Earlier this week when it was fresh and new, I signed the petition which is being presented to the Scottish Parliament which urges the Scottish Government to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 to allow two persons of the same sex to register a civil marriage and a religious marriage if the relevant religious body consents.
It is something which directly affects my ministry. The existance of Civil Partnerships has been a big step forward. They have given a whole new set of images to society of what gay people are like. (Before them, the images that were fixed in the public mind were all about gay people’s supposed “lifestyle” of clubbing, drugs and promiscuity – things that straight people apparently don’t indulge in).
However, Civil Partnership is not Marriage and that inequality is discrimination.
Its important – I’ve had people approach me asking me whether I can do a legal ceremony for them and I’ve had to say that though I’d like to, the law doesn’t allow me to do so. Indeed, the current law specifically forbids people from registering Civil Partnerships in church or using any religious expression in their legal ceremony. What that does is imply that gay people can never be as holy as straight people. And the ugly consequences of that kind of prejudice are visible in all kinds of places, not least in the suicide statistics of young men.
There is going to be opposition to the campaign for Equal Marriage. You can see the so called Christian Institute gearing up for battle here. Beware, that link contains their usual lies – including “Family campaigners have warned that any such change would undermine the status of marriage.” I disagree with that. It is a silly argument to make to suggest that people are attempting to erode something valuable simply by asking to have access to it. It seems to me that the opposite is true. By asking for equality, gay people are giving a rather high status to married life.
Anyway, one can sign the petition online on the Scottish Parliament’s dedicated website. It only takes a minute or two. I note with some satisfaction that there are a good proportion of the signatures on it whom I recognise as people connected with St Mary’s. There is room for plenty more names though.
[Note that right as of this moment, the Scottish Parliament’s website seems to be having its troubles – hopefully it will be fixed later in the day]
…. another time when I hate that I can’t vote here.
(still, with the inauguration only 4 days away, my frustration is mitigated)
Thanks for the link, Kelvin. I didn’t realise the petition existed! (that’s what comes of having one’s head buried in books) I agree this is an important step forward and will spread the news!
Kimberly – it is possible for anyone in the world to sign the petition. Although you are not a voter, you are affected by it as someone who lives in Scotland who might well be asked to conduct such a marriage. I see no reason why you should not sign it.
I made a decision way back when that I would keep my name off all petitions until such time as I had permanent residency. Foolish, I suspect, but I’m so close now…
Fair enough – hopefully it will not be long.
The link is playing up again (or still), it seems. Will try again later.
What would happen if a couple later divorce (civil) but their religion refuses to recognize the divorce. Would they still be legally religiously married?
Different denominations (and indeed congregations) make different responses to divorce.
In the Scottish Episcopal Church, clergy can, with the bishop’s permission, marry people in church who have been married before. We regularly do so.
We make no distinction in cannon law between a former marriage in church and a former marriage conducted in a registry office. Marriage is marriage.
Should the state allow churches to conduct same-sex marriages, the same rules would apply to everyone.
A number of years ago, I stood up and asked at General Synod whether the provisions which we put in place to ensure that partners had some buffer of housing provision if a clergy person divorces and leaves the ministry also would apply to gay couples who had registered a Civil Partnership. I was assured that it would. I was congratulated by one of the bishops afterwards with the words, “Well done, Kelvin. You’ve managed to get the church to agree to gay divorce before you’ve got it to agree to accept gay marriage.”
Before them, the images that were fixed in the public mind were all about gay people’s supposed “lifestyle” of clubbing, drugs and promiscuity
I hope, if this goes through, that it won’t mean that you’ll stop attending The Swingin’ Sporran Discotheque and Grill. Your moves on the dance floor are legendary and would be greatly missed.
I know.
Here is the evidence.
I sympathise, but I hesitate. I would be much happier signing a petition to change the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to remove the prohibition on civil partnerships being solemnised in a religious building, and to accord clergy the status of ‘approved celebrants’ in the terms of the 1977 Marriage Act.
This is because I have a difficulty about discarding the distinction between civil partnerships and marriage. They share many characteristics, save one: the fact that marriage, as well as fostering love, mutual support and so forth, is also open to the procreation and nurturing of children. I’m aware that some couples either cannot or do not wish to have children, and that many gay couples adopt.
But if you’ve looked into the eyes of a child who is flesh of your flesh and bone of your bone, you know that you are a co-creator with God, and you have glimpsed something of the awesome, unfathomable mystery of Being. No blurring of the terminology, or no legislative measures can possibly change that.
I realise that this comment will be unwelcome, but that is where I am now. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.