Will the Anti-Christ be a Homosexual?

Just too good an article which I post a link to for the sheer enjoyment one can gain from reading the outgushings of an unbalanced mind - all the way from Sarah Palin country.

Article here referenced by (Andrew Sullivan) and too good not to post. Just read a smattering of the comments to heighten the enjoyment.......

Is England in communion with Sweden?

Sweden's Lutheran national Church has elected a new bishop in Stockholme, Eva Brunne by 413 votes to 365 and who is in a Civil Partnership with another woman and a long standing priest in the church.

Sweden's church has also approved the blessing of civil partnerships and supported Sweden's recent introduction of same sex marriage. For the time being they do not allow marriage ceremonies for same sex couples but that may itself follow in due course.

The question is rhetorical as in fact England and other European provinces of the Anglican Communion are part of the Porvoo Declaration which brought in full communion between European Anglican and Lutheran churches.

Remains to be seen whether hardliners in the Church of England now insist on pulling out of it.....

Can't believe they got rid of Howard....

I thought it was a travesty. I shall never forget his endeavours to promote Margate as a gay tourism venue and indeed I am planning to holiday there this year.

BBC poetry season

I am just bowled away by BBC's poetry season where there's nearly a poem every night. John Donne, Milton's Paradise Lost, Auden, Arnold and tomorrow Beowulf, a poem I recently discovered for myself and find both enjoyable and difficult (especially in translation as we have to read it - Old English is nothing like English as we know it as this clip shows my views on translations of Beowulf maybe for another day).

Damage limitation in California

News just in that prop 8 banning same sex marriage has been upheld by the California's Supreme Court - the ruling can be found here.

The ruling is as expected from judges' comments in oral argument and therefore unsurprising to that extent.

The key point of interest to me is that on page 92 of the ruling they uphold explicitly that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is held to be 'suspect' - similarly to discrimination on grounds of gender or race and that prop 8 is accepted only on the basis it relates solely to nomenclature (i.e. the title of marriage) and is a 'narrowly drawn exception'.

This is therefore a good ruling (in the circumstances - we'd rather not be here at all) and we can look forward to prop 8 itself being reversed at some future point by the voters of California a few years down the line.

Reaction from Andrew Sullivan welcoming the ruling (referring to it as being the 'right call') here - also with a link to the ruling.

AJ supports AV (plus)

Article by Alan Johnson in the Times a few days ago supporting a referendum on General Election Day over whether we introduce a form of top up of seats in order to produce a form of proportionality as well as maintaining the constituency link.

I think this is a once in a generation chance to put electoral reform before voters in a referendum. Doing so on the day of the next general election has the added advantage of not messing up the next period of government where such changes tend to be conveniently forgotten.

The point is this - why not give people the choice of systems - if first past the post wins in a referendum then it will have been backed by the people and will have renewed legitimacy. When people criticise its sometimes bizarre outcomes then we can reference it to a decision taken by the voters.

Bizarre outcomes under our current system include losing the election in votes but winning the most seats; coming second in votes but being a distant 3rd in seats; having a minority of the vote but a potentially huge majority in Parliament.

My personal view is I would support AVplus (the system devised by Roy Jenkins whereby you vote for constituency MP's by preference vote - i.e. by 'alternative vote' (AV - also known as instant run-off and used successfully in Australia) - and a further vote for top up candidates on a PR 'top up' basis).

But in any case we should at least let the people decide.

Good news frrom the Church of Scotland

Firstly, contrary to the release from the Associated Press the Church of Scotland, though the national Church, is not part of the Anglican Communion but that's another and quite long story.

Nonetheless a historic decision of the General Assembly to allow an openly gay minister to be installed by a majority of 326 to 267.

There is now to be a Commission to look into the matter and report back in 2011 and no-one's allowed to talk about it until then (on either side of the debate) - how that works out remains to be seen.

They seem - at least in their intentions - to realise that all the media driven posturing of the Anglican Communion is not the way to go to get a genuine reflective process of deliberation.

The future of our politics

I was glad to see the Speaker reflected on things and decided to step aside so quicly but this can only be first step in reconnecting Parliament to the people.

I think politicians can some of the changes needed but ultimately the challenge is bigger - to move away from a chamber steeped in the charm and make believe of 19th century flummery that people can't connect with or take seriously towards a more business like, modern chamber.

