The Presbyterian Church in Ireland's Take on Homosexuality and Me

Yesterday evening while I was at the Peace Centres Ireland and Changing Attitude Ireland event in Belfast it was mentioned that in 2007 that my church, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI), had come up with Pastoral Guidelines. I thought I'd better read them, especially as I also felt compelled to write a letter to my minister following last Sunday's sermon which was on 1 Thessalonians 4.

The first thing that strikes me is the first paragraph of the preamble:

While a person's sexuality is a very important part of their lives, it does not define who they are. Biblically we as a church maintain that a person is defined in the first instance in terms of their relationship to God – creation in relation to Creator. To refer to a person as a homosexual, a lesbian or a heterosexual is therefore to narrow their identity to their sexuality alone. For this reason it seems better to refer to 'people' who have 'same sex attraction'.

Now there are a lot of things that define my identity. I don't call find a way to avoid the fact that I am male, even though that doesn't express my identity alone. Nor do I shy away from being a Liberal Democrat, an ex-sportsman, a geek etc. There are many things that make up my identity, being homosexual is just one of them.

My homosexuality isn't also merely a matter of attraction to someone of the same sex. A dictionary definition of attraction is:

1. The act or capability of attracting.

2. The quality of attracting; charm.

3.

a. A feature or characteristic that attracts.

b. A person, place, thing, or event that is intended to attract

4.

a. The electric or magnetic force exerted by oppositely charged particles, tending to draw or hold the particles together.

b. The gravitational force exerted by one body on another.

Now, of course there are things about the person/s that I fall in love with that attract me to them, but like any relationship hetero or homosexual the more you get to know someone you also find the dark recesses. Those things are not attractive, sometimes the things you end up doing for someone you love are not attractive. It doesn't mean that you do not love them but is it then that you realise that it beyond mere attraction, when you still feel the same about them despite the ugly, unattractive parts of what being part of a couple entails.

There is hope in the opening paragraph setting out the need for Pastoral Care with this paragraph:

It is clear that people of all ages who have same sex attractions are very reluctant to tell others because of fear, prejudice etc. Keeping their feelings hidden out of fear has a significant impact on mental health.

Sadly it is very true, that the element of keeping sexuality hidden can have an impact on sexual health. We are taught as Christians not to bear false witness, yet part of our witness as gay Christians is our sexuality. As I mentioned last night the fact that when people realise it affects people they know

There are some positive affirming statements (emphasis mine):

When we condemn homosexual practice in isolation or single it out as somehow worse than other sexual practices outside of heterosexual marriage then we demonstrate homophobic attitudes.

and

There needs to be the recognition within the church that the desires for love (in all its aspects), intimacy, companionship etc. that move heterosexual couples towards marriage are the same desires that motivate those with same sex attractions.

Sadly there is the footnote:

As stated, the position of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is that sexual practice is only for heterosexual marriage. As a church therefore our aim ought to be to help ALL unmarried people to cope with sexual pressures. We realise this raises issues regarding celibacy. While this is an area of debate in relation to the 'hope of marriage', essentially ongoing sexual pressures still need to be controlled.

The debate for the 'hope of marriage' is one that I think needs to be discussed, especially in light of the comments above about desires for love in all aspects. As I've mentioned before 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9 says:

"I (Paul) wish that everyone were like me, but each person has his own gift from God. One has one gift, another has another gift. Now for those who are not married and for the widows I say this: it is good for them to stay unmarried as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry. It is better to marry than to burn with sexual desires." New Century Version

So you have a church that is telling me it acknowledges my love has desires in all its aspects yet denies a physically expression of that love outside marriage. What level of that physical expression is a line to drawn? Wherever it is I have already crossed it, because I do burn with sexual desires, often stemming out of deep love, not merely attraction, for a man. The bible through Paul tells me it is better to marry than to burn with such desires, yet I don't have that option from my church, however much I want to.

What am I to do?

I'm writing two letters one to my own minister in light of last Sunday evening's sermon, the other to Board of Social Witness to ask about their seven recommendations, especially some of the latter ones.

Homosexuality and Faith

Cross posted on Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

1 John 4:18

Tonight I was in a backed room in Grosvenor House, Belfast for a meeting organised by Irish Peace Centres in association with Changing Attitude Ireland and the Methodist Church in Ireland. Of course I realised I had no paper to make notes, but did have my iPhone. The key speaker was David Walton, a lay Methodist preacher from Eccles, who was a past VP of the British Methodist Conference. The subject was sexuality and faith, here are some rough notes of the areas covered..

After starting with some personal anecdotes about his own sexuality David went on to say we have to acknowledge there are a number of issues that the Churches still face when it comes to homosexuality

1. There is a sense of disgust about the act and the subject itself
2. There is the argument about promiscuity (but looking around us this is not confined to the LGBT community)
3. There is the matter of cohabitation, sex outwith marriage, divorce etc all leading to the break down of marriage as the church sees it.

