Tony Blair Says Full Gay Equality Is Coming to America -- and Clashes With the Pope
Tony Blair's decade in power is seared with disappointments, but there is one cool, consistent success-story that ran through his time in power: the rapid advance of gay rights. If we had known in 1997 we would achieve full legal equality for gay people in Britain - including de facto gay marriage, military service, and a ban on discrimination - so fast and with so little fuss, we would have been startled. When I interviewed the former Prime Minister about gay rights last month to mark the 15th anniversary of Attitude, Britain's best-selling gay magazine, I glimpsed his very best side - and the strange, gaping blind spots that did so much harm to his record, and the world.
Leaning forward, Blair offers a passionate defense of the equality of gay people. He talks about how, from his schooldays, he had gay friends who were terrified to come out, and how the homophobia of the Conservative Party represented "everything I wanted to change" about Britain. He talks about how the endless charge of political correctness is used by "reactionary forces" as "a cover by people arguing against basic equality. Equality isn't political correctness, it's just justice." He says with a smile that delivering on it was one of his "proudest achievements."
And he transfers this success into an almost Messianic optimism about the future. He says he opposes Proposition 8 and is confident the US will follow Britain and accept gay marriage soon. Even when it comes to evangelical Christians, he says, "I think there is a generational shift that is happening there. If you talk to the older generation, yes, you will still get a lot of pushback, and parts of the Bible quoted, and so on. But actually, if you look at the younger generation of evangelicals, this is increasingly for them something that they wish to be out of - at least in terms of having their position confined to being anti-gay."
As probably the most high-profile pro-gay religious person in the world, he says he is "optimistic" that all religions - including Islam - can go through "a process of Reformation" that will end with them accepting openly gay people and their partners. They will see they have to "treat religious thought and even religious texts as themselves capable of evolution over time. You have to understand the context and the society in which they were expressed. So, when people quote the passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality, I say to them - if you read the whole of the Old Testament and took everything that was there in a literal way, as being what God and religion is about, you'd have some pretty tough policies across the whole of the piece."
It is part of the "mission" of his Faith Foundation, he says, to move religion away from this anti-gay literalism and towards pro-gay "evolution."
He doesn't hide his disagreement with the anti-gay bile of the leader of his own faith, the Pope. He says "again, there is a huge generational difference here" and that "if you went and asked the [ordinary Catholic] congregation, I think you'd find that their faith is not to be found in those types of entrenched attitudes." The fight for gay equality was a rare occasion when Blair took on the right. I ask him if he wishes he had done it more, and he looks thoughtful. "It depends on the issue. But yes." What issues? He does his diplomatic smile. "I'd better not say."
And yet, and yet... I soon crash into the blind-spot that sent his Premiership spinning to an early death. I ask him if he ever discussed his pro-gay views with George W. Bush. "No, I can't say I did. I mean, here's an interesting thing. I honestly haven't the faintest idea of how he voted on any of these things, but I'd be quite surprised if he personally were prejudiced."
It's a bizarre answer. Of course he knows what George Bush did to oppose gay equality - he reads the newspapers. Why not just say he disagrees? Why lie - and add the word "honestly" as you do it? Why actually defend a man whose views on gay people are so obnoxious, and so opposite to his own? What does it matter what he "personally" believes, when he politically opposes gay rights?
Wrapped into this little interview was the paradox - and the tragedy - of Tony Blair. When he chose to fight on liberal issues, he was passionate, and brilliant. But he did it only a few times - and he willingly suspended these, his most impressive and admirable instincts, to embark on a bloody barn-dance with the worst President in living memory. Why?
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here or here.
Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage, Overrides Governor's Veto
BBC NEWS | Politics | Blair questions Papal gay policy
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Blair questions Papal gay policy
Tony Blair’s gay speech in full - from Pink News - all the latest ...
Tony Blair: `Within my milieu, being gay was not a problem ...
YouTube - george bush and tony blair- gay bar
Tony Blair tells the Pope: you're wrong on homosexuality -Times Online
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Forget Leviticus.
