The government must not buckle over gay rights


Leader
Sunday December 3, 2006
The Observer


One year ago, a thoroughly decent law came into effect. It recognised civil partnerships for gay couples. It was good for the minority on whom it bestowed new rights and good for the majority too. We all benefit when parliament tackles prejudice.
It says much about modern Britain that civil partnerships were introduced without a rumpus. The law was not forcing liberal values on a reactionary society, it was catching up with attitudes that had already changed. Prejudice still exists, but there is no doubt that Britain in 2006 is a much better place in which to be gay than it was 10 years ago.


Britain has moved in line with western Europe on this front. But the government should be credited with embracing the trend. New Labour scrapped Clause 28, the section of the Local Government Act that labelled homosexuality a pernicious influence in schools. New Labour lowered the gay age of consent. Only since New Labour took office has it become acceptable for cabinet ministers to be openly gay.
It is worth recalling also that New Labour brought women into parliament and cabinet in numbers that would have been unimaginable under the Tories. New Labour appointed the first black cabinet minister, it introduced the Human Rights Act, it ended the exemption of police from anti-race discrimination law and it forced employers to accommodate the needs of disabled people. This government has overseen a discreet revolution which has made Britain a fairer place.

In the same spirit a law has been drafted that would ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Hotels, for example, would not be able to deny rooms to gay couples. Schools would not be able to deny places to gay pupils. The changes were due to be introduced earlier this year but have been postponed because of lobbying by church groups.

Last week the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, Vincent Nichols attacked the government for what he called the imposition of its moral agenda on the church. The Anglican Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, warned that church-based charities would be forced to close their doors if the government insisted they let in gay people. 'It is the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers,' he said.

The churches are thus trying to depict the Sexual Orientation Regulations as an assault on their philanthropic work, including faith schools and adoption agencies. That is a tendentious argument. 'The poor and disadvantaged' would only lose out if the churches choose to hate homosexuality more than they like good works. Their objection to the new law is not, as they like to see it, self-defence against a meddling government. It is a threat by powerful institutions to withhold their charity out of prejudice.

Churches are free to preach that homosexuality is a sin and their followers are free to believe it in private. But the elected government of Britain does not share that view and has rightly sought to give gay citizens the same public rights as everyone else. Or at least it has done thus far. On this latest measure the cabinet is divided. Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a devout Catholic, is the minister responsible for the new law and is sympathetic to the idea of exempting churches. The Prime Minister is also thought to be amenable to religious petitioning.

It is up to liberal voices in cabinet, so far led by Education Secretary Alan Johnson, to remind wavering colleagues of New Labour's creditable record of making sure everyone is equal under the law.

To retreat from gay rights before most couples have even celebrated their first anniversary in civil partnership would mark a sad end to an era of positive social change.

Cheerio for now...Vincent...x

Scottish RC Cardinal compares same sex adoption issue to that of paedophiles/beasteality etc.. MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL IN THIS DAY AND AGE

Cardinal O'Brien compares same-sex couples adopting to paedophiles adopting:

------------ QUOTE ----------
O'Brien said he raised the issue of gay legislation with a group of MSPs at
Holyrood recently, adding: "One person contradicted me and said, 'No. That's
it now, we can't go any worse'. I said, 'What about paedophiles? There's a
paedophile party on the Continent. What if that is what everybody likes?'

"What if a man likes little girls? Can he adopt a little girl then and just
have a little girl at home? Where are we going with this?' I even mentioned
bestiality. This is of intense worry to me. We're just going down a slippery
slope."

The cardinal's remarks reflect a growing chasm between the Catholic Church
and the Labour party, just weeks after he gave his backing to independence.

Tim Hopkins, a policy worker at the Equality Network, said: "Comparing
homosexuality with paedophilia and bestiality is just an absurd, disgusting
and inhuman thing to say about his fellow citizens and he should be
thoroughly ashamed himself."

Peter Tatchell, spokesman for Outrage!, the gay human rights group, said:
"The cardinal is a very sad, sick man. His scaremongering and demonisation,
comparing gay couples to paedophiles and animal abusers, is deeply immoral.

"It is not what we expect from someone who claims to be motivated by the
gospel of Jesus Christ of love and compassion.

"Since England and Wales allowed same-sex couples to jointly adopt and
foster since 2003, there have been no complaints, no abuse and no problems.

"Lesbian and gay couples have provided loving and caring homes for children
in desperate need. The cardinal should think about children first and forget
his own miserable prejudices."

O'Brien has been
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1764460,00.html of the Holyrood
bill proposing to allow same-sex couples to adopt jointly. The bill is due
to have its final reading in parliament on Thursday, and is set to come into
force next spring. A number of amendments are due to be lodged against the
proposal allowing same-sex adoption, but with Labour and Liberal Democrat
party whips expected to instruct their MSPs to support the bill, it is
unlikely to meet sufficient opposition.
-----------------------------

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2484379,00.html:

------------ QUOTE ----------
The extent and ferocity of his attack on devolution and the Scottish
executive, therefore, comes as a surprise. O'Brien believes Jack McConnell's
government is pursuing an agenda that is leading to nothing less than the
moral disintegration of Scotland and that the executive has no real mandate
for what it is doing. It is a grave charge, but the cardinal is unrepentant.

"I would certainly say we are working towards the destruction of any sort of
moral standards," he says over coffee. "And I say that having spent three
days recently in the Scottish parliament talking to the MSPs. The way things
are going now in the parliament, what is going to happen next? I spoke of
the way marriage is virtually being destroyed, adoption of children by gay
parents and so on.

"One person contradicted me and said: 'No. That's it now, we can't go any
worse.' I was a wee bit crude. I said: 'What about paedophiles? There's a
paedophile party on the Continent. What if that is what everybody likes?'
Because, basically, the answer that was given to me was that there are no
objective moral standards. We come to a consensus. It just seems nice to
have gay men living together and gay women living together and having
children out of test tubes or adoption agencies or whatever else.

SIGH...AGAIN!! ...religious minded politicians are of the same mind here in NI too...such hypocrisy...focus on their small agenda, rather than the rights of a minority OR the needs of vunerable kids living without real care or parental love in thier lives.

Cheerio for now...Vincent...xx