tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post3879028269643016770..comments2024-03-18T08:38:01.678+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-82334285241219166492012-04-26T13:40:23.310+01:002012-04-26T13:40:23.310+01:00I nearly said "rights and justice" but I...I nearly said "rights and justice" but I think both sides would claim they were on the side of justice. Or indeed Right.Sam Dodsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534273379447820097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-29230901507025381322012-04-25T12:28:07.884+01:002012-04-25T12:28:07.884+01:00For liberals it's a question of rights. For co...<i>For liberals it's a question of rights. For conservatives it's a question of tradition, as expressed in law and theology</i><br /><br />I suppose if you wanted to be pithy, you could say that for one lot it's a question of rights and for the other a question of Right.<br /><br />(And of course, those for whom it's a question of rights might reach different conclusion about what rights exist and how they should be protected; and those for whom it's a question of Right might reach different conclusions about what Right is. But discussion can only really take place within the two main groups, because between them there is no common language.)SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-69468949832448067192012-04-24T12:07:19.021+01:002012-04-24T12:07:19.021+01:00I think I understand your frustration, anyway. But...I think I understand your frustration, anyway. But I'm not sure if you understand to what extent the terms of the argument are the contested territory here. For liberals it's a question of rights. For conservatives it's a question of tradition, as expressed in law and theology. That makes it very hard to reach a satisfactory nuanced position by considering the arguments on both sides. For values of "satisfactory" that involve not being attacked by both sides, anyway.Sam Dodsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534273379447820097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-76269875210249026252012-04-23T21:03:06.487+01:002012-04-23T21:03:06.487+01:00You really didn't read the beginning of the ar...You really didn't read the beginning of the article, did you?Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16934052271846235431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-5606466492822011762012-04-23T14:19:35.464+01:002012-04-23T14:19:35.464+01:00Nazis and sky-fairies aside, I think the key take-...Nazis and sky-fairies aside, I think the key take-away from this discussion is that debating points of law and theology is an excellent way to avoid awkward questions about right and wrong.Sam Dodsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01534273379447820097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1975718199887677222012-04-21T00:31:17.402+01:002012-04-21T00:31:17.402+01:00Doesn't this question presuppose the answer to...Doesn't this question presuppose the answer to another one, to wit "Does the church of England have a defined and universally accepted policy on celibacy in marriage?"<br /><br />And I suspect the answer to that question is "No, different theologians and clergy have different views on the subject, and no one position has official sanction."Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11292062128781092862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-7483779716900053432012-04-19T13:40:40.623+01:002012-04-19T13:40:40.623+01:00Except that churches are exempt from most anti-dis...Except that churches are exempt from most anti-discrimination legislation anyway -- for example not employing gay men as Catholic priests, or Muslims as rabbis. And the exemption for CofE priests to not have to perform marriages where one of the people involved is trans (another protected category) has been upheld.<br /><br />As Andrew points out, as well, many churches refuse to marry people outside of their faith -- another protected category.<br /><br />"Even if the government were to specifically write into the Act 'churches do not have to provide same-sex marriage if they don't want to' "<br /><br />Which isn't what is being proposed, as you have already been told multiple times. The plan is to write in "Churches *can't* provide same-sex marriage *even if* they want to".<br /><br />I've not seen the evidence from Scandanavian countries you cite, so I'll accept that for the moment. You then say "<br />One might suggest that a Conservative-led government should be in the business of reinforcing marriage as the only proper context for bringing up a family,"<br /><br />I don't think either Andrew or myself are interested in making the Conservative party be more Conservative. For myself, I'm a Liberal Democrat, and want to "build a free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity". I'm not particularly interested in whether children are born outside marriage or not.<br /><br />"One might suggest that if the government, acting in its capacity of legislature, has the option of being legally precise or following common usage, the former is the better course!"<br /><br />One might also point out that no-one here has been discussing the wording of the legislation, because it's not been published yet (and won't be til after the Queen's Speech). Rather, what has been discussed is the material that has been put out by the government to help interested parties understand what's being proposed, so the consultation can be effective.Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-22351932686814879932012-04-19T11:05:06.390+01:002012-04-19T11:05:06.390+01:00But 'being divorced' is not a protected at...But 'being divorced' is not a protected attribute in discrimination legislation, whereas 'sexual orientation' is. That means that the legal situations are different: you couldn't sue someone who refused to serve you coffee because you were divorced, but you could sue someone who refused to serve you coffee because you were gay.