|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Scotsman news article on homosexual minister
|
bookburn
Apprentice
# 16407
|
Posted
Scotsman article on The Kirk and Gay Marriage
The article presents the manifold problem of 1) homosexual marriage and ministers, 2)divisions and alienations of membership, 3)how the National Church of Scotland holds up.
My silly and ignorant attitude comes down as what should happen around the world with countries that identify with a single religion, whether it be Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc.. Democracies should not allow them "favored nation" status. Not talking negative about governments with strong religious scruples, just ones using scripture as law. But being ready to admonish countries using religion as a basis for opression, and assisting oppressed countries. It's what the UN should do.
According to my narrow view, then, Scotland shouldn't have a national church to make Solomon-like judgements about the matter. Just let ministers and members vote with their feet about recognizing homosexuals for a few decades to see where the paths lead.
[Scroll lock problem with URL fixed by host]
[ 04. December 2011, 12:47: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
bookburn
Posts: 11 | From: Anchorage, Alaska | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Welcome, bookburn.
Let me draw your attention to the guidelines for the Dead Horses discussion Board. If you look at numbered paragraph 1, you'll see that Dead Horses is the appropriate Ship of Fools board for discussing any aspect of homosexuality.
There are a number of live discussion threads in DH on various aspects of homosexuality, but this one seems sufficiently distinctive, at least to me, to justify transfer there. So I'm transferring it as it stands.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Dear Bookburn
I can't help feeling it's a pity your post has been consigned to Dead Horse territory, as it seems to me your real issue isn't with gay clergy, but with there being a Church of Scotland.
It may not be how you do things in Anchorage, but a lot of countries have established churches, official religions, and many of them are recognised in international surveys of these things as more effectively democratic than either your or mine. The top four in this list all do.
I'm reluctant to take issue with an apprentice on this, but saying the UN should condemn countries which have an official religion and applauding those that don't, really strikes me as expecting the UN to impose your own values unthinkingly on the rest of the world. Certainly, it would be better, before jumping to prejudiced assumptions, to have a more careful look at the Church of Scotland, how it relates to Scottish life, how some other national churches work and how states function which have a concordat with Rome. The US Constitution is not the only way of dealing with this.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm a member of the Church of Scotland, and I'm not too clear what you're arguing here.
Firstly, the Church of Scotland isn't a monopoly church in Scotland. We're the national church in that C of S ministers are obliged to e.g. provide funerals for anyone who dies within their parish, whether they were church members or not. In practice, this responsibility is sometimes shared by a committee of churches; I know some Methodist churches do this.
The Church of Scotland is one group which contributed to the ongoing debate about gay marriage. Personally, I'm disappointed with the church's response to this. However, even as a practising member of the church, I don't think that anyone in the congregation within which I worship would think that, just because the church hierarchy has said something, they are bound to agree with it.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798
|
Posted
Some random thoughts:
As a member of the C of S, AFAIK the Church is disestablished, i.e. the Church and State are separate entities, although the C of S is the National Church of Scotland and Scots without a connection to other denominations would mostly de facto regard it as their church. This is quite different from the Church of England, which is the State Church. For more information see here: Church of Scotland website
As far as the issue of same-sex marriage is concerned, as with many issues, the C of S's role is to be consulted and to provide an opinion that reflects the majority of its members, not to make the law.
Potentially if a law was passed allowing same-sex marriage and the C of S did not agree, it would have the same right as other churches in Scotland to refuse to celebrate such marriages. I think the C of E, due to its Established status might not have this leeway, although individual priests might.
There is a potential complicating issue in that in England a wedding outside a church cannot have any religious content or be performed by a minister of religion; in Scotland the same restrictions do not apply, so ministers of the C of S could go around performing same-sex marriages in hotels and castles even if the C of S vetoed such ceremonies on their property.
Which leads me to wonder, who employs a C of S minister?
<cross-posted with the far-more eloquent NEQ, whose views I agree with, BTW>
[ 04. December 2011, 12:35: Message edited by: mrs whibley ]
--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli
Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Should have said - Welcome to the Ship, bookburn!
Just to add a bit of background, the Scottish government is currently consulting on the introduction of same-sex marriage. According to the press release they are meeting "a wide range of key organisations" during the consultation period, which is due to end on 9 Dec.
It seems appropriate to me that a government consulting a "wide range" of organisations should include faith groups within their remit.
Again, personally, I'm disappointed by the C of S stance, but I do think that it is right and proper that the Church of Scotland be part of the "wide range" or organisations consulted.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
To clarify a few matters, the Church of Scotland is a national church, but it is not an established church. That means that it has no say whatsoever in government beyond the usual vote of every individual member. Likewise, the state has no say in church law or polity.
Rather, it is one of many denominations in Scotland: currently the largest technically, with about 450,000 members, but with around 2.15 million claiming affiliation according to the 2001 census (out of a Scottish population of c.5 million). The Roman Catholic Church, which calculates membership differently, estimates that there are 850,000 Catholics in Scotland. The Roman Catholic population tends to be concentrated in certain areas: the Church of Scotland is the National church because of its nation-wide parish system, and its provision of the ordinances of religion (esp. marriage and funerals) to the whole population if they want it.
The Church of Scotland commented on the issue of homosexual marriage because they were asked to by the Scottish Executive. Their full response is here. The Roman Catholic Church had already commented, and stated their opposition, as has Scotland's largest mosque. No one religion is given "favoured nation" status.
All this is part of the Executive's consultation process on changing the law to allow homosexual marriage, both in terms of civil marriage and religious (for those faith groups which wish to perform such ceremonies). Comments are being garnered from every denomination and religion in Scotland, and indeed, from every individual voter. This can be done online here.
Accordingly, bookburn's characterisation of the Church if Scotland as some kind of national religion whom all must obey is entirely wrong-headed. It simply cannot make "Solomon-like judgements" because it has no legal status in government. Scotland is a very secular country indeed (there are no "Church of Scotland schools", for example), and has always recognised a crucial separation between Church and State. This is enshrined in the Scots Confession. The State has absolutely no obligation to listen to the Kirk on this matter, though it is wisely seeking as full a public consultation as possible.
Moreover, the Church of Scotland is a Presbyterian church run on a committee and assembly basis, in which every member has (at least in a devolved sense) voting rights. This may be an official response from the head office of the Kirk, but it does not speak for me, and nor does can it instruct the individual member how they should vote on this matter. This is very different from the Catholic model, in which the bishop can in theory speak for and instruct individual Catholics.
But on this point I agree with you, bookburn: I think the Kirk should not have made such a definitive statement on a policy which it has not as yet discussed in its General Assembly, and I believe that the head office has acted in 'bishop-like' fashion and far beyond its remit. The response it issued is correct in that it can do no more than repeat the Church's theology of marriage as it currently stands, based on previous Assembly debates. There would need to be a further Assembly and church-wide debate and vote before that could be changed.
But it is an altogether different matter then to say that the State cannot and should not extend marriage to gay couples. It is a far from inconsistent position to believe that gay marriage is wrong theologically, and yet recognise the right of the State to legislate apart from the church: indeed, this might be the conservative position on both issues. This matter has never been discussed or voted upon as policy, and therefore to my mind the Kirk should have issued a much much more cautious statement. This is especially given that it is still in the middle of a 2-year consultation process on the ordination of partnered gay clergy, and that the consultation so far has revealed a very divided church on this matter.