Sexuality has become a test of orthodoxy in the eyes of many churches, both for themselves and for others faith. However, what is slowly breaking that down is when there is someone, a grandchild, child, sibling etc that you know who is openly gay.

In 1993 the Methodist Church started what they called their pilgrimage to understanding human sexuality. In the end they came to accept relationships and civil partnerships, but stop short of allowing blessings in church (and therefore by default also equal marriage).

There is discussion going on in most churches about diversity. Although some are coming to conclusions without meeting LGBT people, or acknowledging that there are some within their congregations.

One thing that all sides of those with faith can agree on is the need of strong and stable relationships, based on honesty, fidelity, self control etc. Especially in the light of the world we are living in.

When it comes down to the acts of sex, which we too often focus on, we are ignoring the core of what loving relationships actually are.

There was then a time for question and discussion within the people present. One highlight was from Gerry Lynch who said, when the church is seen as being less accepting that our secular society we [the church] have a real issue.

This is only part of the initiative that Irish Peace Centres is running. They are seeking to have conversations that difficult conversations across social divides but had in a way solid debate and not name calling from opposing camps.

There will be two series one for LGBT people who love their faith

October 15th & 29th, November 12th and 26th, December 10th

The other for parents and friends of LGBT people

November 8th, December 6th, January 10th, February 7th, March 7th

Both series attendance at all 5 meetings is requested and if you are interested email padraig@cooperationireland.org who will provide details of the venue in Belfast where the discussions will take place.

For the Bible Tells Me So - A Film Review

The other night I was watching the documentary feature For the Bible Tells Me So (2007). It is a very moving and powerful film following the lives and consequences of a number of American Christian families dealing with a relative who realises that they are gay.

It also looks at the actual content and context of homosexuality within the Bible, i.e. those verses used by individuals and groups to end their love or seek to cure what they have failed to understand or investigate. The families include that of Gene Robinson the openly gay Episcopal Bishop in New Hampshire and Dick Gephardt former Presidential candidate and his lesbian daughter Chrissy. But it was the tale of two less prominent families that really struck me.

First up there was Jake Reitan a young man from a Unitarian background. He came out as a teen to his big sister a full year before he could tell his parents. Their initial reaction was one of trying to hide Jake's sexuality from all around them and to catacomb themselves and him from the 'shame' of having a gay son. But Jake wanted to be open and honest about who he was and his family are an ideal example of a family coming to terms with their own inbuilt and learnt prejudices, seeking the truth themselves and coming to understand, love and stand beside and behind their son. They are active advocates as a family for acceptance from families of their LGBT sons, daughters, brothers, sisters etc.

The other is the sad story of Mary Lou Wallner, who couldn't accept the 'gay thing' about her daughter and they became estranged. As with too many gay children brought up in Christian households that led to estrangement and after an exchange of heart achingly terse letters Mary Lou's daughter took her own life. Too late to do anything to her daughter Mary Lou did investigate herself what the Bible actually said, the context it was said in and what it means to modern day life.

Fortunately I had neither of those experiences to those extremes when I came out to my parents. However, it didn't mean that at times I wasn't curling up into a ball, needing to reach out to something/one for comfort or bring the odd tear to me eyes. It was also a truncated version of the 10 years of searching scripture which I myself did. If only I'd taken the answers my 16-year-old self came up with it would have saved so much time, but may not have been so well grounded.

There is a lot of mental anguish because of the way many in our culture still see homosexuality. But as this film showed it is often out of repeated ignorance or selective verse selection that these put-downs that these judgements come.

Ben Summerskill's Webb Ellis Moment

Image used with permission from
gyronny.com

Last week Ben Summerskill warned the LGB community (Stonewall doesn't do T) to beware of politicians playing political football with the issue of equal marriage.

Over the last week the tweets and comments have been coming thicker and faster from all political parties and those with none. There is uproar from a broad section of the LGBT community that hasn't been since 1969 and the original Stonewall riots. I think we have noticed that Ben Summerskill is like a poor confused pupil standing on the playing fields of Rugby unsure of what to make of William Webb Ellis's innovation. For those of you who don't know Webb Ellis was the pupil credited with picking up a football on the playing fields of Rugby and creating a whole new game which bears the school's name.

To me that is the ideal analogy of what has happened to Stonewall and Ben Summerskill over the last few months/years. Other groups and even the mainstream political parties have picked up the ball of equality and are running with it in hand. They are holding unto equality tightly, not controlling its passage with taps from their feet. For them equality is not just equalising LGB rights it is about inclusiveness of SLGBTQ* (Staight, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning) rights, something that while Stonewall say they stand for equality they seem unable to support.

The right of heterosexuals to have equal access to Civil Partnerships was part of the Lib Dem Policy passed last week. It was also part of the original CP legislation going through Parliament, which Stonewall say they were championing, yet now they (or is it just Ben) say they are not standing for heterosexual equality.

The policy also included Humanist celebrants in the right to marry or civil partner couples in England and Wales. Something that they had only been able to do in Scotland before. An equality of beliefs which Stonewall probably don't want to recognise or support.

