The Kirk gets it right - for the most part

1 December 2011

The Church of Scotland has come out against the SNP Scottish Government’s desire to redefine marriage to include homosexual partnerships.

The Rev. Alan Hamilton, the Church of Scotland Legal Questions Committee spokesman, explained that homosexual partnerships were not legally nor financially disadvantaged over marriage, and that marriage was between one man and one woman.

Anne Allen, a former convener of the Church of Scotland’s Board of Social Responsibility, welcomed the tardy decision.  At the Scotland for Marriage protest yesterday in Edinburgh, she said that only 10 of 198 countries had made the change. 

As usual the media rolled out the arguments in favour of the change.  Along with BBC spinning, quoting the Scottish Youth Parliament, then the Scottish Social Attitudes survey, the BBC gave minimal cover to the Scotland for Marriage protest, and its website scraped the barrel to try to find religious support outside the homosexual lobby for the SNP’s crazy proposal.  It comes up with “but five smaller religious groups are for it.”

The Church of Scotland expressed worries about the “speed with which the government is proceeding on this issue” believing the debate to be “patchy, underdeveloped and exclusive of both ordinary people and the religious community”.

The SNP Government seem to be in a hurry; possibly they are seeing the writing on the wall.  Alex Salmond wanted to rush the antisectarian Bill through in a few weeks and had to be restrained by extra-parliamentary efforts.  Now that it is being discussed by politicians, the problems are emerging which Alex Salmond couldn’t see.  It reminds us of Royal Bank of Scotland’s Fred Goodwin who felt he didn’t need to do due diligence when engaged in the largest takeover in banking history.  The public need to get the measure of these larger than life people in public life.

SCP response

The Scottish Christian Party submission says: “Such Governmental short-sightedness is seen also in the drafting of recent Bills, such as the poor initial draft of the Bill against stalking, and the undue haste in trying to pass a Bill against sectarianism. The Bill against stalking highlighted the inability of paid individuals to do their job, and the Bill against sectarianism only alarms us that our legislators cannot see the consequences of their own actions. The Scottish Christian Party has lost confidence in our legislature to produce balanced legislation.”  The public are losing confidence in politicians for various reasons, such as slease and expenses scandals, but the most relevant point is that they are not fit for purpose.

The SCP response comprehensively demonstrates the inadequacy of the consulation itself, and gives a long list of possible consequences which are simply not mentioned far less discussed in the consultation document.  The consultation does not mention the effect upon children, families and secular employment.  It does not properly cost the economical effects, and overlooks the legal consequences.  It concentrates solely upon “religious bodies” and “religious celebrants”, with the gratutious ‘concession’ that no religious body or celebrant will be forced to include religious ceremonies in their proposals.  There is not a word about the impact upon secular employees and employment through the Equality and Diversity protocols.

Legislative change - step by step

The SNP Government has expressed its desire to redefine marriage in one step.  Thus their consultation asks if we agree with “same sex marriage”.  Knowing that they might not gain their wish, they have some intermediary steps.  One intermediary step is to have religious ceremonies for civil partnerships, and if the Government cannot get this, then they have another intermediate step, to have religious ceremonies in registrar’s offices.

Church of Scotland response

It is good that the Church of Scotland has put a shot across the SNP Government’s bow about redefining marriage, and “the Church of Scotland also cannot agree to the Government’s proposal that legislation should be changed so that civil partnerships may be registered through religious ceremonies or by religious celebrants or on religious premises.”  “However, it acknowledges and respects that other religious groups may wish to express different views.”  This latter statement will be seized upon and manipulated by pressure groups.  Expression of views is one thing, but the reservations the Kirk has expressed will apply whether or not other religious groups express different views.  The Scottish Christian Party points out that these are really unequal homosexual partnerships, and they need to be scrapped or modified to take sexuality out of the equation.

Homosexuals complained: “what is so special about marriage that it has particular privileges?”  Instead of providing an answer, our hapless politicians gave legal and financial rights to homosexual partnerships.  This was discriminatory, because truly civil partnerships should have nothing to do with sexuality.  Two spinsters living in the same house for 30 years have fewer rights than two homosexuals who have a civil partnership for two years.  Politicians have been hoodwinked by the unequal equalities legislation.

Although the Kirk agrees with the SCP on most answers, there are slight differences in reasoning.  One difference is that the Kirk wants legislative protection for religious bodies.  The SCP argues that what the state gives it can take away; and as the state has no right to deny the church its freedoms, it does not give these freedoms in the first place but should simply recognise these freedoms.

The Kirk states: “The Church cannot agree to the introduction of same-sex civil marriage only. It does not believe that marriage can or should be compartmentalised into civil and religious marriage. This is a false dichotomy which does not reflect the place of marriage in the culture of our country, either past or present.”  While Kirk and SCP have the same answer, the basis for the Kirk’s belief is stated to be a rational argument (a false dichotomy) and culture.  Yet civil marriage has been in our culture for some time and it is unclear what it means by its belief that marriage can not be civil.  Does this mean that it does not recognise such, or what does it mean?  Does the Kirk believe that marriage is inherently religious and cannot be civil?  The reasons given are inadequate.

Importantly, the Church has agreed with the SCP contention that the state is acting beyond its powers to interfere with what goes on inside the church.  The SCP has also said that marriage cannot be redefined by legislation, that it is ultra vires or beyond the power of any civil legislature for it interferes with the prerogative of God our Creator Who has defined marriage for us.

Happy though we are with the Kirk’s overall response, one still has the sense that the Kirk’s response is seeking to safeguard its own position and it speaks as a Committee seeking to safeguard the position of its master, the General Assembly.  Although it disagrees with Option 2, which recognise the concept of civil partnership, its response “that Option 2 offers greater protection to it and its ministers against legal action” exhibits the defensive tone of some of the answers, and lacks the robust opposition to civil partnerships as they currently stand.  Rather it states: “it would be wrong to force same-sex couples to ‘marry’ as the only means of gaining state-recognised rights and responsibilities.”  This begs the question what these rights and responsibilities are.  Does the Kirk think that homosexual partners have the rights and responsibilities of parenthood and raising a family, either by adoption or by In Vitro Fertilisation?  Rather, homosexual partnerships should be made properly civil by removing the sexual element from them in order to achieve real equality instead of this current unequal equality.

In its general comments it says: “Neither has [the Government] properly assessed the impact of its proposals on the rights of the religious community in Scotland.”  This shows the religious defensiveness inherent in the submission.

Although the Committee describes its submission as “a technical response to a technical consultation document”, and the official website announcement quotes from the submission, “The Church of Scotland believes it has a responsibility to our nation”, this responsibility is limited “to be part of the debate and to help shape public opinion and Government policy in accordance with what it understands to be the will of God”.  Rather, the responsibility of the Kirk is more than to be part of the debate.  Further, one reads nothing in this submission about the wider implications on society beyond the cautious, but correct statement: “To redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage may have significant and, as yet, inadequately considered repercussions for our country, for the well-being of families, communities and individuals.”

What the Kirk calls “a technical consultation document”, the SCP calls inadequate and not fit for purpose.  The Kirk is institutionally unable to make such a criticism.  This being so, the SCP response is more comprehensive in its scope in that it spells out in more detail the shortcomings of the consultation.  The inadequacy of the legal framework is not mentioned at all.  Whereas the Kirk speaks against civil marriage, it fails to comment on the loophole in the current Family Law (Scotland) 2006 which recognises polygamy in the UK.

Related Stories