The Lesbian Queen, and a beating

Each passing day the coalition is looking more like the Belgium Government, after taking 353 days to form a coalition it then teeters on collapse for its term in office.  It becomes an embarrassment not only to the main parties, but the countries.  Coalitions can work, just look at Germany, but not in an electorate hell bent on one party wielding total power.

The May 02 elections accelerated the rot and the decline into ridicule of David Cameron, the Thatcher funeral should have solidified the Tory leadership, instead it totally undermined it, it brought back memories of the resolute leadership of the Thatcher years and allowed for an unfavourable comparison with weak leadership in place now.  I am no Thatcherite, or even Tory, but Maggie said what she was going to do and she did, Cameron on the other hand is at the mercy of the Conservative Party,

With the rise of UKIP in the May Local Elections, though let it be noted that the Green Party has more seats than UK has in Local Authorities, and has more MP’s – UKIP 0, Greens 1, Cameron was immediately put on the defencive.  Having to re-apply the whip to Nadine Dorres, in the fear that she would give more credibility to UKIP by defecting, Cameron was then forced into a position of potentially voting against the ‘Queens Speech’.

Contrary to popular belief the Queen does not write the speech, it is written by the Government, the Queen gives the speech in the House of Lords, the House of Commons then debates its and votes on it.  It is immensely important, it is the legislative programme of the Government, to successfully attach an amendment to it, or vote it down, is a matter of resignation – it is an admission the Government cannot get its legislation through Parliament.  An amendment was attached, not by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, but by the Conservative backbenches; rather than bluff the amendment Dave dutifully bowed down and was going to be in the unenviable position of having to vote against the Queens Speech. The amendment was that we should a referendum on leaving the EU.

Dave was luckily away in Washington, well it wasn’t really lucky as embarrassing, visiting President Obama trying to negotiate a trade agreement between the US and UK, not wait I got that wrong, it was a trade agreement between the US and EU!  It didn’t help that a Tory Minister publicly said he would to leave the EU, and  a couple of former Tory heavyweights (literally and as well as metaphorically) weighed (one Tory Peer who is against the EU spends most of his time in France)  As ever a Private Members Bill was hastily written out on a back of a fag packet, typed up, and emailed, to call for a referendum before the end of this Parliament.  It will not pass.  It is a political fudge. Ideally I would love to go on about that rather trying to solve the Global Crisis the UK seems to want to stand in the middle of playground and cry and stamp its feet, unfortunately the Equal Marriage Bill came back for a second reading.

The ‘Same-sex Marriage Bill’ was put before Parliament, with an amendment that ‘Civil Partnerships be available to heterosexual couples’ it was put by an anti-equal marriage Tory (there is a lot of them), it was a wrecking clause.  It is a shame that they Tory Party are so willing not so much to show their nastiness, but to be actually nasty.  To vote against the amendment would effectively wreck the Bill, to vote for the amendment would – back of fag packet prices – put £4Billion onto the pensions bill, when the government is furiously trying to scrap pensions.  The number has been literally plucked out of the air for want of facts by the Tory Party. Again it was Labour who came to the rescue.

The language in the debate, mainly from the Tories, has been pretty vile.  We have had ‘the Tebbitt’ going into print with the bizarre notion of a Queen with a Turkey Baster, and a Sperm Bank.

‘When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne’

Whilst it is funny that this man has a vote in the House of Lords and a public pulpit, it is scary that this idiocy persists. The idea persists and it takes the form of brutal beating, brutal beatings in London, with two men walking home and being beaten senseless by a gang of youths, the language and then venom being displayed in the House of Commons spills over into the streets, and I want this country to be better than that.

We need a sensible debate on Equal Marriage, we do not need homophobia, crass stupidity or ignorance, we need debate.  To say that a Civil Partnership is ok, to quote Louise Mensch, “is like telling Rosa Parkes she should be grateful for a seat on the bus“ 

We need sensible debates to change attitudes about minorities, and individuality, not tougher sentences.  The Equal Marriage Bill will not only bring about equality but it will bring about real social change, no matter how slowly that comes.

Please follow the links below on YouTube. When New Zealand passed its Equal Marriage Act it broke out in singing, that is the kind of country I want to live in.