I am also very leery of the Kirk seeking to limit the freedom of other denominations and faith groups. We would be the first to jump up and down if either the State or another denomination tried to interfere with our internal decisions. To me the Church of Scotland statement violates our theological fundamental of the separation of Church and State, as summed up by Willie Rennie MSP: ""I find it difficult to fathom why the Church of Scotland seeks to impose its view on the whole of society when we do not seek to impose our views on it."
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
The Church of Scotland's status is rather complicated (link goes to PDF)
quote:
But the 1921 Act was not a disestablishing Act. Effective disestablishment of the Church of Scotland came about in two separate Acts of Parliament – the Church
Patronage (Scotland Act) of 1874 and the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowment) Act of 1925. While vestiges of Establishment remain within the life of the Church of Scotland, there are none that seriously impinge on the Church’s legal
life except when major constitutional change is discussed e.g. the discussion of the Union Settlement which includes the Act of Settlement. The Church of Scotland is, however, a national church with territorial responsibility, at least for the time being. (Declaratory Article III)
It's not an established church and hasn't been since these acts. It has, as others have said, some vestigial responsibilities over matters such as provision of funerals, but it is not the established religion of Scotland and has merely been consulted in the same way that the Catholic Church and other bodies have been consulted and in the same way as civil bodies such as the Equality Network are being consulted. The Scottish parliament consults widely when bills are at this stage.
With regard to the submission that has been made, this is not the Church of Scotland which has spoken but the 'Legal Questions Committee' of the Church of Scotland. In a Presbyterian church with many committees, views vary and different committees will be of different hues.
In this committee there appears to be a conservative majority who have made this very disappointing and anti-gay submission. However the Kirk as a whole has not spoken on this matter until or if the matter is put to the General Assembly. I also note that the Moderator has not spoken on this issue and that the person doing the running on it in the media for the anti-gay group with the Orwellian name 'Scotland for Marriage' is Ann Allen, who is the former Convener of the Church of Scotland's Board of Social Responsibility and notorious for her anti-gay views.
These people represent the conservative wing of the Kirk. They do not represent the whole Kirk by any matter of means. The fact that the General Assembly voted in 2009 by 326 to 267 to uphold the Rev. Scott Rennie (who is an openly gay and partnered minister) being called to his charge in Aberdeen gives some idea of the extent to which these people with their anti-gay views do not speak for the whole Kirk. There is a split of opinion. They do speak for a sizeable constituency but certainly not for the whole.
I too am a member of the Church of Scotland and I am one of the people who will leave if the General Assembly endorses attacks on the progress of civil rights for LGBT people. However the Legal Questions Committee of the Kirk do not speak for me, and I have sent my response to the consultation on the matter to the Equality Network - the charity which works for LGBT rights in Scotland which is also being consulted. I have also written to my MSP making clear that these people do not speak for me.
I understand the nature of a church run by committees and I know that the Kirk is not monolithic -so that sometimes there will be statements or decisions that I strongly disapprove of. But if the General Assembly comes out to attack a bill or act of parliament seeking to improve the civil rights of LGBT people in Scotland, that will be the day that I leave and ask to be taken off our communion roll. May it never come to this.
Louise
[crossposted with Cottontail who will be better informed than me!]
[ 04. December 2011, 14:00: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
*sigh*
I cannot believe the LQC did this. Waaaaay beyond their remit.
They do not speak for me either.
As for Ann A: her interview statement re. 'all 500 000 members of the CofS will be delighted with this public statement' is a pile of utter rubbish. Some will be pleased, some won't be. She is, however, not the Archbishop of the CofS, so she can p*ss right off thank you very much.
Apol's for language.
As a member of the CofS, I'm disgusted by this whole sorry matter.
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
Joan,
The reason the LQC came up with the response they did (on that point, it would be a bit weird if the CofS were to say "we have no view and therefore will not comment") is because that is what is the current situation is.
You may bemoan the response they give (personally I'm troubled that such a response has to be given by the LQC and not just a straighforward answer from the M&D Council) but like it or not, the CofS has never approved any other type of marriage other than that of one man and one woman.
Yes, the GA of 2009 voted to uphold the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen to induct Scott Rennie but never has the church ever given "doctrinal approval" to a homesexual relationship, let alone marriage. Granted no doubt some steps have been made towards that by the GA's decision last May but I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries (assuming it goes down under the Barrier Act). It happened a few years ago very convincingly re the blessing of civil partnerships and I'm 99% certain it would happen again.
The CofS in the past never stated it either approved or disapproved of homesexual marriage because it wouldn't in it's wildest dreams imagined this would be an issue they would have to actually clarify their position on. Hence the reason many could argue Aberdeen Presbytery were right to sustain the call to Queen's Cross. However, there has also never been any formal acceptance of homesexual marriage in the CofS (indeed I know of many Presbyteries who would discipline a minister for doing so) therefore the LQC had no option but to give the response they did.
On the question of Ann Allen, perhaps she got a bit carried away with her talk but to many (including me) she is just being thankful that the CofS has for once given an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship, Shaggy!
I'd be astonished if the Presbytery in which my church is situated would discipline a minister for blessing a same-sex union, and I'm fairly sure my minister would conduct a gay marriage, were he empowered to do so.
Some years ago (10?) one of the ministers in my Presbytery had a son who "came out." The minister was open about the difficulties of being gay within a clergy family and I think this meant that most of the ministers within the Presbytery had put a "human face" to the issues prior to Scott Rennie.
Personal friends of ours have been partners for many years; their church ordained them elders together in the late 1990s. I wondered at the time if their church had found a clever way of "blessing" their relationship. It's not an issue which has just suddenly surfaced from nowhere.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Sorry, forgot to say, Shaggy - there's a thread at the top of All Saints for new people to introduce themselves and be welcomed, and there's a Scottish thread (Irn-Bru Special), currently about 2/3 of the way down the first page of All Saints.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
Hi Shaggy and welcome to the Ship.
Moving on from the LQC discussion and just to pick up on something you said in your post above:
quote:
but I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries
This is NOT about making a decision on 'gay ministers'... it is about LGBT ministers who are in a relationship/ civil partnership. It's kind of important to get that terminology at least sorted out.
At the last GA it was affirmed that orientation, in and of itself is no bar to training/ ordination for ministry.
Sorry, small bug-bear of mine caused by media reportage and their persistent use of the term 'openly gay ministers'... you can be openly gay and train/ be a minister... you can't be in a relationship.
Of course, there are those in the Kirk who would rather folk who are LGBT and single not be ministers either...
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Welcome, Shaggy. I second North East Quine's invitation to the Irn Bru thread in All Saints, and to the welcome thread there. I hope you will continue to engage, and not always on this particular issue!
I apologise in advance for the length of this post. But I felt that the issues you raise are worthy of a considered reply.
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
The reason the LQC came up with the response they did (on that point, it would be a bit weird if the CofS were to say "we have no view and therefore will not comment") is because that is what is the current situation is.
The CofS has a view on what marriage is. This is currently a default position, for as you rightly point out, this has never been discussed, but has rather been assumed alongside past societal norms.
However, the view being sought by the Scottish Executive was whether or not marriage should be made a civil and legal possibility for same-sex couples, and wider, whether this should also be a religious possibility if desired.
Implicit in the LQC's reply are several issues which do far more than merely report the Kirk's default understanding of marriage. To wit:
(a) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman preclude an acceptance of the State's right to legislate as it pleases?
Qualifier: where the issue is not one of justice. I fully accept our God-given mandate to shout loud and long about issues of state injustice, though we must take the consequences of that too. But this case, I submit, is not an example of state injustice, but on the contrary, is a genuine attempt by the state to promote justice through equality.
(b) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage permit it to insist that other religions and Christian denominations must accept this understanding also?
