• It’s Time to End Tax Breaks for Anti-Gay Charities – including churches

    There is no underestimating the difference that a change in the law can make to people who happen to be gay or lesbian. Civil Partnerships gave a level of legal protection that changed people’s lives forever. Equal marriage extended that protection by giving people the chance of being able to be regarded as equally fit to enter the institution of marriage. It was about more than rights – it was about dignity too.

    However, notwithstanding the great gains that have been made in recent years, the journey is not over. We have established that people of goodwill are prepared to champion gay rights whether or not they happen to be gay themselves. The time has come to begin working on the next step on the journey.

    We must be eager to ensure that children receive age appropriate sex education that is inclusive of LGBT identities. We must be sure that governments pursue foreign policy that is works towards extending the rights that LGBT people in the UK possess to those in other countries. But we must not rest there. There are still real things that need to be done in the UK where a change in the law can make a material difference to gay lives.

    Today I propose a new change that is worth campaigning for – it’s time to campaign for the government to remove the charitable status of any organisation that campaigns against gay people. It is a simple change to the law but an important one.

    There are still many organisations that take an anti-gay position in public. Very many of them get tax-breaks through the Gift Aid system by becoming charities. It’s time to end tax-breaks for those who work to limit gay rights.

    Will this ever come about?

    When I first started campaigning on reforming marriage law to include lesbian and gay people, most of the people I spoke to, including many who ultimately became core activists simply didn’t believe that it was worth the time of day as it would never happen. The change I’m proposing today is much easier to enact.

    Why should there be effective government sponsorship of homophobic organisations?

    Why should any UK tax-payers have to live with so-called charitable organisations campaigning against them?

    Charities which tried to campaign against people because of their race would soon have their charitable status removed. Why not those who campaign against gay people?

    The time has come. Time for change. It’s time to remove the charitable status if any organisation campaigning against LGBT people.

    Q and A
    Would this mean curtailing freedom of speech?
    No – organisations and individuals would be free to say whatever they liked within the law. A charity simply could not receive Gift Aid support in any given year if it were to campaign against LGBT people during that year.

    Isn’t this persecution of Christians?

    No – this change is proposed by a Christian priest and would apply to all charities.

    Would church congregations lose their charitable status?

    There’s no reason for church congregations to lose their charitable status so long as they don’t campaign against the rights of LGBT people. As there is strong and increasing support for LGBT people in the pews (if not amongst Christian leaders) this is something that many Christians will campaign for. Some denominations might prefer to be free to forego their charitable status in order to continue anti-gay campaigns. Others will not.

    What about the Muslims/Catholics/Evangelicals?
    This policy would apply across the board to all charities.

    How can this be brought about?

    Engagement with activist organisations, within charities and with those seeking election.

    Isn’t charity law devolved – why would it be appropriate for people in Scotland to bring this up during a Westminster election?

    Some charities registered in England campaign against gay rights in Scotland (eg the Mothers’ Union). This is an issue facing both the UK as a whole as well as Scotland.

    Would this cost tax-payers money?
    No – just the opposite. Money that formerly had been given to anti-gay organisations would hitherto be available to the government to spend on the common good.

    Further questions and comments welcome.

5 responses to ““Issues” is no more”

  1. Cedric Avatar
    Cedric

    Oh I well remember the day ‘Issues’ landed with a loud thud through the letter box. I had been ordained for over 10 years by then. And I reeled in reading it.
    Before then the general culture of conversation about sexuality in the Church was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. And most bishops acknowledged that among their most able and effective clergy many were gay men, some in relationships, and often deployable in parishes where others would not contemplate living and working.
    But remember the context. This was also a period when AIDS was an international emergency and in Britain the Thatcher government sought to outlaw the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality through section 28 of the Local Government Act. And for sure, ‘Issues’ was a direct consequence of the passing of the amended Tony Higton General Synod private members’ motion declaring all ‘homosexual acts’ as sinful. The consequent noise of the shutting of closet doors was deafening.
    In my diocese the bishop asked one of the archdeacons to convene regular confidential meetings with a few gay clergy to offer them an opportunity to talk about the effects of all this on their lives and ministry. Some would not trust the Church to participate in such enterprises. Understandably. And huge numbers of vocations were thwarted and lost. And are to this day, as the toxic debates continue in the C of E in a social context which has changed beyond imagining.
    So thank you Kelvin, as ever, for your insightful questions.

    1. Beth Avatar
      Beth

      Cedric, I recall you speaking to the LGBT Network at the Cathedral about Issues and that it was reaffirmed by the C of E around about that time too. I wasn’t so aware of it when it was published (being about eight years old at the time and also a Roman Catholic), but I remember so clearly from what you said how devastating it had obviously been and still was. I remember thinking at the time of that reaffirmation, “oh, I can never go home”. It became so clear to me that the Church of England wasn’t somewhere I could feel welcome as long as it was allowed to stand.

  2. Ian Paul Avatar

    Kelvin, I can understand why you are glad that the offensive language of Issues has gone. Ironically, it was actually a statement written by liberals of the day; the main author was Richard Harries.

    And conforming to Issues was never the real question. The real question is conforming to Canons B30 and C26, so that the pattern of life of clergy should reflect the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of Jesus’. All Issues did was make that clear and unambiguous (though in an unhelpful and obsessive way) with regard to sexual intimacy. Ironically, it was the liberal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy which cemented Issues in place as a response.

    And of course, with Issues gone, the Canons remain in place, and the demand is the same. The good thing about GPCC is that it sets this one issue in the context of many others, which is much healthier.

    But on the question in hand—nothing has changed. You seem to have missed that.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No Ian. It isn’t that I’ve missed that. It is that I don’t believe that.

      Issues was a massively offensive document that coloured absolutely everything the Church of England had to say about sexuality. Changes to Canons will look significantly different in the light of its removal.

      A great deal is changed by its removal.

  3. Mike Burnett Avatar
    Mike Burnett

    Jesus preached love, but he also forgave sins with the instruction ‘to sin no more’.
    Deciding not to sin when the sin in question is something that we enjoy so much that life may feel miserable without it, is a real sacrifice. It really is ‘bearing your cross’ to follow him. But that is what Christians are called to do.
    We may wish to question our translation of the Bible, or quibble over the exact meaning of a phrase we find challenging, but Christianity is not a ‘pick and mix’ faith where we just have to accept the bits we like and can ignore, or condemn, the bits we don’t like. We do not get to negotiate – we must take it or leave it.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • To the theatre in the cinema

    Went to the theatre the other night, in the cinema. You know, one of these live relays of theatre in a cinema. It was Hamlet from the Royal National Theatre in London being relayed live, I think, to cinemas in 16 countries. The play was excellent. Very good indeed. What interested me though was how…

  • The cross-dressing bearded nun story

    Forgive me, but I can’t help but be interested in the cross-dressing bearded nun story which was in the Herald today. The short version of the story is that a minister removed a picture of himself dressed as a nun from facebook, where it was his profile pic, following a complaint from someone belonging to…

  • Wikileaks and the Guardian

    Can someone tell me the difference between Wikileaks publishing US government cables and the Guardian publishing the same cables. So far as I can see, neither organisation has actually leaked anything, they are both publishing the same material that has been leaked by someone else. I’m struggling a bit to see why the editor of…

  • Tuition Fees

    I’m disappointed to hear that Lib Dem ministers will be going through the government lobbies to vote in favour of raising tuition fees in England. The policy itself isn’t something that I agree with but nor is it something I know how to solve easily either. I do think that making all the tertiary education…