In many ways any blog post on Cardinal O’Brien’s calls for a referendum on the legalisation of same-sex marriage should be a short one. There are few good reasons, if any, for such a plebiscite to take place.
Granted, there were 80,000 responses to the legislation consultation; more than triple the number for the independence referendum’s equivalent, but if that was the model for such decisions then we’d be having referendums on the death penalty and other frivolous matters every other year. If any group of people feel strongly enough about this particular issue, stand for election and let democracy run its course.
That said, I have strong misgivings about the lack of a mandate that existing parties have to bulldoze through legislation that wasn’t in manifestoes: the increasing privatisation of the NHS and the increase in tuition fees (both rUK) to name but two examples. However, I have no such qualms when a Government is doing the right thing and making the nation a fairer place to live. If there’s enough disagreement across Scotland against this, let the streets be filled with it. Speak now or forever hold your peace, if you will.
Cardinal O’Brien on his own has as much right to a leading opinion in this debate as a bishop has to a seat in the House of Lords. It is a legal matter and not for the church to involve themselves in.
Not that I’m the happiest, let alone the clappiest, of people on the wider issue of gay rights. The ‘real’ debate, and controversy, for me is around the issue of families with same-sex parents. If I was to be born again and was given the choice of having same-sex parents or the more ‘normal’ mother-father situation, I would without a doubt choose the latter, all other things being equal. That, in turn, must mean I have reservations around surrogacy and adoption from same-sex parents, though I shan’t try articulating them here as, mercifully, the issue at hand is simply the question of marriage.
The SNP, and all parties of the Scottish Parliament, need to stay the course and not be swayed by the unpopularity the correct decision in this matter will attract from some quarters. Needless to say, this is a test of Salmond’s strategy of ‘big tent’ nationalism as the SNP pushing through equal marriage at Holyrood will no doubt see many small-c religious conservatives be less disposed to voting Yes in 2014. That, for me, is an immaterial number and anyway, not every decision between now and Autumn 2014 need be viewed through the distorting prism of Scottish independence.
This is one such decision. Indeed, it’s a no-brainer.
#1 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 1:48 pm
I have voted SNP all my life, I am a party member. I am also a church member. By pursuing this course of action the SG is alienating me and many other people. I will resign my membership of the party should this legislation be proceeded with. I do not believe in single issue politics, so standing for election is not practical. The proposals themselves are arbitary, and there is no demand;why should only two people be married, why cant step relations marry, why cant brothers marry? Reassurances that churches will be exempt are meaingless; previous re-assurances were given with civil partnership; with equality legislation. These will obviously be tested by the courts, and may even be legislated on by successive governments. The result therefore is I am disenfranchised, and the cause of independence loses one more vote. And the votes of nationalist Catholics, protestants and muslims.
I love my country, I do believe in a fair society – I do not want any group to be victimised, I want our country to be united – the UN declaration of human rights is a great place to start.
#2 by Jeff on July 16, 2012 - 1:57 pm
Thanks for the reasoned comment Bob.
I’m not sure comparing two people of the same sex wanting to marry with two brothers getting married is really appropriate but what I don’t get is why or how two people deciding to celebrate their relationship through a marriage (and not in a church) has any bearing on you, me or anyone else not directly involved? What non-religious argument does the state have to say ‘no, this cannot be allowed to happen’?
Fair point about single issue politics; that probably isn’t really all that practical.
#3 by Iain Menzies on July 16, 2012 - 2:51 pm
Well the argument against rather depends on what you mean by marriage.
And actually i would say the point about two brothers is actually a rather good one when we are talking about gay marriage. The problem with two brothers together doesnt go beyond the lack of gay marriage, but of course the object to a brother and sister marrying is that the kids would be the product of a somewhat limited gene pool.
If you say that two men (who are not related) can marry on teh grounds that they want to affirm their relationship publically, then you are taking and consideration of family out of the picture (and i dont understand family in the sense of a couple, thats just a couple) so why not have the possiblity of two brothers marrying? Ok the idea of someone shagging their brother is gonna gross out the majority of the public, but then isnt that the justification that was used (in part at least) to criminalise homosexual acts?
