Suicide, the DUP and Me

Today I head that a friend, fellow LGBT+ activist and member of another political party has been suspended from a suicide prevention charity because of comments he posted linking suicide with the DUP. Just under a year ago a member of my close extended family committed suicide. Looking back at the draft I attempted to write at the time a number were trying to address that subject in a relevant way but they never really hit the mark or passed my standards for pressing publish. This time I hope this is different*.

I first considered taking my life in the 80s when I was 15/16 it was a grey day down by the docks as I contemplated jumping in the cold waters off the pier. It was during the period that the DUP were still attempting to safe Ulster from Sodomy. It was a phrase I had heard often, it was a phrase that even at that time I knew was directed at me although at the time I was attempted to fight who I was. 

I didn't jump as you can tell as I am here writing this but that was far from the last time I half felt depressed because of my sexuality.

I went to tertiary education in Kingston starting at the Polytechnic but graduating with a University degree in total I spent 10 years learning to be and to love me, but at the same time still fighting being me. I had grown in confidence, I had grown into an adult me, I was more in control of who I was and more able to defend what I stood for. Something that happened very early on in an Economics tutorial being able to defend a position that was opposite to that of the tutor.

It was in the five years I was back in Northern Ireland that I first really came out. However, this was also a time when I became anxious once again over who I was. My parents reaction was good, as was that of those I worked with and played bowls with. However, before too long I was over in Scotland and away from Northern Ireland for another 8 years. 

However, let me tell you what still knocks me most, makes me most depressed and on occasion leads me to fight suicidal thoughts. It is the times politicians or church people run me down for being gay. The language they use, the assumptions they make about how I live and the way they keep doing it. Now I am mostly able to stand my own when facing these debates. Like a good student I am well prepared with all the background reading I would need and more. I know the facts, I know the etymology of the verses that clergy will quote at me, sometimes better than they do.

However, there are times that continually doing so, or just having a tough time standing up for myself does lead to depression. I reckon it I weren't stronger I would not still be here. If I didn't have the support of many good friends both of faith and without I would be just another statistic. There are certainly some members of the DUP who may prefer that I was a statistic rather than a thorn in their side a constant reminder in their inbox for them to ignore. 

The thing is that the DUP in my experience tend to ignore when anyone raises LGBT+ issues with them. So I am please that they are meeting with the Equal Marriage campaigners here. However, while their representatives may block me out the same cannot be done for them or their supporters. I need to stay abreast of the news and current events and often we here the hateful comments about LGBT+ people on our TVs, Radios or Newspapers. It is something I wish I could avoid but at the same time know I have to respond to, stand up to and be heard. This is not just for me but for those who are the shy me that I was in my teens, the insecure me, the scared me and the suicidal me.

So while the DUP are ignoring reports that do show that LGBT+ people are more likely to have self-harm and suicidal intentions, someone who points out that they don't take action is suspended for doing so. I certainly feel more suicidal when I'm being called abnormal, an abomination or have a deviant lifestyle. This mostly comes as a direct result from Northern Irish politicians and Northern Irish Christians, when people accept me strangely I don't feel like that.

So is there a direct link between the institution homophobia for the DUP and self-harm and suicide?

Considering the party not only have never voted for any positive LGBT+ legislation but have petitioned of concerned every bill that has come before the NI Assembly. Their elected representatives are amongst the most vocal in belittling LGBT+ people with words whether in political chambers or debates on media. 

In my personal opinion there certainly is a constant straw attempting to break the camel's back. It has not yet got all the way through but on occasion it has been close. Whether from the DUP, religious leaders or ordinary members of the church I was born into all have at times come close to me committing suicide.

*Even after writing that at the start there are still parts of this I have not included in the above despite the length.

How DUP define space for difference

I see in the Larne Times today a report of the public meeting where "60" members of the public attended to hear about Paul Givan's conscience clause. I'm assuming that as the picture appears to be in the middle of the meeting that the other 20-24 had either left early, arrived late or all had to attend the toilet at the same time the photographer arrived.

However, what strikes me are the comments quoted of DUP councillor Gordon Lyons. He says:

"I do not want to live in a community where all have to conform to the same thoughts and ideals, but rather I want to live in one where there is space for difference."

You know reading that line in isolation it fits rather snuggly over the Liberal Democrat line in the pre-amble to our constitution where is says, "nobody shall be enslaved by conformity. Looks all nice and liberal.

However, here is the context in which it was said:

"Essentially this debate is about the kind of society we live in. Do we want to live in one in which people have to make a choice between continuing in their business or profession or following their conscience? That does not sound like a pluralist or liberal society. 

"I do not want to live in a community where all have to conform to the same thoughts and ideals, but rather I want to live in one where there is space for difference. That is what this legislation is about."

Not quite so liberal and pluralist after all.

On the essentials he is right this debate is about the kind of society we live in.

But when it come to continuing your business, we have seen the recent case where a printing business has decided he will not print the civil partnership invites of a long standing customer in Drogheda because of his conscience. The customer is now upset that he wasn't told about this objection to his homosexuality earlier, no doubt because he would not have give four years of trade from his own business to the printers had he known.

Gay people don't all live in the big metropolises of our nation some of them live out in villages or small rural towns where there may only be one printer, one baker, one store, one restaurant etc within easy reach. There may be no choice for a gay business owner to shift their business if turned down or spurned because of their sexual orientation. There may be no space in such circumstances under a conscience clause for their difference. Indeed one couple in England face someone threatening to drive them out of their village for being gay.

You see the conscience clause instead of allow space for difference, allows some people to designate their space as only for homogeneous conformists to their own ideals and thoughts. That is not the sort of society I want to live in.

Selective Ten Commandments

The theft of part of the Mannamán Mac Lir statue (pictured right) that overlooks Lough Foyle near Limavady appears to be a case of selective ten commandments following by religious zealots.

The body of the Celtic sea god was removed with a wooden cross put in its place on which were inscribed the words "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" along with the Greek letters alpha and omega (one of the biblical names for God "the beginning and the end"). Now this is the first commandment as listed in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but no body is making this statue an idol that would defile the second commandment. Of course locally people will refer to Mannamán's anger when Lough Foyle is rough and call seahorses that form on the lough Mannamán's but this is not idolatry but merely placing a representation of a myth in an area that they are associated with.