Clement Attlee didn’t need a ‘Ceremonial Funeral’ – why I am wearing Red on Wednesday

I will be in bed on the day of Maggie Thatcher’s funeral (I will be on Nights), but when I am awake I will be joining the ‘Wear Red’ protest, I am not sure if I would have gone to London to protest at her funeral – I read an article of a Mum who had applied to the Police to protest by turning her back on the procession, she had to because she couldn’t afford to be late for work and had to work to support her kids – but I will not let the funeral of Maggie go without protest. On Facebook we are protesting by changing our profile picture to that of Clement Attlee. I particularly like this protest as it contrasts the ground breaking Attlee administration that created the National Health Service, the Welfare State and Workers Rights, and is pertinent to what this Government is destroying, and what Thatcher sought to destroy.

I am sure this will not be my final piece on Thatcher, but it is for her funeral.

The funeral contrasts sharply with Winston Churchill’s funeral of 1965 when the nation was truly grief-stricken and said goodbye to a national leader, and head of the National Government during the war – don’t get me wrong he was far from perfect, but he died with the respect of a grateful nation, I feel confident that no-one even thought of protesting his funeral. I am afraid Maggie’s funeral will be a lot more tense, for the wrong reasons. Contrast this again with Clement Attlee, who reconstructed a war ravaged country, who’s administration built 1 million new home, employed 25,000 new teachers, and introduced Child Benefit, Sickness Pay, Invalidity and Maternity Benefits amongst a radical agenda to rival anything that Thatcher did. All this from a man who, when he was Prime Minister, went on holiday in Caravan in Devon.

In retirement he co-founded the Homosexual Law Reform Society, and remember that was well before the Wolfenden Report. I am actually inspired that this man was a social and political reformer of gargantuan proportions, flawed yes, but a leader, a reformer and by all accounts humble, not for him the ‘pomp and circumstance’ of a State funeral.

Attlee’s funeral, as befitting a humble man with a vision, consisted of 150 mourners in the Church of the Templars in London. The times records the event as such:

ALL the trappings of power were absent last week at the funeral of Earl Attlee, Britain’s Prime Minister from 1945 to 1951: no honour guards or artillery caissons, no press or television, no crush of spectator

A Prime Minister who served in Government during the war and totally revolutionised British society in six years, taking it from a scene that Hogarth would have been at home in, to a country that that could be proud of its achievements, there is no other honour that could be given this man, if he wanted one, than he was radical and improved the health and welfare beyond comprehension. What greater accolade is there than the appreciate of a grateful nation?

On the other hand the funeral Margaret Thatcher has a ‘State Funeral’ in all but name, and that funeral she continues to tear apart the nation in controversy over her legacy, over the cost and her politics. The funeral, and apparently she never wanted the fuss, is a monument to the ego of the radical right of the Conservative Party, the Party that de-selected her as Prime Minister. Her record will be her eulogy. Yes she did some good, but the evil schisms she manipulated are still tender today, and have been reopened for the salt of a £10 Million funeral to be poured into.

As an openly gay man growing up in the Pit Villages of South Yorkshire I cannot mourn for this woman. I cannot mourn for the devastation she wrought not for the rampant homophobia she encouraged. Matthew Todd in his piece ‘Margaret Thatcher was no poster girl for gay rights’ reminds us:

The 1987 election saw Tory ad campaigns trying to portray Labour as actively trying to pervert children. One billboard showed a line of young men wearing badges such as “Gay pride” and “Gay sports day” with a slogan, “This is Labour’s camp. Do you want to live in it?”.

After winning the 1987 election Thatcher knew she was on to a winner. She denounced local education authorities for teaching children that “they have an inalienable right to be gay” and brought in the hated clause, then section, 28, which outlawed the promotion of homosexuality as “a pretend family relationship”

The last comment drove someone to scrawl over a Tory Poster ‘Lesbian Mums aren’t pretending’

The recent vote on Equal Marriages shows that the Tory are still stubbornly anti-gay, even Cameron couldn’t vote for a Bill he introduced.

On 17 April 2013 I am wearing Red in memory of the woman who tried to tear up the social reforms that helped the weakest, I am wearing Red to honour the Miners, the Miners who were fighting for their lives, who were refused State help in funeral expenses, I am wearing Red for the Steelworkers who lost their jobs and are now sweeping floors, I am wearing Red for the members of the military that dies in the Falklands War that could have been avoided – I am wearing Red in solidarity with the lives ruined by Section 28.

More than anything else on 17 April 2013 I am wearing red. I am wearing red to honour the achievements of a great leader who was humble, led this country, and created social and political reforms that made me proud to be British

Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher, by women

She is finally dead, and to be honest is not like I thought it would be.

Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher died, in comfort, surrounded not by family but by people paid to care for her. On 08 April 2013 she entered immortality.

