By Richard Lane / @politicana
Today, a comment like this from an elected official would pass without mention. We now live in a society of relative tolerance and acceptance and firm legal protections for gay men and women.
But when Lord Chris Smith stood at a rally in Rugby in 1984, 25 years ago this week, and came out as the first openly gay parliamentarian he was taking a leap into the unknown. As the then opposition spokesman on National Heritage, he had accepted an invitation to speak at a protest rally in Rugby to denounce the Conservative local council for abandoning a policy outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. His remarks received a five minute standing ovation from the crowd.
His bravery is remarkable given that at the time, gay men and women had no legal protection from harassment or discrimination: the hated Section 28 was still to come, fear of the newly prevalent HIV was escalating and media enmity against the LGBT community was rampant.
Since 1984, Lord Smith has continued as a trailblazer for gay men and women by becoming the first openly gay cabinet minister in 1997 and then one half of the first gay couple to receive a formal invitation to attend a Buckingham Palace reception.
In 2005, following Nelson Mandela’s announcement that his son had died of HIV, he became the first prominent political figure to admit to being HIV-positive.
Lord Chris Smith will be joining LGBT Labour for a special evening of celebrations to mark this anniversary and to raise money for Dorothy's List - the LGBT Labour Campaign Fund for openly-LGBT candidates standing for Labour at the coming General Election.
This celebration will be held at Ev Restaurant on Tuesday 1st December 2009 and we hope as many of you as possible will be able to join us, and Lord Smith, at the event to show our support and gratitude.
For further details and to purchase tickets please visit http://www.lgbtlabour.org.uk/25years or email dorothyslist@lgbtlabour.org.uk.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
"if you were responsible for placing a child into the care of a same sex couple"
It sounds more like your hypothetical child is complaining that he hasn't been put in care when he only has one parent whilst the kid down the street got put in and he has two parents.
You were obviously aiming for "Danny's got a parent of both sexes", but what you're saying could equally apply to a single parent being asked why there isn't a second parent around.
I'm not saying never remove a child, I'm saying that completely ruling out single-parent adoption means that some kids will be taken in to care when they could be better off with a relative or family friend.
I think the problem stems from the fact that people think of adoption in terms of the state handing a child to some random citizen. A lot of adoptions take place within the family when the biological parent dies or is incapable of taking care of the child.
The really hard choice is deciding which parents are inherently incapable and which can become capable with the right support.
Do you want the child to feel they've been penalised for their parents behaviour?
That would always be the first choice however not every child is lucky to be in a position where that can happen , some have to be removed because of family abuse ,volince and intimbindation , Sometimes they need removing from the family and extended family for there own saftey .
ricki
If one parent commits a crime, we can't send them to jail because we would be taking away from the child something to which they had a right.
Your rights are not a list of things to which you are entitled, they are limits placed on what other people can do to you. Your policy would see children missing out on having two parents just because there aren't enough straight couples applying.
"why did i never have the chance of a loving mother" , you would tell them the truth , They had a chance and broke the law (ie abuse) they showed thelmselves to be unfit to raise a child , If it was a same sex coulpe (two men) i think the child would work pretty soon that something wasnt right and the couple would then tell the child the truth .
ricki
I agree that the main problem is a lack of suitable foster families.
Obviously it's better for a child to grow up with one loving parent than in a family where they are abused, only a madman would argue otherwise. But that is not the issue.
You're really saying that if you were responsible for placing a child into the care of a same sex couple, and that child came to you later in life and said...
"Ricki, why did I never have the chance of having a loving mother?"
You'd be happy to point out that they had two fathers and did not need a mother? And that the important thing was that they were not abused and should count themselves lucky?
Sorry Ricki, I couldn't, and I don't believe that in your heart you could either.
Yes i brought up by them but was taken into care at 11 because of abuse , The real problem is there are not enough foster parents ,because its real hard and stressful .
As to your last point , would i deny them the same , then yes , Better a child grows up with one loving parent than in a family where they get abused .
ricki
I'm not saying that only male/female couples can give the best care. I'm saying that a child has a right to both a mother and a father. Your situation is unfortunate, but you at least had a chance to grow up with them both, would you really deny others that chance?