But this statue was commissioned by Limavady Borough Council at a cost of £10,000 plus was drawing tourists away from the other tourist attractions in the Foyle area such as the City of Derry/Londonderry bringing tourist money into the area for more than just Benone beach down below. Therefore not only have the perpetrators cost local taxpayers £10,000 and whatever the replacement cost might be they are also stealing money from tourism that local businesses may have relied upon. So they have actually broken the 8th commandment.

However, I do have a question for however carried out this theft. From their thinking how to they refer to the days of the week?

• Monday after all is named for the North Germanic moon god Mani.
• Tuesday after the Norse one handed god Tyr the god of one handed combat.
• Wednesday for Norse Wodan or his North Germanic counterpart Odin who was a guide for souls after death.
• Thursday of course is called for Thor the god of Thunder
• Friday is after the Anglo-Saxon fertility goddess Frige 
• Saturday is the only day to retain it Roman god as it origin Saturn the god of wealth, agriculture, liberation and time
• Even Sunday is named like Monday for the body in the sky. The Sun goddess Sunna in Germanic and Norse mythology

Therefore taking this action to the logical conclusion these poor thieves must have a tough time referring to the days of the week.

All I want for Christmas is....

 This is Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. He is a man who it would seem has set himself up for a pretty busy advent season this year.

Why?

Well in his sermon on Sunday he said it was possible to cure the world of AIDS by Christmas. Here we were over 30 years after the outbreak of this disease and he apparently has the solution within 4 weeks. No wonder he is going to be busy.

He is going to have to produce his solution and distribute it to the 35 million people world wide living with HIV/AIDS world wide in a little over 25 days. Not to mention the 5,753 new cases who will be diagnosed every day during his quest.

But is he going to be handing out a vaccine and cure to those 35 million people of whom 3.2 million are aged less than 15? No.

His solution instead is to go out there and stone all the gay and bisexual men out there. Even my his own reckoning of 1.6% of the USA population being gay and 0.7% bi that is approximately 7,344,107 US citizens he would have to kill to eradicate the 2.3 million cases of HIV/AIDS in North America, Western and Central Europe. That is before he deals with the situation in Europe. And that is but the tip of the iceberg.

But in Sub-Saharan Africa with 24.7 millions cases and most of those countries cracking down on homosexuality hard finding 24.7 million gay and bisexual men is bound to be hard. Here of course the spread of HIV is largely through heterosexual intercourse, hence the large number of women infected and the large number who pass it on to their children as a result.

So merely getting rid of all the gay and bisexual men in the world would not be enough. He's also have to stone all the people who have had more than one sexual partner in their life just to be certain.

But the biggest task before he sets out to possibly kills probably over 50% of the world's population to be absolutely certain is one even taller order. However, it is one that I'm sure a Pastor whose church claims to be faithful the word would want to do. It is to obey the practical example of Jesus. When they brought an adulterous woman to Jesus wanting to stone her to death he responded to them "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

So I'll make a deal with Pastor Anderson. If he can find someone without sin to cast that first stone I will meet up with him. I'd like the local police to be present and a few television crews to witness his start of cleansing the world of AIDS. To see the effect that finding this righteous man stoning a gay man who is not living with HIV or AIDS will have on the 35 million who would still be living with HIV/AIDS.

Bigots on every side

Today is World Aids Day and although I am not personally living with HIV I have friends who are.

But my day has taken an interesting track today.

For a start the letter that I had published in this morning's Belfast Telegraph led to one of my Christian friends in Northern Ireland telling me that they felt they could no longer remain my friend on Facebook and the unfriended me. I sent them the link to my blog post which gave the full version of my original letter to show them that I did not and would not have a go at Christian's per se, but I was having a go at those with privilege extending it to others. I also asked them to tell me in each of the examples that I listed which side was most of the churches or churched on at the times that equality was extended.

I hope they realise that the church has been behind on a number of occasions from slavery to other believe systems to women and that LGBT is just the latest manifestation.

But over the weekend I also posted a sad story about parents who sent their gay son to reparative therapy. Only for him later to rebel and seek to find himself, sadly in a way that would eventually kill him. But the happy ending is that they are teaching that the dangers of reparative therapy are more than the dangers of a LGBT child falling in love with someone of the same sex and settling down.

Sadly one of my acquaintances on Facebook without reading this attacked the article as being Churches attacking LGBT people. It led to some friends messaging me in private to tell me that they felt unsafe on commenting on this post to my time line. Friends who are in the church and supportive or leaning that way in relation to accepting LGBT people within it. When people like that, who are supportive, feel unable to speak up because someone else takes ownership of a thread despite their own ignorance as to the specifics that is as dangerous as reparative therapy. The reason is that some of those supporters get turned off from helping LGBT young people in their midst and the end result is that more of them will feel more isolated until they find others like themselves, if they do, and it is not too late.

So I make no apology for listing both these people as bigots and they exist on both sides of the debate over church and LGBT. But there really shouldn't be sides of this. However,  many church people cannot see LGBT individuals and issues as things that concern them, despite Jesus saying go into all the world. At the same time many LGBT people see no point in talking civilly to people who are religious, despite many of them being supportive and the best people to make sure other religious people become supportive too.

But while there are isolated incidents such as the ones I faced today there are far more people of faith or who are LGBT who are supportive of the stance that I take on this issue, treading a careful line between the two because both are part of who I and others actually are.

But while I felt a little stigma for being me today that is as nothing to the stigma that some who live with HIV feel everyday. But while we still have ignorant comments such as those of UKIP's deputy leader Christopher Monckton the other day many will continue to do so.

We need to stamp out bigotry and the stigma than involves and that goes both ways.

A simple choice says Peter

"Flag-lowering, parade-stopping, gay marriage supporting, pro-water charging, holier than thou Alliance Party".

Was the recommendation that Peter Robinson made of the Alliance Party in his speech this afternoon, so let me take those epithets that raised raucous applause from the small minded, one directioned, homophobic, financially irresponsible, holier than God himself DUP delgates found so humourous and look at them one by one.

