Will the media stop the pity for homophobes?

On Darwin Day, Adrian Tippetts celebrates the extinction of bad ideas.....

While last Tuesday's passing of the Same Sex Marriage Bill  was a landmark for LGBT emancipation, there will be no noticeable change for the rest of the nation. Hysterical conjecture of Christians being persecuted for their beliefs can be countered by visiting any country that has already legalised same-sex marriage: life really  has continued as usual, with no sign of 'upheaval'.

Still, if you heard the BBC commentary, you might have assumed rebels were about to be fed to the lions. In much of the coverage, the passing of the bill was not presented as a victory for civil rights, but a defeat for religious freedom.  BBC political correspondent Nick Robinson laboured over how the bill went against the 'most sincere beliefs' of many, seemingly oblivious to the fact that others too have equally ,sincere' beliefs, not least about their own right to equal treatment under the law.  The Jeremy Vine Show on Wednesday asked, if it we were in danger of 'not listening' to the opponents.

This is a bizarre question, for an array of lobbyists and public figures have dominated news headlines to tell us how they despise the idea of gay people being treated equal under law. Since the Coalition for Marriage launched its campaign against equality, clerics lined up to compare equal rights to legalising slavery and the rise of Nazism, Tory MPs said it made them want to 'throw up', pundits reasoned that gay relationships were 'of no use to society' because there is 'no potential to produce children' and pollsters claimed it would bring down the government.

Apart from Chris Bryant sparring with Roger Gale, the Vine programme  featured a stream of  bile from from a cherry-picked callers unanimously agreeing with, and thereby simultaneously disproving, the proposition. One caller even demanded the media banned on the word 'gay' and stopped portraying homosexuality as normal.  If anything, this 'shower of arseholes' as Marcus Brigstoke described the show's callers on Twitter,  was a reminder that a hardcore of vicious anti-gay sentiment  is alive and well and to be ignored at our peril.

But the broadcast media does ignore it. The choice of question on the Vine show was all the more insulting because of all the more urgent questions that are not being asked, at a time when faith schools can teach children that same-sex relationships are sinful, homophobic hate crimes number over 5000 and nearly three in four LGBT people do not report hate crime to the police. When will the BBC ever hold the politicians, judiciary or police chiefs to account on what they are doing to protect LGBT people from discrimination or abuse?

Simon Jenkins's commentary  in Wednesday's Guardian also buys into supposed victim narrative while overlooking the prejudices that are still at large. He writes:

The public acceptance of homosexuality has been one of the greatest social changes of the past half-century. The real breakthrough may come only when gay people cease to demand the exceptionalism of a “victimised” group, when they can shrug off the intolerance of a few, having won the acceptance of the many.

It is true that public acceptance has risen by a large extent. 'Only' one person in four thinks same-sex relations are always wrong. This means gay people must expect to be confronted by others who find their very existence, never mind their expression of affection, to be a source of ridicule or a reason for hatred at some point in life. There is still a long way to go. When you are subject to abuse or trauma based on homophobic prejudice - whether it be a family member's reaction to your coming out, being threatened in public, enduring taunts from a fellow guest at a wedding reception while no one else intervenes - it is not possible to simply 'shrug it off' as Jenkins suggests. The psychological effects can be lasting.

The very title of Jenkins's article, Tory metrosexuals won the vote – but at what cost?

 is telling. It is in the big cities where tolerance grows because people of diverse cultures and races exist alongside and depend on each other. Many gay people migrate to cities for the opportunities and the ability to meet more people, but also to escape prejudice and a monoculture hostile to non-heterosexuals.

The term metrosexual mocks the live-and-let-live attitude, especially to sexuality, that allows gay people to live in relative safety and openness in the first place. After all the legislative progress of the last 15 years,  there are a few metropolitan enclaves where same-sex couples can comfortably be themselves and show affection in public. Even that is optimistic: regular reports of homophobic assaults in supposedly 'gay-friendly' zones  show that nowhere is really 'safe'. 

