Carry On Rome

The Lord Giveth

What a week it's been in the Carry On Rome series.  In case, you missed it, an interim draft report on the family came out earlier this week from a Synod of over 200 Roman Catholic Bishops.

This document included some "liberal", "inclusive" language on gay people.  It was only a working draft report for a fuller synod next year, but it was enough for people to speak of an "earthquake" in Rome.   In some respects, an earthquake it was; this move was pretty much unthinkable under John Paul II or the arch-conservative Benedict XVI.  The Catholic Bishops' work certainly got some great responses online from the more excitable faithful:

However, if you're not wrapped up in a bubble of Catholic belief, and aren't entirely sure whether Our Lady of Fatima is referring to:

• A) the former Olympic British javelin thrower; or 
• B) the ghostly apparition of a 2000 year old dead Jewish woman, who apparently appeared to some Portuguese shepherd children in 1917

Then this requires further examination.

By any normal, non-Church standards the language in the interim church shouldn't have got you praying.  The most positive thing it said was that homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.  Wow, we're human beings who have qualities.  Groundbreaking.  It then posed the question whether the Church was capable of welcoming "these people" into the Church and described us as an "important educative challenge".  Having given these crumbs and posed a question, it went on to affirm that "unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman" and spoke about the "moral problems connected to homosexual unions".

So, the above words, which said our unions are second class and mentioned their moral problems, was heralded as a ground-breaking, liberal, welcoming document that threatened schism within the Church.  Guys, this isn't actually exactly the Pope coming out on stage wearing a rainbow tutu accompanied by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.  Srsly.

And the Lord Taketh Away

But then even the crumbs were scraped back.  This was because of a vocal backlash amongst conservative bishops.  Watered down language was instead proposed that removed the revolutionary statement that we have gifts and qualities to offer.   As the new version really didn't "give" gay people anything that wasn't already the case, it's extraordinary that 62 bishops are so deeply homophobic they felt the need to vote against it.   It therefore failed the 2/3 majority required and a new, third draft was created.  The "welcoming" language was thus entirely removed and we are left instead with a document that states:

There is no basis whatsoever to assimilate or to draw even remote analogies between same-sex unions and the plan of God for marriage and family.

So my steady, loving, same-sex relationship may not have any even remote analogies drawn between it and a marriage.  It does not constitute a family in the eyes of Rome - nor do those of countless same-sex couples across the world, many of whom are bringing up children, very happily and very successfully.

Justified Discrimination

Amazingly, in the same breath, and without seeing any contradiction at all, the document then goes on to say we must be accepted with respect and sensitivity, and every sign of unjust discrimination should be avoided.

I love the insertion of the word "unjust".  The Bishops are at least not so blind that they realise that actively encouraging over a billion of their faithful to treat us as less than everyone else does indeed constitute discrimination.  It's just they think it's okay, and is what their god wants.  It's the kind of statement a die-hard supporter of Apartheid might have said.  Shutting out black people from opportunity and civic life by means of racial discrimination was legal, and in their minds entirely justified.  As long as it was done with sensitivity, no problem at all.

Let's then throw in U.S. Cardinal Burke's comments during the Synod that a couple should keep their grandchildren away from their gay son or daughter at Christmas.  That "moral dilemma" was, he said, "made more delicate by the aggressiveness of the homosexual agenda".  Because, as any reasonable person knows, expecting to be welcomed by your own flesh and blood at Christmas is highly aggressive, and just the type of militant thing we homosexuals so unreasonably demand. 

A time of goodwill to all mankind. Unless they're LGBT.

