Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Archbishop: Discriminate against poufs, or the kiddies suffer
Kelly in cabinet row over gay adoptions | Guardian | 22 Jan 07
Adoption warning by Catholic leader | Guardian | 23 Jan 07
Here's a surprise: Catholic leaders are trying to get an exemption for the church so that they can continue to discriminate against poufs and dykes. Recently the law changed, saying that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of goods and services. But the law needs a second bit of paperwork, the 'Sexual Orientation Regulations' to explain exactly how the law will work.
The House of Lords recently rejected attempts to exempt Christians from the rules in Northern Ireland. The argument was that Christian hoteliers shouldn't be forced to offer a double bed to us dirty queers. One said he'd happily give us a twin room but not a double, which shows he has a strange lack of imagination about how and where we might get round to bumsex. But their lordships rejected this, and the poor Christian hoteliers of Northern Ireland now have to face up to the possibility that we might be busy sodomising each other under their roof (I doubt they care as much about lesbians, because they probably can't quite imagine what they might be getting up to in bed. It's just the bumsex that really freaks them). If, by some chance, you ever get to stay in a Christian guest house, I suggest making strange noises in the night and leaving stains on the sheets just to upset them.
Now the government is trying to work out what the rules will be in England and Wales, and the ground has shifted. The Catholics' head honcho in the UK, Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has said that Catholic adoption agencies might have to close, rather than be forced to place children with gay couples. Meanwhile, the (ex?) 'Equalities Minister', Catholic Ruth Kelly is arguing within government that Christians should be given an exemption. Blair, who is frequent rumoured to be considering conversion to Catholicism, is said to be sympathetic, although other ministers have firmly rejected the idea.
In a deeply dishonest statement, Murphy-O'Connor said "We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the Government to insist that ... Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service."
Let us get this quite straight. It is not discrimination to require every faith to obey the law. Giving any faith an exemption from any law would be discrimination, against all those of us who have to obey it.
A useful test for many gay issues is to consider how we would apply the same rules to other minority groups. Should we ban discrimination on the grounds of race, but allow BNP supporters to have an exemption? Or only fascists who manage to find an obscure bit of the bible to justify their hatred?
But Murphy-O'Connor turns the screw some more, and says that the law might force the closure of Catholic adoption agencies. This is nothing more than an attempt at blackmail: "Let us discriminate, or the poor kiddies will have to live in care." Still, Murphy-O'Connor has form when it comes to putting the church's interests ahead of child welfare: in the past he has admitted placing a known paedophile priest whom he was warned would re-offend in another parish. Still, better to expose children to paedophiles than to us lot.
The government should call his bluff. Do the Catholics really think that it's better to give up on adoption rather than risk a poor child being placed with a dyke couple? Well, actually, they probably think the child would be better off dying miserably in a gutter than being placed with a loving and caring queer couple, but if that's their attitude let's see it out in the open. If the law goes ahead without exemptions, and the Catholics close their adoption agencies, then we know the truth about their attitudes. And maybe then the government would also be forced to fund adoption agencies properly instead of leaving it in the hands of bigoted organisations.
More and more, we hear calls for 'strong personal belief' to be respected by giving exemptions to certain laws. But why is a person-of-faith's strong personal belief any more important than an atheist's strong personal belief against unjust discrimination? I have strong personal beliefs - just because they're not motivated by a belief in god does not make them any less valid. And our collective beliefs are - at least in theory - reflected by the governments we elect.
We can't restrict what other people believe, and we shouldn't restrict what people can say, but it is perfectly reasonably for us to restrict what people do.
Murphy-O'Connor is entitled to his beliefs. It's fair for him to campaign to change the opinion of the majority. But he - and his followers - shouldn't be above the law.
Adoption warning by Catholic leader | Guardian | 23 Jan 07
Here's a surprise: Catholic leaders are trying to get an exemption for the church so that they can continue to discriminate against poufs and dykes. Recently the law changed, saying that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of goods and services. But the law needs a second bit of paperwork, the 'Sexual Orientation Regulations' to explain exactly how the law will work.
The House of Lords recently rejected attempts to exempt Christians from the rules in Northern Ireland. The argument was that Christian hoteliers shouldn't be forced to offer a double bed to us dirty queers. One said he'd happily give us a twin room but not a double, which shows he has a strange lack of imagination about how and where we might get round to bumsex. But their lordships rejected this, and the poor Christian hoteliers of Northern Ireland now have to face up to the possibility that we might be busy sodomising each other under their roof (I doubt they care as much about lesbians, because they probably can't quite imagine what they might be getting up to in bed. It's just the bumsex that really freaks them). If, by some chance, you ever get to stay in a Christian guest house, I suggest making strange noises in the night and leaving stains on the sheets just to upset them.
Now the government is trying to work out what the rules will be in England and Wales, and the ground has shifted. The Catholics' head honcho in the UK, Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has said that Catholic adoption agencies might have to close, rather than be forced to place children with gay couples. Meanwhile, the (ex?) 'Equalities Minister', Catholic Ruth Kelly is arguing within government that Christians should be given an exemption. Blair, who is frequent rumoured to be considering conversion to Catholicism, is said to be sympathetic, although other ministers have firmly rejected the idea.
In a deeply dishonest statement, Murphy-O'Connor said "We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics for the Government to insist that ... Catholic adoption agencies must act against the teaching of the Church and their own consciences by being obliged in law to provide such a service."
Let us get this quite straight. It is not discrimination to require every faith to obey the law. Giving any faith an exemption from any law would be discrimination, against all those of us who have to obey it.
A useful test for many gay issues is to consider how we would apply the same rules to other minority groups. Should we ban discrimination on the grounds of race, but allow BNP supporters to have an exemption? Or only fascists who manage to find an obscure bit of the bible to justify their hatred?
But Murphy-O'Connor turns the screw some more, and says that the law might force the closure of Catholic adoption agencies. This is nothing more than an attempt at blackmail: "Let us discriminate, or the poor kiddies will have to live in care." Still, Murphy-O'Connor has form when it comes to putting the church's interests ahead of child welfare: in the past he has admitted placing a known paedophile priest whom he was warned would re-offend in another parish. Still, better to expose children to paedophiles than to us lot.
The government should call his bluff. Do the Catholics really think that it's better to give up on adoption rather than risk a poor child being placed with a dyke couple? Well, actually, they probably think the child would be better off dying miserably in a gutter than being placed with a loving and caring queer couple, but if that's their attitude let's see it out in the open. If the law goes ahead without exemptions, and the Catholics close their adoption agencies, then we know the truth about their attitudes. And maybe then the government would also be forced to fund adoption agencies properly instead of leaving it in the hands of bigoted organisations.
More and more, we hear calls for 'strong personal belief' to be respected by giving exemptions to certain laws. But why is a person-of-faith's strong personal belief any more important than an atheist's strong personal belief against unjust discrimination? I have strong personal beliefs - just because they're not motivated by a belief in god does not make them any less valid. And our collective beliefs are - at least in theory - reflected by the governments we elect.
We can't restrict what other people believe, and we shouldn't restrict what people can say, but it is perfectly reasonably for us to restrict what people do.
Murphy-O'Connor is entitled to his beliefs. It's fair for him to campaign to change the opinion of the majority. But he - and his followers - shouldn't be above the law.
posted by MR @ 4:45 PM 