Jenkins says he finds it hard to call equality opponents 'bigots' because of their stance. Opposing marriage equality isn't the same as being called a 'faggot' on a train, and I have no doubt that Sir Roger Gale would be the first to intervene on any gay person's behalf were he witness to such thuggery. But the belief underpinning the prohibition on same-sex marriage - the belief that homosexuality is wrong, a choice, useless to society - is cruel. We are asked to be polite in arguing our case for equality, but I might argue too, that being treated as second class is the height of rudeness to start with. We cannot be polite when being told that it would be better if the children of same-sex couples were never born in the first place.

It is hard to see what 'cost' Jenkins imagines the equal marriage opponents will bear once the same sex marriage bill becomes law. No churches will be forced to hold weddings for gay people against their will; no existing marriages are being undermined or 'redefined'. The law change may well have unhappy consequences for the idea of inequality, though:  traditionalists might be more likely to change their minds.

In the House of Commons, opponents lost heavily because their double standards were exposed when their arguments were examined. East Ham MP Stephen Timms' assertion that marriage was about the ability to procreate infuriated a fellow 52-year old Labour MP, Lyn Brown, whose wedding last year Timms attended. Was her marriage, she interjected, inferior because she was likely too old to have children? MPs like Austin Mitchell were moved to change their minds after passionate speeches by Mike Freer, Chris Bryant and Stephen Gilbert about the harm caused by a society in which LGBT are set apart and made to feel different and inferior.

I rang up the Jeremy Vine programme to suggest that, since every observation shows same-sex couples capable of showing the same commitment and love as straight couples, there is no debate to be had.  The researcher was astonished. 'Surely,' he asked, 'people have a right to their beliefs? Why should their beliefs die out?' The researcher for one of Britain's most listened-to current affairs shows couldn't tell the difference between freedom of belief, and protecting those beliefs from being challenged. It can be earth-shattering when the attitude or opinion you invested much time, money and contemplative effort in turns out to be false. But can it be as destructive as holding on to a belief, for example that your son or daughter's homosexuality is a choice, changeable, an embarrassment to family and friends? Of course it is beneficial if such beliefs go extinct.

Charles Darwin was a creationist for years after his world tour on the Beagle. But as the evidence mounted up, from his collection of finches to the discoveries of fish fossils on mountain tops, he had no option but to reappraise his views. Darwin described accepting his theory of Evolution as 'like admitting a murder'. He was traumatised at the thought of offending his deeply religious wife Emma. But facts cannot become undiscovered. Their reality remains, whether one accepts it or not. Indeed, where would science be now if Darwin hadn't accepted the bitter truth?  And what a feeling it is to be rid of bad ideas when they don't stand up to evidence or logic! I hope too, that Peter Bone's chums in the Dog and Duck in Wellingborough might similarly see lives of gay and lesbian people and their families in the light of reality.

The world is a less prejudiced place when we put the search for truth first. Out of all the hundreds of million of species that have ever existed in this planet's four-billion year history, we are born into the one species with the critical faculties to reason, to understand why we are the way we are.

The way to be thankful for this incredibly good fortune is to use the weapon of reason  to challenge intolerance, rather than passively tolerate it.  Now, here's a question for Jeremy Vine's radio producers: if we treat beliefs with 'respect' just because they are deemed to be religious or traditional, are we in danger of condemning people to holding bad opinions for life?

Equal marriage is the mark of a civilised society

Ahead of the vote on the Same Sex Marriage Bill today, I thought I'd explain why supporting the right of gay people to marry is the fair and just thing to do.  I also want to explain why opposition to this is illogical, does not reflect the reality of relationships, is selectively discriminatory and thus morally wrong.

