• 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!

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

  1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

    It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

    Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.

      The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.

      I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.

      Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.

  2. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

  3. Chris Hansen Avatar
    Chris Hansen

    I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

    The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.

      Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.

      Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.

      And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.

  4. FakePete Avatar
    FakePete

    I feel very angry reading that.

  5. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Dear Kelvin

    Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

    What would you do if you were Primus?

    The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

    Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

    The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

    For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

    All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

    Steven

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.

      The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.

      I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.

      The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:

      1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.

      2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.

      3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.

      4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.

      However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.

      I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.

      I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.

      I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.

      If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.

      If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.

      Does that answer the question?

      1. Steven Avatar
        Steven

        Yes, it does rather. Thanks.

        For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).

        We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!

        Steven

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Lammas

    Seriously considered buying a bread-machine to celebrate Lammastide on Sunday.

  • Alex Salmond

    How come Alex Salmond is standing for the leadership of the SNP? When I went on holiday, it was a catfight between Nicola Sturgeon and Rosanna Cunningham. How strange it would be if another political party elected a leader from the past. Talking of politics, my mother told me last night that there should be…

  • Other Books Read on Holiday

    Finished unpacking the holiday suitcase today and found more books that I had taken with me.  These included Brick Lane by Monica Ali and Fury by Salman Rushdie. In fact, I o­nly read the first of these, the second is now o­n the shelf waiting to be looked at.  The question that I have been…

  • Weekend Comment

    Him: “I don't know why you are so good at baptizing babies Kelvin, but you are.”Me: “I just don't turn them upside down.”