• It’s Time for a Vote

    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…

9 responses to “More on the election”

  1. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    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?

  2. ryan Avatar

    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.

  3. Tim Avatar

    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.

  4. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

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

  5. MurielD Avatar
    MurielD

    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.

  6. Jackie Avatar

    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.

  7. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    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?

  8. Roddy Avatar
    Roddy

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

  9. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Collecting things

    Mother Ruth wrote movingly recently on the collection of decrepit hoovers that her congregation has amassed over the years. It is a subject dear to my heart. It occurred to me this morning during the coldest Diocesan Council meeting in all of Christendom, that we collect other things like this too. Take mission plans, for…

  • Daily Service – last Monday

    Oops, nearly forgot to give a link to the BBC Daily Service last Monday. +David was doing it with Scotland’s Most Broadcast Choir. It can be heard on the listen again thingy here until Sunday.

  • Episcopalian Gossip

    I returned to work yesterday to find the treasurer in very excitable mood. He had, he assured me, very good news. Rearranging the words “a”, “very”,”legacy” and “big” into a well known phrase or saying in my mind, I asked him what it was. “A mistress,” he replied, clearly determined both to get my attention…

  • Back from Sweden

    I’ve been away for the weekend to Sweden to our companion diocese of Gothenburg. It was rather frustrating to be away from all the political news this weekend. You go away for the weekend and come back to political turmoil. Honestly, you can’t turn your back for a moment. Anyway, this democrat thinks there is…