What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • My own response to the government

    Phew, just finished writing my own response to the current round of consultation on changes to marriage law in Scotland.

    This one is not about the principle of introducing marriage for same-sex couples but about how such proposals will be implemented.

    It is more complex than you think because marriage law is more complex than you think!

    Anyway, here is my response, if anyone is interested:

    Consultation response Kelvin Holdsworth – March 2013

    To save you time wading through it, here’s the most interesting thing I’ve said:

    I believe that if someone is authorised to conduct a straight couple’s marriage then they should automatically be authorised to conduct marriages of same-sex couples. The law should apply equally to people and what has been proposed is not equality. For these reasons, I do not support the current proposals for determining who can and who can not conduct the marriage of a same-sex couple.

    If churches wish to limit the ability of a celebrant to conduct a marriage then they should continue to be able to do that through their own internal disciplinary procedure.

    I look forward to being able to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples one day in my congregation (St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow). I note with interest that once the state licenses marriages for same-sex couples, my own denomination (The Scottish Episcopal Church) will automatically have an authorised liturgy for blessing such couples – the service of Benediction, which is explicitly authorised in Canon Law for use with couples whose marriage is legal but which has not been performed according to the rites of the church.

    The consultation closes on Wednesday. More details here:
    https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/family-law/marriagebill

    , ,

4 responses to “Book Review”

  1. Peter O Avatar
    Peter O

    I think you miss the point of the book Kelvin. It’s meant to be a guide to listening to *all* sides of the debate, not just those you agree with. That’s what makes the last section so good, because it forces us to deal realistically not just with the genuine evidence on the causality of homosexuality, but also the fact that some people *do* see remarkable change in their sexual orientation (and that others don’t).

    I wrote my own review here.

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

    Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

    Reply
  4. Rosemary Avatar
    Rosemary

    I’ve now read the ‘scientific’ section – thanks for the link ryan – and I thought it was mixed. I thought Glynn Harrison made a serious attempt at dispassion. I think it is a fair point that any person must decide their own priorities, and the final argument must be between theologies, not sciences. I was not so impressed by David de Pomerai – though one could hardly quarrel with his conclusion that we simply do not know exactly what makes one person homosexual and the next heterosexual. However his whole argument was bedevilled by assumptions that, e.g. homosexual men will be more effeminate than straight ones. Anecdotal evidence instantly produces examples where it is the straight male siblings who are drama queens and run from spiders, while gay ones take it all in their stride.

    It must be accepted that both gay and straight people live with voluntary or enforced celibacy with no ill effects – and that some people can change their sexual orientation and live happily with the change. What I found truly heart rending were the desperate attempts and the high cost to those who actually did succeed in changing orientation – however much Harrison denies the skin colour analogy, it reminded me painfully of those endless jars of skin lightener which encrust Sri Lankan chemists, where beauty is measured in skin tone. Because whether or not genetic, orientation is not a simple free choice. But I suppose the answer would be: ‘And what is?’

    The final point, though, is always the same. Is Christianity a religion of an authoritative book, or an authoritative Person?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Pic on church website

    Someone asked me today what the pic o­n the church website is of as it looks familiar. It is the centre of the altar cross.www.saint-saviour.org

  • Events

    Bat Day is tomorrow – with sunset bat walk. Bishop David is coming on Sunday and Sue White will be licensed as a Lay Reader. The Flower Festival starts next week on Thursday and lasts until the following Tuesday. (ie 26-31 May 2005) The church website should be relaunched this weekend with a rather more…

  • Affirming Lay Liturgies

    That last entry had scarcely been uploaded more than 2 minutes before the doorbell rang and my colleague from Stirling said, “Do you want a liturgy for licensing a Lay Reader?” Almost enough to make me believe in divine intervention. Almost.

  • Odd

    It strikes me as odd that in a church which is supposedly celebrating variety of ministries we appear to have no liturgy for recognising a lay ministry.