What is in Kelvin's Head?

Equal Marriage – Questions people haven’t thought of #1

01/08/2012

Here’s one for church folk and any passing ethicist.

Suppose a couple get a civil partnership and they then have a service of blessing in an Episcopal Church – rings, promises, nuptial mass, the whole enchilada, with lovely prayers drawn from the Scottish Episcopal marriage liturgy. (As happens).

Supposing that is all done with and then suddenly the government come along and offer to make those who have civil partnerships married at the stroke of a pen.

What is the moral difference between that and a straight couple getting married in church?

[My interest in this question is to see whether the answers divide between people who say, “There’s no difference, therefore same-sex couples don’t need marriage” and those who say, “There’s no difference, so we should stop shilly-shallying about and wed same-sex couples on the same basis as every else.”]

Furthermore, might couples expect to go through another ceremony to mark this change of status or not?

equal marriage, questions

7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”

June Butler

26/08/2014

Seems to me “well-meaning but homophobic” in these days and times implies vincible ignorance and is no longer useful as an excuse for homophobic language. The leaders of the C of E seem paralyzed, unable to articulate policies to move forward on equality for LGTB persons that are other than laughable. Think “deer in the headlights”.

Reply
Lawrence Rosenfeld

26/08/2014

I suppose @RevArun might say that women are welcome for the same reason, eh?

Reply
1. margaret of the sea of galilee
  
  27/08/2014
  
  Exactly what I thought.
  
  Reply
Kelvin

26/08/2014

I’ve removed a previous comment. I’d prefer to retain the focus on the institutional elements of this rather than speculating about an individual.

Reply
Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert

26/08/2014

As society changes many people are not sure of the new, and therefore condemn it, without thought. I am safe, with the Devil l know. It’s a way of life, not dealing with changes. If we think about how much has changed; homosexuality was illegal until 1969 in England; Scotland caught up in 1983; women have a right to equal pay; the only job that is still excluded from them is working down a mine:
There are men who are prepared to wait to see a male doctor, especially if it is the genitals.
Racism is not tolerated by most, but it is still used by people who want a reaction. There was, when the world and I were young, a shoe polish, called nigger brown. This wasn’t considered at the time as being wrong.

Reply
John O’Leary

27/08/2014

I take your point, and I don’t disagree. If we look at another person and only see the gay part as ‘broken’, then that’s homophobic, no matter how well intentioned. Plus I always find something disturbingly patronising when people say ‘We’re all broken’, as if the speaker doesn’t quite believe it of him/herself, while seeing it very clearly in the other.

However, there’s another way of looking at it. The very fact that we are human means that we are broken. If being gay is part of that humanity, then it’s part also of that brokenness. It’s all part of the messy mixture that we struggle with, and build our rickety lives with, but for which we also should praise and thank God.

Reply
Allan Ronald

27/08/2014

‘Thinking Anglicans’ has a post up about Vicky Beeching’s coming out but does not link to the discussion here. I asked why but they did not reply let alone publish my question.

Reply