Gay Marriage? - The Parish of Greenford Magna

Gay Marriage
In an article for a Sunday newspaper in March, Cardinal Keith O'Brien (pictured) accused the David
Cameron and the Government of trying to "redefine reality" with its proposal for legalising gay
marriage. Neil Richardson and Malcolm Ede express alternative points of view starting with Neil.
As you may know or perhaps remember, I am a firm supporter of equality
for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered) people, both in the
eyes of the Law of the land and in the church. Indeed I have been a
member of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (heterosexual
section!) since the 1970s. At the time, I regarded the decision of
Parliament to proceed in 2004 to create Civil Partnerships as a positive
decision because as far as legal contracts go, this put LGBT people on a similar footing to married people and
offered various protections as well as some official recognition of the status of a loving same-sex relationship.
All that I regard as positive and fruitful. Advice about the 2004 Act stated that “Civil Partnership is a
completely new legal relationship, exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.” According to
Wilkipedia, “Civil partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same
exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to
get parental responsibility for a partner's children, as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of
one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next of kin rights in hospitals,
and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.”
In fact, following the 2004 Act, some heterosexual couples applied for Civil Partnership arrangements, and
were rightly refused. The Act of 2004 was clearly aimed at satisfying the demands and needs of same-sex
couples exclusively, and any attempts for heterosexuals to get on the Civil Partnership band-wagon were
robustly and rightly pushed away. In fact, they were an expression of greed. Marriage is certainly enough for
them, and nothing more is needed. If they don’t want marriage, there is nothing to stop them living faithfully
outside marriage, is there
It seems to me that whilst having similar needs for human love and security, marriage and same-sex
relationships are not one and the same thing. Any attempt to confuse the two should be resisted as contrary to
reason, tradition and sheer practicalities. So, when it comes to re-defining marriage, I agree with Cardinal
O’Brien. I may not have the same agenda as the Cardinal, or wish to express myself in quite the same
manner, but it seems to me to be totally clear that marriage is and always has been a union between a man
and a woman with clear expectations and purposes, namely the procreation of children, the mutual love and
support for each other, and a place to find a proper expression of their sexual needs.
The Preface to the Marriage Service states:-
The Bible teaches us that marriage is a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace,
a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh.
I think that this is what marriage is all about and I would be unhappy for a Government, whether a minority
Government like our present one, or a majority Government of any political description, to try and change what
has been understood as marriage for thousands of years.
I guess that the latest move to allow the equation of marriage with same-sex relationships is a ridiculous
expression of political correctness. It feels like a report from someone who has been on a Health and Safety
course or undertaken a Risk Assessment and come to a desperate attempt to look safe, right-on, modern,
litigation-proof and not at all fuddy-duddy. The idea does not serve the needs of the LGBT community any
more than anyone else. Such a move demonstrates a failure of moral compass and hopefully, the Government
will be persuaded to think again.

Malcolm Ede makes the following contribution to the debate...
A huge furore has broken out in the Christian Church concerning the whole question of Gay Marriage.
Before we begin the debate into this matter, I think that we should look into what “marriage” should be about. I
know that people will say that marriage is between a man and a woman who wish to make public their love for
one another. The marriage service states that, “it is given as the foundation of family life in which children may
be born and nurtured in accordance with God’s will, to his praise and glory” (Holy Matrimony Service Book
currently used at Holy Cross Church). However, some people who marry have no desire whatsoever to have
children whilst others, for varying reasons, cannot have children either, but we still “allow” these people to
marry each other in a church.
No, I would contend that marriage should be for two human beings, male and male, female and female and
male and female who wish to make public their love for each other in a Christian setting and to have God’s
blessing on their union. For me this is the acid test – their loving relationship.
I know that gay people have been allowed to have blessings in some churches – we have had a few such
blessings in Holy Cross Church some years ago, but I have always thought that this is really a, “second best”
alternative to what gay people really wanted which is a “proper” marriage service in a church.
I would also say that events do move on. It was not so long ago that divorcees were not permitted to marry in
a church but now it’s quite a common occurrence.
As far as the issue of love is concerned, St. Paul said in his first letter to the Corinthians Chapter 13 verse 13,
“Meanwhile these three remain: faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these is love”. (Good News for
Modern Man). We often say that God is love and, therefore, I think that we should celebrate that love
whenever and wherever we meet or find it. Also, I think that it is right to say that if gay people wish to
celebrate their love for each other in a full marriage service setting in a church then we should not just “permit”
it but all join in and actively celebrate this love too. We should not seek to limit God’s love.
Maybe the wording of the Marriage Service setting will have to be amended in order to accommodate the
possibility of a Gay Marriage – but this is not an impossible task. The Marriage Service wording has changed
many times over the years and will continue to be so.
Once many gay marriages in church have taken place and years later we will probably wonder what all the
fuss was about.