Would you encourage couples beyond the age of child bearing or where one was incapable of having children (e.g., hysterectomy on the part of the woman) to reconsider?

I think of a recent case in Florida. A couple (unmarried and not capable of being biological parents) have been foster parents for four years to two brothers put in their care by the state. The two brothers had had abusive and neglectful birth parents; the elder aged 4 when removed did not speak, both were ill. The couple has taken care of them for several years and are now seeking to formalize the relationship by having one of them adopt the boys because it is in the best interest of the boys. The court has agreed (though the state has appealed). http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97478955 has some more details. If that couple sought to be married, would you recommend against it on the grounds they aren’t capable of being biological parents?

Kelvin – I’m not brave enough as a priest to tell couples whose ‘marriages…are not open to the procreation and rearing of children’ that their marriage is ‘less sacramental’. And I believe strongly that ‘gay couples have the potential to enhance what we know of the love of God in the same way that straight marriages have’, which is why I hope that the Churches will soon evolve an appropriate liturgy for blessing gay partnerships.

Nevertheless, if I were accompanying a heterosexual couple preparing for marriage, and it emerged in the conversation that they had set their faces from the outset against having children, I would feel it was my pastoral duty to encourage them to reflect on whether their marriage was likely to achieve its full flourishing (taking into account, of course, economic factors, state of health, etc.). It’s worth noting, indeed, that in the Roman Catholic Church the decision resolutely to exclude children would be a factor in the grant of an annulment, if such were sought.

Alan – welcome to the strange world of Episcopalian angst. You’ve set me thinking that there would be a lot to be said for separating the contractual and sacramental aspects of marriage or partnership by doing as they do in secular France, where couples, religious or not, have first to go through a civil ceremony, and then can have their marriage blessed in church if they wish.

Apologies for the length of this response and thank you for your thoughtful and courteous comments.

(and thanks Alan for offering both civility and bravery as you stumble into a new world.)

If the changes you propose to the Civil Partnership and Marriage Acts were to come to pass what then would be the difference between the two institutions? It would surely only be the name and the fact that they cater for same sex and opposite sex couples, respectively.

I struggle with your distinction between the two legal frameworks. Firstly I don’t accept that a religious definition of the word marriage, such as yours, should have legal character. By all means attach to it any religious significance you care to, however, marriage is a firmly established secular legal institution in our society, in fact more than half of all marriages are “civil” marriages. I don’t see why people in a multi-belief society (including atheists like myself) should be compelled by force of law to share your mental distinction.

Secondly the marriage as a child rearing institution argument is fatally flawed for reasons already pointed out, not least by yourself. There are lots of points I could make in this regard but I’ll make just one for the moment. I heard something during a talk from a volunteer from Parents Enquiry, a helpline for parents with gay children, that your “flesh of your flesh and bone of your bone” comment reminded me of. The volunteer, a woman with a grown up [adopted] son, relayed the occasion when she was counselling a parent of a gay child over the phone and the parent interjected that the volunteer wouldn’t understand how she felt because her son wasn’t flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone. It was palpable from her demeanour how hurtful she had found this comment. She had retorted to the parent “but he’s heart of my heart”. I think that’s how most same sex couples who want to get married or civilly partnered feel about each other & their children (if applicable). Your “distinction” fails the “heart of my heart” test. We should seize the opportunity as soon as possible of, as the Spanish Prime Minister put it, “enlarging the opportunity for happiness to our neighbours, our co-workers, our friends, our families…”. Don’t you agree?

My solution, initially at least, would be firstly to open up civil partnerships and marriage to couples of any gender combination. The two institutions would become one, with only a semantic difference remaining. Secondly religious marriage would be removed from statute and become an entirely voluntary affair. No legal prohibition nor sanction of religious solemnisation of either marriages or civil partnerships should exist.

p.s. I stumbled onto this blog via a google search for “same sex marriage in Scotland”. Really pleased to see a lively discussion on this topic in a somewhat alien community to this wandering atheist homosexual. Pleased to meet your acquaintance everyone ^^b

Presumably, you are aware that straight couples who are not married are able to have children too?

There are plenty of marriages which are not open to the procreation and rearing of children and the church has not been terribly quick to demand a seperate legal status for such couples.

Are such marriages less sacramental than those where children are a possiblity? It would be a brave priest who taught that they were.

One of the questions for the church is whether or not Christians can regard the love between a gay couple as sacramental in the same way that we regard [straight] married love as sacramental. In other words do gay couples have the potential to enhance what we know of the love of God in the same way that straight marriages have.

Is it possible to believe that gay couples can exhibit to the world in their partnership an outward sign of God’s grace?

If they can, that is much closer to the way that our church has described marriage than any definition about having children.