tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post6579894938793287093..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Equal marriage and the rising sun...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-68239079661738870342013-11-25T11:56:59.274+00:002013-11-25T11:56:59.274+00:00'...really shouldn't trouble us.'
It&...'...really shouldn't trouble us.'<br /><br />It's generally a good idea when such a phrase comes up to ask who the 'us' is. As I've said, I'm not surprised it doesn't trouble those who (eg) a) regard same sex marriage as a great social good and b) religious practice with, at best, indifference. It might well bother those of us who will be on the end of vexatious litigation. Moreover, it's not so much a matter of litigation challenging the bill so much as litigation challenging the sort of things that Catholics etc might want to do. And here it's in the nature of the interaction of law and human affairs that it's very difficult in advance to predict precisely the working out of such interaction. But, in general, those who regard traditional Christian teaching as profoundly homophobic are unlikely to be much troubled by its occasionally having its wings clipped, whilst those of us who regard it as profoundly true are going to be so bothered.<br /><br />I think it neither unreasonable to suppose that there are some aspects of Christian life in Scotland that are more liable to be adversely affected by the legislation than others, nor to recognize that legal opinion (as in so many matters!) is likely to be divided as to the likelihood of successful challenge. <br /><br />Let's take a specific example. There has been concern expressed (by both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/catholics-may-need-two-weddings-says-archbishop-1-3117544 ) that priests/ministers as authorized persons may be subject to legal challenge if they do not offer same sex marriage as well as different sex marriages. (The legal reasoning behind such a claim is addressed here: http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/same-sex-marriage-and-european-court.html.) Now, looking at all that from a non lawyer's point of view, it strikes me as a genuine possibility that churches will be forced to withdraw from 'state' marriages. Such an impression is reinforced by the suspicion that many of 'us' (ie of 'you') would regard such an outcome as rather a good thing and certainly neither an infringement of religious liberty or of European common practice in this area. Is such a worry therefore really just a quibble on my part?<br /><br />On a final Humean (and less serious) note:<br /><br />'They almost never prosper...'<br /><br />Do I detect a hint of induction here??!Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-24182653555931400512013-11-24T23:34:26.822+00:002013-11-24T23:34:26.822+00:00A balanced view - "because that committed lit...A balanced view - "because that committed litigant is invariably lying in wait, that's the nature of the beast".Marvin Stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02236756648928382652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-32510347830273864382013-11-22T15:26:46.487+00:002013-11-22T15:26:46.487+00:00Edwin,
It transpires that yesterday was World Phi...Edwin,<br /><br />It transpires that yesterday was <i>World Philosophy Day</i>, making this wee Humean digression even more accidentally apposite. For myself, I'm willing to settle for 98 votes in favour. Say what you will, folk like Alasdair Allan <i>are</i> representing the attitudes of their electorate. And since it is going to pass anyway, cynical real politick means we can afford not to care to much about a tiny handful of backsliders. Though the martyrial smoke clinging to Elaine Smith was a bit much for me. If you stake out an extreme position, expect folk to answer back. I'm sure folk who've prominently supported the Bill have received their share of insulting letters too. Smarting over it is just weeny. Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-16999075380257212602013-11-22T15:20:02.482+00:002013-11-22T15:20:02.482+00:00Bix,
My point was, Roseanna's statement was m...Bix,<br /><br />My point was, Roseanna's statement was more creditable, in the sense of being more sincere, than inauthentic pettifoggery around hyperinflated legal risks which exist only at the remotest verge. Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-23208503493804116002013-11-22T15:17:48.381+00:002013-11-22T15:17:48.381+00:00Entropy and the inevitable heat-death of the unive...Entropy and the inevitable heat-death of the universe. A consoling thought. Yo ho ho.<br /><br />You said: <i>"I understand why you would assess the balance of risk as you do. That's little reason to regard those whose primary concern is their freedom of religious practice as insincere simply because they assess it differently."</i><br /><br />It may be that Mason isn't disguising the real basis of his opposition in quibble. Maybe he believes the quibble. But I can't see why it should be terrifically troubling. In my (legal) view, it is likely that this proposal will generate litigation <i>(as all such laws tend to eventually. I'm told that the quixotic but just arguable prisoner votes judicial review of the independence referendum franchise is shortly to be heard in the Court of Session. It is a useful comparator for this situation in many ways: just about arguable, but Mr Kelly's case is very, very unlikely to prosper.)