The SNP has been asked what its view is of the Labour Group Leader's announcement that he is gay. John Mason replied, "We will be spending our time attacking Cllr Purcell's destructive policies, not his personal life. Steven Purcell has broken down the committee system, sidelined many councillors from decision-making, and now is hiving off parts of the Council into unaccountable trusts and companies. All of that gives us plenty of ground to attack Labour on. We do not require to attack Labour councillors on a personal basis."
Frankly, I'm astonished that the SNP group would have selected John Mason to respond for them on this issue. And, having selected him, I'm still more surprised that they allowed him to release these remarks in their name. Mason's remarks remind me of the ambitious Christmas elf caballing against his tippling employer, who assures his local rag, the Lapland Chronicle that...
"Santa Claus' chronic alcoholism and obesity are a matter purely for him. It would be quite, quite inappropriate for me to dwell on his ravaged liver, his intravenous mince pie use or the numerous drink-sledging bans which the courts had made against him. Moreover, if he is in the habit of interfering with Donner and Blitzen when the nights draw in, well, that is entirely a matter for him, and is not a topic I feel comfortable bringing up, never mind discussing. Honestly, it's his declining facility for manufacturing bespoke grenadier nutcrackers which is really concerning us all."
Some may disagree with the assessment of Mason's comments as homophobic. They may not be blatant and littered with the epithets of casual abuse, but the effect is more subtle, more telling and perhaps best identified by asking, what sort of person, if blandly asked about their views on someone's newly publicised homosexuality, immediately assumes they are being invited to attack that person's character? Unlike my climbing and Machiavellian elfin subordinate, there is little indication that Mason is aware of the casual homophobia which informs and makes intelligible this response to the question of Purcell's sexuality. By suggesting that the SNP does not need to resort to personal attacks on Purcell, Mason clearly implies that Purcell's homosexuality is something which could furnish the basis for just such an attack, which the benevolent nationalist Councillors decided to abstain from. The ugly homophobic logic is quiet, but undeniably present.
Remarks from a good while back, certainly, but interesting in the context of John Mason's motion on the "Equal Marriage Debate", which has caused a stir. The media have particularly picked up Pete Wishart's criticism of its terms as a "nasty little anti-gay marriage motion". It reads as follows:
That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; further notes that, while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them; desires that Scotland should be a pluralistic society where all minorities can live together in peace and mutual tolerance; believes that free speech is a fundamental right and that even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.
Cue a number of sneering, look-I-told-you-so suggestions (often, I'm afraid, from the Labour-sympathetic) that, despite every declaration to the contrary, that the SNP is really a party of enthusiastic bigots, and that overtures to inclusiveness and tolerance are simply cultivated rather than sincere. This is wearying predictable and, as the following will demonstrate, simply inaccurate. Curiously, over the last couple of days, MSPs who had originally been recorded as supporting Mason's motion have deleted their endorsements. There has been some suggestion of technical glitches, although that may not strike the mind as immediately plausible. While SNP MSPs Gil Pateron, Dennis Robertson and Mike McKenzie initially appeared to support Mason's position, their names have now been removed from the motion, leaving only Richard Lyle and Bill Walker. Only Dave Thompson's has been added since. By contrast, Patrick Harvie's amendment has accumulated several more supporters in the meantime, at the time of writing including Jamie Hepburn (SNP), James Dornan (SNP), Sandra White (SNP), Kevin Stewart (SNP), Maureen Watt (SNP), Dennis Robertson (SNP), Joe FitzPatrick (SNP), Gil Paterson (SNP), George Adam (SNP), Alison Johnstone (Green), Aileen McLeod (SNP), Joan McAlpine (SNP), John Finnie (SNP), Drew Smith (Labour), Willie Rennie (Liberal) and Mark McDonald (SNP). Given the condescending commentary from many Labour supporters about what they see as the unmasking of SNP reactionariness, and their own egalitarian credentials, the relative dearth of Labour signatories to this amendment must strike the fair minded observer as somewhat ironic.
However, in terms of clear political commitments, it is undeniably the case that the SNP's official line on marriage equality is profoundly limp, and we can certainly expect a few of our parliamentarians to articulate views that many in the party will profoundly disagree with. In the final analysis, however, I expect most SNP parliamentarians to support the equalising measure, however regrettably coy we might have been about making a clear party commitment to the policy. On page 16 of the manifesto, under the heading "a more equal Scotland", we say...
