Categories: uncategorized
Date: 18 July 2011 11:05:34
This weekend I was watching a programme with TOH regarding the struggle for woman's suffrage. Whilst watching we sat and commented that TOH and I would have been on the same side but taking v. different approaches. She would have been a suffragette taking direct action and I would have been a suffragist taking the more "fluffy" approach. We know this because of our frequent discussions on issues such as the best way LGB&T rights should be achieved and our frustrations with each other on the issue.
The truth that one commenator in this BBC documentary gave was that both approaches actually needed each other. I think this is true of the current debates regarding "equality" and the apparent conflicts between "religion" and "sexuality". For latest reports of where we are on this one, given from different angles try the Humanist view on Diva's website, the progressive Christian view on Ekklessia and the conservative view on it from the Christian Institute and finally another Christian view from the Evangelical Alliance.
Personally, I welcome the comments of the Equality Commission but do think we need as the EA and LGCM amongst others are saying greater clarity on the whole issue. The clarify would not just be nice to sort out misunderstandings, but in my view is vitally important for the reality of where we are now. In order for those who "struggle" with the idea of same sex relationships being blessed and civil partnerships celebrated within churches it is vital that individual churches and ministers have the power to say no, sorry this is against my belief and so I am not prepared for this to happen. However, equally I believe it is vital that where people are ok with it they should be able to legally be able to do so. In order for this to happen the legal safeguards need to be in place so that those who do object on "religious grounds" can be "protected". If this is achieved one of the key arguments against allowing civil partnerships in places of religious worship will be removed.
This matters not just for those of us who happen to be gay and Christian and face the pain of having to have our relationships blessed privately, away from church buildings but it matters for mission. If we are to effectively witness to the LGB&T community I believe it is vital that one of the things we can offer them is somewhere lovely to celebrate their civil partnerships but more importantly the value of preparation classes.
The cynical part of me would also say that in a day and age where we need all the money we can get in turning down the "pink pound" churches are losing out on valuable revenue. Recently I read, with sadness, an advert which had been sent around by Premier. It was advertising a venue for "weddings" and "family celebrations" in central London. I knew though that one "family celebration" that it would not or rather could not facilitate was civil partnerships.
Whilst TOH and many others will unfurl their rainbow banners and march with Pride, as well as seeking to directly ask for equal rights when it comes to marriage, I will remain the quiet diplomatic type sitting. allegedly, with a fence pole up me. That's why I support the latest comments of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and hope that they will turn into a serious bit of guidance and even legislation. It's not just about employment...I really do believe it's our best chance of defeating one of the central arguments given by those opposing our equal right to an open religious celebration of our committed, life long relationships.