You may ask, why all the fuss about marriage? Don't gay people have civil partnerships that offer almost all the same rights? Well, no, but it would still be demeaning for the law to discriminate, even if civil partnerships were legally on a par with marriages. Enforcing a different legal name for the arrangements of gay and straight people is segregation which has harmful consequences.

Segregation hurts

Legal segregation tells society that it's alright to treat LGBT people differently simply because of who they are. A large proportion of gay people learn to be treated as outsiders and outcasts, rejected and abused by families,  bullied at school and in the workplace, vilified by church leaders, and all too regularly, subject to violent assault. We should be breaking these prejudices, not shoring them up.

Segregation harms in a most personal way, too, by making LGBT people feel different.  When schools teach about marriage and civil partnership they are reinforcing a feeling of difference among LGBT children. Marriage, off limits to gay people, is seen as a 'gold standard' relationship, elevating heterosexuality and thus straight people as 'ideal'. It encourages LGBT people to feel inferior and ashamed for not meeting the ideal. The testimonies of people like Gareth Thomas show how feeling set apart from the rest has ruinous consequences that last well into adulthood.

Heterosexuality is not an ideal because our sexual orientation is part of our nature, and cannot be aspired to. A just law, however, would recognise that there  is something we can all aspire to, whether gay or straight. Loving relationships are one of life's great aspirations and lie at the heart of what makes a good life. We show how much loved ones and friends mean to us by celebrating  and encouraging their relationships. That encouragement, in turn,  strengthens bonds further. 

Love is all you need

Every child should know that he or she can fall in love, and that the joy, affection and commitment that comes with it is equally worthy and authentic, regardless of who you love. We marry the person of our own choosing, on equal terms, for love alone, and society is far better for that reason. We should be thankful marriage has changed in definition, from the days when all the wife's possessions were legally transferred to the husband, or when services could be solemnised by the Church of England. Marriage is neither the preserve of the church nor the religious. Commentators who claim there is more to marriage than love owe some explanation to their spouses, as to why they proposed in the first place.  Would you still have loved and married your spouse if that person had turned out to be infertile?

Daily Telegraph's Charles Moore says that  because same-sex couples can never produce children, their domestic arrangements make no difference to the human future and therefore they should be excluded from the institution of marriage. Don't children 'exist because of men and women'?

This is arbitrary discrimination because we don't deny this grand institution to the infertile or to parents of adopted children. But in any case, civilisation's success is not just due to the ability of people to produce new generations. Society flourishes because of the way we connect and cooperate with each other.  We depend on our neighbours, colleagues, team-mates, customers, suppliers, for help and support on all kinds of levels. Sometimes we are called to help strangers in emergencies. One extreme example was the case of the young children rescued from a house fire in Birmingham. Would they ‘exist’ today, were it not for the bravery of the gay couple next door? Don't read this as a plea to make an exception for courage: the point is, we would probably all do our best to help our neighbour if we were in those shoes. Gay couples, with or without children, too contribute to the education system and welfare state through their taxes and dote on, support, teach, inspire and care for their cousins, nieces and nephews like anyone else.

And gay people do have children anyway. There are thousands of stable families headed by same-sex couples where well-adjusted children are being nurtured in loving supportive environments (here  is just one example). Some of these children would never have existed were it not for the stable relationship in the first place. If you then say that such a family unit is not ideal because same-sex couples can never both be their biological parents, then you do a grave injustice to the integrity of all families with adopted children. The fact that the children see this couple as loving parents and their own family as equal to any other family unit is all that matters.

Who is harmed by the love of others?

Many opponents excuse banning gay people from marrying because they want to  'protect the definition of marriage as a man and a woman'. But this begs the question: from what, or from whom, is marriage being protected? The mere extension of existing marriage rights to a small minority will have no effect on the status of millions of marriages of straight couples across the nation. As noted by the Dean of Worcester, we aren't entering an institution; we are making a commitment to one person, we hope, for life. It is thus inaccurate for straight couples to describe the change in law as a 'redefinition' of their marriage.

