• Husbands and Wifes

    flag over castro

    Yesterday I heard the news that the House of Lords has given a third reading to the new legislation which will allow gay couples to get married in England and Wales. It should get the nod from the House of Commons today and then go to the Queen for Royal Assent by the end of the week. The first marriages under this legislation will take place sometime next year once registrars have been re-trained and new forms printed.

    I expect we will have a period where all kinds of other institutions will have to re-write their forms and policies too. One can imagine married same-sex couples getting grumpy when they try to fill in an insurance form or try to join a social network and they are offered wife or husband when they want to be offered a box to tick for the opposite.

    It is only fairly recently that I’ve heard same-sex couples who were married speaking freely of their husband or wife. We have one same-sex couple connected to St Mary’s who are married, having been hitched in South Africa. When I was in Canada and the USA I was hearing the use of husband by some married gay men and wife by some of the lesbian couples I met. It was by no means universal but it was becoming common and rather ordinary though no doubt that takes a little time.

    Part of me remembers that I once was against same-sex marriage and that it was partly because I thought that gender-neutrality had something to offer. Were gay couples not leading the world by insisting on having partners rather than the somewhat possessive alternative nouns?

    I think I was wrong about that. What was needed was equality and some people need to use just such possessive language to describe their relationships in the same way that straight married couples sometimes reject it and use the partner language.

    Inevitably there is now going to be a period of reflection and consultation whilst the government tries to decide whether to open Civil Partnership up to straight couples. I expect that will happen though I’m not that keen. It seems to me that the right way forward was simply to incorporate Civil Partnership with Civil Marriage. However, I suspect that though I’ve been on the winning side of most arguments about changes in marriage law, that is not one that I’m likely to win now.

    Very many churches have proclaimed themselves to be against same-sex marriage as it will somehow undermine and threaten the institution of marriage itself.

    I don’t think that is true. I do think that retaining Civil Partnership and opening it up to straight couples does undermine the institution of marriage though. Had the churches engaged in these arguments in more constructive ways than most of them did then they might have had an influence which strengthened marriage. Instead, I suspect that in the long term they will have weakened it.

    Still, we’ll not worry about that today. We will simply fly a rainbow flag in celebration for all those soon to be married couples in England and Wales. And recognise that the last battles still have to be won in Scotland.

    Alleluia for England!

    And once more unto the breach.

10 responses to “Advertise, advertise, advertise!”

  1. Matt Hanson Avatar

    Good writing. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed my Google News Reader..

    Matt Hanson

  2. Eamonn Avatar
    Eamonn

    How naff can you get? It was worth listening to a professional advertiser’s comments on the Lichfield advert on the Sunday programme on Radio 4.

  3. Gavin Drake Avatar

    Adverts that make people in the church feel comfortable are likely to be completely irrelevant to people outside the church. As the instigator and creator of the Lichfield football adverts campaign I stand by them – they did what we wanted them to do. We had a target and we achieved that target. The professional advertising chap on Radio Four was anti the adverts; but he was also anti the entire Christian message as a self-proclaimed militant atheist. His best effort? “Life” – which is a campaign he created for the Billy Graham missions 20 years ago. Hardly creative (now, 20 years on) nor fresh. His message was that the church should get rid of Jesus, God and all the “after life” stuff and concentrate on making people feel good now.

    One final thought, in this blog entry aren’t you demonstrating the Christian Christmas grumpetyness which you appear to be criticising in others?

  4. kelvin Avatar

    Thanks for your comments Gavin.

    You are quite right about my grumpityness though I was not particularly being critical of it in others. Indeed, being able to rely on other people’s grumpityness is one of the things which has ensured a lot of exposure for the CAN ads, for example, the Bad Hair Day campaign and the Meek, Mild As If one. It was the (mock?) outrage of the christian community that got those ads talked about.

    I’m a fan of what the CAN do, which I perhaps did not make clear in the above blog entry.

    I’d be interested to know what the target was and how achieving it was measured.

    I have to confess to feeling embarrassed by the Lichfield ad but then of course, it was not aimed at me.