The fact is that the equality that is left to fight for has to be fair to heterosexual, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people. That is the whole new ball game. It is the ironing out of the little things that were once thought separate is okay as long as we step along the right path. It's time to smooth those out, being equal need to be just that, equal opportunities for all.

If Summerskill can't see that maybe it is time for Team Stonewall to select a new captain. Or if Stonewall really cannot see them, maybe they should get out of the game. 86% of the recent PinkNews poll were in favour of equal marriage, 61% of the general public in a recent poll said the same.

It truly is time to work out how to do, not work out the issues for why 'society' can't.

* May even have to add AP to that for Asexual or Polyamorous.

Forty Eight Hours of Worship!

Over the weekend there was a marquee erected next to Bangor Abbey and inside for 48 hours there was continuous praise going on. It was an event organised by Celts on Fire an organisation founded by dear friends of our family Tom and Iris Ross.

You may think that 48 hours is a long time for a cycle of people to keep up praise to God yet in the 6th and 7th centuries it is believed that for 150 years the practise of Laus Perennis (continual prayer) was kept up at the Monastery in Bangor, close to the present day Abbey.

It was considered to have been interrupted by the raids of the Vikings. So it was fitting that on Friday night at the start of the 48 hours of worship that Scandinavian Christians led the first hour.

Some of you who followed my Twitter over the weekend will have been aware that I spent the first hour I had back in Bangor* (in the early hours of Sunday morning) at the marquee. I also sandwiched in another couple of hours in the afternoon between being part of the Worship Group at Trinity Presbyterian Church for both Sunday services (my first time playing bass guitar, or any instrument, in public for a number of years**).

Some people ask it is possible to be a Liberal politician and a Christian at the same time? It was actually the subject of yesterday's evening's sermon on 1 Thessalonians 4, which at one point made me a little tense. But I say it is, contrary to the sermon last night, though I've come on a long road to get to where I am and I'm sure it's not travelled yet.

But seeing people reaching out and back to the early traditions of our Christianity is invigorating to see (and if you see my current reading material courtesy of Mícheál also intriguing). There is a lesson never lose sight of the past while striving towards a better future, that is true of both fields.

* Having spent most of the week up in Belfast with a post-hospital Mícheál.
** So what better way to do that than with only a brief run through once as the only rehearsal time.

Next Just Get me to the Church on Time #LDConf

I'm really delighted that my fellow Liberal Democrats earlier today passed the Equal Marriage in the UK motion at conference.

However, sitting here watching it both me and Mícheál were struck by the anti speeches. Now we know our constitution says we shouldn't be enslaved by ignorance but there is a certain amount of reading what the motion actually says that seems to have been ignored. Point 2 of what conference calls for says (emphasis mine)

To allow approved religious and humanist who wish to do so to legally solemnise and celebrate same-sex marriage and civil partnerships in places of religious worship.

The reason I emphasised it that key phrase is that is the key phrase that make this a liberal motion. We are not forcing churches, synagogues, mosques etc to carry out same-sex marriages what we are doing in this motion is enabling them to do so if they wish. If they wish! Yes Kieran who wrote the initial motion for Scottish Conference on which this was based is an atheist, but he consulted with me about getting the religious element carefully dealt with. That little phrase was what between us we came up with to make in a liberal enabling motion rather than a draconian forcing religious groups under their various governances to have to change to accommodate.

I've said before that we are a liberal party but we also must allow religious freedom. As liberal we may not aways agree with the utterances or stances that they take but we have to respect their right to hold them, as long as they do not infringe on others. This motion fully meets my expectation of what a Liberal Democrat motion will entail.

For the record this Northern Irish friend of Sara Bedford was cheering every line of her speech. She'd done her research and asked gay friends of faith and none how they felt about it. It made up for the fact that my speech never got to be heard outside of my room despite two opportunities I could have done so.

But this in only the first step, we now have it as policy now we have to make it government legislation, so we can all start to plan those marriages.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Righteous Crusade

Sitting in my late father's study while I work I'm reminded that both he and my mother taught Religious Education, my mother was actually head of department. One of the things that reminds me is the shelf of books on comparative religions that sits to the right of me as I work.

There is one pile in the middle of that shelf that is all about Islam. Some of those books I have read myself and indeed there are other books in my own collection that are also about Islam including my own copy of the Koran.

Therefore the fact that the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida is planning a 'Burn the Koran Day' for 11 September is a sad indictment. Maybe the American way doesn't teach about other religions and their beliefs in the way that multi-cultural Britain does.

But the blogger Gay Patriot does pose an interesting question:

"How is a Florida church burning the Koran on 9/11 any different than an Islamist-inspired mosque being built in the Ground Zero debris zone?"

In his opinion "None. Both have the right to do it. But it isn't the right thing to do." but I'm going to disagree.

There is a difference. One is a incitement to hatred an act borne out of hatred fundamentalism. The other is trying to foster understanding and normality, showing that fundamentalism isn't all their is in religion.