You also say it doesnt have any impact on you or me or anyone that isnt directly involved. Which is fine…for now. But there is a certain mood music coming from parts of the tory party at least that wants to give tax breaks to married couples with the aim of making it easier, financially, to raise children. Assuming thats done in a way that applies simply to married couples, does that then impact on the rest of us if we arent getting a tax cut, or paying more tax, so that a couple who are anatomically unable to reproduce together dont have to pay as much tax?
#4 by Benjamin on July 16, 2012 - 2:18 pm
I’m curious to understand why the pro-independence cause will lose your vote as a result of this Bob. You’re not the first person I’ve heard saying that they will be less likely to vote for independence should this go through, and I find this perspective really interesting.
It seems that the Tories and LibDems are going to introduce substantially the same thing south of the border, and that Labour will not oppose it on either side. So my question is, why would an independence supporter who opposes same-sex marriage prefer the UK with same-sex marriage over an independence Scotland with same-sex marriage?
#5 by Steven Dehn on July 16, 2012 - 2:08 pm
I always find the idea of people challenging in the courts denominations who don’t wish to carry out such ceremonies laughable. The Catholic Church does not carry out marriages in which one person is a divorcee.
This hasn’t been successfully challenged in the courts so why would it happened with equal marriage?
#6 by Iain Menzies on July 16, 2012 - 2:53 pm
Divorcess dont get specific protection under the law for being divorcess….homosexuals do….that could be one reason why it could.
#7 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 2:38 pm
We have seen various elements of equality challenged in the courts; I therefore would not wish to be so presumptoius that something would never be challenged.
The basic point that is made in connection to gay marriage is that if two people love each other then they should be allowed to marry. There is no limitation to who those two people should be – so two brothers being in love could get married. Degrees of consanguinity is irrelevant given there is no prospect of genetic children from the couple. Then why should it only be two people in a relationship why not three or four? And thats the problem, once the nature is marrage is redefined in this way there is nothing to stop where one ends up.
The State knows no boundaries in this type of matter – I am not a Catholic, but I was appauled that Archbishop Conti was reported to the police for a sermon; christians are disenfranchised from adoption because of their legitimate and personal views homosexuality;
Unfortunately those with religion and those who say they have no religion are required to think deeply about this issues. One cannot simply argue that this relates to the State and therefore only the state’s views matter – because the state is made up of a rich tapestry of people. As as rights are afforded onto one group, co-relative duties fall to another group which may deminish and undermine that particular groups own rights.
#8 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 2:39 pm
oh just to add – if those two people decide they wish get married in the where I officiate church then it is a matter that concerns me.
#9 by Jeff on July 16, 2012 - 2:46 pm
My understanding is that the church would be legally allowed to say no in such circumstances. Indeed, from the BBC article that I linked to:
“the Holyrood government has insisted no part of the religious community would be forced to hold gay weddings in churches”
Seems reasonable.
#10 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 2:49 pm
But there is no guarentee that would remain in place either by a change of government, or through interpretation of ECHR.
Your views of reasonableness are meaningless therefore.
#11 by Craig Gallagher on July 17, 2012 - 4:06 pm
But there’s no guarantee of that, ever. Any Parliament can overturn any other, so what’s your point, caller?
#12 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 2:44 pm
Benjamin – to answer your point:
There is no guarentee that this will pass in Westminister. There is at least a check on legislation, and whether this would pass through the Commons let alone the Lords is questionable.
There has been a huge amount of lobbying in scotland, to the point where one group seeks to name and shame MSPs who vote against this proposal. I think of the way in which John Mason was dealt with – it horrified me.
There is no bicarmeral system in Scotland therefore the prospect of the legislation coming in here is significantly higher.
#13 by Observer on July 16, 2012 - 3:26 pm
Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the ECHR so that would be an additional protection as well as anything the Scottish Govt write into the legislation. Equalisation of marriage rights will not give anyone a civil right to get married in a church, it will give people a civil right to get married regardless of their sexuality.
Churches would have the same right to expect anybody who wants to get married in their church to share their faith as they do now.
The equalities legislation which some people seem to be afraid of applies to anyone offering a public service. Getting married in a church is not a public service it is at the discretion of the church. None of this is going to change.
By all means say you don’t think homosexuals should be allowed to get married, but don’t rely on some fictitious threat of gay rights legal action which no gay rights activist from Peter Tatchell onwards have said they want to take.