Flag lowering: Whilst this relates to Belfast City Council, for Derry City Council and many of the councils to the West of the Bann the Alliance Party policy on flying the Union Flag on designated days is actually a flag raising policy. Yes it is one that Sinn Féin and the SDLP need some work on to see it as being fair to the minority of unionists who live in the council areas that they live in. Some of those Unionists undoubtedly vote DUP but haven't seen the Union Flag fly from their civic buildings for years. Therefore where is the DUP call for the flag to fly on all public buildings to mark the Royal Birthdays, the Queen's Coronation Day etc? Of course designated days is what happens in most council areas in Great Britain, indeed some fly other flags Orkney flies the Norwegian Flag on Norway Day, and many the Rainbow flag for Pride.

So make that Flag Raising or Flag Equality

Parade stopping: No doubt refers to the Twadell Avenue stand off, but it was the Parade's Commission as voted for by 71% of the Northern Irish people in response to the Belfast Agreement who decided that one final part of their parade home on the Twelve in 2013 should not go past a parade of shops in a nationalist area. This was based on previous violence in the area from both sides over previous parades. The DUP of course are supporting the cost of policing the ongoing action there  in hundreds of thousands of pounds, while the PSNI this week announced some cuts to manning of police stations to try and meet budget constraints on top of suspending historical enquiry work.

So make that Police Supporting and People Respecting.

Gay Marriage Supporting: Of course marriage equality is not just about the gays (and lesbians), it also affects the bisexuals and those who are transgender and intersex. But then when you are used to attcking just the G of the LGBT+ spectrum you can't be expected to know the details of some of my potential partners I an marry but others I cannot, spousal vetoes and stolen years of "togetherness". Nor does it allow those faith groups that want to carry out same-sex marriages the same rights as their brethren in England, Wales and very soon Scotland. Of course when you defend the union and attack LGBT+ equality on a par with the rest of the Kingdom you make a certain section second class citizens in their own land.

So make that Equal Marriage Supporting or just Equality Supporting.

Pro-Water Charging: Water charging is just one possible way to increase government income. We do have a failing water and sewage provision infrastructure which needs a sizeable amount of work and replacement. One way this is funding in England, Wales and Scotland is through the water charge component in the council tax. So yeah while we have a financial crisis shouldn't we be looking at the various ways that we miss out on the revenue that the rest of the UK can call upon to actually do stuff with, but then doing stuff and the Assembly are two things that very rarely go together. Of course Peter Robinson is looking to get control of local corporation tax, but that is only so he can lower it to match the Republic of Ireland and therefore create more holes in budgets. Taxes and revenue need to meet expenditure not cause even more savings to be sought.

So make that Fiscally Responsible.

Holier than thou: Coming from a party that fails to take into account people of non-Christian, Roman Catholic Faith, or no faith into consideration this seems rather rich. When their definition of what is right is based on a rather narrow reading of the Bible which not even every Christian in Northern Ireland holds to 100%. When they cannot legislate for the state without reference to the bible it is clear who truly is Holier than thou, though I suspect that like the Pharisees and Sadducees before them are actually Holier than God creating extra laws and legislations to go on top of what Moses was given. This is why Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love. For until you can live up to that one you cannot possibly start to consider the others and that is where the hate for certain sectors and failure to understand equality legislation leads to.

So finally I make that  Being a Good Samaritan for EVERYONE.

So in conclusion what Peter failed to see is that the Alliance Party is actually:

Flag Equality Everywhere, Police Supporting, People Respecting, Equality Supporting, Fiscally Responsible, Good Samaritan for EVERYONE

So yeah it is a simple choice for the people of East Belfast. If they want progress and normality that most of the Western World knows, loves and experiences then they can vote for Naomi Long. If they want to carry on with the bigotry, keeping others down and lurching from one financial crisis to another they can back Gavin Robinson.

Dear Churches of Northern Ireland: My slice of the equality cake

Here are a few of the statements made by churches in Northern Ireland in relation to the Equality Commission decision of action over Ashers Bakery.

First the Presbyterian Church in Ireland:

The Convener of the Church and Society Committee of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Very Rev. Dr. Norman Hamilton, has issued the following statement:

"I want to express deep concern on behalf of our Church at the apparent decision of the Equality Commission to take further steps towards legal action against the owners of Ashers Baking Company.

"In a situation where a business has clearly stated that it is willing to serve any customer irrespective of religion, sexual orientation or political belief, it surely is totally unjust to attempt to compel it to be involved in promoting causes which in conscience are against the owners’ strongly held Christian beliefs. There ought to be much more scope to exercise freedom of conscience in such situations, and as a society we need to strive for 'reasonable accommodation' in situations where there is a genuine conscientious problem.

"Such an apparent decision by the Equality Commission is not only very unhelpful in the particular situation in question, but it potentially undermines and shuts down the kind of respectful wider debate and discussions that are necessary. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland wants to encourage thoughtful, gracious and yet rigorous discussion about how Biblical faith should relate to equality legislation. Indeed, we recently held a well-attended day conference, entitled 'Equality, freedom and religion'.  There is a need to think through what a God honouring and Biblically faithful approach to equality, human rights and freedom should look like in our ever changing society. There is a need for Churches and Christian people to engage with these issues and indeed be to the fore in promoting such equality and human rights. However, decisions such as that apparently taken by the Equality Commission, far from assisting in such necessary engagement, in fact makes it significantly harder. This is a deeply regrettable failure of civic leadership by the Equality Commission." 6 Nov 2014

The Evangelical Alliance added this:

"Ashers Baking Company have been all over the news this week .They have indicated that they won't bow to renewed pressure from the Equality Commission who have decided to take them to court for declining to make what has become known as 'the gay cake'. The Christian run bakery declined to make a cake supporting gay marriage because it was against the directors' religious beliefs. Listen to a discussion of the case on BBC Talkback here.

"I believe the Ashers case could have serious ramifications that many in the media and elsewhere don't seem to have grasped. It isn't about a 'gay cake', in fact it has very little to do with sexuality or gay rights – the McArthurs who own Ashers did not know the sexual orientation of the customer. The Equality Commission have now written to Ashers saying they are not only guilty of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation but also religious and political opinion. The issue is that if this case is lost, religion will have been effectively banished from the public square. Significant political freedoms will also be lost as the Equality Commission decides which political and religious views are acceptable and which are not." 7 Nov 2014

The Methodist Council on Responsibility:

"We are deeply concerned about the decision of the Equality Commission to support legal action against Ashers Bakery following that company’s decision to refuse to make a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage.

