What is in Kelvin's Head?

A simple question about Civil Partnerships

01/06/2015

Next week at General Synod we have the following motion being presented.
Motion 24:
That this Synod instruct the Faith and Order Board to instruct the Committee on Canons to prepare canonical material to enable the registration of Civil Partnerships to be undertaken in the Scottish Episcopal Church, so that a first reading of such canonical material can be considered by General Synod 2016.

Now, the Scottish Government has indicated very clearly that it is going to consult on whether to open Civil Partnerships to straight couples.
Can anyone tell me whether or not, if we agree to this motion at General Synod we will also be agreeing to the preparation of Canonical material which could potentially open the way to straight couples being able to register Civil Partnerships in church?

I may have more questions and comments about this in due course. First of all though, I want to know more about this. Is the intention that this could lead to religious Civil Partnership for straight couples becoming a possibility in Scottish Episcopal Churches or not? More generally speaking, what would be the implications of passing this motion?
Comments please.

church, Civil Partnerships

9 responses to “More on the election”

fr dougal

20/01/2010

What arrant rot these people peddle. Can we excommunicate their adherents on grounds of un-Christian stupidity? Would “You are too stupid to be an Episcopalian” be acceptable in Canon Law?

Reply
ryan

20/01/2010

A timely and usefully corrective post, kelvin. I’ve had run ins with CI fans who merely think that *asserting* that the ‘Christian’ Institute is honest and displays integrity is some sort of compelling argument. If you search their site for “Scottish Episcopal Church” you’ll find an equally (and characteristically) dishonest story on +David and the SEC’s purported ‘split’ on gay clergy

At the risk of running afoul of Godwin’s law, the ‘Christian’ Institute pretending like their ugly ideological team didn’t *lose* the Section 28 debate reminds me, not in a good way, of Neo-Nazis petitioning the UN to refight the Battle of Stalingrad.

Reply
Tim

20/01/2010

That’ll be the SEC *two* steps ahead of the CoE and assorted story-fabricating journalists, then: “not only CAN we have women bishops, we don’t actually HAVE to!”, which is at least a balanced attitude.

Reply
David | Dah•veed

20/01/2010

Perhaps Father D, that would be insulting to stupid folks!

Reply
MurielD

20/01/2010

The national press and television channels should be ashamed of themselves. They preferred to “headline” the fact that a woman priest failed to become the UK’s first woman bishop rather than straightaway honour the man who was duly elected.
It was only on reading further down the news item that we learned that the Very Rev. Dr. Gregor Duncan had been duly elected.
That was not fair to either of them.

Reply
Jackie

20/01/2010

The Radio 4 news headline on the day was similar, and the first 3 linked articles on your link (from the Telegraph, Reuters and the Scotsman) are also similar. I must confess to having words with the radio at the time.

Reply
Martin Ritchie

21/01/2010

Something I find irritating about press coverage is the way that it has portrayed Alison Peden as “bidding” or campaigning to become bishop of Glasgow. That seems to misrepresent the process and what leadership in the church is all about. I guess it’s probably impossible to convey the subtleties of episcopal leadership in a wider culture dominated by careerist politics? Any thoughts?

Reply
Roddy

21/01/2010

The Christian (sic) Institute are a bunch of tw*ts. Treat them with the indifference and disdain they deserve.

Reply
David | Dah•veed

22/01/2010

It is very disconcerting to come here and see an ad for Sarah Palin running down the lefthand side of the page!

Reply