A very good response from the government team. the efforts of the nay-sayers, to aid and abet the fear of the Churches that they might have to celebrate marriage between two persons of the same gender, 'who love one another and want to celebrate that love for the rest of their lives', has been pitiful.
While the Church continues to deny the possibility of God's involvement in loving same-sex relationships; it is incumbent on those within the Churches - who believe in that possibility - to affirm and encourage them.
Same-Sex Marriage is not a threat to Heterosexual Marriage. rather, it could prove an encouragement to others - that life-long commitment can prove to be an enrichment, and not a diminishing, of the love between two people, that could issue in only good for both Church and Society - wherein other people's children can be nurtured and loved.
Rather a smoke screen as interpretation of law is laid down by the Courts. I am not sure that this government can be trusted. When Civil Partnerships were introduced it was said to give the same rights as marriage - what has happened to change that?
The response claims regarding the Hospital Chaplain scenario: 'This concerns conduct outside employment and whether it should affect employment – which is possible depending on the circumstances. However, the minister’s views are entirely lawful (and indeed would be a completely mainstream view) and it would not be a permissible application of the equality duty to say that a religious person holding such lawful religious beliefs should not be a chaplain in the public sector.'
I'm sorry, but, as Adrian Smith found out, there is a long road of an employment tribunal and hate mail before an employer's permissible actions of demotion and salary reduction are judged to be unfair. Mr. Smith's Facebook comments made in his own time were lawful. He just spent a long time trying to prove it, without the possibility of being reinstated.
To say that person will not be 'compelled' cannot prevent an employer from demoting and passing over staff who contradict policy outside of work, all in the safe knowledge that the employee would have to resort to lengthy litigation in order to avoid being compelled.
One major change has been Equal Marriage becoming increasingly available elsewhere in the world. Marriage is recognised in these countries, and CU is not, leading to same-sex partnerships being recognised only here, when they need to be recognised in other countries as well.
What 'has happened' Joseph is that we want equality, and we will have it.
If you want a civil partnership go ahead.
I find Aidan O'Neill underwhelming both in person and in print. His manufactured problems and objections just don't cut it.
In fact, it is embarrassing.
More huffing and puffing - and good heavens they think they may be able to erm, delay it !
John Gummer talking sense :
However, Lord Deben, who as John Gummer served as a Tory minister and the party’s chairman, attacked the “inconsistency” of those Conservatives who voted against the Bill in the Commons. He plans to vote in favour when the legislation reaches the Lords.
“If you believe in fidelity and permanence it seems an odd thing not to encourage people to celebrate that,” Lord Gummer said.
“Science has taught us that some people have this attraction and don’t have heterosexual attraction. This is now universally agreed and so it is the right thing to do for society to acknowledge that.”
He added: “I find it very difficult to listen to the inconsistency of people who themselves have been several times married now standing up in the House of Commons and defending the sanctity of marriage.”
Lord Deben also criticised free-market Tories who held libertarian views “on all other matters”, but made an exception on gay marriage.
“That doesn’t seem very logical to me,” he said. “This is a libertarian issue.”
As Simon says in the post, it is a great shame the whole opinion has not been published. I picked up a copy of the whole thing left lying about at one of the meetings organised to galvanise opposition to equal marriage amongst religious leaders. The tone and feel of the opinion is far more balanced than the summary implies, this barrister was given a range of questions and hypothetical situations and paid to give his opinion.
I would be glad to read an opinion from Aidan on the Bill as drafted. Does it, in his view, answer the problems the government claims?
It is also to be deplored that the Government has declined to publish the opinion of the Attorney-General on whether the 'quadruple locks' in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill would survive a challenge in the ECtHR, Margaret Miller claiming to MPs in December that this was 'privileged information.' However, as I pointed out in my letter in the Church Times on 21/28 December 2012, the privilege is that of the client—in this case the Government—not the lawyer, so that, if Mrs Miller wished, she could publish the advice. The fact that she has declined to do so will only add to the concern of those who consider that the legislation will not (and cannot) give adequate protection in law to those who do not accept the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.
The Government has published the legal advice it has received on the consequences of a 'yes' vote for Scottish independence "to ensure there is as much clarity as possible so that the people of Scotland have the best information available" (news report in The Times, 11 February 2013, page 12). It should do the same in respect of its own legislation for same-sex marriage.
I must say I am against the publishing of legal advice to the government unless there are specific reasons. In this case I think there are a number of legal opinions all saying the same thing.
You can and should trust the government. The Scottish matter is quite a different matter - it is still rare to publish.
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.