Comments

  1. Rafael says

    I’m impressed with the bill put forth by Scotland, in my view it strikes the right balance between the expansion of marriage to same sex couples and affirming the individual freedoms of those who may oppose to solemnize said commitments. As we make the argument for Marriage equality, I believe it is important to express disapproval of what we view as prejudice, while respecting individuals freedoms to hold whatever position they may.

  2. Gregory In Seattle says

    Does Scottish or UK law give an equivalent, express exemption to religious bodies and individuals about marrying people of a different faith? Or marrying divorced people? What possible purpose is served to grant an explicit exemption regarding same-sex couples, other than bigotry?

  3. Windswept-Scotsman says

    The government bill – which still faces a final vote before becoming law – contains several measures, including:

    1) Allowing civil marriage ceremonies to take place anywhere agreed by the registrar and the couple, other than religious premises

    2) Religious and belief bodies will have to opt in to perform same-sex marriage

    3) Celebrants who are part of an organisation which has not opted in would not be allowed to conduct same-sex marriages

    4) Establishing belief ceremonies, such as humanist ceremonies as a “third form of marriage”, alongside religious and civil events

    5) Authorising Church of Scotland deacons to solemnise opposite sex marriage

    6) Possible tests for religious and belief bodies to meet when solemnising marriages or registering civil partnerships, in light of increasing concerns over sham and forced marriages

    7) Introducing religious and belief ceremonies to register civil partnerships

    8) Allowing transgender people to stay married, rather than having to get divorced, when obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate

    9) Provision making it clear that the introduction of same-sex marriage has no impact on existing rights to freedom of speech and that it is possible oppose to same-sex marriage “without being homophobic”

    10) Amended guidance on the teaching of the issue in schools

    11) An intention to recognise same-sex marriages registered elsewhere in the UK and overseas.

  4. Windswept-Scotsman says

    The government bill – which still faces a final vote before becoming law – contains several measures, including:

    1) Allowing civil marriage ceremonies to take place anywhere agreed by the registrar and the couple, other than religious premises

    2) Religious and belief bodies will have to opt in to perform same-sex marriage

    3) Celebrants who are part of an organisation which has not opted in would not be allowed to conduct same-sex marriages

    4) Establishing belief ceremonies, such as humanist ceremonies as a “third form of marriage”, alongside religious and civil events

    5) Authorising Church of Scotland deacons to solemnise opposite sex marriage

    6) Possible tests for religious and belief bodies to meet when solemnising marriages or registering civil partnerships, in light of increasing concerns over sham and forced marriages

    7) Introducing religious and belief ceremonies to register civil partnerships

    8) Allowing transgender people to stay married, rather than having to get divorced, when obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate

    9) Provision making it clear that the introduction of same-sex marriage has no impact on existing rights to freedom of speech and that it is possible oppose to same-sex marriage “without being homophobic”

    10) Amended guidance on the teaching of the issue in schools

    11) An intention to recognise same-sex marriages registered elsewhere in the UK and overseas.

  5. Windswept-Scotsman says

    I dislike number 9 especially….

    And overall, I don’t see why religions should be able to have a say in my life, I have no religion, I don’t believe in their god or gods.

    Religion is a choice, my sexuality never was.
    (If it had been a choice, I would never have “chosen” to be Gay.)

  6. Windswept-Scotsman says

    I dislike number 9 especially….

    And overall, I don’t see why religions should be able to have a say in my life, I have no religion, I don’t believe in their god or gods.

    Religion is a choice, my sexuality never was.
    (If it had been a choice, I would never have “chosen” to be Gay.)

  7. Rafael says

    Windswept-Scotsman, As far as I understand #9 doesn’t create any new rights, it just intends to limit the reach of a new law. Also as this article was read, disapproval of the prospect of institutional prejudice was voiced.

  8. Fox says

    If they felt compelled to add No. 9, I think it should end with the word “speech” and leave it at that. The second part would appear to make assumptions about possibilities that are a matter of opinion (whether someone is homophobic or not).

  9. James says

    @Gregory In Seattle: there actually is an explicit exemption in UK equality law that allows religious bodies to discriminate on the basis of religion. I don’t think it goes as far as allowing individuals within a religion to discriminate even if the religion’s governing body doesn’t want them to – the England and Wales marriage equality law also has a provision like this, and it did come in for a bit of criticism. There is no need for an exemption on divorce, as there is no law banning discrimination against divorced people in the first place.

    Religious organisations are banned from discriminating on certain grounds, such as race and disabilities, and for some reason nobody thinks this is a violation of their religious freedom.

Leave A Reply