The former of course is the church in Florida, the second is the Islamic education centre that is looking to be set up in Manhattan.

There are forgotten victims of the 9-11 monstrosity, the innocent Muslim workers in the World Trade Centre. Not the terrorists but those who were working alongside their fellow man in those twin towers. Those who also lost their lives. Their families also come to Ground Zero on 9-11 to remember their dead, they then have to travel far away to find a Mosque that they can offer their prayers up in.

The vast majority or Muslims are not fundamentalists, however there is also a minority of Christians who are fundamentalists. Have any of the members of the Dove World Outreach Center actually opened a Koran to read it? Have any of them ever learnt what it means to be a everyday Muslim? Have any of them ever ventured into a Muslim community or lived alongside a Muslim community day to day to see them going about their lives?

Fighting fundamentalism with fundamentalism is not the way to go, that leads to religious wars, to crusades or jihad. It is just what this intolerance is, even the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls it 'disrespectful and disgraceful'.



With freedom of speech comes responsibility, as I was rewatching Footloose last night I was reminded of John Lithgow's character the Pastor coming upon a book burning outside the school. He said:

"It is not the words in there that are bad, it's what's in here." (tapping on his heart)

Maybe that is the salient lesson for those in Florida to look first into themselves.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong *Sarcasm Alert*

I saw this on a note on Facebook and just had to share it to a wider audience.

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Thanks to Will McGavrey who reposted this from Mitchell Sturges

Does Barack Obama Read My Blog?

I'm not sure if PoTUS* reads my humble little blog. I did get a number of hits from Washington yesterday so you never know. However, I do know we are on the same wavelength over what I posted yesterday.

Speaking after a Muslim Iftar dinner, breaking the daily Ramadan fast, last night at the White House he said:

"We must all recognise and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan, Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are."

Well done to President Obama for taking a stance for what is right and enshrined in the constitution against the upsurge of of Islamaphobia. Separating out the rights of ordinary law abiding Muslims from the responsibility to deal with Al-Queda and other terrorist groups who are not a true representation of their faith. Showing respect for the victims, all victims, of Al-Queda including those on 9-11 and the many Muslim victims too.

A President who is calm enough to get the facts straight, to keep the Constitution in mind and show balance in his comments is someone worthy of the job. If you are reading this Mr President keep up the rational thought patterns even it all around you seem to be losing theirs.



* President of the US for all non-West Wing fan readers.

The Land of the Free Neglecting the First Amendment

O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

There are estimated to be between 2.54 and 7 million Muslims living the the USA, 37% of that number are Caucasian, 24% black, 20% Asian, 4% Hispanic and the rest mixed race. That is between 0.8 and 2.3% of the total population. Currently there are just over 1,200 mosques in the country but that number is in danger of finding it very hard to grow.

The reason for such negativity on a Friday morning is the growing outrage against any mosque across the USA. All of this has recently risen out of the groundswell of openly hostile opposition to the one proposed in downtown Manhattan close to Ground Zero where one stood the twin towers of the World Trade Centre. But it is not just in New York but in Florida, California, Georgia, Connecticut and Tennessee amongst other states that opposition and blatant Islamophobia is taking form.

The First Amendment of the USA's constitution enshrines two things Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. Indeed the Supreme Court has ruled that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion" of course that doesn't stop to the people and islamophobes in their midst.

Many of the people opposed to new Islamic centres and mosques and those who defend without question the Second Amendment the right to bear arms, which surely is the one that needs revisiting as the militia of the founding fathers has now been replaced by a large and world dominating professional army. So why is the second amendment being held so precious by some yet they are ignoring the fundamentals of the first.

As the article in the Guardian points out where significant numbers of Protestants, Catholics or Jews want to congregate for worship the local towns will not raise issues of traffic, parking or whatever excuse they are using to block a new meeting place being set up indeed most often it will go through unhindered and unquestioned. With the Muslims however that is what is being used and now it is even being open 'racism' against immigrants from a nation of immigrants, even those as I pointed out many will not be differentiated from the general population.

If people in America are going to overlook their First Amendment and not allow freedom of religion to one religious group then their whole Bill of Rights is open as a fraud. What they claim to hold dear isn't worth the paper it was written on even if it is on carefully guarded display in the National Archives.

If they are saying of one group you can't congregate here they are ghettoising in a form of religious apartheid (I have used those two words for a reason based on their original usage). So much for the land of the free!

Read Also: Spiderplant's take on the wingnuts

Belfast Pride and their Hero

There has been a full week of events in Belfast for Pride which will culminate with the parade later today. Yeah today is a parade where Orange and Green and the other colours on the Pride flag will not be giving the Parade's Commission too many headaches. Indeed there were no issues for the Commission with the parade or the counter demonstrations.

However, even in Belfast where religion is often such a dividing line for other reasons there is a ray of hope for members of the LGBT community who have faith. The Rev Chris Hudson the minister of All Souls Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church has been named Belfast Pride Hero of the Year.

