To worry about Kate Forbes becoming first minister

[Creatine11]

Abortion and LGBT rights have been something that have largely not been part of political debate for at least the last 10 years. Gay marriage was enacted in 2014 and was broadly supported. The last serious challenge to abortion rights was at the start of the coalition government with Nadine Dorries et all. However, broadly gay rights and abortion rights have been settled issues- it has almost been taboo for politicians to oppose them. Certainly, there hasn’t been any serious possibility over the last decade (at least) of any rowing back on abortion, gay marriage, gay adoption, divorce law etc.

However, it is clear that in the heart of hearts of Forbes she disagrees with all these things due to her beliefs as an evangelical Christian. By all accounts she was very competent as a minister and has been a good MSP. However, as first minister she will be a figurehead for Scotland as well as setting the tone for policy and political discourse. Also, unlike Rees-Mogg and DUP types, Kate Forbes seems like an otherwise sensible, competent, ‘normal’ politician.

My concern is Forbes being the leader of Scotland could normalise her views on these issues. While I don’t believe abortion or gay marriage face immediate threat, if it’s brought into mainstream politics it will become a party political issue and may well shift public opinion, especially given the current culture war. Politicians, journalists, activists and others who have held these views quietly may be emboldened to launch a new campaign against abortion, LGBT rights or some other issue. I don’t know this would necessarily just be limited to Scotland as Nicola Sturgeon and her policies had a very high profile in the rest of the UK and influenced policy.

Aibu to worry about Kate Forbes becoming SNP leader and first minister?

And people who think they are homophobes and that they should not be First Minister for that reason should be free to say so.

This makes no sense.

I’ve clearly explained that there was discrimination and it was never OK.

Also there are good reasons most men will not need a smear test. There is no good reason that gay couples shouldn’t have the right to marry.

The ‘concept’ of marriage is merely the concept that the State should provide legal recognition called marriage to couples. There’s nothing inherent in that ‘concept’ that means it should only be between a man and a woman.

It is the implementation of that concept that limited to opposite sex couples for a long time.

What you have described is not discrimination though. It might be if there were no means by which gay relationships could be recognised in equal terms, but there is.

The concept of marriage was understood until very recently to only apply to heterosexual couples. The state did not come up with the idea of marriage, across the world states have provided a legal and non religious means of recognising relationships legally based on the concept of marriage as it already existed. The concept was entirely based on male-female couples wherever it existed in any society, meaning the implementation of it could necessarily only apply to heterosexual couples.

Given that she seems to be a decent, truthful person, I’d be happy to see her win, given that she has expressly stated that she will not be seeking to impose her religious views on others.

Let’s face it, given that many politicians aiming for leadership seem to lie easily and regularly demonstrate a complete lack of moral fibre, simply being a decent human being, religious or not, would make her better than most.

We’re specifically talking about civil marriage.

There was never any requirement for states to adopt the homophobic approach of religions. That was a choice. A discriminatory one.

Of course it is.

Have the same rights but don’t use the term is of course discrimination.

Its not homophobic, its not hatred or fear, again using this type of terms is aimed at silencing those who might disagree and not helpful

Yes, the concept of civil marriage is based on the concept of religious marriage which was a union between man and woman. Civil marriage has existed for centuries. It is ludicrous to contend that not making civil marriage open to gay couples centuries in the past was an exercise in homophobia. The State simply reflected the institution as it already existed in society.

It’s not though. That’s not what discrimination is. If you have access to the same rights you aren’t being discriminated against. The term used is not the instructive bit. The rights conferred are. You are reflecting your own internalised homophobia as you don’t see civil partnerships as equal to marriage when of course legally they are.

@twelly

First hits on Google

@Eyerollcentral

If you can't get married you don't have access to the same rights

You can think that, and accept you are a homophobe.

What someone can't do is think that gay people do not deserve equal rights and claim that they are not a bigot - even if you don't actively campaign to remove or deny rights.

@TeaKlaxon no one is trying to 'silence you'; why are you saying that they are?

Everyone is free to hold whatever views they like. Kate Forbes is free to run for SNP leader; the electorate are free to vote for her, or not. You can call her whatever you like, but she has clearly stated that she has no intention of attempting the (impossible) task of repealing rights to gay marriage.

I’ve already pointed out that homophobia encompasses prejudice.

Believing that gay couples relationships were unworthy of protection and recognition and status most certainly was prejudice.

It was homophobic then as it is now. The idea that the state just reflected pre-existing homophobia and so the state itself wasn’t actually homophobic is nonsense.

If the NHS decided the term nurse should only apply to white nurses but nurses of colour should instead be called ‘care providers’ - but their jobs and salaries were identical, do you think that would amount to discrimination?

Goodness you sound like a lovely friend!

The SNP has over 100,000 members. Not far off the two main UK parties.

And did we get our general election?

Surely if you’re anti gay people marrying the person they love then you are pretty much just anti gay people?

Not voting for her isn’t discriminating against her.

Whether civil partnerships offer the same rights as marriage is irrelevant.

The very fact that the term was created is reflective of inequality. For better or worse marriage as a concept is about far more than legalities.

I think the point about protected characteristic is interesting - seems to me that you can level any allegation at christianity in particular. As I have said before using the term phobic is rather like the use of "safeguarding" and "health and safety," I think many now realise that it just used as tool and is really a form of bullying.

You're so right. I don't know why Rosa Parks didn't just move on the bus. I mean she was on the same bus and going to the same place right, so it's obviously not discrimination.