But children are already brought up by single mums/dads with the child sometimes never seeing there other parent, In a ideal world a child in care should be look after in a safe and caring enviroment , I was brought up by my parents and ended up in care it was down to there problems , Not all married houses are happy houses and the same with same sex/single parnts houses , Its the qaulity of care not who gives it , If someone is in care then they will proberly not see there parent/parnets again for many years (sometimes for the best) , I am just saying you cant not say that only male/female couples can give the best care .
ricki
But by allowing same sex couples to adopt you are instantly denying them one parent or the other.
Can you seriously look a child in the face and tell them that they are just as well off with no mother?
Every child has a right to be brought up by a caring parent/parents, Would you case also include single mums? It the quality of care not the sexuallity of the person who is doing the caring.
ricki
- Surely that's the entire point of a political party, to pander to the prejudices of a certain group. Remember when Labour used to represent the working classes?
Business as usual.
I was in care , in two care homes, One refuge and one foster home ( a Single womans house) , its the person/people that care not who they sleep with .
ricki
The reality is that there is a shortage of adopters and foster carers and that's why Government recognised the need to open the path to other adopters.
I agree that evidence is not conclusive but there is no obvious sign of harm, and people have been brought up by same sex couples for longer than the law has acknowledged.
There are massive shortages of adopters because many want babies, not the kids available, so priority doesn't really come into it
I had a good start to life but the jury is out on gay adoption because the consequences can not be seen until 20 years after the adoption and we are not at that point yet.
thereagain I would not outlaw it because I disagree I would just give hetrosexual couples the priority.
It would also cost the state a lot more to keep kids in care both financially and otherwise - ever seen the stats for careleavers? Hardly a positive environment
the state can not afford to provide for every desire nor should it.
The problem with religionists is that they want to discriminate against others and be excused for it because of their religion. The gay community are not suggesting that at all. If you think that treating religionists with dignity and respect means allowing them to discriminate against others, then no, I would oppose that
Personally, I would prefer Labour to be a clearly secular party, keeping religion out of the public sphere as far as its direct influence on law is concerned.
That is the key sentence Rachel, it is about human values and dignity, you can not claim that two great world religions - Islam and Roman Catholitics preach these towards homosexuals.
The C4 programme which rewrote the ten commandments based on non religious aspects still came back with, was it, 7 the same.
Thou shalt not kill is the same with or without religious influence
Don't get me wrong: I think it's wonderful that the LGBT community are now treated with dignity, humanity and respect within the law - as all human beings should be.
The trouble is that many within "faith communities" do not feel that they are treated with dignity, humanity and respect by many people within the secular world. If Richard Dawkins said what he says about Christians about any other section of our society then he'd be hauled before the courts - quick as a flash.
What is the difference between:
a) making it illegal for the LGBT community to live their lives the way they want to; and
b) making it illegal for "faith communities" (not just Christians) to teach that certain sexual practices are wrong? (not illegal - just sinful - Christians believe that we're all sinners)
This is a very serious question that sends a chill down the spine of many religious people. Their feelings - as well as those of the LGBT community - should not be so easily trifled with.
For Christians, principles of grace, mercy, unconditional love and forgiveness are timeless truths that go back much further than 2,000 years. Should we outlaw them because they're "outdated"?
As for religion being "private", my religion COMPELS me into the public square - as it has done for many many people over the centuries. Keir Hardie, William Wilberforce, Lord Shaftsbury, John Smith, Dietrich Bonhoeffer - to name but a few.
If I decided to keep my faith "private" I would be guilty of denying the very faith I claim to believe. This is one thing that many secular people seem to struggle to understand.
The other thing that secular people seem to think is that if they made it illegal for "people of faith" to do or same something, they'd stop doing or saying it. This is a grave error. There are now 100 million MORE Christians in China than there were when Chairman Mao expelled the missionaries 60 years ago. In North Korea, even the most brutal torture and humiliating executions will not make Christians recant their faith.
