You are here: Home / Archives for equal marriage

Something Joyful

17 April 2013 By 4 Comments

Watch this video if you’ve not seen it already to see the power of song.

Actually, if you’ve watched it already, watch it again.

A big joyful shout out to New Zealand and all the New Zealanders that I know.

Rejoice. New life comes. And it comes singing.

As I listen to this, and I’ve heard it over a few times today, I find myself hearing the Great Music behind the singing. It is the sound of Love singing harmonies with Justice – something that is not merely promised in scripture but is also part of what inspires scripture in the first place.

Arise, my love, my fair one,
and come away;
for now the winter is past,
the rain is over and gone.
The flowers appear on the earth;
the time of singing has come,
and the voice of the turtle-dove
is heard in our land.
The fig tree puts forth its figs,
and the vines are in blossom;
they give forth fragrance.
Arise, my love, my fair one,
and come away.

(From Song of Songs 2)

As I listen to that singing from New Zealand, I realise afresh that I don’t just want to change the law on marriage. I want to change the world so that that singing is heard day after day after day.

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: ,
4 Comments

So, let me get this right…

16 February 2013 By 10 Comments

Let me be sure I’ve understood this.

From sometime next year or the year after, a gay couple will be able to get a Civil Partnership, then come to a Scottish Episcopal Church for a blessing from a Scottish Episcopal priest, make promises to one another, exchange rings, have them blessed, sing hymns and have a Eucharist celebrating their union. And then they will be able to convert it to a marriage soon after (what a day later?) by filling in a form and paying a small fee. Or maybe they will not even need to go through the Civil Partnership bit and just be able to come for the whole blessing thing after getting married.

And that’s going to be OK with just about everyone. Admittedly not absolutely everyone but not far off.

And we are now currently insisting in submissions to the Scottish Government that the same Scottish Episcopal Church is opposed by virtue of our doctrine to same-sex couples getting married.

And we expect government (and the general population) to take us seriously.

Have I understood that correctly?

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , ,
10 Comments

From Criminality to Equality

6 February 2013 By 6 Comments

I think this is one of the moments in the debates on marriage where there’s more wisdom to be heard in one speech made well than in acres of newsprint trying to analyse the vote in the House of Commons last night.

Here’s David Lammy giving it his all.

Let me speak frankly.

“Separate but equal” is a fraud.

“Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

“Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

“Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

“Separate AND oppressed”.

“Separate AND browbeaten”.

“Separate AND subjugated”.

Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

As long as our statute books suggest that the love between two men or two women is unworthy of being recognised through marriage, we allow the rot of homophobia to fester.

And then again at the end:

The Jesus I know was born a refugee, illegitimate, with a death warrant on his name in a barn among animals. He would stand up for minorities. That is why it is right for people of religious convictions to stand up for this bill.

There’s a longer version of the speech (which he would have given if he had been given more time) on his website.

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , , ,
6 Comments

Go! England and Wales! Go! Go! Go!

5 February 2013 By 7 Comments

It is a big day for those working towards more equal marriage law in the UK today. The second reading of the Bill which would allow gay couples to wed in England and Wales.

I’ve been in touch with Ann McKechin my local MP to check she is supporting it and am delighted to report she is.

And this isn’t a simple West Lothian question either – I’m one of her constituents. If I wanted to marry someone from Englandshire I might well want to get married there.

Indeed, I might want to get married in a parish church there.

But we will come to that later.

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: ,
7 Comments

Scottish Government’s proposals for Marriage

12 December 2012 By 14 Comments

The Scottish Government has published its proposals for amending marriage law in Scotland. There are one or two surprises too as they are going to try to amend some of the bits of law that apply to straight couples getting married. I didn’t see those changes coming and they are likely to be a bit lost in the hubbub surrounding the news that the Scottish Government has indicated that it is to legislate in favour of allowing same-sex couples to get married.

