Nicky Campbell asked Equalities Minister three times: Do you believe homosexuality is a sin? Three times she blithered and blathered. He then asked why she hadn't voted in favour of civil partnerships or a reduced gay age of consent. She muttered something about it being a conscience issue. Good to know we have an equalities Minister who believes in equality!
The Gorse Fox finds himself (oddly) in support of Ruth Kelly here. If she believe such behaviour to be sinful - that is a religious context, and she is entitled to that opinion - that does not however imply that she does not accept that it is legal and that the people who participate in that behaviour have rights.
ReplyDeleteYou know as well as the Gorse Fox that she would not have been given a forum to express that view... as soon as she had expressed her personal (religious) view she would have been pounced on and huge headlines would adorn the media about her being anti-gay and she would never had got to explain the rest.
For some strange reason John Humfreys forgot to ask her that question on Today. Might he be an OD chap as well?
ReplyDeleteI'm a little puzzled by this. Do you really believe the European Parliament had the right to veto Buttiglione for his personal religious views? Are you advocating that the thought police should screen every candidate for their spiritual beliefs and inclinations? This is the most fundamentally un-Conservative way of behaving. It is perfectly possible to advocate equality in the public-political sphere while believing that homosexuality is a sin in the private-religious sphere. Living with the tension is for the conscience of the individual, not the judgement of some grand inquisitor.
ReplyDeleteWe had a bit of genitive deviance on Radio 4's Yesterday in Parliament this morning too. Sarah Holme using the old idiom 'blow me' in the same sentence as Ian Gibson and Geoff Hoon!!!
ReplyDeleteGorse, I couldn't give two hoots whether she things being gay is a sin. But I do think she might actually tell us. Surely if she is Equalities Minister it is not an unreasonable question to ask.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry Iain, but if she considers it to be a sin then it is perfectly understandable that she would not support such legislation. I for one opposed such legislation for the same reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't mean that she hates such people or wants to persecute them, but if your faith says something is wrong (and it is not just Opus Dei, is it? It's all strands of Christianity), then how can you then go against it?
Cranmer, No I am not advocating that. I just think it's something that she could give a straight answer to. You say "It is perfectly possible to advocate equality in the public-political sphere while believing that homosexuality is a sin in the private-religious sphere." I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I still think that as the people who pay her salary we should know if she believes it. I am not advocating that it would necessarily disqualify her from the job, only that she should make clear where she stands on the issue so we know where she's coming from.
ReplyDeleteYour anti-Catholic prejudice is getting tiresome Iain. She believes all sex outside marriage is sinful as do all Catholics, orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc. Sayeeda Warsi (sp?) of the Tories also believes this. As Gorse Fox says religious views do not mean inability to apply the law. She has a right to be a Catholic and if you want to know what Catholics believe, you can google their Catechism. Or the Koran for Muslims. Both are free online.
ReplyDeleteKelly makes no secret of her Catholicism and doesn't have to give you chapter and verse, as GF says that would be latched on to by headline writers, like you, implying with anti-religious prejudice that they can't apply the law.
Noel, I am not disagreeing with you. All I am saying is that if she truly believes that and is not ashamed of her views, then why doesn't she just say so and have done with it?!
ReplyDeleteEr, Iain, yesterday on the comments page of the post about Ian McCartney you said it was perfectly acceptable as part of freedom of speech to refer to other British people as 'cockroaches' on the basis of their ethnicity. Out of interest, do you think it would be acceptable to refer to gay people in this way, and would you defend the rights of people who thought gays were cockroaches to publicly post this view on your own site? May well be that you would, in which case fair enough, but I'd just like to know your thought.
ReplyDeleteNo, Mr Dale, your post accords no respect to Ruth Kelly's possible views on this matter. Its very tone implies your disapproval of her (presumed) religious view, not of her refusal to answer.
ReplyDeleteShe may have 'blithered and blathered', but you then talk about her absence for the civil partnership vote and that for the reduced 'gay age of consent'. You then disparage her (presumed) religious view by saying 'she muttered something about it being a conscience issue'.
It is quite possible that we have an equalities Minister who believes in equality. It is simply that it is quite likely that she believes homosexuality to be a sin, and this clearly irks you personally.
