'Minister for Equality" Refuses to Deny That Homosexuality is a Sin.

[c0da]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2173603,00.html


Ruth Kelly, appointed the 'equality minister' in Tony Blair's recent cabinet reshuffle, has come under fire for her alleigance to the Catholic sect Opus Dei. The particular sect regard homosexual relationships as very sinful.

It is a bit short sighted of Tony Blair to assign somebody a cabinet position with the implications of the one she has been despite her personal views.

 

[evearael]

It is a bit short sighted of Tony Blair to assign somebody a cabinet position with the implications of the one she has been despite her personal views.

Could you clarify this?

 

[mr.guy]

...to assign somebody a cabinet position with the implications of the one she has been despite her personal views.

"Personal" views may not be the entirety or relevancy.

From vatican.ca

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS​

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.​

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.​

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.​

 

[pdoel]

Well, from reading the article, it sounds like her statements support equality for all. In press conferences, she says she firmly believes in equal rights to all people, that she does not tolerate inequality, etc. She says she can separate her religious beliefs from the fairness of her politics.

However, she has not been present for any of the votes for homosexual marriage rights. She also moved some funding around to keep it from going towards any stem cell research.

So while what she says sounds great, her actions say otherwise.

 

[Pah]

Could you clarify this?

The article referfenced really does a good job of explaining it. Do you have specific questions?

As a member of Opus Dei, the inspiration for Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code, Ms Kelly is required to extend the “holiness” of the sect’s beliefs into her working life. Opus Dei regards practising homosexuals as serious sinners.

 

[evearael]

The article referfenced really does a good job of explaining it. Do you have specific questions?

I read and fully understand the article, however this phrase:

with the implications of the one she has been despite her personal views

...is throwing me a bit. Does he mean "with the implications of that position"? I am guessing that the word 'been' was added in error, but I do not like to assume that I know what a person meant.

 

[c0da]

Could you clarify this?

Ruth Kelly's new job will be heading the Department for Communities and Local Government, who will be responsible for implementing the Civil Partnership act and the Equality Bill later this year. Her job title is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Minister for Women and Equality. So, according to her job title, she it will be her responsibility to ensure equality for all.

In regards to her personal opinions, she is a member of Opus Dei sect who say homosexuality is sinful, she has not voted in any of the times the House of Commons voted on the Civil Partnerships bill and when asked about whether or not homosexual relationships are sinful or not, she has either refused to comment or responded in a way that does not answer the question fielded to her.

 

[c0da]

...is throwing me a bit. Does he mean "with the implications of that position"? I am guessing that the word 'been' was added in error, but I do not like to assume that I know what a person meant.

Ah, sorry, never noticed that.. it was meant to say..

with the implications of the one she has been appointed to despite her personal views

 

[evearael]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree entirely.

 

[Buttercup]

c0da2006:

The Times reported yesterday that Ms Kelly, 38, had been absent from every important vote on homosexual equality since Labour came to power in 1997.

I'd be curious to know how many times this would be. Do you have any idea?

 

[c0da]

I'd be curious to know how many times this would be. Do you have any idea?

What is clear is that Ms Kelly has not to date been a supporter of gay rights within Parliament.

On 22nd June 1998, she was absent from the Crime and Disorder Bill to reduce the age of consent, as she was on the 1st March 1999 and the 10th February when the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill saught to achieve the same goal (the first having been rejected by the Lords).

On the 24th October 2001, she was absent from the voting on the Relationships (Civil Registration) motion that was the catalyst for introducing the Civil Partnerships bill in Parliament.

On the 29th October 2001, she was absent from the third reading of the Adoption and Children Bill (Programme), to allow gay couples to adopt, as she was on further votes on the same subject on 16th May 2002, 20th May 2002 and the 4th November 2002.

On the 10th March 2003, she was absent from the vote to repeal section 28 which banned local authorities from promoting homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.

On the 12th October 2004, she was absent from the vote on the Civil Partnerships Bill, as she was on the 9th November 2004.

All in all, its hardly a glowing voting record for someone who is now our community's voice at the cabinet table.

"Our community" being the gay community. I found the above information on the news section of the gay community website pinknews.com

So from what that says, she was absent twice for the civil partnership bill, Though I'm sure I read somewhere that it was three times. Well, two or three times anyway.

 

[Pah]

"Our community" being the gay community. I found the above information on the news section of the gay community website pinknews.com

So from what that says, she was absent twice for the civil partnership bill, Though I'm sure I read somewhere that it was three times. Well, two or three times anyway.

I'll wager she, by protocol, would be present for all bills under her portfolio. It's the answers she would give from questions of the loyal opposition that would get her in trouble.

 

[Quiddity]

"Personal" views may not be the entirety or relevancy.

From vatican.ca




IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS

WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR

OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS​

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.


When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.​

And to give further context St Thomas Aquinas provides a useful thought:
'Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.' (Summa Theologica, I-II, 96, 2)
​

 

[mr.guy]

And to give further context St Thomas Aquinas provides a useful thought:
'Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.' (Summa Theologica, I-II, 96, 2)
[/left]

May i ask, vic, how this interacts with my posted excerpt? Within the above context, homosexual marriage doesn't strike me as so grievous as theft and murder; i would almost see this as a rebutal to the catholic stance regarding politicians obligatorily nixing gay marriage. Are we in subtle agreement?

 

[Quiddity]

May i ask, vic, how this interacts with my posted excerpt? Within the above context, homosexual marriage doesn't strike me as so grievous as theft and murder; i would almost see this as a rebutal to the catholic stance regarding politicians obligatorily nixing gay marriage. Are we in subtle agreement?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Can you rephrase your question more clearly please.

 

[Buttercup]

So from what that says, she was absent twice for the civil partnership bill, Though I'm sure I read somewhere that it was three times. Well, two or three times anyway.

I think that she does a great disservice to her political constituents to NOT be present for voting on numerous and obvious occasions. She certainly has the right to vote her preferences. I don't begrudge her that right. But, to be absent shows she is afraid of repercussions either way. And that is not a good witness for her faith OR the other side. It's the chicken's way out.

 

[Mike182]

great, just great :banghead3

so she, as the minister for equality, has a moral obligation to vote against homosexuality....... :banghead3

Tony is losing it, and i resent the fact that he is determined to mess this country up even more on his way down :fight:

 

[Nehustan]

I think she can believe something a sin, not condone, affirm or propagate the action, AND yet think its really not any of her business what people get upto in the Bedroom? Can't she? She certainly doesn't have to justify her personal opinions to homosexuals as they do not need to justify the way they are to her. I guess being absent from votes is an easy compromise for her, and as a minister it will be her job to deliver policy whether or not she voted upon it or has any personal opinions in regard to an issue. I quite often go against my opinions, knowing they are like a***holes....everyone has one...some smell worse than others...when I see something is right despite of my personal prejudice I act on the right over my opinion, quite often, perhaps daily.

 

[ISLAMONLY]

your speech is misleadind .

 

[Nehustan]

Who me Islamonly?