Fundamentalist Christians pretend that same-sex marriage will cause a major upheaval and even a wave of persecution. This is hysterical conjecture. Same-sex marriage has been legal in several countries without any evidence of any such 'persecution'. In Belgium or the Netherlands, 12 years on, life goes on as before, whether in the tranquility of the Achel  Trappist monastery, or the villages of the Veluwe, or Amsterdam city centre. Nothing has changed, apart from the fact that a small minority of people are given their due recognition. Churches still continue to teach and conduct marriages according to their beliefs, just as before.

Some MPs feel uneasy about allowing marriage to gay people because of the 'offence' it will cause to religious people. But the majority of religious people in this country find that allowing equal rights to LGBT people is the moral, just thing to do. Legally enforcing one religious interpretation would only deny religious freedom and attacking conscience of liberal faiths. Who has the right to say who is more in tune with the mind of God on this issue?

Opponents to equality at least  have satisfaction of knowing that no gay people are being married in the eyes of their god. Churches except our established one have the right to make their own rules, to opt in and opt out. The simple challenge to anyone who might sue, to determine God's mind on whom we might sleep with. Equally, it is only fair that the people have freedom from the beliefs of others too. I, personally, am not religious; in fact two-thirds of marriages in the UK are non-religious.

One law for all is always a priority

You may think that extending marriage to gay couples shouldn't have gone ahead because 'we have other priorities' and because 'we should be focusing on the economy'. This is curious, because the very people making this argument have spent thousands on media campaigns, leafleting campaigns, briefings and conferences to get this very message across. But the principle at stake here is is a big priority: that of equality under the law, and of there being one law for all.

Opponents say allowing gay people to  marry is 'untraditional'. Quite the contrary: ensuring that minority groups receive equal protection and rights under the law is a fine example of strengthening our democratic tradition. Britain is rightly regarded as the cradle of modern democracy. Ever since Magna Carta, through the struggle for freedom of conscience, fair representation, women's suffrage and equal civil rights, brave thinkers and campaigners have paid dearly to make this country the beacon of democracy that other nations look up to. John Stuart Mill reminds us that the highest measure of civilised society is how we treat minorities and enable the pursuit of personal interests. LGBT people are such a minority.

If the overwhelming evidence shows that same-sex couples are just as capable of love and commitment, and just as capable of providing stable parental homes as straight couples, then opinions of others cannot count. I urge you to vote 'Aye' of course, with the warning that you can no more vote on the authenticity and value of LGBT relationships than you can vote on the age of the Earth.

It is sad that Christian fundamentalist groups are pushing for a referendum. They point to the large numbers of signatories opposing marriage as a reason to deny equality. But this far removed from  democracy in a civilised society. I suspect you, like I, are rightly appalled at the treatment of Christians, whose freedom to assemble and worship is severely restricted by some Middle Eastern dictatorships. We are appalled when their protections will be erased from the new constitution, validated by a simple majority vote. Here in Britain, we have an opportunity to send a message that voting against the rights of minorities, whether racial, religious or sexual, is not democracy but the rule of the mob.

Supporting the right of gay people to have full equality under the law, including equal recognition of relationships, then, is very much the traditional thing to do: it is in the tradition of decency, fair play and democracy in its truest sense.

When you vote, you will be stating whether LGBT people should be treated differently and separately because of who they are and whom they love. You and your colleagues will be choosing between inclusion, acceptance and integration on one hand, and exclusion, separation and segregation on the other. The law as it stands effectively states that no gay relationship, no matter how loving, supportive, stable, faithful or committed can match the standard of a heterosexual relationship, however abusive, adulterous, deceitful, dysfunctional or short-lived. Did we even need a consultation to debate this?

