• 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.

9 responses to “Biobank – an ethical question”

  1. Rev Ruth Avatar

    I’ve been asked too. And I got so excited – you know how I love all things medical. My mind had already raced off into the realms of them finding that I had some mysterious disease… But now that you put it like that, I guess I’d better give it some more thought.

  2. Raspberry Rabbit Avatar

    I haven’t been asked. Radical foreign clerics must not be on the list.

    I’d be hesitant to do it anyway. Too much information is being stored about us in anticipation of the day when it might prove useful. Best to keep your head down.

    RR

  3. Tim Avatar

    Eeek. I saw the phrase “Do you want to do something good today? Not just for yourself, but for our children and our children’s children?” near the top of the page and instantly the thought occurred, “what’s the potential cost? Where are the privacy controls?” Not as though anyone’s asked me anyway, but that sort of thing worries me from the outset too.

    A little more investigation shows http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/faqs/confidentiality.php , particularly #5 etc; it seems too vague, just a gloss to placate the masses. I don’t want `computers unconnected to the internet’; I’d want a guarantee that they never will be, that no floppy disks or other methods will result in data coming off them, and that they’re well secured in a bunker somewhere.

  4. chris Avatar

    We’re involved. My sister-in-law first; she asked my husband; we discussed it and decided the potential for knowledge and research into – for example – the hereditary factor in clinical depression – made it something we wanted to do. Our sons have also expressed a willingness to participate. I personally don’t care about what happens to my DNA (other than its continuation in my family!) and if some good can come out of it then that’s just fine. I trust scientists every bit as much (or as little) as I trust anyone else.

  5. asphodeline Avatar
    asphodeline

    Have you seen Heroes???? Sounds like a sneaky plot to find more 🙂

  6. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    I have not seen Heroes. Is it about eugenics?

  7. asphodeline Avatar
    asphodeline

    Ah. It has a hint of eugenics. Part of the plotline involves some form of research into the DNA of people with supernatural powers!

  8. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Ah, I see why you associated it with me.

  9. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    My wife I also each received one of the so called invitations today, my first reaction was anger over the wording of the invitation which by telling me I have a “provisional appointment” assuming I am gullible enough to fall for the use of false authority syndrome.

    I am really concerned a lot of less literate people will not fully understand the “invitation” and assume it something they have to do.

    What really makes my blood boil is the that even if you don’t want to take part you have to reply to get your name removed from the records, this raises real civil liberties issues.

    The thing is if I had been asked to participate in I a nice way I would have been very keen to do so, however the whole tone of the letter stinks of authoritarianism and reminds me of the kind of thing the Nazis were doing in the mid 1930s.

    If you get one of these invitation say no and tell them why — or better still rip it up.

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.