While there are people like Rev David McIlveen and his Sandown Free Presbyterian Church who are vocal opponents of the LGBT community*, there is an oasis of hope in South Belfast. As a non-subscribing church All Souls is independent of any ruling body. Two years ago the Rev Hudson, complete with dog collar, took part in the Belfast Pride Parade. Last Sunday there was a public meeting held in his church as part of the Pride week celebrations, outside was a poster saying 'It's Ok to be gay and Christian'.

The meeting discussed the biblical references in the bible, of which Hudson says:

"Leviticus is quoted quite a lot, concerning 'man lying down with another man', but Leviticus is a priestly code for Jewish priests. It's a list of behaviours, trying to set the priests of Israel apart. They were trying to outdo each other."

As for Paul's references in the New Testament he added that Paul did not condemn homosexuality as is widely believed, but the "quite licentious Greeks" he found worshipping various gods and goddesses.

"There was no concept of homosexuality as we understand it today."

So while Iris Robinson may have had her little pastor friend ready to pray for gay men to become straight, there is a minister in Belfast prepared to pray for and with gay Christians, a worthy Belfast hero for Pride in the 20th year of the event.

* McIlveen did on Tuesday attend the Belfast Pride Talks Back debate event. Where he was apparently given an attentive hearing which is probably not what he will be returning today.

Can We Form a Coalition with the Mayor?

I know that Jae Kay has had a few things recently to say about our party's public statements on Equal Marriage, here's hoping for an official federal policy position to be taken on this soon. I totally agree that allowing civil partnerships in religious places is just a muddle. For a start the only religious places liable to carry out such ceremonies are those that want to allow same-sex marriage anyway.

It makes me sad when I hear comments, like I heard earlier in the week, from fellow Christians that they merely respect the right of same sex couples to have a civil partnership, but not to allow them a marriage, also denying them the right to a choice between a religious or civil ceremony depending on their choice. They often claim that their religious organisation doesn't allow it, yet they are also ruling out the possibility that other religious organisations may be in favour and wanting to offer it. Yet we maintain a blanket ban rather than liberating the rules on what can be.

Therefore I think us Liberal Democrats who believe in equal marraige should breakaway from a coaltion with David Cameron and insist that Boris Johnson is installed at number 10. Why? Well at today's London Pride the following exchange happened on the platform at the start:

Peter Tatchell: David and Sam Cameron can Marry – Gays Can’t. End the Ban on Gay Marriage.

BoJo: If we can have a coalition between Tories and Lib Dems, why can't we have gay marriage?

PT: There you are – the mayor supports gay marriage.

So Boris is offering us a coalition that supports equality in marriage.

Civil Partnership Should be Available to Hetrosexuals - A Response to Donal Blaney

I wasn't going to blog anymore today but Iain Dale's Daley Dozen alerted me to this post by Donal Blaney. In he he talks about marriage for gays an argument he prefaces with this before going into his argument:

"As a libertarian and a Christian myself, I really do not give two hoots whether someone is gay, bisexual or whatever. We are taught to love the sinner but to hate the sin."

So you can imagine this open line brings in a couple of conflict which grate. First he claims to a libertarian yet is imposing a restriction on liberty. Also he then says he doesn't give two hoots about being gay, bisexual or whatever before calling those that are sinners, admittedly ones that he loves, but you get a felling that maybe that is out of commandment, rather than fully heart felt.

He uses the religious argument:

"Marriage is, or rather ought simply to be, a religious ceremony giving God's blessing on the union of one man and one woman."

Problem is that is not the case, there are non-religious marriages going on in registry offices and other locations all across the country. There are also religious people and yeah that included Christian's who are gay, bisexual, transgendered or whatever who have found love and would love to have that blessed before God. Now those that enter non-religious marriage are no less a married couple that does that do so in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever. The woman is still allowed to take on the husbands name and call herself Mrs. They are married in the eyes of everyone, they are not made to feel second class nor do they have less standing under law than their religious counterparts.

The fact that mixed-sex couples can only solemnise their relationship though marriage and same sex only through partnership means that in the eyes of many a civil partnership is deemed to be an inferior union. Yet there are many mixed-sex couple who do not like the institution of marriage but would like some protection of their rights, which at present for them only a marriage can afford. Similarly there are many gay couple who would be happy being civil-partnered (and what a horrible convoluted turn of phrase that is) but many would also like the option of a marriage.

There is no equality in the system at the present, indeed there are two (three if we count religious and civil mixed-sex marriage as separate) ways in which union can occur and not everybody has access to both. To give perfect equality of status both marriage and civil partnership should be available to couple irrespective of orientation therein surely is the truly libertarian approach.

The greatest injustice of the split between the two systems comes from the case of those who once married find that one partner wishes to undergo gender reassignment. Such as realisation and decision by one of the partners in that relationship can lead to the end of the relationship if the other partner is not comfortable with it. However, what happens if the other partner is supportive and stands by their man or woman through all the stages of gender reassignment. They have shown that they still love the other person by sticking by them as they probably promised at their ceremony, but their marriage has to be divorces or civil partnership dissolved to enable them to recognise their true gender.

