I welcome this but it has to be said why didn’t they make such a noise when the bigots were making theirs?
They clearly have the ability to stand up and shout so why now not when it could have made a difference?
This isn’t just about media, the press. This is about taking for granted how things they thought would be.
Be thankful they’ve discovered their voice :) He makes excellent points too.
The bigots were almost entirely Catholic. The Church of Scotland for the most part is far more liberal, willie Philip and his ilk notwithstanding. Two factors will have come into play because of these two facts:
1. A long history and still current problem with sectarianism in Scotland means CofS ministers are understandably reluctant to be seen criticising he catholic hierarchy.
2. The Cof S is a democratic church and at the moment there is a possibility that a majority in the General assembly will favour gay marriage. It is doubtful that the livberals would win their case if being seen to be aggressive
I don’t they will be able to stop blessings in the Church of Scotland or the COE. After all that’s what happened with Charles and Camilla when the COE refused to marry them.
I don’t think…….
Jock S Trap, you’re so moany.
Half the time, people who are liberal can’t even be heard above the noise of the bigots, no matter how loud they are shouting. There has been a steady campaign for LGBT inclusion within the Anglican Communion for decades now. Inclusive Church and Changing Attitudes are two of the LGBT inclusion campaigns. Just because the media doesn’t report on something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
But inclusion means really nothing if the majority of the Anglican hierarchy believe in exclusion by refusing to allow its clergy to marry a same-sex couple and its vehement opposition to equal marriage. It’s all very well for its congregants to be supportive and I suspect a lot of them are, but the hierarchy doesn’t listen or could it be that those same supporters just haven’t been proactive or vocal enough prior to, during and after the consultation? The quadruple lock, especially the 4th element might have been avoided had they opened their mouths a lot more. Maria Miller, prior to her announcement in Parliament made it publicly clear several weeks ago that there would be a foolproof amendment granting full protection to the CoE and Wales. Why didn’t they request a meeting with her before it was drafted if they were really that concerned about lawsuits or being forced to marry a gay couple? I have no sympathy. They got exactly what they asked for and more.
Some say yes, Some say no.
It’s all about prejudice. Nothing to do with “God”.
Church of Scotland ministers won’t be able to conduct same-sex marriages until the Church as a whole opts in, because under the Scottish equal marriage bill, a religious body must opt in before any of their celebrants can be legally approved to do same-sex marriages.
The equal marriage legislation won’t be in place until 2014 (assuming the Scottish Parliament passes the bill). It would be great if the Church of Scotland General Assembly voted to opt in, in the next few years, but my guess is that it could take longer than that.
Of course many Church of Scotland ministers have been conducting (non-legally effective) blessings of same-sex couples and of civil partnerships, for many years, and no doubt that will continue.
I think for the short term we’ll be seeing post-civil marriage blessing ceremonies in Church of England churches too, regardless of the ban. All it means is that the legalities will already have been performed before the ceremony takes place.
I seriously doubt the Westminster government is going to actively prosecute clergymen and women who get around the ban in that way.
Meanwhile I think the CoS will opt-in quite soon.
If I understand the Scottish government’s draft Bill correctly, religions will opt-in rather than opt-out. Also, if a religion does not opt-in, individual celebrants of that religion cannot perform same-sex marriages even if they want to. If a religion does opt-in, individual celebrants of that religion will still be allowed to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. So there is a double standard being applied when it comes to an individual religious celebrant being allowed to opt-in.
There’s some very good things here but when I read the article I didn’t see any evidence of what the headline said ie promising to defy a church.
I value support within the Church of Scotland (indeed any religious group) but talk of renegade ministers will make it more likely people will ask for a more stringent ban.
If people act against the policy of thier church body they’re likely to face discipline and marriages they conduct won’t be legal (the couple won’t be married). Obvioulsy nothing to stop people having services of blessing.
What does the Bible teach the church?
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Who wrote these words? St Paul.
Where was he when he wrote these words? In jail for civil disobedience!
Paul refused to obey the law that prohibited him from speaking of Jesus. There is a higher law which matters more than any other authority. Christians have a duty to follow their conscience and do what they believe is right in God’s eyes.