<br /><br />A suit based on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation over provision of the service of 'becoming legally married' would certainly 'fly'. <br /><br />Would it end up, after appeals, with a decision against the parish church? That I do not know and neither do you, and neither does anyone else. But it is certainly not the case that it absolutely definitely wouldn't, regardless of what the government writes in the Bill.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-7536765347834599442012-04-19T10:44:26.562+01:002012-04-19T10:44:26.562+01:00That one won't fly. Some religions won't p...That one won't fly. Some religions won't perform wedding services for divorced persons; some religions won't perform wedding services for people outside their faith. No-one has remotely told them they have to.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-44352856779925667092012-04-19T10:26:58.316+01:002012-04-19T10:26:58.316+01:00One might suggest that if the government, acting i...One might suggest that if the government, acting in its capacity of legislature, has the option of being legally precise or following common usage, the former is the better course!SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-11281694331454709222012-04-19T10:15:50.471+01:002012-04-19T10:15:50.471+01:00I fail to see how allowing more people to get marr...<i>I fail to see how allowing more people to get married makes marriage *less* normative. </i><br /><br />Something being normative has nothing to do with how many people <i>could</i> get married, though, and everything to do with whether people <i>think they should</i>.<br /><br />And there is evidence from the Scandinavian countries that when same-sex marriage is legalised the illegitimacy rate takes a sharp turn up, indicating that people no longer see any normative connection between 'having children' and 'being married'. <br /><br />So it seems that in the Scandinavian countries at least (and I see no reason to suspect that we'd be any different) increasing the range of options available to one group of people causes another group of people to reassess their options and come to the conclusion that what they thought was the thing they <i>should</i> do is in fact just something that they <i>could do if they wanted but need not</i>.<br /><br />One might suggest that a Conservative-led government should be in the business of reinforcing marriage as the only proper context for bringing up a family, not in the business of doing something which has demonstrably caused people who otherwise might have got married before having children to go, 'hang on, gay people can now get married but on the other hand a lot of them seem to get along fine without, so maybe we don't either' and increasing the country's supply of bastards.<br /><br /><i>I think it's d) they're using 'marriage' to mean 'marriage ceremony'. See for example http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/ , where the phrase is explicitly clarified - "to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)"</i><br /><br />The thing is that it's very unclear, if the state-of-being-married is available on one basis, that the ceremony-to-get-into-that-state get be administered on a different basis. <br /><br />Bluntly, if, after the legislation were passed, and a same-sex couple were to ask a parish church to marry them, and the church were to refuse, and they were to sue the parish church, what would be the result? What if they appealed to the ECHR?<br /><br />Even if the government were to specifically write into the Act 'churches do not have to provide same-sex marriage if they don't want to' there are hints in recent judgements that the ECHR could regard that as discriminatory. We are now in a situation where Parliament is not soverign, so the government cannot promise 'this legislation will not affect religious ceremonies provided by denominations which do not wish it' because that relies on the ECHR sharing their view of what legislation can do and that is not a given.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-45741884054763950952012-04-18T22:25:32.182+01:002012-04-18T22:25:32.182+01:00Incidentally, while "civil wedding" may ...Incidentally, while "civil wedding" may be a less ambiguous term than "civil marriage", civil marriage does appear to be the term in widespread use, as a quick Google shows. When the government make that distinction, they seem to me to be merely following common usage.Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-49430551412508885502012-04-18T22:18:36.616+01:002012-04-18T22:18:36.616+01:00I think it's d) they're using 'marriag...I think it's d) they're using 'marriage' to mean 'marriage ceremony'. See for example http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/ , where the phrase is explicitly clarified - "to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)"<br /><br />As for the rights and responsibilities, of course same-sex marriage will lead to same-sex married couples having the same rights and responsibilities as those of current married couples, that being the point. What I fail to see is how that makes the legal system any messier than it already is.<br /><br />Quite simply, the proposed laws simply *do not affect, in the slightest* any of the rights or responsibilities of marriage as it applies to mixed-sex couples. All they do is allow same-sex couples to have those same rights and responsibilities. The only 'redefinition' of marriage going on is to say that same-sex couples now have the same option that mixed-sex couples have.<br /><br />No-one has yet made a case for why that is more of a 'redefinition' of marriage than any other change to the marriage laws.