Ruth Kelly is clearly entitled to her view but... I think we need to be careful about saying because she is a Catholic she MUST agree with X or Y. I am a Catholic and feel strongly that on many issues of sexuality morality the church is misguided, indeed I feel (as do many other Catholics) that the there is too much emphasis on 'pelvic zone sin' and not enough on social and structural sin. Ruth's present role will, I fear, create some difficultuies for her personally - but they will be personal difficulties that arise not simply because she is a Catholic, but more because she is a particular type of Catholic.
ReplyDeleteRuth Kelly cannot say out loud that she believes homosexuality is a sin. Can you imagine the uproar if she did? I think she is wise not to comment. So long as her beliefs do not affect the way she does her job, she is entitled to keep her private thoughts to herself. We all talk about equality, tolerance etc, but there is a shocking amount of intolerance for people, such as Ruth Kelly, whose views do not accord with the conventional accepted norms of today. She is wise to remain silent.
ReplyDeleteCranmer, you more than anyone should be wary of the politicisation of religion. Kelly is a Catholic, fine, but she is also a Government Minister of a state which doesn't believe that gay individuals should be second class citizens.
ReplyDeleteIf her religion influences her politics then she should still have to defend her decision as any politician should be ready to do, however she reached it.
It may well be a matter of personal conscience, but luckily for Ruth Kelly, if she doesn't want civil partnerships, nobody is asking her to enter into one. Opposing it politically is not a matter of personal conscience, it involves forcing her religious beliefs on others and for that she should rightly be held accountable.
Could you imagine the reaction in the press if a senior tory frontbencher - the one responsible for promoting equality - implied that he thought homosexuality was a sin against God? He would (quite rightly in my opinion) be hounded out of his job and the Guardian/Independent/BBC would have it as front page news and be pushing the 'typical nasty tories' line. But when its a Labour minister maing these remarks its not nastiness or bigotry - its just her own personal beliefs.
ReplyDeletePity she didn't say something like "No, but it is a dreadful lapse of taste". She'd have got headslines then.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly what Ruth kelly believes is immaterial provided she does the job she is appointed to do (which, I must add, I consider a complete waste of public funds, but that's by the by).
ReplyDeleteTo me the deeper problem is that the liberatii get very upset whenever a conservative with religious views is appointed (Buttiglione, Bush etc), but they remain suspiciously silent whenever one of their own expresses the same sort of beliefs (Blair, Kelly, et al).
Conservatives need to be wary of any hypocrisy on their own part while hammering the lefties for their own two faced stance in religious issues.
RM
I agree she should answer the question but will go one further. She should resign or be sacked if she doesn't believe in equality. The last things that brief needs is someone like her.
ReplyDeleteHumphrys didn't mention OD this morning, but he slaughtered Kelly on the question of immigrants jumping the housing queue. All she could say was that Nulab would build 30,00 "affordable" houses a year. Presumably, this would eventually solve the problem if no more immigrants arrived.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for people living by their beliefs, and indeed it would be nice to think there actually were Labour politicians who believed in something other than clinging onto power.
ReplyDeleteBut - this Government has interfered in people's private lives to the nth degree, and wants to force its views on everyone else. Therefore we are entitled to know what the Equality Minister actually does believe. If she doesn't believe in her own Government's legislation "I think we should be told".
Ian - she doesn't say whether she thinks homosexualism is a sin because she would be crucified by the media. She would be the next resignation target by a bloodthirsty media - they have already had Clarke to wet their appetite, and maybe Prescott in a little while. It's always good to have more than one target, in case you can't dig any more dirt up.
ReplyDeleteIf we take the assumption that being against homosexualism is a bad thing for an 'equalities minister', as the lefty media seem to be doing, aren't we also forcing the position where the only person suitable for being an 'equalities minister' should always hold the liberal view that the media has? Perhaps if she was a one-eyed, peg legged, lesbian hemaphridite, she would be more suited?
More seriously - can't this be extended into other roles too? Imagine a Chancellor who didn't think tax'n'spend is a good thing, or imagine an environment minister who actually looked at scientific evidence, rather than have a mass wind farm building program. Imagine a minister for pensions who believed that all pensions should be reduced, due to the impending explosion in pensioners. Imagine a transport minister who wanted to build more roads or a health minister who wanted to introduce a system of private insurance, rather than a tax-funded nationalised system. All of these policies could be Tory policies, yet are on the most part against media opinion.