"It is our belief that at the centre of this dispute there is the matter of conscience for Ashers.

"We commend the company for their willingness to take a stance for the sake of conscience.

"If Ashers Bakery should suffer as a consequence of taking this stand how bizarre that the commission action would have been in the name of 'equality'." 9 Nov 2014

Update 13 Nov 2011 from the Church of Ireland

"Two key issues form part of the debate: discrimination and freedom of religious conscience. The Church of Ireland recognises and commends efforts to combat discrimination. In 2012, the General Synod affirmed '[a] continuing commitment to love our neighbour, and opposition to all unbiblical and uncharitable actions and attitudes in respect of human sexuality from whatever perspective' The Church is also currently actively engaged in constructive dialogue through its Select Committee on Human Sexuality in the Context of Christian Belief. What is not at all apparent in the Ashers case, however, is that there is a charge of discrimination to answer. It seems clear that the service was declined, not because of the sexual orientation of the customer but because of the particular political message requested upon the cake. 

"It is a serious concern that the freedom of religious conscience that the law affords to all people has also been challenged by the Equality Commission's decision. The owners of the baking company were upholding their adherence to the traditional Christian view on marriage as being between one man and one woman. In fact this position was affirmed by a majority of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland in 2012, and is the legal position in Northern Ireland. It is of real concern that a conscientious choice made by the owners of a small business, which reflects such a position, has been branded discriminatory and made the subject of heavy–handed legal action. The Church and Society Commission would encourage gracious and sensitive dialogue around this issue as we move forward."

Of these only the first one from the PCI talks about a wider issue, the EA hint at it but only in so far as it encrouches on them. Now if the churches think they are under attack you should try being a gay Christian in Northern Ireland.

If I post anything religious on my tweeter or Facebook timeline I have gay activists attacking me for supporting the churches or being soft on them, if I post something about LGBT equality I get attacked globally. If I post something that mentions both well it is like all hell has broken loose.

I would be more willing to accept the point of view of those in Christian circles on the recent Ashers dilemma if they did actually acknowledge that there is a grey area legally in all of this. That for a start Ashers had taken money for the order as a deposit and later rescinded that order. That also there is no disclaimer on Ashers website that you personalised celebration cake design may be subject to subsequent refusal because of its design. Nor do they acknowledge that part of the legal framework of this country does not allow discrimination on the perceived or actual sexual orientation of a patron by any company.

However, by ignoring certain issues in this case, with some church leaders disengaging with the LGBT community and others talking about it threatening dialogue they are all taking the wrong approach.

There is a wider issue and many LGBT Christians within your denominations have been crying out for your church leaderships to have that meaningful conversation. Notice I'm saying conversation not a monologue as Equality, freedom and religion as mentioned by the PCI actually was. The good Samaritan wasn't the one from across the road who looked at the injured man and assessed that things were fine and carried on at haste, he was the one who came over and sat down next to him, dealt with what was the matter and stayed with him while recovery took place.

Update (13 November) My issue with the subsequently issued Church of Ireland statement is there quoting the legal position as it currently stands in Northern Ireland. We have a complex equality equation here in Northern Ireland but can anyone truly separate religions freedom from political expression on the issues of LGBT equality in protestant circles. The fact that nationalist politicians have distanced church from state is to be applauded but more and more we are seeing the protestant denominations weighing in having political say on such issues. Support of marriage equality is not an illegal political opinion to have, unlike say national socialism, and indeed it is one that many within the churches also support and hold. Nobody is normally expecting the suppliers of bespoke objects they create for them to endorse the sentiment, merely take the money and trade and provide the service, anything further than that is asking someone to sponsor your idea.

The Methodists believe the centre of the issue is a matter of conscience, but when a matter of conscience is based on a precept that excludes others you are missing the whole point of your gospel to lover everyone, no caveats, no matters of conscience. Maybe the centre of this matter does lie elsewhere, many in the LGBT community hate the church and all it stand for. They hate things being done in the name of churches by politicians in Stormont to block LGBT equality legislation.

The others feel like their appeals for their own churches to actually take action, to listen to the grievances and concerns of those who experience both sides is not happening, or ignores actions they have promised, especially when issues like this come to a head. You can say all you want that you are not homophobic but when you language talks of reasonable accommodations, serious ramifications, and taking a stance for the sake on conscience, when only only one side benefits you are actually homophobic. It is like what Fr Tim Bartlett said you want the right of all people, in this case Christians, to freedom of conscience to be vindicated. That is not a good way to go about equality.

Yes I agree with all the churches that there is an issue here. But I do not agree they their freedom of conscience is under attack to the same extent that they continue to have undo and overbearing influence of those of faith and without over civic matters and therefore the freedom of conscience of others.

A footballing hero turns sour

Today is a day of mixed feelings for me.

First there is the great news that the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, and Marriage Equality Ireland have all joined together to launch the ‘Yes Equality’ campaign ahead of next year's referendum in the Republic of Ireland.

But also one of the greats of the time that my team Livingston spent in the Scottish Premier League has actually taken than support of at least this one football fan and thrown it in his face.

Marvin ten years ago when Livingston won the CIS Cup

Marvin Andrews, who came from Raith Rovers to Livingston before moving on to Rangers, a return to Raith Rovers and stints at Hamilton Academical, Queen of the South, Wrexham, Albion Rovers, Forfar Athletic, before currently playing for Elgin City has always been known as God's footballer. He famously in his first season at Rangers instead of taking the normal course of treatment for a cruciate knee ligament injury which should have seen him out of action for nine months turned to prayer and was back on the field in 2 weeks!

But it is his comment in defending his pastor Joe Nwokoye at Zion Praise Centre International in Kirkcaldy who has blamed natural disasters on same-sex marriage. In the defense of his Pastor, Marvin has said:

"For a man to see a man or a woman to see a woman in that way is a spiritual sickness and it is the Bible – not Marvin Andrews – that says that is an abomination.

