Kate Forbes misses out the liberalism of same-sex marriage legislation

 So Kate Forbes, who at the time of writing this, is running in the leadership election of the Scottish National Party has said she would have voted against same-sex marriage legislation at the time, if she had been elected to Holyrood. She is also accusing others of being illiberal who speak out against her views.

The irony is that same-sex marriage was from the time was written as policy the whole way up to legislation shows how liberal you can be, while not excluding other. You see same-sex marriage legislation could have forced faith groups to carry out such marriages. However, nobody in a same sex relationship wants to celebrate or have that recognised in somewhere they don't feel welcome. That is why in my opinion one of the key phrases in same sex marriage legislation is "allow faith groups that wish to do so". 

You see prior to SSM legislation nobody could carry out a same sex marriage, not in civil law, in a faith setting or in Scotland by a humanist celebrate. At this point I'll ignore the fact that at Lib Dem Federal level the policy for Same Sex Marriage had to be amended to allow humanist celebrants to carry out mixed sex mrriages (which had only been possible in Scotland up until then). You see when drafting the policy in Scotland it was clear that nobody would be forced to carry out same-sex marriages. 

But I hear you say what about making registrars carry out same-sex marriages. Those who raise an argument about this based on their religious perspective seem to leave their religious views at the door when they marry divorced couples or even couples who Kate Forbes would say were wrong already had children.

You see SSM is a legislation that enables faith groups to come to their own decisions. With the exception of the Church of England and Church in Wales that some people thought it would be better to legislation against those churches solely making a decision on their own, and thus amended to exclude them from the enabling to carry out such marriage if they wanted to.

But it is something I have faced through the 13 years that there has actually been a Lib Dem policy in place for SSM. Something that I am proud to have had a hand in When people in faith groups accuse it of impinging on them when n fact the only thing impinging on them is their own views. It is ironicly something that I still struggle with coming from my own church The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, although I do feel excuded from there because of the judgement those in high places put on people from the LGBT+ community. In a strange way Covid actually makes my church accessible to me once more even though I haven't set foot in it for years.

The irony is that today a spokesperson for the Free Church of Scotland, of which  Kate Forbes is a member said:

"It is lamentable that Kate's honest adherence to simple traditional values would, for some, disqualify her from contributing to the public good of Scotland.

"Kate Forbes is standing on the basis of her policies - the fact that she is being criticised for her Christian convictions shows a level of bigotry that has no place in a pluralistic and diverse society." 

As I have pointed out above the views themselves are actually protected in the legislation she is opposed to. But the Free Church like one or two others likes to play the victim in all this.

It was faith that made homosexuality illegal in the first place and every step of the way LGBT+ people have had to slowly move towards equality, not getting there in one step like banning did, but incrementally. At every step we are told that people of faith don't agree with loosening the hod they have over our civil lives, while some of our are also in dialogue with them in relation to our faith lives. Kate Forbes has put this front and fore of her campaign during her launch, yet apparently we are not to take her stances as a step towards leading a Government as a possible move to restrict freedoms. If we speak up against it we are the illiberal ones, despite constantly bending over backwards to get small change after small change to not upset those with certain faith views to object to everything.

The real toll of the battle for LGBT+ recognition in Northern Ireland

It has been a tough few days for me at the end of the week. When the UK Supreme Court ruling was made, on International Day for Mental Health Awareness of all days, it was tough mentally to go along with the tough time I've been having physically returning to work after a long time off with sciatica.

It wasn't so much the fact that this time the opinion went in the favour of the McArthur family who run Ashers it was the comments, "celebrations", attack on the Equality Commission and everything else. What was worse is that many of the arguments were being retrod from the 5th or even 6th time since the event.

Now with a court decision in their favour those opposed to LGBT+ equality or even recognition and dignity for LGBT+ people were speaking as if nothing was ever wrong.

The same arguments that Ashers shop on the main shopping street of Belfast had been targeted, when it was merely convenient. That the appellant was only out for money, he wasn't indeed he was shocked to be awarded £500 in the original case, he only wanted the law to be clarified. That somehow promoting LGBT+ Equality is equated with messages of outright hate and should all be lumped up together is one of the hardest hitting.


You see many of us in Northern Ireland have been facing arguments that we are attacking religious freedom, despite many of us coming from a position of faith ourselves. Indeed Marriage Equality legislation and policy formation has consistently recognised that not all faith groups have the same opinion. Indeed we have always ensured that faith groups need freedom under Equal Marriage legislation to take their own positions, nothing should be imposed on them. However, certain faith groups don't envision this and even want to overstep into the civil marriage sphere over which they should have no control.

So when you see LGBT+ people in Northern Ireland showing despair with the interventions of Peter Tatchell it is because his comments gave powder to the Theocrats in Northern Ireland. Sadly although Northern Ireland poses as a democracy, despite the largest party being called the Democratic Unionist Party what we face and they are, are actually Theocrats. God's law by their narrow interpretation has to have authority over everyone else.

Not all Christian politicians take this view Alliance leader Naomi Long and her predecessor David Ford are two prime examples who face attacks from Christians and criticism from LGBT+ people in equal measure. They are an example along with other that having a faith doesn't mean attacking LGBT+ people and that faith and being LGBT+ are not exclusive sets, there is a subset of both.


So faith groups, publications and individuals rejoicing this week has a hard impact on those of us from the LGBT+ community, whether of faith or not, who try to accommodate them.


A bit late in the week but I wasn't in a good place to wish everyone good mental health earlier in the week, But stay strong people others are always there for you to turn to and you know who they are even in your darkest times.

New Addition to the next PCI Hymnal

Gay Communicant Hokey Cokey 

In a relationship out, 

Out of relationship in, 

In, out, in out, profress it all about, 

Unless we doubt your credibility when you are in love, 

That's what it all about.

Words The Doctrine Committee 2018

Tune Trad.

Feeling Used - Confession of a Gay Christian Lib Dem

It has been a long time since I have blogged and that is not really like me. Today I am once again not feeling well it has been a tough 12 months for me health-wise. However, something has happened today that makes me feel used that makes me feel like I have to write.

Speaking today on Premier Christian Radio the former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said that he now regrets the statement he made during the last general election when he said he did not think gay sex was a sin. This is the latest in the line of remarks he has made since he stood down as leader of the party that has worried me.