Jesus nowhere mentions the subject of homosexuality and Paul calls for those who divorce to be cast out of the church, that, aside from the fact he took a very dim view of marriage in general and regarded it as a distant second best to the morally superior state of celibacy. Face it - the Bible presents a very thin reed upon which to hang the largely modern Christian obsession with homosexuality. Even Dante, the poet par excellence of the most Christian age in Western civilization, placed homosexuality in the same category of minor sins as gluttony - far worse was the heterosexual sin of adultery.
Jesus is God. The Bible is the inspired word of God, including the epistles of Paul. The fact that Jesus is not directly quoted in the Bible regarding homosexuality does not mean He condones it. The Bible doesn't quote Him as condemning pedophilia, but I don't think any rational person would use that as the basis for saying pedophilia is normal and acceptable behavior.
You're correct that homosexuality is, as C.S. Lewis described it, a garden variety sin. Being homosexual does not preclude one from being saved...re
moral equivalency???You must be one bible-thumpin' bumpkin...
better yet...forg
Can't you figure out for yourself whether homosexuality is wrong or not? Why do you have to read some ancient book?
Do you need to read a book to decide if murder, theft, lying, adultery or assault are bad things?
Does the bible give a reason why homosexuality is bad? I'm not talking about reasons that essentially say "just because". (For example, if the bible says it's an "abomination", that doesn't give us a reason because we obviously need to know what makes it an abomination. And if the bible says that God thinks it's wrong, then we obviously need to know why God thinks it's wrong.)
What is the basis for your perceptions of good and evil / right and wrong? Do you think such value judgments are the result of biological evolution? Why do you believe lying is wrong? Why do you believe adultery is wrong?
Non-believers, and even some believers, want to substitute their value judgments for those of God. I have no problem with accepting the Word of God as the basis for what I believe is right and wrong.
Christians believe that everyone is a sinner...d
In answer to your question: Blair did it for power and because he did as he was told. Blair is a tool of the elite who seek to enslave people. It's that simple. Blair gets to live a good life at the expense of the millions that he destroys.
Mr. Blair was seriously misguided siding with Bush on Iraq. He is completely correct on the pope's vision of homosexuality. The church's position on homosexuality and birth control derive from the same inherent belief about the absoluteness of life. Marriage is for procreating and birth control is bad because it inferes with the creation of life. Under this premiss homosexuality violates the former through biology. There is little discussed about homosexuality in the bible and if it were truly an abomination why is not the eleventh commandment. I think religion needs to be more honest and forthcoming that they just don't have all the answers and let people deal with God in their own way.
Funny he didn't come out with this while still in office.
Wow--and Blair only recently completed his conversion to Catholicism. Well, he cannot claim he didn't know the Church's stance on homosexuality, whatever happens outside the Vatican...
The biggest crime is when someone suppresses the human rights of a group of people. The pope is just such a criminal. Charges should be filed in a world court and he should be brought to justice.
HAha. Pretty strong demands from someone with the screen name, "TryToBeFl
Enlighten us as the level of flexibility that should be required when dealing with someone who is actively trying to oppress a group of human beings for the crime of being different than they are?
On what planet should those that preach tolerance abide the completely and utterly intolerant?
Yes He will be allowed communion while lots of Catholic peons would be kicked out for less.
That Church is all about money and control.
Well, if he had an abortion he would probably be excommunicated.
As a gay man with a foreign partner, to me this whole gay marriage discussion and civil union topic comes down to the basic fact that in either case, a civil union or state-acknowledges gay marriage, the two people involved are still denied the rights of any other married couple because these marriages and unions are not recognized at a federal level.
To simplify - my partner of many years is from France. Even if we were to get married in Connecticut or have a civil union in any state, since it is not federally recognized, if he were to lose his job, he has two weeks to get back to France and out of the US. If I die, he does not get my remaining social security money. And we pay a fortune to set things up so that if I die he gets my house, as it will cost me almost $45,000 to add his name to the deed (for a straight couple, it is a free result of getting married)
I keep hearing people talk about the civil unions and domestic partnerships and they say it is the same. Even separate but equal. How come there is never discussion about how truly unequal these things are to marriage?