"I am not going to contradict my beliefs. I don’t care if 100,000 people are against me – I’ll stand on the word of God."

Now if the man that we sang from the stands as "Marv, Marv, Super Marv, Super Marvin Andrews" would care to explain to me what all those natural disasters before same-sex marriage were introduced were all about. And maybe go a little further back what about the ones that occurred before homosexuality was actually legalised. Or maybe he'd like to explain why more natural disasters happen in the states in the USA that are most likely to be fighting equal marriage, or indeed in Africa which also seems to be in opposition?

Yes natural disasters are happening all around us all the time and have been since time immemorial. Now if Marvin really believes what it says in the bible he will now that the reason these things started is because Eve was tempted to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and persuaded Adam to follow suit. These were not as a result of same-sex marriage or activity in any form, so stop passing the buck on natural disasters.


Sadly it is not the first time he has said something like this. In 2006 when former Liberal Democrat MSP Margaret Smith announced her Civil Partnership plans and just before he left Rangers he said:

"There is a demon in their [homosexual's] spirits, their spirits are ill. But God can help them through his church and anyone who doubts this can check the Bible"

Such negative and prejudicial opinions from churches and their leaders is actually still doing the opposite and too often it is too late for many young people to have any such help and many brought up with such religious vitriol are tempted to commit suicide than be open about their sexuality in faith settings.

But we are also trying to rid football of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, just as we are still striving to rid it from under representation of racial minorities at the top level of management and boardrooms around the nation. Comments like this from a respected veteran of the game in Scotland do not go down well to the LGBT fans and players in the leagues.

While he is allowed to say whatever he wants, surely his believes are also that God loves everyone. There is no love in his words only condemnation. It is like the chants that opposing fans have given him through the years with the exception of him turning up at Almondvale on his first appearance in a Rangers shirt when he was applauded loudly. That is the love that is unconditional that he should be showing to everyone.

To stamp out homophobia, transphobia and biphobia in football Stonewall have for the last two years run their rainbow laces campaign. Next year when they run it, if Marvin is still playing I am tempted to send him a pair with a letter explaining how I'm upset as a gay fan who has cheered him from the stands that he is behaving in the way that he does and is lacking in Christian love when he talks about LGBT issues.

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.

In which it is not 100% equal

Today the Government has announced its proposals for equal gay marriage.

As regular readers will know I never refer to marriage equality as gay marriage. The reason is simple that is not what I, even though I am a gay man, want. I want marriage equality irregardless of sexual orientation, or gender, or religion. So today we really only fully got one of those three.

There are six key words in the Liberal Democrat policy that I am so proud are there:

That wish to do so

You see it really is that simple. There should be civil partnership or marriage depending on what people wish. Every faith group should be allowed to offer it, if they wish. Every person who undergoes gender reassignment should be allowed to maintain whichever relationship status they are in without a state mandatory divorce or annulment. What we got today failed on some of those liberal principles.

First up making it illegal for the Church of England and Church in Wales to opt in to equal marriage is an error. It has been made to appease the Tory backbenchers and Lords Spiritual. It was put in to assuage them that there would be no legal challenge to the established church. There is an error in including the Church in Wales straight off. It has been disestablished since 1920, therefore Government has no power over its governance and decisions. Therefore passing law to legislate over the Church in Wales cannot hold up if legally challenged, Westminster has no jurisdiction there. The error with then making the act illegal, yes that is the word used, in the Church of England is that the General Synod should have the same right as any other faith group governing body to take this decision. 

If you were truly making marriage equal, every faith group should have the right to make the decision to proceed, if they wish to do so. 

One additional point on religion which I was glad to see Julian Huppert raise towards the end of the questions was the issue of humanist celebrants. We learnt today that those outside Protestant or Catholic religion was on the rise, so why can't a humanist celebrant carry out any marriage or civil partnership like they already can in Scotland?

Nor for that matter does it allow for civil partnerships of mix-sexed couples that are not related. Another issue that needs to be addressed if CPs are to persist only for same-sex couples if you want true equality.

The issue with gender reassignment was the one I moved as an amendment in the Scottish Lib Dem debate. I'll admit now it was a ploy to get extra time to explain the reason why, because sadly most people don't get why it is needed, even within the LGBT community. The fact is that with the introduction of civil partnerships there was a chance for those who changed gender to enter a relationship with their pre-existing spouse after transitioning. But the issue was that the couple had to split before the transition could even start. We as a state were telling the partner of someone going through transition, that vow of 'til death do us part' means nothing even if you still love them. The state split up couples and made them go through the alternative commitment ceremony afterwards. It was like saying I'm not the gender I was born into means you can't love me.

This proposal does nothing to address those missing years of friends and others who have faced this dilemma and fails to address the issue of the enforced separation. One of the Tory backbenchers asked about the non-consummation element of divorce law, but nobody raised the issue of state mandated divorce that would still exist. This isn't equal for the trans community and yet again the LGB community may leave them behind having achieved what is in it for them. You can be assured that won't apply to me.

The other issue is one that seems ludicrous to me after what has been going on here in Northern Ireland over the last week or so. Unionists have been shouting about how a piece of material not being present 365 days of the year on a certain metal pole chips away at their sense of Britishness. For the LGBT community in Northern Ireland now that the rest of the UK has proposals in place to allow some forms of marriage equality we see there is a big chip of our Britishness that has yet to be given to us, never mind being chipped away. Those of us in Northern Ireland that wish to do so, will not be able to enter into a same-sex marriage locally. Like those who want an abortion we will have to travel to England, Scotland and Wales maybe to have one, but will we be recognised as married when we return, and why should we, our families and guests be penalised the added expense of traveling elsewhere in the UK to get married. That is something that together with Equal Marriage NI I will also continue to work on.

However, this proposal would fail an equality appraisal to be described as equal marriage. For the reasons above it falls short, so there still is work to be done. Let us not lose sight of the end goal, which for me is every aspect of the Liberal Democrat policy. 

Don't get me wrong it is an important step, but that is all it is, there are still some steps to go until we cross the finish line on Marriage Equality

Onward, Church of England, inching to reform

Rather appropriately the tune to Onward Christian Soldiers is written by Arthur Sullivan, no doubt if he and W.S. Gilbert would be getting down to write and Operetta about the Church of England, women bishops and gay clergy right about now.

