Scottish Government To Introduce Gay Marriage

[theblether]

Scotland is the first part of the UK to agree to introduce legislation to legalize gay marriage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287

See, we're not all neanderthals

[endure]

Do we have to wear kilts and eat haggis on the happy day?

[isanbirder]

As I understand the reports, this legislation simply enables religious bodies to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies if they want to. This is necessary in England (where the legislation is in the pipeline) and Scotland, because both countries still have a State church.

It adds no additional rights over and above those already obtainable in a civil partnership. You could call it, crudely, a religious add-on.

[theblether]

No Scottish wedding is complete without a kilt and haggi making an appearance

@isaanbirder.....correct, the civil partnership legislation is watertight, George Michael made a comment last week along the lines of it's only a word of a difference, as the net legal effect is exactly the same. He also said that forcing the churches to accept gay marriage would be counterproductive, as it's a clash of beliefs. I agree with that, however it's another step forward, and England will follow shortly no doubt.

[endure]

No Scottish wedding is complete without a kilt and haggi making an appearance

I don't mind eating sheep's intestines but there's no way I'm wearing a skirt - especially a hairy tartan one

[LeCharivari]

As I understand the reports, this legislation simply enables religious bodies to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies if they want to. This is necessary in England (where the legislation is in the pipeline) and Scotland, because both countries still have a State church.

It adds no additional rights over and above those already obtainable in a civil partnership. You could call it, crudely, a religious add-on.

No Scottish wedding is complete without a kilt and haggi making an appearance

@isaanbirder.....correct, the civil partnership legislation is watertight, George Michael made a comment last week along the lines of it's only a word of a difference, as the net legal effect is exactly the same. He also said that forcing the churches to accept gay marriage would be counterproductive, as it's a clash of beliefs. I agree with that, however it's another step forward, and England will follow shortly no doubt.

The biggest stumbling-block, and one which neither country yet seems to have come up with a solution to, is whether to "enable" churches to carry out marriages or to "force" them to. I really can't see the Wee Frees being too happy about being forced to do anything.

What I found most interesting was the breakdown of the replies to the survey of 80,000. If you include the replies by signatures on petitions and printed postcards the results were 64% against allowing gay marriage, 36% for. If you exclude those and only take "personal" replies it changes to 65% for allowing gay marriage and 35% against.

Also no mention of broadening the scope of Civil Partnerships to include heterosexual couples, as some have demanded ....

[Jingthing]

Forcing religious institutions to do anything? Why bother?!?

[LeCharivari]

Forcing religious institutions to do anything? Why bother?!?

The Church of Scotland has been independent in spiritual affairs since 1921 so cannot be forced to accept such legislation, nor can the Church in Wales as it was disestablished in 1920, but the Church of England is a state institution and directly answerable to Parliament with the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

[Jingthing]

Forcing religious institutions to do anything? Why bother?!?

The Church of Scotland has been independent in spiritual affairs since 1921 so cannot be forced to accept such legislation, nor can the Church in Wales as it was disestablished in 1920, but the Church of England is a state institution and directly answerable to Parliament with the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

OK, I get it. Church and state not separated. Creepy. Edited July 26, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Forcing religious institutions to do anything? Why bother?!?

The Church of Scotland has been independent in spiritual affairs since 1921 so cannot be forced to accept such legislation, nor can the Church in Wales as it was disestablished in 1920, but the Church of England is a state institution and directly answerable to Parliament with the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

A church is a private institution, such as a football club. I find it difficult to enforce such a rule on them; If I am gay and want to marry, but my church won't allow it, why would it want to continue membership?

That said, I find it great that churches are allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies. I find it wrong to disallow that.

More importantly, I would certainly wear a kilt. The fashion designers tried to make the idea of a "skirt for men" popular in the 1980s (IIRC), and in this part of the world, many men wear sarongs. When I lived in an Arab country, I wore a traditional garb. I would wear a "skirt for men" if it were socially acceptable, like women can choose to wear a skirt, a dress, or trousers.

Disclaimers (in order to avoid misunderstandings):

1. No, I am not a transvestite. I am talking about skirts for men, not men wearing women's skirts.

2. And no, I am not saying that a kilt is a skirt.

[endure]

Forcing religious institutions to do anything? Why bother?!?

The Church of Scotland has been independent in spiritual affairs since 1921 so cannot be forced to accept such legislation, nor can the Church in Wales as it was disestablished in 1920, but the Church of England is a state institution and directly answerable to Parliament with the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

OK, I get it. Church and state not separated. Creepy.

