What is in Kelvin's Head?

10 Things Gay People Still Need

17/09/2013
Once the law changes and we have access to marriage, is that it? Will equality have been achieved? Will we suddenly have become full citizens? Will the job be done?

Here’s my run down of what we still need.
- We need it to be impossible for the authorities to accept a plea less than murder in a suspected homophobic killing where the defendants admit killing the deceased with a hammer in his own home. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24122514. I guess that means a review of hate crime legislation at least in Northern Ireland.
- We need to be safe when we travel – that means building on the good work that this country has done in terms of foreign policy, but a review here wouldn’t do any harm either. Oh, and trade deals do need to be linked to human rights. (Yes, LGBT rights are human rights, where have you been?)
- We need to keep working for marriage equality. We’re getting a step towards it – a massive step towards it, but it ain’t equality and equality is what we are after, right? Interesting question for the various gay rights organisations this – will they still work towards equal marriage once this legislation has gone though. They know this is a pragmatic compromise – will they keep up the fight? – and no, I’m not talking about mixed-sex civil partnerships.
- We need an urgent comprehensive review of all religious exemptions from legislation.
- We need better age appropriate sex education in schools.
- We need access to education free from prejudice.
- We need further work done by companies and institutions on supporting gay folk at work especially in order to develop access to leadership positions where LGBT people have not found these easy to access.
- We need appropriate representation in the media.
- We need the Archbishop of Canterbury to commit to supporting his senior gay clergy and work to undermine the systems which keep so many of them in lacy but impeccable closets.
- We need Hollywood to understand that we don’t all end up dead or heartbroken – Brokeback Mountain, I’m talking about you.
Have I missed anything?
LGBT, the gay agenda

6 responses to “Here or there?”

Gary

01/04/2007

Up there. High altar. No doubt.

Reply
Tom Allen

01/04/2007

I am very much with Richard Giles on this one – there should liturgically only be one main altar – ideally this is achieved by romoving the former High altar and dedicating that space to some other purpose – where that is not possible as in historic cathedrals then it should be left dormant (covered in a simple cloth perhaps) and only the altar which is being used for worship should be dressed since this is in fact THE altar.

Despite all the reservations about removing former altars in the end it solves long-term problems, and provides a single visual focus for Eucharistic worship. At times when a high altar is needed then the new altar can moved there.

This kind of fuzziness illustrates that our liturgical practice has become dominated by hertiage criteria.

I am about to replace our main altar with something moveable and aesthetically more appropriate, but am facing a Registrars ruling that the current altar (and former eastward facing number more recently provided with wheels and moved to the chancel!) must be burnt, and that the wood frontal cannot be used for a screen.

Dont’ we get ourselves tied up in knots!
Tom

Reply
Stewart

01/04/2007

A thought came to my mind this afternoon. At the Creed we all face east. This results in the choir turning their back on the Nave Altar and in most cases put the High Altar in their sight.

Considering Tom’s comments, another thought thinking about some English Cathedrals which have multiple altars around the building, it is not usually possible to see more than one at a time. Some have a chapel behind the High Altar – behind a screen.

Turning back to St Mary’s – all the action at the 10:30 service is centred and focused around the Nave Altar. However there is still the High Altar, the Pheobe Traquair Reredos and Gwyneth Leach mural of Our Lady at the East End. To my mind their presence enhances the worship around the Nave Altar and does not detract from it.

Reply
Andrew

02/04/2007

The Altar is a table, where we commemorate a meal together. Clearly (to my mind) we should all be sitting round it, as we do (more or less) at present. The table reminds me that Jesus instituted the Last Supper when he was among us (HERE), not somewhere else (THERE).

I very much hope that the Altar in St. Mary’s can be left where it is.

Reply
kelvin

03/04/2007

It seems to me curious that the practice that I inherited was to light and dress the high altar whilst using the nave altar. It makes no sense, except perhaps to highlight St Mary’s puzzling parallel worlds of deep conservatism mingled with radical liberalism.

Whist tending to agree with Andrew’s sentiments, it is worth remembering that the nave altar could hardly be said to have stayed in one place these last 20 years.

Reply
Elizabeth

17/04/2007

Here. Both. Loving the paradox.

But maybe I only say that beccause the only church I’ve regularly worshiped in where there are clearly two visible altars is St Mary’s and that’s what I’m used to. I’ve never found it distracting that the high altar is dressed and lit, even though the nave altar is where the action is, so to speak. But then, would I notice if the high altar wasn’t dressed and lit? Probably not.

I do love the nave altar, peripatetic as it is!

Reply