In the meantime here is a little something to sing to that tune of his.

Onward, Church of England, inching to reform
With selective bible standards cited as the norm.
Christ, the royal master, treating women as the men
But he got that wrong, for ever and Amen!

Refrain:

Onward, Church of England, inching to reform
With selective bible standards cited as the norm.

Women though not silent, nor to husbands subject,
While some preach from pulpits shall not rise to Bishopric.
With their heads uncovered, they can sing your praise
But the House of Bishops can not bend to their ways
(Refrain)

Sisters in Scotland or Ireland, Bishops they could be
But we can't allow that in the C of E
We are all divided, not one body we,
Kick out hope for doctrine picked selectively.
(Refrain)

Crowns may pass to women, Bishops' thrones no way
The Supreme Governor wears a dress, but our Bishops nay.
We'll let you ordain women, but glass ceiling will prevail,
They'll not wear a mitre, now in purple cassocks sail
(Refrain)

Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
Blend with yours our voices, women Bishops are wrong.
Glory, laud and honour, and misogyny
Shall for countless ages rule the C of E.
(Refrain)

Daily Fail misreport courts ruling on prayers

Seeing this mornings Daily Mail (paper edition) front page you would almost believe that David Cameron, or at least the personage of Ken Clarke in his role as Lord Chancellor had declared war on Marx's opiate of the masses.

The two stories that sparked the headline

CHRISTIANITY UNDER ATTACK


with the subheader

Anger as TWO major court ruling go against British worshippers


Refers of course the case in Bideford Council and the failed appeal of Cornish guest house owners [both links to non Daily Fail coverage].

First lets us look at the ruling on prayers before council meetings. The Mail screams out that these are now banned. Here are the words of Mr Justice Ouseley who ruled on that case:

"A local authority has no powers under section 111 of theLocal Government Act 1972 to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda. 

"The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend."

Hang on  there! Far from being banned the judge said it was lawful to hold prayers before a council meeting. What wasn't lawful for requiring ALL councillors to have to attend.

If the calling to order of the council meeting occurs after the prayers are said and councillors who do not wish to partake in them have a chance to enter the chamber then no harm is done. In other words prayer is allowed, just don't force everyone to take part in it against their own conscious. Something that Christians also want to be allowed to do themselves.

The second, which happens to be the result of the appeal hearing, just happened to be delivered on the same day. It is the case of the Christian guest B&B owners who prevented a civil partnered homosexual couple from staying in a double room.

On this occasion we turn to the ruling of Lady Justice Rafferty.

"Whilst the appellants' beliefs about sexual practise may not find the acceptance that once they did, nevertheless a democratic society must ensure that their espousal and expression remain open to those who hold them.

"It would be unfortunate to replace legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the appellants' beliefs).

"However, in a pluralist society it is inevitable that from time to time, as here, views, beliefs and rights of some are not compatible with those of others. As I have made plain, I do not consider that the appellants face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs. They are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen."

So here we have a judgement that says the the Christian owners had no issue in expressing and manifesting their beliefs, however they had entered a trade of hospitality. The point was made at the time of the judgement had they checked the marriage certificate of every "heterosexual couple" who had turned up at their guesthouse to book a double room. Their objection had been to the fact that the couple were not in marriage of a man and a woman and they would not let them share a room. One wonders what the report would have been if one of the 'of faith' civil partnered couples that I know had been the couple in question? Because then you would have had two potentially christian couples of differing opinions on either side of this debate.

In both cases there was no hindrance in worshippers actually worshipping. What there was however, was protection under the law for those that are not worshippers, or at least don't not believe the same as the worshippers in question.

If Christians want to maintain freedom of their religion they really must stop attacking others options to opt out of their belief system.

ITV delete Tim Minchin #ITVfail

One of the things that fits well into a Jonathan Ross special TV show so well is a song from Tim Minchin. A song from Tim will always make you think. His offering for this Christmas was no different.

However, Peter Fincham ITV's director of television decided, after the show had been edited and was in ready to air format that Minchin's song wasn't to be included. To read what Tim thinks about the decision himself here. Here is the song in question:



Reading the comments in question I find that I am not alone as a Christian who is not offended by the song. Indeed the amount of the bible story of Jesus life that Minchin incorporates into the song is something that may cause an US network concern because of the amount of religion that is in it.

Yes it is satirical. Minchin is a comedian and a very good one. His comedy is of the clever variety and make you think as well as laugh. This song does just that. I think that two different people could very easily listen to this song and come away with different reactions. One would look into just what Minchin said about Jesus to see if it was actually true, or someone could turn around and just laugh at the irrelevance of Jesus and just enjoy their long weekend to celebrate his irrelevance thank you very much.

If Peter Fincham is this concerned about possible complaints one wonders if producers will bother to send him tapes in advance if good stuff is not allowed to be aired. Will ITV be able to compete with Channel 4 and the BBC and others in cutting edge satire, humour and drama if their director of television is going to be this scared to cause offence.

ITV once was seen as the more rebellious sibling in the TV family, but Fincham's self censoring if OTT and is actually causing me concern for just what freedom of speech ITV and other broadcasters will allow in the future. This is the wrong step over this excellent, IMHO, piece of satirical musical comedy.

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.

Again Christian's mistakenly compare LGBT equality to totalitarian fascism

There is always an issue when you start to compare any group to Nazis. You'd better be careful just what words you use to refer to yourself by in doing so, also you better be fully aware of what groups were targeted by the Germans in the 30s and 40s.

It is a lesson that Alan Craig of the Christian Peoples Alliance would do well to heed as he decided to write about "Confronting the Gaystapo" in last week's Church of England newspaper.

He talks for example about facism, then talks of the German Nazis "intended assault on our civilization, our values, our way of life." Seeing as facism can be defined simply as:

the tenets of a centralized totalitarian and nationalistic government that strictly controls finance, industry, and commerce, practices rigid censorship and racism, and eliminates opposition through secret police.

Is the argument that there is only one way that things can be done just such a regime. Isn't a totalitarianism just that sort of thing. I'm not jumping to a false conclusion here he goes on to say:

Our civilisation, our values, our way of life – indeed the national character – are inevitably formed from the values of the Christian faith, as over a thousand years and more 'Christianity' and 'Englishness' have become fully entwined and fused.

