Alex Salmond's Gay Marriage Dilemma

The subject of gay marriage is of little interest to me but it continues to be in the headlines. I supported the Civil Partnership legislation because I thought it only right that two people who care deeply for each other have the choice of making their union legal, but I can't understand the pressure for gay marriage when the substance is already part of our legislation.

Now Alex Salmond's Parish minister as stepped into the debate.  The Reverend Andrew Fothergill from the Strichen and Tyrie Parish Church, Abderdeenshire has given his views on the gay marriage debate.

“My personal position is that I think naturally, we have as celebrants, some concerns about the assurances that have been given by the Scottish Government about the safeguards it intends to put in place to protect celebrants who would hold a different position from what the future government legislation might become. I think many of us 
are a bit nervous about what protection it can actually offer.”

Although the Scottish Government insists no religious group will be required to perform gay marriages, doubt exists in the population as well as within some religious groups.

What I don't understand about this issue is why it's necessary to introduce this legislation when the Civil Partnership Info website describes Civil Partnerships as 'a legal marriage between couples that are gay or lesbian'.

The Civil Partnership Act states 'that it will not allow any form of religious activity to occur during the process of registering the union.  The act does not include a ceremony and any couple that wishes to have a ceremony will need to contact the registration authority, where the union is to be entered, to find out whether a ceremony is possible'.

The only difference I can see between civil partnerships and the proposed gay marriage legislation is that religion can now become involved. Is it any wonder some religious representatives are nervous at the prospect of being accused of bigotry if they refuse to marry a gay couple?

It's not so long ago ministers and vicars (I lived in England at the time), could refuse to baptise, marry or bury people - the usual reason being the person/people involved was/were not members of their congregation.  Usually the people involved did find someone willing to undertake the religious service and there was little ill-feeling between the refusers and their would-be customers.

I appreciate Mr Salmond's minister's doubt. All it needs is - once such legislation is passed - is for one couple to take a minister to court for refusing to marry them and there's little doubt in my mind that someone will take such action in the not too distant future.

Whatever the outcome - although it looks as if the Scottish Government is determined to put it on the statute books - of this debate there will be dissatisfied people on both sides. My wish is that the gay community do not label the Rev. Fothergill a bigot or a homophobe because he questions promises given by the Scottish Government. Such emotive and often unjustified language only denigrates their case.

The LGBT community insist they only want 'equality' but there's no equality for the heterosexual population when they are not permitted access to a civil partnership.  Maybe Alex Salmond should be proposing marriage is done away with and civil partnerships introduced for all.  That would be a solution.

source

Tweet

I'm Weary With The SSM Debate

I'm weary with the same-sex marriage debate. It seems to have taken the similar importance to the Independence debate.

Also I'm weary reading about men having babies and being told I must accept the changes in society. I wasn't weary 6 months ago but the subject of same sex marriage continues to feature prominently in the media. It can't be because it features highly on the radar or most of us who are far more concerned with the economy and making ends meet. Who are pulling the strings here in order to change society so radically?

It would seem there is a tiny, but highly vocal, SSM minority in society which insists upon having the best of all worlds and to hell with the consequences. They don't speak for the many thousands of people who quietly live with a same sex partner and who are very uncomfortable with the gay lobby's insistence that they should be legally entitled to possess a marriage certificate.

Only a few years ago much parliamentary time - and money - was spent on the introduction of civil partnership legislation and rightly so. Anyone who decides to live together and share their lives should be entitled to the same benefits a married couple enjoy.  However, the civil partnership legislation was mainly for same sex couples and did not give any consideration to say same sex best friends living together or same sex siblings in that position. Often older (mainly) women, when they've been widowed, decide to share a home with another widow friend and they make their legal arrangements through a solicitor.

However I appreciate those who are in a sexual relationship may want to make a public declaration. The cart is put before the horse where marriage is concerned these days. The children are now the page boys or bridesmaids. Have divorces decreased now that so many are trying before buying?  No.

Cranmer wonders why the Church of Scotland is so silent on the gay marriage issue and he states 'Gay Marriage will be Cameron's Poll Tax'. He may well be right. Tories are an invisible breed in Scotland at the present.

 Part of the reason I suspect is that the CoS (not the General Assembly) has voted to allow gays and lesbians to become ministers. The vote follows warnings that allowing gay and lesbian clergy could split the church and, with the reducing membership, the last thing the CoS needs is a mass exodus of members.  The General Assembly has yet to decide whether to allow gay and lesbian ministers who are sexually active but only those in stable, long-term relationships, or whether to demand celibacy of gay ministers. Only the General Assembly of the CoS has the authority to commit the Kirk to accepting or rejecting the Scottish government's proposals.

In a statement last December the CoS said:

"The government's proposal fundamentally changes marriage as it is understood in our country and our culture - that it is a relationship between one man and one woman. 

"In common with the historic position of the Christian Church, the Church of Scotland has always viewed marriage as being between one man and one woman. 

"Scriptural references to marriage, whether literal or metaphorical, all operate under this understanding.

"To redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage may have significant and, as yet, inadequately considered repercussions for our country, for the well-being of families, communities and individuals."

Ministers in the CoS are currently able to refuse to perform baptisms, marriages or funerals, although refusals are not common.

It's now more obvious than ever that the Scottish Government will introduce legislation which permits same sex couples to marry. Why the pretense with the consultation? It's a sham, because they have no intention of heeding the objections of those who feel that marriage would no longer be one of the cores of our society.

