Cabinet split over new rights for gays

It was never a good idea to have a member of Opus Dei as your Minister for Equality with the specific charge of ensuring equal rights for gays and lesbians, especially as she recently refused to say whether or not she thought homosexuality was a sin.

However, Blair - who sent all his children to Catholic schools - saw no conflict of interest between Ruth Kelly's portfolio and her membership of this fairly controversial Catholic sect. Indeed, he still thought her fit for the post when it was revealed that she had missed a series of votes on equal rights since 1997, including a vote in June 1998 on the Crime and Disorder Bill to lower the age of homosexual consent, and two votes in 1999 on the Sexual Offences (amendment) Bill also lowering the age of consent.

Personally, my eyebrows might have been raised, but Blair saw no reason for such doubts.

Now we find the entire cabinet is in open revolt as Ruth Kelly has blocked plans for new gay rights legislation following protests from religious organisations.

The battle between what is being dubbed the government's 'Catholic tendency' and their more liberal colleagues centres on proposals to stop schools, companies and other agencies refusing services to people purely because of their sexuality.

The proposed measures would ban discrimination over the provision of goods and services, meaning, for example, that hotels which banned gay couples from sharing a room could be prosecuted. In turn, gay bars would also have to be open to straight clients.

Faith schools have, however, led the protest, arguing that the rules could affect teaching about sex or require them to let gay groups hold meetings on their premises after hours. Catholic adoption agencies fear being forced to allow gay couples to adopt children. The Catholic church, which regards homosexuality as a sin, has suggested adoption agencies would close down rather than obey. Johnson, who originally agreed the proposals when he was Trade and Industry Secretary before a Whitehall reorganisation transferred the issue into Kelly's department, is understood to be dismayed that they are now in jeopardy.

I find it bizarre that Blair didn't see this one coming. Ruth Kelly was always a controversial choice for such a cabinet position and her voting record and her failure to clarify whether or not she thought homosexuality was a sin made her an odd choice for a minister who's job was to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Nor do I find her reasoning to be very sound:

'There are some difficult issues,' she said. 'There are issues around Christian B&Bs, where it tends to be Christians that stay there and some of the religious lobby are saying they would not be happy for a gay couple to stay there.'

Leaving aside whether or not any gay couple would choose to stay in an openly Christian B&B, what happened to the Christian ethic that Christ displayed where he opened his doors to lots of people that society regarded as "sinners"; Mary Magdalene being the most obvious example?

These Christians don't sound very Christ-like to me. After all, under the new proposals vicars and priests would still be allowed to preach whatever the bible says regarding homosexuality, but churches and faith schools would simply not be allowed to turn away pupils who happened to be gay. I'd have thought that even if you regarded homosexuality as a sin you might still accept that redemption was not impossible?

And why is a Labour government even entertaining the notion that it might be acceptable to discriminate against one group of citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation?

Click title for full article.

tag: Rith, Kelly, gay rights, equalities minister, Opus Dei, equal rights,