I am on record in this very blog as being one of the first LBGT+ Lib Dems to support his bid for the leadership. Based on the conversations I have had with him in person and online about LGBT+ issues and his and my faith.

In my case of course I feel ostracised from the Christian community for being gay and from the LGBT+ community for being a Christian. Now of course Tim Farron is able to support the Lib Dem idea of marriage equality because as a true liberal, LGBT, Christian I knew that the state had no right to interfere in how individual faith groups govern themselves. No LGBT+ Christian wants a faith group to marry them in a same sex marriage that doesn't want them.

Today however now I'm not sure if all the conversations I have had with Tim have really seen the progress I thought I had seen. I'm not longer sure if my sharing of my struggles led to him making the decisions he had done or whether this was for expediency and acceptance within the party. I know there are members of my party who are Christians who have risked their position within their church for standing up for LGBT+ issues.

Tim is saying that one group that did not give him advise from within party HQ was fellow Christians. Yet I know many within the party who are Christians of all backgrounds who have been supportive of all that the LGBT+ Lib Dems have brought forward. I also know some who have been against. But nobody shall be enslaved by conformity is and underlying core value of our party. The equal marriage policy that our party brought forward into law allowed freedom for religion and religions. Somehow today it feels that some of the Christians and one of the most prominent ones regrets having allowed freedom from religion.

One of friends in politics who took the other stance when Tim made those comments  during the general election today has said he expects acts of contrition, maybe this is what this is or maybe I was just used and had wool pulled over my eyes. 

Have I been played? Have I been used? Tonight I don't have the answers. But I do feel hurt by the comments today taking back a comment I lauded at the time it was made. Something I said at the time that proved the leader got it and stood by his liberalism above all else.

Now? Who knows?

Dear Cathy Newman, your interview was a sin against journalism

Forgive me for having better things to do on a Friday evening, especially in a week I have spent many hours playing competitive bowls, that to watch Channel 4 News and your interview of my new party leader Tim Farron. But I finally got around to it this morning and have some comments to make.

Firstly, Tim Farron's views on abortion are ones that a number of us can take. I've known a number of single women who became accidentally pregnant at inopportune times in the their lives and with men who were inappropriate or unable to become the father figure to the child they were carrying. I believe the decision of those women as to what they should do under those circumstances is entirely up to them.

On one occasion  I was actually asked by the mother of one of the young women in my church youth group what advise she should give her daughter who had found herself pregnant. I probably shocked that mother by saying that whatever that daughter decided to keep the child, or to give it up for adoption or to abort it so she could get on with the life plan she had, the most important thing was that her mother supported her in her decision. That is a liberal answer and one that Tim was alluding to.

From personal experience I have faced the dilemma of a girlfriend being late. While we waited to see if she was just a little late before buying a testing kit we discussed the possibilities. Both of us were of the opinion that no matter what the circumstances we at that time were in we would work around the fact that there was another mouth to be fed in our lives. That was our personal opinion, our personal decision after considering the various options together. As a Christian when faced with that decision the option of abortion was considered.

As for challenging Tim on whether he believes homosexuality sexual practise is a sin or not shows a clear misunderstanding of:

a) what the liberal party is about
b) that all Christians are the same

Tim was quite right to point out that the Liberal Democrats believe is religious freedom for everyone. That means that there are Christians, Humanists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans, Atheists, Shintoists and whatever living tooth by jowl within the Liberal Democrats. Indeed our party policy on same sex marriage didn't single out any particular religion but gave all faith groups and humanists the right to self-determine their own position on whether to carry out same-sex marriages or not. That is how the Liberal Democrats deal with religious diversity and diversity of the population as a whole.

As one of the many LGBT+ people within the party who also has a faith I can account for the fact that not every member of a faith group within the party is diametrically opposed to same-sex relationships, those who are in them and those who are sexually active. Tim and I have had a number of rather frank discussions about this in the past, not as accusational and finger pointedly as your brief exchange yesterday. Yes Tim absented himself from the vote on the third reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill but he was present and voted for the second reading, as well as its subsequent divorce and annulment provisions and extension to armed forces personnel serving overseas.

Unlike many of those who have used language in the past (if not so much these days) that homosexuality is a sin who voted against it at every stage here is a man who has actually voted for and actually spoken in Parliament and asked questions positively about LGBT rights. Unlike many of those he actually takes part in debate around the issues that he publicly expresses concern or lack of understanding over, as someone blocked by many Northern Irish politicians for asking much simpler questions that the ones I have bombarded Tim with down the years this is a true reflection of how he views LGBT+ people.

Cathy there is one final thing you should be aware of, there were a number of prominent LGBT+ members of the party who were supporting Tim just as there were supporting Norman. People who were instrumental in getting the party and then Government to accept same-sex marriage. If these people had in anyway felt that Tim's faith in anyway hindered him from representing them as leader that would have been news. But the LGBT+ members of our party were as split as other sectors based on the individuals and what they could do for the party and not based on faith, LGBT friendliness or other criteria. We were looking at the person who could lead our party, represent liberty and freedom for all and help promote the ethos of who we are as Liberal Democrats.

We have been demonised by Labour, the Conservatives and the press (yourself included Cathy) for years while in coalition. The result in my opinion is a far more marginalising government than that of the past five years, one that is not supporting those who need it most, but actually making their lives tougher. David Cameron claims to have a faith yet does not seem to take Jesus' command to feed the hungry, cloth the naked and care for those less fortunate than yourself at face value. Maybe you should challenge him on that, Tim at least does care about social housing, the poor who have to attend food banks and are hit by the bedroom tax. Maybe you only have a limited view of what those of faith are all about, but they are a broad spectrum too, just like the Liberal Democrats.

Considering the interview started out asking the leader of the Liberal Democrats about the news that our troops had been involved in bombing raids in Syria all that liberal stuff was lost by Ms Newman's personal agenda on these other issues.

So Ed what about the LGBT Christians who feel marginalised?

Ed Miliband in his interview with Premier Christian Radio this week said:

"I want to say to people who feel that [marginalised] I'm sorry they feel that. 

"Part of being a tolerant society and the kind of society I believe in is that people of all faiths and none don't feel marginalised. 

