An unholy row

I've been holding off on posting about this subject, but I think we all knew that sooner or later, I would say something about Councillor Kenneth Gunn. And here it is.

As part of an exhibition as Glasgow's Gallery of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Community Church installed a Bible, inviting people who felt they had been marginalised (i.e. the LGBT Community) to write themselves and their stories back into the Bible. Now, this is a thoroughly laudable aim: homosexuality pre-dates Christianity, will survive Christianity, and indeed, isn't confined to the human race either as the sheer number of examples of homosexual behaviour in other animal species will attest. From that, we can assume that homosexuality is - for some of us - a fact of life. Yet, barring a few less than positive discussions of the matter, it rarely gets mentioned in the Bible. Here's their idea:

“Are there any gay people in the Bible? Out of the tens of thousands of people who appear in the Old and New Testaments, there must have been.

“Same-sex love, such as that between Ruth and Naomi, existed, but has been written out over time.

“If you feel you’ve been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

The idea was to show that we too can be a part of the Christian faith.

Of course, I have my doubts about this, and the way events played out justify them. Firstly, some tossers decided that it would be an effective use of their time to write offensive messages in the Bible that was on display. Clearly the MCC was trying to appeal to the better side of human nature. That was their mistake, but then, it's not their fault that a bunch of arsewipes can't display a bit of dignity when putting their case across.

So it was no surprise that far from creating any synergy between the wider Christian faith and the LGBT community, or a rational airing of a sensible grievance, this exhibition merely created a bunch of very pissed off Christians. And frankly, I don't blame them for being pissed off.

Unfortunately, with the ball in their court, Kenneth Gunn took the racket on Radio Scotland:

“When we all went to church on a Sunday morning and prayed to Jesus Christ, this was a much better country. Look where it’s going now. We’ve got so-called gays, who are really very sad people, and we have non-believers and heathens running the country and running down Christianity.”

Of course, in those halcyon days to which the good Councillor refers, we executed people, which isn't very Christian, and sectarian bigotry, which isn't very Christian either despite the players involved, was a even bigger problem than at present, but hey ho. Never let little things historical perspective get in the way of a good mouth-foam.

And now it's our turn to be pissed off. Thanks to the idiocy of a few gobshites, Councillor Gunn has decided to damn us all to Hell. Now, I accept that not everyone is going to want to buy me a drink, but Gunn is an elected official, who (as he himself admits) has to represent everyone in his ward. And as members of the LGBT community are more likely to face prejudice, discrimination and outright hostility than heterosexual men and women (who ever heard of straight-bashing?), it follows that they may be more likely to have a reason to see their elected representatives. I suppose LGBT residents in Councillor Gunn's neck of the woods have cause for relief that the days of single-member Council wards came to an end two years ago.

But then, we're always going to be labelled 'Other' by some folk, even though we're not quite as different as you may think. As Linda Jackson, Chair of the Scottish Borders LGBT Forum argues:

"We eat, drink and sleep. We laugh and cry, get angry and sad. We pay bills, go on holidays. We love our parents, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews. We work and pay taxes. We get irritated by cold-callers and talk about the weather.

"Is that description any different from the rest of you?"

Quite. Most guys' aspirations, when it comes down to it, are basically to get a good job, meet a nice girl, settle down, get a decent house and live a comfortable life. Mine are to get a good job, meet a nice guy, settle down, get a decent house and live a comfortable life. Only one word is different - yet that one word seems to make me a threat to a long-standing way of life. Why should this be?

I'll come back to the broader attitude in a while, but I wish to consider Councillor Gunn a little more.

Since the row blew up, he made this statement:

"As a Christian I was upset by the content of the art exhibition being discussed in last weeks phone in and wished to express my views on that as an individual. In doing so I said things which I regret. As a Christian I believe that we should all work together for a better society in which acceptance, mutual respect and understanding are key - regardless of belief or sexuality. I understand the offence my statements have caused and apologise for that."

Fair enough, then. Or is it? Check out the last sentence. When someone apologises for your being offended, are they actually apologising for saying something to offend you? Not necessarily. He's not apologising for his action, but for our reaction. It's not so much an apology as a cr-apology.