The Guardian has a good collection of pieces on some of the changes needed, here. Notably one of the questions asked is whether our Parliament has too many members - here are some international comparisons:

United Kingdom

House of Commons 646
House of Lords 738


France

Assemblee Nationale 577
Senat 346

Germany

Bundestag 598
Bundesrat 69

Italy

Chamber of Deputies 630
Senate 315

Spain

Congress of Deputies 350
Senate 264

USA

House of Representatives 435
Senate 100

So I think a case can be made for a much smaller upper chamber and a somewhat reduced House of Commons.

Oh dear

I watched the Speaker live in on TV and the discussions that followed. It was not a pretty sight. Whilst the Speaker didn't fill in MP's claims and normally is not challenged, these are not normal times and it seems the Speaker has been active in gumming up the works - not his fault alone but his position is clearly untenable.

I think if he had reflected on his own role and stated he would stand down at the next election he would have shut the whole thing down. As it is the scenes from the Commons were surreal and painful.

The current crisis

If a blog isn't a good place to make a statement of the bleedin, albeit painfully obvious I don't know what is.

Suffice to say that the situation was dire before the expenses row. We are clearly in a legitimation crisis of profound proportions.

One could apportion blame - the inability of party leaders to get together and sort something out, collective denial, failings of the Speaker ......

The upshot is things are very bad for the country and our society - a profound breakdown of trust.

I think some of the rage over some of the claims is a little excessive and the degree of rage is doubtless a little overdone in some cases but instances of flipping and claiming for mortgages you're no longer paying are appalling and if I heart the phrase "unforgivable accounting error" again ......

My only thought is that the mainstream political parties are not and never will be perfect but they're our only chance of doing democratic politics without disenchantment and the extremes. They need therefore some time before the election to work out which candidates can no longer be put before the people in a General Election and reselect. I also think a new Speaker is required to oversee profound change.

Not taking these steps will have very severe consequences - the mess is simply too deep and affects too many MP's.

More developments in US states

Broadly encouraging developments - especially in New England.

Marriage equality bills have been endorsed by the legislatures of 3 states (Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire). In Vermont the Governor refused to sign the bill but the bill's supporters were able to muster a required 2/3 majority to override a veto; the bill passed in Maine but may be subject to a voter referendum and most recently the Governor of New Hampshire said he would sign a bill if they added further language for the protection of religious minorities.

Meanwhile in New York the lower house has approved such a bill but it is not clear if it can pass the Senate and the District of Columbia has passed a bill recognising same sex marriages (but not allowing them to be carried out) by 12 votes to 1 (subject to Congress not reversing it).

Iowa tempts me back to blogging

Just had to blog about latest developments from Iowa's Supreme Court ruling released today.

Iowa is not the first Supreme Court in the US to endorse same sex marriage (following Hawaii - overturned by a constitutional amendment- Massachusetts and Connecticut). It is though the first to be a unanimous ruling as well as being outside of the comfort zones of New England and trendy California.

It's also a good read if you like that sort of thing. I find it particularly well written, relating to previous Supreme Court rulings on issues like slavery, segregation and women's equality where Iowa was way in advance of the US Supreme Court. The language of the ruling contains subtle digs at other jurisdictions which have denied marriage equality (New York, Washington) or might be about to (California).

Its logic is faultless and is a delight to read and I'm certain will have a huge impact in years to come. In particular it reflects on the historic aspects of discrimination faced by "gay and lesbian people".

At the same time as all this marriage equality measures are progressing actively in New Hampshire and Vermont (where the Senate carried a bill by 26 - 4, the House by 95 - 52 - though not enough as yet to counteract a planned veto by the state governor).

And from Europe, news that the Swedish Parliament has enacted same sex marriage legislation by 261 votes to 22.

What a Day, What a Week

I was so completely overwhelmed by Barack Obama's inauguration event I couldn't blog about it. I still struggle to find words to express what I'm (still) feeling. The sight of the crowds, the excitement, a Democrat in the White House, an African American as President of the US....

The inauguration itself had its moments. Rick Warren was as uneventful as predicted and quite emollient in tone. The benediction given by Rev Lowery was uplifting and simply wonderful.

'Praise Song for the Day' was the inaugural poem. Loved it but the delivery was a little odd and am not sure it was ideal for a crowd of 2 million in the freezing cold, but a great and subtle poem that didn't get unanimous praise.