In other words, is the CofS prepared to compromise its own principle of religious freedom in order to limit the freedom of other religions and denominations to conduct same-sex marriages?
(c) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage preclude supporting the human right of gay people to equal treatment under law?
i.e., might a church hold a conservative religious position, while still campaigning for the protection and human rights of gay people in wider society? It ought to be possible.
All of these issues were raised implicitly by the CofS's response. None of them have been discussed by the General Assembly. I maintain therefore that the LQC ought to have stated the Kirk's current position re. marriage, and stopped there. What is wrong with saying that "we have no view on this matter" if the situation is that we do indeed at this moment have no view? If anything, the basic separation of Church and State are so enshrined in the Kirk, that the default position here should have been silence.
quote:
I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries (assuming it goes down under the Barrier Act). It happened a few years ago very convincingly re the blessing of civil partnerships and I'm 99% certain it would happen again.
You may well be right. However, it has not happened yet, and therefore I would hope the possibility did not inform the LQC response.
quote:
The CofS in the past never stated it either approved or disapproved of homesexual marriage because it wouldn't in it's wildest dreams imagined this would be an issue they would have to actually clarify their position on ... However, there has also never been any formal acceptance of homesexual marriage in the CofS ... therefore the LQC had no option but to give the response they did.
Again, you may be right. But the fact remains that the position never has been clarified. Therefore the LQC did indeed have the option to give a more circumspect reply, explaining precisely that: that there has never been any formal acceptance of homosexual marriage in the CofS, but neither has there been any formal rejection. If the Executive and the media were then to shout 'fudge' - well, let them. That is how our Presbyterian system works, and the fuss (and hurt) which the LQC response has engendered is precisely why the system should not be bypassed in this way.
quote:
On the question of Ann Allen, perhaps she got a bit carried away with her talk but to many (including me) she is just being thankful that the CofS has for once given an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society.
I have no objection to Ann Allen stating her own viewpoint, although I would deny that it is the only "orthodox Christian viewpoint" out there. I simply maintain that she had no right to give the impression that she was speaking for the Church. I am sure you would feel equally indignant if a 'liberal' incumbent at 121 had claimed to speak on your behalf.
And as to your point about the "orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society" - I realise that your phrasing indicates a more nuanced position on your part, but the truth remains, that I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
Where was our much-self-lauded counter-cultural agenda when culture was hounding gay people, excluding them from some of the most basic human rights, forcing them to undergo brutal corrective therapies, including chemical castration, and driving them to suicide? Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters? And why hasn't the counter-cultural church been a safe haven all along for homosexual people? Because it certainly isn't, not even now.
Sometimes I think the Holy Spirit is doing her best work precisely in our culture because the 'counter-cultural' Church has stopped listening.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Sorry for butting in, but I'm dumbstruck by this comment:
"Public opinion sent Jesus to the cross."
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Hi Shaggy and welcome to the Ship.
Moving on from the LQC discussion and just to pick up on something you said in your post above:
quote:
but I can guarantee you any decision on gay ministers will be resoundedly chucked out by Presbyteries
This is NOT about making a decision on 'gay ministers'... it is about LGBT ministers who are in a relationship/ civil partnership. It's kind of important to get that terminology at least sorted out.
At the last GA it was affirmed that orientation, in and of itself is no bar to training/ ordination for ministry.
Sorry, small bug-bear of mine caused by media reportage and their persistent use of the term 'openly gay ministers'... you can be openly gay and train/ be a minister... you can't be in a relationship.
Of course, there are those in the Kirk who would rather folk who are LGBT and single not be ministers either...
Before I respond to anything else let me say I sit corrected.
The use of the term "gay ministers" was quite lazy and I apologise. I know of one man in my old (very conservative evangelical) church who had a significant small group ministry etc who was very openly homesexual. He was also very open that he firmly believed that for him acting on those desires would be sinful. He was totally supported by all in that congregation (indeed he was very much admired, particularly by me) and I do not know of anyone who would want to bar him from that ministry (or indeed if he sought ordination) because of his sexual orientation.
So therefore I totally agree, I meant those ministers in an active sexual LGBT relationship.
[ 05. January 2012, 08:18: Message edited by: Shaggy ]
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Welcome to the Ship, Shaggy!
I'd be astonished if the Presbytery in which my church is situated would discipline a minister for blessing a same-sex union, and I'm fairly sure my minister would conduct a gay marriage, were he empowered to do so.
Some years ago (10?) one of the ministers in my Presbytery had a son who "came out." The minister was open about the difficulties of being gay within a clergy family and I think this meant that most of the ministers within the Presbytery had put a "human face" to the issues prior to Scott Rennie.
Personal friends of ours have been partners for many years; their church ordained them elders together in the late 1990s. I wondered at the time if their church had found a clever way of "blessing" their relationship. It's not an issue which has just suddenly surfaced from nowhere.
NEQ, thanks for the welcome!
I guess it all depends what Presbytery such a situation may arise in. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) you are in the Presbytery of Aberdeen, if so I would suspect that they would not be disciplined (same in Dundee & Edinburgh). In my presbytery (or rather old, I am a traitor who now lives in Berkshire!) I can pretty much guarantee they would be. That said Presbytery is I think disproportionately made up of more Orthodox/Evangelical congregations (and no it's not the Western Isles!) who would clearly take a dim view of such an action.
As you say, it's not something which has come out of nowhere. It's been brewing for years and was very carefully managed off the agenda until it blew up at boiling points such as Section 28, blessing of civil partnerships etc.
I'm just sad that this is what many Evangelical/Orthodox ministers/congregations have decided to take a stand on. Don't get me wrong, I agree with them but by making a stand on this but not say, ministers of prominent Edinburgh churches openly denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus appears (inaccurately) somewhat homophobic.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm not in Aberdeen Presbytery, but in the rural North-East. We're probably close enough to Aberdeen though, for the views there to be shared.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
Cottontail ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
When I grow up, may I please have such a beautifully ordered mind and the gift of clarity in articulation that you demonstrate? Please?
Thank you for that incredibly well-considered response.
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I was thinking exactly the same thing, JK!
Cottontail
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
Cottontail, thank you for your detailed reply. I'm not sure how to quote on this so please bear with me!
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
(a) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman preclude an acceptance of the State's right to legislate as it pleases?
Qualifier: where the issue is not one of justice. I fully accept our God-given mandate to shout loud and long about issues of state injustice, though we must take the consequences of that too. But this case, I submit, is not an example of state injustice, but on the contrary, is a genuine attempt by the state to promote justice through equality.
Of course the state has a right to legislate as it wishes. No-one (not even your friend Ann Allen...) is arguing that somehow the Scottish Government would be acting illegally. However one of the privileges we have in a democracy is to petition the government of the day on whatever issue we choose. That to me would include the right of the CofS to respond in a negative fashion to a government consultation.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
(b) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage permit it to insist that other religions and Christian denominations must accept this understanding also?
In other words, is the CofS prepared to compromise its own principle of religious freedom in order to limit the freedom of other religions and denominations to conduct same-sex marriages?
It's an interesting topic this one. How far do we extend religious freedom? Should the CofS not speak out at say a Mormon Sect in the Highlands which practised polygamy? Or would that somehow impinge on the CofS right to worship the Risen Saviour without any state interference?
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last? You can bet that the extremely clever and well-funded groups like Stonewall will get this changed soon enough, no doubt in the name of discrimination. Where is the religious freedom of a CofS minister who genuinely believes through his or her own careful study and prayer (and not blind intolerance) that homesexual partnerships are not something to be blessed, being forced to either go against his/her conscience or be prosecuted?