Now, Gunn asserted that he spoke as an individual, and the SNP Leadership were initially happy to leave it at that. Gunn, they argued, was not speaking for the SNP. They're right, there's nothing even remotely resembling Gunn's initial rant in any SNP policy document. But what if Gunn wanted ot seek re-election in 2012? Could he stand for the SNP if he can't speak for the party? Could he campaign for people to support the party at the ballot box, if his own personal views are so at odds with the SNP's official policy?

I would suggest that the answer is a resounding no. Particularly in light of his cr-apology.

Personally, I think that if Councillor Gunn lives in a world where we can all leave our front doors open (because the only thing worth nicking is a mangle) and pray to a God which apparently despises 6-10% of the population for the way that He created them, then he's welcome to it. But that's not the modern world, and it's not the inclusive, progressive world in which the majority of SNP members want to see Scotland take a full part.

Therefore, my view is what you'd expect it to be: that the SNP shouldn't so much throw the book at Gunn as take the book, beat him black and blue with it, and then stuff it page by page down his hateful throat.

But then, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's logical that i would want to go in all guns blazing.

For the Leadership, much as we would like it to be so easy, there's one added complication.

Look how closely tied to religion it is. Look how Dave Thompson's comments regarding Scott Rennie were tied to religion and Christianity. Roseanna Cunningham's opposition to gay adoption revolved around her support for the 'traditional' family model, while Brian Soutar's Keep the Clause campaign was tied to 'traditional' values.

And therein lies the rub. To back up the LGBT Community is, in effect, to go against the Christian faith and centuries of tradition - or these people's interpretation of them. That's a fight that's hard to win: even though many Christians (and traditionalists, for that matter) may look at the situation differently, the erroneous idea that we're trying to undermine their way of life could start to creep in. The more noise made by hardliners, the harder it is to hear those rational voices who seek tolerance and understanding (that's something that the LGBT Community should bear in mind as well: the wankers who subverted the MCC exhibition have won no friends and influenced no people). And once tolerance and understanding go out the window, we're the ones in trouble, not the Christian community.

Let's go back to that wider view. My way of life is a threat to the Old Order, apparently. But consider this:

I am not a Christian, yet they expect me to be bound by their approach to marriage. However, my right to a Civil Partnership (which they oppose) with a hypothetical male companion - let's call him "Kris Boyd", merely for the sake of argument, you understand! - does not entail the dissolution of Christian marriage. I win, "Kris" wins, there is no effect on the Christian Church.

I am not a Christian, yet their view of the family unit would preclude the possibility of "Kris" and I adopting a child together (frankly, I'd be a disaster as a parent - not because I'm gay but because the kid would run me ragged and there's a very real possibility that in a moment of absent-mindedness, I'd leave him or her at the supermarket checkout, so thanks, but I'll stick to being the Fun Uncle). However, permitting gay couples to adopt would not undermine other examples of the traditional family model: it would simply allow for children to find loving, stable homes, allow gay couples to do something that they'd do well (just because I'd make a rubbish parent doesn't mean that the same is true of all gay men and women), and ease the burden on the care system. Gay couples get their right, the kids get homes, and the adoption process steps in when the traditional family unit is no longer an option, so no damage is done to that idea.

Basically, you can look at any aspect of the equality campaign, and you'll see that LGBT rights don't intrude on the rights of anyone else, but simply allow us to live our lives on the same legal footing as anyone else. Despite that, sections of the Christian Right, complain that simply letting us do our thing weakens their rights as Christians. It doesn't. But if they were to have their way, that would certainly curtail our rights.

And that's really the point of my post. It's less about Councillor Gunn's rant and more about the fact that politicians shouldn't have to choose between LGBT equality and the traditional Christian establishment. There is room for both ways of life. However, the likes of Councillor Gunn present a false dichotomy between New Jerusalem and New Sodom. They want to force the rest of us to choose sides when we shouldn't have to.

I would suggest that, should they succeed in getting people to make a decision, whichever side would force that false choice is the wrong side to choose. I hope that the SNP Leadership agrees.