If you'd like to read the exact texts of the draft report as proposed, and as passed, here's a link.  With typical English understatement, the Catholic commentator Damian Thompson put it like this:

The Catechism

None of this should of course be unsurprising if you're familiar with the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was put together in the 1990s by the later Pope Benedict XVI.  It's remarkably recent.  Everything you need to know is there in 2357 and 2358, just below the stuff on incest and rape.  It states that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity, contrary to natural law and intrinsically disordered.   It says under no circumstances can they be approved of.  We who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" have an inclination which is objectively disordered.  It apparently constitutes "a trial" for most of us and is a "condition" the psychological genesis of which remains largely unexplained.  The only way to deal with this trial is celibacy.

As this Catholic priest and psychotherapist comments, "any effort by a gay person to reach out for human sexual love, no matter what the circumstances, is judged as evil.  The Vatican says that "if gay people enter into a human sexual love relation they know evil and will separate themselves from the love of God."  If this isn't religious extremism, I'm not sure what is.  The priest concerned calls the Catechism the worst document issued from the Church since it declared in 1866 that "slavery itself.. is not all contrary to the divine and natural law."

Not just gay Catholics, but all gay men and women around the world are dealt with in this way, in a few lines, following on from the subject of rape.  A nice question mark is vaguely, but entirely deliberately cast over our mental health.  Of course pretty much every reputable psychological association around the world has concluded from actual empirical evidence that homosexuality does not imply psychological disorder, but that didn't stop Benedict.  Having thrown this slur out there, the text then goes on, just as is the Synod discussion paper, to say we should of course be treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity, blah blah.

I should like to remain charitable, but I'm struggling.  In both instances there is a massive inherent contradiction: you cannot say we should be treated with respect and sensitivity, when you also systematically state we are worth less than you, that our relationships can in no way be placed on a par with yours, that we have a psychological condition, and that if we have sex with our partners we know evil and cut ourselves off from the love of the god that you're so keen on.  

I just can't don't see how you square a belief in the Catechism or that Synod draft and saying these things to my face, with at the same time being sensitive, compassionate and respectful to me.  You can't.  It's like sensitively inviting a vegetarian along to watch the slaughter of a pig followed by compassionately and respectfully offering them a nice gammon steak. 

We, the Disordered

Oh, but try they do.  A couple of Catholics have tried to explain to me that I shouldn't be offended in the slightest by any of this.  No, no, the words "objectively disordered" is just technical language that carries a special meaning in this context.  It simply means that when gay people have sex they are deprived of "god's gift" of creating a child.  According to Rome, only sex acts which can result in babies are natural: everything else is by definition disordered in the sense that you don't reproduce as a result.

I must therefore, I am patronisingly told by a heterosexual Catholic on Twitter, feel a personal loss that when I make love to my boyfriend because he can't get pregnant as a result.  Except I don't.  Not for one moment.

Not on the top of my shopping list. No, really.

What is lacking here (apart from any sensitivity, compassion or respect) is any understanding that people's moral beliefs and indeed their desires in life differ.  I am not a Catholic.  I am not a Christian.  I do not believe in a magical being who dictates, 2000 years after his son allegedly rose from the dead, through an elderly celibate German man sitting in Rome, what I should or should not do in bed with the man I love.

As positive as some aspects of Christian faith have undoubtedly been during history, I personally find belief in a god as a superstitious, somewhat ridiculous and unfathomable thing.  I don't think sex is about having as many babies as you possibly can.   Like me, millions disagree with the idea that sex is purely for reproduction, and it's extraordinarily arrogant to think only you possess the absolute moral truth, because the institution you belong to has spoon-fed you that "truth".  But that's the Catholic Church in a nutshell, I guess.

What I do feel is a rising amount of anger at trying to twist the meaning of words which have a very normal, natural definition.  You cannot expect to throw terms like "act of grave depravity" and "objectively disordered" at an individual about their life and not expect them to be irritated and offended.   The special Catholic meaning of the words is just not the way I or any reasonable bystander will interpret them.  Let's look at that term "disordered":

It is a little naïve to suppose that anyone outside the narrow little world of strict Catholic belief will not give the meaning "dysfunctional, disturbed, unsound, sick or diseased" to the term.  Looking at the specific context in the Catechism, and the fact this expression follows on from "act of grave depravity" I see absolutely no reason to believe Benedict did not intend the natural, offensive meaning in any case.  The other favourite trick is to say "oh YOU are not disordered/depraved"; it's just what you do that is depraved.  Because that's far better and far less insulting to me, obviously.

