Looking at the case of Lillian Ladele, sometime registrar for Islington Council in London who lost her job when she refused to take a civil partnership. Now, as I understand it, this woman did her job well but, because of her beliefs, didn't feel that she could in all good conscience conduct a civil partnership and someone decided to make a complaint about it.
First and foremost we have to ask whether or not anyone who wanted a civil partnership was inconvenienced or refused because of this woman's beliefs. The answer to this is a resounding 'No' for what occurred was that when there was a civil partnership to be conducted the woman merely exchanged that task for another.
The second question is that of asking 'Why'?
Why did someone make a complaint that lead to the eventual dismissal of Ms Ladele?
Well I can't imagine it was someone with a relationship with the woman who was aggrieved that she wouldn't take their service. It surely can't have been someone who had their heart set of having their civil partnership service conducted by a black woman (can it?) or wanted a Christian lay person to do the job!
No M'lud, what I have to say is that the complaint was actually little more that a spiteful and rather malicious act. The intention was to hit out at Ms Ladele and act against her and whilst it might look like it worked, actually she emerges from this as a 'hero of the faith' rather than bigot, homophobe or any of the other comments some (who actually own the rights to those very titles for themselves) have used!
The grown up response was that as long as there was no refusal of service then surely the right to believe and act according to them harmed no one and as long as that situation continued, there was no problem.
I cannot for the life of me believe that someone wishing to take part in any event would wish to have it done by someone who didn't want to do it. The ideal is someone who is keen to provide whatever service is required and if not keen, then at least ambivalent or neutral - I wouldn't want someone who did the thing without being fully engaged (mind you - having dealt with registrars in some places they were rarely engaged or even (apparently) interested in what was going on - it just seemed to be (what it might well be for many) - a job!
So did human rights win here?
No, I don't think so. What we had was someone using the system to exact some sort of revenge rather than stand for anyone's rights and so I think that commonsense, the right to live and act as one's beliefs demand and the law itself all lost out here.
When one person acts and another disagrees then surely each has a right to live as they might and as long as neither demands nor imposes upon the other on the grounds of primacy of rights we find a coexistence and place where respect, however uneasy, is to be found.
This is what society, rights, life choices and faith are all about - we may not agree but that doesn't mean that we have to engage in conflict.
Well, not unless one of us has a different (and wrong) agenda (and that's exactly what I think we have here)
Some might actually call it Christophobic :-)
Pax
Showing posts with label civil partnerships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil partnerships. Show all posts
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Saturday, 12 May 2012
C4M - Nailing colours
Having received a number of 'invitations' to nail my colours to the mast regarding the the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) I think I need first to point those asking back to the discussion that was held in this place on the 25th February following my agreement to post on it. In addition to this there was the attempt at discussing a 'middle ground' approach (October and November 2011) which sought to establish a place whereby the world might live together over this subject (which sadly drew so much fire that it crashed and burned). There have been other posts which have related to the C4M issue and now, it seems that I am in a place where I have three choices:
1. To ignore the calls,
2. To fudge the issue, or
3. State my views (which I thought I always did anyway) and take (and make) my position clear.
Seems to me that the C4M petition calls upon the current definition of marriage to be left as it is* and I would have to say that I don't see any reason to do anything other than this on the basis that:
When the civil partnership was first enacted it was obviously regarded as by some to be 'gay marriage'. The civil partnership gives the same legal rights and privileges as those afforded to the parties in a 'marriage' and so, especially where any modified 'marriage' would be in a civil setting, I see no need to change.
There is the issue of the 'God' bit, the very thing that makes the difference between civil and church marriage but this hasn't been the desire of some of the homosexuals I have dialogued with, they merely wanted the word 'marriage' to apply to them. Mind you, as they used the term anyway I don't see what difference legislation would make anyway and can think of may better ways of engaging in dialogue and spending government money.
So there you have it. There will always be people who will defy the Church of England ruling and offer 'marriage' or bless civil partnerships because they choose to ignore the rules. there will always be people who will lash out and attack others because of their mistaken belief in 'righteous anger' (rarely righteous and usually more like wickedness).
I am disturbed that the ASA might be acting against people for putting up an advert which seeks to support the law as it stands and in fact think this is an heterophobic or christophobic act (after all, any disapproval of the homosexual position draws the homophobic label quickly enough so why not use the same mechanism?).
I have to add that the many people that I know wh were not married in church but in a civil ceremony consider themselves married and as many seek the ceremony outside of church I see this as being something that is more about church that the label - but that's for another day!
So there you have it - you have asked and I have answered and I'm sure some will not like it, but that's life I guess, you just can't please everyone and as a Christian I seek to please one more than the rest.
I'll leave the last word to someone for whom this is an everyday reality
Pax
*The petition states ‘I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.’