We cannot let the media dictate who should do what job before they have actually done anything. If Kelly does think homosexuals are sinful, then so be it. When she produces a policy that descriminates against homosexuals, then let the media report it and the electorate decide.
If we allow the media a free-for-all on who should be in office, then our parliament is nothing. We will not live in a democracy - but an unelected dictatorship.
While no apologist for Ruthie, her religious views are a personal matter and only become of interest if they spill over into her professional life.
ReplyDeleteLike the Gorse Fox, the question isn't about giving her a chance to explain a complex theological moral stance, but a way of creating a headline.
I understand that she has avoided health departments because of the abortion issue.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteShe's just been given a good kicking by Kay Burley on Sky too.....
ReplyDeleteAs we are all sinners, what is wrong with saying something is a sin, if we believe it is so?
ReplyDeleteAnd why would it matter if she did say she believes homosexuality is a sin?
"While no apologist for Ruthie, her religious views are a personal matter and only become of interest if they spill over into her professional life."
ReplyDeleteWhich they haven't, so leave her alone.
By refusing to answer the question, she is implicitly recognising the fact that it would be wrong for a minister in this government to express a view that homosexuality is sinful, even if it is one she holds privately. I should have thought that the gay rights lobby would have welcomed this reticence on her part.
Incidentally, the traditional Biblical Christian viewpoint on this is not that homosexuality as such is sinful, but that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, whether homosexual or heterosexual. I believe that this is the view Ruth Kelly holds.
This isn't a religious issue, it's a political one. If Ruth Kelly doesn't think that gays should have the same age of consent, or that being gay is a sin, that's her business. But she can't be Equalities Minister in a Labour government, end of story. In fact, she's being a hypocrite to take the job. Equality isn't divisible. Would she support a different age of consent for women, or for black people? Thought not.
ReplyDeleteShe's just been given a good kicking by Kay Burley on Sky too ...
ReplyDeleteWhy? For daring to believe that homosexuality is a sin, and not wanting to voice this publicly?
What sort of country are we becoming, if someone's privately held views are now to be condemned in this way? Are we not to be allowed the freedom to think whatever we want? Must all our views be sanctioned by the prevailing morality of the day? I shudder.
Stalin's Gran,
ReplyDeleteNow I'm useless. They image of kay Burley getting all dominant and bossy has driven all thoughts of work from my mind.
RM
The Dalai Lama believes same-sex acts to be sinful. Sir Iqbal Sacranie made comments that were so extreme I wouldn't wish to repeat them here, and the Muslim Council of Britain backed him up.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just Christian churches, Iain, it is most traditional religious, if not all, plus many atheists and agnostics.
If I wanted to oppress people who disagree with equality for gays, I would have joined Labour or the Lib Dems.
This kind of thing is Liberal Fascism, IMO, not true Liberalism. Do we want religious people arrested because they think same-sex partnerships are sinful?
My goodness, there are people who think civil weddings aren't real weddings because they are not done in church or other religious gatherings.
If gay people seek to 'persecute' people by having Ruth Kelly subject to a drilling over her spiritual beliefs about homosexuality, then we feed the misconception that gay people are against the family!
"Give them more rights and they'll start persecuting us!" has a grain of truth in it! People checked out by the Police because they disagree with homosexuality.
I'm queerer than you Iain, I am a bisexual transsexual woman in a same-sex relationship.
Let's promote freedom of thought. Let us oppose discrimination, inc against religious people who think we are in the wrong.
Let us be liberal wanting freedom, not liberal in the modern sense of wanting people losing their jobs or investigated for saying something that has 'offended' someone, in cases where a point of view has simply been expressed.
I doubt Caroline Spelman's views are very different to Ruth kelly's on this.
ReplyDelete“While no apologist for Ruthie, her religious views are a personal matter and only become of interest if they spill over into her professional life.”
ReplyDeleteRK has on many occasions either abstained or voted against ‘gay rights issues’ if that is representing her constituent’s wishes there is no problem, if not and I do not believe they do, she has a problem. Cue Peter Tatchell outrage.