    I also commented about past CAN campaigns here and here.

  5. Kennedy Avatar
    Kennedy

    Having listened to the CAN adverts, I am left asking what the message was and who was the target audience? If the intention was to familiarise the audience with the characters and motifs from the Christmas story then OK, but there is more that could be said in the time.

    You’ll permit me a small plug for the stuff that GRF produce.

    Have a listen:

    http://smallvoice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/01-ms-christianity.mp3

    Yes, this uses the style of the M&S ads but I think that it communicates something about the Christian message and in a form that a non-church person could relate to.

    The judges at the Jerusalem Awards seemed to like it as they awarded it the premier award in the ‘Shorts’ category at their awards ceremony last week.

    If you are looking for creative audio to use in churches or schools then have a look at http://www.audiopot.org.

    Kennedy

  6. kelvin Avatar

    Thanks Kennedy. I like the M and S Ad. Very clever. I always like hearing Albatross (the music underneath) because it reminds me of someone I knew a long time ago who used to play it (on large pipe organs) during communion.

    One of the drawbacks of the ads that I was speaking about above is that they all depend on knowing the Christian story. That is perhaps legitimate in a Back to Church Sunday as it is presumably aimed at folk who have gone away knowing something or other.

    The line about the penalty does kind of imply that substitutionary atonement is what we believe though.

    The Lichfield ad certainly got a lot of coverage and if that was the intention, it succeeded.

  7. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    I must admit I found the racing advert amusing. The football ones leave me cold. Aside from issue about inclusivity and dubious theology, I think living in Glasgow has made me very wary of any connection between religion and football.

  8. Coxy Avatar

    I think that the football one is excellent, as does my wife (and she can’t tell the difference between Liverpool and Arsenal – I guess they do both play in red though!). How is it not inclusive of men and women? As I see it there is good build up play from Mary and Joseph before Jesus scores…

  9. kelvin Avatar

    Hi Nick

    I’ve just rescued your comment from a spam filter – don’t know why it got swallowed.

    At St Mary’s we tend to avoid language like “men” where what is really meant is men and women, “mankind” when what is meant really is humanity etc

    This affects things like the language we use for hymns.

    We’d never sing, “Brothers, this Lord Jesus, shall return again” for example. In a mixed crowd it just seems rude.

    There is an ongoing degate about how far to go with this policy but by and large, language inclusive of men and women is the norm at St Mary’s and exclusive language tends to jar and be distractive when you’ve got used to more inclusive language in church. Thus the ad is something we couldn’t use because of the use of the word “man” meaning something other than just men.

  10. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    The term “banter”, as featured in the ad, should also be used by no-one anyway (and only partly because of Chewing the Fat). O the amount of people that have endured abuse and had it expained away as “just banter”.

    Wondering if “male” ads like this are ok if one also does female-centered advertising, or if the whole idea is hoary sexism. St.Silas does a Women 4 Women thing which I believe is popular. No Men 4 Men though.

    Hope I’m immune from the st.silasite ensnaring spam filter
    ;-).

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Ian Ansdell is blogging

    Ian Ansdell has been keeping a personal blog for a couple of months and I’ve only just found it – another one to add to the list.I met Ian in Glasgow recently at the Diocesan Synod Eucharist. He is the person behind the incredibly comprehensive www.scottishchristian.com site/news blog. Anyway, his more personal (and rather elegant) blog…

  • Enough, enough

    Enough already. I need no more e-mails telling me that there is only one way to wear a biretta. No more diagrams and pictures showing me how. No more tips. No more hints. No more, no more.It was a flippant remark and I will not make it again. How on earth has the Anglican Communion…

  • More than one way

    I found myself yesterday using this turn of phrase, "…oh, there is more than one way to wear a biretta…"It seemed a metaphor likely to be regarded as kinder to the more feline amongst us than the usual one. However, it has got me wondering.Is there? 

  • To the City

    Going to the city today (Edinburgh) to rearrange chairs.Amazing what one has to do for God’s kingdom sometimes.