The same Catholic went on to describe my love making with my boyfriend as "using him as a sex-toy" for "masturbatory purposes".   He was hardly helping his case of coming across as sensitive and respectful by doing that.  Throw in a later comment from him that "a man who contracepts is using his wife as a sex aid" and 95% people are going to think him a sexist pig, as well as a homophobic idiot.

This is all from a man who claims he is fighting the "REAL" homophobes within the Church.  He says his god's love is limitless (and presumably extends to me if I torture myself by not being in a loving relationship for the rest of my life).  I'm afraid I ended up telling him to fuck off.  I further expressed the wish that said fuck resulted up in a nice baby, because that is all that he is reducing the sex act to.  Shucks, it takes the patience of a saint to deal with these people online.  I failed.  I gather from what he's saying to me it's a career choice which is probably ruled out to me now, anyhow.

Someone else had reserved my name anyway

Joking aside, the actual disorder here is in fact plain for me to see: it's the brainwashing abilities of the Catholic Church which are capable of convincing someone he is being a reasonable compassionate person, whilst spewing this bile to a non-Catholic, who has repeatedly asked him to stop it.  Why should I have to put up with this?  It's hate speech and it's absolute poison.

Why Does It Matter?

If you're therefore wondering why it should matter to me what Rome has decided to do this week, I should have thought it actually rather obvious.  The Churches collectively still wield a massive amount of influence.  Look for example at the way the Tories fell over themselves to give quadruple locks to Christian Churches to allow them to exclude us and discriminate against us legally on equal marriage.  That's in this country, which by large, is not a religious one at all.  Still the Churches are given enormous special treatment and "belief" is still accorded an official respect in our society which I find baffling.

The attitudes of the Church, particularly on human morality, have determined to a large extent what people thought privately for the last two millennia.  I can think of no other institutional driver of  homophobia (past and present) than the Christian Churches.  This homophobic legacy has a very real effect today.  Ours is a country where in 2013 you still can have your life torn to pieces for holding your boyfriend's hand in public.  Read that link, please, and consider the effect of these dehumanising, degrading words by such a powerful institution as the Church.  It's a country where this week a gay couple was thrown off a London bus after the homophobic driver told them they weren't real men and to fuck off.   Sad to say, but without knowing a single thing more about it, my money is instantly on it being more likely than not that "Jesus" was involved in that story in some way.

Many British Christians appear to love screaming that they are being persecuted.  They have zero idea of what it is to like to be shouted at, thrown out of a store or to be fearful for their loved one walking down a street.  They have no idea what it feels like to hear the language of violence and hate being spoken in school playgrounds from the youngest age.   They have no idea of the fear that gay teenagers feel that they may be rejected by their parents for simply being themselves: the most unnatural act of all.  They have no idea what it feels like to be bullied.  They have no idea what it feels like to have be told on Twitter their relationship is worth less than everyone else's by a person who doesn't even know them. 

Inside and outside the UK, the Vatican contributes to making the lives of LGBT people utter misery.  The Church, if it cared about the well-being and dignity of all people, should be screaming from the rooftops about the injustices we face.  Instead they remain at its vanguard, perpetuating the hatred and poison in 2014 with their words and acts.  Millions of ordinary people, thoroughly decent souls who actually make up the Catholic Church, disagree with the stance of the bishops: that's part of the background of why this Synod was called.  That's a truly wonderful thing - but look at the result.  Despite a Pope who has achieved some remarkable things, Rome has moved one step forward and two steps back.