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
(c) Does the CofS's internal understanding of marriage preclude supporting the human right of gay people to equal treatment under law?
i.e., might a church hold a conservative religious position, while still campaigning for the protection and human rights of gay people in wider society? It ought to be possible.
Again it depends on what circumstances. Using the argument of polygamy in either sectish Mormomisn or parts of Islam, if marriage is to be extended to include homesexual couples, why shouldn't it also be extended to polygamist families? Why shouldn't they receive their equal treatment under the law?
Other than that, my own church (as you might guess a rather Con-Evo one) campaigned strongly against what was going on against homesexuals in Uganda. Far more so than many of the so-called "inclusive" congregations which surrounded us. Just because we believe marriage (and in extension, sex in marriage) is for one man and one woman does not mean it precludes us for campaigning against actual discrimination and persecution of homesexuals.
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
All of these issues were raised implicitly by the CofS's response. None of them have been discussed by the General Assembly. I maintain therefore that the LQC ought to have stated the Kirk's current position re. marriage, and stopped there. What is wrong with saying that "we have no view on this matter" if the situation is that we do indeed at this moment have no view? If anything, the basic separation of Church and State are so enshrined in the Kirk, that the default position here should have been silence.
Thankfully due to our church forefathers, we do have separation of church and state in Scotland. However, how that therefore means our default position should be silence is a mystery to me. I would have thought it more the opposite. I personally am separated from the state. Although I am part of the electorate who voted in this legislature which provides the government, I nor any other private citizen or indeed any non-state grouping are not the state. Does that therefore mean I or any other NGO should have a default position of silence on what the governement of the day is doing?
quote:
Again, you may be right. But the fact remains that the position never has been clarified. Therefore the LQC did indeed have the option to give a more circumspect reply, explaining precisely that: that there has never been any formal acceptance of homosexual marriage in the CofS, but neither has there been any formal rejection. If the Executive and the media were then to shout 'fudge' - well, let them. That is how our Presbyterian system works, and the fuss (and hurt) which the LQC response has engendered is precisely why the system should not be bypassed in this way.
Perhaps you are correct on this (although I don't think the CofS has ever given any positive final ruling on homesexual marriage), but it would have been nice in the past if such liberal outrage would have been shared when Moderators and such like went well beyond their remit in speaking (somewhat from a liberal and socialist perspective) for the CofS.
quote:
I have no objection to Ann Allen stating her own viewpoint, although I would deny that it is the only "orthodox Christian viewpoint" out there. I simply maintain that she had no right to give the impression that she was speaking for the Church. I am sure you would feel equally indignant if a 'liberal' incumbent at 121 had claimed to speak on your behalf.
It's happened so many times I've got over the indignance. Hence why I was so pleasantly surprised to hear the church's actual response (which incidentally did not disagree with Ann Allen).
quote:
And as to your point about the "orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society" - I realise that your phrasing indicates a more nuanced position on your part, but the truth remains, that I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
Where was our much-self-lauded counter-cultural agenda when culture was hounding gay people, excluding them from some of the most basic human rights, forcing them to undergo brutal corrective therapies, including chemical castration, and driving them to suicide? Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters? And why hasn't the counter-cultural church been a safe haven all along for homosexual people? Because it certainly isn't, not even now.
Mostly, I agree with you. For when you talk of the degrading treatment of homesexuals by the church then absolutely. The christian church should rightly hang its head in shame although that should not therefore extend to "affirming" homesexual practice, let alone marriage.
quote:
Sometimes I think the Holy Spirit is doing her best work precisely in our culture because the 'counter-cultural' Church has stopped listening.
You mean when He worked through fine christian men such as John Newton and William Wilbeforce to abolish slavery?
Apologise for the long response Cottentail, but I felt you had put such effort into yours, the only gracious response I could come back with was an equivalently detailed post!
Soli Del Gloria.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm not going to attempt to answer - I know when I'm out-classed! But could I ask a question?
quote:
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last?
Am I right in thinking that ministers can't be forced to conduct a wedding between heterosexuals? How could ministers be forced to conduct a ceremony between homosexuals if they can't be forced to conduct a ceremony between heterosexuals? Presumably they would always have the freedom to refuse to marry homosexuals if they would refuse heterosexuals in the same circumstances?
Also, presumably most people aim to have maximum joy from their wedding. Given that there will be plenty of ministers willing to provide a joyful service, why would anyone want to seek out one who will conduct the ceremony with ill grace, just to make a point? The idea of some minister being forced to conduct such a ceremony seems bizarre.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
Cottontail: You're in the Quotes File!
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm not going to attempt to answer - I know when I'm out-classed! But could I ask a question?
quote:
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last?
Am I right in thinking that ministers can't be forced to conduct a wedding between heterosexuals? How could ministers be forced to conduct a ceremony between homosexuals if they can't be forced to conduct a ceremony between heterosexuals? Presumably they would always have the freedom to refuse to marry homosexuals if they would refuse heterosexuals in the same circumstances?
Also, presumably most people aim to have maximum joy from their wedding. Given that there will be plenty of ministers willing to provide a joyful service, why would anyone want to seek out one who will conduct the ceremony with ill grace, just to make a point? The idea of some minister being forced to conduct such a ceremony seems bizarre.
NEQ, I think we have all been outclassed by the writings of Cottontail!
Currently no-one in the CofS is forced to conduct a marriage ceremony (although if they persistently refused for no good reason then I hope a good Presbytery would step in and sort that out). However, if the circumstances arose that a minister who happily marries heterosexual couples but would refuse to conduct such a ceremony for a homesexual couple, I imagine in time there would surely be prosecutions on the grounds of discrimination (like we have seen with registrars).
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I might be havering here (where are you, Cottontail?) but when the North East Mannie and I got married twenty-mumble years ago, we had a couple of hoops to jump through. I joined the church in my home town, but moved my lines when I left home. However, we married in my home town church, and I had to shift my lines back to my home town church prior to our wedding, then back again to the church I actually attended afterwards. (This despite the fact that my mother was a member of my home church, so there was an existing link, and the minister knew me perfectly well, as he'd been my minister when I was growing up.)
Is it still the case that your lines need to be with the church you marry in? In which case, if one half of a gay couple have their lines with a church, presumably there's an existing connection to the church, and the minister is already comfortable with the situation.
There's no faff with lines when it comes to a registry wedding; it's a different situation.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I might be havering here (where are you, Cottontail?) but when the North East Mannie and I got married twenty-mumble years ago, we had a couple of hoops to jump through. I joined the church in my home town, but moved my lines when I left home. However, we married in my home town church, and I had to shift my lines back to my home town church prior to our wedding, then back again to the church I actually attended afterwards. (This despite the fact that my mother was a member of my home church, so there was an existing link, and the minister knew me perfectly well, as he'd been my minister when I was growing up.)
Is it still the case that your lines need to be with the church you marry in? In which case, if one half of a gay couple have their lines with a church, presumably there's an existing connection to the church, and the minister is already comfortable with the situation.
There's no faff with lines when it comes to a registry wedding; it's a different situation.
NEQ, I don't know about 22 years ago, but I can categorically state that is not the case now. Some particular ministers may insist on it but I know of plenty folk who were married in my old church who were not regular adherents, let alone having their lines there.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
I got married twenty-mumble years ago,
quote:
NEQ, I don't know about 22 years ago,
Yes, 22 years ago. Was that a lucky guess?