</i> We can't and shouldn't ignore this legal reality. Smart advocates like Aidan O'Neill are rarely going to shut the door entirely on a legal challenge. There's rich professional pickings there, for the creative lawyer. But the wrinkles in the legislation and the off-piste challenges which a canny public lawyer can dream up really shouldn't trouble us. They almost never prosper - and I struggle to see how any litigation challenging this Bill would prosper either. Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-13958591508601772942013-11-22T09:25:04.486+00:002013-11-22T09:25:04.486+00:00I like the progress of this one LPW - from Hume th...I like the progress of this one LPW - from Hume thought to Humane legislation (in passage)!<br /><br />Am a bit disquieted at some of the reactions elsewhere to those of our MSPs who dared say 'No' in this most welcome passage at Holyrood - one person's perceived bigotry is another's point of principle - it seems probable we will be facing an even more toxic atmosphere of dissension after the Referendum, whatever the result, and we have to accept that while we develop our civil society there will always be dissenters - there will always be passages we personally find unwelcome.<br /><br /><br />I have not - for example - seen a poll on capital punishment lately, but I suspect there will still be a hefty number of Scots wanting its restoration in some form. Capital punishment is never going to come back as long as our civil society retains its present form, but it would unhelpful to call those who want it back, 'bigots' and 'backward people'. <br /><br />Re<br /><br />'If you don't want to endorse same-sex marriage because you feel Yahweh's burning gaze on your back,'<br /><br />I wouldn't myself use that term for the Abrahamic God - or indeed 'Allah'. I tend to use Blake's 'Nobodaddy' myself. Edwin Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05317173893948248954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-86265125365140024172013-11-21T23:35:47.089+00:002013-11-21T23:35:47.089+00:00Let's assume that all that can be done has bee...Let's assume that all that can be done has been done to safeguard religious practice. It would surely still be a reasonable objection to the legislation that, by its nature, it endangers religious practice. (That is, of course, a fear that will count rather more heavily among those who value such practice than among those who don't.) <br /><br />I understand why you would assess the balance of risk as you do. That's little reason to regard those whose primary concern is their freedom of religious practice as insincere simply because they assess it differently.<br /><br />I have lost all sense of where we are in the year. I am used to Advent being subsumed into the General Jollification. I am utterly thrown when Christmas Movies appear back to back on TV from the beginning of November. We are all clearly doomed.<br /><br />Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-78795470178016445442013-11-21T17:38:30.448+00:002013-11-21T17:38:30.448+00:00An enjoyable read as always, but I have to say tha...An enjoyable read as always, but I have to say that I don't buy the "creditable, in its way" of excusing someone for holding bigoted views because of their religion. IBixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10708475709612256751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-58428114425986870562013-11-21T16:01:42.739+00:002013-11-21T16:01:42.739+00:00Firstly, I reject (with extreme prejudice) the ide...Firstly, I reject (with extreme prejudice) the idea that we are currently "around the Christmas season", whatever the priesthood of Mammon want us to believe. Until the beginning of December, I'm Mr Grinch personified and will scowl at any suggestion of a turkey, never mind the standing provocation of a vast illuminated reindeer totem on the high street.<br /><br />More seriously, these safeguards for religious freedom are absolutely critical. But if the only safeguard which will satisfy Mason and his fellow-travellers would accept is essentially an impossible one absolutely to guarantee in our constitution, it isn't a credible objection. All realistic legal concerns have been addressed. I don't see what more could or should be done in the circumstances. It is becoming increasing difficult to see this as a credible or sincere objection to these proposals (though in fairness, this argument only takes aim at Mr Mason - Lyle, Smith and Cunningham and their colleagues would obviously vote No for the grounds I outline anyway, whatever safeguards were enshrined in the Bill.)<br />Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-62897505597047558112013-11-21T15:24:28.613+00:002013-11-21T15:24:28.613+00:00Particularly around the Christmas season, doubts a...Particularly around the Christmas season, doubts about what tomorrow will bring look very different depending on whether you are a turkey or a farmer. Equally, doubts about the effects of legislation look very different if you're liable to be on the receiving end of any undesirable consequences.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09716412032074416331noreply@blogger.com