1 Corinthians 13

I've genuinely no desire to pollute myself with the bitterness I have experienced from some of the so-called Christians I've encountered, on a routine basis, over the years on Twitter.  So I shall quote Corinthians and try to wash it right out of my hair.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal... If I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  Love.. does not dishonour others..  Love never fails..  And now these three remain: faith hope and love.  But the greatest of these is love.

Your Bible may contain the most absurd logical flaws, and a load of stuff I couldn't believe in a million years, but it's sometimes great for a quote.  What truly beautiful words and sentiments.  LGBT people will not go away simply because you wished we didn't exist.   Show some love and show some real humanity, Rome, rather than the farce this week and the utter poison and hatred you've been spewing forth for hundreds of years.  It is, after all, what you're supposedly all about.

Is it Homophobic to oppose Same Sex Marriage?

The first same sex marriages in England and Wales took place this week.  It gave an ideal opportunity not just to celebrate the love of the people getting married, but for those who disagree with marriage equality to have one last blast at airing their views about how wrong this all is.

Catholic Voices, for example, has been keen to get its members media time on the subject.  The group
was co-founded by Jack Valero, a member of Opus Dei.  CV purports to represent the views of ordinary British Catholics*.  It has put out various items on the issue, such as this blog post, which at first glance seems reasonable enough.  However, breaking it down, in it they say that by allowing same sex couples to wed, there has been an "evisceration" of marriage.  That word generally means "disembowelment": removing the internal organs of an animal.  According to them, when two men or two women enter together into a legal, civil marriage, these are not proper weddings, but instead are a "parody" of the real thing.

They predict that:

• all civil marriages will become insignificant and incoherent; 
• marriage will be weakened; 
• the state will be beset by groups wanting recognition of polyamorous and "other kinds" of sexual unions.  

Their claim is that society must rebuild itself.  You may agree or disagree with these quite serious claims about the effect of opening up of marriage to same-sex couples, but I'm interested in the question of whether being opposed to same-sex marriage is by definition homophobic.

Is it Homophobic? 

Well, I could answer this question in fewer than 140 characters by nicking Sean Jones QC's tweet below.  It's just brilliant and gets straight to the heart of it for me:

Catholic Voices take a quite apocalyptic stance about the effects of marriage equality, particularly when you strip away their attempts to be reasoned and reasonable.  Sean's tweet covers other less dramatic positions of people who simply don't "like" the idea of same sex marriage but haven't really formulated why.  I'll go on below to look at the matter in a bit more detail below, and explain why I agree with him.

The Word Homophobia

The first thing I'm going to do is to try to move away from the use of "homophobia".  It's an interesting word, first coined in 1969 to describe the "mixture of revulsion and apprehension".  It was also called homosexual panic.  I think back then that probably was the reaction of plenty of people (particularly straight men) when faced with people attracted to the same sex.  No doubt it is still the case for some now.

However, what most people naturally mean when they use the term is something akin to racism or sexism, which is directed at LGB people.  The word covers a whole range of negative feelings that range from antipathy or mild prejudice, through to actual violent contempt.  It can include phobia, but on most people's usage it doesn't actually by any means require fear.  I therefore understand why some get hung up on that aspect of the word, particularly when they try to give it its literal meaning.  I'm therefore going to use the term "anti-gay" in this post instead of homophobia here.

Just like any prejudice, anti-gay feeling and behaviour cover a huge spectrum of words and activities.   Someone who calls gays "poofs" in a tweet is clearly not in the same league as those who beat up, attack or kill gay men because of their hatred (19.3% of all hate crimes in the US were incidentally motivated by sexual orientation bias).   By having your position on same-sex marriage challenged as being anti-gay, it does not mean that the person doing so is suggesting that you're in the same category as someone who engages in violent assaults.  It's perfectly possible for you to know, and even like, some LGB people, whilst believing the law should rightly discriminate against them and to seek to deny them the rights that heterosexual people enjoy.   That really should be obvious.

