MY QUESTION TO PETER TATCHELL

This is a guest post from Ruth Preston, who also blogs over at What You Think Matters

                                                    

World renowned gay rights campaigner came to speak in a Brighton church recently, hosted by ‘Changing Attitudes’, an Anglican gay rights organisation. With recent media spotlight on the gay marriage issue, I decided to go. The meeting was well attended, and during the question time it was apparent that a lot of the audience were themselves LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) and also church goers.

Tatchell spoke well, and highlighted two main reasons why he thought that Gay marriage should be allowed. Firstly, because of love. He argued that no-one could say that the love of a LGBT person was any less than the love of a heterosexual person. Secondly, because of equality. He argued that it was discrimination to not allow homosexual partners to marry, just as it was discrimination not to allow a heterosexual couple to have a civil partnership.

Tatchell addressed the question: Aren’t civil partnerships good enough? He argued that there were technical differences, some of which can have a significant effect financially on older LGBT couples, which I appreciate. But the most powerful way in which he communicated was through his analogies. He gave us an example of historic black and white segregation in America. When the African Americans protested that they wanted to be able to go on the Whites’ beaches, the White Americans responded saying ‘The water is the same on our beach as it is on theirs, and the sand is the same, what is the fuss about?’, Tatchell argued that the same principle could be applied to the gay marriage issue. There was a roar of applause from the crowd, and at the time, I remember thinking: There is something wrong with that analogy. Afterwards I realised what I believed was wrong: context. Black and white segregation was a product of a culture that undermined African Americans, socially, economically and humanly. The isolation was a very physical pressure, and prevented cultural mix. This cannot be applied in quite the same way to the issue of gay marriage, because the limitation to civil partnerships is to do with technical definitions, rather than an attempt to prevent gay couples from getting the same jobs as heterosexual couples, or preventing social mix between the two parties.

However, even if I did not agree with everything that Tatchell said I was grateful for two things that he said; firstly, that he was not campaigning for gay marriage to be forced upon churches. Secondly, that he thanked those Christians who believed that homophobia was wrong even if they still felt that homosexuality was a sin.

Because of the black segregation example above and from Tatchell’s frequently negative comments about ‘conservative evangelicalism’, I was reminded afresh of how victimised the gay community feels, especially from the church. Living in Brighton gives me a familiarity with the gay community, and often prevents me from seeing or feeling any negativity towards them. My church also, despite our traditional views on sexuality, would love to see more people from the LGBT community attending.

Being moved as I was for this group, it was painful for me to hear of how they felt that many in the conservative evangelical arena despised them. One man, about my age asked: ‘Why do people in the church hate us?’ I was therefore prompted to ask my question which was: ‘Do you think that church opposition to gay marriage might not be to do with hate or homophobia, but rather because they are trying to be faithful to biblical doctrine?’ Tatchell’s answer was to list the painful and offensive things that church leaders has said about the gay community, and proceeded to say ‘they often say they don’t hate us, but they say and do things that misrepresent us, which allow their congregations to hate us, and I do not think that can be compatible with the love and compassion of the gospels.’ In short, his answer was: yes, they are homophobic.

Ironically, just as Tatchell is worried about the LGBT being misrepresented by church leadership, I am equally worried that the church leadership will be misrepresented by the LGBT community. If Tatchell’s talk was anything to go by, the audience was left with the impression that many of the churches leaders were homophonic and had no compassion for them. Obviously this is not the case. I cannot speak for every church, but in my experience there is a deep desire within our churches to get to know more of the LGBT community and to understand them better. We want to follow Christ, which means both being true to his teaching in the whole of the New Testament on sexuality, and also being willing to open our hearts to those in the LGBT community.             

               

SHAMELESS APPEALS

As I said to my church recently, everyone's after your money! Every shop, business, and huckster would gladly relieve you of the contents of your wallet, and all of us hand it over in many ways and for many reasons. However, some reasons are better than others and there are a couple of 'good causes' I would encourage you to look up.

One is Epic Run. Starting next week Sam Boatman is running 50 miles for 50 days raising money for Help for Heroes. This is a simply phenomenal attempt to make and I'm not sure the human body can take that kind of punishment so it will be interesting to see how Sam gets on. The Olympic Torch will soon be making its rounds of the UK but to be honest I'd much rather cheer the epic runner on as he staggers around the country.

The second good cause is Simon Guillebaud & chums from Bike for Burundi cycling across America. This is not quite in the same league as Epic Run, but is a touch challenge nonetheless, and Simon is a very entertaining blogger. In this case, the lads are raising money for the work Simon's GLO organisation is doing with pygmies and orphans in Burundi - it's a fantastic project and worth supporting.

And then third, and very much last and least, is my own marathon running effort on April 15 in aid of Friends First. Merely running a marathon feels rather pitiful compared with Epic Run and Bike for Burundi, but I'd still be glad of your support!

Yes, we're all after your money - but this is a good way to spend it!

