it’s safe and easy being gay these days. We have gay marriage in all but name, we have gay equality legislation covering the provision of goods and services, gay adoption, in short near-full equality before the law, so this must just be an exception, right? Pride marches in London have become mere spectacles for straight tourists, and marketing opportunities rather than political statements that we are defiantly gay, reminding those who still hate us that we are everywhere, that we look like them, work with them and are related to them. Yet in a neighbourhood famous for the murder of Anthony Walker, also different from the local white, straight, working class norm, Mikey was 18 and gay, out and proud of it. Iris Robinson would have seen him as an abomination and offered him therapy, yet surely the only abominations here were homophobia and murder?

And where does such hatred come from? Well these people may offer a clue:

Lord Tebbit, a leading right winger in the 1980s who has been an outspoken opponent of equality, told the Daily Mail:

“Every statistic shows that children grow up more likely to do well in school, stay out of trouble, and have a happier life if they have both a male and female role model.

“Too often we look at these things from the point of view of the adult rather than the child. I think that adoption by homosexual couples is unsatisfactory for the child.

“What homosexual people choose to do under their duvets is up to them, but the example they set to children is of interest to society as a whole.”

Homophobe Norman Tebbit, once Margaret Thatcher’s right hand man, speaking perhaps with more coded hate, but still making it clear his belief that being gay is unacceptable and somehow (without showing how) dangerous for children to be exposed to. He’s wrong of course – every statistic and piece of research shows the exact opposite – that it’s the quality of the parenting, be it a heterosexual or gay couple or single person, which determines a child’s success. He may be as much a raving loon as ever, but (as he his acutely aware) he still speaks for many and legitimises their bigotry. Then there’s the Archbishop of Canterbury, resolutely punishing gay Christians for the homophobia of their fellows:

Rowan Williams said practices in certain US and Canadian dioceses were threatening the unity of the Anglican communion.

“If North American churches do not accept the need for a moratoria [on same sex blessings and the consecration of gay clergy] we are no further forward. We continue to be in grave peril,” he said.

Williams has tried to cover himself in recent days, by revealing that as an individual he remains extremely liberal, and indeed supportive of gay people and gay partnerships. Yet as Archbishop of Canterbury he’s now completely ignoring Bishop Gene Robinson and siding with gay haters like Archbishop Peter Akinola. Which position do you think sends out the louder message?

What about the Vatican?

Quoting from a key document on Anglican and Catholic relations he (Walter Cardinal Kasper) said: “Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. The activity must be condemned; the traditional approach to homosexuality is comprehensive … A clear declaration about this theme must come from the Anglican Communion.”

It’s accepted by the mainstream of society that homosexuality is not a disordered behaviour. Every major psychological organisation has accepted this for decades now, and although politics in the West is a more recent convert, most Western politicians (many increasingly gay themselves) now agree too and are including gay people under the banner of diversity and equality. Yet as Gene Robinson said the other week, it is the Church which remains most effective at determining hearts and minds, and the Vatican desperately wants all Christians to believe that being gay makes you not quite human. Well that belief has consequences.

Not all politicians are supporters of the diversity agenda however, and there remain exceptions who consider their religion trumps their secular commitment to equality. Iris Robinson, MP & MLP, keen ‘defender’ of the faith, is stidently keen to make sure that we know that gay people are worse than murderers and child abusers. She too may come across as a complete loon to most, but in her position of responsibility (after all she’s an elected representative) she’s also representing and legitimising the beliefs of a significant minority. She hasn’t been removed as chair of Stormont’s Health Committee and hasn’t been censured by her boss (and husband) Peter, a failure which sends out a message at least the equal of hers.

Anti-gay hate doesn’t come from nowhere – it’s transmitted. Outrage! and the Queer Youth Network issued a joint press release, offering perhaps a deeper analysis of the origins of the hate which killed Michael (and Anthony):

“Anthony Walker and Michael Causer and their families were not only victims of Racism and Homophobia, they had their lives destroyed by something that is ravaging every aspect of our society. Sadly the events in Huyton over the past few days is proof that young people from our poorest, most marginalised sections of society are the victims regardless of the cause. It’s also to remember that the perpetrators themselves along with their families.”

“I understand there a number of high profile campaigns such as Stonewall’s much publicised ‘Education for All’ that receive a great deal of public and private sector funding as well as income generated from delivering training to tackle the issue of homophobic bullying, but are they working?” their impact is still limited to a handful schools and tend to be dominated by London based organisations and politicians who have jumped on the Homophobic Bullying ‘Bandwagon’ for their own gain.” (Pauline Ellis) concluded.

