• 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.

36 responses to “A Question about Marriage and the Bible – can you help”

  1. Father David Avatar
    Father David

    If Dan Brown, rather than the New Testament is to be believed then, how about, Jesus and Mary of Magdala? Or, to be more Orthodox – Jesus and His Bride – the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think we are now being silly.

  2. Father David Avatar
    Father David

    Not at all silly if you take seriously the Revelation of St. John the Divine and the penitential season of Advent. “Wake, O Wake!” Dean Kelvin “The hour has come, we hear them saying, where are ye all, ye virgins wise? The Bridegroom comes in sight, Raise high your torches bright! Alleluia! The wedding song swells loud and strong; Go forth and join the Festal throng.” So, do please make sure that you have oil in your lamp to keep on burning and be ye not numbered among the foolish virgins.
    Alternatively, how about the anonymous couple who were married at the Wedding Feast at Cana? Simply because they are not named they could stand for each and every married couple willing and ready to make their sacred and binding marriage vows. Judging by the amount of wine that was available post transformation, they must have had one hell of a Wedding Breakfast.

  3. Pam Richmond Avatar
    Pam Richmond

    Perhaps good marriages do not make fascinating stories. Bad or odd marriages, on the other hand…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • Quick Links

    Friends of Radio 3  Update- beware – see comments – Lindsay should know!Church Marketing SucksColour LoversMy contributions to WikipediaTraveline Scotland

  • Liturgical Notes – as given to the servers this morning

    [Well, this is what was supposed to happen…] Bishop Idris is preaching this morning. On the rota (prepared before KH was installed), +Idris is down to preach and KH to celebrate. +Idris is to be invited to celebrate if he wishes as is the courtesy given to a Diocesan Bishop when in his churches. We…

  • "…and all those falsely accused…"

    For some reason this year, I never got into Big Brother. Last year I was a devotee, and could be heard opining about the religious nature of the show. (It’s the God Complex we all have…the need to control and manage and to conjure up a controlling managing God when we inevitably fail). I think…

  • Wikipedia

    From time to time, I contribute to Wikipedia, particularly the SEC (and related) pages. Several things have interested me on WP this week.Firstly, a little toing and froing about whether the SEC has parishes. It doesn’t have parishes, though some, especially those from outside the province speak rather loosely as though we do. This loose…