Many of the countries that have already allowed same-sex marriage also allow for civil partnerships both of mixed-sex and same-sex couples. That is true equality the individuals decide what level or union type they wish to get joined under, and who will carry out such a ceremony.

Donal says:

"I really do not care what people get up to in the privacy of their own lives as long as it does not cause harm to others."

But in essence you do you blog post has shown that. You are prepared to only let mixed-sex couples who do not approve of the institution of marriage to either get married or take their chances in an unformalised state, which could hurt them or their children in the future. Also there are those you claim to not give two hoots about who you are quite happen to live in the eyes of some, maybe family members, maybe work colleagues or whomever in what is an inferior state as it is not on offer to mixed-sex couples. They can often feel hurt when they are told "but you're not really married" if they really want to be.

Now I'm not calling Donal Blaney homophobic for having his views, though I do believe that rebuke was aimed at Alex Singleton for his Telegraph column which spurred on Donal. But any Christian (i.e. a sinner sanctified by grace) ever forgets the sin in their own eye when casting about some of the statements that he did to justify his position, should look at the hurt that such sayings do cause.

I was a sinner saved by grace at an age before I was sexually aware and active. I spent years fighting with myself over the issue, as it was a right chicken and the egg situation. People making comments like Donal's and growing up in Northern Ireland there was an awful lot only hurt me more. It's not necessarily homophobia but it is a distinct lacking of the love that they at the same time claim to be expressing.

UPDATE: As different colours points out below this opinion is also shared by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and DELGA the Lib Dem LGBT group.

Rugby Men Really Do Make the Tough Calls

In the last week there have been two revelations from the tough men of Rugby Union. The first came from Scotland's Euan Murray who has refound his Christian faith and as such is not playing any rugby at any level on a Sunday. Then there was Gareth Thomas of Wales coming out as gay.

The former has made a decision passed on his personal belief and the later has made it known just who he happens to be. Neither of them should really have been headline grabbers yet somehow both are. For Euan it is following the footsteps of Eric Liddel or more recently Jonathan Edwards, but it is his decision and one he has taken which is being respected by his national coaches. As for Gareth as he himself says:

"I don't want to be known as a gay rugby player. I am a rugby player first and foremost. I am a man. I just happen to be gay. It's irrelevant. What I choose to do when I close the door at home has nothing to do with what I have achieved in rugby."

Indeed that is what we desire for all out sportspeople, their race, religious beliefs, sexuality should not be part of how they are remembered, it is what they do in the field of play that is and should always be important.

Yet the fact is that so few of our sportsmen are able to be honest, maybe with themselves, maybe with others that this is actually an issue, so much so that it startles some of the rest of the world. Of course rugby is far ahead of some of our other sports as far as making these choices seems to be respected and honoured. Not since Justin Fashanu has there been an openly gay footballer in this country, though the chances are that there are several out there. Also could you imagine a footballer going up to Alex Ferguson or any other manager and saying they'll not be playing any games on Sunday this season.

It is tougher being the first but it shouldn't be. Looking at the reactions of both the players respective coaches and organisations you see that maybe there is hope in the world of sport, of course the fans are another matter. I know full well how anti-gay some of the chants in a football crowd can be, and yes they are worse than your rugby crowd, but maybe they will actually act well once it is less of a novelty. But it is the aim that all sports fans should really be aiming for a normality for all their players.

Carnival on Modern Liberty: No Freedom of Speech = No Public Liberty

When the Labour Government first banned protesters in Parliament some people didn't think it would infringe too much on this countries freedom of speech. Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all people have "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".

No while I don't agree with the views of Geert Wilders nor the views of Fred Phelps of Westboro Church and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper the fact is that both Wilders and now the Phelpses have been denied entry to the UK. They have been denied the right to express themselves. However, as with Geert Wilders last week this may get their message across more clearly and louder than if they have been allowed in.

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

So Jacqui Smith has twice in a week performed just such a peculiar evil of denying the ability to have discourse to unearth the error in that opinion.

Maybe Wilders in right when he called the UK government cowards for refusing his entry. But as with Derek Draper's LabourList diatribe in recent weeks it appears to be the Labour default position. As position to ban any who don't agree with what you say instead of engaging in debate. It is also generally the default position of those for whom the argument is lost to want to avoid debate at any cost. Is that where Labour is?

Benjamin Franklin said:

"Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech."

Sadly now that we cannot take pictures of the police or things that may be considered useful for terrorism our liberties are being eroded. With the Labour government and its apologists trying to control what can be said or blogged we are heading to a dark place devoid of public liberty.

They can watch you, want to read your emails and keep you biometric data. But you are not allowed to come to your own conclusions, think with you own brain or possible go about your business without proving you are you. The liberties we once held dear are going, going....

Does this mean the terrorists have won because are Government and Labour are too scared to let anything go on that might give them opportunity. And the price? Our liberty.

