Scottish Parliament buildings in Holyrood, Edinburgh

Yesterday morning the Scottish Government announced that they would be presenting legislation to legalize gay ‘marriage’, following news that 74 out of a total of 129 MSP’s are in favour of the plans.

The policies to change the definition of marriage are expected to hit Scotland as early as next year. (Read yesterday’s BBC news report, ‘Gay marriage to be introduced in Scotland.’)

The Scottish National Party (SNP) has been the main party pushing for these changes, although the measure is supported by all of Scotland’s main political organizations.

The Scottish parliament came under pressure to change the definition of marriage from The Faith in Marriage group, a coalition which includes the United Reformed Church, Buddhists and the Pagan Federation. Gay rights groups like Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network and Amnesty International have also been focusing attention on Scotland, realizing that any act implemented by the Scottish parliament could have ramifications for the UK Parliament, forcing them to fast-track similar plans for England and Wales.

Scotland’s deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, summed up the current mood when she commented: “We are committed to a Scotland that is fair and equal, and that is why we intend to proceed with plans to allow same-sex marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships. We believe this is the right thing to do.”

Not everyone agrees that this will be best for Scotland. The Herald newspaper said that redefining marriage is fraught with legal difficulties and accused the Government of failing to do “its homework on the legal consequences”.

The paper concluded: “Religious beliefs which are central to the lives of many must be protected, not least by those who support the legalising of marriage between same-sex couples in the name of liberty. We must not replace one form of discrimination with another.”

Meanwhile, David Cameron has told a party thrown for homosexual activists in 10 Downing Street that he is ‘determined to have gay ‘marriage’ legislation enacted in England and Wales by 2015, alienating the Church of England, other Christians and thousands of Conservative Party members.

Religious Freedom Implications

Unlike the legislation proposed by the UK Parliament for England and Wales, which would only affect civil weddings, Scotland’s legislation would allow same-sex couples be ‘married’ in religious ceremonies provided they have the consent of a religious body. Holyrood has insisted that no church organization would be forced to participate, and MSP are looking to amend the Equality Act 2010 to ensure religious groups opposed to homosexuality have an opt-out.

Not everyone has been reassured by Government’s promises. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said it should be up to the Scottish people since it raises “serious implications for freedom of belief and expression.”

Christian Voice has raised similar concerns, suggesting that promises to protect religious liberty are not to be trusted. In a recent interview with Robin Phillips, Phillips commented “The promises Government has made in this area are worth less than the paper they’re printed on, as MPs with a legal background and Church of England lawyers have understood almost from the outset.”

Muslim Reaction

The proposals have come at a great political cost since it means that the SNP will lose the support of Muslims throughout Scotland.

Bashir Maan, a spokesperson for the Glasgow’s Muslim community, commented: “We have made it clear to Nicola Sturgeon that we have been very pro-nationalist but if they go ahead with this we will not be happy. There are about five or six thousand Muslims living in her constituency and we hope that she will listen to us.”

Mr. Maan’s coments were echoed by Saleem Aslam, chairman of Taleem ul Islam mosque in Pollokshields, South Glasgow, who said: “Another government could get elected and abolish the opt-out or it could be challenged under human rights laws and then we are back to square one.”

“Running Scared”

The public has asked the Scottish government to allow a referendum in order to find out what the people of Scotland actually want. When they refused, a spokesman for the organization Scotland for Marriage commented: “The Equality Network is running scared of a referendum because they know they could lose the argument. Which just shows they couldn’t care less about ordinary people. They want to force their view of marriage on everyone else, whether people like it or not.”

He continued:

If they believe their own hype, if they believe their own polls, they should have the guts to put it to a vote. Their rejection of a referendum shows that, for all their talk, they know most people don’t agree with them… Redefining marriage will have massive knock-on affect in Scotland. Schools will be pressurised to teach gay marriage to kids…. Legal experts say the Scottish Government doesn’t have the power to protect churches from being sued over their support for traditional marriage.

Prayer and Action:

Further Reading

 

Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

12 COMMENTS

  1. We live in scotland and are appalled that the wishes of the people are being ignored as if we count for nothing. I have written to 4 MSPs but realise this is pointless. Scotland is in a big mess.

    • It is not pointless! Your MP and MSP need to hear from you and it is your Christian duty to witness to the truth come what may, so well done for making the effort. And there is spiritual dimension to our actions: If we do the little things we show the Lord our prayer is serious and we can then safely leave the miraculous to God.

  2. Scotland and England have, in theory at least, held a consultation on this issue, yet neither of them have revealed the results of those supposed consultations. Surely we, the people, have a right to know what those results were. If a majority were opposed to redefinition, then Scotland and England are guilty of deliberately and arrogantly ignoring the wishes of the people who elected them. If this is not blatant dictatorship then I don’t know waht is. Can’t we demand, under the Freedom of Information Act, to be told the results of the consultations?

    • Nothing new there, then!
      Genesis 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

  6. Marriage equality has been a major rallying point for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists over the last decade across the entire Western world. Ten countries and six U.S states now recognise same-sex marriage, with a further twenty countries having some form of civil union granting same-sex couples rights and responsibilities similar or identical to marriage. The noble struggle for recognition of the equal status of gay relationships itself has an extensive history; discussions of homosexuality often focus on the sexual act to the exclusion of any understanding of the emotion or love involved in a relationship. In reality, same-sex relationships can take as many and as various forms as straight relationships and should therefore have the same right to publicly celebrate a long term commitment to one another.

    The existence of civil partnerships in the UK gives same-sex couples some of the same legal liberties as married heterosexual couples such as pension benefits, property rights and tenancy rights – the impact of such legal entitlements for ordinary people should not however be underestimated. During the terrible HIV crisis of the 1980s, gay partners were denied even next-of-kin rights, so they often couldn’t see their loved one in the last days of their life. The threat of losing a home or pension in old age with the death of a partner can add further financial stress to the emotional burden. Granting such legal rights through civil partnerships or an equivalent leaves the issue of marriage primarily at the level of the symbolic, but this should not be intended to disregard the symbolic as in any form unimportant. Deliberately prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying perpetuates a divisive sense of ‘otherness’ about gay relationships – there remains in modern society a pernicious two-tier system where heterosexuality is considered the norm, so homosexuality is perceived as a tolerated deviation. Implicitly, same-sex relationships are not of equal value and consequently are not valued equally. This equalisation of the value of same and opposite gender relationships alike is fundamentally what we are fighting for, a cause worthy of widespread support.

  7. @Nsaba Buturo
    Nobody is ‘imposing’ gay marriage. The opposition to this is laughable I’m afraid. The siting of a church in my town does not mean Christianity is being imposed on me. It just means I can go along to a church service should I be so inclined, assuming I would be welcomed there.

    • Nsaba Buturo is correct and your analogy is false. Marriage, including its key concept of consummation, must be redefined for ‘gays’ to be ‘married’ since two men or two women lack between them the full set of equipment necessary for ‘ordinary sexual intercourse’, as the law currently calls the conjugal act. Any redefinition of consummation – and for that matter adultery – will thereby be imposed on all the rest of us.