Strange that in that 1000 years or more just what an Englishman's take on Christianity is has been known to change at the whim of the Sovereign. Obviously it became slightly defused and refused to a different strand through Tudor times.

He refers to same-sex marriage, although I'd want to correct him to equal marriage, it is the way he does so in light of his other Nazi imagery as SSM, the parallel to the Schutzstaffel, Hitler's SS cannot be accidental.

He makes two rather sweeping generalisations:

In recent decades gay militants have been in the van of the secularist and new atheist assault on Christianity, and as a consequence our culture has corroded and debased and national confusion and self-doubt has grown.

Christian believers have been a lone voice against the resulting sexualisation, narcissism, hedonism, selfishness and materialism.

This ignores two things. Firstly not all those who are attracted to people of the same sex are atheist, many of us have come through the churches. Many of us remain in the churches not because they are totally accepting of who we are, often in spite of how sometimes our churches refuse us into full communion because of so-called pastoral guidelines that emphasis one human condition above all others as being singled out for exclusion. I'll let you guess what that is but by the general tenet of this blog post you should work it out easily. Many of those who are LGB that have been turned off religion have been done so by the church itself, there's a willingness to accept drunkards, work with prostitutes, aid drug addicts etc, but there is a cold shoulder often given to those who say they love someone of the same gender.

The other thing that has been pointed out during the recent occupy movement outside St. Paul's is the admission charges to get into the most recognised centre of the Church of England for whom Mr Craig has no issue writing for. Christ himself turned out the money changers in the Temple for desecrating his Father's House through their commercial practices. Just who is charging materialistically for the narcissism of seeing the work of man's hands? Isn't it selfish to say "no you can't have".

Looking at the calls for equal marriage it is just that a call for equalness, not to usurp anything. Indeed most of those calling for equality are merely asking for religious groups to have the opportunity to take part, if they want, not forcing them to do anything. But also marriage has been open to those outside of religion for longer than homosexual acts have been legal in this country. Hedonism is not restricted to the LGB communities look at any high street on a weekend evening and you will see straight couple behaving hedonisticly. Not every high street has a LGBT friendly bar.

So stop laying all the ills of this world on one group, especially when you complain about them saying wanting long term relationships when you claim they are hedonistic. Surely wanting to have access to long term committed relationships is a sign of the opposite. If you deny that then you are building the stereotype that you can't have a long term commitment.

Update The Church of England Newspaper has backed its decision to publish the piece as it appeared saying the writer had some "pertinent views".

Is it not bigotted to disallow freedom of religion to all Mr Walker?

Of course I was sad when Jim Tolson was one of the Liberal Democrat MSPs to lose their seat in the elections today. I was even more saddened this morning when I saw that his replacement the SNP's Bill Walker appears to not believe in equality.

He has signed John Mason's amendment to the Scottish Parliament's Equal Marriage motion, which in itself failed to see the equality of all and freedom of religious groups to decide if they wish to offer same-sex marriage that was enshrined in the motion itself. He claims that he has received some "highly abusive messages" saying he is being intimidated and almost threatened. While I doubt that such behaviour may have been taken from concerned citizens writing to their MSP I would ask any that have done anything other that state a clear point to desist. What I suspect that the MSP has encountered though is a sheer volume of correspondence on the issue, seeking him to change his mind, possibly more than on any other issue that he has faced before. If he finds that intimidating that the public write to him then he is clearly in the wrong jobs as neither Jim Tolson nor Willie Rennie as the MP who was unseated in 2010 found correspondence from their constituents intimidating but a challenge to be seized.


What has saddened me is Mr Walker's response as published in the Dunfermline Press.

"I'm very upset about it. I feel I’ve been intimidated and almost threatened.


"I have been called a bigot and all sorts of names, saying I live in the dark ages.

"The irony is I got married a few weeks ago. Needless to say it was to a woman!

"There are things called civil partnerships, which I accept, but I'm really concerned about the use of the term 'gay marriage' because to me it’s a contradiction in terms and anything that puts homosexual relationships as any way equal to male-female marriages is just not right."

Tim Hopkins, of the Equality Network, told PinkNews:

"By saying that same-sex relationships are not in any way equal to male/female ones, Bill Walker is expressing homophobic prejudice. 

"His remarks are an affront to many of his constituents, and not just the LGBT ones. He is free to express his opinions, but must expect those opinions to be criticised if they are prejudiced and offensive.

"Bill Walker claims to have received 'highly abusive and bullying' emails from 'gay rights organisations'. However, the national LGBT organisations in Scotland – ourselves, Stonewall and LGBT Youth – invariably engage debate with anyone without abuse or exaggeration – unlike Bill Walker, it seems."

There is an arrogance about some of these in religious groups, Mr Walker is a member of the Church of Scotland but claims this does not affect his decision, that only the stance of their religious group is the right one. There are religious groups the Quakers, Unitarian and some liberal Synagogues plus the Humanists that wish to carry out marriage for all, whether mixed-gender or same-gender. They do not have the issue over the word.

Even calling it 'gay marriage' shows an element of separation in Messrs Walker and Mason's minds. I don't want to have a gay marriage that is separate from a 'straight marriage' I just want the option of a marriage. I'd also like it not to be separated into a civil partnership section and then a religious element (as has been proposes by David Cameron at Westminster to try and get around objectors) if 'we'* choose to have it in a church building, but fully integrated as all current church weddings are conducted.

There are religious groups that are prepared to offer not just their building to same-gender partnerships, but to fully integrate same-gender marriage to all into their ethos. These are welcoming people of faith, yet their beliefs and desires for religious freedom are being blocked by a few who disagree with their interpretation of the word marriage. The only people being forced to do anything are those open religious groups from turning away same-gender couples from the marriages they wish to perform. That surely is bigotry that we cannot condone.

* There is no other half of that we statement yet, but obviously the choice of service will be down to two of us in the end. So you can all stop thinking of buying a hat for the wedding just now.

Dear Confused Chris Bryant

I read today that Chris Bryant is wading into the issue of Civil Partnerships in religious buildings. However, he seems to be wading in with ignorance and getting caught up in some quick sand.