Marriage has mattered little to me but I felt - and still do - that it was important from the view of protecting children.  My generation always regarded marriage as the only way in which to legitimise children and I, along with others over the centuries, took my responsibilities seriously. If I was of child-bearing age today I would still insist upon marrying before children became part of the family. That's why the institution was borne.

Call me old-fashioned. Maybe being old-fashioned is part of being weary - but I doubt it.

Tweet

Should Clergy Have Choice?

The MSP John Mason has certainly created discussion - which he claims was his objective - with his motion against the proposal that gay marriage should be enshrined in Scottish law.

Divisions within the SNP have called Mr Mason's objection 'a nasty little anti-gay marriage motion' - and that comment was from my own MP Pete Wishart.  How I do wish Mr Wishart would stop sinking into the Westminster bubble and view public opinion realistically.  It was only the other week he was promoting 'Britishness' on a Scottish group blog and I decided he was now a lost cause to recognising Scottish society.  Too much time spent in the Westminster bar Pete.

Mr Mason is concerned that the proposed legislation does not allow anyone who conducts a marriage ceremony to opt out should they not approve of same sex partnerships. The gay lobby have gone as far as calling for the definition of marriage - currently defined as the joining of one man and one woman - to be deleted from dictionaries and redefined as the joining of two people, regardless of gender.

I understand Mr Mason's concerns. Nobody should be forced into performing any service if they disagree with any part of the applicant's reasons for wishing to have a religious ceremony.  Over the years I've known ministers in the Church of Scotland refuse to marry men and women because they did not attend their churches or were not fully paid up members of the CoS. Those people found another minister to fulfill their wish for a church service.  Also ministers have refused baptisms for similar reasons, although I've yet to know one refuse to lead a funeral service.

What right has anyone, unless they are members of a particular church, to demand a minister or any other religious person, carry out a service?  None. If they're not a paid up member then they can't complain.

Lawyers provide legal services but they're not obliged by law to accept a 'customer'.  They have choice.

Without the safeguards Mr Mason's motion proposes, people of religion who are legally able to undertake such ceremonies may well be sued or even worse, hounded from their vocations.  At present we have choice in this country, but if a proposal which insists that all members of the clergy of any religious denomination or none must perform same sex marriages, that denies choice.

The criticism about Mr Mason's motion is not about same sex marriages because, if his comments on Newsnight Scotland last week are to be believed, he is ambivalent about them. Personally I see no harm whatsoever in marriages between same sex couples or a male and female and I'm very much pro-marriage where children are concerned - preferably before the children arrive, but I do see a deeper agenda here from the gay lobby who may be happy to humiliate anyone who refused to carry out their request for a marriage service, then, of course, to claim compensation in accordance with the HRA. Such actions are few and far between but they do occur and cause consternation in communities.

I've yet to hear of a CoS minister who has refused to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony so who is pushing for this legislation?  We have serious social and economic problems in Scotland which need the urgent attention of our parliament and affect the whole of our society, yet same sex marriage is taking priority.

Our politicians should stop spending valuable time on this matter and begin to address the serious issues such as job creation, improving educational standards and ensuring the vulnerable in our society are cared for - not to mention doing something to alleviate the increasingly unaffordable utility costs.

Leave those who are legally registered to perform marriage ceremonies to make their own choices.  After all, we live in a democracy, don't we?

Tweet

Gay Marriage

Most of you will know I'm pro-marriage.  Not because my own experience has been particularly utopian, but because I believe making a declaration of commitment to another publicly is the ultimate compliment to the person with whom you wish to share your life.

Another reason I'm pro-marriage is that it gives any children a more stable environment in which to develop.  Of course it's not always so, but that 'piece of paper' can make a difference between making efforts to resolve issues or just packing bags and leaving.  It also legally protects both partners should things go wrong in a far less complicated way that a 'bidey in' relationship, which can require costly legal documents to ensure the security of both should things go wrong.

There will be those who disagree of course and say that many cohabiting couples do provide a stable home for their children and I don't disagree with them.  So often I hear younger couples saying, "We'll get married when we can afford it," when they already have children yet currently it only costs £93.50 to get married in a Scottish registrar's office. Is it because people don't want the legal commitment of marriage, do they feel it's unnecessary or do they want the commitment but with all the glamour of an extravagant white wedding day?  Possibly a combination of all three.

An opinion poll carried out for the Scottish Green Party found that 58% of people agreed that same sex couples should be able to get married.  If they'd have asked me the percentage would have increased to 59%.

Why should same sex couples be denied the same rights as hetrosexual couples?  There are no reasons which stand up to scrutiny these days.

Isn't it strange though, that within today's hetrosexual society it appears there is less need or regard for the institution of marriage and it's the gay lobby which is requesting access to what some consider an out-dated and unnecessary ceremony?  Good luck to them.  I've witnessed the serious financial cost one gay couple has expended in a bid to protect each other when, if they were treated equally, it could have cost as little as £93.50.

Let's rid ourselves of this 'civil partnership' legislation - which sounds more like a military pact - and promote marriage for all couples. Marriage isn't all about sex, it's far more complex.  If those who disagree with homosexuality in general can look beyond the sex angle, then they should see that it's only right any couple should be able to make the ultimate commitment to their partner.

source

Tweet