The misguided progressives and the true progressives

With the Government hierarchy joining with Labour to beat back a significant bulk of the Conservative parliamentary party on all elements of the gay marriage bill has led them to reject all avenues that do not exactly follow their writ (and what a disaster David Cameron’s modernisation agenda has been, supposedly trying to make the party look progressive to the public, but merely showing the Tories as hidebound and divided to the latter). Allowing same-sex marriages ends a very particular form of discrimination and in a modern liberal democracy is inevitable, but, in a separate vote, not allowing registrars to opt out essentially legalises discrimination. People who feel uncomfortable marrying people of the same sex may be seen as holding views that are old-fashioned or even immoral by politicians, but it is not the job of politicians to legislate morality. This particular rule could have emanated from the Lubyanka in its heavy enforcing of whatever is deemed ‘progressive’ by those in charge into people’s mindsets as well as general administration. If you do not comply with the Government’s wishes, you are not acceptable to society.


It has the tang of New Labour authoritarianism and may have been the price the Government had to pay to get the deal with Labour to pass the whole programme, despite the Government being in a very strong position to claim Labour had sunk the same-sex marriage act. Now, a person with any qualms about marrying two people of the same gender (and this not just raging homophobes who seem to be the only ones in politicians’ minds who would perform the function) cannot become a registrar. That this profession is forbidden to them is now reinforced. Even if there were other registrars available and happy to step in, people who feel uneasy will not be allowed to sit out the odd gay marriage. If they do not accept the direction of an uncompromising and awkward boss, they will be fired, if they were hired in the first place. People who, at a pinch, would officiate a civil partnership but could not stretch to a gay marriage, yet were told in no uncertain words that they must do it would be shown the door.

It’s probably to bring it into line with the position on civil partnerships, in which regard the whole situation should be reviewed but that’s not going to happen, is it? New Labour ended the legally accepted 500 year-old rule that ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle’ (i.e. property is inviolable without the consent of the owner). In conjunction with the Government, they have once again landed a hammer blow on freedom of conscience, as they are inflexible about the flexibility of others. It is not about competing rights as the rights of homosexuals would have been unaffected – it is about denying rights. It is about persecution.

By contrast, the Church of Scotland has been eminently sensible, allowing liberal parishes to opt out of the convention forbidding practising homosexuals from becoming priests today. So long as they are in a civil partnership (or from next year marriage), sexually active homosexuals will be allowed to take up posts where parishes are relaxed about that kind of thing. It is a victory for decency, flexibility and, appropriately, moderation, where differences are recognised but not used as a wedge to drive people apart. Where true progressiveness lies (not a hollowed-out, diktat-enforced one). Even the BBC can’t spoil the party by listing on News at Ten the Right Reverend Lorna Hood as ‘Moderator of the Church of Scotland’ when she is the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It’s not hard to remember as it is in most style books and is quite distinctive (though maybe hard to fit on a TV byline). That’s a Grauniad mistake.