Why on earth would a gay couple want to get married by an institution which regards them as sinful? On the other hand why should bodies like the Quakers be prevented from marrying gay people who share their faith.
#14 by Iain Menzies on July 16, 2012 - 4:44 pm
Why a gay couple would want to marry in a church is a question for that couple, but considering the number of gays in the country you cant possibly say that there arent at least a couple that are religious.
As for getting married in church not being a public service…well i cant speak for the catholic church by the Church of Scotland has been known to marry people that are not members of the Kirk, who are just members of the public….its not hard to see how you can build a case to say that they are providing a public service since they, well , do.
Catholic doctorine may be stricter on that basis, i dont know, but i would be surprised if the catholic church in scotland had never married someone who wasnt a catholic. If they dont restrict the service to Roman Catholics then you’re getting close, at least, to providing a public service. YOu then get into the area of balancing the right to a family life, and the right to live free of discrimination against freedom of religion. the best/worst case may well be the catholic church and otehr churchs, having a duty to offer the service, even if individual ministers and preists refuse to conduct those services.
In short, just cos Tatchell says he wont sue doesnt mean someone wont, and just cos the SG says it wont apply to churchs doesnt mean someone wont sue forcing the churchs hand.
#15 by Don McC on July 16, 2012 - 6:37 pm
Quick question. Iain, which I’m not sure I know the answer to:
Does the Church levy a charge for these services? If so, does that make it harder to describe it as a public service? After all, if your local shop sells you a newspaper, is it performing a public service?
#16 by Iain Menzies on July 16, 2012 - 7:00 pm
Im not sure if they charge for the service tbh. What i would say is that its not nessecarily that simple. What i mean is is the service the service. which makes things no clearer…
I suppose its in two parts. First you have the use of the room. Second you have the services of the minister/priest/rabbi/etc.
As for the point on the newsagents….you could just as well say a B&B…which doesnt exactly back up the idea that a church wouldnt be forced to cater to the gay community.
#17 by Observer on July 16, 2012 - 7:00 pm
There is a definition of a public service in the Act. A church wedding doesn’t fall into it. I really have no idea how this issue has turned into a debate about phantom gay rights activists of the future using laws which don’t currently exist to force churches that don’t welcome them to marry them. It’s just bizarre.
#18 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 10:54 pm
Stephen
we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s standard, and I am genuinely heart sore for you for the experience you testify to. I am conscious that I fail in every area of my life and need to forgiveness of my sin through the Lord Jesus. And I testify my thankfulness for the Lord’s dealing with me that He gives me a new song to sing, and that I can stand with His people to sing the song that Jesus is Lord.
#19 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 10:55 pm
You say none of this is going to change. How do you know?
#20 by Shuna on July 16, 2012 - 4:28 pm
It would be great If when this legislation goes through I, as a minister of religion, could have the freedom to agree to conduct same sex marriages. Unfortunately this is debate the church is not finished with.
Important to remember not all church leaders are against same sex marriage.
#21 by Observer on July 16, 2012 - 7:04 pm
I suspect a lot of opposition to same sex weddings is not in fact because there is a fear of Peter Tatchell wanting to get wed in a church, but there is a fear that removing the legal impediment to marrying gay couples may prompt further debate & division in churches which don’t have the same hard line as the RC church adopts.
But that is a debate for the churches to have, they should not rely on the law.
#22 by Shuna on July 16, 2012 - 6:56 pm
Don, in the church of Scotland each congregation has its own arrangements for fees. This would be over and above the fees payable to the Registrar for registering the wedding. Some churches charge nothing and I, for one, would not charge a fee if cost was an issue for a couple. That said you will find fees for churches will be nothing like fees charged for other venues. I should also add there is no charge for the minister. When I have conducted weddings outside the church I have not been paid and would not expect it if it were for a couple from my parish. In the same way I do not get paid for weddings I conduct in either of my churches.
I have seen a four fold increase in weddings this year and already quite a few booked for next year.
#23 by Iain Menzies on July 16, 2012 - 7:27 pm
I dont mean this to be cheeky, so please dont take it that way.
But i am very surprised that you dont get paid for conducting a service. I can understand that you wouldnt bill a couple of the service. But the reason that i am surprised is that i know that when my grandparents were buried the minister that conducted the service (both ministers infact) were paid.