"We recognise the range of views on the questions of same-sex marriage and registration of civil partnership. We will therefore begin a process of consultation and discussion on these issues."
During the Holyrood campaign in May, Alex Salmond let it be known that he supports gay marriage. Although one might suspect that the timing of this declaration was prompted by the potentially alienating Souter factor, we have no reason not to take Salmond at his word that he'd vote for equalising marriage in Scotland. Similarly, at a hustings in Queens Park Baptist Church during the campaign, Nicola Sturgeon confirmed that she too supports gay marriage. Amusingly, her Labour opponent in Glasgow Southside, Stephen Curran, gave such an elaborate and circuitous answer (in the end, supporting gay marriage), that a wee auld wifie I met later that week actually believed that he'd insisted that a marriage is between a man and a women. Either that, or she had muddled him up with the skelf running in the constituency for the Tories, Councillor David Meikle, who insisted the marriage is a knot betwixt Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Although it very likely signals his personal approach to equal marriage for same-sex couples (and incidentally, I hope the consultation will also consider the possibility of civil partnerships for couples who are not of the same sex), the implications of much in Mason's motion are not immediately clear. Is he arguing some people oppose gay marriage, therefore it must not be permitted to go the statute book? His comments have been read like that, though he doesn't explicitly say so. Is he putting it to the parliament that marriage is exclusively a theological concept, "instituted by God" and thus limited to men and women, which the civil authorities should "recognise" and "uphold"? Maybe, but again, he doesn't explicitly say so. Surely, however, he is correct to identify this as a complicated issue, commingling law, social policy - and for some, theological positions.
What's more, it strikes me that the answers to the questions raised in and by Mason's motion are by no means straightforward or unerring deduced from accepting their premises. For example, I am not myself a religious creature, but I can imagine one of the faithful who believes that marriage is exclusively to be understood in theological terms, but who would be willing to recognise the right of civil authorities to bind same-sex couples in wedlock. These unions may not resonate in the divine sphere, for her, but would accept that that religious conception of marriage need not determine the approach taken by Scottish civil authorities. Others will disagree, demanding that marriage remain exclusively between men and women, while substantially agreeing between themselves on the idea that marriage is to be understood in primarily religious terms.
I for one very much welcome the disagreement and discourse which this has already prompted in the SNP group - which I fancy will, in due course, be felt in other parts of Holyrood too. I doubt the issue prompts a uniform reaction from either the Tory or Labour groups, for example. It is quite right for these issues to be discussed in parliament, for disagreement to be aired where disagreement exists, and the arguments and conceptions relied upon explored, and where necessary, dissected and rebutted. If we are going to get into these issues, understand one another, and hopefully, convince folk of the virtues of the state affording its citizens equal right to institute their relationships on equal terms, we should dispense with discussion-foreclosing responses which loftily dismiss alternative positions as "ridiculous", and leaving that intolerably brief characterisation as the last, trite word on the topic.
Actually, I don't think this is an issue which invites debate or understanding alternate view points. It's a matter of fundamental equality and, to the extent that religion plays a part, of separation of government and church.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that the state has a role in recognising long term relationships it should do so on an equal basis regardless of the gender of the participants, anything else is simply discrimination.
I know this is quite a hard line, and not one that the Labour party is exactly behind, but I don't see any middle ground or compromise here.
Aidan,
ReplyDeletePerhaps I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean to imply that we should compromise in terms of our policies nor seek some sort of "middle ground" solution to contending views (although arguably, civil partnerships were an attempt to do just this). We shouldn't. Same-sex marriage should be enshrined in law, (and in my view, as should civil partnerships).
I cannot accept, however, that the whole issue doesn't deserve discussion, even if all that discussion generates is a better understanding of how and why we disagree. Understanding an alternative position, obviously, does not mean one goes along with it. However, I'm not willing to accept that the only meaningful purpose and value of debate is to manipulate others into sharing our views, as you come close to suggesting (as I understand the comment). That seems to me a grim prospectus for contentious discussion, which misses the good of the process itself.
It is going to be discussed - that is what the consultation is for. Which renders John's motion superfluous as well as offensive.