This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel to score cheap politcal points.
ReplyDelete1. Some say that Ruth Kelly believes that homosexuality is a sin
2. If she does, she wont admit to it in plain terms because she would be crucified by the media
3. I don't care because I don't believe that she will let it impact on her job.
1. Some say that David Cameron did some things at University/post-university that are illegal
2. If he did, he wont admit to it in plain terms because he would be crucified in by the media
3. Iain doesn't care because he doesn't believe that he will let it impact on his job.
The difference?
The same questions were asked when she took over at education and we dont suddenly have compulsory school prayers.
ReplyDeleteWhatever her personal views she will be professional and hopefully not let them prejudice her work.
AJD - you're missing the point; this isn't about the media, it's about her job description. A chancellor's job is to run the economy, they can be against tax-and-spend and run the economy in a non tax-and-spend way, consistent with that belief.
ReplyDeleteThe equality minister's job is to ensure and promote equality, if they don't believe in equality there is no way thay can do that job consistent with their beliefs.
Huge difference between recreational drug taking and believing that being gay is a "sin"...
ReplyDeleteI think she ought to go now. It's a disgrace that she's the Minister in charge of equality issues.
Hang on a minute - nobody is objecting to any private person having their own views as to what is sinful or what is not. However, in this country, the law says that homosexuals are equal to people of any other sexual preference, and we have a minister of state in charge of seeing that this law is promoted and adhered to. Now, isn't is a teensy bit strange for that minister to be somebody who manifestly does not believe in the spirit and letter of this law?
ReplyDeleteCranmer, you more than anyone should be wary of the politicisation of religion
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, Henry Durham. Religion has acutely political implications - they are the logical outworking of private faith in the public sphere. When Jesus told us to give one coat away if we have two, that has a political dynamic. What I object to is the 'religioning' of politics. This is what the secularists are engaged in - creating a god-less zeitgeist with which all 'enlightened' people must accord. That is far more dangerous.
On this issue, Mrs Kelly is right to keep her private views to herself. Mr Dale is joining the likes of Mr Tatchell in their offensive agenda to 'out' everyone who neither wishes nor needs to be 'outed'. Mrs Kelly has a private devotional faith, as did Sgnr Buttiglione, but this need not affect a public legislative role. The secularists are winning the battle here, and faith itself is becoming a bar to office.
jm said... The difference?
ReplyDeleteQuite simple. What Cameron did is in the past. What Kelly thinks is not. That seems like a big difference to me.
If one believes being gay is a sin, you don't believe in equality...end of....no debate.
ReplyDeleteGays are great; the Tory Party is great.Ruth Kelly is not.
jm - The difference is clear - Kelly is a Cabinet member of a government which makes a big deal about equality. It's the equivalent of Cameron being the Minister for Not Having Taken Drugs Ever. He couldn't be, and wouldn't be.
ReplyDeletePeople can be as anti-gay as they like, or as the law allows them to be, or whatever. That's not what this issue is about - and I don't think it's really what Iain is driving at.
The issue is - she's Equalities Minister in a LABOUR government, and her support for one particular element of society's equal rights seems to be equivocal. That is a totally legitimate issue on which to question her. If she continues to avoid votes on such matters, people will draw the conclusion that she places equal rights for gays beneath equal rights for black people, women, disabled people etc.
Surely the only question is a political one.
ReplyDeleteIf she is opposed to -eg gay marriage- then that is an option but as for sin, thats getting a little out of our concern.
The interview aside, I tend to agree with Iain that her record doesn't seem to make her an especially appropriate choice for this office. It's not so much what she's said as what she's done -- she's voted with her conscience before, in a fashion that I find quite illiberal. Either she's going to now have to go against her conscience now to do the job effectively, or (to adapt Iain's original point) we may have an Equality minister who doesn't believe in equality policy. I've always thought Ruth Kelly was one of Blair's more tolerable ministers, but I think her positioning in this instance has been a mistake.
ReplyDeleteLook at the facts and let her record speak for itself...