#24 by Stephen Glenn on July 16, 2012 - 7:25 pm
As a Christian who happens to be gay I’m rather upset that someone like Bob denies me inviting someone to be an integral is any lifelong monogamous joining ceremony that I may want to have.
Any civil partnership or civil marriage ceremony would preclude me from using hymns, or any readings from the bible or any mention of God whatsoever. I know there are religious groups and ordained leaders (as this isn’t just a Christian issue) who want to be able to carry out same-sex marriage.
He says he is someone who doesn’t believe in single issue politics yet a single issue seems to be driving him from his party. Maybe he would like to know that this single issue being pursued by the leaders of the church I grew up in caused me so much hurt that I have been driven away from it.
#25 by Doug Daniel on July 16, 2012 - 10:42 pm
I hope the SNP have the same courage of conviction over this as they did with Megrahi. It might annoy some people, but it’s the right thing to do and we cannot allow people with prejudiced or misinformed views to shape public policy.
The various excuses for not doing this are exactly that – excuses. These aren’t nuanced arguments which people have picked up on during an open-minded debate that have led them to disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage – they’re contrived attempts to justify their opposition to homosexuality in a way that doesn’t make them look like as ignorant and old-fashioned as my parents do when they see two blokes on TV kissing (“Pair of bloody poofters!!!”, “They’re nae even ashamed of it!!!”) I’d be surprised if the Cardinal doesn’t wince when he sees a man declaring he has a husband, like someone did on Pointless today.
The tragedy here is that within a few years of passing the bill, people will look back and wonder what the fuss was all about, and find it hard to believe that there was even a debate, the same way that today it seems utterly absurd that we used to deny women the vote, or force black people to sit at the back of buses. Quite simply, I think we should pay as much attention to the Cardinal’s views on this as we would to Tom Cruise’s views on mental health treatment.
#26 by Bob on July 16, 2012 - 10:58 pm
Bob – I therefore presume that you would have no difficulty with the issue being put to a referendum.
#27 by Doug Daniel on July 16, 2012 - 11:48 pm
Doug – it would win in a referendum, of that I have absolutely no doubt. But it’s such a piddly little change that I don’t see the point. I dare say the majority of people see this as little more than an administrative issue, since we already talk of gay couples getting married, even though they’re only civil partners. If nothing else, referendums should only be used for issues that genuinely effect everyone. I have no intention in getting married to another man, but what right do I have to say someone else can’t do it?
If we have a referendum on this, then why not have a referendum on banning organised religion? People like Cardinal O’Brien do far more damage to society than a couple of gay guys wanting to be able to get married, rather than just “married”.
#28 by Iain Menzies on July 17, 2012 - 9:19 am
what was it you were saying about prejudice?
#29 by Doug Daniel on July 17, 2012 - 2:33 pm
Where am I being prejudiced?
#30 by Don McC on July 17, 2012 - 7:23 am
Bob, would you object to the banning of organised religion being put to the Scottish people in a referendum? After all, if organised religion was banned, it would neatly deal with your objections to religious ceremonies for gay couples.
#31 by Don McC on July 17, 2012 - 7:21 am
If these objections really are “contrived attempts to justify their opposition to homosexuality in a way that doesn’t make them look like as ignorant and old-fashioned as my parents do when they see two blokes on TV kissing” then, I’m sorry, they’ve failed spectacularly.
#32 by Doug Daniel on July 17, 2012 - 2:36 pm
In the sense that we all know exactly what the true reasons for their opposition is, yes, they’ve failed. But in the sense that they can deny outright homophobia and could be accused of hate crime or something, that’s different.
#33 by Shuna on July 17, 2012 - 5:30 pm
@ Iain, as a church is Scotland minister I see it as part of my ‘duties’ as parish minister. Same as at a funeral I do them and do not get paid unless the family give a personal gift but certainly not expected or encouraged. I am payed a stipend so no need for extra payment. I know in some areas undertakers auto add a fee for minister but that not strictly needed if a CofS funeral. Not sure how other denominations work tho’. We recently made the decision not to ask for a payment towards the church for funerals, instead to ask for a donation towards heating costs etc. none of this is for the minister.
Disappointed the Scot Govt delaying decision, let’s just get on with it!