The 'gay inclusion' - the Lesbian couple on the train heading for Washington alongside Obama and Biden, the band marching in the procession and the choice of Gene Robinson to kick off the inauguration week at the Lincoln memorial and his inclusion at other inaugural events.

The first week - steps toward the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the repudiation (thank God) of the practice of torture by the US. Openness to the Arab and Muslim world and a new doctrine of respect toward other countries and the constitutional and human rights order.

All I can say is "Praise Song for the Day".

Reality will of course be a little more complicated.....

Some more thoughts on Warren

This is the one where Obama has invited an evangelical pastor to do the 'invocation' at the inauguration ceremony.

I think in the long run that getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell, federal discrimination legislation and support for moves in the UN to support the ending of the criminalisation of same sex relationships (to give just a few examples) are what we are wanting from Obama over the next 4 years and whether or not he delivers on these is how I will judge him (from an LGBT perspective).

But just what is Warren's position? While opposing same sex marriage he has used language suggesting that it's the word 'marriage' that irks him. He therefore might be amenable to all sorts of legislative action (at a federal level for instance) on same sex partnership rights, possibly even for Civil Unions. And in many states that's potentially an enormous advance - maybe not all of the journey - but a huge step forwards nonetheless. Or maybe it's all a smoke screen - let's put the spotlight on him and ask him what he does support and go for that at an absolute minimum.

It poses a question of how we should relate to religious folk who don't sign off on all our agenda in all its integrity but might be willing to sign up for some of what we want and maybe Warren is an example of that.

I think sometimes we use a kind of litmus test and then having failed it we kind of discard people instead of working out where we need there support and holding them accountable for delivering it.

Getting prominent evangelicals who aren't known for being gay friendly to state they are against criminalising same sex relationships to advocate the position they allegedly espouse can be a big difference in countries where there is a lot of anti-gay discourse (one thinks of Jamaica and Nigeria).

It may be that it's all dishonest posturing and in many cases I am sure it is and that the anti-gay leaders in the UK and US who pretend to be so moderate actually only adopt this position for show to make their prejudices seem more palatable.

But we let them off and give them a free pass. We don't put them to the test. We don't hold them accountable. We effectively let them wriggle away from their own contradictions while in some cases just don't take advantage of those who might be willing to support us in some of our struggles.

Pope Benedict urges defence of heterosexuality....

I thought that it was doing just fine by itself.

Really there is this paranoid nonsense behind alot of homophobia saying that if we abaondon homophobic beliefs and practices that heterosexuality will collapse.

Evidence appears to be against this supposition and leaving people to their own devices roughly the same number come out straight.

It's basically the idea that homosexuals are the first defectors (for whatever reason) from a universal heterosexual order and that if it's allowed to continue there won't be any heterosexuals left.

This is plain silly.

As for saving the planet, well we're if anything at risk of over population so if anything ......

And of course there's always this thing that LGBT people are trying to bring about the end of the human race by not procreating (ignoring the fact that many do and many more would if they could). And of course there's a notable lack of procreation coming from Catholic priests - though many are of course doing their duty in spite of rules around celibacy.

I think this failure of even the simplest logical steps in thought reflect very badly on the Pope's system of religious thought that needs to vicitimise groups of people in order to maintain its own internal coherence.

Meanwhile this comment from PinkNews - Pope Benedict learns nothing from his time in Hitler Youth.

Obama disappoints

News from the US is that Barack Obama has chosen Rick Warren (evangelical right wing pastor who has compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest and actively camapaigned in favour of Proposition 8 in California) to give the invocation or prayer at his inauguration.

The prayer will probably last 60 seconds and say nice heart warming things but the sense of sadness and loss that the inauguration itself (for Americans the inauguration is a really big deal like a combination of the State Opening of Parliament and the finals of Strictly and X factor all combined) will not be a truly inclusive event that all Americans (and onlookers all over the world) can feel a part of.

I am sure that Obama's tenure in office will witness some important social and legislative changes, many of them with his blessing and possibly even at his bidding. But this really isn't the way to start your Presidency, by casting LGBT people as outsiders whose feelings don't really matter, while at the same time giving the evangelical right some prime time promo.

For LGBT equality we seem to be quickly moving from the audacity of hope to the anatomy of despair.