Religious bodies will need to opt into the legislation. They will be able to authorise all of their celebrants to do same-sex marriages if all (yes, all) agree. Alternatively they will be able to nominate designated people as celebrants so long as the religious body has agreed that it is appropriate for some of its celebrants to do so.

The new legislation is to be warmly welcomed. It isn’t equal marriage (most notably in the ways in which celebrants can be authorised) but it is getting very close and it provides a workable way forward for marriages of same-sex couples to be regarded in the same way in society as marriages between a man and a woman.

All of this will kick-start decision-making processes in a number of churches including my own. Somehow or another the Scottish Episcopal Church will need to make its mind up what to do.

For now, I’m simply going to say that I’d be very happy to conduct such marriages and look forward to the day that same-sex couples will be able to be married in St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow. Indeed, there are members of the congregation hoping and wishing and praying for that day who want to get married and who are currently unable to do so.

I’ll continue to support and encourage those couples and continue to work to ensure that they can have the happiest day of their lives in their own church as soon as possible.

But what, I hear you ask, about those other changes? Here are a few things to think about.

Well, it looks as though there is going to be a significant change to the law which would allow registrars to conduct weddings (of any kind) anywhere rather than simply in approved premises. Up until now, religious and humanist celebrants have been able to conduct weddings just about anywhere in Scotland whilst registrars have been limited in where they could do it. This has meant something of an industry developing whereby couples shopped around for a marriage celebrant who was prepared to go to their preferred place – mountain tops, beaches, hotels, golf-courses etc. Generally speaking, I think it has been Church of Scotland and notably in recent years humanist celebrants who have been involved in this business. (In my diocese the bishop frowns at the thought and clergy need permission from him before celebrating a wedding outside of a church. In this case, I share in his frowns and don’t generally do weddings outside a place of worship).

I expect the consequence of this to be that civil weddings will rise in numbers, Church of Scotland weddings will fall in numbers and maybe those humanist figures which have risen so impressively will now start to tail off.

Another big change, which does not seem to me to have been thought through at all is the idea of establishing a category of wedding based on belief. (This would subsume the humanists). Thus, a group or organisation could establish itself as a belief group and apply for recognition for doing weddings.

It seems to me that it would be entirely possible that a Christian group which was not a church could be established with celebrants drawn from existing denominations authorised to do same-sex weddings. I don’t see how the state could discriminate against, say, Changing Attitude Scotland or Affirmation Scotland applying to have (lay) celebrants authorised to do same-sex or indeed opposite sex ceremonies. All kinds of groups could be imagined. There could be an Ecumenical Lay Association for Same-Sex Marriage for example. Or a bunch of renegade nuns.

Expect a lot more ink to be spilled over this suggestion.

Oh, and one more thing. The current proposals we have from Holyrood and Westminster don’t seem to me to deal with issues about celebrants being authorised from outside their current jurisdiction. I see a way whereby someone might end up authorised to conduct same-sex weddings in Scotland (an Anglican priest, for example) being asked to go to England (for example) and conduct the wedding of a gay couple. Seems to me that, notwithstanding the local ecclesiastical courtesies, the local registrar in England and Wales would struggle to say no.

Finally, a very welcome change in that people going through gender transition will no longer need to divorce their spouse before being recognised in their new gender. This was an iniquitous situation and one issue which my own congregation raised in its response to the Scottish Government.

Talking of responses, this is round 2 of the consultation process. We are going to need responses to all this to come from individuals and groups and congregations and denominations all over again. More details about that in due course.

But for now – hurrah!

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , , , , ,
14 Comments

George C and Ann W

9 October 2012 By 1 Comment

Sometimes one’s twitter feed appears to simply light up with activity. It did so for me as countless people that I know posted their instant reactions to the things that George Carey and Ann Widdecombe said at a meeting held to co-incide with the Tory Party Conference, which was intended to rally the anti-same-sex marriage faithful. The long and short of it is that they seemed to imply that equal marriage would be the next stage on a slippery slope towards a totalitarian political system. It is reported that when asked about opponents to same-sex marriage being called names (the “bigot” word is what we are talking about, I fear), Lord Carey apparently said that such namecalling could lead to people facing the same kind of persecution as the Jews in Nazi Germany.

