Homophobic peers strike again

Some Tory peers (well, they would be Tories, wouldn’t they?) are objecting to allowing same-sex ceremonies in religious premises.

This move is being led by one Baroness O’Cathain, who has form when it comes to homophobia.

They fear religious establishments will be forced to splice same-sex couples, but my understanding is that they won’t. So what’s the big fuss if it’s not downright homophobia?

The idea is being supported by more enlightened Christians, such as the Quakers, though, as the link above, to a story in the Independent, demonstrates.

Wait for the rumpus to begin as we move towards gay partnership ceremonies in churches

Looks like we’re in for a bit of a rumpus in religious circles from next month, then, as it becomes law for same-sex partnership ceremonies to be held in religious premises.

Putting aside why people would want to do it in church, we have to accept that a lot of people do, and it’s been unfair hitherto that they can’t.

Liberal religious groups such as Quakers and some Jews are cool with this; the Church of England, though, is likely to get vapours about it and go into a screaming, hissy fit.

The fact is, no church organisation will be forced to host gay ceremonies. But you can bet your bottom that this won’t stop all the kicking and shouting and throwing of toys out of the pram.

Should be fun.

Change law on same-sex marriage, say Christians

British Quakers’ endorsement of same-sex marriage has brought a call from the Christian think tank Ekklesia for a change in the law.

A press release issued today reads:

The religion and society think tank Ekklesia is proposing a new legal framework which can accommodate same-sex marriage ceremonies carried out by religious bodies.

The call comes after the Quakers became the first major Christian denomination in the UK to decide to treat same-sex and opposite-sex marriages in the same way.

The law currently offers same-sex couples only a civil partnership. Even though religious groups may offer them a marriage ceremony, these are not recognised in law. The think tank says that the Government must now respond to accommodate the change.

Ekklesia, which examines the relationship between religion and public life, suggests that the current “one-size-fits-all arrangement” suits neither the realities of diverse relationship patterns nor a coherent theology of marriage. The think tank, which first raised these points in a 2006 report, has pointed out that the Quakers’ decision means that the government needs to address the situation urgently.

Symon Hill, associate director of Ekklesia, said: “Our churches include many couples who wish to celebrate their loving commitment to each other and publicly dedicate their relationship to God. They are prevented from having their marriages recognised under law because they are of the same gender. This legal inequality should not continue.

“It is time for the government to allow religious and other bodies the freedom to carry out marriages between consenting adults according to their own beliefs, letting those involved decide on the legal terms on which they want to register their relationship.”

Under Ekklesia’s proposals, people who want to enter into marriage as a religious commitment would be free to do so, but registering their commitment under law would become a completely separate process. This would allow different legal arrangements depending upon the intent of the couple, whilst including clear provisions for the protection of the couple’s interests and those of any children.

Not all gay couples wish to ape the hetties and do the walking-up-the-aisle (or down-to-the-register-office) thing, but most, I suspect, would agree that, if marriage exists for heterosexuals, it should be there for same-sex couples who want to avail themselves of it.

Anything else is a human-rights abuse.

Quakers and queerdom

British Quakers, about sixteen hundred of them, gather in York today for what they call the Yearly Meeting Gathering – their week-long annual conference. And they’ll be discussing gay sex.

Seems religionists have gay sex on the mind, but the Quakers have traditionally been among the gay-friendliest.

“The event is likely to be dominated by a decision on whether to carry out same-sex commitment ceremonies on the same basis as heterosexual weddings,” says the Christian think tank Ekklesia.

The change is thought to have the support of a majority of British Quakers, but it is vigorously opposed by a vocal number of people who insist that marriage can only involve individuals of opposite sexes. Rather than voting, Quakers will seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead them into unity.

And, of course, depending on which Holy Spirit is on duty today – the one believed in by Catholics, the one the C of E folk pray to, the evangelists’ favourite or the one the Quakers prefer – we’ll get an answer, no doubt, as to whether gay sex is a Bad Thing or OK.

We know what the first three Holy Spirits think. Poofs are evil. What will the Quakers pull out of their hats?