• Scottish Government’s proposals for Marriage

    The Scottish Government has published its proposals for amending marriage law in Scotland. There are one or two surprises too as they are going to try to amend some of the bits of law that apply to straight couples getting married. I didn’t see those changes coming and they are likely to be a bit lost in the hubbub surrounding the news that the Scottish Government has indicated that it is to legislate in favour of allowing same-sex couples to get married.

    Religious bodies will need to opt into the legislation. They will be able to authorise all of their celebrants to do same-sex marriages if all (yes, all) agree. Alternatively they will be able to nominate designated people as celebrants so long as the religious body has agreed that it is appropriate for some of its celebrants to do so.

    The new legislation is to be warmly welcomed. It isn’t equal marriage (most notably in the ways in which celebrants can be authorised) but it is getting very close and it provides a workable way forward for marriages of same-sex couples to be regarded in the same way in society as marriages between a man and a woman.

    All of this will kick-start decision-making processes in a number of churches including my own. Somehow or another the Scottish Episcopal Church will need to make its mind up what to do.

    For now, I’m simply going to say that I’d be very happy to conduct such marriages and look forward to the day that same-sex couples will be able to be married in St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow. Indeed, there are members of the congregation hoping and wishing and praying for that day who want to get married and who are currently unable to do so.

    I’ll continue to support and encourage those couples and continue to work to ensure that they can have the happiest day of their lives in their own church as soon as possible.

    But what, I hear you ask, about those other changes? Here are a few things to think about.

    Well, it looks as though there is going to be a significant change to the law which would allow registrars to conduct weddings (of any kind) anywhere rather than simply in approved premises. Up until now, religious and humanist celebrants have been able to conduct weddings just about anywhere in Scotland whilst registrars have been limited in where they could do it. This has meant something of an industry developing whereby couples shopped around for a marriage celebrant who was prepared to go to their preferred place – mountain tops, beaches, hotels, golf-courses etc. Generally speaking, I think it has been Church of Scotland and notably in recent years humanist celebrants who have been involved in this business. (In my diocese the bishop frowns at the thought and clergy need permission from him before celebrating a wedding outside of a church. In this case, I share in his frowns and don’t generally do weddings outside a place of worship).

    I expect the consequence of this to be that civil weddings will rise in numbers, Church of Scotland weddings will fall in numbers and maybe those humanist figures which have risen so impressively will now start to tail off.

    Another big change, which does not seem to me to have been thought through at all is the idea of establishing a category of wedding based on belief. (This would subsume the humanists). Thus, a group or organisation could establish itself as a belief group and apply for recognition for doing weddings.

    It seems to me that it would be entirely possible that a Christian group which was not a church could be established with celebrants drawn from existing denominations authorised to do same-sex weddings. I don’t see how the state could discriminate against, say, Changing Attitude Scotland or Affirmation Scotland applying to have (lay) celebrants authorised to do same-sex or indeed opposite sex ceremonies. All kinds of groups could be imagined. There could be an Ecumenical Lay Association for Same-Sex Marriage for example. Or a bunch of renegade nuns.

    Expect a lot more ink to be spilled over this suggestion.

    Oh, and one more thing. The current proposals we have from Holyrood and Westminster don’t seem to me to deal with issues about celebrants being authorised from outside their current jurisdiction. I see a way whereby someone might end up authorised to conduct same-sex weddings in Scotland (an Anglican priest, for example) being asked to go to England (for example) and conduct the wedding of a gay couple. Seems to me that, notwithstanding the local ecclesiastical courtesies, the local registrar in England and Wales would struggle to say no.

    Finally, a very welcome change in that people going through gender transition will no longer need to divorce their spouse before being recognised in their new gender. This was an iniquitous situation and one issue which my own congregation raised in its response to the Scottish Government.

    Talking of responses, this is round 2 of the consultation process. We are going to need responses to all this to come from individuals and groups and congregations and denominations all over again. More details about that in due course.

    But for now – hurrah!

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

  • Lammas

    Seriously considered buying a bread-machine to celebrate Lammastide on Sunday.

  • Alex Salmond

    How come Alex Salmond is standing for the leadership of the SNP? When I went on holiday, it was a catfight between Nicola Sturgeon and Rosanna Cunningham. How strange it would be if another political party elected a leader from the past. Talking of politics, my mother told me last night that there should be…

  • Other Books Read on Holiday

    Finished unpacking the holiday suitcase today and found more books that I had taken with me.  These included Brick Lane by Monica Ali and Fury by Salman Rushdie. In fact, I o­nly read the first of these, the second is now o­n the shelf waiting to be looked at.  The question that I have been…

  • Weekend Comment

    Him: “I don't know why you are so good at baptizing babies Kelvin, but you are.”Me: “I just don't turn them upside down.”