The UK - Barriers on the Road

This week LGBT History Month kicked off. With one of two parties in government being long-time advocates of LGBT rights, 2011 could prove to be the beginning of an important new chapter in LGBT history in the UK.

The governing party that has a history of support for the LGBT movement, the Liberal Democrats, put one of the major issues still facing LGBT communities at the centre stage of their party conference. Marriage and Civil Partnerships.

From a discussion amongst friends as to the challenges faced on this delicate topic came some observations. Particularly the discussion addressed the role that the Church of England plays in the advancement (or lack there-of) of LGBT partnerships.

The argument boils down to a scenario like this:

'Imagine a room. At one end is the door to the kitchen, at the other end is the door to the sitting room. In the middle of this room is an enormous Elephant.

Now over time the residents of this house have developed different feelings towards this elephant. Some like the Elephant, some do not.

Whether acting deliberately or not, those that do not like the Elephant believe it to be, none-the-less, obstructing their access to various liberties. These Elephant opposers are split into two camps as to how best to reduce the obstruction caused by said Elephant.

On the one hand there are those who think that everyone, the Elephant included, would enjoy a lot more liberty & freedom if it was moved outside of the house.

The other group ruin their tidy logic by pointing out with exasperated tones, "IT'S AN ELEPHANT!", in one swift move derailing a wonderful piece of rational thought. "The Elephant", they continue, "has been here so long and is so vast, that to remove it would involve tearing down the structure of the house itself."

This group instead suggests finding a way to reason with the Elephant, to liberalise it and to eventually get it to actively facilitate the processes it previously obstructed.'

The path faced is, I think, something like that. Except of course for exchanging the Elephant for the Church & the house/room for the state. The counter-argument leaves me feeling somewhat deflated. Its logic is sound, a simple observation of the pervasiveness of the church into our lives confirming the mammoth task facing those who would separate church and state.

And I think that brings me to what really gets to me about this counter-argument. It is a practical argument; it is an answer that presents a path of least resistance, a pessimistic appraisal that does not doubt the right of people to a freedom of conscience and liberty of action but accepts difficulty as insurmountable reality.

==========
References:
==========
+ http://www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/