Kate Forbes is arguably the front-runner to take over the leadership of the SNP and become Scotland’s First Minister. She is also a homophobe.
Forbes admitted that she would have voted against same-sex marriage had she been able to at the time. To reiterate: if she had had the power, she would have used her legislative powers to prevent same sex couples from having the same rights as straight couples, to prevent them having the same rights under the law. It’s hard to imagine a more cut-and-dried case of homophobia. Accordingly, many people reacted to this by withdrawing their support for her and criticizing her. I think they were right to do so.
The reason we need to rehearse this is the pearl-clutching from various quarters of the press and politicians. Niall Gooch is terrified that, “belief in the code that helped to define our civilisation for centuries, and has only been discarded in the last few decades, is now a serious moral failing which must not be tolerated in our leaders.” Tim Farron moaned that there was a double standard whereby Marxist opinions were welcome in politics (this will come as a surprise to many) but Christian opinions were not. The most unhinged commentary about this has suggested that criticism of Forbes’ homophobia amounts to “hounding protestants out of politics”. Carol Monoghan gave a similar statement to the effect that Forbes was being attacked because of her religious convictions, rather than, say, her stated views on policy issues. The Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch said that she should not have been condemned for her “personal views” (what the hell else are we supposed to condemn politicians for?).
Most Christians do not oppose same-sex marriage, and there are many Christian politicians (Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Theresa May, John McDonnell) who have managed to be devout and committed Christians without it becoming front-page news. Christian lgbt allies are no less Christian than their homophobic counterparts. But “Christian views” simply are policy-relevant if those views include the view that the state ought to intervene to prevent citizens from deviating from a certain view of moral behavior. Now perhaps given that she has said she would not remove the right to equal marriage now that it has been established, her conservative views on gay people are not directly relevant here… except that Forbes has given very shifty answers about current policy issues like conversion therapy, and the gender recognition act. I enthusiastically vote for many leftist Christian politicians, but it is relevant if a political candidate is a Christian fundamentalist who is comfortable with state repression of people she deems immoral.
I could leave it here. The problem with Forbes is not that she is a Christian, but that she unapologetically supports the use of state violence to enforce bigoted views. But I want to go further than this… what if it wasn’t strictly policy-relevant? What if Forbes simply held homophobic views- she believed that gay relations were wrong- but this came without any actual policy commitment? Presumably I have to discount this in my assessment of her. Yes, we might have a difference of opinion on a particular issue, but isn’t this off-limits if it does not relate to concrete policy issues?
I don’t think so. This isn’t a question of personal preference- which drugs one takes, or which football team one supports. It’s a question of personal morality. And I don’t trust a homophobe to make good decisions. Even without explicit commitments to translate your opinions into policy, I cannot be sure that she will pursue a reduction in homophobic bullying and hate crime with the same vigor as I want. When public money is earmarked for spending on health concerns which primarily concern lgbt people, I cannot be sure that she will weigh this against other uses of public money as I want. And this concern is multiplied across all decisions a First Minister might have to make if I believe (and I do) that her homophobia emerges from more generally faulty moral reasoning.
“So you would hound people with certain moral views out of public life?” Would that be so bad? I’m not suggesting any legal prohibitions on homophobes standing for office. I’m not suggesting that homophobes be prevented from doing any other job. I’m saying, very specifically, that I will exercise my free speech rights to criticise and not vote for any open homophobe. And should others do likewise, the net effect is likely to be that nobody who believes that gay people live in sin is likely to end up in a position of power over gay people. I call that a win.
I strongly suspect that those who are horrified by the idea that private homophobia might disqualify a political candidate in the eyes of the electorate do not apply this position more broadly. The principle one should only assess political candidates on the basis of their stated policy positions, and especially not private moral commitments is a strong one. Does anyone really believe that? A political candidate who believes inter-racial marriage is wrong (privately, of course, and pledging never to legislate against it)? Or one who personally believes that sex with children is morally permissible, but pledges not to touch age of consent laws? Outside of moral issues, what about a candidate who believes that the earth is flat, or Elvis is still alive? These candidates should only be judged on issues like their fiscal policy; voters may not allow their decisions to be swayed by knowledge of their private beliefs. Really?
You might object that I am being unfair in comparing thinking gay relationships are immoral to opposing inter-racial marriage, supporting child rape, or believing ridiculous conspiracy theories. I think this is the nub of the issue. Those people who think homophobes must be elected if their other policy positions are popular simply don’t think that homophobia is that bad. They can imagine somebody opposing gay marriage without being a monster, but someone who believes that inter-racial marriage is wrong would be beyond the pale. I simply disagree. I think someone who believes gay marriage is wrong, like someone who believes inter-racial marriage is wrong, has faulty moral reasoning and I don’t ever want them in a position of power over me.
And this is where I land. On balance I am very comfortable ridiculing and condemning bigots in public life. Such people- homophobes, transphobes, racists and misogynists- are not necessarily irredeemably awful; I'm sure they can even be good friends to some and upstanding citizens under the right circumstances, but they should be kept away from political power. The fact that their bigotry is “private” in the sense of them promising not to act upon it, comforts me less than would the knowledge that they couldn’t even if they wanted to.