“I would like to see Sir Ian McKellen other high profile campaigners who opened people’s eyes to intolerance in the past such as Michael Cashman, Angela Eagle and Lord Waheed Ali to reach out to working class communities and talk to young people in the street.” “In the 1990’s they bravely fought against the biggest concern facing LGBT Youth at the time – Section 28, a threat written on paper. People began to think twice about attacking us. Today’s threat is written very clearly, in blood. Fighting violence carried out in the name of homophobia is now a matter of life or death.”

Whilst it would be a mistake to say that murderous homophobia and racism only breed in poor and deprived communities, there’s no denying that the area itself has terrible social problems, of which the Walker and Causer killings are a symptom.

It’s also a question I’ve wondered for some time – can a political lobbying organisation, already hugely successful in changing the law, succeed in changing attitudes as well? Stonewall has come across at a distance and up close, as a middle class organisation, staffed by professional middle class people, without a huge incentive (or ability) to reach out across the social classes and races. It was why Ian McKellen’s appearances with Bishop Gene Robinson a few weeks ago came across as so important – each framed their respective roles in an overall strategy for changing laws and minds (it was notably Robinson who could change minds). Well they too have to put their money where their mouth is and turn this nascent alliance into something which can bring about results.

The police have now added:

“Michael and those charged with the offences against him and those currently on bail were known to each other and had been together in a house in Biglands Drive, Huyton during the course of Thursday evening and Friday morning.

“The initial assault upon Michael took place within this house.

“The incident was reported to police and ambulance at 11am on Friday 25 July 2008 when Michael was admitted to Whiston Hospital with serious head injuries.

“Contrary to speculation, I can confirm that this was not a random attack of a young gay man walking in Knowsley.”

While the minority rights organisations celebrate their marketing successes, whilst singly failing to change attitudes where it counts, and the Churches wring their hands about homosexuality in their own institutions, young people are being murdered. Apathy made Mikey Causer’s murder happen and I don’t see anyone lifting a finger to change it – politicians, Churches, lobbyists and community organisations need to start working together – the DNA database, CCTV, 42 days’ detention without charge, RIPA legislation and prohibitions on the ordination of out gay clergy are political smokescreens, while genuinely vulnerable people like Mikey get no real protection from the real threats at all.

Three men remain mystifyingly free on bail, in a country whose national media remains resolutely disinterested, and whose gay community remains unaware. Pauline Ellis reminds us all:

“It’s very easy for the increasingly comfortable and apathetic gay community to blame working class youths for this latest attack, but having partnership rights and a few extra equality laws is not an excuse to abandon the ongoing fight for gay liberation.”

Religious Homophobia – Emboldened!

First it was Lillian Ladele, now it’s Graham Cogman, a civil registrar, followed by a (surprise surprise) policeman, both of whom think that as Christians they have special rights which allow them to opt out of the flow of mainstream society, which is increasingly understanding towards diversity and respectful of equality. As my fellow blogger said the other day:

Beliefs are beliefs, they should be respected in as far as they don’t try to limit other people’s freedoms.

Yet policeman Graham Cogman, displaying no hint of irony in ‘coming out’ as a homophobic policeman, is following the same path as Lillian Ladele in trying to morally relativise homophobia within the diversity agenda, in arguing that as a Christian he doesn’t have to support the gay community:

The 49-year churchgoer, who circulated emails to officers quoting the biblical stance on homosexuality being a sin, claims he is being singled out because of his beliefs. The force has responded by saying it will not tolerate any “homophobic behaviour”.

Of course as a policeman you’d think he wouldn’t feel the need to justify his homophobia, yet he is claiming that as the Norfolk Police pursues its diversity agenda he is being ‘victimised’ because he believes gay sex is immoral. I know I’m not alone in getting quite sick to death of this, particularly hearing:

“The blatant support for homosexual rights in Norfolk Police makes being a Christian officer extremely difficult,” he said.

“I am not undertaking this action lightly but I have to make a stand when things become so blatantly biased against me just because I hold a faith.”

A Christian officer eh? No, you’re a police officer you idiot. You don’t get to pick and choose who you get to support and not support because of your religion, you have to serve and respect everyone equally. Of course it’s biased against you if you’re a homophobe because you don’t get to trample on other people’s rights because of your beliefs.