 "Now that doesn't mean there aren't going to be disagreements, for example on equal marriage, but I think it's really important that Christians don't feel that. 

 "That they feel, not just comfortable in their faith, but comfortable that their faith is respected in our country.

"I think it's something you've got to work at and I think the only answer is dialogue and to listen." 

 But what about those of us who are LGBT Christians? Those who are open and either accepted or ostracised from their church, and those who are sitting in a closet in their pews.

Recently here in Northern Ireland we are hearing a lot about a so-called "conscience clause" but as far as equal (or same-sex) marriage goes there is a built-in conscience clause for people of faith. I should know as the wording "that wish to do so" came in a conversation in the early hours of the morning with Kieran Leach as we discussed how to deal with this in the motion to go before Scottish Liberal Democrat conference.

It was the phrase that was to allow those faith groups, including Christian ones that wanted to to carry out marriages of partners of the same sex, while at the same time not forcing others to do so. But just because a nation decides to allow people of the same-sex to marry in civil marriage and faith marriage where that has been allowed by the faith group, doesn't mean that people faith is not respected. Indeed that faith is still protected under the Equality Act, something that does come out of being a tolerant society.

But the question at times is where is the tolerant church, within that society?

Some churches, some denominations claim they are welcoming to LGBT people. But they place expectations and restrictions on them that nobody else is expected to met to feel accepted, and expectations and restrictions that too many LGBT members are bound to fail. Of course now it is possible (with the exception of Northern Ireland) for LGBT people to abstain from sex before marriage, as marriage is now possible for same-sex couples. But apparently even after that commitment to marriage that is not the point in some church rhetoric.

Some want that same-sex couple to be celibate. Some want them to break up that union. So the question is where is the love, where is the tolerance? Where are those churches' refusal to accept those that they themselves marginalise? And where is Ed Miliband's message to those LGBT people within the church who feel marginalised? Not just during this year but for many years past and still seemingly many more to come.

The Evangelical Alliance's Response to Vicky Beeching

You may have seen the news that Christian rock singer-songwriter Vicky Beeching came out the other day.

In her interview with Patrick Strudwick in The Independent you can see the harrowing measures that Vicky went to to pray away the gay, get rid of her attraction to people of the same-sex and even though , as she says, it wasn't something that was directly taught, it was something that somehow as a Christian she felt she had to be ashamed of and hid away. There is even the harrowing tale of the meeting where she feels the need to go forward for prayer and have those feelings prayed away. That is an experience that I can fully empathise with as I went through the same sort of experience one time at the end of a meeting that I was leading worship at.

Today the Evangelical Alliance has responded, as an ex member of the Evangelical Alliance it is the sort of response I was expecting. Instead of listening to the concerns of Vicky and the many others of us who have struggled and been vocal about those struggles, they immediately strike back with someone who claims to only have had positive experiences. Like Vicky many of those that struggle come to the point where we realise that the way to stop our struggles is not to be ashamed of failing to do away with our feelings, but to realise that we are made and loved by God.

I'm not doubting that Pastor Ed Shaw, who the EA are using as their frontman, on this issue has had a lot of positive experience, but I do doubt that universally "rather than looking down on [him] they've looked up to [him] –wanting to benefit from [his] perspective." Now I know some of my evangelical friends do have that reaction, but that is the people who have known me well, but even that is not 100% inclusive.

There are others some who do not know me at all, some who know me reasonably well, who say just because I speak up for LGBT members of our churches that I have no right to say the things I say. I should just keep schtum. Rather than wanting to learn from my perspective or even listen to it they want to silence me and the others that I know of, and speak for who are not prepared to have their voices heard.

My own church the Presbyterian Church in Ireland said 7 years ago that is would listen to people with "same-sex attraction" (their phrase) and give them a safe place in which to address their issues, amongst other recommendations. But I have yet to seen evidence that this has been done. In the meantime of course when I felt that the anti same-sex marriage campaign had over 2 months of publicity in the vestibule of the church (using some very un-Christian language against Lynne Featherstone) making me feel uncomfortable being there. That instead of understanding, an apology or listening there was censor in the one ministry I was providing, a lecture and failure to address the issues at hand.

The latter is sadly more likely to be the response within Evangelical Church leaderships. It may not be the case among evangelical friends many of whom give me unconditional support, but that was based on years of me being able to fit in under the radar and not being fully open about myself. It ignores that fact that I struggled through my teenage years and 20s with thoughts of suicide or running away from it all. Not knowing who to turn to, bottling everything in. Many I know have been unable to bottle it in long enough to be confident in their own relation with God, and that is the problem.

Vicky like myself has come through many struggles. She even had the added pressure of losing her livelihood potentially as a result so kept it in during those Californian concerts ahead of Proposition 8.

Rather than automatically jump to preach mode I wish that the EA, churches and others actually do listen, and also look at the texts they keep quoting with an open eye, not the way their have been translated and mistranslated down the years.

So this happened...

This evening I had a notification through Facebook that someone had shared one of my photos. Here is how it was shared.

As you can see I have done the service of blocking out the name of the reposter and the one person who by the time I had seen it liked their attitudes. They did not do me the same keeping the person whose picture they were posting in the link (it can easily be removed). There is potential there for the poster to open somebody that they do not know up to abuse from others who have read their comments and decide to take action.

This person is someone that I do not even know, we only have one friend in common. It is currently up as my cover picture as a celebration of the Scottish Parliament passing their equal marriage legislation and the fact that same-sex marriages are now recognised in England and Wales and will soon also be carried out there.

It is a sad reflection that some Christians consider that any group set up by people of faith who want to help others of faith who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transexual to be able to come to terms with how they are created by God is a group of "filthy disgusting perverts". Sadly as many in the Faith and Pride group know only too well from personal experience once they realise their own sexual orientation, they often find in Northern Ireland that there is little visible support from the overwhelming majority of churches. They are condemned out of hand as the poster above has done as though they are sexually active. It is assumed that if you are LGBT you must be practicing sexual acts with all and sundry and that you have no self control.

Now I'll admit I'm not a saint in that department, but there are times that I have been accused by people in churches for being someone who practices the homosexual lifestyle (yeah that is a phrase I have heard), when at the time I would have been able to give blood anywhere in the UK except Northern Ireland.