It is nonsense, of course, and all the more offensive as he seems to have forgotten that gay people were very particularly targeted by the Nazis too.

David Cameron may be a lot of things but I’d say that, having met him, I am pretty sure that he is not preparing a final solution to impose upon former archbishops and their followers. One might have thought that such comments were beneath even Lord Carey’s rarefied pomposity, but it would appear not.

So, what do I say about all this?

Firstly, it is worth remembering that these comments have at least as much power in rallying the pro-same-sex marriage cause as the anti-brigade. Indeed, all this does seem to recruit people to the fight for equality. It is hard to think anything other than that these comments make same-sex marriage all the more likely. No sensible politician is going to align themselves with this style of debate anyway. (I don’t think Ann Widdecombe was ever a serious politician though I will confess that in her barmy single-mindedness she remains, like Tommy Sheridan and Arthur Scargill, one of my very guilty political pleasures).

Secondly, it is worth reflecting on how easy it is for church people to get themselves into the news. It interests me that George Carey (once the Primate of All Englandshire) can still get column inches in the same kind of way that Richard Holloway (who was at the same time Primus of our own dear Scottish church) still can. Richard is still one of the more interesting and sane people prepared to say things to the press and consequently gets good coverage.

One of the lessons to learn from Lord Carey’s nonsense is that the press will still report things if clergy have interesting (and indeed, yes, outrageous things to say). I got lots of good press recently for saying that everyone is welcome in our churches and that we would happily look after any disaffected Roman Catholics for one Sunday only whilst their own church was saying hideous things.

It isn’t terribly exciting to say that everyone is welcome in St Mary’s. It is what we and many others say very often. Interesting though that if you articulate the risks and blessings of that kind of welcome, all of a sudden, the press puts it on the front page.

(Incidently, I do hope that the Roman Catholic church wants to look after any disaffected Episcopalians who are in need of sanctuary. They’ve been actively recruiting from the top with their Ordinariate scheme and we must wish anyone who signs up godspeed and good wishes).

Getting back to Lord Carey and Ann W though, what shall we pray for them. A blessing of wisdom, I say, and let us pray that the Holy Spirit might bless them both with a dose of compassionate holy common sense.

God bless them both.

Do I hear anyone say, Amen? (And a retweet if you are twittering….)

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , , ,
1 Comment

Tuesday Update

28 August 2012 By 2 Comments

Tuesday: Useful comment article by Colette Douglas Home in today’s Herald, on the Roman Catholic Church’s position on #equalmarriage: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/core-message-of-christianity-is-one-of-love-and-forbearance.18704767

Includes good key quotes from Sunday’s sermon and this:

[Kelvin Holdsworth] welcomed gay Christians to the service and discovered, not surprisingly, that his congregation had increased.

A senior Catholic source reportedly accused him of “incendiary and uncharitable language” when he issued his invitation last Friday. Mr Holdsworth said: “I think people get weary of hearing a negative message from church people. What they want to hear is positive – about changing the world for the better, about justice, about love.” Amen to that.

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: ,
2 Comments

New article in Herald

27 August 2012 By 10 Comments

There’s a new article in the Herald newspaper today reporting on yesterday’s sermon and service at St Mary’s. It is prominently placed, with a nice big pic of me in the pulpit on the front page. I’d probably have preferred a different headline (they are never written by the reporters themselves) but the article is a good report of the service here at St Mary’s yesterday. 

You can find the article here:http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/gay-marriage-war-of-words-in-churches.18684223

There’s some quoting from yesterday’s sermon

I’m quoted as saying thus:

“The thing I found amazing is how busy a church can be on a Sunday morning simply by saying that everybody is welcome. That’s a position that churches share across the city but somehow, by saying that this is a place where everybody is welcome, that is the message that will draw people in. Perhaps as churches we have forgotten how to say that.”