<br /><br />So the argument boils down to "we mustn't allow same-sex couples to get married, because that would mean that same-sex couples could get married"Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-6000852216106069272012-04-18T22:03:38.002+01:002012-04-18T22:03:38.002+01:00note, by the way: no messages are getting lost, bu...note, by the way: no messages are getting lost, but some of them are sitting in limbo until i go an despam themAndrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-13829950418178804042012-04-18T22:00:31.108+01:002012-04-18T22:00:31.108+01:00I believe the argument is that the Government is w...I believe the argument is that the Government is wilfully confusing the concepts of "marriage" (=the legal status) and "wedding" (=the ceremony which confers the legal status). There are assuredly "civil weddings" and "religious weddings", as well as Jewish weddings, Christian weddings, Sikh weddings and weddings where everyone dresses up as their favourite Dungeons & Dragons character and the service is conducted by the highest level Cleric. But so far as the law is concerned, they all end up with you being "married" with the same rights and responsibilities under the law (except the D&D wedding, which would have to be preceded, at the very least, by the signing of some papers in a registry office.) When the government talks about "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" they are either a: not expressing themselves very clearly b: not thinking very clearly c: deliberately trying to get the ship confused.Andrew Rilstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05786623930392936889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-47741125004590482592012-04-18T20:57:54.508+01:002012-04-18T20:57:54.508+01:00"apparently there is no such thing as a '..."apparently there is no such thing as a 'religious marriage' or a 'civil marriage' in English law, just 'marriage', so changes to one necessarily after the other"<br /><br />Nonsense. Civil marriage has been a concept in English law since the Marriage Act 1836. Just saying "apparently" isn't actually a get-out clause that lets you make up any old rubbish, you know.Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-7924609125330708842012-04-18T20:41:09.552+01:002012-04-18T20:41:09.552+01:00(Though if one were to address the legal issues, a...(Though if one were to address the legal issues, apparently the consultation is based on a false premise by claiming that 'religious marriages' would not be affected: apparently there is no such thing as a 'religious marriage' or a 'civil marriage' in English law, just 'marriage', so changes to one necessarily after the other; and while it may be true the 2004 Act removed 'any necessary link' it didn't explicitly create a new state of 'civil marriage' (to do that would take a proper explicit mention in an Act, it couldn't just be done as a side-effect, I think) and as a result the government's current proposals (which I personally doubt will get through Parliament before the next election, but that's by the by) cannot but make the legal system messier: to make it less messy would require a new Act explicitly setting out what the legal definition of marriage in England <i>is</i>, and that is one thing that is definitely not on the cards.)SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-5473114443295661902012-04-18T20:07:48.842+01:002012-04-18T20:07:48.842+01:00Except he's addressing the theological argumen...Except he's addressing the theological arguments about a change in the law, in which case knowing what the law is now, and what it will be changed to, is an important first step.<br /><br />After all, the new laws will have only the same theological weight, or lack of same, as the GRA, since they very specifically won't allow churches (even those that want to) to perform same-sex marriages (though a number of people I know are hoping to see that changed, so that Quakers, Reform Jews, and other denominations that wish to can perform such ceremonies).Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-30360847562120688192012-04-18T19:57:45.203+01:002012-04-18T19:57:45.203+01:00Which is, of course, incorrect, as there are same-...<i>Which is, of course, incorrect, as there are same-sex couples who *can* produce babies who are legally not currently permitted to marry.</i><br /><br />I believe, though, that Mr Rilstone is addressing only the theological, not the legal, arguments, though, and therefore the Gender Recognition Act is not relevant, as it has no theological weight.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-71775041121972681212012-04-18T12:43:23.837+01:002012-04-18T12:43:23.837+01:00*sigh* Apparently I'm a spammer again. I hate ...*sigh* Apparently I'm a spammer again. I hate blogger...<br /><br />(Actually I suspect it's because of the number of references to sexuality and so on in my comments. Irritating)Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-67808633114330675702012-04-18T12:41:12.359+01:002012-04-18T12:41:12.359+01:00"it is as well to remember when you come to w..."it is as well to remember when you come to write the eassy that the general argument is not that same-sex marriage is disordered because it cannot produce babies but that it is disordered and one of the ways you can tell it's disordered is that it cannot produce babies."<br /><br />Which is, of course, incorrect, as there are same-sex couples who *can* produce babies who are legally not currently permitted to marry.<br /><br />This is why I keep harping on about trans people in this thread, because currently in the UK people's legal sex is detached from their reproductive organs, and has been since 2004, and one's ability to marry is based only on legal sex, so the current ban *does* stop couples who are perfectly interfertile from marrying and allow couples who have the same reproductive organs to marry. Any argument about procreation as a function of marriage which doesn't take this into account is a flawed one.<br /><br />Note that the 2004 Gender Recognition Act was, then, just as much of a fundamental change in the nature of marriage as the new proposals. More in some respects, as it created a class of people who legally *had to get divorced against their wishes* -- a class which the new proposals will remove. <br /><br />That same act also explicitly removed any necessary link between 'holy matrimony' and marriage in UK law, if one was still remaining, because up until that point the law said that Church Of England vicars *could not refuse* to marry any couple who could marry legally. Now it says that they *can* refuse to marry couples who can marry legally, if the sex on the birth certificate of one of them differs from the sex on their Gender Recognition Certificate.