I’ll never in my life be a Christian, but can see full well that, particularly during this period of the Lambeth Conference, there has never been more of a need for Gene Robinson and people like him. These ideas of Cogman’s didn’t come out of the blue – he was taught the idea that gay people are less than straight people, and had it justified because of religion, when that religion preaches nothing of the sort. The Church, particularly because it is an established Church, really has to get its own house in order and start accepting that it can’t continue to preach discrimination and delude people like PC Cogman into an erroneous belief that they can withold equal treatment from the people they work for, not just because of magic and superstition, but because of outright homophobic lies. Homophobia is no less real when ‘justified’ by scripture and religion.

Of Demons and ‘Negative Foreign Cultures’

A war of prejudices is being played out at the Lambeth Conference, or more precisely through the absence of key bishops, ostensibly on the grounds of homophobia. That they dress it up as justified under a ‘post-colonial settlement’ doesn’t make it any less bigoted or unjustified, and the thing is most of them are African. Ian Baxter, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, after his visit to the breakaway Gafcon in June wrote:

“One of the things in “The Way, the Truth and the Life,” one of the key points that you’ve written is to “prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centred” But the gospel is already compromised by bishops who support the jailing of lesbian and gay people throughout Africa, which then leads to rape, which leads to torture of people and yet they are not prepared to speak out against this and change the laws in their countries.”

Archbishop Akinola chose to respond, informing the world that he did not know of any such cases.

I asked again, was he really not aware of any who were in jail for being lesbian or gay?

He said he was not, and challenged me to give him an example.

This, I am sure, is where God intervened with one of his divine “coincidences”. My church in Manchester, the Metropolitan Community Church, has begun a campaign on behalf of Prossy Kakooza, a 26-year-old woman seeking asylum in the UK. She fled Uganda after suffering vicious sexual, physical and verbal attacks due to her sexual orientation. I had brought copies of the information about the case, with the hope of being able to distribute them to members of the media covering the conference. While answering Peter Akinola’s challenge to give him an example, I was able to reach down and pull the information out of the laptop bag at my feet and give the example requested.

The Archbishop then spoke at length about African culture and beliefs, and this was echoed by Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda. Neither of them chose to condemn the violence or comment on the particular case of Ms Kakooza.

Further questions followed but, just before the end, Riazat Butt of the Guardian asked a follow-up to my original question. Would the Archbishops condemn the torture and rape of Lesbian and Gay people? Again they would not.

Really telling, isn’t it? These are supposed to be spiritual men, who love their neighbour as themselves. And yet the conditionality that’s there undermines their entire calling. This isn’t a surprise when people like the Ugandan President ‘reject’ homosexuality:

The Ugandan President has spoken of his country’s “rejection” of homosexuality during a speech he gave at the wedding of a former MP’s daughter.

Yoweri Museveni said the purpose of life was to create children and that homosexuality was a “negative foreign culture.”

Right, so it’s because of those nasty old colonialists or it’s even our own imagination – it isn’t freely occurring in Africa. I remember the other night listening to Bishop Gene Robinson, who couldn’t understand how people could refuse to use their intellects to make reasonable interpretations of the Bible. The answer of course with people like Museveni is that there’s money and power in it – there always has been when people have played to people’s ignorance and fear throughout history. The film also showed just how 20th century a phenomenon it was to have individuals who were prepared to make all-time judgments and definitions of the Bible, life and existence, when it had previously been and is increasingly now seen as a text which should be interpreted in an evolutionary way as society develops – we don’t exactly go around stoning adulterers to death do we?

The Right Rev John Chane of Washington has spoken out against this too:

“I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'” he said “It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.

He’s right. The people doing this are a blight on their religion, as Iris Robinson is to whatever sect she adheres to. The remainder of the article is telling, because it suggests that, as with Iris Robinson’s and Lillian Ladele’s cases, the mainstream of all societies and their Church leaders, don’t necessarily go along with this naked bigotry. I don’t think Gene Robinson is right in wanting bigots like Peter Akinola at the same table as him – sometimes bigotry is chosen rather than through ignorance – but I’m not as giving and charitable a man as he. And the irony that neither of them is at the Lambeth Conference isn’t lost on me either. Simon Jenkins has a great point:

It might be simplest to conclude that these are the last twitches of the British empire. The mind and the body may be long dead, but the soul has taken some time to catch up. It must be absurd to expect 70 million worshippers worldwide to accept the “discipline and leadership” of an archbishop selected by just 1 million in distant England – especially when each of 38 archbishoprics are referred to as “self-governing”.

Equally absurd is to expect the cultures and belief systems of Polynesians, Chinese, Africans and Americans to harmonise with the fast changing social mores of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant diaspora. How can African bishops commune with gay American ones, whom they regard as in mortal sin?