However, it is the people who consider that the set of people who have faith and those who are LGBT are exclusive of each other that do harm to all those young people who grow up and worship in their midst for fear of being found out.Thankfully there are more groups like Faith and Pride out there that offer support to those individuals. Sadly we do not always get to all of them in time but other people could show Christ-like love and unconditionally love these people rather than jumping to conclusions such as these and showing nothing but hate for the individual while claiming to "love the sinner and hate the sin". The comments above actually seem to hate the people pictured without knowing anything about any of them.

Update 16:34 15 March:

Our mutual friend stood up to defend me in the comments and the original poster has responded thus:

I don't care WHO he [ie me] is, his photo suggests he supports the evil depraved organisation "Faith and Pride", whose banner is being displayed in the photo... I have read their fb page, and they claim you can be both Christian AND gay! YOU CAN'T! A Christian is someone who has REPENTED, ie turned from all known sin, and placed their faith in Christ to cleanse and purify them, both legally and in reality. Yes, our sins don't all vanish overnight, sanctification takes a lifetime. But "Faith & Pride" actively PROMOTE homosexuality as normal and OK when the bible teaches it is WRONG. The "Faith & Pride" site owner claims to be "married" to another man. "Faith & Pride" contains articles TWISTING and perverting the bible's teaching on homosexuality, claiming that the plain meaning that it's wrong, actually means something else. People who claim you can be gay and Christian are in REBELLION against God. They need to repent, & turn their backs on ANY self-identification as gay, and pray God gives them the ability to be normal. God did not create people gay.


I consider this comment to be a personal attack on someone that they do not know. It is also potentially libelous. I had reported the original post to Facebook, but as with much such occasions of such homophobic comments wrapped up in biblical terms it has been refused. So in my feedback about the decision I have stated how disatisfied I am with this response.
 

Murdo Fraser's stigmatising questions of equal marriage

Murdo Fraser

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser has laid down four questions that make for rather worrying reading when taken as a whole in relation to the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill that is progressing through Holyrood.

The first:

Question S4W-17753: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill to state that the current definition of marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Now I believe in freedom of speech. So I would want to protect people right to say that they disagree with the definition of marriage. Nobody should be forced to change the way they practice marriage, but the state can lead the way and at the same time enable faith groups to follow if they choose. In fact that was the reason that when it came to drafting Scottish Liberal Democrat policy on this that we let faith groups decide for themselves if they wanted to bring in same-sex marriage within their group.

However, when you lift the right of someone to say they disagree to the level of a belief there is a problem. Opposition to same-sex couples getting married in and of itself is not a complete belief structure. Indeed there are many people within most of the faith groups who disagree on this point to varying degrees. Some will oppose it absolutely, some oppose it within any faith group, some only within their faith group but are happy for others that want to to go ahead and others that are open to it however it happens. There is no straight forward belief in how people are opposed to same-sex couples getting married. It is as diverse a belief system as the faith groups themselves. 

Which leads to the second question:

Question S4W-17754: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will seek to amend the Equality Act 2010 to (a) include in the protected characteristic of religion or belief, support for the current definition of marriage and (b) ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views.

Here as I said above even those within faith groups have differing views on the current definition of marriage. What the current Bill is seeking to do is to respect whatever decision each faith group comes to via its own governance and procedures. In Scotland we have less state control of religion than in England and Wales. 

This amendment would seek to ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views. But what if them avoiding detriment comes to their views comes at the detriment of those in a same-sex marriage. You cannot impose a cover all as this amendment does. Imagine an extreme example:

"I'm sorry my Lord, but I disagree with same-sex marriage and when I found out the couple next door were 'gay married' I collapsed our connecting wall unto them stoning them to death as stated in Leviticus 20:13 I should do with man who lies with another man. But under the amendment to the Equality Act 2010 I should not suffer any detriment for acting upon my views."

Extreme maybe, but if that amendment were to be added to the equality act as it is written is there really any response that a court could make to such a defence?

Then unto question three:

Question S4W-17756: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, if same-sex marriage was introduced, what its position is on whether it would be appropriate for public sector employers to take into account the views on this of (a) applicants for posts and (b) staff when considering their suitability for employment.

Now public sector employees cover a wide gamut of positions.

First there is the obvious front line position of registrars who would have to carry out same-sex marriages. Mind you these people already carry out marriages between people of faith and those without (which their beliefs could oppose), same sex couples in civil partnerships, and even divorcees. We do not see Murdo Fraser or anyone else for that matter wanting these believes about the current definition of marriage being similarly protested.

Also what about in the workplace. Will people engaged in same-sex marriages be allowed of have pictures of their spouse and family around their work station, or would the objector who has their opposite-sex spouse and family on his object and force that to be taken down?

Then there are other public servants, the police who have to deal with homophobic abuse against a same sex couple who are married. Medical staff who would have to admit the spouse of a same-sex marriage into a patients room when only family are allowed. The benefits officer adjudicating on the benefits that a couple deserve as a respect of their marriage. Etc, etc. 

In other words as far as public servants go they have to serve the public. Their views cannot get in the way of them carrying out their duties. I know that this question was aimed solely at the task of registrars, but by being so openly worded to avoid looking targeted and openly homophobic in one area of public service, there is no way that such an open ended statement can be allowed anywhere near this Bill or its consequences.

Which leads to the final question:

Question S4W-17757: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 to specify that organisations opposed to same-sex marriage will not fail to meet the charity test because of this view.

Now I thought the aim of all the charities in Scotland was to help those in need. Whether that is adults or children. Would a charity aimed at helping children not help a child if their parents were or had been in a same-sex marriage. Would a charity fail to help someone because there were in a same-sex marriage, if they were hungry, thirsty, needed clothes, were sick or  in prison. Because if they failed on any of these definitions of charity they fail not just the charity test laid down in law but that laid down by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46. 

So Murdo is looking to protect faith charities from one part of the bible by allowing them to break another part of it. If they want to provide a charity they should follow the examples of the one they base their faith on surely. He didn't seem to differentiate between those worthy of his charity and those who didn't. In fact he broke the norms of his time reaching out to those groups that those of his faith felt were unclean, rather than banishing them from his help.