The Boundaries of Tolerance

The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights against two Christians who withheld their services to same-sex couples will likely go down as a landmark in the history of LGBT equality. Predictably though, some see the losers in this case - Islington marriage registrar Lilian Ladele and Relate relationship therapist Gary McFarlane - as the victims. The Daily Telegraph, for instance, claimed in its leader comment    that the verdict marginalises Christians with traditional views on sexuality: 'gay rights trump religious rights'. The verdict, claims the article,  reflects a secular society that is intolerant because it misses  'toleration' - the ability to tolerate beliefs of which we do not approve. 

Such an accusation is a little far-fetched. Neither Ladele nor McFarlane were penalised because of their beliefs. In affirming the gay couple's right to equal treatment, the Strasbourg ruling does not call into question the devout Christians' right of conscience. In either applying for their positions or carrying out their functions, the Christian employees are neither tested nor forced to recant their beliefs about either homosexuality or the morality of their gay customers. They have, rightly, the freedom and full protection of the law to express and promote that belief in a private capacity, as many street preachers do on high-streets at weekends to bewildered passers-by. They have freedom to associate with others who hold similar beliefs in any religious organisation of their choosing. Ms Ladele, as a civil marriage registrar, has the additional satisfaction of knowing the couple is not married in the eyes of god, let alone her God.  This must be a deliverance for the couple in question too, no doubt. Ladele and McFarlane  chose their professions and were under contractual obligations to offer their services to the general public. They have the liberty, like anyone else,  to say 'no' to the job if the terms and conditions do not meet their liking.

Tolerance cannot be a free for all though. We have to determine the boundaries of tolerance, and for the consequences that acting on those beliefs has for others. As philosopher AC Grayling noted in his treatise on the defence of Enlightenment values, Liberty in the Age of Terror,  tolerance only works if is reciprocated. A tolerant society must not tolerate intolerance if it is to protect itself. That does not make tolerance in breach of itself: at its heart is an ethical demand that everyone should respect everyone else's rights and liberties. In a tolerant society, where the individual's liberty is respected, there is no free licence of behaviour that threatens the rights of others. The limit of tolerance, then, is tolerance of anything that causes harm.

Ms Ladele's defence claims that because other registrars are able and willing to officiate for gay couples, no harm is done. But allowing her unwillingness to fulfil her obligations arguably causes harm within her workplace and in society at large.It  costs her council and her colleagues extra time and money, the bill for which is passed ultimately to the taxpayer. It means inconvenience in scheduling and holiday arrangements. Suppose there were not just one registrar wishing to object, but all? In the Netherlands until recently, that has been exactly the scenario. In the country's Calvinist bible belt, some local municipalities had to go to great efforts to ensure a single registrar willing to marry gay couples, years after the enactment of equal marriage legislation. 

The societal implications are more serious. A verdict in favour of Ladele could have rendered worthless the protections for LGBT people in the equality legislation, potentially enshrining second-class status of LGBT people into law. It is naive to think this would only concern marriages and hotels. A furniture shop could on the same grounds refuse to sell a double bed; a bank manager might refuse to sell a mortgage or life insurance or open a joint account for the same reasons. It would be devastating for the dignity of LGBT people, for whom the humiliation of rejection would be expected and legally acceptable.  One could then go a step further and ask, why is it necessary to sincerely object to gay couples just on religious grounds? The Family Education Trust, an organisation closely involved with the 'Coalition for Marriage', says anyone, whether they are religious or not, should be able to deny services to LGBT people if they oppose homosexuality.

A manifestly anti-gay victim narrative?

The Christian Legal Centre, active in many of these cases, play the victim narrative, pleading for sympathy because of their clients' 'sincerely held beliefs'. The sincerity of the belief is in no doubt; but questions remain about the sincerity of the motivation.