I have to confess to being quite chuffed that my Labour MP was in church on sunday to hear a presentation on Christian persecution in Southeast Asia. I was even more chuffed that he seemed to enjoy himself and stayed for a while for coffee after the service. He - at least - understands that "faith communities" are allies - not enemies - in our common fight to build a better world.
I had to read your comment a few times to understand the point, and to an extent I have to agree with the point raised.
Religion should be kept out of Politics but the evidence proves this is not the case such as the point you raise regarding the funding of Religion based schools.
The majority of people in this Country are non practising Christians but thier morals have certainly come from religious teachings. So certain areas of Policy will be viewed with a religious bearing. Goverment know this but will ignore it when they feel they have the moral high ground.
I agree that Religion is the cause of so much distress in the world. I also agree that Goverment should not legislate on Religious feelings. If you know your history you could even say Religion is used for evil purposes of control and enslavement.
The real problem is our Goverments use of Religion to further the aims of the Corporations that own us now. They use Religion as a vechile to walk into other Countries and steal the assets that don't belong to us. This continual abuse will radicalise more people and result in more bombings and death.
"As once as Goverment overides the feelings of religious people,"
that was one of the greatest success's, no government policy should ever take account of religion or frame laws for them. that is why I am so anti public money support for religion based schools for example. Religion is a private activity and should not impinge on the way laws are framed.
And as for the gay adoption, I agree, if you are gay (and it is not a choice but a deep feeling) then part of this is for obvious reasons you can not have children. I knwo gay couples, they are wonderful people and one of the couples are great uncles to a couple of kids. However they accept that they should not have kids either for the simple reason that kids are a product of a liason between a man and women and not man/man, women/women.
"I personally wish our Goverment would stop hiving us all into groups based on our sexual or religious leaning or social back gound. I just want one rule of law for everyone to live by"
totally spot on so why is that religion does exactly that and discriminates based on what religion you follow or not ?
The Gay lobby wishes us to believe that one in ten of us is gay, now I am still to be convinced by this propaganda, and believe 1 - 2% of the population is most probably a truer picture, so you have to ask this question, is it right to attack the 98% as homophobic if they are against Gay adoption rights especially for men, the one Policy that ensures a back lash in peoples thoughts?
As once as Goverment overides the feelings of religious people, it is storing up problems for the future. Allowing Gay men to adopt children is a serious error of judgement in many peoples eyes and the religious community whether Christian or Muslim will not accept this.
Just because people are now too afraid to actually say what they truly think, in case they are shouted down as Homophobic, therefore can not really be looked upon as a success?
I personally wish our Goverment would stop hiving us all into groups based on our sexual or religious leaning or social back gound. I just want one rule of law for everyone to live by, end of story. Its about time we all stopped supporting a pernicious agenda that sets one group against another. Its because of this that we now have parties growing such as the BNP.
It just shows what huge risks Chris faced in 1984 in coming out.
****
Maureen Morfydd Colquhoun has the distinction of being the first British member of parliament to be outed as a lesbian.
Her political career began with the General Election of February 1974 when she was returned as the Member of Parliament for Northampton North with a majority of just 1,538. At the time of her election she appeared to have been happily married for the past twenty-five years with three grown up children. A supporter of Tribune she was on the far left of the party, but as it happened it was not her politics that were to cause her difficulties.
Maureen first came to the public's attention in February 1976 when she asked the Speaker George Thomas to refer to her in future as either 'Maureen Colquhoun' or 'Ms Colquhoun', rather than 'Mrs Colquhoun'. This very naturally led to a chorus of newspaper headlines such as 'When a Ms Is As Good As a Male' and general guffawing all round. Poor George, who really had no understanding of the issue whatsoever, responded by saying that he felt obliged to use some kind of prefix when referring to her, but promised to "endeavour to slur it in such a way as to reduce, if not entirely eliminate, the audible distinction between 'Miss' and 'Mrs'".