1. To ignore the calls,
2. To fudge the issue, or
3. State my views (which I thought I always did anyway) and take (and make) my position clear.
Seems to me that the C4M petition calls upon the current definition of marriage to be left as it is* and I would have to say that I don't see any reason to do anything other than this on the basis that:
When the civil partnership was first enacted it was obviously regarded as by some to be 'gay marriage'. The civil partnership gives the same legal rights and privileges as those afforded to the parties in a 'marriage' and so, especially where any modified 'marriage' would be in a civil setting, I see no need to change.
There is the issue of the 'God' bit, the very thing that makes the difference between civil and church marriage but this hasn't been the desire of some of the homosexuals I have dialogued with, they merely wanted the word 'marriage' to apply to them. Mind you, as they used the term anyway I don't see what difference legislation would make anyway and can think of may better ways of engaging in dialogue and spending government money.
So there you have it. There will always be people who will defy the Church of England ruling and offer 'marriage' or bless civil partnerships because they choose to ignore the rules. there will always be people who will lash out and attack others because of their mistaken belief in 'righteous anger' (rarely righteous and usually more like wickedness).
I am disturbed that the ASA might be acting against people for putting up an advert which seeks to support the law as it stands and in fact think this is an heterophobic or christophobic act (after all, any disapproval of the homosexual position draws the homophobic label quickly enough so why not use the same mechanism?).
I have to add that the many people that I know wh were not married in church but in a civil ceremony consider themselves married and as many seek the ceremony outside of church I see this as being something that is more about church that the label - but that's for another day!
So there you have it - you have asked and I have answered and I'm sure some will not like it, but that's life I guess, you just can't please everyone and as a Christian I seek to please one more than the rest.
I'll leave the last word to someone for whom this is an everyday reality
Pax
*The petition states ‘I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.’
Monday, 27 February 2012
Thought for the day - Marriage vs Civil Partnerships
For those who struggled with the blog relating to the Coalition for Marriage a couple of days back - here's someone who is in the pro camp (hoping I can use that word without offence :-) ) when it comes to keeping marriage and civil partnerships distinct and separate.
All grist to the mill I guess - enjoy!
ps. Not an invitation to punch-up but it is interesting to see how, even within themselves, the groups divide isn't it?
Pax
For those who would like to see another (differing) view of this debate (disccusion, argument?) take a look at the 'Coalition for Equal Marriage' site here .
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Being First - A finger on the pulse!
George Carey has rushed in to be the first to comment upon the vote in the Lord's (3rd march) by writing to the Times. well, alright not the first but he's probably not the last (+Winchester having said everything George is now saying!).
The fears that civil partnership ceremonies in churches could result in some clergy being prosecuted or face discrimination if they 'fail' (which I think means refuse) to conduct ceremonies. This, even to my limited brian is a stone bonking certainty and only confirms Michael Scott-Joynt cautionary words.
In the Times George asks, "How long will it be before church ministers are threatened with legal proceedings in they perform marriages between a man and a woman, but not civil partnerships?" The answer is simple, it's about one minutes after they've said, "No!" Now wasn't that easy?
Let's consider Rowan for a sec. For a bloke with so much intellectual wit he's so incredibly dense at times. He doesn't appear to recognise that his inactivity and his 'working behind the scenes' (which has been so good at seeing TEC maintain their position of restraint regarding you know what) is not only fuelling schism but leaving us in a bad light with other 'orthodox' Christian groups.
He's managed to push the Resolution 'C' boys into a place where Rome is attractive and Bennie, seeing a wounded animal rich for the pickings has taken the opportunity that Rowan has created makes offers that entice. After all, how could the CofE General Synod vote that those who opposed women's ordination and consecration were not true or faithful Anglicans? Shame on those who voted for it - laity, clergy and especially bishops - who make themselves appear to be hypocrites who will still take their (FiF, Res 'C' chaps) parish share and yet denounce them!
Anyway, back to the original issue. Let's get real about this - Frank And Earnest (which is what a couple should be) arrive at the vicarage and ask for a Civil Partnership. The dog collar (DC) issues Anglican-like apologies and says that they couldn't do such a service within their walls, blah, blah, blah. Immediately we have a situation whereby the 'rights' of one person to live and act as they choose collide with the rights of another to believe and act as they choose. Who has the greater rights here? If it were an issue of colour, we would gasp should someone say that they wouldn't provide a service of someone on the grounds of colour. The same applies these days regarding the sex of an individual (which by the way is not the same as gender, a popular confusion on the part of many).
Can we force someone to act against their own belief, values and standards? I don't think we can. If this premise is wrong than I must have the right to make a friend of mine eat meat because I'm a meat-eater and I can force another to drink alcoholic drinks. Personal values and standards can be washed away to please . . . er, please who?
Those who choose to enter into homosexual relationship are free to do so, it's a minority sport, but it's their minority sport. Should they wish to have a civil partnership done in church or engage in a 'gay marriage' service, that's not a problem because there are many others, especially those with no real integrity and a self-seeking publicity streak have been doing this for a long time just pop down to the City of London (and other places besides)!
