Do I Support Ex-Gay Therapy? I Think I Do But Widdecombe's Still Wrong.

Feels like Twitter storm is brewing over Ann Widdecombe's latest comments on homosexuality. In the Express (better bedfellows you could not find!) she has voiced support for allowing "unhappy gays" to seek ex-gay therapy following the Patrick Strudwick's (one of my least favourite left-wingers) entrapment of a therapist offering this service upon request.

You know what? I agree with her.

First a few provisos:

1) I don't think ex-gay therapy works.
2) I think it can be very damaging especially to the self-esteem of young LGB people  (as can it's anti-trans equivalent)
3) I can't for the life of me understand why a grown adult would have a problem with being gay but that's my own bias I suppose.
4) No one should be forced to attend ex-gay therapy by anyone else (I'm looking at you parental types out there).

But... if someone is desperately unhappy being gay and believes ex-gay therapy will help them, who are we to stop them doing so of their own freewill? So there you go, case closed. Etc.

Except... where Widdecombe's argument stumbles is on the example she has used. For if one wishes to be accredited by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, then one should follow their requirements for that accreditation. Lesley Pilkington failed to do this, and thus hasn't really got a defense. There's nothing actually stopping ex-gay therapists operating nor stopping "unhappy gays" seek therapy.

So what was Ann Widdecombe's point again? Oh yes, we're all picking on Christians and not Muslims and that is simply not fair!

It's nice to know she never changes. Good ol' Ann, mad as a hatter as always.

 
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Common Ground With Archbishop Sentamu?

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

“We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.

“It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You’re completely changing tradition.”

So said Archbishop Sentamu in the Daily Telegraph this week.

I find his Armed Forces comments rather bizarre, and the general tone of his discussion fairly obviously comes from a position of hatred. But then again this is a man who believe in virgin births and men who walk on water, so I think it's important we don't judge him too harshly.

I think it's important we start building bridges with our opponents. We are NEVER going to convince people who believe in the stories from one of the earliest known examples of fantasy fiction that same-sex relationships are benign, let alone that they are acceptable. Yes, my phrasing may be offensive to some believers, but it's time to start talking frankly. They think my love for a man is a sin. I think their belief in the reality of fictional characters is silly. If we can be honest, we can move forward.

Dr Sentamu argues that the state should not define marriage. I absolutely agree. If the state was not already defining marriage I wouldn't even be campaigning for marriage equality. Take the example of Mormon polygamy (a current favourite topic of mine). Most practioners don't want their relationships recognised by the Government. They just want to stop being criminalised. I find that position very principled and practical.

Before civil partnerships blessing ceremonies were very common in same-sex relationships. But that hardly seems acceptable in a world where marriage affects practicalities such as taxation, benefits, immigration, child custody, possessions etc. Hence the battle for civil partnerships and now marriage equality.

So if the Government were to back off from defining marriage and offering these protections, then the cries for marriage equality would disappear. Problem solved. We all go away happy.

And I agree with his implication that the state shouldn't dictate to churches who they can and can't legally marry. If it left those arrangements up the church and the individual, so that churches who want to marry same-sex couples can and those same-sex couples can contract with each other to cover certain eventualities then again there would be no problems.

But none of this is the case and, until people like Dr. Sentamu stop supporting the status quo rather than offering alternatives for reform, won't be for the foreseeable future. If Dr. Sentamu wants to fight the powers of the state over the individual I'll be there right by his side, but his blinkered version where the state supports his preferred type of relationship over another makes a mockery of his argument. "The Government should not dictate anything unless Dr Sentamu agrees with it" is not a very convincing position. So I must instead fight with those demanding at least equal treatment from the state their taxes fund.

Marriage equality or marriage reform. That's all we ask.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Tories and their Nasty Brigade #legalizegaymarriage

The Tories have a problem. They have made leaps and bounds in the last few years on the LGBT rights front. Here we have a Coalition consisting primarily of Tories liberalising the blood ban and supporting marriage equality. We need to give them some props for that. Excellent work. But fundamentally, at the very heart of the party in Parliament, there are still the hardcore right-wingers.