A practical problem with the separate category of civil unions is that it essentially forces gay people in such unions to declare on just about any application - for a job, a loan, to be admitted to a school, etc. - that they are gay or lie and check single and forgo any benefits to which they are entitled. I can think of several jobs I've held and even one school I attended where my application would probably have gone right in the trash had it been known I was gay.
Insightful point. Something much of American discourse lacks.
why do they wait till they get out of office to be such champions of the people...C
you shoulda done somethin while in office, Tone
You've noticed that also.
Out of office, they don't have a political price to pay.
Actually, what Blair says about Bush isn't entirely off the mark. I have no love for Bush for countless reasons but, contrary to the popular assumption, he is not at all prejudiced against gays. Both he and Laura have long had openly gay friends, whom they fully respect. Furthermore, he did nothing to turn back the advances of gay rights, if for no other reason than that that work had been done for him by the ever slick and slippery Bill Clinton (DADT and DOMA) . Of course, Bush didn't advance gay rights either and never would have. He knew better than his father never to anger the Republican base. Posted by a gay Democrat.
This is George W. Bush you are referring to? I may be incorrect, but I was under the assumption that the man had no use for gay people. He gay-baited the conservative base into flocking to the polls for him in 2002 and 2004 by putting anti-gay initiatives on the ballot. He pushed for an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
George W. Bush is no friend to the gay community.
Bush has no integrity on the issue, that's for sure. I was simply trying to point out that on a personal level he bears no animosity towards gay people - not that that matters from a political point of view. Of course you're right that the Republican party has used homophobia to gin up votes. Bush probably wouldn't have won Ohio in 2004 without the amendment on the ballot to outlaw gay marriage and therewith the election. Like all Republicans he's complicit in his party's cynical and often hypocritical homophobia but I think it's important that the party's foot soldiers know that in good part they're being deceived by leaders who are just manipulating them and don't actually share their fears of gay people.
Go Tony...
http://pit
England does not have same-sex marriage. Maybe Tony should start there first.
I was not aware of this. I actually thought they did. In fact, a friend of a friend who moved there to be with her British partner said "it was easier to be a married couple there".
This article talks about "de facto gay marriage" in Britain. What does that mean? What exactly is British law in this regard?
They have "civil partnerships" -- it's sort of like civil unions in Vermont. Technically all the rights, but you're not allowed to use the word "marriage" (or "divorce," for that matter). The marriage that dare not speak its name.
But separate is never equal, as several courts (MA, CA, CT) have found. And a majority of VT legislators agree!
'Bout time, I say!
I've had gay friends, family members, and acquaintances in every school, job, and recreation activity, and party during my life. It's time to accept PEOPLE....
Iowa was a great success BUT we still have a long way to go. This is what's going on in my state and I'm so disappoint
http://www
The problem with the feel good notion of ‘religion evolving’ is that it has often ‘evolved’ in the past. For instance, in the days of Roman persecution, the Christian Church looked down on things like slavery, torture, and some even questioned military service. By the Middle Ages, guess what? It had ‘evolved.’ Though slavery would be officially condemned through those ages, by the discovery of the Western Hemisphere by Europeans, and the embracing of slavery for economic gains, guess what some in the Church did? They ‘evolved.’ When, in the 19th century, scientists and thinkers began forming ideas of evolution and modern racial theory based on some humans being more ‘evolved’ than others, guess what some Christian leaders did? They ‘evolved’, and changed their old teachings to embrace the new (like those in Germany - to the infamy of their names). The problem is, we often condemn religion in the past for doing just what we want it to do today. Which really means we see ourselves as the source of truth, Truly True Truth, and everything else must conform to what we think is the source and summit of all truth - that is, us. Learn from history, don’t ignore it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
