What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • 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.

    ,

4 responses to “Alternative Queen’s Speech”

  1. Pluralist Avatar
    Pluralist

    They are only in office for a year. Then the Lib Dems will collapse, the Conservatives lose out to UKIP, Labour will also lose out to UKIP, but should, I hope, win if only to produce a luke-warm left government that will continue to bully those on benefits.

    Reply
  2. Revruth Avatar
    Revruth

    Jolly good. May we also have fairtrade bananas sold loose instead of bags of 6 or 8, please?

    Reply
  3. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    Hear, hear!!

    Ruth – you can find such loose and fair bananas in many fine emporia in this fair city of Glasgow. Do come visit soon!

    Reply
  4. Alan McManus Avatar
    Alan McManus

    Kelvin, on the point of privacy, after being forced to opt-out (probably too late) from having my address (and perhaps email and telephone information) sold to anyone by Glasgow City Council, I’ve just sent the email below to Hugh Munro the Chartered Accountant who is Electoral Registration Officer for GCC. It strikes me that roll-calling in the Bible is usually A Bad Thing and in this case it quite obviously is. As Rosemary H. pointed out (in the middle of a rather heated debate on the Referendum – where she was very restrained and others including me were not) the problem with devolving power to Local Authorities is that they have to be both competent and ethical (my paraphrase, I can’t re-find her exact words).

    On Monday, 3 November 2014, 12:53, Alan McManus:

    Dear Mr Munro,

    I have just opted out of the Open Electoral Register by email, something which I should not have had to do. You, or whoever has executed this scheme, had no authority to sell my contact information and in doing so you, or they, have abused my trust. I expect a signed apology in writing and that this scheme be terminated with immediate effect.You are well aware that you are preying on the trust of the elderly who have no access to the internet and who will be too confused by this betrayal of confidence by their Local Authority to take action by telephone. You have sold the rights of privacy of the citizens of Glasgow for material gain. This is despicable and does nothing to ameliorate the legacy of the low reputation of the leadership of GCC.

    regards, Dr Alan McManus

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • College of Bishops

    +Gregor speaks on behalf of the College. Gives outline of typical agenda of the College Overnight meetings start at 1030 am and goes on until next day. 7 sessions of one or two hours each. Business agenda and other topics come up. This is what they do…. Paper on end of life issues Tisec library…

  • Personel Committee

    I ask whether the comittee will give advice on the implications of the Equality Act 2010 on church life, in particular noting that there are aspects which apply to office holders as well as employees. Answer that the Committee do review these matters and are happy to give advice.

  • Buildings Advisory Committee

    +Gregor speaks – his swansong as convener of this committee. “meetings have been infrequent but therefore never dull.” Canonical material is introduced to exempt minor works from canonical consent. (May mean you can put up a banner for a couple of months without asking permission from Diocesan Buildings Advisory Committee.

  • Finance Committee

    This is the one which is so badly named – it gives grants, does not discuss financial policy. David Bayne tells us this once again.