I am choosing ‘she entered immortality’ with care as it is  a line from ‘Evita’. In a cold Buenos Aires cinema the film slowly winds to a stop and a booming voice announces:

It is my sad duty to inform you that Eva Peron, spiritual leader of the nation, entered immortality at 20:25 today.

Their lives having passing images of each other,  both were operating in a ‘mans world’ both took on impossible odds, and both held power, both engendered a mythology about their lives, but in so many other ways they are the antithesis of each other.  The final similarity is how the truth will lie buried with them, surrounded by the myth.

A couple of weeks back it was reported that from Thatcher’s private papers that she cried uncontrollably for 40 minutes before a speech on the Falklands War, this was the first time I had noticed that Thatcher’s story was being rewritten. We had to feel sorry for this vulnerable woman, this leader.

Then came her death, the Twitter went into meltdown.  The Tories had been fed red meat and were in a frenzy slapping down any criticism of this woman, she was the saviour of the United Kingdom, from the brink of a precipice, she was Churchill, she was Wellington, and she was Elizabeth Tudor and of course Marilyn Monroe.

The Telegraph proclaimed she was a ‘working class hero’ someone ventured that her most cruel policies were not all her own, that she was a housewife. The rewriting of history was being penned.

Even as a Socialist I have to agree that the Unions in the 70’s were way too powerful and that any country needed to be run by the elected Government, but she went too far, too fast.

My first recollections was seeing Thatcher as Prime Minister was speaking  the words of Francis of Assisi

Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.
Where there is error, may we bring truth.
Where there is doubt, may we bring faith.
And where there is despair, may we bring hope.”

Her words on the steps of No 10 were as callous and as shallow as her policies. She brought, and still does, discord and despair.  I well remember the human misery she caused in Sheffield, and many other places, the decimation of villages, towns and cities offered as sacrifices on the altar of monetarism.

Thatcher’s Britain was a cruel and hard place, the poor – as now – were scapegoats, and to be weak was to fall victim.  I remember walking around Sheffield looking for a job, any job, because she had left the city a wasteland; once proud steel workers reduced to sweeping the floors of Shopping Malls, unemployment at 4 million, wages at an all time low. Sheffield, were I come from, was battered, she closed the steel works, she closed the pits, she flogged off anything she could lay her hands on.

Someone said

“Thatcher did more damage to Sheffield than Hitler did”- it was true.

The stories of the Miners Strike, the human misery visited on the coalfields was heartbreaking. It was not the politics that was heartbreaking, it was the broken families, the ruined lives, the sense of despair that still lingers even now.  Even during the devastation of the war people had hope and purpose.

Of course change was required, but it was brutal, and how come other countries still have mines and steel works, and a manufacturing sector?

From Sheffield we could see the affluence of the south growing, we were not part of the United Kingdom anymore, she had favoured the Moneylenders over the Miners, they grew richer, we grew poorer.  The difference in wealth between rich and poor tripled under Thatcher, Child poverty skyrocketed.

Glenda Jackson the Member of Parliament for Hampstead said today, 10 April 2013, said this:

Everything I’d learned & still believe to be a vice was hailed as a virtue under Thatcher, greed, selfishness and envy … of unleashing the most heinous economic, social, and spiritual damage in the history of the UK

Glenda Jackson came from Nottingham, she knows where I am coming from.

The Falklands War was hailed as Thatcher’s finest hour, cementing her reputation as an ‘Iron Lady’.  The blood from that war has stained her soul; an avoidable war the Government of the day ignored every warning from the British Ambassador to Argentina, ignored the ‘exploratory expedition’ to the outlying islands, sank the ‘General Belgrano’ as it headed for Port, away from the war zone.  She won another election over the dead bodies of British and Argentinean Troops.

Her list of inhumanity is getting buried, the refusal to impose sanctions on South Africa over apartheid (Bishop Tutu begged for them to be imposed), the sheltering of Chilean Dictators, the Section 28, ‘Suss Laws’ Hillsborough.

As a final insult the raw meat fed Tories are giving Thatcher a ‘Ceremonial Funeral’ – such funerals are for the ‘good and the great’ and to unite people of the country in grief and appreciation.  Thatcher divides, and so does the funeral,

I do not gloat in the death of Margaret Hilda Thatcher, her judgement will come before God, but history is being rewritten, as Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister said:

One cannot, and must not try to, erase the past merely because it does not fit the present.

In defence of freedom

Today, apart from gathering my skirts and heading to Kidderminster, the United States of America’s Supreme Court will deliberate the issue of Gay Marriage – or as it should be called – Equal Marriage.

