Sunday, March 11, 2012

Some other responses to the good Cardinal Keith O’Brien:-

Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said the government's consultation on gay marriage was not aimed at forcing religious groups to endorse same-sex marriages. He told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "We're not seeking to change religious marriage and we're not seeking to impose it on religious groups. What we are saying is that where a couple love each other and they wish to commit to each other for their life then they should be able to have a civil marriage irrespective of their sexual orientation."

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, a former equalities minister, said she thought it was right to have same-sex marriages. She added: "I don't want anybody to feel that this is a licence for whipping up prejudice. What you're talking about is individual people and their personal relationships, their love for each other and their wanting to be in a partnership or getting married. I think we should support that."

Margot James, the first openly lesbian Conservative MP, accused the cardinal of "scaremongering". She said: "I think it is a completely unacceptable way for a prelate to talk. The government is not trying to force Catholic churches to perform gay marriages at all. It is a purely civil matter."

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights organisation Stonewall, said: "When you read the insulting tone to which Cardinal O'Brien descends on marriage you sense an argument already lost.

I'm in favour of civil partnerships and equality. But, you can not in my view redefine marriage on a whim” Peter Bone Conservative MP "It wasn't in our manifesto. It wasn't in Labour's manifesto. It wasn't in the Liberal manifesto. Nobody in my constituency before this row has ever come up to me and said this is an important issue that needs to be dealt with. It came completely out of the blue and it should certainly not be put before the next general election." Mr. Bone said he believed marriage could not be anything other than the union of a man and a woman. "I'm in favour of civil partnerships and equality. But, you can not in my view redefine marriage on a whim."

Mr Cameron publicly supported gay marriage at last year's Conservative Party conference, and the Home Office said last week the government believed a loving and committed couple should "have the option of a civil marriage irrespective of their sexual orientation".

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone will launch a consultation later this month on how to make civil marriage available to same-sex couples. She has said she wants to challenge the view that the government does not have the right to change marriage traditions. "It is the government's fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better," she said.

Many church leaders believe gay marriage would represent a further significant step in marginalising traditional religious values in society.

The Church of England’s stance is it will not allow its churches to be used for civil partnership ceremonies unless the full general synod gives its consent. And now some individual comments:-

For the first time I can remember, I find myself in agreement with a cardinal. For the VAST majority of people in this country the word marriage describes the union of a male and a female, hopefully for life and predominantly for the purpose of raising and nurturing the next generation. As he say's, with all the legal rights already in place, the redefinition of the word marriage is the issue here

I find it increasingly unacceptable that most religious leaders sit in their ivory towers and decree the terms of the religion that they are representing whilst holding an ever diminishing understanding of society as a whole. It’s sad that the positive aspects of a religion are lost as these people increasingly marginalise not only themselves, but also the religion as a whole.

It is purely a civil matter and nothing to do with religion, why can't they have a purely civil union, and leave marriage as it was intended to be? A civil union is, to all intents and purposes, a 'marriage', at least according to the legal has all the legal protections and rights of a marriage...why is that not enough?

Marriage equality sends a strong message to young people that gay relationships can be just as committed and loving as heterosexual relationships, reducing bullying and emotional damage done to gay kids.

1 comment:

Lewis said...

Marriage is and always has been a purely civil matter, a contract regulating tribal affiliations and property rights. Children have been a desirable, but by no means necessary adjunct.
All religions have tried and failed to hijack it for that very reason: property = money, and wealth = power.
None has succeeded - the secular powers are also in that game.
Some people want the blessing of a deity on their commitment, though. It beats me, but that is surely up to them, and would involve calling on a religious institution. Many are Christians and believe that "it is better to marry than to burn" (to quote the administrative correspondence of that old phony, Saul of Tarsus, while he was engaged in the takeover of the Christian churches).
The synagogues, mosques and most churches want to play the old game of manipulating by attributing "sin".