Carnival on Modern Liberty: Taboo One Religion

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty went to some length about Self Regarding Actions (SRA) and Other Regarding Actions (ORA). Basically the former is self-regarding and subject only to personal persuasion and inducement. Such an action becomes other-regarding and open to public sanction if, and only if, it either harms an interest, violates a right, or neglects a duty owed to another person or persons.



One of the things laid out in that definition of liberty that I wrote about the other day was the right to believe or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. Which brings us up against one one in our envelope of modern liberty. The religious believes of someone may be largely malign and a SRA but what is something from those of other faith or none becomes and ORA.



A lot has been made recently of the bus driver who refused to drive the bus carrying the agnostic slogan "There Probably is no god. Get on with enjoying yourself." Or the Christian registrar who refused to marry same sex couples. The actions of both these people of faith in these instances were SRAs there was provision for the driver to drive another bus, and for the registrar others were able to swap assignments with her. However, many on the liberal flanks were up in arms about their actions. Therefore there are two sides to the coin.



People were able to get a bus, driven by that driver. Same sex couples were able to be civil partnered in that London Borough. So therefore no rights or interests were actually denied. You can and many do that the duty to others would have been neglected in the case of the registrar. But looking at it from the other side of the glass if liberty is to allow individuals in society to believe what they want to believe and express themselves as they see fit, does that not mean that in essence the ORAs of others were impinging on these two.



In the past few days somebody did raise with the issue that three of the members of the Disaster Emergency Committee were very much of a Christian ethos and that their aid came hand in hand with a bible and the distribution thereof. The argument being that by supporting the DEC's appeal I was also condoning an added religious tension into the mix. Therefore where does one draw the line. The economist in me said to them there is a cost benefit analysis to be taken into consideration, especially as they along with myself largely wanted to get aid to those in need as quickly as possible.



Which is the greater ORA, the benefit or the cost? With the example of the two individual mentioned earlier there were ORAs in operation on both sides, but which had the greater infringement on liberty?



If we are truly aiming for a modern liberty we have to allow room for those who disagree with us. But as Mill said the line gets drawn where that freedom harms an interest, violates a right, or neglects a duty owed to another person or persons. Indeed Mill himself, in his posthumous essays, saw a "social utility of religion " based on it having a moral code and leading to a benevolence of those who believed. He of course said that the strictures of dogma often impinged on others.



So while our liberty has increased in many areas since Mill's time increasingly humanistic society has started to look down on those of faith; trying to limit the way they express themselves even if it causes no harm to others. Now in some cases that is warrented but in others those with faith are often or are actually agents for social change or justice.

Uighur Unrest in Lead Up to Games

Sixteen Chinese policemen have been killed in the western Muslim Xinjiang region days before the opening ceremony at the other end of the country in Beijing. The attack on a border outpost in Kashgar, Kashi in Chinese, is close to the Turkmenistan border and is the latest terrorist act after a series of incidents claimed by the Turkmen Islamic Party in the past month.

The Chinese repression of the Uighurs is often overlooked by the far more high profile, media friendly, campaign for freedom in Tibet, but is another example of China's continuing appalling human rights record which it promised to clean up before the Olympics come to town this Friday. Sadly the IOC has not held China to its promise for improvement in this area since awarding it the Games of the 29th Summer Olympiad.

The Uighurs are a Muslim people who have been suffering religious suppression under the Chinese regime in the duel names of anti-separatism and counter-terrorism. Sadly the Chinese authorities appear to have been using the post 9-11 fear of Islamic extremists to persecute all Muslims in the region irrespective of activity even if totally peaceful. About have of the detainees being held in Xinjiang's re-education camps are there because of engaging in alleged illegal religious activities. However, the state control over religion in the is as harsh as in the 70s and 80s and the net is so tight that almost anyone can be detained under such guidelines at the whim of the authorities.

Many of the Uighur may well be becoming more militant as a result of the suppression, as with those other groups that China is overlooking and suppressing. So therefore with the worlds media gathering on China and with this attack in an outlying region there must be some concern as to what may happen nearer the Olympic venues from the various repressed groups seeking to draw attention to their causes. Chinese authjorites say they are prepared for action should any threat arise in Beijing, but one wonders just what sort of action that will entail knowing China's past record in such situations.

Religion Versus Orientation Freedom

"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that
do not matter much. That would be a mere
shadow of freedom. The test of its substance
is the right to differ as to things that
touch the heart of the existing order."

Robert H. Jackson - Former US Attorney General

After a few days of the internet cafe at work blocking facebook I got on this morning to see an invite to a group calling on registrars should perform their public duty on civil partnerships or resign. As it was started by a fellow Lib Dem I noticed a fair number of my fellow Lib Dems have signed up. However, and this may come as a shock to some I'll not be following suit.

You see the news that Lillian Ladelle won her tribunal causes a dilemma in just what freedoms we enshrine. I'm seeking to safeguard a fair, free and open society which considering the pluralism of opinions and views is a difficult one. Yes the legislation that brought in same-sex civil partnerships was an essential one, however we still have to respect the views of those who hold alternative views. When the Sunday trading legislation was first brought in, those established employees with religious objections to working on the Sabbath had the option to opt out; I remember this as I opted out at that time.

