• The Straight Civil Partnerships Question

    The question is this. If civil partnership is opened to straight couples then would someone in such a partnership be eligible to be considered for ordination?

    It is a simple question but carries enormous complexity with it and can help to illuminate where we are in the changing world of legal relationship states.

    I first raised this question in June 2013 in a series of 10 unanswered questions about marriage, most of which remain unanswered even now.

    The thing is, it is entirely possible that some straight couples within the different jurisdictions of the UK may soon achieve their hope to be in civil partnerships. I’m aware of both a legal challenge to the current law that is proceeding and also government consultations coming from both Holyrood and Westminster.

    Now, first of all I need to declare that I’ve always been against extending Civil Partnerships to straight people and thought that the best way forward was to turn all gay couples’ civil partnerships into civil marriages. However that has not happened and so we have a situation where there is a basic inequality – gay couples have the option of either marriage or civil partnerships. And lo, inequality is something that we can’t really tolerate in modern society and so something will need to be done. I can’t really see any alternative to opening civil partnership to straight couples. It seems to me to be only a matter of time and whether I like it or not, that is what will happen.

    So, will someone in a straight relationship who is in a civil partnership be eligible for ordination. In Scotland is it well established that someone in a same-sex relationship in a civil partnership is eligible for ordination.

    This is not merely a rhetorical question. All these kinds of questions affect real people. As individuals and couples try to work out the best thing for their own relationships they are currently left second-guessing how they are going to be perceived by the churches that they may belong to.

    I am aware of straight couples in the church who would be interested in entering a civil partnership rather than a marriage.

    But what’s that about.

    I’ve been opposed to civil partnerships continuing because I saw them as intrinsically products of discrimination. They were a legal confection devised to look like marriage and to onto which gay couples projected familiar signs and symbols to get as near as they could to the gold standard of marriage. However, things have now changed.

    It seems to me that straight couples looking for civil partnerships are clearly saying that they want something that is different to marriage and people like me probably need to get used to the idea that it is just different and not less than marriage now even though it once was.

    The church has not really caught up with modern sexual relations in so many areas. As I listen to people twenty years younger than me their presumption is that serial monogamy is a good thing. They believe in faithfulness. They don’t think cheating is acceptable. However, they also are entering into relationships which they themselves would acknowledge might not last forever. The permanence of marriage is not where they are at and I suspect that the civil partnership option might well appeal to such couples.

    The thing is, marriage carries with it a whole load of presumptions, not least that the end of a marriage is a Very Bad Thing. Divorce still carries stigma with it.

    I suspect that at least some of those seeking civil partnership rather than marriage are choosing to reject the possibility of divorce as they feel that the dissolution of a civil partnership carries fewer negative connotations than being divorced.

    But back to the straight civil partnerships question. Would someone in a same-sex relationship in a civil partnership (presuming that such things will soon become a reality) be able to be ordained in the Scottish Episcopal Church – or the other mainstream churches for that matter?

    If not, why not?

    So far as I can tell, Canon Law is silent on any relationships other than straight married ones.

3 responses to “Brexit – Five First Quick Thoughts”

  1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Almost everybody I meet on a regular basis, except my family and one educated friend, were voting out. and that in Scotland. I am shattered but unsurprised. My partner reports that, in her office, those with a degree and under 35 all intended to vote remain, and those without and over 35 to leave.

  2. Ruth Gillett Avatar
    Ruth Gillett

    Some people I know didn’t vote at all because they were annoyed that their ‘first ever in their fairly long lives’ voting experience (Independence) didn’t go the correct way. Strangely two friends who spend half the year living in Europe (and benefit from the reciprocal healthcare arrangements) voted leave and I’m bewildered by a dear friend of 60 years who unexpectedly climbed angrily aboard the anti immigration juggernaut. I’d dared to hope (and ignore the signs online) because everyone else I knew seemed to be voting remain…

  3. Guy Whitehouse Avatar
    Guy Whitehouse

    I fear ultimately that Brexit won in part because the EU became a rather soulless bureaucracy to which people could not emotionally attach. Financial benefit does not always secure attachment on a large-scale and if enough people start to perceive themselves to suffer and not participate in those benefits then the inevitable happens.

    I fear the UK is going the same way but for different reasons. Since the 80s there has been a tendency amongst those seeking power to focus on groups and not the country as a whole; remember election night and the swingometer and the presenter saying things like “such and such an area has gone red but in order to win the Conservatives just need to win over Essex man and Worcester woman….”? Of course Labour did something similar in 1997 and in later elections.

    So any uniting sentiments have been undermined which means that the problem is no longer just with politicians but with the electorates also.

    I liked what Kelvin said in his referendum sermon, and more than ever the churches need to discover their ministry of reconciliation and think about what it means to try to offer everyone a spiritual home. It would be ironic if the church became the main place that differences could be dropped. but I have to confess I’m rather gloomy about even that looking at the way other controversial issues within the church have been dealt with.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Hold the Front Page

    The Herald has a helpful story today (page 3, actually) about the movement that is building in Scotland for Equal Marriage. Equal Marriage means opening up marriage to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. It also means that anyone who can currently conduct weddings should be able to conduct weddings on the…

  • Can you help me find a Vice-Provost?

    I’m currently looking for someone to come and work at St Mary’s as Vice-Provost. There is an advert in the Church Times today for the second week advertising the post. The vacancy was circulated around the Scottish Episcopal Church a couple of week’s ago. The cathedral website has full details of the post. So, we’ve…

  • C of E Border Crossing

    Must admit I’m still grumpety about the C of E negotiating with the C of S without so much as a by your leave towards the Scottish Episcopal Church. I know that promises have been given that we will have tripartite conversations on things in the future, but that still does not excuse this border-crossing…

  • tae see oorsels as ithers see us

    Read Ruth Wishart’s piece in the Herald and then have a think about how the churches common capitulation to the narrowest of narrow minds regarding both gender and sexuality affects the greater mission of the whole.