CONSULTATION ON GAY MARRIAGE

The Government has now released its consultation document on gay marriage, and there are twelve weeks in which a response can be made. This is only a ‘consultation’ in the sense that financial contributions for my kids’ school trips are ‘voluntary’. The aim of the ‘consultation’ is not to consult on whether gay marriage should be allowed, but as a fig leaf for what the Government has already decided to do. But in the interests of democracy, if nothing else, it is worth making a response. I have already done so, and have copied my answers below.

For the sake of this post I have also added some annotation (in brackets) to explain my responses.

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with enabling all couples, regardless of their gender to have a civil marriage ceremony?

Agree

Disagree (Reasons given in answer to Q2)

Don’t know

Question 2: Please explain the reasons for your answer. Please respond within 1,225 characters (approx 200 words).

Marriage is not an equality issue. By definition, the laws a society follows regarding marriage reflect discrimination towards certain individuals and groups, and this in turn reflects what society at large deems to be in the best interests of society. Hence, we discriminate in marriage law against those who would choose polygamy, or incest, or a sexual relationship with a minor. The question of whether marriage is ‘civil’ or ‘religious’ is therefore irrelevant – the real question is as to the purpose and nature of marriage. Marriage has been consistently understood across human cultures as a guarantee of the future health of society. In large part this has been tied to the assumption that children are necessary for the continued existence of society, and that marriage provides the context within which children should be nurtured. While, clearly, marriage does not necessarily equal children, to irrevocably break this fundamental basis for marriage by the institution of SSM would be a regrettable innovation.

Question 3: If you identify as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual would you wish to have a civil marriage ceremony?

Yes

No

Don’t know

This question doesn’t apply to me

Question 4: If you represent a group of individuals who identify as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual would those you represent wish to have a civil marriage ceremony?

Yes

No

Don’t know

This question doesn’t apply to me

Question 5: The Government does not propose to open up religious marriage to same-sex couples. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree

Disagree

Don’t know

Question 6: Do you agree or disagree with keeping the option of civil partnerships once civil marriage is available to same-sex couples?

Agree (Note the definitive “once civil marriage is available to same-sex couples” in this question, rather than a more consultative “if”. However, my problem isn’t with civil partnerships, so I don’t object to keeping them)

Disagree

Don’t know

Question 7: If you identify as being lesbian, gay, bisexual and were considering making a legal commitment to your partner would you prefer to have a civil partnership or a civil marriage?

Civil partnership

Civil marriage

No preference

Don’t know

This question doesn’t apply to me

Question 8: The Government is not considering opening up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

Agree

Disagree (If fair is fair then why are civil partnerships restricted to homosexuals?)

Don’t know

Question 9: If you are in a civil partnership would you wish to take advantage of this policy and convert your civil partnership into a marriage?

Yes

No

Don’t know

This question doesn’t apply to me

Question 10: Do you agree or disagree that there should be a time limit on the ability to convert a civil partnership into a marriage?

Agree – there shouldn’t be a time limit

Disagree – there should be a time limit

Don’t know (Basically, I don’t think they should be convertible, but the question doesn’t allow that response)

Question 11: Do you agree or disagree that there should be the choice to have a civil ceremony on conversion of a civil partnership into a marriage?

Yes, there should be an option       (Again, they’re not asking a question I can answer – but if heterosexuals were allowed to form civil partnerships and then decided to marry, I would want them to have a ceremony confirming that)

No, there shouldn’t be an option

Don’t know

Question 12: If you are a married transsexual person would you want to take advantage of this policy and remain in your marriage while obtaining a full Gender Recognition Certificate?

Yes

No

Don’t know

This question doesn’t apply to me

Question 13: If you are the spouse of a transsexual person, would you want to take advantage of this policy and remain in your marriage whilst your spouse obtained a full Gender Recognition Certificate?

Yes

No

Don’t know

This question doesn’t apply to me

Question 14: Do you have any comments on the assumptions or issues outlined in this chapter on consequential impacts? Please respond within 1,225 characters (approx 200 words).

(I had nothing to say about this, as it was mainly to do with such things as pension rights)

Question 15: Are you aware of any costs or benefits? that exist to either the public or private sector, or individuals that we have not accounted for? Please respond within 1,225 characters (approx 200 words).

(I didn’t feel qualified to answer this one)

Question 16: Do you have any other comments on the proposals within this consultation? Please respond within 1,225 characters (approx 200 words).

The Ministerial Foreword states that “the commitment made by same-sex couples…is no different to…opposite-sex couples.” This is disputable as the majority of marriages produce children, which is a great commitment, a commitment SSM cannot enter into. The Foreword also states that “if commitment and marriage is a good thing we should not restrict civil marriage only to opposite-sex couples” but this is to beg the question – Why restrict marriage to couples? Why not allow polygamy?

The proposals also raise considerable issues regarding definitions of consummation and adultery. Rather than saying that “case law may need to develop” it would seem that clear definitions are required at this stage, as it is not really possible to define what marriage is, without stating how it is consummated, or how it is defiled. This is certainly the case if marriage is understood as a sexual union, as it historically has been. If this is not the case, the very serious question then arises as to why a relationship is described as marriage, rather than some other private contractual arrangement between individuals. This additionally illustrates the lack of fairness in the consultation failing to propose that civil partnerships should be opened to heterosexuals – something that genuine equality would surely demand.

