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

7 responses to “C of E Border Crossing”

Eamonn

15/07/2010

I’m fizzing too! It’s not helped, either, by those of our own members who refer to us as ‘the English Church’.

Reply
agatha

15/07/2010

That is completely outrageous! Maybe the SEC should have talks with the Muslims and then we could declare Fatwas.

Or is this the CoE’s off the wall attempt to solve the women bishops/gay bishops question by moving to nae bishops?

Reply
FrPaulB

16/07/2010

As an English Anglican I’m pretty embarrassed. So much for the “Anglican Communion” we’re supposed to be busy preserving by setting up covenants and writing letters.

Reply
Martin Ritchie

16/07/2010

Well, maybe this is a good thing for the SEC? At least we are not being lumped in as “Church of England” which is perhaps a step forward. The future for “state” churches in the UK seems to me to be shaky to say the least, so perhaps it’s to the benefit of the SEC to not be part of that! It is rather surprising that there is no mention of the SEC in the “history” part of the paper, other than a cursory reference to the continuing episcopalian element after 1690. Maybe all this means that we should feel completely free to reject the Anglican covenant as totally irrelevant and a hindrance to the mission of the SEC?

Reply
fr dougal

16/07/2010

I’m heading for the West Port to saddle up! Bring back Clavers and the dragoons!

Reply
John Lindsay

21/07/2010

The CofE CofS meetings have been going on for a very long time as two national churches. The recent report is actually designed to include the SEC – check facts with ICRC or read the report itself!

Reply
kelvin

21/07/2010

Hi John, nice to hear from you.

I’ve read the report and was not impressed by it. I suppose I am glad that the SEC is to be included next time, something that I acknowledged above that was to happen.

I’m entirely unimpressed with the C of E appointing one of their bishops as an emissary to the C of S though. Very much border crossing. Very inappropriate.

Reply