Remind us how little influence the separated church has in the USA? If any US politician stood for election in the UK flaunting their Christian credentials they'd be laughed out of the voting booth.

[smokie36]

Forcing religious institutions to do anything? Why bother?!?

The Church of Scotland has been independent in spiritual affairs since 1921 so cannot be forced to accept such legislation, nor can the Church in Wales as it was disestablished in 1920, but the Church of England is a state institution and directly answerable to Parliament with the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

OK, I get it. Church and state not separated. Creepy.

Remind us how little influence the separated church has in the USA? If any US politician stood for election in the UK flaunting their Christian credentials they'd be laughed out of the voting booth.

Good point. Getting back to the original theme surely any step forward is a good one however small it may seem?

[catmac]

Also no mention of broadening the scope of Civil Partnerships to include heterosexual couples, as some have demanded ....

Maybe the whole business of recognising human partnerships needs overhauling. Heterosexual couples have always had the choice of a "civil union" in a Registery Ofice marraige - no religious ceremony or involvement required, and even without that, a "common law" partner enjoyed many of the legal safeguards that marraige or Civil Partnership bestows.

[Jingthing]

Remind us how little influence the separated church has in the USA? If any US politician stood for election in the UK flaunting their Christian credentials they'd be laughed out of the voting booth.

The topic is about the UK, not the US.

[LeCharivari]

Forcing religious institutions to do anything? Why bother?!?

The Church of Scotland has been independent in spiritual affairs since 1921 so cannot be forced to accept such legislation, nor can the Church in Wales as it was disestablished in 1920, but the Church of England is a state institution and directly answerable to Parliament with the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

OK, I get it. Church and state not separated. Creepy.

Remind us how little influence the separated church has in the USA? If any US politician stood for election in the UK flaunting their Christian credentials they'd be laughed out of the voting booth.

Its worth noting that the only real cries of horror in the French Parliament (where church and state are separated) during the debate over legalising gay marriage were not about the issue but were about one prominent politician waving a bible in the air in protest - that was a real no-no.

The reason I brought up the issue here, and why it is in topic, is that the Church of England isn't a "private institution" (sorry, Tom) but is a state one which is ultimately controlled by the Queen through Parliament, and although the monarch is not "head" of the church like the Pope (a common misunderstanding) she is its most senior arbiter. Any legislation permitting gay marriage in England, therefore, would have a direct affect on the Church of England as the church and all its ministers could be forced to conduct gay marriages even if they disagreed with the principle; that doesn't apply in Scotland or Wales, where the churches are independent, making the legislation less controversial.

Prince Charles, in one of his increasingly more frequent eccentric moments, at one stage proposed being made Defender of the Faiths rather than merely Fidei Defensor.

[LeCharivari]

Also no mention of broadening the scope of Civil Partnerships to include heterosexual couples, as some have demanded ....

Maybe the whole business of recognising human partnerships needs overhauling. Heterosexual couples have always had the choice of a "civil union" in a Registery Ofice marraige - no religious ceremony or involvement required, and even without that, a "common law" partner enjoyed many of the legal safeguards that marraige or Civil Partnership bestows.

That's exactly what the French have done, as I pointed out in another thread you started before it was totally de-railed*:

Its interesting that France (in a similar way to some other countries that have now approved gay marriage/Partnership) will be doing so as a final step following the introduction of a legal and registered lesser commitment than marriage but with similar rights (except adoption and IVF) but lesser responsibilities that was open to same-sex partners as well as heterosexuals (PACS in 1999). 95% of the couples who "se-pacser" now are actually heterosexual, so it really is part of a steadily developing national system rather than just a reaction to the gay lobby (or its allies) who in France have played surprisingly little part in the process in spite of the general French habit of groups protesting, striking, rioting and demonstrating about almost anything they disapprove of or want changed.

*: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/567455-interesting-news-from-france/

[lubbkis]

Sometimes I think the Scottish Parliament is more concerned with showing up Westminster as neandethalian, than anything else.

The established Church issue needs to be confined and is easily resolved if the CofE has no obligation to perform marriages of persons domiciled in parishes. The right to be married in Church falls away.

I was brought up in a Methodist Mission in Edinburgh. I was outed in the Methodist Recorder letter's pages in the 1970s and later sat through a sermon on gay equality beside my parents and siblings. Some Christians have moved on. I'd love to be married amongst those who saw me growing up despite my militant secularism.