<br /><br />When dealing with changes to marriage law, we really have to start with where we actually are legally, rather than with a Platonic ideal of marriage. A lot of things people assert about the nature of marriage might be true for *their* marriage, or for marriage in their religion, but are already very far from true when it comes to the actual law.<br /><br />(Which I think is one of Andrew's original points -- he wants to know how theology interacts with the currently-already-messy legal situation, before deciding if the changes will make that interaction messier or less messy...)Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-2983380506906366712012-04-18T12:24:13.364+01:002012-04-18T12:24:13.364+01:00There was also a sort of big meta-reason: he inten...<i>There was also a sort of big meta-reason: he intended the relationship between a married couple to be a sort of icon of the relationship between Jesus and the Church.</i><br /><br />And according to Jesus (Mark 10), it's also something to do with the prelapsarian <i>imago dei</i>, though quite in what way is not entirely clear.<br /><br />So while I know that:<br /><br /><i>Certain Christian factions appear to be arguing that a proposed new kind of marriage is a contradiction in terms; an impossibility; a sin and (in some cases) the harbinger of the end of western civilisation -- because it can’t possibly produce babies.</i><br /><br />is a deliberate simplification, it is as well to remember when you come to write the eassy that the general argument is not that same-sex marriage is disordered <i>because it cannot produce babies</i> but that it is disordered <i>and one of the ways you can tell it's disordered is that it cannot produce babies</i>.<br /><br />That is, the non-procreative nature of a same-sex marriage is not seen is the reason why it's wrong, but that non-procreative nature is a symptom of an underlying disorder. <br /><br />In the same way that these groups would not say that incest is wrong because of the likelihood of disabled children, but that the likelihood of disabled children is a symptom of the fact that incest is disordered (otherwise, you would have to say that there is nothing wrong with consensual non-abusive incest (say, between a brother and sister who don't meet until they are adults) provided one of the couple is infertile).SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-22609197837007108812012-04-18T12:15:42.139+01:002012-04-18T12:15:42.139+01:00SK - the definition of gender that Sam gives above...SK - the definition of gender that Sam gives above is the one I was attempting (badly) to use. That seems to be used by most LGBT+ activists I know.<br /><br />And John is arguing in his piece that that definition *is the current definition*. Which it clearly isn't, and hasn't been in over a century. Without that, his whole argument that this somehow affects mixed-sex marriages is a nonsense. Obviously any change to marriage laws can be seen as a 'fundamental change', but given that it confers no new rights or responsibilities on anyone in a mixed-sex marriage now or in the future (except the right to stay married should one partner obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate) I fail to see how it affects any currently-existing marriage.<br /><br />And as for "push[ing] us further along the road where marriage is seen not as the normative and only proper state for families, but simply one possible lifestyle choice among others, all equally valid", I fail to see how allowing more people to get married makes marriage *less* normative. <br /><br />In fact there is a radical fringe of lesbian and gay activists (and for some reason they do seem to be pretty much all cisgendered lesbians and gay men, with very few bisexuals or trans* people taking this attitude) who argue that by allowing them to get married, the government will be putting pressure on them to conform to traditional heterosexual ideas of monogamous family life, and oppose same-sex marriage for that reason.<br /><br />(Personally, my view on that is that I *do* see marriage as one choice among many, none of which is right for everyone, but that it's been an extremely good choice for me and I want as many people as possible to have the right to make that choice, even if they choose not to.)Andrew Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412263807838661843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-23884489009062347372012-04-18T11:23:17.599+01:002012-04-18T11:23:17.599+01:00Note that the definition he quotes says that marri...<i>Note that the definition he quotes says that marriage is "a union permanent and life-long, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man and one woman". This would seem to mean that divorce is illegal under current English law, if we are to take John's argument at face value.</i><br /><br />Well, no; it means that the introduction of divorce (and remarriage) fundamentally changed the definition of marriage in English law. Which I don't think many people would argue that it didn't. Some might claim it changed it for the better, but it clearly changed it. <br /><br />The current proposals would then be another fundamental change, on top of the introduction of divorce (and would, I would argue, push us further along the road where marriage is seen not as the normative and only proper state for families, but simply one possible lifestyle choice among others, all equally valid).SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-51897910941030232062012-04-18T10:39:05.258+01:002012-04-18T10:39:05.258+01:00'[S]eparate (though obviously related) things&...'[S]eparate (though obviously related) things'<br /><br />Indeed; for instance, chastity + celibacy obviously implies abstinence.SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102522819364312684noreply@blogger.com