Show of Hands

Last week Sally and I went to a concert featuring Show of Hands along with Miranda Sykes & Rex Preston at Norden Farm in Maidenhead.

It was a great evening. Lots of humour as well as great music.

Miranda and Rex opened the evening. Here’s one of their songs:

 

Miranda Sykes & Rex Preston: Me and my Sister the moon

 

Steve Knightley opened the Show of Hands part of the evening with Widecome Fair.

Show of Hands: Widecome Fair

Steve wandered on to an empty, darkened, stage singing the song as a solo.

He told a tale of singing this at the Albert Hall in London. The plan was to enter from the back of the hall. However the man guarding the door wouldn’t let Steve back in. He said that he wasn’t allowed in until there was a sound of applause. “It’ll be a long night then” said Steve. However, on pointing himself out on a poster advertising the evening the door guard was persuaded that he could relax the rules this once. And thus the show went on. 

One of the more atmospheric pieces of music during the evening was Katrina,  which relates to the hurricane that devastated New Orleans in 2005. Haunting. Moving.

Show of Hands: Katrina

If you get a chance to see them then go along. You won’t be disappointed.

Candygirls

On Friday I paid a visit to Candygirls and met up with Laura. Nikki was also there and Laura (that’s another Laura). The Friday night parties there are pretty popular these days with usually over a hundred people dropping by. Here’s Laura, myself and Nikki.

It’s a great place to socialise.

Whenever I visit Candygirls it’s become inevitable to get chained up a little, and Friday was no exception.

A great place for just hanging around.

And this didn’t hurt much:

 

David Cameron, Lord Carey, Gender and Christian Persecution

Today I read this headline from the Daily Telegraph:

David Cameron 'feeds fears of Christian persecution', former Archbishop of Canterbury says

And this from the Daily Mail (PM is David Cameron, the Prime Minister):

The PM's done more than any leader to make Christians feel they're persecuted

The Daily Mail article is attributed to Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Lord Carey says that he likes David Cameron and believes in his sincerity in making Britain a generous nation where “we care for one another and where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully”.

A little later he suggests that many Christians doubt David Cameron’s sincerity. That according to a ComRes poll more than two-thirds of Christians feel they are part of a persecuted minority.

He does, however, point out that these feelings of persecution may not be justified since “few in the UK are actually persecuted.”

And yet, he says, the Prime Minister has “done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties.”

What has the Prime Minster done?

• Allowed government lawyers to argue against the idea that Christians should be able to wear the Cross at their place of work
• More shockingly: is allowing the Equalities Minister to support a bill that would make the Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi faith prayer room
• He is working towards changing the law to allow same sex marriages
• The law might not offer religious believers who are registrars to refuse to carry out same sex marriages on religious grounds
• The law might force teachers to express agreement with the new politically correct orthodoxy (with respect to same sex marriage)

And what might this result in:

• The alienation of people who were considered to be pillars of society
• Christians not voting Conservative in the next general election
• Driving law-abiding Christians into the ranks of the malcontents and alienated

It’s not so long ago that things were very different. Same gender sexual activity wasn’t an accepted thing for people to be involved in. There is historical stuff here and more contemporary stuff here. And some background on LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) issues in the United Kingdom here. Though it actually says an enormous lot more about G than it does about L, B or T.

There have been times when sexual activity between  men resulted in the death penalty. More recently – within my living memory – it resulted in imprisonment. It seems that in 1957 the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Geoffrey Fisher, spoke out in favour of the decriminalisation of consensual and private homosexual behaviour.

It wasn’t until 1967, however, that this decriminalisation occurred when the Sexual Offences Bill was made passed.

A quote from Wikipedia:

Lord Arran, a sponsor of the Sexual Offences Bill, made the following remarks at the third reading in the Lords:

“Because of the Bill now to be enacted, perhaps a million human beings will be able to live in greater peace. I find this an awesome and marvellous thing. The late Oscar Wilde, on his release from Reading Gaol, wrote to a friend:

Yes, we shall win in the end; but the road will be long and red with monstrous martyrdoms.

My Lords, Mr. Wilde was right: the road has been long and the martyrdoms many, monstrous and bloody. Today, please God! sees the end of that road.”

And yet, Lord Arran went on to say:

“I ask one thing and I ask it earnestly. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men—for men they are.”

It seems that,in the UK, it wasn’t until 2003 that gay relationships began to be permitted in a similar way to heterosexual relationships. Civil partnerships weren’t introduced until 2005.  The first civil partnership ceremony took place at 11:00 on 5 December 2005 between Matthew Roche and Christopher Cramp at St Barnabas Hospice, Worthing, West Sussex. The usual 14 day waiting period was waived as Roche was suffering from a terminal illness. He died the next day. The article here gives additional background.

In all of this I’m left feeling that for many, many, many years it has been gay people that have been persecuted. The levels of persecution were extreme. The perpetrators of this persecution have included the Church and the State.

Thankfully things have changed and continue to change. A reading of the history of it suggests that the House of Lords has been a lot less willing to support such changes than has been the House of Commons. And some parts of the Church are moving much more slowly than is society in general.

I believe that Lord Arran was right in saying that no amount of legislation would change the way that people feel about homosexuals and homosexuality. Legislation doesn’t do that kind of thing.

But thankfully his view that homosexuals would forever be the subject of dislike and derision or pity … a burden for all time …  demonstrated that he severely underestimated people’s capacity for change when propaganda and misinformation are no longer supported by the fear that unjust laws can engender.

I’m not at all convinced by the idea that Christians in the UK are being persecuted in any kind of systematic or state-supported way.

There have been instances of lack of sensitivity – but equally there have been instances where the law has mainly been involved in preventing people with strongly held religious beliefs imposing the restrictions of those beliefs upon other people.

I’m particularly saddened by the view that support for same sex marriages should be construed as some kind of a persecution of the Church. Thank goodness that there are many, many Christians who don’t hold this view.

If David Cameron has done so much to make Christians feel persecuted then I’m left with the feeling that there are perhaps a lot of Christians that suffer from an excess of paranoia.

In which I discover that trying to get an answer from a politician can seem a bit like trying to get blood from a stone

As I mentioned here I was planning on writing to my Member of Parliament (again) on the subject of same-sex marriage.

I wrote:

 

Thank you for replying to my email. I've attached a copy of your reply to this email.

I was disappointed to hear that you voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and also that you didn't actually answer the question that I asked in my email.

Please could you let me know if you will now support the Bill as it progresses through Parliament providing that "the Church and other religious organisations are not coerced to hold such ceremonies through the threat of litigation, and that those who wish to form same sex civil partnerships are treated equally under the law"?

Alternatively I would appreciate it if you could let me know if it is the case that you are fundamentally opposed to the concept of same sex marriages?

And the reply:

Thank you for your email regarding the changes proposed to marriage by the Government.

I certainly understand your concern over this issue and appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

As I mentioned in our previous correspondence, I will be taking a final view on this legislation once it has been scrutinised and amended in Committee and returns to the House of Commons. Legislation often changes during its course through parliament, and is sometimes withdrawn or significantly amended in the House of Lords.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am very much in favour of a long term commitment between same sex couples and I would like to see the same legislation underpinning every long term relationship so that there is no further inequality in the eyes of the law.

Thank you again for contacting me. You have my commitment that I give the legislation the scrutiny it requires.

Maybe it’s just me … but I can’t help but feel a real reticence to make any commitment at all to supporting the bill – only potential reasons for not doing so. And yet also, a reticence to say anything very strongly against it. Maybe it’s just the way politicians tend to be.

At the end of the day I’m left two thoughts:

• If the bill were to return to the House of Commons unchanged, then my MP would vote against it – having voted against it already
• My MP is either unwilling or unable to say what changes to the bill would result in him voting in favour of it

I’ll see what happens with it next and write back to him when things begin to move again.

TV Dinners and how to deal with oozing boobs

Last Tuesday (February 12th) was a TV (as in TransVestite) dinner at Billie and Kathie’s.

Nice, as always, to meet up with friends.

Laura shared the fact that she’s had a little accident recently.

If memory serves me right, the culprit was something like a renegade wire in an underwired bra.

Anyway … one morning Laura picked up a boob (a lot of we t-girl’s have fully detachable bosoms) and discovered it was oozing silicone.

Her first thought was to get a hold of some superglue.

On second thoughts she used a sticking plaster and then consulted  Google.

It seems that silicone sealant works a treat.

And as you can see from the picture taken on the night it did the trick:

And if you ever experience a boob with a bra wire or even a cat’s claw, then there’s advice here.

It’s amazing what you learn at a TV dinner.

The other piece of trivia was provided by Katie. Did you know that palladium is hallmarked (like gold and silver). Kathie did.

And here am I, taken just after getting back from the evening out:

Marriage, gender and my Member of Parliament

Way back on 19th December last year I got round to sending an email to my Member of Parliament (Adam Afriyie) to ask about his feelings on Same Sex Marriage.

I wrote:

I’m writing concerning the  recent resurgence of news in the press and on television regarding the proposed legislation on “Gay Marriage”.

I myself am heterosexual and am married, but I am in favour of legislation that would allow same sex marriages. I’m also in favour of allowing (though not forcing) religious organisations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

My understanding is that the Prime Minister intends to allow a free vote on this issue at some point in the near future.

I am, therefore writing to ask you to let me know if you are able to let me know which way you would expect to vote on this?

I received a written reply through the post dated January 17th 2013.

Thank you for your email regarding equal civil marriage.

You are quite right to highlight an issue of importance to many people in Windsor, and across the United Kingdom. Judging from my postbag, this is clearly a contentious issue, with passionate arguments on both sides.

By way of background, it is the Prime Minister's view that marriage should be for everyone. He believes that society is stronger when people enter into a stable relationship, commit to each other and make binding vows to love and honour one another. In the light of this, the Government has published proposals to remove the ban on same-sex couples entering into a civil marriage.

Religious organisations play an important role in our society; and my biggest concern is that they will not be forced to conduct ceremonies but be able to do so if they choose. I will not support any changes that jeopardise religious organisations' power to choose whether they conduct same sex ceremonies.

It is important that the proposals strike the right balance and I suspect the devil will be in the detail of the legislation which arrives before parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me on this important issue. You have my commitment that I will give the legislation the careful consideration it deserves when it arrives in the House of Commons.

I was a little underwhelmed in that there was no direct answer to my question. I replied by email as follows on January 23rd:

Thank you for your letter in reply to my email. I’ve attached a copy of your reply to this email.

My understanding of the law as it stands at the moment, is that religious organisations (as well as other organisations) currently have no choice in the matter since same sex marriages cannot take place at all.

Based on the content of your letter, am I correct in assuming that you will vote in favour of removing the ban on same-sex couples entering into a civil marriage providing religious organisations are given the power to choose whether or not they conduct same sex ceremonies?

If this is not the case please could you clarify what other issues would affect the way in which you will vote?

The BBC reported on the result if the Parliamentary vote on February 6th. They mentioned:

David Cameron says he is proud the love of a same-sex couple will now "count the same" as that of a heterosexual couple, despite almost half his MPs voting against gay marriage.

MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by 400 to 175, a majority of 225.

But 136 Tory MPs opposed the bill.

For many people the voting raises some awkward questions about Conservative MPs and gender equality.

The reply to my email was by post and dated February 7th:

Thank you for contacting me about the changes proposed to marriage by the Government.

Judging from my postbag in recent weeks, the issue is a contentious one, and one which has divided opinion up and down the country. I appreciate the many arguments that have been raised and I am encouraged that so many people have taken the opportunity to share their views.

You should know that I voted against the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Given that MPs decided to give the Bill a second reading, my main concerns now are to ensure that the Church and other religious organisations are not coerced to hold such ceremonies through the threat of litigation, and that those who wish to form same sex civil partnerships are treated equally under the law.

Thank you once again for taking the time to write to me on this crucial matter. Please rest assured that I will take a final view on the legislation once it has been closely scrutinised and amended in Committee and returns to the House of Commons shortly.

Again I was disappointed, though not surprised, that my question was unanswered.

I’m still left not knowing what Adam’s real feelings on the matter are and if there are any circumstances in which he would really vote in favour of the Bill.

So I guess I’ll write again again and see what comes back.

Gay Marriage and Making a Difference

The issue of “Gay Marriage” is back in the news in the UK.

It saddens me the way that people seem to misrepresent the facts and each other when they argue about this.

But, it seems that it is possible to change some little things at least.

A few days ago I noticed an article in the Daily Mail. The article itself is here.

On December 7th, the headline for the article was:

Churches to hold gay weddings as 'arrogant' David Cameron vows to defy Tory MPs to force changes through Parliament

I left a comment on 7th December at 17:37 that reads as follows:

The headline for this article says: “Churches to hold gay weddings as 'arrogant' David Cameron vows to defy Tory MPs to force changes through Parliament.”

Within the article, David Cameron is quoted as saying: “But let me be absolutely 100% clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it. 'That is absolutely clear in the legislation. Also let me make clear, this is a free vote for Members of Parliament but personally I will be supporting it.”

To me, the headline isn't a fair reflection of what David Cameron is suggesting at all.

Today, December 9th, the headline reads:

Gay marriage to be allowed in church: Religious groups can choose whether to host same-sex weddings

I have no way of knowing if my comment influenced the decision to change the headline. But perhaps it did. Either way, it’s good that it was changed, but not so good that the first version of it ever existed in the first place.

Sally, my wife, says that I am a cynic. I prefer to think of myself as a realist. But whatever I am, I feel a sense of sadness in reading a lot of the other comments made by people in response to this article.

One interesting thing about the whole issue is that there are people with very different political backgrounds – right, left and centre – that are supporting the changes that are likely to be proposed by new legislation. Having said that, the main opposition seems likely to be from the right rather than the left. An article in the Daily Telegraph suggests that there is likely to be even more opposition from the House of Lords – the un-elected side of UK politics.

As I’ve mentioned before, I hope that it gets passed.

Between now and the vote I’ll write to my Member of Parliament (MP), Adam Afriyie, and ask if he will vote in favour of it.

If you live in the UK and have an MP and feel strongly about this the please take the time to write to them as well. You can get contact details here.