At last, Dr Carey comes out and exposes himself in a poor light

[23/07/98 - David Aaronovitch - Web - http://www.independent.co.uk/]

As I write this, I do not know whether the House of Lords has voted down the Government's Crime and Disorder Bill, and - if they have - whether they have forced the withdrawal of the section equalising the gay male and heterosexual ages of consent. 
But I do know that if either the Bill itself is delayed, or the clause is lost, then we have - above all - the Archbishop of Canterbury to thank for it. For, as Anglican bishops from all over the globe - from Sudan to Pakistan - came together at Lambeth to discuss their church and their world, the Archbishop was appearing in print to fulminate against lowering the gay age of consent. 

At least, that is what I think he was doing. It is also what the sub-editors on The Times thought he was doing, giving his article (appearing in place of Alan Coren's humorous column) the sub-heading "George Carey says only a sick society allows gay sex at 16". My hesitation is due to the piece being constructed out of those same gnomic utterances that obfuscated the subject of the ordination of women for so long. 

What are we to make of this sentence, that the criminal law affecting human sexual relationships "needs to be looked at in the context of an overall vision of what we want a morally healthy society to look like"? Does this mean, you may wonder, that we cannot deal with the age of consent until we have decided on how to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, or whether we should be citizens or subjects? Or are these not "moral" issues? 

Or try this: "I have been encouraged," writes the Archbishop, "by the fact that so many people inside and outside Parliament have welcomed the emphasis we have placed on the need for a sustainable moral framework - that is, one based on traditional Christian principles." 

Read that sentence again and admire. First, you might expect Dr Carey's encouragement to be dissipated somewhat by the fact that the elected chamber of Parliament voted overwhelmingly, on a free vote, for reform of the age of consent. Second, what on earth is a "sustainable" moral framework? Does that merely mean an old moral framework? 

And why base it on Christian principles? Above all, why base it on "traditional" Christian principles? Dr Carey, I am not a Christian, but I too have strong moral principles. They include tolerance, respect for others, concern for the weak and a desire for truth. I may be a flawed vehicle for such principles, but there they are. 

And they are very different from the principles of some of those whose support Dr Carey is so proud of. I know, because I too have received letters from them. Couched in tones of sorrow rather than anger, and argued with sophistry and disguised illogic, they still amount to the same illiberal proposition: homosexuality is aberrant, unhealthy and damaging, and should be discouraged by law. That's it. 

Carey's position, when cleared of all the pompous penumbra, concurs with this view. He thinks that the equalisation of the age of consent will mean that boys of 16 and 17 will become prey to the wiles of older men and, as a consequence, will be seduced into a lifetime of gayness when - otherwise - they might have grown up to be decent, God-fearing heterosexuals. 

It ain't so, George. But that's not really the point. I think that homosexuality is, per se, neither better nor worse than heterosexuality - just as Polynesians are no better than, say, Madagascans. I would not mind if any or all of my daughters became lesbians, as long as they led happy, fulfilled lives - period. Consequently I feel little need to stop men, who want to, shagging each other like sheep-dogs on a spring day. 

Them's me views. OK. If I am so wonderfully tolerant, then why am I being incredibly beastly to the Bish? He is, after all, just a man with a mitre with a view. And he is entitled to his opinion, which is (I freely admit) no less valid than mine. But this is not just about opinion. For Dr Carey has power. He is the top man in a big institution, and wields considerable influence. By virtue of its position as the established church, no fewer than 26 "Lords Spiritual" sit beside the Woolsack in the House of Lords. And we criticise the Irish for hanging on archaically to their history! 

There are no rabbis representing Judaism in the Lords, no Hindus, no Muslims, no Sikhs, no Catholics, no Methodists, no Zoroastrians, no Humanists, no Druids - just 26 representatives of one sect of one religion sitting among the peers, voting on the age at which your teenage son and mine can play willies with the bloke next door. 

Until recently, I have treated those who campaign for the disestablishment of the Church of England with the same condescension that I have lavished upon the purchasers of Classic Cars, or What Caravanning. I salute their enthusiasm, while wondering about their priorities and avoiding their company. Besides, I have always quite liked the good old C of E and seen it as a protection against the zealots and the theocrats. Prone to self-doubt and to constant self-re-examination, I have appreciated its slow tolerance. So, I think, have its many gay members. They know that for years the church provided a refuge for gay men, many of whom were ordained and - childless and committed - part of the backbone of the church. 

Not that a good case cannot be made out against all religion; it's just that no one wants it banned. As Earl Russell said yesterday: "The Archbishop of Canterbury clearly dislikes homosexuality, just as my father [Bertrand Russell] disliked Christianity. But much as my father would dearly have loved to prevent its teaching, he knew that it was wrong to do so." 

And, at the moment, that's the difference. Archbishop Carey has allied himself with the forces of intolerance and reaction, and is using his power as a leader of the established church to assist an unelected group of backwoodspersons to frustrate the decisions of the elected chamber, and to keep sexual relationships for men between 16 and 18 criminalised. 

He hides the nature of his objection behind pomposity and presumption. Consider this paragraph from The Times. "I have made it clear to ministers," writes Dr Carey, "that I would have preferred the age of consent to be addressed in the context of a broader review." Who does he think he is? Derek Draper? Well, I've made it clear to ministers that I would prefer Dr Carey's gizzards sauted in olive oil and served at a Downing Street soiree. 

Many liberals have not been fans of Peter Tatchell, though he is as doughty a fighter as any on the other side. But how can we now argue against the outing of senior members of the Church of England, on the basis that their sexuality is their own business? No, by God, let's have them outed. And then let's chuck them out. For we liberals now know the truth: the House of Lords must go in its present form as soon as possible, and the bishops of this one church, raised by tyrants to pontificate over us, must go too. We should thank the Archbishop for at last letting the scales drop from our eyes