All of these 'amendments' from Murdo Fraser are probably meant to address very specific areas but in order to appear to not be stigmatising people who will become married to a same-sex partner  he has opened his parameters wide. The result is that in trying not to focus on particularly homophobic language and instances he has opened the gap far too wide. 

It shows total disregard to his first question looking for respect in a democratic society. If people who are opposed to same-sex marriage want to be respected in a democratic society they should also respect those who want to be married to a same-sex partner. That respect will allow them to disagree without discriminating.

Those of us who support equal marriage also support freedom of expression. Our expression doesn't impinge on those who object, but their trying to squeeze how far our equality goes does make some of our number more anti allowing them to keep their freedoms.

I like Steve Chalke cos he is a nice guy

Just over 20 years ago at Operation Mobilisation's Love Europe training week in Nuremburg, Germany I got my guitar out and with my fellow member of the LUKE line up team Rob Davis greeted our UK teams' guest speaker for an evening orientation season with a rock song. It only had one line, the title of this blog post repeated over and over. We then handed him a Love Preston t-shirt as a thank you for the session he had just given.

Today I want to get my guitar out again because of something that he has written here in Christianity magazine. He calls for the church to revisit its thinking on homosexuality and the need to look at it seriously. He points out correctly:

"Promiscuity is always damaging and dehumanising. Casual and self-centred expressions of sexuality – homosexual or heterosexual – never reflect God’s faithfulness, grace and self-giving love. Only a permanent and stable relationship, in which respect and faithfulness are given and received, can offer the security in which well-being and love can thrive."

Not I had been going to write a response to Rupert Everett's comments in Pink News last week about his fury against the Catholic Church. Pointing out that from my personal experience whenever the church was really hitting down on me because of my sexuality I tend to be more promiscuous as a result. This article from someone respected within the church goes some way to offering understanding and hope of the situation that gay Christians like myself find ourselves in. Steve carries on:

"One tragic outworking of the Church’s historical rejection of faithful gay relationships is our failure to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, celibacy. In this way we have left people vulnerable and isolated. When we refuse to make room for gay people to live in loving, stable relationships, we consign them to lives of loneliness, secrecy and fear. It’s one thing to be critical of a promiscuous lifestyle – but shouldn’t the Church consider nurturing positive models for permanent and monogamous homosexual relationships?"

This is one thing that I have always clung to myself in my struggles with my faith and sexuality. It is actually biblical and comes from 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7 where Paul says:

 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Of course the church expects all those with same sex attraction to remain celibate to be welcome. But as Paul says he doesn't even expect that of every heterosexual person of faith. Celibacy is a gift which not everyone is given. Yet with the Anglican church saying it will accept gay Bishops only if they are celibate, with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland saying it accepts gay people into full membership but only if they refrain from practice and so many other examples the pressure is only all LGBT people of faith to acquire a gift or fall short or fall out of favour with their churches.

In his conclusion Steve says:

"Rather than condemn and exclude, can we dare to create an environment for homosexual people where issues of self-esteem and well-being can be talked about, where the virtues of loyalty, respect, interdependence and faithfulness can be nurtured, and where exclusive and permanent same-sex relationships can be supported?

"Tolerance is not the same as Christ-like love. Christ-like love calls us to go beyond tolerance to want for the other the same respect, freedom and equality one wants for oneself. We should find ways to formally support and encourage those who are in, or wish to enter into, faithful same-sex partnerships, as well as in their wider role as members of Christ’s body."

This is the sort of love I wish I'd seen around the church when I was 14 and started to struggle with my church telling me something and every essence in my body telling me something else. This is the sort of love I have received from many of my Christian friends who for years I wasn't totally honest with, because I took a long time for me to accept me for who I was sexually. But so many of them, though there are a handful of exceptions, have accepted that I am still the same person as always, still with the same faith.

I would urge all of you to read the full extended version of what Steve has written and watch this video about the issue that he has produced.

 Update Unfortunately the head of the Evangelical Alliance has not heeded Steve's plea to contemplate and has hit straight out with this comment.

Simon says...but is wrong

I normally have a lot of time for Simon Hughes. Indeed in 2006 I supported his bid to be leader. However, yesterday in the Commons he was just wrong. He said:

"I am a member of a party that supports equal marriage, but the Minister none the less must take into account that this was in no election manifesto, that it was not in the coalition agreement and that many members of my constituency, my church and my party feel that much more work must be done to see whether it is possible to redefine civil marriage separately from the traditional definitions of religious marriage. She therefore needs to proceed very carefully and cautiously, engage with the faith leaders to seek their agreement before proceeding, and proceed with draft legislation before moving speedily to get something on the statute book."

So Simon you are right in that we are a party that supports Equal Marriage. We are also a party that supports individual and religious freedom. But here is the thing there is really no such thing as religious marriage indeed that is the argument often put by the churches, there is only one type of marriage so we are being told. The reason is that there are the legal requirements involved, there are civic elements that just happen to be able to be carried out by a religious celebrant with religious content allowed. That is something that is currently denied to other people who are LGBT and of faith, like yourself Simon, under civil partnerships.

Also does Simon seriously believe that the Minister will get the agreement of the faith leaders before proceeding? Of course there will be agreement from some, but we know that the big players at this time are not minded to be in agreement to any same-sex marriage whether civic or in a religious setting.

What the Minister should have done was protect faith groups that do not want to carry out same-sex marriage from prosecution from that stance. But enable all, and I mean all, faith groups from having the option to opt in if, or when, their own internal governance is minded to allow them to do so. Believe it or not Simon that is actually what your party stands for. Simon's comments yesterday appear to be an attempt to kick this matter into the long grass. I for one have been campaigning for years to overcome Labour's equal but separate lie about equality and feel that the long grass is not where we can allow the larger faith groups to move this for those of no faith, or those smaller faith groups who already want to progress.

Further however, the Lib Dem MPs said yesterday, after Labour and Conservatives said they were having a free vote on equal marriage, that they would all agree to introduce equal marriage and would rather do it as a free vote to show their believed it rather being told to do so by the whip. We will be watching to see how our MPs do vote on this party policy steeped in Liberal values very carefully.

