What is in Kelvin's Head?

It’s Time for a Vote

18/11/2013

This week we get to a significant point in the campaign for more equal marriage law in Scotland. On Wednesday there will be a vote in the parliament at Holyrood. Whilst there has been a lot of pre-scrutiny of the legislation and a long political process already, this is the first time that members of parliament get to vote on the legislation.

At the moment, it looks as though there will be a commanding victory for those who want to see change. However, nothing should ever be presumed and people are still contacting their Members of Parliament to urge them to be supportive on Wednesday.

Interestingly, the vote itself is indicative of residual prejudice. It is still apparently acceptable to political parties to have their members being seen to deny the rights of gay people. They are having a free vote – that means there will be no political consequences to anyone voting against party policy on this matter.

Several analogies are helpful here – mixed race marriage, suicide/euthanasia, capital punishment and abortion. You see, if anyone was foolish enough to force a vote on whether black people could get married to white people then the parties would make it a whipped vote. (And let us not be silly enough to believe that such discrimination is a fantasy – I’ve members of my congregation who have lived under racist legislation concerning relationships). Should there ever be a vote to restrict the right of a mixed-race couple to marry then political parties would be queuing up firstly to condemn the idea of a vote in the first place and then to ensure that every one of their members voted the right way. There would be no question of a free vote or it being a “conscience issue”. When it comes to the gays, it is suddenly different.

Looking the other way, consider the votes that are traditionally free votes – they tend to be things like whether to allow euthenasia, whether to bring back hanging and what laws should apply to abortion. Making the votes on whether to allow same-sex couples to get hitched free (ie unwhipped) votes lumps this issue right in with those issues.

Now, straight friends, let me ask you. How would you feel if your own relationship (or potential for relationship) was regarded by parliamentary parties as being akin to euthenasia, hanging and the termination of a pregnancy? If you think it is unreasonable for your gay friends to be treated likewise then there are several things you can do. Firstly, if you are in Scotland then get in touch with your MSPs before Wednesday and urge them to support the proposed changes. (It just takes 2 minutes – see here). Remember, the political parties won’t be doing this – there’s just you to remind them. Secondly, look out for the news and keep up with when the next stages of this voting procedure are. Chances are we are looking at a final vote in the early stages of the new year. Thirdly tell others why you are supportive of this change. Fourthly, if you are a blogger, share your views as to why it’s time for change and pass the video below along. For another persective from St Mary’s on why it’s time, check out Beth’s blog.

And fifthly, take a look at this video one more time and enjoy the positive, joyful campaigning that has been characteristic of this struggle. There’s folk in it that you know. Trust me…

equalmarriage, It’s Time, Same Sex Marriage

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

ryan

11/10/2010

Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  11/10/2010
  
  No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.
  
  Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

Reply
ryan

11/10/2010

No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

Reply
Peter

12/10/2010

Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

Reply
Simon

29/10/2010

I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

Reply
Melissa

15/11/2013

About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Reply