A coalition of evangelicals, Catholics and grumpy old people, these right-wingers have not gone away and their hatred of LGBT freedom is clear to see even when they are so desperate to hide it, as they did over the recent attempts to undermine religious civil partnerships.

All parties in this country consist of a wide coalition of groups, some with totally different ideas of what direction the party should go in. But it's only in the Tories that the loony fringe common to all parties seems to have really maintained it's grip in Parliament. That's because until the late nineties, that fringe WAS the Tory party.

The latest shenanigans, led by David Burrowes, to rebel against the civil marriage equality legislation which is on the cards show that whilst this fringe doesn't have the power to defeat this legislation (thanks to the liberal Tories, the Lib Dems and the saner members of the Labour party giving it a good chance of success) they still have the power to give voice to the homophobia that is common among certain classes of people.

And that's why I could never, ever bring myself to vote for the Tories. They cannot pretend this fringe doesn't represent a sizeable component of their supporters. They may have tamed their crazy urges, but it'll only take a bad election defeat of the liberal leadership under Cameron for them to regain command again. 

We must be sure to keep pressing the reasonable members of Parliament to support marriage equality (both civil and religious) to ensure they take the matter seriously enough to keep it on course. The risk of a derailment is small but these guys aren't going to miss the vote and we need to make sure our side don't either!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

How To Lose A Referendum Part 1

David Cameron and the British Government have been playing silly-buggers with our Union and it's pissing me off. We all knew, after the election victory of the SNP last year, that a referendum on Scottish independence was inevitable in the next few years. And if you're a grumpy old unionist like me, then you've known it was on the cards ever since Labour's poorly thought out devolution (I favour a clearer, federal structure). Given this, I think it's a little thoughtless for the British Government to turn around and tell the Scottish Government when and how they can hold this referendum.

In a statement to MPs, Mr Moore said the government's "clear view" was that the power to hold a referendum was "reserved" to Westminster under devolution laws passed in 1998 and that the Scottish government could not authorise a referendum on its own.

Do they have any idea on how that comes across? It might be the legal situation left thanks to Labour's rubbish future planning, but that sounds like just the sort of soundbite that plays straight into slippery Salmond's hands. We need to show the Scottish people why they should vote to stay in the Union not give them good reasons to resent interference from Westminster!

And lest you think this is a Coalition foul up, Labour appear to adopt the same sort of attitude. Here's what you do, accept the Scottish Government's date, make sure the question asked is clear and fair and then fight like mad to show all the benefits of being together rather than living on this island apart from each other. Is it really that hard?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Daily Mail's Disingenuous Spin On Marriage Equality

There was some late, but good, news last night on the current religious freedom question regarding religious civil partnerships. 

Further to attempts in the Lords, and then in the Commons, to overturn the new religious civil partnership regulations the Church of England made an announcement. The premise of the criticism of their Lordships to the proposals was the possibility that provisions in the Equality Act might force all organisations carrying out marriages to also carry out civil partnerships regardless of whether they wish to or not. 

Groups including the Christian Institute, CARE and the Evangelical Alliance have made submissions to the Committee which suggest organisations will be required to register under a broader obligation on public authorities to eliminate discrimination, despite a specific provision in the regulations and the Equality Act 2010 designed to prevent this. 

The Committee published an opinion given by Mark Hill QC, an honorary professor at the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University, which said the new regulations may fail in their aim to avoid obligation by not providing protection from the “all-pervading public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010″.

However lawyers working on behalf of the Church of England last night stated that this was not a concern and based on this advice have today said they will not be sanctioning religious civil partnerships in any of their churches. (Whilst also giving a nod to fact civil partnerships and marriages AREN'T the same thing, thanks CoE!)

An analysis distributed by the Church says because civil partnerships and marriages are separate legal concepts, it is “clear” the Equality Act 2010 cannot be invoked to force a religious institution to perform both. 

The Church says: “A gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes. A children’s book shop is not required to stock books that are intended for adults. 

“And a Church that provides a facility to marry is not required to provide a facility to same-sex couples for registering civil partnerships.”