How can they indeed? Perhaps the Church, particularly in the days where the market determines everything, really does need to fracture and concentrate on what it’s good at, within competing markets for spirituality. Except if it did, Gene Robinson’s ambition for the Church to be a means of changing hearts and minds – to become a tool for human rights, would then be lost. Someone needs to exert some leadership, and find a compromise which can get the Gene Robinsons and Peter Akinolas at least to the same table, to avoid an unprecedented lost opportunity:

The Church of England is confounded by an absurd argument over gender and sexual discrimination, albeit often as code for a growing challenge to the authority of what is seen abroad as a still imperial church. A looser confederation of churches, a commonwealth of faith, ought to be good news.

For the Bible Tells Me So

On Monday I went to the Queen Elizabeth Hall to attend the British premiere of ‘For the Bible Tells Me So’, a film detailing the painful relationship in the US between Christianity and homosexuality, which was followed by a question and answer session with the man who was the main focus of the film – Bishop Gene Robinson. Robinson was for some of the time interviewed by Sir Ian McKellen, co-founder of Stonewall, and it was a remarkable experience, being in the presence of two men who have transformed society around them. Whilst it was fascinating listening to Robinson on his own, having McKellen as a counter-point made it particularly inspiring. Witnessing their joint claim that society could only progress through their joint work – the atheist McKellen lobbying to change laws, directly affecting civil rights, with the religious Robinson working to change hearts and minds, felt like a sea-change in social campaigning was occurring in front of me. It’s a position you never hear organised religion or the non-religious taking – that both sides working together should be fundamentally essential for social change to work. Robinson had a lot more to say (the supporting quotes are from this Guardian article), which that night and in other interviews throughout his stay pretty much concentrated on using the Church as a tool for human rights. Given much of the Church’s current obsession with exclusion, intrusion where it isn’t needed, and its lack of attention to crime and inequality of opportunity in this country, that argument couldn’t have been more timely.

It was time to take back the Bible, he said, from those who used it as a weapon with which to bludgeon the most vulnerable in society.

And now, by the leading of that same Spirit, we are beginning to welcome those who have heretofore been marginalised or excluded altogether: people of colour, women, the physically challenged, and God’s children who happen to be gay.

God and the Church were not the same thing, he reminded us – as humans we get it wrong. He also didn’t think we’d see the day when homophobia was eradicated. He was ultimately comfortable with that however, because (as he put it) those who followed on from us would need our shoulders to stand on for their battles. He was going to Canterbury to remind the Lambeth Conference that ‘we’re here too’, and to remind them of their vows to serve all of their flock and not just some of them.

He thought it crazy that an established Church should be allowed to discriminate in any way at all. That it could meant we should ‘separate civil rights from religious rites’ – ie. distinguish the civil from the religious sphere. In the case of marriage, he advocated its restoration as a universal civil right, which could then be celebrated and blessed within and by the religious community, and not be identified as a religious institution which could then (in this country) be discriminated against (yes, they were in part talking about Lillian Ladele). When the religious people who reject us see that civil rights don’t mean the end of the world, he believed they would likely then follow an extension of the equality agenda of civil rights within their own, religious community.

If the African communion didn’t remain part of the worldwide Anglican communion, we wouldn’t be able to see the consequences of colonialism, racism and Bush’s adventurism. The world needed a model like that, he maintained, particularly with the world getting smaller, and the Anglican communion could offer this model. He wanted opponents like Archbishop Peter Akinola to stay within the Anglican communion for that reason, but also because they were both part of the same Church, Robinson would present for Akinola (and homophobes like him) the possibility by example of changing his worldview. (following quote from the video – transcript here)

We need each other. We need the voices from Africa and Asia and South America to tell those of us in the so called first world the ramifications of our racism, our colonialism and so on. We need each other really for our mutual salvation.

In describing what for him is an interactive God whom he worships, he wanted to make it clear to the audience that he understood Christianity to be something not uniquely locked up in a one-time, immovable, exclusive book of scripture, and used an example from the Bible to illustrate his point. In John’s Gospel Jesus said there was more to learn, but the people of the time couldn’t handle it (as opposed to now).

Jesus says a remarkable thing to his disciples at his last supper with them: “There is more that I would teach you, but you cannot bear it right now. So I will send the Holy Spirit who will lead you into all truth.” Could it be that God revealed in Jesus Christ everything possible in a first-century Palestine setting to a ragtag band of fishermen and working men? Could it have been God’s plan all along to reveal more and more of himself and his will as the church grew and matured?

We have intellects, and should use them to make reasonable interpretations (about the Bible), he maintained.

