• 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.

2 responses to “Not merely patronising”

  1. Grandmère Mimi Avatar

    Bravo, bravo, Kelvin!. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve read the text of the Anglican Covenant, and, with each rereading, I like it less. Bishop Matthews does indeed insult all of us who have spent time pouring over the odious document and found it wanting. It is just not Anglican. God bless the Scottish Episcopal Church for its brave stand and firm “No”. I was crushed when the Episcopal Church in the US did not stand with the SEC and vote a resounding “No” at its General Convention.

    Our convention “declined to take a position” on the covenant, but the result has been mischaracterized by the reports out of the ACC meeting as having made a “partial decision”. I can say with full confidence that TEC will never, ever adopt the covenant. I’m just sorry that we did not have the backbone to state that truth firmly by vote at GC.

  2. Markus Avatar
    Markus

    Bp Matthews needs to be shown this:
    http://www.archideaconalwhitterings.blogspot.in/2011/10/anglican-covenant-and-experience-of.html

    Obviously she does not have any clear understanding of the Anglican Communion.

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…