I choose not to enter into this lifestyle and therefore we take different paths as a matter of choice. I don't expect homosexuals to 'bless' my heterosexual choices and don't see why I am expected to act any differently. I choose not to pillory or vilify those who have made their choice and in return expect the same consideration. This is what civilised society is about - we make choices and take paths that neither cross nor need to be made to do so.
But it's about more than this, this is really about control and having the upper-hand and this is why some will seek to threaten and display the very attributes that deny any reason to be doing anything in church, for it's not a place that glorifies the world but God. As a parting thought, I would deny anyone the right to have a marriage in church if by doing so it would bring the Gospel into disrepute, would cause anxiety to the community (local and Christian) or would have the potential for controversy.
If a man and woman came asking for a marriage service and it transpired that they had previously been married and each was the reason for the other's divorce, then according to the rules, I couldn't marry them. I would merely seek to be consistent and maintain my integrity and that of the Church locally, universally and historically. So, if they're are going to be people coming knocking and threatening to burn the church down if they don't get what they want (any issue or area) then I will tell them now, I am prepared for them . . . .
I've bought a couple of pounds of chestnuts!
The fears that civil partnership ceremonies in churches could result in some clergy being prosecuted or face discrimination if they 'fail' (which I think means refuse) to conduct ceremonies. This, even to my limited brian is a stone bonking certainty and only confirms Michael Scott-Joynt cautionary words.
In the Times George asks, "How long will it be before church ministers are threatened with legal proceedings in they perform marriages between a man and a woman, but not civil partnerships?" The answer is simple, it's about one minutes after they've said, "No!" Now wasn't that easy?
Let's consider Rowan for a sec. For a bloke with so much intellectual wit he's so incredibly dense at times. He doesn't appear to recognise that his inactivity and his 'working behind the scenes' (which has been so good at seeing TEC maintain their position of restraint regarding you know what) is not only fuelling schism but leaving us in a bad light with other 'orthodox' Christian groups.
He's managed to push the Resolution 'C' boys into a place where Rome is attractive and Bennie, seeing a wounded animal rich for the pickings has taken the opportunity that Rowan has created makes offers that entice. After all, how could the CofE General Synod vote that those who opposed women's ordination and consecration were not true or faithful Anglicans? Shame on those who voted for it - laity, clergy and especially bishops - who make themselves appear to be hypocrites who will still take their (FiF, Res 'C' chaps) parish share and yet denounce them!
Anyway, back to the original issue. Let's get real about this - Frank And Earnest (which is what a couple should be) arrive at the vicarage and ask for a Civil Partnership. The dog collar (DC) issues Anglican-like apologies and says that they couldn't do such a service within their walls, blah, blah, blah. Immediately we have a situation whereby the 'rights' of one person to live and act as they choose collide with the rights of another to believe and act as they choose. Who has the greater rights here? If it were an issue of colour, we would gasp should someone say that they wouldn't provide a service of someone on the grounds of colour. The same applies these days regarding the sex of an individual (which by the way is not the same as gender, a popular confusion on the part of many).
Can we force someone to act against their own belief, values and standards? I don't think we can. If this premise is wrong than I must have the right to make a friend of mine eat meat because I'm a meat-eater and I can force another to drink alcoholic drinks. Personal values and standards can be washed away to please . . . er, please who?
Those who choose to enter into homosexual relationship are free to do so, it's a minority sport, but it's their minority sport. Should they wish to have a civil partnership done in church or engage in a 'gay marriage' service, that's not a problem because there are many others, especially those with no real integrity and a self-seeking publicity streak have been doing this for a long time just pop down to the City of London (and other places besides)!
I choose not to enter into this lifestyle and therefore we take different paths as a matter of choice. I don't expect homosexuals to 'bless' my heterosexual choices and don't see why I am expected to act any differently. I choose not to pillory or vilify those who have made their choice and in return expect the same consideration. This is what civilised society is about - we make choices and take paths that neither cross nor need to be made to do so.
But it's about more than this, this is really about control and having the upper-hand and this is why some will seek to threaten and display the very attributes that deny any reason to be doing anything in church, for it's not a place that glorifies the world but God. As a parting thought, I would deny anyone the right to have a marriage in church if by doing so it would bring the Gospel into disrepute, would cause anxiety to the community (local and Christian) or would have the potential for controversy.
If a man and woman came asking for a marriage service and it transpired that they had previously been married and each was the reason for the other's divorce, then according to the rules, I couldn't marry them. I would merely seek to be consistent and maintain my integrity and that of the Church locally, universally and historically. So, if they're are going to be people coming knocking and threatening to burn the church down if they don't get what they want (any issue or area) then I will tell them now, I am prepared for them . . . .
I've bought a couple of pounds of chestnuts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)