In which I agree with C of E on civil partnerships in church - sort of

So the Church of England have said they won't hold civil partnership ceremonies in their churches. I say good.

Now many of you who know that I am a campaigner for equal marriage may be a little shocked by opening line, but let me explain.

The consultation in England and Wales is not as complete as the one the is drawing to a close in Scotland this week. It only has one option a civil partnership to be carried out by a religious celebrant. The Scots are looking at equalising marriage, allowing religious groups to carry out same sex marriage and looking at the necessity or not of maintaining civil partnerships if that is the case, as well as looking and the England and Wales proposals. You will notice as I do that Northern Ireland hasn't got any consultation on equal marriage of any type going on or pending.

However, why do I agree with the Church of England on this? Probably not for the reason that the Bishops are in opposition but for the sheer hypocricy of the idea of civil partnerships being carried out on religious premises when a civil marriage is carried out by the same registrar at the registry office of other designated building. Of course the Government aren't proposing that civil marriage is to be carried out on religious premises that would be pointless. If people want a religious location to carry out their ceremony of commitment they want the hymns, prayers, religious lesson for marriage all interspersed within the ceremony. But with a civil partnership that cannot be the case, so it is nowhere near equal.

You see for me as an LGBT person of faith a civil partnership in a church just isn't the same as what my other friends get. Also a civil ceremony should not be in a religious setting, if you want a civil ceremony its because for whatever reason you don't want a religious element. However, there are religious groups that want to be able to carry out same sex marriage. There is religious freedom in the proposals which allow religious groups to opt-in to the ability to carry out same-sex ceremonies. Because of that the Church of England is not opposing the proposals.

I repeat.

The Church of England are NOT opposing the suggestion of civil partnerships in religious buildings, they just don't see it as something that their church will buy into.

Note before anyone criticises me for having a go at the good that Lynne Featherstone has achieved in getting this far, I'm not. On the day that she made her announcement at Lib Dem conference I did talk to her about these issues. She said she had done the best she could, seeing as the men who debated our coalition deal had forgotten to include anything in their deal about this issue and that she was aware it was far short of what the Lib Dem policy on the issue was and she'd carry on working for that to be fully implemented.

'Hymn or Us' without Him

Last night the Rev David McIlveen didn't turn up to GLYNI (Gay and Lesbian Youth Northern Ireland's) even for the Belfast Pride Festival entitled "Hymn or Us". It was a look at can homosexuality and being LGBT co-exist. Earlier in the week on BBC Radio Ulster's Wendy Talks Back while discussing the non-appearance of Jim Wells at the "Pride on the Hill" David McIlveen and Simon Rae the secretary of Belfast Pride both showed that Rev McIlveen was more than welcome to return to Pride in the debate that was due to happen last night; he'd appeared at a similar event last year.

However, Rev McIlveen was unable to attend dues to "an issue in his church". He was replaced by a Church of Ireland lay preacher Dermot O’Callaghan, who along with Mike Davidson of Core Issues, Pádraig Ó Tuama of Irish Peace Centres and Rev Chris Hudson of All Souls Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church took questions from the audience directed by the BBC William Crawley.

The discussion was wide ranging seeing as there were a high number of LGBT people of faith in the room with a vast variety of personal experiences. There also were a number of straight people in the room, some the parents of LGBT children, one a young man training to be a minister in the Presbyterian Church.

Dermot O'Callaghan tried to use some rather selective science, just as yesterday Rev McIlveen's church tried to use rather selective readings from the King James Bible, to say that being gay was down to nurture not nature. Apparently it is not the same as left handedness or skin colour as something we are born with because there are twins who are not both gay, I know some twins who are not both left handed as well. Well there was one blogger's father who asked the pertinent question about how he didn't bring up his sons to be gay, he didn't nurture them that way, and did that make him a bad father or his wife a bad mother.

Somebody else had asked Mike Davidson of Core Issues after he said that he started with the presumption that homosexuality was a sin and that reparative therapy wouldn't work for everyone, did that mean that some people were beyond salvation. After a bit of stumbling he said yes. But William Crawley also challenged him on his qualifications, or lack thereof for giving therapy. The killing blow came when he was asked "Most therapists see someone unqualified providing therapy and counselling as unethical." Davidson actually replied "Yes" before going on to try and cover his tracks.

Chris Hudson brought up a good point about those who disagree that you can be gay and a Christian, as these people concentrate more on the practise that the being. He said that the bible isn't a sex guide but a book about love with a care ethic.

Then the young Presbyterian Minister in training got up near the end. Admitting that these were his first baby steps into this whole element of theological thought. But at least he was there. He saw that the LGBT community can respect those that disagree with us and not shout them down, lock them out or ignore their opinions as is often the case in the reverse. I hope he does look at these things more fully, I obviously gave him a few tips of where to start from within the PCI, like the Board of Social Witnesses own pastoral guidelines and what they are doing about the action points, something I may have blogged about before.

Anyway it was a night of good discussion and there was certainly a lot to take away and think about, as much for the panellists and those in the audience.

Update Thanks to IcedCoffee for pointing me in the direction of this Vlog by @RuthEbabes

Seeking the non-existant gay on/off swtich : today in Belfast

Today is one of those strange days. As soon as this story broke on the BBC website I would have expected a DM from Andrew Reeves either asking me for details, or telling me he was going to blog about it, or already had and would I like to comment.

His blog post would of course taken the line that no religion had any place to say anything about being LGBT, my riposte would of course have mentioned that the church needs to recognise the LGBT members within their midst that have not turned their back on them despite the church turning their backs, all too often, on them.

You see today in Northern Ireland one of Iris Robinson's 'christian' psychologist friends David Pickup is in Belfast to promote reparative therapy. The group holding a one day seminar up at Belvoir Parish Church, CORE supports "men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression". They see having same sex attractions as an illness that is there to be cured. They see it is being a lesser option that being straight. They see it as something that through therapy can be suppressed and heterosexual lifestyle and feelings comes into its place. They say there is some sort of switch that can turn off the same sex attractions that LGB people feel. There isn't, I've tried TWICE. They say they love LGBT people, but pressure them into feeling lesser, to feeling that they are constantly failing, from a holier than though, judgemental stand point.