About half the new communicants in my parish church are joining the church prior to getting married. After they're married we tend not to see them again until they're having the first baby baptised. I had assumed that church membership at least was a pre-requisite for a church wedding.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
re. the notion of somehow 'forcing' ministers to perform marriage/ relationship ceremonies for LGBT folk.
Nope. This is a misnomer. Ministers can, and do, refuse to marry heterosexual couples at times, on grounds of conscience, etc. I know of ministers who will not marry couples who are cohabiting... and of cases where this has extended to couples who have been previously married to others and have subsequently divorced. Ministers are not forced to marry heterosexual couples and along the same lines, will not be forced in any way to marry / bless LGBT couples. What the consultation seems to be concerned with is giving to LGBT people the same options heterosexual people have, to wit, the option to have their relationship blessed within a faith context - whether Christian or other.
As an aside, this conscience clause has been used in other circumstances as well: I know of ministers who refuse to do baptisms. However, that's another matter for discussion at another time! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
Currently no-one in the CofS is forced to conduct a marriage ceremony (although if they persistently refused for no good reason then I hope a good Presbytery would step in and sort that out). However, if the circumstances arose that a minister who happily marries heterosexual couples but would refuse to conduct such a ceremony for a homesexual couple, I imagine in time there would surely be prosecutions on the grounds of discrimination (like we have seen with registrars) .
You mean like in Canada, when same-sex marriage became legal and ministers refusing to perform were arrested, prosecuted, jailed, tortured most horribly, and martyred... Oh wait, NONE OF THAT EVER HAPPENED. Ministers continue to marry whom they think appropriate, and life goes on.
Why does this same boogeyman get dragged out, over and over, when every single time reality refuses to bear out the fears of those who prop it up?
Really, Shaggy. Are there no Catholic priests in Scotland? Do they not refuse to marry persons who are legally allowed to marry, because of their beliefs about divorce etc.? Are they liable to criminal or civil action because of such refusal to marry?
And, one more time, along with the choir invisible: Registrars are public servants. As it says on the tin, they serve the public, in accordance with public policy. If they wish to register only those marriages which suit their particular beliefs, they ought - according to the same strong conscience - to quit and seek to become religious leaders in their tradition, who are under no compulsion to marry anyone not suiting their beliefs or other criteria.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Gosh. I seem to have set myself up as a kind of sage on this matter! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Thank you for your kind comments, which are appreciated.
And thank you too, Shaggy, for your measured responses, and for your impressively instant skill with coding! There are such a lot of issues all tangled up in each other here, that I doubt I shall be able to address each one. Others have pulled out particular of your concerns, and answered them very well, so I shall also try not to duplicate. quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
However one of the privileges we have in a democracy is to petition the government of the day on whatever issue we choose. That to me would include the right of the CofS to respond in a negative fashion to a government consultation.
Yes, of course the CofS has a right to respond. However, it should first agree what that response should be. My argument is that the LQC responded with definitive-looking answers to questions on which we have as yet no definitive policy. Once we have a definitive policy, properly discussed and ratified, we can respond away. And take the consequences.
quote:
How far do we extend religious freedom? Should the CofS not speak out at say a Mormon Sect in the Highlands which practised polygamy?
This is an utterly utterly false comparison, and it ought to be rejected outright. Homosexuals are not seeking the right to marry multiple partners at the same time. They are seeking the legal right to marry one partner. The closest comparison to what they are seeking is not polygamy, but heterosexual marriage.
And also this:
quote:
... if marriage is to be extended to include homesexual couples, why shouldn't it also be extended to polygamist families? Why shouldn't they receive their equal treatment under the law?
Equal treatment under law is required for equal situations. On the most basic mathematical calculation, polygamy is not 'equal' to monogamous marriage.
(You might want to check out this recent thread which discusses why Canada refused legal recognition to polygamous marriage. Many of the concerns centre round the potential for abuse, particularly of women, in such an unequal situation.)
quote:
On the topic of religious freedom, when (because it will happen) churches/other religious groups are allowed to conduct homesexual weddings, no doubt there will be a clause saying no church will be forced to conduct such a ceremony etc. How long would this last? You can bet that the extremely clever and well-funded groups like Stonewall will get this changed soon enough, no doubt in the name of discrimination.
Others have dealt with this quite thoroughly. I will only add that, should that happen to your church, I will be right in there defending your religious freedom. Even though your church doesn't seem inclined to defend mine.
Moreover, should anyone be ill-advised enough to attempt to force a church to act against its conscience, then that church will at last have the chance to experience true persecution, and be blessed for it. At the moment, despite a certain trend among more conservative churches to depict themselves as under liberal siege (I was disappointed to detect that in your post, btw), the church in the UK has as yet no idea what persecution is really like. Though gay people do. quote:
Where is the religious freedom of a CofS minister who genuinely believes through his or her own careful study and prayer (and not blind intolerance) that homesexual partnerships are not something to be blessed, being forced to either go against his/her conscience or be prosecuted?
Where is the religious freedom of the Church of Scotland minister who genuinely believes through his or her own careful study and prayer that homosexual marriages are something to be blessed, but is currently (not hypothetically) being forced either to go against his/her conscience or to be disciplined/suspended/sacked?
quote:
Other than that, my own church (as you might guess a rather Con-Evo one) campaigned strongly against what was going on against homesexuals in Uganda. Far more so than many of the so-called "inclusive" congregations which surrounded us. Just because we believe marriage (and in extension, sex in marriage) is for one man and one woman does not mean it precludes us for campaigning against actual discrimination and persecution of homesexuals.
I am genuinely glad to hear that, and commend your church. But I would challenge you on your last sentence. I am very glad that you have campaigned against "actual persecution". But if you have not campaigned for same-sex marriage (and before that - did your church campaign for civil partnerships?), then I am afraid that you have not campaigned against "actual discrimination". To deny a same-sex couple the right to marry falls precisely into the definition of "actual discrimination", as they are being denied equal treatment in law.
Sorry to do this to you again, but if you are interested, this thread, A new Christian line on gay marriage, outlines many of the arguments both for and against. Most importantly, it contains first-hand testimonies from gay shipmates who describe the actual effects of the "actual discrimination" of not being able to marry.
I think that is enough to be going on with. I'll try and tackle your other points later this evening, or tomorrow. But thank you again for engaging so politely. It is so important that we talk over these things, and try to understand where each other is coming from.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Oh, and I can confirm that a person does not have to be a member of the Kirk before they can be married there, though that was the traditional position, and some churches still put a lot of emphasis on this. Usually, if one of the couple is simply resident in the parish and there is no other impediment, the minister will marry them - and indeed, to some extent is obliged to do so. (You can have a 'parish marriage' just as you can have a 'parish funeral', for both are 'ordinances of religion'.) At one time, of course, almost everyone resident in the parish would have been a member anyway, so the confusion over this is part of the general transition to a more secular society.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Really, Shaggy. Are there no Catholic priests in Scotland? Do they not refuse to marry persons who are legally allowed to marry, because of their beliefs about divorce etc.? Are they liable to criminal or civil action because of such refusal to marry?
As it happens, this goes back a long way. Commissary courts with power to grant divorce on equal terms to both men and women were established after the Scottish Reformation during the 1560s, along with the right for an innocent party to remarry as if their erring spouse was naturally dead.
Since then, the state (and also the Kirk) have upheld a policy on marriage opposed by a large group of Christians who would regard themselves as traditional and orthodox, and to the best of my knowledge no church in Scotland not sharing this position has ever been forced to marry divorcees or face a legal challenge. So that's '450 years and still counting' as a reply to 'How long will it take?' for anyone who likes slippery slope arguments about how any form of marriage reform will lead to religious compulsion in marriage ceremonies.
