Skip to main content

Marriage Equality Gains Momentum

This week the Prime Minister David Cameron said he was in favour of same sex marriage, saying, "I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.” I remember reading a similar argument a number of years ago in America. I sort of agree with it, though I'm not a Conservative in any way. Marriage equality is a pro-marriage position: it's valuing commitment, family, love, stability.

The Government has announced it's going to hold a consultation on same sex marriage in England and Wales next March, but it has already excluded the possibility of religious marriage. They only want to allow civil marriage as a possibility. This cannot be acceptable to religious progressives who want to allow marriage in their own places of worship. So we're now faced with a major disagreement between religious progressives and religous conservatives. Religious conservatives should not be made to perform marriages of which they disapprove, but that should not mean the law bans religious progressives from doing so. This is where the disagreement is going to be in the coming months.

Comments

Rich said…
As far as I know, only the Church of England is compelled to perform religious marriages of people who ask for them (and then only if they're eligible, local people).

Other faiths/denominations are (I believe) allowed to refuse to marry any two people even in the case of heterosexual marriage.

So if we get marriage equality we should be able to get around this complication simply by having a separate rule for the Church of England. They have separate rules for everything else!
But the C of E used to refuse to marry divorced people, right? Surely it can be the same situation if it refuses to marry same-sex couples.
Andrew Bethune said…
There is a parallel move towards same sex marriage going on in Scotland. And as in England the proposals allow for churches to celebrate same sex marriages if they wish, but do not force them if they don't wish. I am pleased that the Scottish Unitarian Association, including my former church, St Mark's in Edinburgh, is working very hard to promote the new legislation, and bring about a fairer, juster Scotland.

Three of the Scottish Catholic bishops have been quite outspoken against same sex marriage. Yet a recent opinion poll suggested that 55% of Scottish Catholics are actually in favour of same sex marriage.

The website www.scottishchristian.com is a good way to keep up with the debate as regards Scotland. You can read about Bishops Philip Tartaglia, Mario Conti, and Keith Patrick O'Brien - they are free to express their opinions, but the way they are trying to make their influence felt is quite disturbing.

A posting describes yesterday's sermon given in St Mary's Episcopal Cathedral, Glasgow, by Kevin Holdsworth, the cathedral's Provost (English equivalent=Dean). Not only does he support gay marriages, his cathedral already advertises that it has an LGBT group, and offers blessings of civil partnerships. Therefore, we must remember that the pro same sex marriage movement includes people from many churches even if their central governing body has not yet endorsed the concept.

I'd also like to mention the Equality Network which is championing the equal marriage movement in Scotland. You can sign up with them and get regular email bulletins. Visit www.equality-network.org .

I would urge all your readers based in Scotland to send in their response to the Scottish Government's consultation about this proposed legislation. You'll find it at
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/05153328/0

Popular posts from this blog

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th...

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...