Comments: yet more from ND on CP

The two articles from New Directions are themselves an example of the opposing views with respect to CPs.
The one argues Pete Broadbent’s view that they are a “non-category” or “nonsense category” made clear by the fact they have no declarations or vows to give context and real expression to what is happening. Thus, as a silent nothing they only qualify for a silent response (and not I assume intended as Prayerful or affirming in the Quaker sense!)
While the other says Akinola is right to see CPs as gay marriage in all but name and the CofE is wrong for not clearly recognising this fact and taking a stand against them rather than just standing silently aloof.
Holding the first view will soon qualify you for exclusion from the new Anglican Communion.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 12 September 2005 at 12:32pm BST

I think Nicholas Turner's criticism is unfair and disingenious. Remember the history of this legislation.

The partnership procedure was originally proposed to rectify longstanding unfairness in current legislation surrounding, for example, pension rights, rules for inheritance, "next of kin" rights in hospital visiting etc. The Church itself said in its response that this legislation is necessary and would lead to greater justice and fairness. But the Church also said that there would be problems if this partnership was seen to copy marriage too closely.

The Government therefore produced a partnership register based on an economic agreement to rectify the legal/financial financial problems. At the request of the Church any attempt at making concurrent vows or having a religious content was to be banned.

So is it fair for Nicholas Turner to criticise the procedure as being only economic, and having no vows or religious content?

In practise gay people will sign the parnership register to gain the economic safeguards, and then they will do what they have done since the early years of the Church; find a friendly priest, create a ceremony, invite their family and friends. It is then that they will create "what philosophers call ‘a performative utterance.’" with real meaning.


Posted by Simon Dawson at Tuesday, 13 September 2005 at 9:29am BST

"a partnership register based on an economic agreement to rectify the legal/financial financial problems" - if only it were so!

There are many categories of people who would welcome such an arrangement - siblings sharing a house, people caring for relatives, for example - which would only put them on a par with what rich people can organise for themselves with the help of accountants and lawyers.

The very reason why civil partnerships are being viewed as gay marriage is precisely because so many people have been excluded from them because sexuality has effectively been written into the nature of the partnership, by imposing Affinity exclusions.

Turner's article is simply silly. Of course there is no service of blessing or celebration when people sign legal documents for a mortgage or even a business partnership. But what the government has created is not some new type of legal document, as the intention of the Act makes perfectly clear in the restrictions imposed on who may benefit. It is a direct analog of civil marriage provided for same-sex couples.

Posted by Vincent Coles at Tuesday, 13 September 2005 at 11:28am BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.