The registrar argument actually demonstrates the very opposite of what it is claimed we should fear. It shows not that secular authorities are desirous to interfere in an offensive manner in religious ceremonies and contexts, but instead involves a religious person inappropriately importing religious considerations into an avowedly secular context.
Civil marriages are deliberately and by legislation non-religious:
quote:
A civil marriage ceremony cannot have any religious content, but you may be able to arrange for individual touches such as non-religious music and readings to be added to the legal wording, and for the ceremony to be videoed. The register office where you intend to marry will be able to tell you more about the options available.
www.directgov
To seek to import religious beliefs and disqualifications into the provision of strictly non-religious services, designed to serve people who do not want religious ceremonies is a violation of boundaries by the religious against the secular and not the other way round.
The registrar who wished to bring religious taboos into non-religious service provision was not 'prosecuted' but instead sought to sue others. ( I assume Shaggy has the Lillian Ladele case in mind). Miss Ladele herself, having been disciplined for violating her employer's workplace policy in the provision of what were meant to be secular services, took her employers before a tribunal to sue them for religious discrimination. This was a civil action and not a criminal prosecution and it was initiated by Miss Ladele and the Christian Institute.
She was quite entitled to make her challenge under employment law, but somehow her taking her employer to court has now become her being 'prosecuted' with its erroneous implication that state criminalisation of her beliefs was involved.
It's never happened, even over centuries, and even in the times of deepest religious intolerance that the churches who didn't accept divorce and remarriage were told to marry those whom the law of Scotland said were permitted to marry, or face criminal prosecution.
And despite the suffragists and suffragettes and the Equality Act and all, there hasn't been a single 'prosecution' for not accepting female ordination against those churches which don't.
So why is it, that although religiously-based sexual discrimination and discrimination against legally divorced people in churches has been going on for a long time without anyone being hauled up in front of a sheriff, we now get the the 'religious freedom in danger!' argument?
It's especially curious given that this argument involves keeping state imposed curbs on religious freedom on other Christians eg.The Society of Friends.
Here we have a Christian group famous for their fearless witness and peace testimony and commitment to social justice actually being denied freedom of worship in an important part of their testimony- yet we're given a smokescreen about breakaway Mormons and Islamic polygamy. Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Many thanks,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour? Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
Thank you! In the Anglican Church of Canada, ever since the Civil Marriage Act 2005, one of the tropes of the right has been that the Church should not let society dictate its doctrine. Of course, given that they were quite happy for the Church to lend cover and respectability to social prejudices as expressed in the law before then, they'll forgive me my scepticism about their new-found appreciation for "counter-cultural" Christianity.
I've said a number of times that if we wanted to be "counter-cultural" we could have acted with the United Church before the law. But it's too late now unless we would take a harmful and discriminatory position at wide variance from the Gospel, just to stick it to society for the sake of counter-culture itself.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
(Got timed out for some reason ...)
We're too late to hop the Underground Railroad and do the right thing ahead of schedule, but we can at least avoid being Strom Thurmond, straining at the "evil" of equality long after it's become embarrassing to do so.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
quote:
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Louise, I have quoted bits from your post to explain why I will not respond to you. I am happy to debate with others on here in measured forms (NEQ, Cottontail as examples). I am not here to be insulted or to say I'm crying persecution because I am clearly not if you read my posts.
Disagree with me by all means (I hardly came on this board for evangelical consensus) but please keep the anger and insults to yourself. I understand personal attacks are meant for the board Hell?
This is an issue we all feel highly passionate about but there was no need for that tone of post.
Cottontail, I will respond when I get home from work!
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
Lastly, for the avoidance of doubt, I was not meaning the high profile case most heard in the media. I know very little of the case other than what I read in the media so feel hardly qualified to comment.
I was meaning the story of my own mother who was a Registrar until very recently. With all the encouragement earlier on in this thread of looking at personal experiences I thought it may be helpful to hear from the "other side" so to speak.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Shaggy, can you let us know why you think that one group's beliefs should legally bind another group, when both groups believe that they have sought the guidance of the spirit in coming to those beliefs? i.e. why one church (e.g.CofS) should influence national governments to constrain another (e.g. the Quakers)? (Assuming that the action sought is not one which could be seen as a crime against humanity, or half of humanity.)
I don't think that Quakers would seek to compel those who rejected the possibility of homosexual marriage to carry them out, so why should the latter seek to compel them not to?
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
quote:
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Louise, I have quoted bits from your post to explain why I will not respond to you. I am happy to debate with others on here in measured forms (NEQ, Cottontail as examples). I am not here to be insulted or to say I'm crying persecution because I am clearly not if you read my posts.
Disagree with me by all means (I hardly came on this board for evangelical consensus) but please keep the anger and insults to yourself. I understand personal attacks are meant for the board Hell?
This is an issue we all feel highly passionate about but there was no need for that tone of post.
Cottontail, I will respond when I get home from work!
Louise's question was actually quite salient, and your refusal/inability to answer it says a good deal about how seriously we ought to take your offerings here.
What you're proposing has quite dramatic implications: other families, families like yours, should not be recognized by the state because they ostensibly offend your religious beliefs (even though you hold those beliefs at best inconsistently - i.e. you're not calling on heterosexuals to resist "acting on" their "sinful desire" for marriage and family - the sin apparently only comes about when it's other people). According to you, it should just be obvious to the state that those who believe in marriage consistently are wrong and you are right, and your views (at least insofar as you yourself hold them) are the ones that should be written into law. You want to argue that, even though your proposal causes prima facie harm and legal disabilities to Scottish families, and the alternative harms no one, the Scottish govt should err on the side of harm, more or less because Shaggy's pastor told him so.
This is, as I say, a big deal, and you have to be prepared to face hard questions about it. If the best you can do is cry about how mean those questions are, people will assume - fairly - that those tears are the extent of your argumentation and your position, not being intellectually serious, can be ignored.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I am getting thoroughly sick and tired of this insistence on the Church being 'counter-cultural'. Why wasn't the Church being counter-cultural back in the 17th and 18th century, when people were hanged for sodomy?
It should have been, and it was to its shame that it wasn't.
quote:
Why wasn't it counter-cultural when the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended the anti-sodomy laws to criminalise any kind of male homosexual behaviour?
It should have been, and it is to its shame that it wasn't.
quote:
Why wasn't it counter-cultural when it took Scotland until 1980! to decriminalize homosexuality?
It should have been, and it is to its shame that it wasn't.
quote:
Where was our much-self-lauded counter-cultural agenda when culture was hounding gay people, excluding them from some of the most basic human rights, forcing them to undergo brutal corrective therapies, including chemical castration, and driving them to suicide?
Shamefully absent.
quote:
Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters?
Because it was not following its Lord.
I think you have latched onto somebody who means to say "the church should be countercultural" and read them as saying, "the church has at all times been countercultural." Which is unfair.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters?
Because it was not following its Lord.
I think you have latched onto somebody who means to say "the church should be countercultural" and read them as saying, "the church has at all times been countercultural." Which is unfair.
With respect, Mousethief, I think you have misread me. I did not think Shaggy was saying that the church has always been countercultural, and I don't think he read me that way either. And as I think I made clear, this was not a rant directed specifically at Shaggy, but at the current rhetoric in conservative evangelical circles in the church we both belong to.