Why would a civil marriage registrar single out homosexuality, when there are  a whole galaxy of biblical transgressions of which virtually everyone will have committed at least a handful? In the last six years, there have been several such 'conscience' cases involving gay couples. This is curious, because the same hardline lobby groups who have been championing these cases, despite all all their finances and connections, have never publicised the case of a devout Christian refusing to marry or offer relationship advice to an unmarried cohabiting couple, a divorcee, or a couple who had had sex before marriage. Yet the vast majority of couples in this country must fit into at least one of these categories, while gay couples make up only a few percent of the population. The odds are, then, hundreds to one that the cases are chosen because of the social group they are up against. There wouldn't be much PR mileage out of a civil registrar pushing a victimisation narrative for refusing to marry a couple who weren't virgins on the Big Day.  If they were to abide by their faith consistently with respect to the Christian view of marriage and discriminate in these cases too, they would be derided by even the Daily Mail, whose popularity is driven to a great extent by kiss-and-tell stories. Lobbyists are more likely to get a sympathetic ear in the case of gay couples because there is a deep well of homophobic prejudice to tap into. Though society is becoming more accepting, about a quarter of the population, including about a fifth of young people, thinks sexual relations between adults of the same sex is 'always wrong'.

The slippery slope of intolerance

It might sound cynical for a gay rights activist to rush for Prof. Grayling's definition of a tolerant society rather than, say, Dr. George Carey's one where Christian judges would be appointed to deal with cases like these, on the basis that 'we are a Christian country'. But that assertion is debatable in multi-cultural Britain. Just imagine the chaos that would have been caused in all areas of society if the European Court rulings found in the favour of McFarlane and Ladele, and an exception were granted. All faiths have among their followers a small minority of loud lobbyists equally determined to eke out privileges in law. A torrent of requests would flow to be exempted from handling, serving, selling or even promoting alcohol. Conscientious objections may arise to serving or handling pork, shrimp or beef, or working on any number of holy days, including Saturdays  and Sundays.  Life would be pretty unpleasant for all.The same applies to a fundamentalist hotelier, who might refuse services to guests who prayed to other gods or none during their stay, to prevent blasphemy from occurring under his or her roof.

This is not just an alarmist hunch. In 2005, after the Labour government passed the Equality Act, one Home Office official noted that the scores of indignant correspondents writing to protest at the matter, had more than sexual orientation on their minds:

'We've had a lot of correspondence from Christian B&B operators who don't want to be forced to accept Satanists, Muslims, gays and even unmarried couples as guests... Protestants have been writing in saying they shouldn't have to admit Catholics because they have an issue with their religion, Catholics saying they didn't want Jews under their roof and objections from followers of other types of faith.'

Tolerance is a two-way street

The toleration requested by the Christian lobbyists in these cases only works one way. The secular approach, where  religious freedoms of  personal belief and association are balanced by respecting the freedom of others to enjoy equal treatment under the law is the fairest solution for getting on together and cooperating in a society of widely differing interests, tastes, cultures, aspirations and ideas. The emphasis, then, falls on protecting people, rather than beliefs. Even here, the fundamentalist Christian can take consolation from the fact that their beliefs are subject to the same standards of testing as any other. If they are found wanting, by the test of logic, evidence or their propensity to cause harm, then there can be no business for the state to privilege or protect those beliefs.

In fact, most Christians are astonished that such cases have come so far in the first place. But they were driven on by extreme religious groups who attempt to carve out exceptions from the law to become, as it were, a law unto themselves, and the right-wing press that prints their news releases verbatim, without considering the true extremist ambitions harboured by those very groups.

PS: Maybe the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail at least should think twice about championing such conscience causes and think how they could have affected them, in time? Newspaper printing operations are slick affairs; only a couple of people are needed to watch over multi-million pound machines the size of battleships that produce all this guff at over 80,000 copies an hour. Might it not be a very expensive affair if, say, a press operator refused to handle the plate for the page on the alcoholic drinks promotion, or any number of pages sensationalising sexual immodesty, promiscuity  and even, some argue, prostitution   in all but name?  Perish the thought....

(This article was also published on Pink News and is available to read here: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/23/comment-the-boundaries-of-tolerance/)