ReplyDeleteCould someone explain what is so offensive about John Mason's motion? I've read it and to call it 'nasty' or 'homophobic' seems like an astounding overreaction, not to mention just plain inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that some agree with same-sex marriage and some don't is pure fact, and John Mason apparently desires a liberal solution to this: same-sex marriage for those who want them, but no one is coerced into recognising them. It's a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution.
Or is the idea that citizens in a free, tolerant, and pluralistic society SHOULD be coerced into such a recognition? (Which, needless to say, would mean it ceases to be free, tolerant, and pluralistic). If so, that need to coerce speaks more to human psychology than the philosophy of a free society.
You would need to understand the background to it Andrew.
ReplyDeleteEssentially the problem is that the proposed changes to the law would not have any impact at all on denominations which did not want to conduct same sex marriage services.
But it would allow denominations who are in favour of same sex marriages to conduct them - at present they can't because the law does not allow that.
That is the context in which John Mason's motion has to be undetstood.
It demands that freedom of speech be protected (as though anyone is proposing to ban it) and that people should not be "forced" into taking part in same sex services as though there is a threat that people could be forced into that.
But no such threat exists.
Let’s look at a kind of parallel – divorce.
ReplyDeleteDivorce is a legal process the same as marriage, right?
There are some churches that recognise divorce (and will re-marry divorcees) and there are some that won’t. That is up to each individual denomination to decide.
But legally everyone is entitled to get divorced.
So if we substitute the concept of divorce for same sex marriage John Mason would be arguing that no-one should be forced into approving of or taking part in the re-marriage of a divorced person and that if people are against divorce their freedom of speech must be protected.
Do you see how warped that is now? Because there is no way that a minister or a rabbi or an imam or whatever could be forced to remarry a divorced person if they did not want to ANY MORE THAN THEY COULD BE FORCED TO MARRY A SAME SEX COUPLE.
Ah, I see what you mean. I presume some ministers perform same-sex marriages already, albeit ones lacking civil recognition.
ReplyDeleteBut then the question is: if there's no threat, then why not just sign up to Mr Mason's motion?
Also, I think another part of his point is that individuals and entities whose conscience or ethos prevent them from recognising same-sex marriages might be forced into recognising them by prospective legislation.
A conscience clause would mean the state would recognise the marriages for all governmental purposes, but that individuals/organisations would be free to do otherwise. (In which case, it seems silly for a conscience clause to apply only to same-sex marriages -- Mason's motion should be even broader than it is).
I think the important thing is that the full spectrum of opinion in Scotland be recognised, that all sides of this matter deal sympathetically with each other, and (as an SNP supporter) that the party demonstrate our civic-democratic credentials by coming up with a mature compromise that most citizens will be comfortable abiding by.
What we DON'T want is to introduce the American polarising attitude which seeks to divide the populace into binary sectors of black and white, good vs. evil. I can see no good coming from that.
There is no need to introduce a conscience clause because the state has no powers to enforce a change on internal church governance.
ReplyDeleteChurches make their own rules.
Think about it - has the Catholic Church been forced to re-marry any divorced people because divorce is a legal right? No they have not. It is entirely up to them who they marry.
Similarly, have they been forced to ordain women priests because of equal opportunities laws? No they have not - because those laws don't apply to them.
The same applies with legislation to allow same sex couples to get married. It could not be enforced on any church, any more than the laws allowing divorce or prohibiting sex discrimination could be enforced on them.
I don't want to polarise opinion on this either, I don't think anyone does. But equally I am very angry at this motion because it is fundamentally dishonest and I am afraid redolent of the tactics used by conservative Christians who regard any form of equalisation between gay people and the rest of society as anathema.
What we DON'T want is to introduce the American polarising attitude which seeks to divide the populace into binary sectors of black and white, good vs. evil. I can see no good coming from that."
ReplyDeleteBut that's precisely what he's done - this is a move straight from the play book of the American anti-gay campaigners, who use exactly this tactic, and you can see how it works further up your post:
Also, I think another part of his point is that individuals and entities whose conscience or ethos prevent them from recognising same-sex marriages might be forced into recognising them by prospective legislation. [bold mine]
See what he did there? Now you're repeating his talking point that people might be forced into recognising marriages by legislation. That's how the tactic works. It implants the false notion that people are about to be coerced against their religious beliefs and thus helps to spread and stoke fears about equal marriage.
