What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • From Criminality to Equality

    I think this is one of the moments in the debates on marriage where there’s more wisdom to be heard in one speech made well than in acres of newsprint trying to analyse the vote in the House of Commons last night.

    Here’s David Lammy giving it his all.

    Let me speak frankly.

    “Separate but equal” is a fraud.

    “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

    “Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

    “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

    It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

    It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

    It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

    It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

    This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

    “Separate AND oppressed”.

    “Separate AND browbeaten”.

    “Separate AND subjugated”.

    Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

    Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

    As long as our statute books suggest that the love between two men or two women is unworthy of being recognised through marriage, we allow the rot of homophobia to fester.

    And then again at the end:

    The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for people of religious convictions to stand up for this bill.

    There’s a longer version of the speech (which he would have given if he had been given more time) on his website.

    , , ,

4 responses to “Book Review”

  1. Peter O Avatar
    Peter O

    I think you miss the point of the book Kelvin. It’s meant to be a guide to listening to *all* sides of the debate, not just those you agree with. That’s what makes the last section so good, because it forces us to deal realistically not just with the genuine evidence on the causality of homosexuality, but also the fact that some people *do* see remarkable change in their sexual orientation (and that others don’t).

    I wrote my own review here.

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

    Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

    Reply
  4. Rosemary Avatar
    Rosemary

    I’ve now read the ‘scientific’ section – thanks for the link ryan – and I thought it was mixed. I thought Glynn Harrison made a serious attempt at dispassion. I think it is a fair point that any person must decide their own priorities, and the final argument must be between theologies, not sciences. I was not so impressed by David de Pomerai – though one could hardly quarrel with his conclusion that we simply do not know exactly what makes one person homosexual and the next heterosexual. However his whole argument was bedevilled by assumptions that, e.g. homosexual men will be more effeminate than straight ones. Anecdotal evidence instantly produces examples where it is the straight male siblings who are drama queens and run from spiders, while gay ones take it all in their stride.

    It must be accepted that both gay and straight people live with voluntary or enforced celibacy with no ill effects – and that some people can change their sexual orientation and live happily with the change. What I found truly heart rending were the desperate attempts and the high cost to those who actually did succeed in changing orientation – however much Harrison denies the skin colour analogy, it reminded me painfully of those endless jars of skin lightener which encrust Sri Lankan chemists, where beauty is measured in skin tone. Because whether or not genetic, orientation is not a simple free choice. But I suppose the answer would be: ‘And what is?’

    The final point, though, is always the same. Is Christianity a religion of an authoritative book, or an authoritative Person?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • What I've been reading

    Just finished The Line of Beauty, Alan Hollinghurst's Booker winner. He does have a capacity to capture with such wistful longing, situations which seem so unattractive in the cold light of day. The mark of a true stylist, I suppose.Well, that having been completed over the last couple of days, I guess that I had better turn…

  • Singing Detective

    I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the rerun of the Singing Detective on BBC4 this week. I’ve never seen it before – either I didn’t have a television when it was first on or I was not interested then. Last 2 episodes tonight.

  • E-mail outage

    If I don’t seem to be responding to e-mail stimulus, it is because my ISP is having trouble delivering them to me.

  • Midnight Mass

    Midnight Mass tonight at 2315. Mulled wine. Carols. Choir. Candlelight. Communion at midnight. All the works. All welcome.