To call it ‘Gay Marriage’ identifies it as  a minority group issue, it is all about gay people wanting rights, rights that they really don’t deserve because, well they have a label and the label is not the same as ‘us’ – so we demean the call for equality, can’t we?

Calling the issue as to what it is, Equal Marriage, puts the argument in a unequivocal way, it is about equality, without discrimination, for consenting adults, free from duress, to legalise their relationships and have the State to recognise their commitment to each other. It is not about special rights, it is simply by getting rid of discrimination.

If people disagree with Equal Marriage the first question is that needs to be asked is ‘do you believe in freedom of choice’.  The State prescribes our liberties, in America they formally codified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The State takes some of our freedoms, whether we have a Constitution, in return for protection – is called ‘the contract between the State and Citizen’ and basically we sacrifice our rights to kill each other for the protection of the State to stop people who want to kill us.  They can stop from doing things that are harmful, like what drugs we can take or buy’.  This is good.

Equal Marriage does not fall into any category of being harmful, it does not harm anyone, it actually does not affect anyone apart from the people getting married.  If you do not want to get married to someone of the same sex then you are free not to, you are free to not to go to their wedding, but you are not free to do is to stop them from getting married – it does not affect you.

Society will not crumble, if marriage was to cause the decay of civilisation then I am sure the soaring, mixed sex, divorce rates would have seen to that. I am sure the very public 72 hour marriage of celebs would have been more dangerous to our morals, or the multiple affairs of our leaders.

Equal Marriage is not going to end civilisation.

Equal Marriage is not only about getting married, it is about freedom, it is about equality – not just for gay people, but for everyone, even the people who do not want Equal Marriage.  If freedom and liberty can be denied from one group of people then why not Methodists, Mormons, people from Kidderminster, from New York?  Freedom has to be enjoyed by everyone, or else it is a privilege to be granted and removed at a whim.

 

If you believe in freedom, if you believe we all have a right to choose, then the logic must be for you to support Equal Marriage.

The First Time

Last week the “Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was passed for a second reading, in effect the first stage in it becoming law. The voting figures are revealing, 45% of the Conservatives voted against it, and even worse 40 Conservatives failed to vote, including the Prime Minister whose party introduced the Bill.

Of the 205 Labour MP’s only 9 voted against it, the Liberal Democrats voted in favour to give the Bill a comfortable 225 vote majority in the House, the vote being a tidy 400 in favour of the Bill with 175 against the Bill. Whilst a triumph for social justice this is disaster for the Conservatives, unable to provide a majority vote on their own legislation and relying on ‘Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’ to get the vote passed, as will be relied on for further stages of the legislation.

Not only has the David Cameron very visibly exposed his inability to enforce order on the Parliamentary Conservative Party he has also exposed the bigotry and reactionary nature of the Party that brought the infamous ‘Clause 28’ is still alive.

The Government were under no obligation to enact such legislation, it certainly wasn’t part of any manifesto, but it was probably a good ‘vote winner’ for the whatever percentage of the LGBT community if affects – unfortunately it has totally backfired creating rifts in the Government, splitting the party (along with other issues such as Europe) and highlighting the fragile nature of the tenancy of the Prime Minister; that a Prime Minister cannot command a majority ‘in the house’ from his own party was probably last seen in 1974 under Harold Wilson and wreaks of incompetence. Shrouding the vote as a ‘conscience vote’ fooled no-one, morally we have to ask when was Human Rights a matter of conscience, and not a matter of principles?

No matter how much I welcome the passing of Bill I have to conclude that this has been a shambles for the Conservatives.

The ball was fumbled, to get around the European Human Right Act the Government introduced clauses that religious organisations do not have to perform Equal Marriages, unless the Priest agrees to it – this is similar to legislation in Denmark – of course because we have a State Church, the Church of England, it is not only exempt it is illegal for them to performs Equal Marriages. The Church of England and Wales were furious, basically saying ‘no-one asked us about this’. The Government has dropped the ball with the electorate, the Church and the Parliamentary Party – could it be much more of a disaster?

Thanks to Twitter we now have direct access to our MP’s, for some this is boon and to others a curse. My MP, @JTomlinsonMP (Conservative) said that he was going to vote for the Bill, which I give thanks, @Tom_Watson (Labour) wrote:

I’ve had 112 letters and Postcards against gay marriage and one in favour. I’m voting in favour in gay marriage.

