• The Straight Civil Partnerships Question

    The question is this. If civil partnership is opened to straight couples then would someone in such a partnership be eligible to be considered for ordination?

    It is a simple question but carries enormous complexity with it and can help to illuminate where we are in the changing world of legal relationship states.

    I first raised this question in June 2013 in a series of 10 unanswered questions about marriage, most of which remain unanswered even now.

    The thing is, it is entirely possible that some straight couples within the different jurisdictions of the UK may soon achieve their hope to be in civil partnerships. I’m aware of both a legal challenge to the current law that is proceeding and also government consultations coming from both Holyrood and Westminster.

    Now, first of all I need to declare that I’ve always been against extending Civil Partnerships to straight people and thought that the best way forward was to turn all gay couples’ civil partnerships into civil marriages. However that has not happened and so we have a situation where there is a basic inequality – gay couples have the option of either marriage or civil partnerships. And lo, inequality is something that we can’t really tolerate in modern society and so something will need to be done. I can’t really see any alternative to opening civil partnership to straight couples. It seems to me to be only a matter of time and whether I like it or not, that is what will happen.

    So, will someone in a straight relationship who is in a civil partnership be eligible for ordination. In Scotland is it well established that someone in a same-sex relationship in a civil partnership is eligible for ordination.

    This is not merely a rhetorical question. All these kinds of questions affect real people. As individuals and couples try to work out the best thing for their own relationships they are currently left second-guessing how they are going to be perceived by the churches that they may belong to.

    I am aware of straight couples in the church who would be interested in entering a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

    But what’s that about.

    I’ve been opposed to civil partnerships continuing because I saw them as intrinsically products of discrimination. They were a legal confection devised to look like marriage and to onto which gay couples projected familiar signs and symbols to get as near as they could to the gold standard of marriage. However, things have now changed.

    It seems to me that straight couples looking for civil partnerships are clearly saying that they want something that is different to marriage and people like me probably need to get used to the idea that it is just different and not less than marriage now even though it once was.

    The church has not really caught up with modern sexual relations in so many areas. As I listen to people twenty years younger than me their presumption is that serial monogamy is a good thing. They believe in faithfulness. They don’t think cheating is acceptable. However, they also are entering into relationships which they themselves would acknowledge might not last forever. The permanence of marriage is not where they are at and I suspect that the civil partnership option might well appeal to such couples.

    The thing is, marriage carries with it a whole load of presumptions, not least that the end of a marriage is a Very Bad Thing. Divorce still carries stigma with it.

    I suspect that at least some of those seeking civil partnership rather than marriage are choosing to reject the possibility of divorce as they feel that the dissolution of a civil partnership carries fewer negative connotations than being divorced.

    But back to the straight civil partnerships question. Would someone in a same-sex relationship in a civil partnership (presuming that such things will soon become a reality) be able to be ordained in the Scottish Episcopal Church – or the other mainstream churches for that matter?

    If not, why not?

    So far as I can tell, Canon Law is silent on any relationships other than straight married ones.

9 responses to “Faith and Order Board Business – the Anglican Covenant process”

  1. kelvin Avatar

    Tim Daplyn – says that the Indaba process is not a normative process but something which means many things to many people. We have no rules of procedure. Asks if the feedback from Indaba will be incorporated into synod. is is canonical. Indaba was designed for African situation not our own.

  2. kelvin Avatar

    Chris Mayo – history is replete with turning points. We are at a turning point. Covenant process is laiden with emotion. People making up their minds at an early stage. Some see it as taking away our identity. Others see it as essential in a chaning environment. Question today is about moving on the journey. Thinks it would be abbrogation of responsibility to turn down this motion. We have a voice the punches far above our weight to communion.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I speak and ask for material for dioceses to consider which puts a different position to that put by the Anglican Comminion Office.

  3. kelvin Avatar

    Grant Swain speaks in favour of the covenant and says that we would be left out in the cold by refusing to sign. Says that we must be there. But, our strength lies in being undecided. He supports the motion and says that we must sign the Covenant so we can mediate between extremists both in and outside our church. Talk is needed. But we need to be

  4. kelvin Avatar

    Lawrie Scrimgeour – asks since Independence is on the agenda, in this motion we are talking about Independence. Has the faith and order board considered a referendum on the question of the Covenant.

  5. kelvin Avatar

    Anne Pankhurst – notes that the Faith and Order Board say that there could be other processes. She says that we could end up with a Canon which was very difficult to change. She asks for further enlightenment.

  6. kelvin Avatar

    Bishop of Glasgow (Acting Convener) responds: Synod does seem to have the capacity to decide to adopt the process outlined. Responds to my suggestion by saying that he will take those views back to Faith and Order Board. He says that the Process itself takes no view on the Covenant. Synod is the only legally competent body to decided it. A referendum has not been considered and he believes it would not be canonical. Faith and Order Board has considered the posibility of remaining undecided.

  7. kelvin Avatar

    Bishop of Argyll says that Indaba process is a way of giving everyone a voice in a transparent way. We are trying to talk this year and explore the issues in depth. Next year a canonical process. Everyone will see everything that has been said in the Indaba process. The process is no in camera or in committee but a way of giving everyone a voice.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Motion is carried – I think about 12 – 15 people voted against and 1 or 2 abstentions. So, we have a process for considering the Covenant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Hold the Front Page

    The Herald has a helpful story today (page 3, actually) about the movement that is building in Scotland for Equal Marriage. Equal Marriage means opening up marriage to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. It also means that anyone who can currently conduct weddings should be able to conduct weddings on the…

  • Can you help me find a Vice-Provost?

    I’m currently looking for someone to come and work at St Mary’s as Vice-Provost. There is an advert in the Church Times today for the second week advertising the post. The vacancy was circulated around the Scottish Episcopal Church a couple of week’s ago. The cathedral website has full details of the post. So, we’ve…

  • C of E Border Crossing

    Must admit I’m still grumpety about the C of E negotiating with the C of S without so much as a by your leave towards the Scottish Episcopal Church. I know that promises have been given that we will have tripartite conversations on things in the future, but that still does not excuse this border-crossing…

  • tae see oorsels as ithers see us

    Read Ruth Wishart’s piece in the Herald and then have a think about how the churches common capitulation to the narrowest of narrow minds regarding both gender and sexuality affects the greater mission of the whole.