Church of Scotland magazine backs gay partnerships

A potential rift within the Church of Scotland over gay relationships emerged yesterday after the Church’s house magazine backed civil partnerships and openly gay ministers.

Accusing religious traditionalists of selectively quoting the Bible to support their attacks on homosexual relations, the editorial in Life And Work urged the Kirk to show strong leadership on an issue that has threatened to split the Church of England and could prove just as divisive in Scotland.

The article, which was written by the magazine’s editor, Muriel Armstrong, comes ahead of next month’s General Assembly in Edinburgh and has been timed to influence a key debate on whether openly homosexual ministers can be appointed to the Church.

Ms Armstrong rounds on the “selective literalists” who use parts of the Bible to bolster their own views but ignore other parts that undermine them. She says that these commentators “presumably no longer accept biblical teaching on sexual matters such as polygamy and sex with slaves” but are happy to quote Leviticus 18:22 on homosexuality: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

The Church said yesterday that the magazine was editorially independent. “It is not the voice of the Church of Scotland, which is not trying to steer debate on this important issue,” the Rev Angus Morrison, convenor of the council of mission and discipleship said. He added that he had already received “a couple” of e-mails expressing concern that the magazine was interfering in the “due process” of the Church.

Senior figures within the Church fear that the issue of gay partnerships could prove as damaging for the Presbyterian ministry as the row that has split the Anglican Church.

A minority in the Presbytery of Aberdeen has already challenged the appointment of an openly gay minister, the Rev Scott Rennie, to Queen’s Cross Church in the city. They have appealed to the Commission of the General Assembly, with a final decision on the matter to be made next month.

In her editorial Ms Armstrong also champions the right of gay ministers to serve in the Church. She said said that two years ago the Church had effectively shelved its decision on the issue and that the moment had come to challenge those who use the “familiar arguments” of tradition, orthodoxy and the “plain meaning of scripture”.

“The question of the integrity of a relationship didn’t enter the \ argument. It has been suggested that if the Kirk stuck its neck out on this one it would upset other churches that are still in a reflective no man’s land on this issue. Isn’t it time for leadership?

“What is clear to the lay-person is that not everything Biblical is Christ-like. Every student of the Bible is a selective literalist. Those who swear by the anti-homosexual laws in the Book of Leviticus wouldn’t publicly advocate slavery or stoning women taken in adultery. They presumably no longer accept Biblical teaching on sexual matters such as polygamy and sex with slaves.

“And yet there are many who continue to be bound by a few Biblical verses — none of them in the Gospels — about homosexuality, nowadays understood as a matter of genetics rather than lifestyle.”

The debate on gays in the Church will involve members from every Presbytery, drawn from Scotland and overseas. It is likely to polarise opinion, just as it has in other Churches.

See Church of Scotland magazine backs gay partnerships Times Online

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/church-of-sco…

Gay marriage bill begins an important debate

After a recent screening of Rachel Getting Married at Red River Theatres in Concord, an older woman in the audience commented that the entire film struck her as far-fetched – not because of the grim drama of drug addiction and family dysfunction, but because the wedding at the center of the story was between a black man and a white woman. Those two, she said, would never be together.

Younger audience members reacted to her in puzzled disbelief, as if to say, What on earth are you talking about – it’s the 21st century, for Pete’s sake.

Of course, marriages like that of the fictional Rachel and Sidney were once taboo in this country. In much of the United States, they were illegal. In fact, for generations, marriages between two black people, assuming they were slaves, brought none of the privileges or protections afforded white couples.

Mercifully, times change, and the rules of marriage have changed as well. Black people can marry each other, as can blacks and whites. Both changes faced strenuous resistance at the time – but most Americans today would surely agree that those were changes for the better.

Now comes state Rep. Jim Splaine of Portsmouth, who is sponsoring legislation legalizing gay marriage in New Hampshire. Victory will not necessarily come quickly, nor is his success assured. But as in the changes involving African-Americans’ rights to marry whom they choose, his cause is just. He has taken on a great struggle, but with luck, 10 or 20 years from now, we will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Splaine’s effort comes as states across the country are wrestling with the same issue. In Connecticut, as in Massachusetts before it, the court has declared gay marriage legal. In California, a similar ruling was overturned by voters last month via a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexuals. Florida and Arizona passed similar gay marriage bans. The votes were definitive and yet had the feel of a last stand. Most Americans have friends or family or co-workers who are openly gay; discriminating against them becomes less accepted with each passing year.

In New Hampshire, thanks to the efforts of Splaine and others, civil unions for gay couples have been legal for nearly 12 months – an enormous first step toward full equality that granted gay couples many but not all the rights of marriage. Compared with Vermont, the first state to legalize civil unions, the change came strangely, marvelously easily. Nearly 600 gay couples across New Hampshire have joined in civil unions, and life for them – and everyone else – has gone on without strife or unrest.

We’d hope that experience would temper some of the most hateful reaction to Splaine’s proposed bill. But judging from the website comments posted after Monitor reporter Lauren R. Dorgan’s recent story about the legislation, it’s still out there. Readers, largely anonymous, described not just gay marriage, but homosexuality in general with words like “vile,” “disordered,” “unnatural” and “turns my stomach.” At least one confused homosexuality with pedophilia. One writer urged gay residents to “go back into the closet.” All in all, a horrible stew of fear, resentment and anger toward folks just hoping to declare their commitment to each other.

Squeamish legislators and governors may take years to come around to Splaine’s point of view. But treating some residents as second-class citizens will always be wrong. Beginning the debate now is critical.

See Gay marriage bill begins an important debate
Concord Monitor – Concord,NH,USA