(Christianophobia) - July 2010: Lead politicians backing the bill refuse to allow a conscience clause; opposition parties claim that the objections of Christians are being ignored.
Irish politicians in the Dáil passed a controversial civil partnership bill which will leave registrars open to a fine and prison sentence for refusing to carry out same-sex civil partnerships.
The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Bill, as it is now called, was passed by TDs in the Dáil, the lower house of representatives, without a vote.
The Senate, Ireland’s upper house, must pass the legislation before it can become law.
The Bill lays out fines of up to €2,000 and/or up to a six month jail term for those who defy it through conscientious objection to performing same-sex civil partnerships.
In the debate opposition TD Seymour Crawford said many groups had appealed to him for a conscience clause: “I may be the only Deputy who got this material but I assure the House I got it from Catholic bishops, Church of Ireland, Baptist and Presbyterian ministers, and many individuals throughout the country. “I make no apology of any kind for raising the matter on their behalf,” he said.
But the Irish Justice Minister, Dermot Ahern, who has consistently ruled out inserting a conscience clause, claimed: “There has been no representation or indication of any kind regarding the freedom of conscience issue; rather there has been a positive view from people of what we are doing in this regard.”
Mr Ahern later acknowledged that representations had been made, but said that registrars did not want a conscience clause.
He also commented: “I say, resolutely, to people who suggest there should be a freedom of conscience clause, that if we pass laws in this House we expect them to be implemented.
Senator Jim Walsh said that the lack of a conscience clause will move the country “to a totalitarian society which certainly many of us, particularly liberals, would argue against if it were impinging upon their beliefs”.
In May a group of 19 church leaders wrote to the Irish Times declaring that the Civil Partnership Bill was a “direct attack” on freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
In March, Roman Catholic bishops criticised the legislation, warning that it “represents a fundamental revolution in our understanding of marriage and the family and cannot go unchallenged.” David Quinn, a commentator writing in the Irish Independent, complained that Christians’ views on the Bill were being ignored.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Ireland to demand 'same-sex unions'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It seems to me that the problem here is the inexplicable failure on the part of many to see the distinction between the Mystery of Holy Matrimony, which is bestowed within the Church on a man and a woman as an aid to their salvation and for their participation in the life-creating energies of God, on the one hand, and a civil ceremony on the other hand, in which two people receive a legal status which entitles them to certain benefits pertaining to inheritance, tax, material property, pensions, and such like. The two are patently not the same thing. Certainly, in the Orthodox Church we recognise that the two are not the same thing otherwise we would accept a civil ceremony as a sacramental Crowning, which we do not.
ReplyDeleteOnce viewed from the perspective that civil unions between a man and a woman, two men or two women, whatever name the state wants to give them, are not the same as the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, it becomes difficult to see any doctrinal reason for objecting to two people of the same sex entering into a legal contract touching on money and material property.
The problem, therefore, it seems to me, lies with those confessions, such as the Church of England in this country, that do recognise civil marriage as the same as marriage in church. It is they who prolong the problem by blurring the boundaries.
I think we do indeed have a reason to object to these civil contracts. We see the acts as detrimental to the people engaged in them. We as a Church don't condone other behaviors that are self-destructive and speak out against them regardless of whether the acts are sacramental. The act of sexual congress with someone of the same sex is canonically forbidden, how can abetting (or at least standing silent) the "unions" not be an implicit permission for the act that occurs within that union?
ReplyDeleteThe other issue is that the laws of the land are to some degree a declaration by the people of what they see as good and what they see as evil. While morality and the law seldom have as much to do with one another as they should, we can acknowledge that people call law abiding behavior "good" and lawless behavior "bad." What is more, those states that mandate the acceptance of this sort of activity often do so without allowing parties that object to them to do so in practice. A pharmacist cannot choose to not sell Plan B. The Knights of Columbus (in a recent case) could not refuse a lesbian couple use of their hall for their wedding reception. In some countries speaking out against same-sex acts at all is cause for financial penalties and jail time. Religious schools cannot choose to deny admission to children of same-sex couples. Etc. Etc.
We must speak out against pernicious actions and all the fruits of those actions wherever we can as to be instructive, to point to Holy Tradition.
We seem to be willing to give up definitions to secular society to the detriment of the Gospel. We do not oppose the gay lifestyle, we are told we fear it. We do not want to save children in the womb, we want to rule women's lives and deny them freedom. We don't ask women to dress with respect for their bodies, we want to maintain some ancient outmoded cultural hang-ups.
We do have something to say that is instructive and it often contradicts what people are doing. If we wish to continue to make disciples of all nations we can't do otherwise.
I think we do indeed have a reason to object to these civil contracts. We see the acts as detrimental to the people engaged in them. We as a Church don't condone other behaviors that are self-destructive and speak out against them regardless of whether the acts are sacramental. The act of sexual congress with someone of the same sex is canonically forbidden, how can abetting (or at least standing silent) the "unions" not be an implicit permission for the act that occurs within that union?
ReplyDeleteWith the greatest respect to you, I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. I don't deny that sexual congress with somebody of the same sex spiritually detrimental to those engaged in it but, as I understand it, that isn't the question here. The recognition or non-recognition in law of a particular type of relationship doesn't have any bearing on what happens in the bedroom between two people: some couples in civil marriages do not have sex, and other couples who want to have sex will do so regardless of the legal status of their relationship. What I understand a civil partnership/civil marriage to be is the bestowing of a particular legal status to a partnership of two people, with the aforementioned benefits in law that this brings. Perhaps I'm living in Michaelworld (which I admit is often the case) but to my mind, I just don't see a direct correlation between this and sex. I simply don't see civil marriage/unions as anything more than legal arrangements.
I agree that, on the points you mention (and others that come to mind), the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, so that there are ludicrous limitations even on what people are able to say. I would not want to do anything to encourage that trend. Yet at the same time, I bear in mind the words of the priest whom I once heard quite vociferously condemning the decriminalisation of homosexual practice in the UK. (It was when the 40th anniversary was in the news so it was being talked about). It is our duty to call people to follow the way of Christ, and to do all that we can to avoid putting hindrances in the way. Yet, at the back of my mind is what this priest seemed to be suggesting, which is that people ought to be confronted with a choice between either following Christ or facing prosecution. I find that terrifying, and I suppose my thoughts on other matters are coloured by this. Perhaps I ought to try to be more discerning and look at things more objectively.
I see your point. I would say that one could look at a relationship between two people wherein they share medical care, property, etc. as fine in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteThe law being proposed shouldn't be looked at (few laws should) in isolation. When a law is proposed there is a goal in mind (fiscal, moral, procedural). The goal of groups supporting this type of legislation is to regularize this behavior through the state, then (though often simultaneously as part of the original law) put in legislation that bans speaking against the new rights. I am loathe to use the frog in the pot analogy (as a frog will actually jump out and not be slowly cooked as is often said), but the process of breaking down the moral fabric sewn together by Christian morality is being made by the trimming away of taboos and the subsequent muzzling of those who speak against the abridgments.
I also share your concern about moral declaration, enacted through laws, that prosecute people who act in a way contrary to the morality of the day. Speaking to the history of my part of the world (the American South) I can look to interracial marriages, the criminalization of alcohol, and other similar laws that sought to correct aberrant behavior only to cause immense suffering to much of the population.