Update
The French legislature gave final approval today, with a vote of 331 to 225 in the National Assembly.
While we await the scheduling of Report Stage in the House of Commons for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, there have been developments in several other countries recently.
Starting close to home, the Irish Constitutional Convention has voted strongly in favour of introducing legislation in the Republic of Ireland. Religion and Law UK summarises it this way:
The Irish Convention on the Constitution, established by Resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas to consider and report on various possible constitutional amendments, has recommended in favour of making constitutional provision for same-sex civil marriage. 79 per cent of delegates voted in favour, 19 per cent voted against and 1 per cent abstained. The Convention further voted that any amendment should be directive (“the State shall enact laws providing for same-sex marriage”) rather than permissive (“the State may enact laws… ”). Delegates also agreed that the State should enact laws incorporating any changed arrangements in regard to the parentage, guardianship and the upbringing of children.
A report will now be drafted and the Convention’s recommendations will go to Government – which is committed to responding within four months with a debate in the Oireachtas and, if Parliament agrees the recommendation to amend the Constitution, with a time-frame for a referendum. If Ireland does at some future date enact legislation for same-sex marriage and if it survives the necessary referendum, the likely outcome is that same-sex marriage will become possible in three of the jurisdictions in the [?British ?North-West European] Isles but not, for the foreseeable future, in the fourth: Northern Ireland.
The legislation in France has now passed both houses of the legislature and is expected to obtain its final approval on Tuesday, see this Guardian report: Violence grows as gay marriage bill divides France.
Not all religious bodies in France are totally opposed to this legislation, see this document from the Council of the Fédération protestante de France:
A Declaration on “marriage for all” by the Council of the Fédération protestante de France – 13 October 2012
About « marriage for all »
Since their birth in the sixteenth century Protestant Churches have never included marriage among the sacraments. It follows that they did not adopt the principle of placing marriage, which establishes the couple and the family, under the control of the church.
That means that they do not question the right of the state to legislate about marriage. Although everything contributes to making marriage of people of the same sex a matter for basic disagreement, the Fédération protestante de France does not intend to join a campaign, in view of the fact that it is not an issue at the heart of the Christian faith.
That does not prevent the giving of an opinion. In expressing a point of view on “marriage for all”, la Fédération protestante de France is not trying to a close a debate that has been running for some years between its member churches or within the Churches themselves, a debate which certainly concerns everyone. It refuses to engage in confrontation or relativism and sets out to affirm a process of dialogue…
Elsewhere, both Uruguay and New Zealand have recently completed legislative approvals. The situation in Uruguay is summarised by Pew Forum this way:
On April 10, the lower house of the Uruguayan Congress passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, just one week after the country’s Senate did so. The measure now goes to President José Mujica, who is expected to sign it into law. Once the law takes effect, Uruguay will become the second Latin American country to legalize same-sex marriage, following Argentina. Civil unions have been permitted in Uruguay since 2008, and gay and lesbian couples were given adoption rights in 2009.
Uruguay is among the most secular countries in Latin America. A Pew Research Center study on the global religious landscape as of 2010 found that roughly four-in-ten Uruguayans are unaffiliated with a particular religion. About 58 percent of Uruguayans are Christian; in the Latin America-Caribbean region as a whole, 90 percent of the population is Christian.
And the New Zealand report from the same source is here:
On April 17, the New Zealand Parliament gave final approval to a measure that legalizes same-sex marriage, making the Pacific island nation the 13th country in the world and the first in the Asia-Pacific region, to allow gays and lesbians to wed. The measure won approval by a 77-44 margin in the country’s unicameral legislature, including support from Prime Minister John Key. The bill still must be signed by the country’s governor-general (a process known as royal assent), but that step is considered a formality. The bill is expected to take effect in August 2013.
In 2005, New Zealand enacted legislation allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. The 2013 measure not only legalizes same-sex marriage but also allows for gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.