Asked about the messages on same-sex marriage from the Catholic hierarchy, he said: “I think people get weary of hearing a negative message from church people. What they want to hear is positive – about changing the world for the better, about justice, about love.”

And folk who were in the congregation are quoted thus:

Jim Whannel and Colin Johnston, members of an Episcopal church in Paisley, said: “It’s a very sad day for Christianity because of what is happening in other churches.”

A lesbian Christian couple, Ruth and Jaye Richards-Hill, also backed Mr Holdsworth’s open invitation. Mrs Richards-Hill said: “Somebody needs to stand up and create a balance in the opinion, and I think that worked.”

“A spokesman for the [Roman] Catholic Church declined to respond to Mr Holdsworth’s latest comments.”

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: ,
10 Comments

An Invitation

24 August 2012 By 25 Comments

Update – this blog post is featured in an article in the Herald newspaper.

I think it is appropriate to post on this blog the invitation that I shared with the congregation last weekend.

We are currently living through a period of social change, as the Scottish Government finalizes its plans to allow same-sex couples to get married.

Now, the churches tend to react in their own distinctive ways. Christians are not of one mind about whether marriage for gay couples is a good thing or not. However, it is clearly coming.

Over the summer, I’ve been contacted a number of times by people who have asked me whether they can come to St Mary’s Cathedral on a one-off basis on Sunday 26 August 2012. The reason for this is that the Roman Catholic Church is declaring this coming Sunday as National Marriage Sunday and has said that it is setting up a special commission – a new body which will be “charged with promoting the true nature of marriage”.

Now, I believe in marriage. I believe in marriage for straight couples. I believe in supporting family life. I also happen to believe that marriage should be open to same-sex couples who wish to publicly declare that they are going to be faithful, stable and loving in the same way that straight people can. I believe in Equal Marriage and hope it comes soon.

The trouble is, the rhetoric that is currently coming from the Roman Catholic Church on this topic can be hugely negative. We saw that on Scotland Tonight on Thursday evening when one of their spokesmen once again asserted that gay people live shorter lives than straight people and seemed to suggest that people needed to be “warned” against being gay. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to describe it as homophobic and that is a word that I almost never use. It is also my view that the attitude of the Scottish Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy seems to be at odds with the membership of that church whom I generally encounter as gentle, respectful, caring and kind.

Now, the fact is, not everyone at St Mary’s Cathedral has the same views on this topic. The truth is, the people at St Mary’s Cathedral tend not to have the same views about many things, as it happens.

However, we all do tend to agree that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God. My congregation is not a place where people question whether gay people are loved by God. We know it is true that everyone is loved by God.

The people who have contacted me about this upcoming Sunday to ask if they can join us for a week are quite varied. Some are straight people and some are gay. Some are Roman Catholics who simply don’t want to be told what to think about this topic and who reject the current rhetoric coming from the Scottish Roman Catholic Church. Others have no connection with that church but simply want to turn up to a church on that Sunday where the message is of compassion and love. Indeed, I have been contacted by a couple of atheists who said that they would like to come to church on that day to mark a particular anniversary and wondered whether they too would be welcome. The answer, of course, was yes. All are welcome in this place. (And they won’t be the only atheists there either).

It is a worry to me that atheists might think themselves unwelcome in churches. What kind of messages are churches sending out to convey this? There’s not a congregation worth going to that wouldn’t welcome such a person.

I have spoken to my congregation about the invitation that I want to reinforce this weekend and I have asked them to put the word about amongst their friends. If they know anyone in this city who would like to worship with us this week rather than worship in their own church for one Sunday then the message is clear. Everyone is welcome at St Mary’s. We don’t preach hatred. We don’t preach or teach bigotry. We stand up for the simple love of God. If anyone wishes to join us for one week as respite from the message preached in other places then they would be welcome to join us either this week or indeed on any Sunday.