The above obviously earn my praise, but none more so than Mark Menzies MP (Conservative) who said:

“I came here today intending to abstain, but now I am going to vote for the Bill”

My utmost scorn belongs to David Davies MP (Conservative) – you can follow him at @DavidtcDavies – when he wrote

“Some 1 asked if you can compare gay marriage to moxed (mixed) marriages. Ludicrous question”

Coming from the MP who said, very publicly in the Guardian Newspaper, that he thought parents would prefer their children not to be gay and that the wasn’t homophobic because he fought a Gay Boxer I shouldn’t be surprised, even more so I would not be surprised if Tory Central Office banned him from having a Twitter account to be honest.

My funny response would be from Torch Song Trilogy, when Harvey Fierstein confronts his mother at the graveside about the loss of his partner and his Mum, played by Anne Bancroft, fails to see how her loss in a mirror of her grief:

You’re right, how dare I? I couldn’t know how it feels to put somebody’s things in plastic bags and watch the Garbage Men take them away; or how it feels when you forget and set his place at the table. The food rots because you forgot to shop for one. You had it easy, you have your friends and relatives, I had me.

In a real way the scene from Torch Song Trilogy deals with the ‘how can you compare straight marriage to gay marriage’ question of comparing gay and straight marriages, it’s just marriage, it is just sharing your life and hopes.

On a personal note last November me and H came back from Germany, normally we had flown back into Birmingham, or had a few days chilling before work, this time I was straight back to work, and H had to be back at work as well. Due to circumstances we live 75 miles apart at the moment, but that will hopefully change soon, so having flown into Gatwick we got the train to Reading. The sense of loneliness and being ripped apart at Reading Station as I boarded my train and left him behind, and then tracking each other’s progress as we made our way through a bitterly cold night was painful. It was the first time that I had felt this pain at being ripped apart.

I am sure if David Davies, MP for Monmouth, was in a similar situation he would feel the same, so what else is there to compare?

The Anglican position on Gay Bishops is, well, so gay

The Church of England is in a new holy muddle, rather like your favourite befuddled Uncle it seems to lurch from self-inflicted mess to another the Church has decided to shoot itself in the foot again over gay clergy – of course fanned by the media who seek to present the Church as irrelevant.

I couldn’t quite believe that the Anglican Church said it was pressing ahead to affirmt that Gay Priests who are in a Civil Partnership can become Bishops on the condition that they are celibate and renounce their sins.  What I heard was not the considered, or compassionate, pronouncement that the Church was finally accepting that God made us all, and he is not prone to making mistakes, or that God loves us regardless – no what I heard was a Church that was trying to be compassionate and loving and making a complete an utter hash of it.

First of all the Biblical position:

I appreciate that the diehards in the Church have all the relevant verses on how wrong being gay is highlighted in the margins of their Bibles and tattooed on their butts – wait, tattoos are forbidden as well, whoops!  Most the verses forbidding masturbation and gay sex are in the Old Testament,  but haven’t we moved on from selling Daughters into slavery, sacrificing Turtle Doves once a month (for the Ladies) and not eating Scampi or Bacon Butties? 

The New Testament references about homosexuality refers to ‘temple prostitutes’ and open a whole new moral can of worms, of course the same author – Paul – also says women must remain silent, never teach or lead men, and not wear trousers, perhaps someone should have told Margaret Thatcher, Hilary Clinton, and the Queen.

If we look at what Jesus said that he didn’t exclude anyone, apart from the religious authorities who were busy making rules for everyone to follow, and even then he would entertain them. Christ’s questions were ‘do you love God’ and ‘do you love your fellow man’ – and not ‘do you know the actions to ‘YMCA’ ?

If we look at the prototypical Church the Bishops were not walking around clad in Gold with funny hats, they were administrators, doing a job.

The logical position.

First of all the proposition is that you can be gay, but you cannot have sex if you want to be a Bishop, you can be in a Civil Partnership but you cannot have ‘an early night’ and worse of all you must repent.

You must repent of what?  

Do you repent of being who you are, that you feel that you are somehow you are wrong, or ill.  The proposition also suggests that you have a choice of whether to be gay – no, I don’t think that is how it works.  The deal works on the proposition that being gay is bad, and its your fault.

Celibacy is a gift from God and not a second rate option for people treated as second rate Christians.

The situation does open some exciting possibilities, taking the argument to its logical, absurd, and extreme conclusion. Perhaps if women repented of being women and having sex with men who they are married to then they could become Bishops as well?

My position:

I am sure that the statement was meant to be conciliatory and move the Church towards being more inclusive, but all it did was highlight what an utterly sad state of affairs exists in the C of E regarding anything below the waist of a Child of God.  