There have been some fascinating video reports from New Zealand:
And this more serious speech at second reading stage may also be of interest, as it deals with several issues which are of equal concern here.
When we’re in France we go to RC churches (because they feel much more ‘homey’). Nevertheless, the statement of the Council of the Fédération protestante de France is way, way more sophisticated and sensible than that of the RC church or Anglican churches more or less anywhere. Vive Henri Quatre!
The New Zealand MP’s speech is fabulous – worth 4 minutes of anyone’s time.
The French Protestant statement is particularly interesting, with its reference to Reformed theology, and its sensitivity to minorities. It takes a formerly persecuted minority (under Louis XIV, and again under Vichy) to recognise a current one?
Re the violence: it is almost always the oppressive forces that resort to violence. I have never hear of pro-gay demonstrators physically attacking straights or public officials.
Our bishop received death threats and was spat on by the “traditionalists” when he suggested compromise. This was during a time when he had suspended ordination of LGBT persons and all blessings, things that had happened before his time. The LGBT community and our supporters were quite hurt by his actions, but no one spat on him or sent a death threat.
The fruits…
One of the problems, I think, of the current anti-homosexual feeling among those who see the LGBT claims as denying the biblical evidence; is that they are not rigorous enough in identifying those proscriptions in the Bible as matters that cannot continue to hold water in the light of today’s more privileged understanding of biological and social reality. Tradition can never trump Reason. That is why our Anglican three-legged stool of theology is so important – especially in the light of new information based on the experience of people living in the world of today. ‘Semper Reformanda’ is quite an… Read more »
If you want to read another badly put argument, try Andrew Goddard: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=812 He says that the Church of England is likely to be guilty of choosing irrationally a middle choice (ie OK to Civil partnrships) just because an extra choice put on the table (Gender-free marriage), but then he undermines this product analogy by admitting that many gay couples will upgrade from Civil Partnership because Gender-free marriage will affect the definition of Civil Partnerships (which, then, presumably, the Church of England and others could bless). His argument is itself the muddled thinking he accuses of others.
I am no fan of gay marriage, but I am horrifed to know that Christians would spit at each other or send death threats – I just can’t take it in.
Yes Cynthia, they re so ‘traditional’ that they ignore the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, let alone The Beatitudes ! Yes, ron you are right about the Bible. I have bveen studying it for over half a century, and not one word of Prohibition have I found on same sex permanent relationships of any kind. And indeed much to support lgbt in fact. (Queer Bible Commentary -SCM press, an invaluable guide.) With my Brethren background, I (unkindly) find Anglican Evangelical attempts to claim Biblical warrant somewhat lacking in conviction, as they fail to convince that they are… Read more »
Yes, the MP’s speech is wonderful and from a Christian perspective. Quite uplifting !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6K6BILmrcQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen
I was amused by Andrew Goddard’s claim that those who remain, or seek a Civil Partnership rather than getting married are indirectly supporting the view that marriage is God’s gift to heterosexuals. The logic is compelling …..? Otherwise it seems to be a slippery slope argument. Andrew picks up arguments just as the balance has turned against him. He seems to have a sixth sense for promoting lost causes, just at the time the become hopeless. The final moment of humour came when Andrew wags his finger at the CofE and says it just can’t go on ducking and diving… Read more »
“I am no fan of gay marriage, but I am horrifed to know that Christians would spit at each other or send death threats – I just can’t take it in.”
Steven, the deal is that “Christians” were not spitting on “each other.” Anti-gay “Christians” were spitting on a bishop who was in discernment and suggesting compromise. No one spit back. The hate was all one-way.
Steven, I hate to break this to you, but christians do far worse things to lgbtq than spitting at us !
Do you not speak to gay people – or at least follow the world news ?