Also, as with racism, you can of course feel that you're entirely not anti-gay, whilst behaving in such a way that others would agree falls into that category.  Those affected by your prejudice certainly don't have an absolute monopoly of determining what is and what is not anti-gay, but they are often in the best place to assess the effect of it because of their day to day life experiences.

The Symbolism of Marriage Equality

Let's be clear that in the UK the huge legal injustices facing same-sex couples were not the driving force in LGB people arguing for marriage equality.  Civil Partnerships had already meant that almost the same legal rights were available to civil partners as to those marrying.  In this the UK differs to many other countries around the world.

The matter of marriage equality was foremost one of equal treatment, dignity and principle.  Marriage is of course an entirely made up thing: a social construct that humans have created and defined.  It's a concept, not a tangible "thing".  It is however an important institution from which we collectively have agreed certain rights and responsibilities should flow.  This change in the law on marriage was about the State saying "your unions are equal".  It's about the State sending out a signal that "you are equal" after many, many years of state instituted discrimination and wrong treatment, and in the context of ongoing social prejudice. 

It was extremely important to many LGB people, myself included, to win this battle.  I'm enormously glad we did.  The symbolism was absolutely enormous.  We have already moved from a society where, growing up as a gay teen in the 80s, my only point of reference to homosexuality was parody characters on Are You Being Served, and hearing how homosexuals were dying of a "gay plague".  Instead we have an incredibly positive affirmation of same-sex unions by a Conservative prime-minister who himself had even voted against the repeal of Section 28.   This is enormous.

Again, Sean entirely gets it:

I cannot emphasise enough what it represents to have the option of marriage available to me personally, and to know the positive effect on the next generation of gay teenagers growing up in an environment where the State recognises their relationships and treats them as equal.  What an amazingly positive change and healthy development in our society.

Being Anti-Gay

It's not terribly hard to set out tests for whether someone is expressing an anti-gay position.  Here are a few examples:

• Do you believe that LGB people should have fewer or different civil rights to straight people?
• Do you believe that civil marriage between an LGB couple is a parody of "real marriage"?
• Do you believe that LGB relationships are only worthy of separate recognition by the State and LGB people should be satisfied with that?
• Do your views and words tend to upset, offend or hurt a sizeable proportion of LGB people?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I'd say there's a good chance you're being intrinsically and inherently anti-gay.  It really is rather difficult for you to argue that is not case.  I think, with respect**, you'd have to be quite thick to not get this point.  If you were saying black people should have fewer civil rights, people would rightly say you're being racist.  Here, you're saying things that are anti-gay, and if you had your way the effects of this would be laws that discriminate against (i.e. treat differently) LGB people.  You're being anti-gay.

And if, remarkably, you still haven't got the point that you're being anti-gay by arguing I should not be allowed marriage equality, then consider this.  In 1967 the US Supreme Court overturned the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which had prohibited inter-racial marriages.  Similar rules existed in other states.  Imagine if, instead, the court had permitted blacks to enter unions with whites, but it created a "separate but equal" institution called "inter-racial partnerships".  Would you argue that mixed race couples should be content with it because it gave all the same legal rights as "ordinary" couples AND this position is not racist?  I think people would label you as racist on this issue, with justification.  I see no difference with stating that LGB people should put up with the separate but (almost) equal institution of civil partnership is being anti-gay.

Please do think about this if you're stance is "I'm not anti-gay, but I don't think they should be allowed to get married."  Really think it through and realise what you're saying.

Baffling Denial

We've had plenty of examples in history of laws related to marriage that discriminate against any given group.  The 1701 Act of Settlement was anti-Catholic.  It said that anyone who became Roman Catholic or married a Roman Catholic was excluded from the succession.  The Nuremberg laws of 1935 were anti-Jewish and prohibited non-Jews from marrying Jews in Germany.  I've already mentioned the ban on whites marrying blacks in some US states.