I love the Church of England, and as much as Church angers me it always gives me hope that they are trying to do ‘the right thing’ and bring the church with it.

In an angry outburst on Twitter I asked to Clergymen I am following if I would be welcome in their church, and I would be.

Again it is the ‘Church politic’ that is behind the times.

The Church needs to shut up about sex and appoint Bishops and Archbishops on their closeness to God, the test is really simple – ‘by their fruits you you shall know them”

The Archbishop of Westminster is as broken as the rest of us

A few years I read a book called ‘What is so amazing about Grace?’ by Phil Yancey, I was commuting from Southampton to London and by the end of the 75 minute journey I was in tears. I was in tears because it was written an American Pastor who looked critically at the Church and came to the conclusion that Church could be one of the most un-Christian environments, but rather than leave the accusation hanging in the air he moved it forward, to say we are all flawed and that we must learn what ‘grace’ really is.

Having read the other day that the Archbishop of Westminster has banned the monthly ban on the communion of gay Catholics I was angry, I was angry at the exclusion not of the gay community, but the exclusion of people of faith wanting to share and celebrate their faith.  I felt not only their rejection but the rejection by the Catholic Church of the very people Christ has come to reach.

Again the ‘Church’ has displayed its homophobia, its exercise of power on the powerless, using its authority to enforce conformity.  The Archbishop of Westminster has not shown how broken the people are, but rather shown how broken the Church is in that it is unable to accept the truth of where people are.

I have known many gay Christians and have struggled at times how I celebrate my life within the context of the communion of the Church, some have rejected the Church, some have built walls to exclude certain part of their lives, to live a lie whilst others have gone the path of sacrificing their sexuality and faith by bringing the two together – these are really brave ones. In their numbers are these Christians, Catholics, who have celebrated their faith apart from the rest of the congregations, almost lepers within their faith, the wounded, and the untouchables.

The ‘Mass’ at Warwick Street has been closed, more than likely mixed in the hiatus of the Church in the ‘Equal Marriage’ debate – a salvo from the Church of its opposition to proposed legislation.  I want to be angry over this, I want to be angry at a Church that by its very name is ‘universal’ seeking to stigmatise parts of its congregation, I want to be angry that the Church is not living up to it’s calling of including everyone, I want to get angry at the discrimination – but I cannot feel angry, I just feel desperately sorry for the Church. It’s leaders are as broken as everyone one as us, and the crime is that it fails to recognise it’s humanity.  Bullies, of whatever shape or form, are merely projecting their inadequacies and lack of power onto those that appear weaker, by closing the Mass the Church is acknowledging not it’s strength but its weakness.

The Catholic Church has been unable to fight the democratic process of the fight for equality, it has been ignored by its laity in it’s ‘moral outrage’ that the closing of the Mass can only be seen as an act of power in the face of its own weakness.  It is the act of a bully, a frightened and hurt child, wishing to show its strength – and it is desperately sad.  Not only does it lack the the strength of its laity, it lacks the authority of Christ – too many of its pronouncements lack the warmth of love and compassion, it is a corpse flailing around, lacking spiritual fulfillment it creates an illusion of authority in its fine clothes and empty rites.

A Church so bedeviled by its dogma that it seeks consolation in ritual because ‘God does not live there anymore’

We are all broken in our own ways, and it is the Churches job to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, that if you are beyond hope, then there is hope,  if you are a sinner then there is redemption, , if you are broken then there is healing. If Christmas reminds us of anything then it should be that the Church started with an unmarried Mother, of a poor tribe, of a working family.

I feel sorry for the Church that it has lost its message amongst its finery, that its purpose is lost in the incense burnt.  Isaiah proclaims, a prophet more associated with gay bashing than most others, that God abhors the incense of the services, and detests the sacrifices offered if the Church forgets its primary mission..

When I say I feel sorry for the Church it is the ‘Church Politic’ that needs to display its power through ritual and demonization of smaller groups, a ‘play ground bully’ if you will – it is the ‘Church Universal’ the pew fillers that give me hope. It is the men and women that do not see ‘gay’ or ‘straight’, ‘Greek’ or ‘Jew’ but sees people, people made in Christ’s image, people who do not support

I mentioned Phil Yancey’s book ‘What’s so amazing about Grace?’ because he tells of a demonstration he went on in Washington DC at Gay Pride – he was standing beside a friend who ‘came out’ to him, he says he one group, Gay Christians, with a placard that read ‘We pray for the Church’.

I would be very surprised if the Mass at Warwick Street offended God – a group of believers coming together to celebrate their love – but I wonder if the same can be said at the Mass that is offered at Westminster Cathedral, with its Gold and Chalices and Choirs, and filled with pomp?

