What is in Kelvin's Head?

Equal Marriage – Questions people haven’t thought of #1

01/08/2012

Here’s one for church folk and any passing ethicist.

Suppose a couple get a civil partnership and they then have a service of blessing in an Episcopal Church – rings, promises, nuptial mass, the whole enchilada, with lovely prayers drawn from the Scottish Episcopal marriage liturgy. (As happens).

Supposing that is all done with and then suddenly the government come along and offer to make those who have civil partnerships married at the stroke of a pen.

What is the moral difference between that and a straight couple getting married in church?

[My interest in this question is to see whether the answers divide between people who say, “There’s no difference, therefore same-sex couples don’t need marriage” and those who say, “There’s no difference, so we should stop shilly-shallying about and wed same-sex couples on the same basis as every else.”]

Furthermore, might couples expect to go through another ceremony to mark this change of status or not?

equal marriage, questions

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