It's precisely by framing discourse in this way that the American Right have been successful in scaring people to vote against gay marriage on spurious grounds and it's John Mason who has just imported this kind of politics into Holyrood.
"...the implications of much in Mason's motion are not immediately clear."
ReplyDeleteIt is a bit convoluted but the last part, "no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.", is fairly clear.
I think that in accordance with his religious beliefs he is trying to put a marker down before the legislation for same sex marriage goes through the Parliament.
It's interesting with the planned legislation for Scotland that a clash between Christian belief and same sex civil marriage has already occurred in England where a Christian civil registrar already in post objected to being asked to perform same sex marriages after the legislation went through in 2005 but lost her case of religious discrimination in the appeal court.
I suspect that John Mason had this case in mind when he wrote his motion.
I don't think, John covers himself in glory on this issue and I would would wish that he expands on his thinking behind his actions; yet, at the same time I fear what he has to say...
ReplyDeleteHomophobia is not big, nor is it clever and let's not mask active discrimiation in the public sphere as some kind of advance in plurality of polity.
Like so many issues in Scotland let's engage in a honest, frank and fulsome debate on this issue.
LPW You rock my world.
"I cannot accept, however, that the whole issue doesn't deserve discussion, even if all that discussion generates is a better understanding of how and why we disagree. Understanding an alternative position, obviously, does not mean one goes along with it. However, I'm not willing to accept that the only meaningful purpose and value of debate is to manipulate others into sharing our views, as you come close to suggesting (as I understand the comment). That seems to me a grim prospectus for contentious discussion, which misses the good of the process itself."
ReplyDeleteOh, not at all - there are many things which should be open for debate, lived arguments are better than dead dogma after all. People can disagree about, say, economic policy or policing and emerge with a better understanding of both the opposing position and (even better!) their own but with both sides unswayed.
In terms of churches performing same sex ceremonies, then that's a discussion for the members of the church to have - government should not interfere with religious beliefs. Some have started that discussion, some are admirably progressive.
As far as the state goes, there's definitely a discussion to be had about the form it should take - whether it would be better to open civil partnerships to mixed sex couples and have that as the means that the state recognises relationships or to offer both traditional marriage and civil partnerships as an option in addition (perhaps allowing the state to acknowledge non-romantic life long relationships, such as the proverbial spinster sisters).
However, I think this should be carried out on the basis of the following two premises.
Firstly, there is a public good in state recognition of relationships.
Secondly, government must treat all citizens as equal regardless of gender, race, religion, sexuality, sexual identity, class etc.
Seeking to sustain government discrimination on the basis of gender preferences should simply not be an option in the 21st century. It's not for race, or religion (except with the monarchy), why should it be for this?
Yes, this is a chippy, militant, jack booted, steam roller John Reid approach to legal equality, but that's most often how equality advances - it is rarely willingly given, it cannot be bestowed (what is to stop them taking it away?), it must be fought for and won.
(apologies if this comes across as harsh, I don't mean it to be)
Super post, LPW.
ReplyDeleteAidan, I know exactly where you're coming from. I've been an enthusiastic supporter of equal marriage for as long as I can remember. I just think we've got to be a bit careful about allowing John Mason's bigotry to set the terms of this debate. There will be some people who aren't enthusiastic about equal marriage but I think that we can win over hearts and minds with gentle persuasion.
Mason's motion talks such utter nonsense that it's easy to take a coach and horses through the arguments. He's trying to spread this idea that religious organisations are going to be compelled to marry same sex couples, which is total nonsense. Those who do will be free to do so but nobody's compelling anybody to do anything. Religious organisations already refuse to marry all sorts of people - divorcees for example, or even people who don't go regularly to church - and I don't recall anyone taking anybody to court over that.
Mason's trying to turn a debate on equality into one about persecution of Christians.
The reason I think we should be respectful and not try to polarise our MSPs yet is that I was less than impressed with the number who supported the Equal Marriage campaign. I want those of us who favour equality to take the time to talk to our MSPs and try to persuade them to our cause. I think it'll be better in the long run.
Let me give you an example of why. I'm a pretty liberal sort of girl, but I had a bit of a hard time getting my head round Jamie Bulger's killers being released. Maybe it's because my daughter was at that time around the same age as when Jamie had been killed. However, a bit of gentle dialogue with some older and wiser people persuaded me that this was the correct approach and helped me past my unease. They didn't call me names. They didn't castigate me, they just talked to me like an adult.
