What is in Kelvin's Head?

From Criminality to Equality

06/02/2013

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.

â€œSeparate but equalâ€ is a fraud.

â€œSeparate but equalâ€ is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

â€œSeparate but equalâ€ 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.

â€œSeparate but equalâ€ are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers â€“ 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 â€“ 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 â€œno blacks, no Irish, no dogsâ€.

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

This was not â€œSeparate but equalâ€ but â€œSeparate AND discriminatedâ€,

â€œSeparate AND oppressedâ€.

â€œSeparate AND browbeatenâ€.

â€œSeparate AND subjugatedâ€.

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.

David Lammy, equal marriage, LGBT, parliament

8 responses to “Synod – membership”

Stewart

13/06/2008

Kelvin – you are very modest in not describing your contribution to this debate – I guess it was in your usual style.

Reply
David |dä?v?d|

13/06/2008

Kelvin, I have lurked and read here for some time. I am curious about happenings in sister Anglican churches. I live in the Diocese of Northern Mexico of the Anglican Church of Mexico. American English is a second language for me.

It is difficult for me to follow much of what is written here for two reasons. You all speak a cryptic or clipped form of English at times, even different from what I encounter from the Mad One. You also use a lot of jargon and acronyms associated with the Scottish Church.

This is all OK if you intend your blog to be mostly catering to fellow Scots. However, if you are open to a blog with more international following you all might keep my points in mind when writing.

Reply
David |daveed|

13/06/2008

I usually try to give the Spanish pronunciation of my name, as opposed to the English, but you blog does not like the augmented letters!

Perdoname.

Reply
chris

13/06/2008

Glad to see you got your connection going again – I’m impressed with your speedy blogging!

Reply
agatha

14/06/2008

But what was the motion though? You can’t say it failed without telling us what it was.

Reply
Kelvin

14/06/2008

The agenda and papers are available here:
http://www.scotland.anglican.org/index.php/news/entry/general_synod_2008_agenda_and_papers/

These have all the motions and the preparatory materials.

Thanks for your comment, David – I’d be happy to try to explain any technical terms. Synod is quite confusing enough when English is your first language.

If you take a look at the papers that I pointed to above, you will see that the synod members all have a large book in front of them.

The motion which failed would have updated the way in which membership rolls are compiled to allow people to know whether or not they are on them. At the moment, membership rolls are compiled by rectors who do not need to tell people that they are included on the roll even though they may have liabilities thereby.

Reply
agatha

14/06/2008

As one of my bosses used to say “all aid short of actual help”.
If you can be bothered summarising what all the speakers say why couldn’t you take another couple of minutes and summarise the motion?

Reply
Kimberly

15/06/2008

Perhaps what hasn’t been clear to readers who have come upon this post from further afield is that Kelvin was blogging the buisiness of synod in real time. That is only possible in short hand — and therefore probably of most use to those who are unable to be at synod, but broadly aware of the debates going on in the church.

So, perhaps we can let him off the hook for not being all things for all people while blogging from Synod, and be thankful for the wider pattern of good communication that we usually see here.

Reply