• 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!

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 8 August 2004

    There is something particularly apposite about reading the story of Abraham at this time of the year. For this is the time of so many journeyings. Holiday pilgrimages to worship the sun have their roots in the great quest – the journey of faith – the search for God. And that all begins, in our…

  • Full Backup

    The good news is that no data was lost during the lightening strike last night. I have managed to extract the hard drive and am currently transferring data from it to the laptop. This is being done with a new gadget – a hard drive to usb caddy. Obtaining one of these meant two trips…

  • Summer Lightning

    I have a major computer failure following a thunder storm here tonight. Presumably some kind of surge reached the computer. This seems particularly hard to take as I had unplugged the CPU as soon as the lightning started to crack. This post is coming from the laptop – the main computer won't start at all…

  • Book Review – cev youth bible ? Edited by Nick Page

    This edition of the Bible is aimed at teenagers. Well, perhaps it is aimed at Evangelical parents and other relatives looking to buy a Bible for teenagers, which is nearly, but not quite, the same thing. The Contemporary English Version is a Bible translation which uses a restricted vocabulary. It is a fairly progressive translation,…