If we are going to see our goal of equal marriage, we need to make this a positive debate built on light, not heat.
Oh, and LPW, do me a favour - can you remember to put the Democrat in when you're talking about our lot, please? It's kind of important. Missing it out is like referring to your lot as the National Party. It's cutting off a big part of our identity.
@ Aidan '...there is a public good in state recognition of relationships'.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced of the truth of this premiss. Why should the state have an interest in encouraging the peculiar institution of life long faithful commitment that is marriage among gay people? (Indeed, I would have thought there was a pretty strong argument that it would be better for gay people not to be encouraged to have their lives straitjacketed into such an unnecessary arrangement.)
There is however a public interest in ensuring that child rearing takes place in a stable environment, and that partners who have made economic sacrifices to do this (usually women) are not abandoned at the first wrinkle.
Marriage serves a social function: the raising of the next generation. Nobody is well served by extending the restrictions consequent on such a function to other relationships.
@ Indy: 'There is no need to introduce a conscience clause because the state has no powers to enforce a change on internal church governance.
ReplyDeleteChurches make their own rules.
Think about it - has the Catholic Church been forced to re-marry any divorced people because divorce is a legal right? No they have not. It is entirely up to them who they marry.'
I'll leave it to the lawyers here to take up the detail, but I would have thought that if the state does not legislate on internal church matters, it is only because it does not currently allow itself to do so. (Catholics might well be able to suggest earlier times in modern Scotland where the state has acted differently.)
That the churches have previously received special exemption from equalities legislation (in the case of women ministers) or act where it does not apply (I am not aware of any laws outlawing discrimination against divorcees) is not an argument against making the legal position clear in the future -that no one will suffer legal penalties for refusing to accept gay marriage as a proper marriage and act accordingly.
But I suspect that it is precisely such an exemption that many supporters of gay marriage do not want.
Asterix the state cannot legislate on internal church matters - but it is the ONLY body that can legislate on marriage.
ReplyDeleteAs Alyn Smith pointed out in his article yesterday you are not married when the minister says I pronounce you man and wife - you are married when you sign the register because that is the legal document that makes you married.
Therefore it is for the state - not for churches - to say who can or cannot get married. If particular churches then say well sorry we are not going to perform your service here why should the state take issue with that? It would not affect peoples legal right to get married.
@ Indy
ReplyDelete'...but it [ie the state] is the ONLY body that can legislate on marriage.'
There is an ambiguity in this claim. If it means that whatever the state claims to be marriage by legislation is in fact marriage, this is a view rejected by the natural law tradition which is that marriage is a relationship which is recognized by the state rather than created by it. (So if this is your meaning, I reject your claim as false.)
If it means that only the state can pass (national, positive) laws, then, broadly, that's true by definition: the state is the creator of state law. But the problem then is what happens when churches or individuals refuse to accept that the status of a gay (state) marriage is the same as that of a heterosexual (state) marriage.
One point of any future legislation might be to force people to accept that gay marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage and to act accordingly. John Mason's suggestion would avoid this in favour of allowing freedom of conscience.
But, as I said before, I suspect that it is precisely that coercive element in future legislation that is being sought here.
In sum, there are two separate points at issue here.
Firstly, as a matter of politics, to what extent do we want to allow churches and individuals to ignore gay marriages in their actions and speech if these marriages are created by the state? Secondly, as a matter of law, what legal measures would be needed to give effect to our first conclusion?
Whatever the state claims to be marriage by legislation is in fact marriage - yes. At the end of your big day you have a marriage certificate. That is what makes you legally married.
ReplyDeleteChurches and individuals are at perfect liberty to refuse to acknowledge the moral same sex marriages with traditional marriage. They are free to dismiss the whole thing as political correctness gone mad and refuse to have anything to do with it. That is totally up to them. Because their approval or disapproval would not actually make any difference if the state decides that same sex couples can marry.
It is, as I said, only the state that can decide that gay marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage". The state could only force people to accept that in the general sense that the state has the power to force anyone to accept that the law is the law.
I cannot envisage any circumstances where the state would decide to exercise that power by ordering a church to accept a wedding booking made by a gay couple. I am mindful of LPW's instruction to us not to simply dismiss arguments over this matter as "ridiculous" but I can't help feeling that the state has better things to do with its time than get involved with such matters. It would at least be verging on the ridiculous.