In each of these cases people were, I believe, consciously aware that the policies discriminated against a particular group.  They felt it was right to do so and put forward justifications for this.  This country faced what it considered to be a serious threat from Roman Catholicism in the early 18th century.  Millions of Germans supported the discriminatory Nuremberg laws as necessary to protect the "German nation".  People who argued for segregation knew they were backing a racist policy.  They wrongly thought it was correct to do so in the interests of social harmony.

The extraordinary thing same sex marriage issue, though, is that many people are in utter denial that by seeking to keep marriage from LGB people that they are being at all anti-gay.  Catholic Voices do it in their article.  They say that they are offended by "jeers" that they are homophobic or bigoted for taking the stance they do.  Here's a Catholic Priest, Father James Bradley, who says we live in "dangerous times" because of this and this is "not the path of a civilized society".

Quite how he reaches this point I'm not sure.  He's entitled to his view that I should be discriminated against by the State and to put forward what he sees as his compelling faith based reasons for this.  People will agree or disagree with them.  But to deny that anyone who takes a position that is by definition anti-gay is being anti-gay makes no sense at all.  It is not dangerous to point this out, and it is not uncivilised to do so.  It is only uncivilised if it's accompanied by abuse, but that's not what I'm doing.  I'm simply stating something which should be quite evident if you use some logic.

The Roman Catholic faith teaches (Catechism 2357) that homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity" and are "intrinsically disordered".  It says that they are "contrary to natural law".  They do not "proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity".  "Under no circumstances can they be approved".  It talks about same-sex attraction being a "trial" for homosexuals.  This is as inherently anti-gay as it gets.  With these teachings, it is a virulently anti-gay religion.  The Catechism then talks about treating these poor homosexuals with "respect" and not unjustifiably discriminating against them (justifiable discrimination is by definition okay according to the faith).

Why should I not point out that all of the attempts to deny me civil rights come from an inherently anti-gay set of religious views?  They are entitled to their beliefs and can argue them as much as they like, but I will not accept that whilst doing so they are not being anti-gay.

Just as a side-note, we have always to remember that there are many Christians who take a different viewpoint to the one above.  The Church in Wales last month issued a report by the standing doctrinal commission which stated the following:

Isn't that beautiful?  A very recent poll found a majority (53%) of Americans now support same-sex marriage, with support amongst white Catholics even higher, at 58%, and amongst Hispanic Catholics at 56%.  Perhaps Rome will catch up with the huge number of its own members who don't support its anti-gay position.  Don't believe that it doesn't or can't ever change its policies on fundamental issues either: that's demonstrable historic nonsense.  To give one example, the Catholic Church banned the charging of interest on loans during most of its existence.  It said the practice was "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity".  The doctrine was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians.  People who lent for money were refused the sacraments and Christian burial.  Then, in the 19th century they changed the rules and, hey ho, allowed it. Such is the immutable Word of God.

It Bothers Them

Now, back to the curious point about those being anti-gay denying that they are in fact so.  If you point this out to them, wow does it bother them.  They want to have their communion wafer and eat it.  NO, they are motivated by God's word and love and nothing about their anti-gay stance is at all anti-gay.  They trot out the words that everyone is created in God's image and is worthy of human dignity.  It's "love the sinner, hate the sin, and go out and campaign loudly for the State to actively discriminate against the sinner in civil matters."  They get most upset when their anti-gay stance is called out as such.

A few of them are obviously and offensively homophobic.  The ostensibly reasonable Catholic Voices piece contained the slippery slope argument about "other sexual unions" being recognised.  These words are a bit nebulous and they don't spell out what is meant with that.  Given the piece has already considered straight, same-sex and polyamorous sexual unions, I can only assume it refers either to bestiality, paedophilia, or both.   Considering the union of two people of the same sex with screwing animals in the same context is a bit anti-gay isn't it, even it if wasn't overt?