Forgive me if I am wrong or stepping out of line here but part of the bible tells me I should not bear false witness. You may have heard of that bit, it is the ten commandments. Now the fact is that I am attracted to other men. That does not necessarily more that one at the same time and be promiscuous. I can be so in love that I only have eyes for one man at a time, just as a heterosexual can only have eyes for one person of the opposite gender.

I don't have issues with that. At fifteen and sixteen because that is what the church seemed to imply, or on the rare occasions it was talked about tell me straight. My church now does have some pastoral guidelines on people with same sex attractiveness. It does come over 20 years after I needed pastoral guidance, although I doubt under the guidelines at present I would seek such pastoral care at that age. My profession of faith, enough to become a member of the church, is not sufficient, now is my preparedness to donate to church funds all because of my sexuality and more to the point my not wishing to hide it under a bushel: not that I'm shouting it from the rooftops either in the confines of any Presbyterian meeting house.

See I'm a Liberal Democrat, as such I don't think anyone should be enslaved, by poverty, ignorance or conformity. The people at the seminar in Belfast today are ignorant of the harm that reparitive therapy can do and they are trying to make people who are difference conform to a norm. They say willingly, but it is most often merely so that they fit in that they submit to this. There are people out there who are Christian, or of other faiths, and LGBT.

There is a protest up at Belvoir Parish Church handing out leaflets to highlight the harm that this approach to LGBT people within the church can cause, but because of all manner of commitments I am unable to attend in person. There is a growing open LGBT community in Northern Ireland, because of our religious nature a lot of that community is of faith and have struggled, or are struggling, with that dual persona themselves. It is not an issue they have with themselves, but an issue of how the church and fellow Christians perceive them.

Thankfully according to the BBC only 15 people were inside this morning attending the seminar.

Read Also 

• Andrew Mc Farland on Faith and Pride 
• Ed Simpson on Looking for a Better Way
• Jeffry G. Ford Reparative Therapy: A Pseudo Science

Update

Just seen  David Pickup on the lunchtime news. He says that gay is a lifestyle choice and wasn't around 100 years ago. Maybe we should tell to Edward Carson QC, whose statue is outside Parliament Buildings, whose judgement in favour of the Marquess of Queensbury in the libel case brought by Oscar Wilde in 1895, led to a warrent being issued for his arrest for gross indecency* upon leaving that trial. The eventual 2 years sentance of hard labour obviously mistaken as there was no such thing as gay 100, never mind 116 years ago.

* Homosexual acts not amounting to buggery.

Irish Presbyterian sets off on its trajectory

Former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland the Very Rev. Dr. Stafford Carson has written on his blog about the resolution, which I blogged about yesterday, that was passed yesterday by the General Assembly concluding:

"By passing this resolution, PCI has not only distanced itself from the trajectory taken by the Church of Scotland, but has indirectly affirmed its position on the qualifications required of those holding office in the church, believing that the Bible is clear in its statements on God’s will for us with regard to sexual relationships."

He calls it a good debate, but the debate appears not to have taken into account any views from the gay Presbyterians in Ireland, merely the men and women who lead the church.

So there you have it folks clearly the bible does teach us clearly about sexual relations. If your brother dies without a son you must take your sister-in-law as a wife, if you refuse the elders will be coming after you (Deut 25:5-9). All those fights outside pubs, be care ladies if to you reach out and grab a man's genitals your are about to lose the hand (Deut 25:11-12). Of course the rhythm method is also seen as evil in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 38:6-10) keep in there guys when making love to your wife. Or if soldiers masturbate or have a wet dream in the night they have to sleep outside the camp (Deut 23:10) actually that one might work.

You see there are plenty of example yet the church is het up about the act rather than whether is carried out in a caring scenario. Isn't it better to be monogamous and in love with one person than denied even that and therefore consumed by lust (1 Cor 7:9).

So the church has set off on its trajectory, where and what next for me?

Is Irish Presbyterianism resolute against theological look at homosexuality?

Did I say two years, I clearly meant two weeks so Andrew Page was right when he tweeted to me that I'd probably be revisiting the issue of gay clergy in the Presbyterian Church sooner.

Idaho sticker with the PCI's Union College in background

Of course this week is the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI), the denomination that I currently attend though am not a member of, because of my sexuality. However, tensions have arisen from the fact that the outgoing Moderator the Very Reverend Dr Norman Hamilton reported to the General Assembly of the PCI in Belfast about his visit to the mother church's General Assembly in Edinburgh. He said that there is a widespread view that the traditionalist position in Scotland on the ordination of those who are gay or lesbian was rejected for what was described as the "revisionist" position. Before going on to say:

"Those who are advocating this latter position included one minister who spoke warmly of the contribution that bisexuals and those who are transgendered can make to Christian ministry, whilst another spoke of how the Bible had been shown up to be wrong in the past and that we now know better.


 "The traditionalist view was articulated by many in The Kirk, and by every visiting delegate who spoke, myself included, and there is no doubt that many of those who hold this position in the Church of Scotland seemed seriously demoralised and deeply apprehensive about future developments."

As one of those whose contribution to Christian Ministry* is welcomed in the PCI, but even my confession of faith nor willingness to contribute to church funds in not enough to be a full communicant member. People have from a young age thought that I should go into the Ministry apply to Union College (pictured) and see where God would lead me. Of course from my teen years I had my own struggle with myself and my own view (or was that my churches imposed view) of my own sexuality. It was a struggle that I've blogged about before that took me over a decade.

So while of course there may not be a clamour within Irish Presbyterianism I doubt that I am the only LGBT Presbyterian who has been excluded from full membership as a result of the pastoral guidelines of the PCI published in 2007. Those guidelines did point out 7 keys recommendations, the final four are key:

4. continue to encourage our congregations to 'Create an environment of love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace.'
5. ask that the BSW to investigate the possibility of creating 'a safe space' for people struggling with their sexuality and that funding be sought to create such a safe space.
6. ask the BSW and Board of Youth and Children’s Ministries to cooperate in updating the Loving in the Real World youth resource to include more instructive material on the area of same-sex attraction.
7. encourage the possibility of the establishment of parents' support group/s to help parents who are struggling with the issues surrounding children who have 'come out'.

