British Politicians on Homosexuality
This from the Guardian Unlimited (on Saturday): an article headlining Tony Blair's assertion in Attitude, a gay publication, that he believes the British electorate would not "reject a Prime Minister simply on the basis that he was gay." Apparently, Blair also went on to scold the Anglican church for its unenlightened position on the issues surrounding gay clergy. No real surprises there, nor in the fact that the Lib Dem leader, Charles Kennedy, positions his party as the champion of gay rights and claims that gay Brits are flocking to support his party.
The more interesting tidbit comes from Attitude's interview with Michael Howard, who claims he has changed his position with regard to homosexuality. When the interviewer "pointed out to him that in the 1980s he had suggested that it was wrong to teach homosexuality as a normal family relationship," Mr Howard claimed: "I've changed on that. I've changed my mind on that. I was wrong."
Which is all well and good -- and might have been a good place to stop.
Instead, the leader of the Tory party continued: "I thought, rightly or wrongly, there was a problem in those days. That problem simply doesn't exist now. It's not a problem, so the law shouldn't be hanging around on the Statute Book."
Erm. What was this problem of which you speak, Michael? This problem that doesn't exist now. I mean, it's one thing to say that in the 1980s, when you were young and inexperienced in the ways of the world, you thought homosexuality was wrong, an opinion you've now reconsidered and rejected. But that's not quite what you've said, is it? What you've actually said is something closer to: "I thought homosexuality was wrong, and I thought it was a social problem, so I introduced legislation to allow discrimination by local councils (couched in language preventing them from 'promoting homosexuality'). I'm a smarter politician now, and I've learned not to say what I think about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality; what I will say is that the 'problem' is no longer in need of legislative redress, so there's no point making politically unpopular pronouncements on the general topic."
Tory conversion narratives. Meh.
The more interesting tidbit comes from Attitude's interview with Michael Howard, who claims he has changed his position with regard to homosexuality. When the interviewer "pointed out to him that in the 1980s he had suggested that it was wrong to teach homosexuality as a normal family relationship," Mr Howard claimed: "I've changed on that. I've changed my mind on that. I was wrong."
Which is all well and good -- and might have been a good place to stop.
Instead, the leader of the Tory party continued: "I thought, rightly or wrongly, there was a problem in those days. That problem simply doesn't exist now. It's not a problem, so the law shouldn't be hanging around on the Statute Book."
Erm. What was this problem of which you speak, Michael? This problem that doesn't exist now. I mean, it's one thing to say that in the 1980s, when you were young and inexperienced in the ways of the world, you thought homosexuality was wrong, an opinion you've now reconsidered and rejected. But that's not quite what you've said, is it? What you've actually said is something closer to: "I thought homosexuality was wrong, and I thought it was a social problem, so I introduced legislation to allow discrimination by local councils (couched in language preventing them from 'promoting homosexuality'). I'm a smarter politician now, and I've learned not to say what I think about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality; what I will say is that the 'problem' is no longer in need of legislative redress, so there's no point making politically unpopular pronouncements on the general topic."
Tory conversion narratives. Meh.