• Parliamentary Victory and Interview on Scotland Tonight

    I was glued to my computer last night watching the debate from the Scottish Parliament on introducing the legislation that will one day soon, allow same-sex couples to get married.

    It is difficult to describe what it was like watching it. In touch with others on twitter, I was aware of a certain amount of nervousness from some of those who have been campaigning on this. It isn’t surprising – a lot of work has gone into this. However, it was not just parliamentary process that was affecting me last night. It was the sight of one politician after another standing up and speaking positively about gay couples they know, changes in society that have made life easier for gay people or in some cases talking about themselves as gay parliamentarians. It is difficult for me to convey what this feels like to straight people. When I was growing up you simply saw no-one say anything positive about something that is pretty fundamental to who you are. Indeed, you either got negative messages or a corrupting silence which you somehow knew you were supposed to keep.

    Times have changed and that is why evenings like last night mean so much and in the end it was a decisive victory in the Parliament – 98 votes to 15 with five abstentions.

    Later on in the evening I was asked to go on Scotland Tonight on STV. It was a very enjoyable interview.

    Here’s some of the things I said:

    • Watching my twitter and facebook feeds light up when the vote came through was like watching the lights on a Christmas tree all light up.
    • This was a sophisticated and respectful debate and was the Parliament working well.
    • I don’t agree with issues like this being dealt with as a free vote but it was not a night for reservations but for celebrations.
    • The debate brought out the fact that support for same-sex couples being treated like everyone else extends into the churches. Increasingly people want equality for same-sex couples.
    • This is one of the fastest social changes that there has ever been. It is happening and it is happening now.
    • We don’t want any more “safeguards” in the bill – they are largely unnecessary anyway.
    • The Parliament has ensured that the country can go forward together. No-one is forced to do anything.
    • There’s still more to do around education, language (see the new Stonewall “Gay – let’s get the meaning straight” campaign) and support.
    • This is an amazing stepping stone towards equality.

7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”

  1. June Butler Avatar

    Seems to me “well-meaning but homophobic” in these days and times implies vincible ignorance and is no longer useful as an excuse for homophobic language. The leaders of the C of E seem paralyzed, unable to articulate policies to move forward on equality for LGTB persons that are other than laughable. Think “deer in the headlights”.

  2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
    Lawrence Rosenfeld

    I suppose @RevArun might say that women are welcome for the same reason, eh?

    1. margaret of the sea of galilee Avatar
      margaret of the sea of galilee

      Exactly what I thought.

  3. Kelvin Avatar

    I’ve removed a previous comment. I’d prefer to retain the focus on the institutional elements of this rather than speculating about an individual.

  4. Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert Avatar
    Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert

    As society changes many people are not sure of the new, and therefore condemn it, without thought. I am safe, with the Devil l know. It’s a way of life, not dealing with changes. If we think about how much has changed; homosexuality was illegal until 1969 in England; Scotland caught up in 1983; women have a right to equal pay; the only job that is still excluded from them is working down a mine:
    There are men who are prepared to wait to see a male doctor, especially if it is the genitals.
    Racism is not tolerated by most, but it is still used by people who want a reaction. There was, when the world and I were young, a shoe polish, called nigger brown. This wasn’t considered at the time as being wrong.

  5. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    I take your point, and I don’t disagree. If we look at another person and only see the gay part as ‘broken’, then that’s homophobic, no matter how well intentioned. Plus I always find something disturbingly patronising when people say ‘We’re all broken’, as if the speaker doesn’t quite believe it of him/herself, while seeing it very clearly in the other.

    However, there’s another way of looking at it. The very fact that we are human means that we are broken. If being gay is part of that humanity, then it’s part also of that brokenness. It’s all part of the messy mixture that we struggle with, and build our rickety lives with, but for which we also should praise and thank God.

  6. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    ‘Thinking Anglicans’ has a post up about Vicky Beeching’s coming out but does not link to the discussion here. I asked why but they did not reply let alone publish my question.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • M 40, GSOH obviously…

    I was leisurely reading through the lonely hearts column in the London Review of Books this morning – it is so often the best bit. As I did so, I reflected on the fact that the best idea for inspires (the magazine of the Scottish Episcopal Church) that I’ve come up with which has never…

  • Blogs you would like to read

    How about this for a meme? (That means you pick it up and answer the question on your own blog). Which three blogs which don’t already exist would you like to read? My answers: Oscar Wilde Bishop Brian My father Actually, the Oscar Wilde answer is the most problematic, and not simply because he is…

  • O Canada!

    The Canadian Anglicans came within a hair’s breadth of allowing dioceses to allow same-sex blessing yesterday. The measure was passed decisively by laity and clergy and then defeated by a couple of votes in their House of Bishops. Rather an uncomfortable situation for one or two bishops, I would guess. It rather highlights something which…