Now, as I said, this is a 60 second prayer that will soon be over. But one reflects that there's only one invocation and this is who Obama chose for it.

If any American gets to read this blog (not very likely in itself but you never know) my advice is to treat Obama in the same way we treated Tony Blair who did great things for LGBT rights in the UK. He did however need to be pushed, cajoled, manipulated and persuaded using allies and supporters inside and outside the Cabinet.

Yes, of course we all crave a leader who 'gets it' and instinctively does the right thing. We don't often get that and have to work with what we're given - which if we're lucky is someone whose heart is basically in the right place but still needs pressure and encouragement to do the right thing.

I think (until persuaded to the contrary) that Obama'selection was a good thing, for many different reasons. It would be great if electing Obama was all there was to do and we can take a well earned rest now. The right leaders are usually the ones who are open to social movements to advance their causes and move opinion - they (we) still have to do a lot of the work themselves.

(Oh yes, and I secretly hope for some good ol' fashioned protestin' at the inauguration).

Employment Appeals Tribunal overturns 'Ladele' Employment Tribunal

News in today, causing much relief as the original ET ruling was a complete nightmare. There is no doubt that the original judgment was at the very least badly written (and in parts incomprehensible).

If upheld it would have led to chaos in many employers as employees religious scruples would presumably have to have been given effect by employers irrespective of the core business of the employer in question which would in effect have completely up-ended the traditional set up of our system of employment law.

Quite good coverage can be had from Pink News and the good ol' Christian Institute (who had backed the case).

The full ruling can be obtained from the above sites and totally demolishes the original ET case in almost every aspect and makes for a very interesting read for the substance of its analysis.

The ruling is a great Christmas present and the occasion of much relief that proper equality protections for all people (without a 'trump card' for the religious) have been re-established by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

In a scarcely less significant case, the Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 in favour of the case taken against Sanderson blinds by someone experiencing homophobic harassment even though he wasn't gay himself (BBC news report). This is an important ruling in the attempt to create workplaces without homophobic harassment, irrespective of whether an employee is gay themselves.

Historic day at the United Nations

A ground breaking day today at the UN as first of all an amendment to remove sexual orientation from a resolution on extra judicial killings was defeated 60 - 76.

Secondly, 66 countries from 5 continents had signed up to a statement read out by Argentina on sexual orientation, gender identity and human rights. This was followed up by a high level side event with a number of impressive speakers (and one singer - though whether that was planned I'm not sure).

In particular great to hear from Sunil Plant, an out gay MP in Nepal (one of the countries supporting the statement).

This follows up on a number of high profile initiatives, including previous attempts at statements by a number and the Yogyakarta principles and initiatives by the Council of Europe and the Organisation of American States.

Human Rights at 60

Just a brief mention of the 60th anniversary of that fantastic document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights text here and presented in a great animation on Youtube.

Obviously the declaration came out of the terrible realisation of the depths that humanity can descend to but also ways that human rights are violated in smaller ways as well that tend to undermine the rule of law and equity between human beings.

The UDHR is a document well worth celebrating and has spawned a number of human rights frameworks and initiatives (regional and national human rights laws for instance including the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights).

And amidst all the talk of the need to include responsibilities as well as rights it is instructive to note they are referenced at different points in the Declaration.

Lots of stuff on the 60 anniversary of the UDHR on the EHRC's website including a speech by Gordon Brown.

After 60 years we are only just starting to put human rights into practice.

Recovering from the UNISON LGBT Conference

Complete exhaustion after UNISON's annual LGBT Conference is my excuse as to an absence of blogging.

The database of Conference decisions can be found here (at the time of checking it lacked composites and motions carried for National Delegate Conference).

Most people there thought it was a really great Conference and although I was really tired at the end one of the most enjoyable ones I have attended.

Started with a fantastic civic reception with various civic speakers, notably including Dawn Primarolo who gave a great barnstorming political speech.

Ceri Goddard of the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) gave a powerful address on the importance of human rights in every day life and making them a reality without going to Court (especially in public services).

There was just the right balance of controversial debates (boring if evrything goes through 'on the nod') with passionate debates on a wide range of issues such as male rape, the availability of Post Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) and a wide variety of motions from Homophobria in sport, marriage equality to Pride is a protest and motions calling for International Solidarity and work within the Commonwealth.