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?

Of course opposing gay marriage is homophobic. It doesn't become not homophobic because it's wrapped up in a religious belief.

I've been around this block and I've never heard a single reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't homophobic. Of course, many adherents to religions don't actually subscribe to their religions' homophobic teaching.

@CatSpeakForDummies

If only you could guarantee it would work out that way and not the way it actually does with religious beliefs being forced on everyone

Because Yousaf voted for marriage equality at all other stages except the one where he had a meeting about a Scottish man on death row in Pakistan

A meeting he himself set up despite knowing the date of the vote:
www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-humza-yousaf-miss-the-vote-on-gay-marriage/

Fascinating.

You might find you're left with rather a lot of vacant posts to fill.

If I were the suspicious sort I'd even go so far as to wonder if the deliberate smears are continuing here rather than this being a thread posted in good faith, by a specific group with a specific agenda.

Good thing I'm not though so I'm not saying such a thing.

But the point is that she said she would have imposed that belief if she'd had the chance, by voting in line with her personal belief.

Why on earth should gay people be expected to shut up and say nothing about someone who thinks our relationships are inferior, and would have used her vote in Parliament to deny our rights?

Why on earth should we be expected to pretend that we think there's nothing wrong with that?

So what's your view? That Yousaf had some moral objection to voting for marriage equality? But only on that one specific day? Why did he not have this moral objection for all prior stages? Why does his moral objection not extend to advocating for marriage equality at the time? Or to advocating for it now?

@TeaKlaxon in response to your assertion "Of course opposing gay marriage is homophobic. It doesn't become not homophobic because it's wrapped up in a religious belief."

I'll quote @picklemewalnuts' excellent riposte:

"To be fair, many many people voted against gay marriage simply because it was a redefinition of an existing word. Many people felt that Civil Partnership addressed all the inequities and practical issues without redefining the word marriage."

Biden was vice president under Obama - who promised to enshrine abortion rights in federal law - and then changed his mind because it wasn't a 'priority'.
www.reuters.com/article/obama-abortion-idUKN2946642020090430

The Democrats occupied office for 16 years under Clinton and Obama - they could have protected abortion law across all states in that time. They didn't because the Democrats dangle abortion rights to make sure women keep voting for them.

@HBGKC

Do you honestly believe people voted against gay marriage because of a word?

🤣

I believe she can separate personal religious believe and politics. Tony Blair was catholic wasn’t he? Don’t remember him being ripped apart for it.

Tony Blair was high Anglican (married to a Catholic) in office. He only converted to Catholicism after he stopped being PM.

Why do you think people accepted Civil Partnership (legally identical, afaik) before same sex marriage?

It took a really long time for people to grasp the idea that marriage could include two people of the same sex.

I'm totally liberal, but really struggled with the language.

You'll be sorely disappointed. People men cause wars, not religions.

It’s not completely the same though is it. Isn’t there some loophole that you can’t cite adultery as a reason for divorce between same sex partners?

The legal application is exactly the same in terms of the rights, recognition and responsibilities to one another between spouses and civil partners. The adultery exception is now moot surely in any event with the advent of no fault divorce.

Many people are on record saying exactly that. As I said before even stonewall were previously opposed to gay marriage. Are they homophobic now too? I don’t think the real test of whether someone is anti gay or not is whether they support gay marriage but then I tend to view people by the sum of their actions rather than deploy an ideology purity checklist to measure them against

@picklemewalnuts

Sorry. I don't get your argument

I never understood the point of civil partnership though so maybe that's why

@picklemewalnuts

Thats like saying guns don't kill people, people do.

@Eyerollcentral

Yes because lying about why you're against it would never happen

Why were stonewall against it?

What possible non homophobic reason could there be for being against gay marriage?

It’s the ‘evangelical’ bit that worries me… still she said she wouldn’t try to roll back marriage equality- so kind.

Are they homophobic now too?

Stonewall? Tbf yes.

Gay rights groups supported ‘civil partnerships’ as a stepping stone to marriage equality because they knew there was little to no chance of marriage equality happening back in 2005.
Sometimes you have to accept something that’s not quite what you want in order to achieve an ultimate aim.

look how many people, churches etc opposed civil partnerships even.
when we had ours when they first came in we weren’t allowed ANY religious element of any kind as part of the ceremony, including any piece of music that could be considered religious or a hymn.

My family commented how great it was to NOT have any of that religion stuff at our civil ceremony and I did have to explain it’s because it wasn’t allowed rather than we decided to do away with all readings, quotes, songs etc

Many gay activists rejected and continue to reject gay marriage as they view it as heteronormative. They could support civil partnerships for gay people and oppose gay marriage for example because the former provides all the rights of being married without being imbued with the heteronormative trappings of conventional marriage. It’s the idea of different but equal. They didn’t want to be seen as coalescing with the viewpoint that straight is the standard and that forms of straight relationships should be co-opted in to gay relationships. Many gay activists were opposed to the opening up of civil partnerships to straight people as well for the same reason. It’s not as cut and dry as saying if you oppose gay marriage you are a homophobe. You can fully support gay rights and recognise that marriage before legislation was introduced to amend the legal meaning was exclusively for straight couples and that civil partnerships provided an equal legal means of recognising the relationships between gay people.
Some people, like Kate Forbes, may simply disagree with gay marriage on religious grounds. I know religious parliamentarians who have justified their personal votes in favour of gay marriage legislation (which is in opposition to their personal religious beliefs) on the basis that it is only a civil marriage and many religions do not recognise civil marriages devoid of a religious ceremony as a proper marriage. So if they voted for gay marriage but due to their faith don’t really believe in the validity of those marriages, are they a homophobe or not?

You can’t have a religious civil partnership ceremony as, as far as I am aware, no church recognises civil partnership as a sacrament of their church. The state doesn’t allow religious elements in civil marriages either. A civil marriage also has to be devoid of religion because it is legal marriage only.