What is in Kelvin's Head?

My own response to the government

19/03/2013

Phew, just finished writing my own response to the current round of consultation on changes to marriage law in Scotland.

This one is not about the principle of introducing marriage for same-sex couples but about how such proposals will be implemented.

It is more complex than you think because marriage law is more complex than you think!

Anyway, here is my response, if anyone is interested:

Consultation response Kelvin Holdsworth – March 2013

To save you time wading through it, here’s the most interesting thing I’ve said:

I believe that if someone is authorised to conduct a straight coupleâ€™s marriage then they should automatically be authorised to conduct marriages of same-sex couples. The law should apply equally to people and what has been proposed is not equality. For these reasons, I do not support the current proposals for determining who can and who can not conduct the marriage of a same-sex couple.

If churches wish to limit the ability of a celebrant to conduct a marriage then they should continue to be able to do that through their own internal disciplinary procedure.

I look forward to being able to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples one day in my congregation (St Maryâ€™s Cathedral, Glasgow). I note with interest that once the state licenses marriages for same-sex couples, my own denomination (The Scottish Episcopal Church) will automatically have an authorised liturgy for blessing such couples â€“ the service of Benediction, which is explicitly authorised in Canon Law for use with couples whose marriage is legal but which has not been performed according to the rites of the church.

The consultation closes on Wednesday. More details here:
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/family-law/marriagebill

LGBT, marriage, same-sex couples

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