Today a resolution that is highly critical of the Church of Scotland looking at the theology of same sex attraction is being by the Very Rev Dr John Lockington (Moderator in 1999), and Lurgan minister the Rev Nigel J McCullough. The Church of Scotland having decided to have theologians look into the issue such a resolution if passed is merely not even going to let the subject be spoken about.

Does such a stance show love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace?

Read also Former Moderator Very Rev. Stafford Carson's blogpost on the Church of Scotland General Assembly.

* Currently playing bass for services, in the past as a Bible Class Leader, BB Officer, Holiday Bible Club leader and sent out to work on summer and year long missions.

Tattooing in Church

The Tattooed Priest from Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet

I was rather surprised this morning when the first words of the children's address were:

"Does any of you have a tattoo?"

I think I was almost as shocked as the Minister finding out that one little girl's hand went up in the affirmative response. Fortunately hers is a temporary version, probably picked up at some party yesterday.

The reason I posted it was that, as I've blogged before,Leviticus 19:28 says:

"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord" New International Version

I said then that it was selective theology of the guy who had Leviticus 18:22 tattooed on his skin, i.e.

"You shall not lie with a male, as one does with a female. It is an abomination." New American Standard Bible

So how am I to react then? If the same man who asked if I were a homosexual before saying he could not recommend me for membership, then turns around and gives a children's talk mentioning tattoos. Even so far as implying that some in the church have them, and talking about David Beckham's in a positive not negative way. Is this not also selective theology?

Where was the condemnation or cautionary notes about tattoos at a talk aimed at ones so young? Nowhere! Just the repeating of what one youngster said that "Those tattoos were for grown ups."

When all I want to do is be open to the possibility that I may fall in love with someone why do I stand condemned in the tattoo parlour of church. I'm told to be celibate, or not be open and honest about my sexuality. Yet in the words of Paul:

"If they cannot control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust" 1 Corinthians 7:9 New Living Translation 2nd Edition

Is it double standards? Double standards that I know don't apply in all Christians or in all churches. Is it time to look for somewhere where I can feel accepted as who I am?

For clarity The point being made was about Isaiah 49:16, where it says. "See, I [The Lord] have written your names in the palms of my hands" New International Readers Version

Kirk to look theologically into homosexual clergy

It's been two years since the Church of Scotland's General Assembly upheld the calling of openly gay minister Scott Rennie to be minister at Queen's Cross, Aberdeen. However, it was followed by a two moratorium on any other openly gay people applying to join the ministry in the Kirk.

This week the General Assembly were finally going to decide on the commission that was set up to look at the issue of sexuality and being in a pastoral position over a congregation. As I blogged earlier this month there were two options on the table. The first of which was to implement a ban on homosexuals training to be ministers — despite such discrimination being illegal — while the second was to allow people in a same-sex relationship to train for the ministry but set up a theological commission to come up with a definitive answer in 2013.

Earlier today the General Assembly in Edinburgh decided to set up the theological commission to look into this issue and give a definitive answer by 2013. They also voted to accept gay and lesbian clergy provided they had declared their sexuality and were ordained before 2009.

At least the barn door is still open, as I blogged 2 years ago I don't expect the Church to totally come to terms with things overnight.So to continue to look into it is certainly a step in the right direction. They cannot ignore the fact that there are some of us out there who are Christian and LGB, some of that group also have the leadership and pastoral skills that are essential to be a Kirk minister. Some of those people feel called to serve as a minister, not only to a LGB community but to the community as a whole. No minister will ever experience every experience that his congregation goes through, because not all ministers are called to have the live of Job, but they learn from the word and from their own experience what is required in each circumstance.

No doubt I'll be returning to this subject again in two years time.

Secularism Shouldn't Cold Shoulder All People of Faith

I see (via Simon Wilson) that Tim Montgomerie over at ConservativeHome has pointed out that the National Secularist Society* (NSS) want to do away with people of religion in the House of Commons. They have said about David Kerr:

"The concern for voters would be that such a person would have their allegiance to the Church and not to the SNP. It is one thing to bring your religious beliefs to politics, but it is another to bring the dogmas of a right-wing Catholic organisation. That would be the worry for voters."

The HSS will argue that this only applies to members of Opus Die but their wording and the title of their society would point to their underlying agenda.

In 2005 I faced Michael Connarty a well known MP in the British Humanist Society. He is well aware that I was one of two of his opponents in that campaign who confessed a Christian faith. But I'm sure that if you were to ask Michael should that disbar me from seeking election to the commons he would say of course not. The only thing he would argue that should prevent me from sitting in the House of Commons are my views on policies.

Indeed many of my secular friends feels that surely my faith must shape my politics, while many of my Christian friends accuse my politics of affecting my faith. I guess somewhere in the middle is where the truth lies. Indeed if you were to look at my voting, speaking and writing record I'm sure you would be hard pressed to guess or prejudge just how you'd expect me to react based purely on my faith. Indeed I did blog against a lot of fellow Lib Dems on the matter of how liberal are we on the matter of people's believes over some of the clamp downs on religion in recent months.

If we are to have a representative democracy part of that democracy must still be those of faith, all faiths in our country. Yes some of them will have very conservative views on a number of ethical matters, but not all people of faith are that bound by that when they come to matters of conscious. Charles Wesley was actually under fear of personal assault when he preached from the pulpit to end slavery for example. There are Christians on both sides of the debate regarding human sexuality and abortion for example. It is not just as black and white as the NSS would maybe want to have us believe.

No doubt this may spark some debate from the usual quarters, but we can't go blocking people from seeking election for any reason we just don't happen to agree with. If they are way out of line then we need to win the debate, show them up for what they are. But merely being of faith is not one of those reasons. Many of those as Simon pointed out were actually at the vanguard of social reforms going against the norms of society. Don't forget it was son of the Manse David Steel who he introduced his Private Members Bill in 1967 to legalise abortion, although Roy Jenkins had wanted him to sponsor a bill on homosexual law reform to incorporate Scotland when he came up in the ballot. So the NSS and others shouldn't tar everyone of faith with the same brush, sometimes we're the most revolutionary, forward-thinking, risk-averse people out there.

* UPDATE: Correction has been made as I originally posted Human Secularist Society instead of National Secularist Society. There may have been some confusion with the Humanist Society of Scotland who have made no statement on David Kerr.