ReplyDeleteOut of 14 votes (since 1998) concerning gay rights Ruth Kelly has conveniently not bothered to vote in 12 of them. In 2002 she voted in favour of excluding gay couples from adoption against the vast majority of the Labour Party.
Ruth Kelly must be open about her opinions. As a gay voter I should have the right to know whether or not the person I'm voting for considers my sexual orientation to be sinful. Just as I have the right to know whether or not that person will put up my taxes!
I quit the Conservative Party in 2002 because of the anti-gay rhetoric of some prominent front benchers of the time including the leader Iain Duncan Smith and Anne Widdecombe. I am just the sort of voter the Conservative party needs to attract in order for it to form a government at the next election.
If people want to believe that my lifestyle is sinful they have an absolute right to do so, however, I believe they must also be completely open and honest about their beliefs and accept the electoral consequences.
Ruth kelly come clean!
Could anyone provide enlightenment as to how a certain Shadow Home Secretary has voted on these issues in the past?!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, David Davis not only voted for civil partnerships, it was he who said Alan Duncan should speak for the Conservative Party on it from the front bench. However, he voted against gay adoption. I have been 'educating' him (not entirely successfully!) ever since.
ReplyDeleteI think this subject has, much to my surprise, generated the most heat on this blog for some time. I have been in London all day and following the comments on my Blackberry with much amusement. There have been so many aspersions cast on my views and stance on this that I hope later on tonight to do a new post on the subject and answer some of the points made. But I do have the matter of the Little Red Book to contend with!
Why did he say it should be for Alan Duncan to speak from the front bench on it? Surely, as a person in the process of 'reeducation' the Shadow Home Secretary should have jumped at the chance to say how marvellous he thinks gay people are!
ReplyDeleteRemind me, how did he vote on Section 28 (when it was introduced and indeed later)? And how did he vote in the mid-1990s on lowering the age of (homosexual) consent?
Anonymous, I assume from your questions you already know the answer. If you were polite enough to put a name to yourself I might even tell you the answer.
ReplyDeleteBig cheer for Iain. An "Equality Minister" who has problems with gayers - if it were not so serious it would be funny. The naive hope is that politicians in key jobs make policy which they believe in. Iain - don't go on the defensive on this one.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting facts on MP's voting records on gay rights issues:
ReplyDeleteAccording to 'They work for you.com'
The Conservative MP with the most positive record of voting in favour of gay rights is Michael Fabricant. The measure of agreement between his voting record and measures to support gay rights is 93.5%. However, there are approximately 250 MPs (mostly labour and libdems) with HIGHER scores....
At the other end of the scale the overwhelming majority of the LOWEST scoring 100 MPs who have not supported gay rights legislation are Conservative....
It seems we still have some way to go! I will be very interested to see how David Cameron handles this issue in the future.
"Anonymous, David Davis not only voted for civil partnerships"
ReplyDeleteActually he was absent.
"I will be very interested to see how David Cameron handles this issue in the future."
ReplyDeleteSurely all he can do is give MPs freedom to vote with their consciences on gay-rights issues?
If he's too forceful, it'll only start another row, which isn't in anyone in the Conservative Party's interests.
No-one is denying the right of Ruth Kelly to hold the views she prefers about gay people and gay related policies.
ReplyDeleteBut is she the best person for the job to promote the government's agenda about those issues?
It's almost liek placing Jeremy Corbyn in charge of delivering Blair's Education Reform.
Kelly the self abuser is no more of a hypocrite than Tony Blair is by pretending to be Labour. :) If she believes it, she should say it. If she won't say what she believes, then how can we trust her.
ReplyDeleteTo thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man
Doing a job that conflicts with one's personal beliefs, is that not hypocracy?
ReplyDeleteIf she is "anti-gay" then it could be looked upon, that she is perhaps representing the views of a proportion of people in this country.
ReplyDeleteSeems to be a bit of a problem with terminology. Of course free thinking consenting adults should have their sexual orientation respected, regardless of our personal opinions on the morality of them. This doesn`t make `Gay Rights` a black and white issue. Just because the homosexual community, even militants like Tatchell, believe that they should have something, doesn`t perse make it a "right". Therefore records on `Gay Rights` issues, such as that on the TheyGovernYou website are entirely misleading.
ReplyDelete