I was taking issue with his phrase, "an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society". For me, this phrase invoked the oft-heard 'countercultural' justification of the church's seeming 'nastiness' to gay people, in the face of the seeming 'niceness' of wider society. As well as a self-justification, the concept is also used as a deflector shield against any criticism: They would say that - We can expect to be misunderstood - Christians are being persecuted - And all because we are being countercultural. Not because we might be plain wrong.
My point was that it is only now that culture has changed its view on the matter of gay rights, that 'being countercultural' has become a virtue in itself. Before then - which is what I was illustrating - we were quite happy being cultural, thank you very much. And if the conservative evangelicals in my church ever get the control they wish over culture, then you can bet that they will go straight back to being 'cultural' again.
Being countercultural is therefore not a virtue in itself. It is only a virtue to the extent that the church is opposing injustice in culture. When the church is trying to block culture's own attempts to redress systemic injustice, it becomes a vice.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Why not just come out and say it, Shaggy, that you are against freedom of worship for other decent Christians on this issue? And that you expect us to continue a civil injustice against gay people on the grounds that it might, just might, somehow lead to some imagined and unlikely theoretical prejudice to you, despite the fact that such changes in marital legislation never did so to anyone else in the past. Yet on the other hand you expect us to accept actual ongoing state suppression of freedom of Christian worship of blameless Christian denominations and gay people.
quote:
How privileged do you think self-labelled 'orthodox' Christians should be, that slight, theoretical and unlikely harms to them should outweigh actual harm to others? And how can you possibly cry persecution for being asked to allow others a fraction of the consideration with regard to freedom of worship that you imply that your views should be accorded by right?
Louise, I have quoted bits from your post to explain why I will not respond to you. I am happy to debate with others on here in measured forms (NEQ, Cottontail as examples). I am not here to be insulted or to say I'm crying persecution because I am clearly not if you read my posts.
Disagree with me by all means (I hardly came on this board for evangelical consensus) but please keep the anger and insults to yourself. I understand personal attacks are meant for the board Hell?
This is an issue we all feel highly passionate about but there was no need for that tone of post.
Cottontail, I will respond when I get home from work!
Louise's question was actually quite salient, and your refusal/inability to answer it says a good deal about how seriously we ought to take your offerings here.
What you're proposing has quite dramatic implications: other families, families like yours, should not be recognized by the state because they ostensibly offend your religious beliefs (even though you hold those beliefs at best inconsistently - i.e. you're not calling on heterosexuals to resist "acting on" their "sinful desire" for marriage and family - the sin apparently only comes about when it's other people). According to you, it should just be obvious to the state that those who believe in marriage consistently are wrong and you are right, and your views (at least insofar as you yourself hold them) are the ones that should be written into law. You want to argue that, even though your proposal causes prima facie harm and legal disabilities to Scottish families, and the alternative harms no one, the Scottish govt should err on the side of harm, more or less because Shaggy's pastor told him so.
This is, as I say, a big deal, and you have to be prepared to face hard questions about it. If the best you can do is cry about how mean those questions are, people will assume - fairly - that those tears are the extent of your argumentation and your position, not being intellectually serious, can be ignored.
LQ, not even going to bother with your rant here. I almost replied in haste at the end of last week but after a weekend of reflection and rugby playing I would only come across as ungracious in my response.
I've been in far too many frutless back and forths over the years that I really can't see any point in responding to posts like that.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Why wasn't the counter-cultural church jumping up and down in fury at this utterly unChristian treatment of our brothers and sisters?
Because it was not following its Lord.
I think you have latched onto somebody who means to say "the church should be countercultural" and read them as saying, "the church has at all times been countercultural." Which is unfair.
With respect, Mousethief, I think you have misread me. I did not think Shaggy was saying that the church has always been countercultural, and I don't think he read me that way either. And as I think I made clear, this was not a rant directed specifically at Shaggy, but at the current rhetoric in conservative evangelical circles in the church we both belong to.
I was taking issue with his phrase, "an orthodox christian viewpoint which happens to go against the grain of society". For me, this phrase invoked the oft-heard 'countercultural' justification of the church's seeming 'nastiness' to gay people, in the face of the seeming 'niceness' of wider society. As well as a self-justification, the concept is also used as a deflector shield against any criticism: They would say that - We can expect to be misunderstood - Christians are being persecuted - And all because we are being countercultural. Not because we might be plain wrong.
My point was that it is only now that culture has changed its view on the matter of gay rights, that 'being countercultural' has become a virtue in itself. Before then - which is what I was illustrating - we were quite happy being cultural, thank you very much. And if the conservative evangelicals in my church ever get the control they wish over culture, then you can bet that they will go straight back to being 'cultural' again.
Being countercultural is therefore not a virtue in itself. It is only a virtue to the extent that the church is opposing injustice in culture. When the church is trying to block culture's own attempts to redress systemic injustice, it becomes a vice.
Cottontail, you are right in your thinking. I read you in exactly the way you describe above so no issues there.
I also do not see being countercultural as a virtue in itself. There is no desire by any church (as far as I know) to go against culture by legalising murder (an extreme example...) or theft etc.
The countercultural I am talking about is usually not re social/political norms of the day although it seems more often to be appropriate these days. Even when the church does speak out, it normally has little to no influence in what happens. However somewhat unusally in this circumstance I think the Scottish Government would have been quite shaken by having both the Roman Catholic church (although expected) and the CofS (in my mind quite unexpected) coming out against the proposals.
I must take object with your view on what Con-Evo's would actually want to take over culture. I certainly don't. Please don't misunderstand, I'd love everyone to be saved by Jesus, live a Godly life according to the Scriptures, know God as their Father and Creator, love Jesus as their Saviour and be knowingly sustained by the Holy Spirit. However, I don't want to see that enforced by the state, forced on people who have no interest.
When it comes down to it (and this may surprise some) I'm pretty libertarian in my views. I don't see how the state has a right telling churches (or any religious institution) what they can and can't do. So yes, actually why shouldn't a Friends meeting house be able to conduct a homesexual marriage (for in effect that is what civil partnerships are)? Why should it be in the interests of the state to tell the CofS what their ministers can and can't do?
The main objection I had (and was roundly mocked for - something this "nasty-foaming at the mouth" (a previous quote...)Con-Evo has hopefully managed to avoid doing to people he disagrees with) was to do with discrimination legislation which I believe would certainly come to the fore.
Others gave an example in Canada but knowing nothing of the culture there I can't really respond to that.
However in the UK, any enabling legislation such as allowing homesexual couples to adopt has had the consequence of clamping down on the other side. We saw it with RC adoption agencies who for years placed children with families who were not Christians let alone RCs. However when they refused to place with homesexual couples and in spite of the fact there were many other secular adoption agencies providing that service, they were forced to shut down.
The point being, the legal history in this country has shown that once the doors have opened to genuine equality, the doors are in time then closed to anyone who refuses to go along with the "progressive consensus".
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay, or even plenty twin rooms in this hotel where I wouldn't have a problem with them staying. But a double room would go against by carefully studied beliefs". However, as we've seen, he's not allowed to do that under the law even though there are plenty other places the homesexual couple could stay.
What would be the difference with a christian minister who would refuse to conduct such a ceremony? Sure, there would be plenty churches with ministers who would be delighted to conduct a homesexual marriage. However, we have seen that the law gets pushed and tested by certain groups to the point where there is no liberty of conscience to not provide that service.
Somewhat differently, what I also see as being rightly countercultural is where by being Christ-like is in conflict with "the world". For example, the office culture in The City (where I thankfully do not work anymore) is a place where I think all Christians are called to live counterculturally. How could I live for Jesus by having greed, heavy drinking, illicit sex, lies and backstabbing as my prioties in life?
