Hell yeah! You said it Nic! Who the **** is she to judge when she is so clearly a closet lesbian herself??

In all of this some Religious organisations are trying to claim that the state is trying to interfere with their cherished freedom of conscience. This would seem to be to be true, if several facts were not evident. The Catholic Church seems to have aquired its taste for freedom of conscience fairly recently and only on issues that suit it. For years the Catholic Church has been silencing the conscience objections of bishops who believe that contraception in Africa is crucial to fighting AIDS. What double-standards, they plead freedom of conscience, but deny that very same right to Catholics all over the world. Recently the Anglican Archbishop said that the government should not curtail the freedom of the Church, however it seems to me that it is a mode of freedom without responsibility. His own church as well as the Catholic Church is happy to take tax-payers money to fund their schools and community projects but refuse to play ball with the state. If they want independence from the state, why don't they just cut themselves off from state funding? This has the added bonus that gay and lesbian tax-payers will no longer have to pay money to organisations that exclude them. Of course they won't do that because they are happy to take money but not to play by the rules. Many of these organisations cry state tyranny while at the same time drawing funds from the state. The Anglican Church is happy to get constitutional support because it's bishops can sit unelected in the House of Lords and have influence over the way this country is run, but when it comes to the crunch it doesn't want to abide by the law passed in the House in which they sit. This double-standard is what Ruth Kelly is pushing for.

Having said all this it absolutely right that people of faith get a chance to express their view and their voice taken seriously in matters of government. This means, not only the opinions of those who are against greater rights for
gay and lesbian people who wish to be parents, but also people of faith who actively support greater rights, as well as of course greater responsibilities. In no way should this turn into a one sided debate simplified between religion and the secular. It is not that simple, it is between different versions of what it means to be religious in the 21st century. These different views, although seldom do they agree, should be protected, as long as such opinions do not attempt to insult, belittle or disrespect others. We have the right to freedom of opinion, we do not have a natural right to express it in such way, which is intended to hurt others. I think there is a difference between people expressing a view in order to offend, (generating hate for the sake of some more insidious aim) and expressing a view that some find offensive. People have the right to live freely in an open society, free from prejudice and hatred because of their creed, this is absolutely right. Even those people of faith whom I disagree with have the right to express their opinion and have right to be listened to, although not automatically agreed with. Freedom of speech is important because it is a fundamental freedom.

As Mill says, "This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological".
However one's mode of action must be balanced against the liberty of others and their right to live in a productive manner that will lead to their happiness. One cannot simply have freedom with consideration or moderation, or liberty without responsibility, where would it end? I believe that by drafting this new law the right balance has been kept in regards to liberty as well as responsibility.

Laura wrote:

---

What exactly are you saying she is trying to do? Allow Christians to share their point of view? We can't just shut them up! Surely they're allowed to voice their opinion... freedom of speech and all that... As long as they're not burning us all at the stake one by one. It's not like she's tryna take away alll the laws of equality for LGBTers. Surely as equality and diversity person she can't voice an opinion either way!? Must not she be unbiased on either side? People have different views than us...I accept that as I'm interested into why they think this! Even as a big gay myself I have my own personal issues about certain things.
I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to saay here... but hey, I'm not even saying the petition is wrong or what you've wrote is wrong Nic, I'd rather not hear their point of view. But i'm just trying to look from the other side of things as sometimes the forum tends to be one sided, all for gays whereas the other viewpoint isn't necessarily anti-gay. If any of this makes sense, I'll do a dance on my head. WHere as Ruth Kelly is concerned, I think it's a diffficult position to be in voting for gay rights when you're gay and Catholic as there are a lot of unanswered questions going on in your head. Again, sounds like nonsense but I know what I mean. Hehe Opus Dei reminds me of my summer read. Don't think I'd like to be a devouit member of that Sect!

---

Lets make one thing clear first, Ruth Kelly isn't gay, shes an anti-gay catholic.

Think of it as this... racist person been given a job to represent blacks & asians, claiming they'll do their job n support their rights, then amending a law that protects the black & asian ppl from been discriminated against by ppl like the KKK, so that the KKK can opt out of any law with regards to the black & asian folk and discriminate against them as n when they can.

She's basically tryin to build in a loophole allowing religious minorities to discriminate against LGBT people. Which fundamentally undermines the whole equality law in the first place as it is there to protect ALL minorities from discrimination, not give power to one minority to discriminate against another. That is not equality.

Sure people can voice their opinion, but when it comes to them bleeding us dry in taxes to pay for public services, but then having those services denied to us because someone disagrees with/actively discriminates against ur personal life, it not on & its not fair. Who are they to deny you a service you need/want and have paid for? That is the point of the law, to protect us from been discriminated against like that and make sure that we are treated equally seems that we are classed as other citizens and equally charged taxes, national insurance etc, unless the government finds/builds in a way of charging LGBT people less in taxes for services they are been denied, then the equality laws relating to public/government funded services are the only way of ensuring fairness.

Any competant Equality & Diversity rep/minister would not oppose a law bringing all minority groups which they represent equality and legal protection from discrimination, let alone actually backing an opposition to that law based on their own personal prejudices. It's highly unprofessional, imcompetant and a blatent abuse of power. Anybody at any level should be able to see and appreciate that. She should also be reprimanded for it, plenty of other civil servants would if they acted in such a way.

Putting it into context abit now, I'm not keen on paedophiles, in my job we look after the rights and welfare of them, I don't use my position of power to line em up 4 a kicking off myself, other staff or inmates, I provide protection of their rights and welfare, the same I would for anyone else in there, regardless of my personal opinion of their lifestyle. If I acted unprofessionally or improperly I'd be on the chopping block and more than likely fired. So why the hell should a government minister who is a top level civil servant be allowed to get away with such a public display of unprofessionalism and abuse of power?

If catholics want to run adoption agencies n not let gay parents adopt, then yeah thats fine but they can **** off and do it with their own money as a private sector service rather than claiming to be a public sector service with the governments/my money.

I'm going to do some reading on the topic.
As if I haven't got mountains of work.