Having now drawn attention to herself in such a fashion, the press felt that there was more fun to be had at her expense. As indeed there was, since shortly after her election to the House of Commons, Maureen had decided to leave her husband and set up home with a certain Barbara Todd who happened to be regional director of the magazine Sappho. In March 1976 she and 'Babs' held a house warming party at their new London home. The journalist Nigel Dempster managed to get hold of one of the invitations, which apparently featured "two entwined females" as he later very gleefully reported in his Daily Mail column of the 15th April. Maureen complained to the Press Complaints Commission who ruled in her favour on the 3rd December, citing the Daily Mail's article as "a gross intrusion into privacy and harassment of a serious kind". The Mail shrugged off the verdict claiming that it was in the public interest to disclose her sexual preferences on the basis that it had some bearing on her political activities.
Of course today's modern Labour Party would have been the first to leap to Ms Colquhoun's defence, it was a different matter in the 1970s when the Labour Party was, if anything, far more puritanical than their Conservative opponents. The Labour Weekly of the 27th January, 1978 later accused her of "passing herself off as a married woman" and of "living a lie", which was fairly typical of the rank and file attitude of the time. Being a lesbian was bad enough, but she then went on record to voice her opinion that, having met and spoken to the man, she had come to the conclusion that Enoch Powell was not a racist, and that the Labour Party might do well to listen to what he was saying, and offered the opinion that "The real bogeymen are in the Labour Party, who use soft words and put no money into solving the problems of poor blacks and poor whites in inner cities". (Sympathising with Mr Powell was a definite no-no in Labour circles at the time.)
Further trouble ensued when on the 5th December 1976 the Sunday People ran a story under the headline 'Woman MP socked me' about a parking attendant claimed that he had been struck by Ms Colquhoun during a dispute over a parking ticket. Subsequent correspondence received by the paper from those that had also met the parking attendant in question expressed considerable sympathy with Ms Colquhoun's actions. Nevertheless her subsequent appearances at Westminster were accompanied by Conservative MPs clutching their faces in mock agony.
The net result was trouble with her local Labour Party back in Northampton, particularly in the Park Ward which began a campaign to have her removed and in September 1977, the local party voted to deselect her by 23 votes to 18, citing her obsession with trivialities such as women's rights for the decision. Or as the local party chairman Norman Ashby put it, she had been elected "as a working wife and mother" and that "this business has blackened her image irredeemably". Maureen was not without her supporters however, who promptly formed the Colquhoun Action Committee. They supported her appeal before the Labour Party national executive committee, and since it was abundantly clear that she had been de-selected purely on the basis of her sexual preferences she was rapidly re-instated as the Labour candidate. Not that this made that much difference as at the 1979 General Election she was decisively beaten by the Conservative candidate Tony Marlow.
After losing her Commons seat, she finally got round to divorcing her husband Keith in 1980 and worked as an information officer for Gingerbread before going back to the House of Commons to work as a researcher for various Labour MPs. She remained active in local politics and was a local councillor for Hackney between 1982 and 1990 where she was vice-chairman of the housing committee. She later moved to the Lake District where she took on the role of Chief Executive of North West Government Relations in 1994 and also served as a member of the Lake District National Park Authority between 1998 and 2006. There she soon made a name for herself, beginning in 1999 when she campaigned against the expansion plans of the American multinational Acco, owner of the Cumberland Pencil factory in Keswick. She was also to be found campaigning in favour of speed limits on Lake Windermere and against low-flying aircraft, whilst arguing that members of the Park authority should disclose their membership of the Freemasons. Most recently she was to found arguing against the "political correctness" involved in the National Park's decision in 2005 to axe guided walks on the fells on the grounds that these services were only used by "white, middle-class, middle-aged people".
It is worth mentioning though that Maureen Colquhoun was earlier an openly Lesbian MP.
We have come a long way since the mid 80s, But there are still some groups of people that think it is still wrong , This i think will be a challenge for the next 20 years , I think religous groups need to modenize into the 21st centery , Some groups live by a teachings of thousends of years ago , When you look at it its bizarre we do not live by rules that have not been updated for centuries , I know i went slighty off topic and i wish Lord Smith all the best for the future .
ricki