• Why I’ll be Marching at Pride (2024)

    I slipped into an unknown pub in Middle England to get out of the rain and have a pub lunch. It was welcoming and cosy. Steak and ale pie, since you ask.

    The part of the pub I was sitting in was right next to the bar. A small snug. The kind of room where you can hear everyone else’s conversations though it wasn’t too busy. Just a group of fifty-something men in for their pies a table a few feet from me, right next to the bar. It wasn’t terribly busy and so our host behind the bar joined in with their conversation, which soon turned to the result of the General Election. Everyone was interested in what it might mean for them. (Bartenders round here want firm action on business rates, I can tell you.)

    After a while, one of the pie-eaters suddenly said for all to hear, “Did you know that 61% of the new MPs are gay?”  The others at his table and the host at the bar expressed surprise that it should be as high as that. “It just isn’t right – not that number, that’s far too many of them. How have we become a country where 61% of our MPs are gay?”.

    And I remained silent.

    I remained silent because I was in a strange place and didn’t want to risk any unpleasantness.

    Well no, I remained silent because homophobia stalks my world. I remained silent because I didn’t know how anything I might say might be taken. It probably wouldn’t have led to a punch in the face but the truth is, you never know.

    The person making the claim about the number of gay MPs was wrong. Spectacularly wrong. I suspect he’d been told that 61 MPs were gay and had heard it as 61% and accepted that as being true. It was true in his inner world, a world in which the gays were getting above themselves. It was also a believable fact for those around him. They were surprised it was 61% and yes, that did seem a bit high. And yes, the gays were getting a bit above themselves.

    I gather that a few more LGBT+ MPs exist than 61 – the number is about 66. That means that it is about 10% of the MPs in the House of Commons. LGBT+ people are sometimes estimated to account for about 10% of the population. So 60-odd members of parliament who fit that profile is something to be celebrated as a good example of representation. Once upon a time, every one of those MPs would have been subject to blackmail or worse. Once upon a time, every one of them would be silent.

    Me remaining silent in the pub for 10 minutes and then, after finishing the pie, going off without a word, is minor when compared with the violence that many gay people face on a daily basis in other parts of the world.

    Yet that incident played in my mind the rest of the day. I went over it again and again. Should I have spoken up and called out this nonsense? I can argue that both ways. But the thing that I care more about than putting someone right in a pub is that this nonsense claim inhabited my head for half a day. Not so much the absurdity of the suggestion that 61% of MPs were gay but the commonplace assumption, held by a group of apparently nice people in an agreeable country pub, that yes, the gays were getting above themselves. Too many in parliament. Too many in power.

    Power that should, apparently, be exercised by the dominant majority. By people who are not like me.

    How many gay MPs should we have anyway? And how many is too many?

    It is these thought patterns which form the framework in which homophobia thrives.

    Kelvin Holdsworth at Pride MarchI rejoice in the progress that we’ve made. But I’m impatient for more. I’ll carry my placard on Saturday at Pride and put a smile on my face. Blessed Are The Fabulous I’ll proclaim and I’ll mean it. But I’ll still be walking on streets in which it only feels safe for most same-sex couples to walk hand-in-hand for a couple of hours a year during Pride itself.

    I’ll also be marching wearing a black suit, clerical shirt and a white clerical collar because of the thousands who will be there for whom that will be an extraordinary thing to witness and something that they can scarcely believe possible.

    Yes, my own small corner of the world still has a lot of work to do. In my own diocese, the clergy asked clearly during the last Episcopal vacancy for intentional work to be done on racism, sexism and homophobia, recognising that these were all issues that were real in the diocese and that our attitudes to difference had played an ugly part in our attempts to try to choose a new bishop. A few years later, we are going into another Episcopal vacancy with none of that work done. And yes, what I experience as homophobia is deeply related to what my female colleagues experience and it is made out of the same basic material as the racist presumptions that black colleagues know well. And even since that time, anti-trans prejudice has grown and grown like an invasive new plant species. It poisons and diminishes all who taste its fruit.

    There’s nothing new about that poison either. Lots of us know it all too well.

    The easiest prejudice to counter is that which is most obvious. In-your-face discrimination is easy to point out if you are able to speak from a place of safety. Much harder is the bitter prejudice of the well meaning – that of those who couldn’t possibly be homophobic because they went to such a lovely wedding only last month, who can’t be sexist because isn’t it wonderful that we have lady vicars now and who couldn’t possibly be racist because that would be just unthinkable!

    Prejudice is part of the psychological air we breathe. It forms part of who each of us are.

    Think you don’t have any yourself?

    Think again.

    Think I don’t have it?

    I wish.

    How long will it be before it is unthinkable that women colleagues will ask whether another woman will ever be elected as a bishop due to accusations being made about the alleged behaviour of a bishop who happens to be a woman right now? How long before the qualifications of those who arrive in the church who happen to be black will be treated as being on a par with those who happen not to be? How long before I can simply sit and eat a pie?

    For all these reasons and 10000 other micro and macro aggressions, I’ll be marching at Glasgow Pride on Saturday.

    Anyone who shares the dream of a world where we are all treated equally and treated well is welcome to join me.

    Blessed are the fabulous.

    And blessed are the impatient too.

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – Reading the Signs of the Times

      In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. One of the nicest things that I’ve been at this week was the annual dinner that the Shia Muslim community put on to celebrate Eid-al-adha. The festival of the sacrifice. Islam has the same story that Christians and…

  • Emerging glistening from the water – sermon preached on 7 July 2019

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. I emerged from the water, radiant and glistening in the sunlight and made my way up onto the beach. Not like Daniel Craig emerging from the sea in Casino Royale. Not even like Ursula Andress coming up out of…

  • Whose Spiritual Mantle Will You Inherit?

    Sermon preached on 30 June 2019 In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Just the other week I was chatting with someone who asked me where I had studied. I told them that I had read Divinity at the University of St Andrews. Straightaway, the question…

  • 50 Years of Protest and Change

    As day turns to evening on the 28 June 2019, it is difficult not to think of a couple of relatively small-scale riots that took place 50 years ago and murmur a quiet prayer of thanksgiving for the rioters. I have little doubt that there was no way they could foresee the movement which was…