You can download the full consultation document, and respond online here.

BLOBBY BOBBY?

The recommendation that Police Officers should have to pass regular fitness tests has been greeted with protests by representatives of bobbies on the beat. However, it hardly seems unreasonable that a policeman/woman/person might at times have to step out from their patrol car, or from behind their desk to apprehend a miscreant, and that this might involve running down a street or jumping over a wall, and they should therefore be able to demonstrate the ability to do so. I would have thought this to be a genuine operational requirement. Members of the military take routine fitness tests, so why not the police?

The report found 52% of male officers in the Metropolitan Police were overweight, 22% obese and 1% morbidly obese, and, as The Times put it, “When the police are significantly fatter than the population as a whole, there's a problem that needs to be addressed.” I guess it’s all that time sitting on stakeouts (steak-outs?), burger and coke in hand.

However, we should perhaps be a little cautious with these figures. I presume they are measured on the basis of Body Mass Index (BMI) of which I am highly skeptical – not least because according to my BMI I am overweight myself, which seems unlikely when I am running 40 miles or more a week. (BTW, don’t miss this opportunity to sponsor me!)

It’s a bit like another report that came out this week about the dangers of eating red meat. All the headlines were along the lines of, “Eat a steak and you will DIE!!! And die QUICKLY!!!!” but a little statistical analysis reveals that this isn’t quite the case. According to David Spiegelhalter, a Cambridge University biostatistician, and the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, "The person who eats more meat is expected to live one year less than the person who doesn't eat so much meat. You'd expect the 40-year-old who does eat the extra meat to live, on average, another 39 years, up to age 79, and the person who doesn't eat so much meat, you'd expect him to live until age 80."

79 or 80? Doesn’t make much odds to me. And I did very much enjoy the large steak I had for dinner on Monday. I’m sure it helped with my running.

A MARATHON EFFORT

Last April I ran in the Brighton marathon, my first experience of running this distance. I am not a natural runner, it was a hot day, I hadn’t trained enough and it was a tough experience. At the finish line I promised myself, “I’ll never do that again.” About forty minutes later I thought to myself, “I might do that again.” In five weeks time I will be on the starting line once more.

A large part of my motivation in running again is that my time last year was four hours and twelve minutes. All along I had been aiming for a sub-four hour time, which is not that impressive when you consider that a decent club runner will knock off 26 miles in around three hours, and the race winner will finish in a little over two, but a real challenge for me. This year, determined to break the four hour mark, I have trained much harder, running five or six days a week since mid-December, and am on course to have covered more than 600 miles by race day – which represents an additional 30 miles training compared to last year for every minute I am trying to shave off my time.

As I have been preaching through Ecclesiastes the past few weeks I recognize the wisdom of the Teacher in my running being both work to rejoice in (Eccl. 3:22) and “vanity of vanities.” However, my efforts are not purely about personal pleasure or achievement, but are also in aid of a good cause – the charity Friends First. Friends First is a connected group of projects, combining both urban and rural locations, that support homeless and long-term unemployed people. Friends First comprises a homeless drop-in, two residential community projects, a social enterprise initiative and resettlement support service.

I ran in support of Friends First last year, and received a lot of generous donations. I know that second time around it is harder to raise support, but I promise (and this time I really mean it!), that I won’t be asking again next year – I don’t think my knees and ankles could take it!

If you would like to sponsor me, please visit my Just Giving page.

Thank you!

THE LOGIC OF ABORTION

An article in last weeks Journal of Medical Ethics arguing the case for “after-birth abortion” has been picking up some attention.

Sadly, the logic of the piece is impeccable. Ironically, it is exactly the kind of logic that pro-life campaigners have themselves used – “Why is killing a baby before it is born any different from killing it after it is born?” So the article might almost be read as a piece of Swiftian irony, logically arguing one point to prove its exact opposite. However, tragically, this is obviously not what the authors are doing. Rather, they genuinely accept that after-birth abortion (let’s just stick to “infanticide”) makes logical sense, as a newborn is not a “person.”

What is perhaps most chilling about the authors argument is their concluding statement that, “People should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” And so we see the logical conclusion of the consumer society – that having a baby is a lifestyle choice, dictated by economics.

The justification for this argument is that a newborn is not yet a “person.” As the authors express it:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

This might seem an extraordinary argument, but it is a very common one. I remember a pro-abortion advocate using exactly the same argument in a debate at my sixth-form 25 years ago. (It is also an argument that has more than a whiff of the gas chambers about it.)

How much better – how much more human and dignifying – is the biblical definition of human life, that we are “made in the image of God” (Gen 1:27). And how much more reassuring is the biblical assumption that the time to be born and the time to die is in the hands of a sovereign God (Eccl 3:2).

We don’t need logic to tell us that a newborn (or, for that matter, a foetus) has a right to life. To be honest, we don’t even need the Bible. Some simple humanity will do it.