• Proud Christian

    I’ll be heading off to join in with Pride Scotia this weekend. It is the Pride march that takes place in Edinburgh.

    Whilst looking for some pics of Pride to illustrate the facebook event invitation for Episcopalians at Pride, I came upon this picture.

    Pride bus

    It is a picture of me standing in the rain addressing the Pride Scotia crowd. I remember how wet I was and I remember very clearly what I was saying. I’d been invited to speak about the idea of campaigning in favour of equal marriage though in fact at the time, we didn’t use the term equal marriage.

    In the course of my speech, I said something like this:

    The passing of the hate crimes legislation is a huge milestone. It is great news.

    But what I want to say today is that we want more.

    The hate crimes legislation means that people will be dealt with more severely if their crimes are motivated by homophobia. That will make Scotland safer for us all. It is great news. But it isn’t enough yet. We must not rest until every street in Scotland is safe for every member of our community. We will not have achieved what we want until every street is a safe place. And we need every workplace to be a safe place for gay people. And we need every school to be a safe place for gay kids and gay teachers. And we need every church and faith community to be a safe place for gay people too. Those are the things that we need to make homophobia unthinkable.

    This afternoon, the LGBT Network and the Equality network are urging people to sign a petition to the Scottish Parliament to change the law even more. Before you go today, make sure you sign the petition calling on the Scottish Parliament to allow gay and lesbian couples to get married. It is one of the next steps we are campaigning for.

    I want every gay couple to be able to walk down the street holding hands if they want to do so.

    And I want every gay couple to be able to walk down the aisle holding hands if they want to too.

    We can make that happen. We can get our parliamentarians to change the law.

    When you go past the parliament today, make as much noise as you can. Whistle and yell and cheer for all that has been accomplished in making Scotland a better place for LGBT people. And whistle and yell and shout for more. It is time to say, Separate is not Equal. Our relationships are as passionate and loving as anyone else’s. We have the same potential for commitment as anyone else does. We deserve the same rights as anyone else has.

    There are two things which strike me today as I think back to that speech.

    Firstly it is the memory of people heckling. Secondly it is the date on which that photograph was taken.

    Those few of us who were campaigning for equal marriage in those days didn’t really have a clue whether the people who might benefit from the change in the law that we hoped for would actually back us. No-one knew.

    As I stood on top of that bus, there were some people in the crowd making mischief and heckling. (Not that I always mind a good-natured but slightly grumpy crowd – in some ways that is my natural habitat). But the thing I realised as I shouted away into an inadequate loudspeaker system was that most people were not making fun at all. Most people were thinking about it. Most people who heard me speak that day had not really given the idea much thought and it was clear that people were making up their minds.

    As I often have to remind people, I used to be against the change that I’ve argued for. As someone who was once an evangelical Christian I had once been against the idea of gay people coupling up at all. Then after coming out myself I thought that gay people simply didn’t need marriage and might be better to be free from the conventions and expectations of marriage. On both counts I was wrong and I only found that out by listening to the expectations and hopes of gay couples who were celebrating their relationships alongside listening to the expectations and hopes of straight couples planning weddings and realising that they were pretty much the same. And the point is, if I can change my mind, anyone can change their mind. One of the reasons that gay equality is taking a long time to achieve in churches is that many leaders simply cut themselves off from providing pastoral care to gay members of their flocks and didn’t hear their stories. Such cruel and ignorant behaviour has diminished the ability of the churches to proclaim God’s love in the UK and in other countries. The churches’ proclamation of the great message of Love has been harmed and diminished in the process.

    What I saw the day I spoke at Pride Scotia was that though some people were not interested, the bulk of the crowd were very interested. They believed their loves were as good as anyone else’s loves. In theological terms, I realised that I believed they were as blessed as anyone else.

    I went to Pride that day trying to change the minds of the marchers as much as changing the mind of anyone else.

    I’d become fed up with the lack of progress in the church over gay rights. Rather than battling on it seemed right to put my energies into bringing about change in society rather than just turning people off from the message of justice and joy that I was hoping they would receive.

    I rather think that was a good call.

    It is obvious to me this year that we are getting there. Oh, I still want all streets to be safe and all churches to be safe for LGBT folk. We’re still a long way off achieving either of those aims but we are much further along the road than we were.

    I was proud of my church last week – at every stage of a long, tortuously complex decision-making process, we voted by convincing majorities in favour of equality.

    But the real shocker is not to think about how much has changed since the photograph above was taken. It is to think about its date. It was taken only in 2009 – just six years ago.

    My world has changed in those six years. Every gay person in the UK has seen the world change before their eyes in those six years.

    My ambition is neither satisfied nor static. I don’t just want gay couples to be safe walking down the Royal Mile – I want such couples to be safe walking down the street in Kampala. I want gay couples to be safe in Lagos as much as I want them to be safe in Linlithgow or Livingston.

    But I’m proud of what we’ve achieved.

    And by me, I don’t just mean the usual suspects. I don’t just mean the few souls who believed marriage had to changed before they could imagine how to get that change to happen. And I certainly don’t just mean the LGBT folk who can now benefit from the change in the law.

    I mean everyone straight, gay, powerful or apparently powerless who helped make change come about.

    And I ask everyone who has been a part of this to ask just one question as I set off to Pride this year…

    If we can do that in six years – what shall we do next?

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

  • Nuptials Review

    Well, they are wed. What to say? Congratulations to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, to start with. These big occasions in the Abbey are being done extremely well these days. The visit of the Pope last year and then this Royal Wedding are enormous set piece liturgies and they do come off very well.…

  • Nuptials

    The day of the Royal Nuptials has arrived and I must admit to being staggered at the claim on the BBC that they expect two billion people to watch it. What’s that, a third of the people on earth? It seems an extraordinary number. Indeed they were describing it as the biggest television event ever.…

  • Top 10 Best Personal Moments of Holy Week 2011

    Going to the Stations of the Cross and having it done to me. (Made me cry). Coming home from the Maundy Thursday vigil after midnight and remembering that I’d had the good sense to change the sheets before going out. The goodwill and good turnout of the Spring Clean and Polish. Being greeted with many…