Solas successfully argue against religious marriage altogether

I read this morning that faith group Solas had joined the Free Church in calling for a referendum on equal marriage rights to same sex couples. So I went further and decided to look at their response to the public consultation.

There was an interesting argument being put forward in section 3 Civil Partnerships for Same-Sex Couples:

“The main issue is whether same-sex couples should be allowed to have religious celebration
of their private contracts. In mainland Europe frequently, marriage (and by extension civil
partnerships) are constituted by registration by the State with religious celebration being an
optional and non-essential addition to the occasion. In the United Kingdom, under the 2004
Act, partnerships are constituted and recognised by the state by registration. The parties can
have any other ceremony or religious blessing in any location they wish following upon
registration. They suffer no discrimination or hardship under the current arrangements and
Solas believes there should be no further legislation.”

Well there is one ickle bit of discrimination there. I’ll give you and Solas a minute for the penny to drop.

Yup that is it, in Europe marriage is often a civil construct then should the couple chose to do so they go to the church for the ceremony that they wish to have. In some countries like Spain for example the Priest is not able to marry anyone (as such) merely to bless that which has been carried out by a government employee already.

You see what Solas are doing is pointing out the dichotomy that in the UK we allow our religious groups to take on the role of registrar. That is where the discrimination comes in because, and this may be news to Solas, there are LGB people of faith, and there are faith groups that want to marry them.

So yeah why should any religious group have a right to claim that we cannot allow same-sex marriage because they don’t want to recognise it, when other faith groups do not have a problem with it? Should we just leave the issue of what is marriage up to the state, whether by referendum or not, and also take the act away from the religious groups who can of course bless any marriage they deem they want to? That would include allowing the definition of marriage to not be as set in stone as Solas themselves want it to be by calling for the referendum.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Equal Marriage

7 responses to “Solas successfully argue against religious marriage altogether

  1. David Robertson

    Thanks for the feedback….Just a few corrections so that you can comment more accurately next time! It’s always good in a dialogue to get your facts fright. Solas CPC is a Scottish not specifically Dundee group. We have nothing to do with the Free Presbyterians…

    I also find your faith in the State quite touching. It is of course a blind, irrational faith but kind of sweet nonetheless. Personally I am far too much of a radical to allow David Cameron et al to decide what marriage and other vital things mean. I’m curious as to whether you think that if the State determined that marriage could be between one man and four women, or one man and five men, that this would be ok. And what if the State determined that marriage could be between a brother and sister? Just asking….

  2. David I was merely using the Dundee mention as that was what the BBC website said. I also know that the group is based in Dundee so I have removed that offensive word.

    While I know that Solas have nothing to do with the Free Presbyterians (that was my mistake) but that the Solas response echoes the calls of their assembly that any change to marriage should be put to a referendum. Though a do not that you are a minister of St. Peter’s Free Church of Scotland

    As for David Cameron he has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage in Scotland, that is a a devolved matter one for Alex Salmond and the Scottish Parliament.

    As for the choice of marriage to four people, firstly I was talking about equal marriage. I didn’t mention anything other than couples in this or any other utterance on this issue. Your choice of one man and four women is a not very well veiled nod to Islam and as for on man to five men you are clearly implying that all gay men (though I note not lesbians) are promiscuous and engage in group sex. I’m believe the consultation is only looking about monogamous relationships.

    I believe it was me you accused of inaccuracy, please show some of the same, especially in some of the content of your response.

    As for the misuse of shibboleth within the response I’d refer anyone at Solas to Judges 12:5-6 for the correct use.

    • David Robertson

      Thanks Stephen….a couple of mistakes…I am not referring to Islam nor am I saying that all gay men are promiscuous…and if you engage in group sex then why would you want the commitment of marriage…the point I was making still stands…do you think the State could or should legislate for polygamous marriage? If not why not? If yes -why?

      • So maybe your one man four women remark was a purely a subconscious link to Sharia law and you should have said one person and 1+x number of partners to not appear to be attacking yet another faith groups position on that issue so directly.

        It was you who bought in the promiscuous nature by implication David. It would appear you are more hung up on group activity that you want to admit. I’m taking the you in the group sex question is generic and not an accusation based on my perceived sexual orientation, otherwise if it is a singular it is just another sweeping generalisation.

        I see this proposal as a way to equalise marriage it is only applying to marriage of couples. Using scaremongering as in your report of where issues could lead to ignores that fact, it also ignores the fact that liberal Jews, The Society of Friends, Unitarians and others are calling for religious gay marriage.

        Where is freedom of religion if religious groups only see one way as the way forward despite the number of schisms that every faith has present?

      • David Robertson

        Still not answering the question though. Why should marriage only be restricted to two individuals? Why not more? And why not allow brother and sister to marry? Just curious as to what your opinion and justification for those opinions are…..

        Interesting that you cite a group of ‘religious’ groups whose combined membership could fit into a phone box and who are about as representative of Christianity as the horrendous Westboro Baptist….anyway I gather from your point that you would be happy to see a religion which allows multi-wives or child brides etc to marry so that they too can have ‘freedom of religion’?

  3. Pingback: Stephen has problems with language… « Gyronny Herald

  4. You seem to be gathering stuff that I have not said! A lack of evidence as in your submission. But on the subject of multiple partners there are many marriages including that of Sir Harold McMillan and the Duke of Rothesay’s first which opening included more than one ‘partner’ known to the ‘official wife/husband’ so if we’re talking about the sanctity of marriage being ruined by allowing partners of the same sex to marry let us look at those heterosexuals who for a long time have ruined that sanctity, WE could of course also include the founder of the Church of England and indeed the raison d’être of the established English church coming into being was to end a marriage.

    You bring up the points of religious groups and seem to say that size is important for recognition of ideas. Just how big is the Scottish Free Church? About 6,000 if recent figures are correct. Yet you ask the Scottish Government to hear all aspects of the community on this issue so why is size meant to be a issue to others? Isn’t that double standards on your part.

    Since I last listed those faith groups I could add the Scottish Episcopal Church there are of course other faith groups that have individual stand alone governance structures where some may well be included, but I’m not counting them as a group. The Church of Scotland of course are investigating and discussing the matter of human sexuality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s