Now as a Liberal Democrat I believe that no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity so let me release the Labour MP from his ignorance induced slavery.

The consultation that has gone out, allows the religious symbols that are embedded in a religious building to remain in place, it does not allow them to be used in the civil partnership ceremony. 3.23 of the consultation paper page 31.

Bryant thinks the use of the 'hymn' Jerusalem would be allowed in a civil partnership in a religious building, read on to section 3.24 (page 32).

• The ban on the use of religious service while a civil partnership is being
  registered will remain in place as removing it was not the intention of this
  provision in section 202 of the Act.
• A religious service, clearly distinct from the civil partnership registration,
  would be able to take place as agreed between the registrar, couple and
  minister of the religious premises.

So there has to be a clear distinction. The minister or religious celebrant cannot take part in the civil partnership registration, nor the registrar in the religious element. See what section 3.25 says:

It is currently possible for couples to have a religious service to celebrate or mark the formation of their civil partnership. What is new under these proposals is the scope to hold the registration itself on the same – religious – premises. We expect that the religious service will take place after the civil partnership registration to celebrate its formation. This will ensure that there is a clear break between the civil and religious elements and will allow the civil partnership registrar the time to establish in advance of the proceedings whether there is any reason why the registration cannot proceed. The exact details of the ceremony will be a matter for the couple to discuss and agree with the civil partnership registrar and minister leading the religious celebration. The service following the registration could be led by the minister of religion, include readings from religious texts, the singing of hymns or other religious chants; in short, all those religious elements that must not take place during the registration itself.

So therefore there will be a separate service in a place of worship after the registration. It can happen in the same building. Now of course there are a group of heterosexual couples who may have a civil marriage and then a religious blessing. These are normally people who are divorced marrying another partner. Their marriage in a place of worship is not banned by civil law, look at Princess Anne getting remarried in Grathie Church near Balmoral as an example, but by canon law as laid out in the Church of England as the prime example.

Where the difference lies is that where a religious group want to allow a religious same-sex marriage with the interlinking of the legal necessities and the religious elements as with all religious marriages that is not possible. That is where the House of Commons can provide enabling legislation to allow that to occur. That is where religious groups that wish to do so can be freed to provide the service that some same sex couples of faith would desire.

Glenn family church reopens

Picture from The Belfast Telegraph

When you walk out of First Derry Presbyterian Church you walk straight out unto the City Walls overlooking the Bogside, Creggan and Brandywell areas of the city. Down below you can make out Free Derry corner.

It is the church that my father first got involved in the Boys Brigade an assossiationwith the organisation that would last the rest of his life. An organisation that is now being attended by the third generation of his family.

It was where my father and his father before him served as League of Church Loyalty Secretary encouraging regular attendance from the children. A role that I took on at Trinity Bangor in later years. 

One of the times I walked out of there I did so alongside my late father, brother and one other male relative. On our shoulders was the coffin of a widow of a former elder of the church, my grandmother. My cousin Rachel was playing Vivaldi's Spring on her violin as we walked down the aisle, I'd previously been up in that pulpit to give a reading.

It was Good Friday.

As a result when a few years later on another Good Friday the politicians of Northern Ireland managed to sign an agreement between them about a combined future for Northern Ireland I remembered the symbolism of that woman's life.

She spent all of her married, and much of her widowed life, in the Fountain area. That is a working class terraced housed area to the South West of the City Walls. As the protestant community largely moved to the other side of the Foyle during  the height of the troubles she was one of the shrinking number that remained on the Cityside. When she finally did have to move into the Presbyterian nursing home on the Waterside of the City over the bridge, her furniture went to a Catholic family that had recently been petrol bombed.

The fact that the public statue Hands Across the Divide should then be erected at the foot of the Fountain area, and across the road from the factory where my Grandmother worked speaks volumes to the way my family was always brought up in Northern Ireland. So that when earlier this year I stood there with the new MLA Mark H Durkan again I wasn't something that she would have been shocked by, she would have expected that of me.

With Mark H Durkan MLA (right) at Hands Across the Divide

When the Church was reopened this weekend there was the Sinn Féin deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness in attendance and the SDLP Mayor of Derry City Council, Colum Eastwood MLA. Along with teh Chief Constable of the PSNI Mark Baggott as well as both Bishops.

After being shut for 9 years and after £1.5 million in refurbishment their presence really was a symbol as the Minister Rev Dr David Latimer said of the shared future all the people of Derry/Londonderry crave.

Picture from the Newsletter

Including f. row 2nd left Colum Eastwood MLA Mayor of Derry, Most Rev. Séamus Hegarty, Lord Bishop of Derry (RC), Rev. Dr. David Latimer Minister First Derry Presbyterian Church , Martin McGuinness MP, MLA, Deputy First Minister, William Hay MLA, Speaker of the Assembly, Rt. Rev. Kenneth Good Bishop of Derry and Raphoe (CoI).

In behind the DFM is Chief Constable Mark Baggott PSNI. Also in the picture are John Hume and Mark Durkan MP

Conor sets the Irish Daily Fail Right on Civil Partnerships

Today Ireland finally allowed same-sex civil partnerships. One thing that the Daily Fail, even its Irish edition doesn't fail to do is live up to the fail element that us of a liberal nature constantly find it to do. This morning it was the case of Richard Waghorne who seems to neglect the need for it simply because he doesn't want to be civilly partnered or married as a gay man. I'm allergic to cats so don't want to have one of them if I can help it, hardly an argument to prevent others who love cats to keep one for live now is it?

Fortunately my friend Conor has put a rather excellent counterpoint blog post together looking from the point of view of the children of same sex couples, a group that is often overlooked. It is an excellent written post taking on some of the stupidity of the arguments that Waghorne tried to bring to the debate. I urge to go take a read of it yourself.

Of course I'm still hoping to maybe some day get married in a ceremony that allows my God to be part of proceedings rather than an afterthought or a prequel which is what I'd still have to do even if civil partnerships could be held in a religious building. I'd still need to have two distinct parts of a ceremony, not intertwined as my heterosexual friends are able to do. I'd still be treated as a second class person of faith, simply because I'd want to get married to someone of the same sex.

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.