To Cynthia and Steven No I don’t think I have heard of gay rights folk resorting to physical violence or death threats, but I have certainly observed some pretty unChristian behaviour and rhetoric from the pro-gay end of the spectrum, a position where I unreservedly place myself. I have always been greatly assisted in this regard by a discussion from Professor James Dunn, when I was studying Theology at Nottingham University in the early ’80s. In a reflection on the section of Romans 14 dealing with what Paul called “strong” and “weak” Christians, Dunn argued that on almost any issue… Read more »
Edward, you sure you’ve read Paul?
The same guy who threatened congregations that he’d, as it were, come down there and lay down the law? Who defended judgment under the description “discernment” – but only for those God chose? Who uttered imprecations against his “enemies?”
By what seems to pass as allegedly-Christian behavior in mainstream liberal circles, he wouldn’t qualify. Neither would Jesus, for that matter. Call evil evil, don’t invite it for drinks and just hope it’ll all work out.
Edward, the difference is that we are not “pro-gay”, we ARE gay. For us, this is deeply personal. You should have private conversations with many of the people who regularly post here and find out what each of them experienced in their own lives, over decades, from people who have passionate ideas about how our lives should be regulated but on whom none of it has the slightest actual impact. The stories I hear from people can still make me weep. I am deeply humbled to see how many manage to remain polite, despite all of that. Forgive those who… Read more »
“issues around same sex attraction” writes Edward. Would one call the whole business of heterosexual courtship, love, marriage, divorce, bereavement, childbearing “issues around other sex attraction”? — of course not, unless one were a visitor from another planet.
The document issued by the French Protestant organisation is not in favour of gay marriage. It is important to read to the end.
This from Rhode Island: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/04/24/us/ap-us-xgr-gay-marriage-ri.html?hp&_r=0
It’s going to be state-by-state in the US, I’m afraid. But it looks like all of New England has it now. Looking forward to seeing what happens in Old England.
Hmmm It seems I misunderstood the point Cynthia and Steven (and possibly others) were making, for which I apologise. Therefore It is clear that those who have commented since have misunderstood the point i was making, so I’ll have another go. Let me declare myself first. I have a sister who is in a 20+year same-sex relationship. I am proud to say I am very close to her,to her partner, and to her ex-husband, also gay. My daughter, like me an Anglican priest, has been in a same-sex relationship for well over 10 years. They have two little boys, whose… Read more »
Edward, I’m sorry I misunderstood you because the point you make is very valid. It is also incredibly difficult not to end up despising some of those who so strongly lobby against us. And to be so exasperated with others who have not been talking for decades, who suddenly become interested but demand that we must start from scratch so they can catch up while we put our lives on hold for a bit longer. For the sake of our own peace and for the sake of the process it is important that we remain polite and factual. But it… Read more »
I hear you, Edward. I don’t despise the traditionalists, but I am very passionate about WB and LGBT equality. Like most LGBT persons, I have been hurt. But now I know the healing power of acceptance and love from my God and my church. I want that liberation for everyone. And I’m certainly not going back in the closet!!! Now is the time to speak truth to power and to Witness. And it is time to counter the “traditionalists” with compelling readings from Scripture, and to hold their feet to fire in telling them that their views cause suffering. Maybe… Read more »
Martin: indeed the Huguenots don’t support SSM though they seem more worried about SS adoption. My point was that they accept secularity – the right of the state to enact civil marriage . At least the English translation of their statement does.
I await with bated breath* the apology of the traditional Church to lgbt for the dreadful treatment meted out to lgbt down the centuries and on into the present.
*(but not held)
What he said and what he did are two different things. When Jesus referred to people as whitewashed tombs, was that just good-natured ribbing? To say that pharisees were “children of Hell” seems hard to interpret in any positive, non-judgmental light. The whole “isn’t-it-nice-to-be-nice” thing is mere moral cowardice. If you supposed respect these people, have enough respect to tell them they are doing evil, and if they won’t stop, they’re no longer welcome, because there are other people whom you love and respect who are being hurt. I do despise – in myself, no less than others – cruelty… Read more »