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

Marriage v Cohabitation

The events of the past couple of months have emphasised my own mortality.  Possibly quite normal for someone in their 60s younger people will think, but few of us feel 'old'.  Of course there are things we suddenly realise we have difficulty doing or just can't do but I doubt if many people dwell on such matters.

Therefore, it was with more pleasure than usual I heard this weekend that the daughter of one of my longest-standing friends is to be married in the summer.  She's a lovely girl who has shown a talent for music all her life, but once she met a science teacher at secondary school, biology was promoted to first on her list and she has worked her way up that competitive career ladder.

That aside, there was something her mother said during our conversation which made me think just how much our society has changed in the past 30 years.  Her mother has three children and this is her younger daughter.  Her son and elder daughter married in recent years after living with their respective partners for some time.  In fact her son already had a daughter with his partner before they married.  Nothing unusual there in this day and age and, according to his mother, all are content.

What my friend said was she was upset by a comment from an acquaintance who had expressed surprise at discovering - let's call the young woman Rachel - Rachael had never lived with any partner. 'Best they try before they buy' was said to her.  Now, my friend is a well travelled, broad minded, intelligent person, but she felt the remark reflected unkindly on her daughter.  I can understand why because the home, the new furniture and even the children seem far more important than the ultimate commitment of marriage.

Over the years I've heard every excuse as to why some people, who have children together, haven't married.  Often it's the cost of the wedding and when I say a touching ceremony can be had for less than £100 in most registry offices, you would think I'd suggested they eat broken glass.

Some men (and women) aren't interested in marriage. Some think a 25 year mortgage is binding enough.  In 1991 almost a third of babies had unmarried parents.  When the Office of National Statistics releases new figures later this year, it seems likely that half the UK's children will be born to couple who are unmarried.

In this article one woman substantiates her reason for not marrying the father of her children as: "You hear of people who've been together for ages, then they get married and the relationship falls apart".  Does cohabitation keep each partner more on their toes than marriage?  Does marriage mean anything in these modern times?  Our divorce statistics remain static, yet the incidence of family breakdown has increased disturbingly according to Harry Benson, author of Let's Stick Together.

"Making divorce more difficult is not the issue here. The bigger and braver deal is accepting the unequivocal truth that marriage is quantitatively better than cohabitation".

I can't change my opinion that couples should marry before they have children.  That may well come from a presbyterian upbringing but I firmly believe children deserve the additional security which married parents can provide.

Rachael is traditional, very traditional and certainly not old-fashioned. During our chat her mother realised she was being slightly too sensitive about criticism of her children and we laughingly agreed that children really are for life even though husbands or partners come and go.

Now I have a few months to haunt the shops and find that elusive outfit which must be accompanied by one of these wonderful fascinators.  The adventure starts next week.

Tweet

Marriage - Labour's Latest Discovery

Gordon Brown is set to pitch labour as the party of marriage and the family in an effort to win core tory votes. This is from the leader of a party which has openly discouraged marriage for more than a generation.

Labour have finally realised children fare better if their parents are together in a stable and committed relationship. A green paper, to be published in January, will outline new measures to shore up "stable parental relationships".

Since 1997 labour has directed resources at children rather than their parents, hearing voters would see attempts to promote the declining traditional family unit as discriminatory or judgmental.

One in four children now live in a single parent family, compared with one in fourteen in the early 70s. Almost half of children are born outside wedlock. Married couples became a minority in Britain this year for the first time since records began.

In compulsory sex and relationship lessons to be introduced from 2011, children from the age of seven will be taught about the “nature and importance of marriage and stable relationships for family life and bringing up children”.

The compulsory sex lessons for seven year olds is a subject for another post but let me get one thing straight - I have no desire whatsoever for illegitimacy to become the stigma it was when I was young. It had horrendous consequences for some children and many never quite managed to cope with it. But we now have thousands of children who are (usually) fatherless and the father's name isn't even entered on their birth certificates. Having thousands of children in that position rather than the hundreds 50+ years ago, doesn't make it right. By that I mean right for the children concerned. It creates insecurity, affects confidence and lessens self esteem.

There will be no softening of the government’s opposition to tax advantages for married couples. Ministers say this would discriminate against the 4m children brought up by non-married parents.

If labour are serious about this they would make tax advantages for married couples. By not promoting marriage in this way labour are discriminating against it. Many couples openly say they receive more benefit 'living apart' than together. That's not right and it never will be.

As well as having 4 million children brought up in one parent families, we have a generation of parents who don't understand what parenting is all about. That's not always their fault, it's the fault of this government who discourage them from learning about responsibility. We have an army of people who now do the parenting for many - teachers, social workers, charities - there's no need for any parent to learn parenting skills if they don't feel inclined.

I'm a firm believer that, if at all possible, children should be brought up in a solid and committed relationship. Marriage is the best solution we, as a society, have at present.

Source

Tweet