Lillian had been working for some time as a registrar before civil partnerships were introduced. Initially at that time all the Islington registrars were freelance and there was flexibility within the group to swap assignments so that if they wished they could avoid carrying out same-sex partnership ceremonies. That changed in December 2007 when the local authority took direct control of the set up. She perfectly able of doing her job and doing the same amount of work as her colleagues under the previous set up the fact that she was passing these on to colleagues who would perform the ceremony shows she wasn't discriminating just didn't feel she could be a part of it.

Under the previous system there was no indication that same-sex partnerships were lewss able to be conducted by the registrars in the region and that is the fundamental right that needs to be given to those seeking to enter into one, the same access and availability of service as everyone else. But the employee's rights to their own freedom of expression, thought and religion also need to be maintained and that is where the dichotomy arises.

Just as employment law doesn't allow for discrimination on race, religion, gender, ability or sexual orientation grounds in hiring, that discrimination should not also then led to task assignment providing a service can be maintained. Similarly when Lillian first took her job the conflict with her beliefs did not exsit. The problem has arisen that this is a problem only in some of the Hebredian Islands where on occasions all the registrars have held religious views that they feel do not allow them them to preform same-sex partnerships. In those situations alternative solutions need to be sought.

While gay couples are enjoying their new found freedom there has to be care not to quash the freedoms of others, they may be different or contrary but providing they do not harm, discriminate, incite hatred they have the right to be present as well.

We tread a fine line in the need to balance freedom.

How Can Iris be Allowed to Chair Health Committee?

UPDATED: [Following some further background reading into the situation I have felt it pertinent to make a couple of additional comments contained within the square brackets.]

Iris Robinson is an elected MLA in the Northern Ireland Assembly and MP at Westminster. As such such she is elected to represent all the people of Strangford irrespective of race, gender, religion, political preference or sexual orientation.

However, her comment on Radio Ulster on Friday morning that homosexual should seek psychiatric counselling "to turn away from what they are engaged in" shows a great disrespect for her elected position as well as grave concerns for her position as Chair of the NI Assembly's Health Committee, [especially as the issue arose from a question about a man being attacked because of his homosexuality.]

If believing that homosexuality is a psychiatric condition is she any better than the Nazi's who also considered them inferior and along with the Jews executed homosexual at concentration camps. Or the Iranian who deny the existence of homosexuality in their country to the extent that when they find someone who is they have them executed.

Now I fully accept that these are strongly held personal and religious beliefs of Mrs Robinson as she said she would happily put any homosexual in tough with a lovely Christian psychiatrist she works with. However, they should never have been make publicly considering her position. While such a position may well be held in private in her public position and role it presents a clear conflict in her abilty to perform that role objectively. [It should especially be true when the position had nothing whatsoever to do with the question raised, and therefore had not right to appear in a reasoned response.] In fact I can fully understand that position as it was one I myself was brought up with, which would have been fine and dandy until I realised that I myself was homosexual.

Now I'm not sure what Mrs Robinson's church and Christian life is like. However, I do know that while mine was based on staunch Presbyterianism it moved as I grew into the charismatic end of experiences and I have taken part and witness the full pallet of the spiritual gifts. So I was brought up as many of my University colleagues said as one of the most knowledgeable in the scriptures, but then was willing to experience my Christianity in all its aspects. Therefore as Mrs Robinson suggested I did seek the counselling and prayer for what like her I thought was a condition that I might be able to get over. In fact on all three occasions it was through prophetic intervention that I was compelled to go and seek this.

Well Mrs Robinson it is not a condition I have got over by the means you suggest, nor is it something I now would seek to do nor encourage others to seek to do. It is not psychiatric nor could anybody claim in my case that it is the effect of nurture. It is who I am. Just as it is who many of Iris Robinson's constituents are, she should get on with looking after their actual health needs rather than creating one which even Royal College of Psychiatrists plainly states is not a psychiatric disorder.

Hat tip to Paul Walter @ Liberal Burblings.

Also for reference see blogs by stroppybird @ Liberal Conspiracy and Lynne Featherstone.

Archbishop and Moderators Son Back Clegg on Religion Answer

"It matters less to me than to know they are honest and reliable and that what beliefs they have they hold sincerely"

So said Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury on Nick Clegg's one word answer to the question in a Radio 5 interview about whether he believed in God. For the record the word was no.

And OK I'll admit the son is not that of the current Moderator of the Church of Scotland but our own former leader Lord Steel, whose father as well as being a former-Moderator was once the Minister of St. Michaels in Linlithgow. Who said of Clegg's response:

"He is very straight-talking. I think that is quite typical of him."

Tony Blair didn't want to reveal his true religious convictions in Downing Street for fear of being branded a nutter. Maybe that should have been the least of his problems, what with Carol Caplin, phantom weapons of mass destruction and obeying voices from the current occupant of the Oval Office.