@ Indy 'only the state that can decide that gay marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage'
ReplyDeleteHere, we differ. I may regard the state created relationship as a foolishness (or whatever). I certainly would regard the space to think and act on such thoughts as an important part of a civilized society.
'The state could only force people to accept that in the general sense that the state has the power to force anyone to accept that the law is the law. '
The powers of the state to enforce law aren't just 'in a general sense' (as anyone who has visited one of Her Majesty's Prisons can testify).
So let's get to some specifics.
1) Would registrars be able to decline to officiate at such ceremonies without threats to their employment?
2) Would church run organizations such as schools or clubs be able to discriminate between people who were in a gay marriage or or in heterosexual marriage?
Again, there are two aspects to these scenarios: firstly, what we think, politically and morally should happen; secondly, what we think, as a matter of legal fact, would have to be the state of the law to put our conclusions into effect.
As a broader question, if it really is the case that no one might be coerced to act against their conscience, whatever the legislation that emerged from the consultation process, why not make that clear up front as suggested by John Mason? Wouldn't this, as a matter of political tactics, remove quite a lot of unnecessary opposition? (It would certainly make me less resistant.)
1) Would registrars be able to decline to officiate at such ceremonies without threats to their employment?
ReplyDeleteNo - just as they cannot refuse to officiate at a civil partnership or to marry a mixed race couple.
2)2) Would church run organizations such as schools or clubs be able to discriminate between people who were in a gay marriage or or in heterosexual marriage?
What do you mean by church-run schools? If you mean denominational state schools they are actually part of the state system. However because they are Catholic schools they are allowed to discriminate in the appointment of certain positions i.e. you need to get a reference from a priest.
A church run club - again not sure what that means either, as most are voluntary.
@Indy
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that you do think registrars should be coerced. (The fact that registrars can be coerced on other occasions does not make it any less coercion.) It is also clear that neither you nor I can be sure of who else might be coerced under future legislation. (Not surprising as, so far as I am aware, the precise form and nature of the consultation has not yet been defined.)
Fair enough. You're willing to countenance the coercion of some people in this area. That's clearly a point where you would disagree with John Mason and me.
But this suggests that his motion does engage with a substantive point of disagreement rather than being 'fundamentally dishonest' as you claimed earlier.
@Asterix so you support same sex marriage when that couple intends to raise children?
ReplyDelete@Caron I think the case you refer to is a much more nuanced and complicated issue than gay marriage. Sometimes debate and mutual understanding is necessary, but I don't think entertaining discrimination as a legitimate position is one of them.
ReplyDeleteHappily, it now transpires Mr Mason doesn't oppose gay marriage so there's no need to persuade him. :)
Asterix if you are paid a salary to do a job then yes you can be coerced to do that job. It's kind of inherent in signing your contract of employment!
ReplyDeleteBut you are comparing apples and pears. Public servants are - rightly - subject to laws which prevent discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Religious bodies are not.
That's the difference.
Also Asterix I would be interested in knowing if you think discrimination should be allowed to cut both ways.
ReplyDeleteFor example, do you think that a public servant should be allowed to refuse to provide a service to someone because they are a Christian?
@ Indy 'For example, do you think that a public servant should be allowed to refuse to provide a service to someone because they are a Christian'
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think the principles involved here are:
1) the encouragement of diversity of communities of thought and action in Scotland;
2) the encouragement of informed conscience.
3) the effective provision of public services.
Within those principles, you'd have to be a little more specific about the situation you envisage. So for example do I think that Job Centre staff should be able to refuse to serve Christians? No. (Nor do I think that they should be able to refuse to serve gay people.) Do I think that (say) an atheist serviceman should be forced to partake in a Christian religious service? No. (But nor do I think that registrars should be forced to partake in gay marriages.)
My main worry here is the relish with which some seem to regard the forcing of people's consciences. Clearly there are times when conscientious objections have to be overridden. But that should be a matter of necessity and a cause for regret. In any case, it's very hard to see why (on the plausible assumption there are plenty of registrars who are willing to officiate)anyone could claim necessity here.
