What is in Kelvin's Head?

Parliamentary Victory and Interview on Scotland Tonight

21/11/2013
I was glued to my computer last night watching the debate from the Scottish Parliament on introducing the legislation that will one day soon, allow same-sex couples to get married.

It is difficult to describe what it was like watching it. In touch with others on twitter, I was aware of a certain amount of nervousness from some of those who have been campaigning on this. It isn’t surprising – a lot of work has gone into this. However, it was not just parliamentary process that was affecting me last night. It was the sight of one politician after another standing up and speaking positively about gay couples they know, changes in society that have made life easier for gay people or in some cases talking about themselves as gay parliamentarians. It is difficult for me to convey what this feels like to straight people. When I was growing up you simply saw no-one say anything positive about something that is pretty fundamental to who you are. Indeed, you either got negative messages or a corrupting silence which you somehow knew you were supposed to keep.

Times have changed and that is why evenings like last night mean so much and in the end it was a decisive victory in the Parliament – 98 votes to 15 with five abstentions.

Later on in the evening I was asked to go on Scotland Tonight on STV. It was a very enjoyable interview.

Here’s some of the things I said:
- Watching my twitter and facebook feeds light up when the vote came through was like watching the lights on a Christmas tree all light up.
- This was a sophisticated and respectful debate and was the Parliament working well.
- I don’t agree with issues like this being dealt with as a free vote but it was not a night for reservations but for celebrations.
- The debate brought out the fact that support for same-sex couples being treated like everyone else extends into the churches. Increasingly people want equality for same-sex couples.
- This is one of the fastest social changes that there has ever been. It is happening and it is happening now.
- We don’t want any more “safeguards” in the bill – they are largely unnecessary anyway.
- The Parliament has ensured that the country can go forward together. No-one is forced to do anything.
- There’s still more to do around education, language (see the new Stonewall “Gay – let’s get the meaning straight” campaign) and support.
- This is an amazing stepping stone towards equality.
LGBT, same-sex, Scotland Tonight, scottish parliament

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

ryan

11/10/2010

Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  11/10/2010
  
  No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.
  
  Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

Reply
ryan

11/10/2010

No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

Reply
Peter

12/10/2010

Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

Reply
Simon

29/10/2010

I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

Reply
Melissa

15/11/2013

About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Reply