You're right though, that the church shouldn't always be countercultural, it isn't a virtue in itself and sometimes the church should be more cultural. Interesting topic though.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay
But would the hotel owner then help them find that other hotel room?
No, probably not.
And it doesn't take that many hotel owners to think like your hotel owner before the homosexual couple spend half the night knocking on doors hoping for a room, and risking all kinds of savage reactions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay
But would the hotel owner then help them find that other hotel room?
No, probably not.
And it doesn't take that many hotel owners to think like your hotel owner before the homosexual couple spend half the night knocking on doors hoping for a room, and risking all kinds of savage reactions.
You've no grounds on which to make that assumption re their helpfulness.
Savage reactions?
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shaggy:
I must take object with your view on what Con-Evo's would actually want to take over culture. I certainly don't. Please don't misunderstand, I'd love everyone to be saved by Jesus, live a Godly life according to the Scriptures, know God as their Father and Creator, love Jesus as their Saviour and be knowingly sustained by the Holy Spirit. However, I don't want to see that enforced by the state, forced on people who have no interest.
I understand what you're saying - you wouldn't want to force it but you'd like to see it. However, this leads me to ask: whose version of 'Godly life according to the Scriptures' would people have to live?
For the record, two of the most Godly and wonderful people I've ever been privileged to come into contact with are gay priests. Both are compassionate, loving, warm, clever and highly esteemed by all lucky enough to benefit from their ministry. They are both partnered.
Both, to my mind, are the very model of 'Godly', I suspect they wouldn't fit the Con-Evo definition.
[ 09. January 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
A hotel owner might think, "well there are plenty other hotels where a homesexual couple might stay
But would the hotel owner then help them find that other hotel room?
No, probably not.
And it doesn't take that many hotel owners to think like your hotel owner before the homosexual couple spend half the night knocking on doors hoping for a room, and risking all kinds of savage reactions.
You've no grounds on which to make that assumption re their helpfulness.
Savage reactions?
No grounds? I invoke the ground of commonsense. Do you know any people against homosexuality who will encourage homosexuals to find 'gay-friendly' alternatives? It's not impossible but it's highly improbable.
As for savage reactions: the greater the number of people in a society who reject homosexuals, the more acceptable it is to react to them negatively. And history tells me that this extends to treating them as less than human. There's a sliding scale, but that scale certainly extends to reactions that can be described as 'savage'. One does not have to go very far back in history, a few decades only, to a point where being an openly homosexual couple would be a positively dangerous exercise. Because it was acceptable to react savagely.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shaggy
Apprentice
# 16844
|
Posted
quote:
No grounds? I invoke the ground of commonsense. Do you know any people against homosexuality who will encourage homosexuals to find 'gay-friendly' alternatives? It's not impossible but it's highly improbable.
Me.
quote:
As for savage reactions: the greater the number of people in a society who reject homosexuals, the more acceptable it is to react to them negatively. And history tells me that this extends to treating them as less than human. There's a sliding scale, but that scale certainly extends to reactions that can be described as 'savage'. One does not have to go very far back in history, a few decades only, to a point where being an openly homosexual couple would be a positively dangerous exercise. Because it was acceptable to react savagely.
I don't really think this is the case any longer. Yes there will always be an ungracious or "savage" minority who would behave in this fashion, but I do not believe it would be commonplace. Britain's attitude has (rightly) totally changed towards homesexuals. I can't imagine for a few christian hoteliers (for not all would have said convictions) it would engender "savage reactions" elsewhere.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm sure that the fact that Britain's attitude to homosexuals has 'rightly' changed will be magnificent comfort to anybody who finds they can't book a room in the same way that any other couple would.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
re 'savage reactions'
Okay, really, enough.
The fact that there are LGBT folk who are treated in such a way that they are driven to despair and feel the need of escaping it via suicide is evidence enough of 'savage reactions'.
Couple this with those within society who find it perfectly acceptable to beat LBGT folk to death and you have savage reactions aplenty. While there have been many positive changes along tolerance/ acceptance lines, it strikes me as utterly disingenuous to query that verbal and physical bullying and violence - 'savage reactions' - still happens far too often to LGBT people.
And as for the church being 'counter-cultural': to hear phrases uttered in the courts of the kirk such as 'they are an abomination unto the Lord', and other such language that dehumanises, ... well, to be frank, I for one can live without that kind of counter-cultural expression of 'freedom of religious conscience'.
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Thank you for that long and considered reply, Shaggy. Just back from a weekend away, so sorry for any delay in replying.
We seem to have a kind of consensus on the 'countercultural' issue, so I am happy to leave that there. I'll just add that I accept your objection, that you have no desire to 'take over' culture, and that you tend towards a libertarian view. I think there are some dangerous elements within some churches which do wish to do that - to enforce so-called "Christian values" through legislation. You may have heard such rhetoric yourself. But I accept (and am glad) that this is not your position.
I can also agree with you that the state has on the whole no right to tell churches what to do. (There are of course exceptions, particularly where actual criminality might be involved.) I hope you can see, however, that this also works the other way - again, with exceptions, mainly around the area of justice. Of course, much of our debate might be about what exactly constitutes criminality on the one hand, and injustice on the other!
quote:
Originally posted by Shaggy:
When it comes down to it (and this may surprise some) I'm pretty libertarian in my views. I don't see how the state has a right telling churches (or any religious institution) what they can and can't do. So yes, actually why shouldn't a Friends meeting house be able to conduct a homesexual marriage (for in effect that is what civil partnerships are)? Why should it be in the interests of the state to tell the CofS what their ministers can and can't do?
If I am reading you correctly, you seem now to be saying that you have no objection in principle to the state legislating for same-sex marriage, both civilly, and if so desired, religiously. Your objections seem to be more concerned with how this might work out in practice, and I will be happy to explore this aspect further if you so wish. Others are already doing so.
But if that is what you are saying - that you have no objection, or even that you could support the legislation, in principle - then we actually have something like agreement on my initial points, as extrapolated from the three questions I directed at the CofS response:
(1) that the CofS's internal understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman does not preclude an acceptance of the State's right to legislate as it pleases.
(2) that the CofS's internal understanding of marriage does not permit it to insist that other religions and Christian denominations must accept this understanding also.
(3) that the CofS's internal understanding of marriage does not preclude it supporting the human right of gay people to equal treatment under law.
Quite genuinely (I am not being snarky!) I thank you for having the grace to adjust, or perhaps just clarify, your position.
I therefore suggest to you that the CofS's reply might have been something along these lines:
quote:
The Church of Scotland's understanding of marriage is as it has always been: that a marriage is contracted between one man and one woman. Accordingly, the Church of Scotland does not request or require any such legislation, and will not as a body recognise the religious validity of same-sex marriage.
Likewise, we as the Church of Scotland maintain our traditional position on the separation of Church and State, and so recognise the Scottish Executive's right to legislate as it sees fit, while being answerable always to the electorate and, we believe, to God. We also recognise the religious freedom of all faiths and Christian denominations to administer their internal affairs as best they see fit, and so freely to conduct or refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies, should that become a legal possibility. We further recognise fully the human rights of all people to equal treatment under law. Accordingly, the Church as a body will not oppose any movement by the Scottish Executive to legislate for same-sex marriage.
In summary, as a Church, we currently have no agreed position on whether we will ultimately support, oppose, or maintain a neutral position on, legislation for civil same-sex marriage. We therefore regret that we must delay any fuller response until after the 2012 General Assembly at the earliest.
So let me throw it over to you. Is that a statement you could have signed up to, or would you like to suggest some amendments?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