This is the God I know in my life – who loves me, interacts with me, teaches and summons me closer and closer to God’s truth. This God is alive and well and active in the church – not locked up in scripture 2,000 years ago, having said everything that needed to be said, but rather still interacting with us, calling us to love one another as he loves us. It is the brilliance of Anglicanism that we first and foremost read scripture, and then interpret it in light of church tradition and human reason.

It was possible, he believed, to reach people in the ‘moveable middle’ – those who weren’t rejecting of gay people but who weren’t fully accepting, and this pretty much summarised why he’s here. The Anglican Church is fracturing because traditionalists can’t abide the inclusion of women and out gay people, and modernists similarly won’t concede to the rigidity of traditionalists. Just the other day the General Synod backed the appointment of female bishops, flying in the face of traditionalists such as the aforementioned Akinola and their Gafcon. The position towards Robinson however remains acrimonious on both sides. He was barred from the Lambeth Conference, and he says:

“I think a mistake was made in not including me in those conversations. I was the only openly gay voice that might have been at the table. But I will do all I can from the fringe. Miracles happen when people who are divided by something get to know one another.”

McKellen though went deeper:

Just looking at it from the outside, the church thinks it’s got a particular problem with some articles, perhaps not of faith but of, written in the Bible that they refer to. And I can remember the armed forces not that long ago saying they had a particular problem – it was all to do with discipline. Well it’s just been discovered there is no discipline problems when you let gay people into the military. And schools too. Well we’ve got a particular problem.The particular problem they’ve all got and share is homophobia. And having it they root around in the Bible to discover the very few passages that seem to be relevant. But people like the Bishop, like the Quakers, like many people I marched with in Gay Pride last week, gay Christians, gay Jews, gay Muslims are at ease with their faith and their position in society.

Both of them really are looking at the identical issue from completely different angles. It’ll be fascinating to see what happens to them next, both singly and together. I must confess that when Ian said he was so moved by Robinson that he’d nearly converted him to Christianity there and then, I shared a similar feeling. Gene Robinson is an unquestionably great man; at a time when Chuch attendance is at an all time low, Lambeth Palace risks damaging itself yet further by excluding him.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “For the Bible Tells Me So“, posted with vodpod

Gay Rights are Human Rights

Two nights ago Stonewall co-founder Sir Ian McKellen gave a speech at the organisation’s annual Equality Dinner, highlighting where gay rights in the UK have come from and where they’re headed. You can read the body of the speech via the link, but this for me was the crux of what we need to look at:

But what about social equality? Don’t they have it? Isn’t it established?

Well no, it isn’t, he’s right. It’s not just the abuse still meted out by DJs, or even the religious zealots. I don’t think that Jodi Dobrowski was murdered because of them, nor did David Copeland bomb the Admiral Duncan simply because he might have been bullied at school. It’s the inbuilt presumptions in society which persist through progressive legal changes like civil partnerships, because they’re subtle. It’s the nasty homophobic presumptions which persist in the Metropolitan Police, because the current Mayor thinks they’re worth trading off in favour of easier goals like higher police numbers, or because ‘maintaining security’ is more important than treating people with basic decency. If you don’t challenge it you legitimise it. Rowan Williams legitimises the African Anglicans’ attack on Gene Robinson and gay rights worldwide despite the example of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, because he fears being the Archbishop of Canterbury who led the Church to schism. Rights issues are always enmeshed in other issues – that’s what makes human rights accountability so very difficult, but a line has to be drawn; laws are not enough.

And Stonewall isn’t the organisation which has to lead this fight, as was thought in the 90s, with the professionalisation of protest. They may be the continent’s foremost gay rights lobbying organisation, but Mehdi Kazemi would have been off their radar had he been deported. His current future seems likely to be assured by the intervention of campaigning individuals like Peter Tatchell, internet campaigners and oddly the press, whose storms of protest have together for the moment backed Home Secretary Jacqui Smith into a corner.

To get gay rights in immigration and asylum in practice to basic legislative norms, to address basic rights for gay people destroyed by the judicial and penal systems, to get gay visibility on the football pitch as accepted as it now is on television, it’s down to all of us. Stonewall can change laws, but a lobbying group is far less adept at changing attitudes. The politicians don’t have it on their agenda, the right wing media have a bias against it, and people’s lives are still being destroyed not because gay rights aren’t being addressed, but because we’re not looking at them through the prism of human rights yet. Address the flagrant breaches in human rights which Britain’s institutions, public services and government regularly flaunt, and you see the real future for gay rights.