The main service is at 10.30 am on Sunday. Roman Catholics will find the service is very similar to the service they know. Those from other traditions will find elements of the service that resonate with their own experience too. The music ranges from good to fantastic and is led by our wonderful choir and musicians. Those who are unfamiliar with church services will not find the service difficult to follow. The building is warm and welcoming and the congregation is gathered from all over the world and from very many faith traditions.

There is also a meditative, calm evening service at 6.30 pm on a Sunday evening which particularly features glorious choral singing as the choir and clergy sing the psalms and prayers of the day. It is the case that quite a few people come to that service who go to different churches on a Sunday morning. That kind of ministry that you can dip in and out of is part of what Cathedrals offer.

This is a congregation where we try to ensure that everyone is welcome and this is a church where everyone can receive Holy Communion if they wish to do so.

Having asked the congregation to share the news with their contacts that this is a Sunday when those wishing to join us for the first time are particularly welcome, I’m repeating that message here on the blog. If you are reading this and want to come then simply turn up on Sunday. It is a busy church, you won’t be singled out or made to do anything odd or strange, just come and enjoy worshipping in a congregation that is trying to be open, inclusive and welcoming.

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , ,
25 Comments

Canon Law

23 August 2012 By 2 Comments

We had such a good evening discussing Canon Law at the Cathedral’s gay group on Monday evening. Presumably all churches have evenings like this.

Canon Law is more often talked about than referred to. In this case, we were looking at Canon 31 which is the canon about marriage.

There are quite a few interesting things that we talked about in relation to the canon, but first, here is the Canon itself.

CANON THIRTY-ONE
OF THE SOLEMNISATION OF HOLY MATRIMONY

1. The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.

2. No cleric of this Church shall solemnise Matrimony except in accordance with the civil law of Scotland for the time being in force in relation to civil marriages and unless satisfied that compliance has been made with such preliminaries as are therein required for the Solemnising of Religious Marriages.

3. No cleric shall perform the Marriage Service, nor permit it to be performed in Church, for parties who are within the forbidden degrees, as specified in Appendix No.26. No cleric shall perform the Marriage Service, nor permit it to be performed in Church for parties, for one or both of whom a decree of Nullity of Marriage Ab Initio has been pronounced by a Civil Court, nor for parties, either of whom has had a previous marriage dissolved quoad civilia in a Civil
Court, so long as the other spouse in the marriage so dissolved remains alive, unless that cleric shall have been given a Certificate of Authorisation on the grounds that there is no ecclesiastical impediment to the marriage in terms of Section 4.

4. In cases where a decree of Nullity of Marriage Ab Initio has been pronounced by a Civil Court, or in any case where either or both parties to a proposed marriage has, or have had, a previous marriage dissolved quoad civilia in a Civil Court, but the other spouse to that marriage remains alive, any cleric to whom an approach is made by or on behalf of either party with a view to the solemnising of such proposed marriage shall refer the matter to the Diocesan Bishop. Upon receiving such reference, the Diocesan Bishop shall make such enquiries into the circumstances of the case, and take such pastoral and legal advice, as shall seem appropriate, and thereafter may issue, or decline to issue, to an officiating cleric, a Certificate of Authorisation in terms of Appendix No.27 authorising and approving that cleric’s officiating at the Solemnisation of Holy Matrimony of the parties concerned according to the Rites and Ceremonies and Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church. No Bishop shall entertain an application which has already been before another Diocesan Bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church without the agreement of the Bishop of that other Diocese and the Episcopal Synod.

5. A cleric may use the form of Benediction provided in the Scottish Book of Common Prayer (1929) to meet the case of those who ask for the benediction of the Church after an irregular marriage has been contracted or after a civil marriage has been legally entered into, provided only that the cleric be satisfied that the marriage is not contrary to Sections 3 and 4 of this Canon.

6. The solemnisation of Marriage shall take place in Church except with the written sanction of the Bishop.

We were, obviously, looking at the Canon in the light of the knowledge that the Scottish Government is planning to change marriage law to allow same-sex couples to get married.