This should take the wind out of the sails of the Westminister politicians trying to derail the civil partnership regulations by foul means. 

However it bodes ill for the prospects for religious marriage equality in the future. The Equality Act could be used to force unwilling ministers to perform same-sex marriage if religious marriage equality ever came into being. This is a very serious matter and obviously clearly puts a hurdle in the way of future reform unless the Equality Act can be reformed to protect religious freedom whilst ensuring liberty for religious organisations wanting to perform such marriages. 

And this is where we come to the Daily Mail's rather disingenuous spin on the news. Let's get one thing straight; the upcoming consultation on marriage equality is not about whether religious marriage equality should be brought in. Nor is it about whether civil marriage equality should be brought it. It's rather pathetic remit is simply to discuss how CIVIL marriage equality should be implemented. 

The Daily Mail choose to state, based on a small note about the dangers of marriage equality overriding religious freedom by the Church of England's lawyers,  

"Church 'may have to offer gay weddings' if Cameron's plans given go-ahead"  

David Cameron and his Coalition Government currently have no plans whatsoever regarding religious marriage equality.  This claim by the Daily Mail, based on quite understandable concerns regarding religious freedom, is nothing but a lie. Not a misunderstanding, but a lie. And it's all done to scaremonger among the religious thus harming the chances of constructive debate between religious organisations and LGBT campaigners in the hopes of ensuring neither must give up their liberties for the other.

I'm not going to say there aren't LGBT campaigners out there looking to force churches to marry them. There are. There's even a Tory MP who thinks the same! But that's not the majority opinion and even we are to regard religions as private clubs I've no problem defending their right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. The rhetoric on this from the right wing MPs, Lords and anti-marriage campaigners is not helping defend religious freedom but serving only to stop some much needed discussion on these important matters.
 
Poor show from the Daily Mail. As always.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Two Front Attack On Equal Partnership Rights Continues

In Scotland we have the announcement from the Church of Scotland (although almost certainly not "official" given the lack of oversight from their conference) that they will oppose marriage equality. Hardly a surprise, but another sign of the faithful joining forces to oppose religious freedom for other churches and individual freedom.

Below we have a video of Wednesday's Scotland for Marriage rally, featuring some bizarre arguments against marriage equality. It seemed almost to be just a lot of talking for talking's sake.

There are claims in the video that marriage equality will be destructive by putting off opposite-sex couples from marrying or making those already married feel sullied. To be frank, if your marriage is reliant on the "wholesomeness" of other's marriages then you may as well get divorced now. If your marriage doesn't stand on it's own merits, it doesn't stand at all!

It's a long set of hateful, intolerant ranting without logic or sense. At around 12 minutes we get the polygamy argument again! BINGO!

 

South of the border at Westminster, further to this month's action in the Lords, Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough has put forward an Early Day Motion with the same aim of scuppering religious civil partnerships. Yet again I must ask: if your aim is to protect those who don't wish to carry out such civil partnerships then why not put forward an amendment to the Equality Act rather than to try and scupper religious civil partnerships in general? No this is another wrecking motion put forward dishonestly by those who do not have the courage of their convictions to proclaim their homophobia (and hatred of civil partnerships in general) out loud. Cowards as well as homophones. There is a surprise. Here's the list of the usual suspects supporting the EDM so far.

Bone, Peter Conservative Party

Brazier, Julian Conservative Party 

Bruce, Fiona Conservative Party

Dorries, Nadine Conservative Party

Jackson, Stewart Conservative Party

Leigh, Edward Conservative Party 

Pritchard, Mark Conservative Party 

Robertson, Laurence Conservative Party

Turner, Andrew Conservative Party

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day. Take a minute of your day today just to think about whether you partake in any risky behaviours that might lead you into contact with HIV/AIDS and think about how you can protect yourself and others.

AIDS is not unstoppable. It just requires effort to erradicate it. We can live in an AIDS free world if we want to. 


For information on World AIDS Day, HIV/AIDS in general or on ways you can help, check out the Terrance Higgins Trust.

 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist