I watched this interview by Ciaran Jenkins of Channel 4 News of Scottish finance minister and SNP leadership hopeful Kate Forbes with dismay.
NEW: Kate Forbes tells @Channel4News she would have voted against equal marriage.
But as First Minister she will not 'row back on rights that already exist.' pic.twitter.com/dspgxxSKpH
— Ciaran Jenkins (@C4Ciaran) February 20, 2023
The longest relationship in my life is with a gay man. He is my twin brother: my womb mate as I like to call him.
For as long as I have known about sexuality I have known that we have not shared ours. He was born gay. He is gay. I am proud he is my brother, that he is who he is. And his experience has been formative in my life.
As a result I am shocked and dismayed that anyone seeking to lead a political party anywhere in the UK, but most especially in Scotland, which is more liberal than average, can hold and promote the beliefs that Kate Forbes has and think they might be acceptable in 2023.
I accept Kate Forbes has been honest.
I also think she is wholly unsuited to lead the SNP. I would even question whether she is suited fir the office she now holds. Prejudice cannot be compatible with high office, in my opinion.
Thos was a sorry moment in Scottish politics. I hope Kate Forbes is now persuaded to withdraw from the leadership race. She should.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I agree, though I wouldn’t see her as exceptional in holding prejudices – MPs Twitter feeds are an object lesson in the low bar for entry into politics in that and many other regards!
I agree
But she is seeking to be the leader of a socially liberal party
Very well said.
I am appalled that someone working in supposed public service is so judgemental and such a bigot. A disgrace. She has no business in her current office let alone seeking higher office.
As an S.N.P member, I was unaware of Kate Forbes views on this matter until a few days ago. Until then I thought she would have been the natural successor to Nicola, although I thought it would have been in 2025. I’m afraid not now, and on the subject, I’m not terribly impressed by any of the candidates. Unfortunately.
Be that as it may, Kate Forbes is mistaken to claim, in her interview, that ‘the teachings of most mainstream religions, whether that’s Islam, Judaism, Christianity, that marriage is between a man and a woman.’
Anyone who has followed the development of Christian theology over the past fifty years or so will be aware that this is opinion is no longer a monolithic doctrine in that religion.
I agree
This claim is based in absurd, selective reading
I think Kate Forbes would be an electoral liability for the SNP at the next election in the same way that Tim Farron was an electoral liability for the Lib Dems in 2017. Similar views, similar result.
Absolutely
From what I have seen of the impact of religion on politics I think that religion should just be kept out of it. I’ve been tracking the cynical use of evangelicals in the U.S. Republican party and I find it all sickening and dangerous.
It also gets my goat that those who ‘believe in God’ and apparently hold ‘him/her’ to be the creator of everything somehow forget that when it comes to these issues, citing bad ‘personal choices’ instead. My view? If you want judgement, then leave judgement to God – he made us all apparently.
I’m sick of these self-appointed spokes-people for God or Jesus. For goodness sake shut up!
Sex, sexuality, gender (even religion) are all deeply personal issues. Other people and the state should keep their noses out. The State’s role in this is to create a framework for that to be the case.
As the father of a teenage daughter struggling with her sexuality, I appreciate the inspiring words about your brother – thank you.
PSR
Be kind to your duaghter
My parents (in a different era) were not to my twin
We’re all just human, making our paths as best we can
That’s my advice for what it’s worth
Richard
Your input is not wasted – your post above gave me a framework to deal with it as it came out of the blue. It’s about affirmation isn’t it, and that is most important from a parent to child.
one of my family is transgender -female to male. He is a most compassionate and intelligent man , in a same sex marriage and active , and fully accepted, member of his local Anglican church. The whole extended family accepted it but he says some of the people he knows were rejected by their family.
In the 1980s I was a Samaritan and one of the volunteers was a male to female transgender. But she knew about loneliness, rejection and prejudice. She was brilliant with callers on the phone though they might have rejected her if they had known. She passed away over two decades ago but it taught me that like Martin Luther King’s speech -“I hope my four little children be judged by the content of their character, not by the colour of their skin”- what is important about a person.
Thanks Ian. Appreciated
Don’t see a problem to be honest. Vote in line with your conscience but implement the will of the majority.
If Nicola had followed that precept, she would still be in office.
We will have to differ
And that was not why Sturgeon quit, I am quite sure
My father did wills for a living
His comment on marriage which was a very good one, was that in effect it is a way of organising human relationships, as a ‘for example’ a former colleague of mine’s partner had a serious health issue, while they had been together for a long time, he was always concerned that at some stage a Doctor could ‘cut up rough’ and not allow him to be involved in his partners care.
When Civil Partnerships came in they went for that fairly quickly for that reason.
Thats the sort of thing that Kate Forbes and others of her ilk want to remove from a significant section of the population.
Kate Forbes presents this as an issue of religious freedom. She is of course entitled to believe what she wants, just as B&B owners and cake bakers are. The problematic bit is when those beliefs turn into policies or practices that affect the lives of others. She should not be imposing her beliefs on others.
She would not take existing rights away she says (how generous of her!) but I suspect she still believes that a sizable minority of the population – over 1.5 million in the last UK census, and that is a gross underestimate – should not have the same rights as the majority.
Interesting to see who voted against marriage equality in 2013. See the expandable tables at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_%28Same_Sex_Couples%29_Act_2013
Four Lib Dem MPs voted against, all now out of the Commons. Alan Beith is in the Lords; Sarah Teather has admitted she was wrong.
22 Labour MPs voted against at Second Reading and 14 at Third Reading, the latter including Stephen Timms.
All 8 DUP MPs voted against, of course. And 127 Conservative MPs at Third Reading – more than those who supported the bill.
Those voting against included Robert Buckland, Therese Coffey, Geoffrey Cox, Nadine Dorries, Liam Fox, Kwasi Kwarteng, Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Ben Wallace, and Gavin Williamson. I wonder if they would still defend that position and how they would vote now.
Thanks, and much to agree with
I do get annoyed when this sort of prejudice gets represented as “mainstream Christian thinking”; other Christian views are available… but the press aren’t interested in a headline “Christian seems like a normal well adjusted person”. I would also add that prejudice is not confined to those with religious faith.
In one sense I think this is democracy at work. She has a view that is well known and not disputed. The electors (initially SNP members, then the wider public) will get to vote on it. Let’s see what they say.
It also raises wider questions about “Do Party Leaders have to agree with every Party Policy?”. We seem to live in a world where this is increasingly the case – if a leader professes otherwise they are ripped to shreds by the press. Taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that ALL policy is made personally by the Leader – and that is nonsense.
Leaders should be able to lead without agreeing on all aspects of policy; “collective cabinet responsibility” may require you not to rock the boat but it ought to be possible to disagree quietly.
Clearly, there are some touchstone issues where disagreement is fundamental and would require resignation from Cabinet (or make a candidate unacceptable as Leader).
This issue might be such an issue for the SNP but, as an Anglo-Welsh Labour Party member I will stay (uncharacteristically??) silent.
“other Christian views are available”. Well, quite: there almost always are, on almost any issue.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has been moving very slowly, no doubt reluctant to split the Anglican communion. Well, now even that modest movement has been rejected by Anglican bishops of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/20/anglicans-reject-justin-welby-as-head-of-global-church-amid-anger-at-same-sex-blessings
Perhaps it might be helpful for them to consider “what would Jesus do?”. The answer is almost certainly not to stigmatise and condemn and throw stones.
I completely agree
But that is why I could not be an Anglican
Robin McAlpine should be the leader of the SNP
I very much doubt he would want to be
Humza Yousaf was an MSP at the time. He abstained. He could have voted for it and didn’t. Should he be persuaded to withdraw?
He needs to be asked. I think you raise a good point.
Humza Yousaf didn’t abstain, he arranged an ‘urgent’ meeting with the Pakistan Consul for the same day. As Craig Murray points out, this date for a meeting was made 19 days before (so hardly urgent) and this happened a couple of days after the vote for the bill was arranged. It looks very much as if he avoided the issue. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/02/humzas-lies-on-gay-marriage/
Disappointing to see such prejudice against those of the traditional Christian faith.
This is not prejudice against those people or that faith. I explicitly say they are entitled to their beliefs. I also make clear that they have no right to impose them on others, which is what Kate Forbes said she would have done. That is not prejudice on my part. It is on hers. And it is not misogynistic. I would say exactly the same to any man with the same opinion.
At the risk of causing an upset. Is not disagreement with someone with different views just a difference of opinion? And is not calling that person a bigot and prejudiced, ever so slightly prejudiced? Politicians by the nature of their work have to express opinions and in concert with other politicians their opinions become laws, which are then imposed on others. Is that not democracy.
The Merriam-Webster Webster dictionary says prejudice is:
injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one’s rights
especially : detriment to one’s legal rights or claims
Kate Forbes was prejudiced, IMO
I was disagreeing with her
She would have voted to remove a legal right. I suggested that was wrong
Many years ago I worked in Machynlleth as a young systems engineer (keeping the lights on). I had the priviledge to work with a foreman called Owen – who was a lay preacher in the local chapel and a life-long abstainer from alcohol. He had never been in a pub but admitted that his chidlren did drink – and was not in the least condemnatory. As he noted – it is their choice and they are free to make it. He (& his wife) chose not to drink alcohol as part of their religion – but would never, ever force their views on others. He was one of the most decent people I have ever met – I can see his face now even though it was more than 40 years ago.
Kate Forbes could learn a lot about tolerance from lay preachers like Owen & I know exactly which side he would be on in debates about equal marriage.
Great place….I really like it and the Corris valley above