I’m still not entirely convinced that the parliamentary process is going to be quite as easy as the politicians thing. They appear to me to be planning on building new discrimination into new law and that might well unravel. For example, they talk about “protecting” any cleric who belongs to a denomination which has opted in to doing same-sex weddings where the celebrant in question doesn’t want to do them but they don’t propose doing anything about the cleric who wants to perform a same-sex wedding when their denomination has not opted in. That is clear and obvious discrimination and I’m not sure that it will (or should) pass muster when it comes to legislation.

It is worth noting that this business of providing “protection” to those who don’t want to do same-sex weddings is a nonsense and a red herring. No-one can be forced to conduct any wedding at the moment. No additional legislation is needed. No-one, if you think about it, can be forced to pray or perform any religious act that they don’t believe in. It is absurd to think that any court in Europe is going to start to force people to perform religious ceremonies they don’t want to. That’s because celebrants already have rights – the same rights which mean that one can’t be forced to perform religious acts. We already have freedom of concience in Western Europe. Same-sex weddings are no threat to this at all. The more you hear from the SNP Government about providing “protection” in this area, the more you know they are trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes or trying to delay the process. It just isn’t necessary. Not a jot or a tittle of the law needs changing, as Someone might well once have said.

Now, when it comes to that Canon there are a couple of interesting things to note. Firstly, note the definition of marriage as being, “a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

Opinion has been expressed in the church recently by those with some power and influence in this area, that the church wouldn’t be able to marry same-sex couples whilst this statement is in Canon law. However, the church manages to marry couples whose lives have not reflected this standard all the time. If we marry divorced people, then our relationship with this doctrinal statement must at least be nuanced.

I was very interested to see an old copy of the Canons recently – I think it came from the 1920s. I looked up Canon 31 and found that this doctrinal statement was simply not there. I think (and I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong) that it was inserted precisely when we did start to recognise divorce.

Section 5 of the Canon is rather interesting. It suggests that it is legitimate to perform the service of Benediction (ie perform a blessing) for couples whose marriages have been contracted irregularly (ie not within the other terms of the Canon) so long as they have not had a marriage refused for reasons connected with a divorce. (It is extremely rare for our bishops to refuse marriages in this area).

It seems to me, that should the state allow same-sex couples to marry, Canon Law is at least nodding towards the possibility of giving the couple a blessing in church, even without changing a word of the Canons.

Clearly there is a time of discussion and reflection needed with regard to the way Canon Law intersects with Scottish Law. If the state allowed same-sex marriage but the church didn’t, it seems to me to be very likely that some clergy would start to refuse to marry straight couples and simply suggest that for reasons of equality everyone goes to get married in the registry office and an appropriate church service can follow immediately afterwards. That seems not only very likely but only a couple of years away.

Alternatively, the church will allow everyone to live according to their conscience on this matter. Allowing those who wish to conduct such marriages to do so and allowing those who wish to refuse to do so too. This is how we deal with divorced couples wanting to get married, so there is clear precidence for this path. It seems to me that this would be wisest and the path forward which least distracted us from other mission inititives.

Incidently, if we do start to unpick the definition of marriage that we have in Canon 31, don’t expect it to be easy. It currently says,

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.

I’d be happy with it if it said,

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of two people created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.

There are others who would find it much easier to reconcile their own experience with the church if it said,

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy estate instituted of God.

And I’ve recently heard a bishop questioning the last clause who would really prefer –

The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate.

Ho hum.

All of this is, of couse, about the canonical definition of marriage and takes no account of the liturgical formularies, which are different and diverse. I’ll perhaps look at them in another post.

Suffice it to say that the biggest change that the Scottish Episcopal Church has ever made in relation to marriage was in producing a new marriage liturgy which regards the two persons contracting the marriage as equals.

That seems to me to be a far greater change to our ecclesiastical views on marriage than allowing same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it is one of the foundations upon which the case for same-sex marriage can be built.

Filed Under: Blog
Tagged With: , , , ,
2 Comments
«Older Posts