last throes of bigotry: some minorities are more equal than others

The last-ditch attempt to block sexual orientation regulations in the House of Lords suggests we're about to discover that there's no hypocrite quite like one in an ermine-lined mitre. Apparently, some anti-discrimination regulations are unfairer than others - even when the powers which define them are identical in the letter of the law.

First, take a look at The Time's religion correspondent, Ruth Gledhill, who manages to ignore or forget one or two important facts in reporting the plans of a socially-conservative, unrepresentative minority:

Bishops of the Church of England are being urged by their flock to turn out en masse on Wednesday for the Lords debate on equal rights for gay couples  wishing to adopt.

In an open letter sent to all the diocesan bishops of the Church, more than  one fifth of the lay members of the General Synod urge the 26 bishops in the Lords to help to overturn the Sexual Orientation Regulations at its final  vote.

Many peers and MPs from across all parties are unhappy with the way the changes to adoption law have been processed through Parliament.

It's a pretty strange argument, given that the Lords is supposed to the close-reading, attention--to-detail, think-of-the-big-picture chamber and that even without those elevated powers, I'm able to read the Equality Act (2006) where - in plain English - the powers to introduce those regulations are clearly stated in part three of the act.

The Mail repeats this fallacy, turning the last-throes of bigotry into a New Labour vs. Newer Tory bunfight ("Conservative backbenchers will demand a vote in the Commons amid an outcry that Labour has forced through the laws without proper parliamentary debate"). While it's nice that the Conservatives have a free vote on the issue, they still have - well - substantially fewer MP's, and are exceptionally unlikely to pick up support from the Liberal Democrats in any numbers on this issue.

So why didn't anyone - particularly those bishops - protest more vehemently at the time? Two reasons, one small and one large. First of all, there was protest and discussion. Then there was a vote: they lost. Why then, didn't they perhaps protest more loudly?

The main function of the Equality Act (2006) is to outlaw religious discrimination.

In fact - as I've discussed here before - the law authorises nothing more than the possibility of the kinds of protection to gay people already given to those with religious beliefs.

So, when concerned Xstians rally outside Parliament and demand that their bishops block the new regulations, remember that it's actually a rally for prejudice, as for one group to deny another the protections they have gladly claimed for themselves is the living definition of the idea.