We should not judge the Church by its Bishops or Archbishops, but by its people who often sing a different song.

As a ‘Left-Winger’ I can lift my head high over Equal Marriage

There is much outrage at the Labour not forcing a ‘three line whip’ on the proposed Equal Marriage Bill – unfortunately we will have to forego the innuendo provided by the terminology of the British Parliamentary system, but Alan B’stard could have had a field day – is really bizarre if you stop and think about it.  ‘A vote of conscience’ by the Parliamentary Labour Party could not be better judged.

At a rough count 8 Labour MP’s have voiced opposition to the proposed Equal Marriage Act, that is 3.14% of the Parliamentary Labour Party and roughly 1.23% of the House of Commons; so 96.86% of the Labour Party support Equal Marriage whilst only 57.1% of Tories believe in equality (of course we have to wait for the actual vote to be sure).

To put simply – practically ALL Labour MPs support Equal Marriage, just over half Tories do.

It is not surprising that the Labour Party are so pro-Equal Marriage. The Labour Party is responsible for some of the most radical legislation in the 20^th Century, the formation of the Welfare State and also end of penal servitude, whipping and flogging  was abolished under the 1948 Justice Act in the UK

The 1967 Abortion Act (introduced as a Private Members Bill by the Liberal MP David Steele) gave women rights to legal abortions and freedom from the horrendously dangerous ‘backstreet abortions’ that were prevalent – if that wasn’t enough the Sexual Offences Act was passed that ended the prosecution of homosexuals (though not making it entirely legal).

The 1997 election brought another Labour Government which saw the repeal of Clause 28 of the Local Government Act introduced by the Tories (banning the ‘promotion of homosexuality), the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexuals, also closing loopholes that permitted rape within marriage, and of course the introduction of Civil Partnerships.

Add to the list the first openly Gay MP’s and Ministers of State, things we hardly notice now, and I think the Labour Party’s credentials on  progressive social legislation are a little more than adequate.

The Government, on the other hand, are in danger of highlighting their regressive policies and being hoisted on their own petard, 130 Tory MPs are threatening to vote against its own Government on an issue of Human Rights..

Not only does this say that David Cameron is unable to control his own party, lets face it if he thought he could win the vote he would not have thrown it open to a ‘vote of conscience’ he would have argued that equality is the right thing to do. Cameron is in the invidious position of relying on the Opposition to pass his Governments legislation because a 130 MP’s are intent on showing the country exactly how ‘nasty’ they can be when it comes to equal rights.

Whilst their MP’s talk about equality and compassion and how the State should not interfere in people’s personal lives they vote against a Bill that legalises two people to marry each other?

Just like the Church of England that cannot bring itself to contemplate women Bishops we have a Conservative Party unable to contemplate that everyone deserves the same rights as everyone else.

The point about why I feel morally superior – ok smug – at being a socialist in this is: our MP’s don’t need ‘whipping’ to make the right choices.

“… most parents wouldn’t want their children to be gay’

David Davies, Member of Parliament for Monmouth, in swipe at David Cameron’s proposals to allow Gay Marriage, he is also going allow Churches, if they so wish, to marry same-sex couples in Church.  I have no problem this, but at the same we need to disinfranchise the Church of England because the legal set up is that because it is the State Church it has to marry everyone, or least everyone can get married in the Church, just as everyone is part of a Vicar’s Parish regardless of faith, or lack of one.  Another solution used widely is that ALL marriages are performed by a Registrar, and a religious wedding takes place later – and that is fair, and that is equal.

Mr Davies is of the persuasion were some people are separate but equal, not only against same-sex couples getting married in Church, but also getting altogether.  A quote from his website, where he blatantly displays his heterosexual credentials says:

I am completely against any form of discrimination towards people who are gay and I do not believe it’s the role of government to decide who should live with who or what sort of commitment they make to each other. Equally I believe people should be free to follow their religious beliefs, whilst accepting that many people within different religions do not recognise the validity of gay marriage.

Not only does he put forward the spurious argument that Churches will be forced to perform gay marriages, that is a red herring, but that maintain an antidiscrimination he then goes to justify the current discrimination. Indulge me a few paragraphs and let me this to shreds before I hurl the computer out of the window in the general direction of Monmouth.

His latest quote, which was designed to spark controversy (he more or less admits it) is:

“I think most people are very tolerant and have no problem at all if people are gay but – and I hate to say this, in a way, because I expect it’s going to cause controversy – but I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay, knowing most parents want grandchildren if nothing else.”

