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?

@Eyerollcentral

Homophobe.

Being against gay marriage as a gay person because you think it's heternormative isn't the same as being against gay marriage because you think being gay is a sin.

Im not even really sure it counts as being against gay marriage.

It's not wanting to prevent gay rights just asking for different ones

I think the comment that these issues are "settled" implies that no-one can have a view once a law has been changed. I think these are issues that are not defined by party, people who can vote in the SNP election will decide which candidate they will support.

I’m not sure why you think this rebuts my claim.

If someone’s reason for opposing marriage equality is they just don’t want gay couples to be able to use the word, how is that not homophobic?

You’re not sure if a gay person saying I oppose gay marriage is exactly opposing gay marriage? What is it then? The reasoning may be different but the outcome is the same. It seems like you are determined that the only possible people who opposed gay marriage were religious homophobes and that’s simply not true.

They are settled in law. It would be quite an amazing turn around, actually unprecedented in any legislature in the UK for rights such as this to be overturned and would require a majority of parliamentarians to support it which again seems hugely unlikely. It would be like someone now trying to overturn women’s right to vote. People can still have their own personal views.

@Eyerollcentral

The motivation is clearly very different.

Who am I to say a gay person who opposed gay marriage on heternormative grounds was wrong?

Being against gay marriage because you're against being gay at all is not the same

And is definitely homophobic.

But thanks for the info. I had no idea that's how some gay people feel.

Well I'd be a hell of a lot more concerned if my neighbour had a gun, than a Bible or Koran. But you do you.

And many, many religious people are not against being gay at all.

@picklemewalnuts

Their religions are though

Who are they to say their religion is wrong?

No.

Honestly the whole TWAW fiasco has completely undermined my conviction that we should marry gay couples in church. I was rooting for it. I was at one of the first (pretty sure it was day 1) gay weddings, and very lovely it was too.

Recently I've been more thoughtful about it, and more understanding of the perspective of people who believe in the words of the wedding service 'marriage is between one man and one woman for the procreation of children'.

And of course I know some people choose never to have children, before you ask.

It's complete balls and ignorance to assume that people who oppose same sex marriage must be nasty old bigots. Very bigoted about religious people, frankly.

I am a pedant so I will only say that even the Catholic Church is not anti gay people. They just think gay sex is a sin. They expect gay people to be celibate and of course gay marriage is out of the question in catholic theology but it is wrong to say that they preach being gay itself a sin. I do appreciate to many people that’s the same thing but there is a distinction.

That would be why the CofE has been discussing and debating this for years, is it? And is now offering blessings for same sex couples?

Anyway I have a life. Kids to feed etc. I'll let you continue in your discrimination against a woman with religious beliefs.

@picklemewalnuts

How can you not be homophobic if you believe marriage should only be for men and women?

I disagree with her, I'm not discrimating against her.

Shes free to practice her religion. I just don't think she should have the power to force those beliefs on anyone else

The CofE can't rewrite the bible

Unfortunately

Sorry but this is nonsense.

Marriage being heteronormative was often a reason that some gay people didn’t actively seek or campaign for marriage rights.

Ive never seen any gay person argue that no gay person should be allowed to marry on that basis.

Catholic teaching is that gay people are ‘intrinsically disordered’.

Thats pretty damn anti-gay.

Do you also think post-menopausal women should not be allowed to get married in the church?

Not liking or supporting a politician is hardly discrimination.

Lol - it’s not discrimination for people committed to equality for gay people to not want to vote for someone who doesn’t share that commitment.

That is literally how politics works. If you hold positions that voters disagree with, they are free to disagree with you and refuse to support you.

Exactly. So what is your problem with her standing for election?

She’s welcome to stand for election.

Just as everyone else is welcome to explain why they won’t vote for her or support her, and to urge others to do the same.

Are you under the impression that someone thinks she should be legally barred from standing for election?

There was an internal divide within stonewall about it. Google it and you will see the first article you s from the independent about the division and Ian mckellen saying that stonewall needed to take a stance as at that time they weren’t taking a position on gay marriage. This was 2010. People not supporting the campaign for gay rights IS saying that you don’t think gay people should get married.

@TeaKlaxon, some posters on this thread have stated their worry that IF she stands, some people - gasp - might vote for her; she might even - shock horror - be elected.

And that, apparently, is Not Ok... even if it is the fair outcome of a democratic process.

All candidates are equal, but some, it seems, are to be treated less equally than others.

Yes. Quite.