BUGB Council spent some time this week discussing if and how a Baptist pastor might participate in Civil Partnerships. There was, as you might except, a wide diversity of opinion but I thought we had covered all the possible positions. Until that is, I listened to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 this afternoon. He had as guests a woman and man who do not wish to get married (in Church or civil ceremony) because marriage discriminates against gay and lesbian people who are denied the instituion under law. What the couple want is to have a Civil Partnership, but they can't do that because they are not gay. This they claim (not without some logic) is also discrimination. As a commitment to justice they wish no part in any arrangement that sustains such inequalities. I am not going to make any further comment on the rights and wrongs of this, except to say that we never thought of it arising when we were at Swanick.
1 comment:
I remember, in the run-up to the introduction of Civil Partnerships, hearing a politician arguing that it was not intended to be a substitute for marriage. She put the case of two elderly spinster sisters, who lived together and wanted to ensure the other would be taken care of when the first of them died.
Fair enough, I thought. Except, my understanding is that the civil partnership is for same-sex pairings. So what about the brother and sister in a similar situation? (I don't know whether the final legal position allows for siblings to have a civil partnership at all.)
If, as it's claimed, a civil partnership is not a 'gay-marriage' then surely any two people (barring other legal issues such as age etc.) should be allowed to enter into a civil partnership. Otherwise, it is marriage, and why have a separate system?
Whatever anyone’s moral stance is on same-sex relationships, I have always had a purely logical issue with the inconsistency of the legal position.
Post a Comment