This Catholic convert and former monk below, who calls gay men "LGBT perverts" and "poofs", is much more direct:

And YET, it bothers the donkey-loving former monk to be called anti-gay.  He's been off recently on a long rant with a doctor I follow about how he worked with gay men in the 1980s during the Aids crisis, preaching abstinence.  Because of this, and despite his anti-gay tweets, he maintains he isn't anti-gay.  This is, to me, very baffling psychology.

A Fifth of Britons wouldn't go to a Gay Wedding

Just to wrap up, it was widely reported (BBC, Guardian, Telegraph etc) that a recent poll showed 68% support for marriage equality, with a minority of just 26% who actually object to it.  That result must have hurt those opposed to same-sex marriage, with their claims that the majority of the population is opposed to it.  26% opposition is actually quite a remarkable figure.  There actually aren't many contentious political issues (HS2, fracking, EU etc) where just 26% of the population are opposed to something.  It shows surprising and heart-warming consensus given the public hasn't even had time to get used to the change yet.

Rather than emphasise this positive point, most of the press however highlighted a subsidiary finding in the poll that a "fifth of Britons (22%) would turn down an invitation to a gay wedding."  Father Bradly, above, said the findings of the survey reflected the reality that people remained "deeply uncomfortable" with being honest about their true feelings on the meaning of marriage.

I actually wouldn't be at all surprised if 20% of the British population would respond in a poll that they would not be comfortable attending a Muslim wedding.  People can be very uneasy and/or prejudiced towards groups, particularly when they have had no personal contact with members of it, and have soaked up negative stereotypes from the press and elsewhere.  If this were the case, a sensible approach might be to accept that prejudice of all sorts is deeply engrained in our society and to ask what can be done to justify it.  I certainly wouldn't argue that it means that Muslim people shouldn't be allowed to marry by the State, because people are personally "deeply uncomfortable" with going to one of their weddings and we need to pander to that prejudice.

Some Gay People Get Married. Get Over It.

The really GREAT thing is all this is over, or it should be.  Those seeking to be anti-gay about marriage have lost their argument, the vast majority of the population supports marriage equality, and this is the last opportunity for them to air their anti-gay views with anyone taking any kind of notice. 

I believe it's been a particularly disastrous week for the likes of Catholic Voices in getting their anti-gay viewpoint over and attempting to win hearts and minds.  Some attempts have led to enormous mirth online, and it's been really quite amusing watching it unfold, and see it bite them back on the arse.  The opponents of marriage equality appear, in my view, to be increasingly isolated, bitter, unreasonable, and often hysterical in their predictions. 

I hope this is my last blog post on the subject.

Love wins in the end.







* Christian Voices is in somewhat hot water at the moment when one of their Speakers, Paula Thompson, an architect, put out an anti-gay tweet regarding Mozilla that spoke of "normal people".  In response a person in the US agreed with her and added "All fags are mentally ill and need to be exterminated".  She retweeted this hate-filled statement to her 1100 followers with no indication that she objected to the contents of the tweet.  She further agreed with a tweet that said "Homosexuals do not want tolerance.  They want to dominate with their sick, deviant life style choice".  Finally a tweet came to light before she was a Catholic Voice in which she said she hoped the IRA would bomb an abortion clinic in Northern Ireland.  It was after that they recruited her as a speaker.

Catholic Voices apparently has the "blessing" of the Catholic bishops in the UK. They apparently "can be relied on to express authoritatively the Church's positions in ways that are succint [sic], compelling and reasonable."  Make your own mind up how those tweets fit with that.  Genocide and sectarian violence.  Paula has since resigned, which has conveniently led Catholic Voices to say it's nothing to do with them any more.  Neither she nor Catholic Voices have offered any form of apology to the anti-gay tweets.  The issue of whether this constitutes illegal hate speech is currently with the Police.


** not really