They let us in the House of Commons. Here’s what happened
QX attended a debate on the above subject in the House of Commons (sadly no free wine; evidently Parliament is cutting down after the expenses scandal), and some of the discussion raised interesting and relevant points. In particular, the current equal marriage bill and the issue of how homosexuality is approached in schools.
Organised by the Cutting Edge Consortium, a group working for ‘the elimination of any faith-based homophobia/transphobia and institutionalised prejudice towards LGBT people’, a prominent panel of experts included the excellent Robert Wintermute, Professor of Human Rights Law at KCL, Iain McLean, Professor of Politics at Oxford and Savi Hensman, a Christian commentator on religion and social justice.
Yet the best speaker by far was Dave Brinson, representing the National Union of Teachers, who spoke with verve, humour and energy about how important it is for him as a teacher to be open about his sexuality to his pupils, how he is an Anglican and was disappointed he could not get married to his male partner in his own church and that faith-based schools, of whatever denomination, cannot legally be allowed to discriminate against employees on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
There was a distinct absence of young people, as in anyone under the age of forty, at this debate. Presumably it would not be a huge leap of faith to say that members of the younger gay generation view these discussions automatically as bound to be boring. And true, sometimes experts in their field are not the best people to be speaking about their subject to a room full of people (a mass exodus of half the audience during one of the speaker’s final summations seemed to attest to this), but it was when the debate was opened up to the floor that fluff and hot air really began to fill the room.
Everyone, including the speakers, seemed to know one another by first name which gave the discussion in some ways an uneasy edge of nepotism, and in other ways a sad comment that these are the only people regularly attending these debates. People stood up, told life stories and, what seemed like fifteen minutes later, finally sat down again having made no clear or coherent point. Meandering, endlessly repetitive streams-of-consciousness that could have been summed up in a single sharp question were indulged.
To be fair the convenor should have wielded a tougher axe on the proceedings, but it seemed the atmosphere had built itself up into this sluggish ‘people waiting for their limelight’ ambience through time and familiarity. There were good points raised (especially about Northern Ireland and equal marriage), but often they seemed lost in vague, beige conjecture. An influx of fresh, inquisitive minds to provide a balance of the old and the young viewpoints may be what Cutting Edge Consortium should have been reaching out to, to have really made this debate alive and exciting.
Yet, overall, the message that all speakers gave was that no, religious freedom and LGBT rights are not incompatible, and they looked forward to the future rather than feared it.
• Check out The Cutting Edge Consortium for news of their next events and debates.
