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.
Posts