On the general point between us, you have conceded that some coercion might result from any legislation that emerges from the consultation and are now arguing that it would be justified -a different issue. Given that there is such a possibility of coercion -and very certainly, the fear of such a possibility among religious groups- your claim that Mason's intervention was 'fundamentally dishonest' seems unfounded. And that's the point I wanted to establish.
@ Aidan 'so you support same sex marriage when that couple intends to raise children?'
ReplyDeletePersonally, no, on the general grounds that Catholics have for not supporting the raising of children by gay couples.
But putting that aside, I think you would have a strong case here if that was what was being proposed: certainly, I'd expect to see encouragement of stability within any child rearing situation and marriage or a civil partnership would a good way of doing this.
We need to draw a distinction between 1) why a society supports an institution and 2) why individuals enter into that institution. (Thus a society establishes libraries to (roughly) encourage reading, even if I happen to use them as a convenient meeting place for friends.) The main vehicle (and I would claim the best vehicle) for rearing children is the heterosexual couple. (And in fact it is, absent science fiction possibilities, going to remain the predominant form of childrearing in the future.) Society has an interest in encouraging that couple to behave in certain ways: particularly staying together for life, both to raise and educate the children and as an act of justice towards the partner who has made economic sacrifices (usually the woman).
So society does have an interest in promoting traditional heterosexual marriage. Does it have a similar interest in promoting lifelong, faithful homosexual marriage? Perhaps -as I've noted above, there is some argument to be made here. (But note that I've yet to hear this being offered as a prime motivation for changing the law.) But it is certainly a less pressing interest than encouraging heterosexual fidelity a) simply in terms of the numbers involved and b) in terms of the comparative ease with which heterosexuals find themselves pregnant. (A whim or a couple glasses of whisky have proved enough in my past.)
The prime motivation for me in changing the law is that same sex couples can already do everything that married couples do - except get married.
ReplyDeleteYour objection appears to be that if we change the law to allow same sex couples to get married that it is possible that one or more registrars with strong religious beliefs might feel unable to carry out their job because of that.
So let's balance this out. One the one hand we have the possibility that a handful of people may be upset at being asked to do something they don't agree with. On the other hand we have tens of thousands of people who are denied the right to get married because they are gay. That is also a form of coercion, is it not?
Where should the line be drawn?
There will be a consultation to decide that but I suspect most of us can guess at the outcome.
@Indy 'Your objection appears to be that if we change the law to allow same sex couples to get married that it is possible that one or more registrars with strong religious beliefs might feel unable to carry out their job because of that.'
ReplyDeleteI have two main concerns with the (possible) change on gay marriage:
1) It undermines the social function of marriage which is primarily to ensure stability for childrearing.
2) If, despite 1), it is introduced, I would like (as John Mason) to make sure that no one is coerced into acting differently from the way they do now. Now, in advance of the consultation, I have absolutely no idea who will be coerced or how they will be coerced. John Mason has made what seems to me to be a perfectly sensible intervention by making this general avoidance of coercion an explicit desideratum. (And moreover an intervention which is rather helpful to the pro-gay marriage side in that, by embracing it, much potential opposition could be dissolved.) For this he has been widely criticized as a homophobe or, in your words, 'fundamentally dishonest'.
Here's your dilemma. Either you accept that you wish some people to be coerced and argue that such coercion is justified; or you join with John Mason and set out the desideratum that no one should be coerced (however that is to be realized in practice).
In the first case, you have accepted that Mason's intervention makes a substantive contribution to the debate (although putting forward a point of view you would reject). In the latter case, you have simply accepted his position.
In either case, your charge of his fundamental dishonesty seems misplaced.
It is a fundamentally dishonest argument Asterix because all of these issues have already been discussed ad nauseum during the passage of the Equality Bill.
ReplyDeleteAnd John was on the committee which considered that bill.
Indeed he put forward a whole series of amendments on the very issues that he is raising again in a new context on the pretext that he is looking for clarification on matters which are in fact governed by legislation which he helped to draft.
OK, Indy, I think we're reaching an impasse on this. I'm not sure how, in advance of announcement of a) the terms of the consultation and b) the conclusions of the consultation you can confidently announce that all issues have already been resolved. Even if this were true, I would still suggest that pro-gay marriage supporters would do well, simply as a political tactic, to do all they can to reduce fears that either coercion is intended or will arise through unintended or unforeseen consequences.
ReplyDelete