I remember vividly watching a film in my late teens – like many gay people of my generation we were searching for role models and affirmation of our sexuality that we were not freaks – called Sgt Matlovich v USAF and chronicled the life of Leonard Matlovich who was a equal opportunities officer, the one line from the film which has stuck with me is:

“the two words which sound discrimination are ‘all and ‘but’

‘I like black people BUT …’ and ‘ALL black people …’ I think when someone starts to talk for the majority without actually knowing the majority we have bigotry.  I guess the majority of Davies’ friend do feel that that they would rather have ‘straight’ kids rather ‘gay’ kids, I don’t know the circles he mixes in, but the circles I mix are fairly gay and most of the stories are positive and affirming, and parents love their children.  My partner’s family is fairly religious and I am treated as part of the family, I am not sure if his Dad understands the ‘gay thing’ but neither do I understand the ‘straight thing’ but we don’t let that bother us.

Of course it assumes that all heterosexual couples want children, the birthrate in this country, and the number of childless couples, by choice, is rising – it is not uncommon for couples not to want Children.  It is comforting to know that I am ‘tolerated’ by the likes of David Davies, especially after the pain that I have caused my family by gay in the first place, and not having children. The more I think about the comment, the more I want to hurl a computer out of the window!

I feel comforted that an MP for Monmouth can talk for over the half the families in the UK with such confidence.  Most parents I know are really happy knowing that their children are healthy, receive a good education, meet someone they love who will walk with them along the journey of life, I think most parents are happy if their children come and visit them, and keep in contact, and I am sure most parents are happy knowing their children enjoy their lives. Again, looking at my circle of friends, I am safe in the knowledge that three of my partners have procreated, and not to keep their parents happy, so again we have a total lack of understanding.

I end with my favourite quote from Loving v Virginia in 1967

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law

I think Mr Davies needs to out of rolling hills of Monmouth and take a look at the real country and the lives of real people for a change, we are not here to please our parents, we are here to live fuflilled and productive, regardless of who we love.

Nick Griffin, the evil of thugs in Suits

Nick Griffin, MEP

Today is an example of why we need laws, why we need laws to stop incitement, to stop ~ isms, and to uphold the rule of law.

Whilst I appreciate laws limiting criticism can be taken to extreme,  I believe it could be amended, but we still need whilst we have the like of Nick Griffin MEP, who today criticised the ruling of the Courts that a gay couple was discriminated against when a B&B refused a gay couple accommodation on the grounds they were not married – and never could be through the eyes of their Christian faith. The law of the United Kingdom said that the couple were discriminated against and the owners of the B&B were ordered to pay the couple £3,200 in damages.

If they got away with discriminating against a gay couple on the grounds of their faith what is to stop them from discriminating on someone of another faith, some of another race, an agnostic – the list is endless.  I respect their right to put their argument forward, but our law has said they are running a business and cannot discriminate against who stays, if they do want to invite a Black, Gay Muslim, Lesbian around for Sunday Dinner then that is their decision, and their loss.  I accept that people will not agree with the ruling, and they have a right to their opinions, but the law has spoken.

Nick Griffin, MEP, things he has a right for progress his views further.  Today he tweeted:

If anyone can us the address of the 2 bullying ‘gay’ activists who’ve woncase v Christian B&B owners we’ll hold a demo

a few hours ago he tweeted

So Messrs Black and Morgan, at [address withheld but in full in the tweet]. A British Justice team will come up to Huntington (sic) & give you a ….

… bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple’s home is their castle. Say no to Hetreophobia

To me, and I am not a Lawyer, this seems very threatening, what exactly is a ‘British Justice team … ?’  To me it sounds like a lynch mob, to me and others it was worth reporting to the Police.  Two people are now probably being very nervous about every bump, every letter that will arrive, all because someone had ‘free speech’. Griffin is totally reprehensible, he utterly disgusts me as a Englishman, as Libertarian, and as a human being – he utterly repels me.  His politics are built on hate and division, and whilst he has a right to express his views he also has a responsibility – none of are totally free.

An American friend of mine told me years ago why he hated America, he told me whilst Americans had freedom of speech it was so free that a Pastor could preach hatred from the Pulpit, could preach incitement, yet in Canada he was accountable for his sermons of hate. We need the law on criticism so we can be responsable for our words, the words we say have an implication, a consequence, we need to be accountable for those words and defend them if we must.

The words of Nick Griffin need to have a consequence, a very serious one for Nick himself – as far as I am concerned Nick is just a thug in a suit.