Reports include – Crucifixes and the European Court; Ben & Jerry’s on gay marriage; Leading legal opinion on gay marriages; Tax breaks for families; How are the obsessions of the Church of England different from the twitter of the Left?; Scotland debate is about more than transfer of power
European Court Takes Up Crucifixes As Jewelry
NPR – Two British women believe they have the right to wear a cross in the workplace. Both were fired after refusing to remove the necklaces. Their employers state the jewelry does not comply with uniform policy, and that wearing a cross is not a requirement of Christians. Lucy Kellaway, a columnist for the Financial Times in London, talks to Renee Montagne about the case.
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/14/148574412/european-court-takes-up-crucifixes-as-jewelry?ft=1&f=1016
Ben & Jerry’s is trying to dictate my views on gay marriage. So I’m stocking up on Häagen-Dazs
Will Heaven, Telegraph – Guess what, folks? Ben & Jerry’s – the American brand that brought you “Phish food” and “Cookie dough” flavoured ice cream – have teamed up with Stonewall to campaign for gay marriage in Britain. Here’s their chirpy press release:
If you think that Civil Partnership is the same as marriage, think again! Show your support and help convince members of parliament that it’s time to say ‘I do’ to same sex marriage!
You can help support this campaign by “marrying” someone of the same sex through our Facebook App or by writing to your MP using this template. (Because everyone is equal and deserves to live Apple-y Ever After!)
That play on words, by the way, is because – “to raise awareness about the importance of marriage equality” – Ben & Jerry’s have renamed their Apple Pie flavour, “Apple-y Ever After”.
Reading that PR announcement made me want to bulk-buy Häagen-Dazs. Why? Not because I’m a crazed homophobe, but because I’m so irritated by my food telling me what I should believe.
http://www.benjerry.co.uk/our-values/appleyeverafter
Tax breaks for married couples are 25 years overdue, says Lawson as he attacks system that discriminates against families
Mailonline – Former Chancellor Nigel Lawson said yesterday that a tax break for married couples has been wrongly delayed for 25 years.
He said the tax system discriminates against families and children and he urged George Osborne to end the unfairness in the Budget next week.
The intervention from Lord Lawson, who ran the Treasury for six years while Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, increased pressure on the Coalition to fulfil David Cameron’s promise to give new tax help to husbands and wives.
It came on the day that the Government launched its Social Justice Strategy, which says marriage is the most stable platform for bringing up children and that it should be supported and encouraged by the state.
The report, by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, said that marriage ‘provides an excellent environment in which to bring up children’ and declared the Coalition’s intention to back it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114617/Nigel-Lawson-Tax-breaks-married-couples-25-years-overdue.html
In countries where gay marriage is legal, the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are disappearing.
Telegraph – By Daniel Brennan (Lord Brennan QC) – Most people thought they knew what marriage meant, namely the union of a man and a woman. In 2004, when the Civil Partnership Act was passed to provide legal protections for homosexual partnerships, Parliament was led to believe by the government of the day that this did not affect the established institution of marriage. But barely eight years later, political fashion has changed.
David Cameron told last year’s Conservative Party conference that he supported marriage and that it didn’t matter whether it was “between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man”. If this sounds complicated to say, it’s going to be even more complicated to legislate.
Last month Stonewall published a draft gay marriage bill which removes the words “husband and wife” from the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, replacing them with “parties to a marriage”. When asked to explain, Ben Summerskill, the CEO, said: “In some clauses you have to replace the words husband and wife because you cannot have two husbands or two wives.” I doubt many husbands and wives will be happy to have the legal definition of their marriages re-written in such a way.
The remainder of their simplistic bill grants wide-ranging powers for a minister to amend the rest of the statute book on marriage, presumably to get rid of all the other references to husband and wife. The minister is going to be busy. The word “husband” appears 1,003 times in statute; “wife” appears 888 times; “spouse” occurs 2,740 times. In all, there are 3,000 references to marriage in current law. The oldest is in an Act passed in 1285, in the reign of King Edward I, part of which is still in force.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/9140790/Gay-marriage-Eight-centuries-of-law-obliterated-overnight.html
Should we redefine marriage?
Fulcrum – By Andrew Goddard – Over 160,000 people have already signed the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) petition which states “I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it”. Many of them, although by no means all of them, will be Christians and those of other faiths whose understanding of marriage and attitude to same-sex sexual relationships is shaped by their religious traditions and authorities. One of the main challenges is whether and how those who are not part of such communities or shaped by their narratives and worldviews can be persuaded this definition of marriage is something vitally important and the government’s proposals seriously wrong-headed. This article will first explore why many do not understand concerns about the government’s proposals and then suggest where the fundamental problem lies and why it should be of concern.
Underlying the challenge of persuading people outside faith traditions that something important is at stake is that popular views of both marriage and sexuality in wider society, in some pieces of legislation, and in parts of the church, have already accepted (often uncritically) a number of developments which weaken the arguments used by those seeking to ‘defend marriage’ and, in turn, make the case for “equal marriage” appealing even a “no-brainer”. Seven in particular stand out.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=708
Sexual liberation: a great idea for the rich
Telegraph – David Cameron is coming out of the gay marriage debate looking rather bad; conservatives aren’t particularly interested (a tiny minority consider it a priority) while the social liberals he’s courting think he’s insincere. He could sell the proposal far better by making the conservative argument like this: gay liberation was a good thing, and the acceptance of gays as social equals a step forward for Britain and humanity in general, but it was part of a wider sexual revolution that has brought many problems, which we should address.
In contrast Iain Duncan Smith is today going to put his neck on the line by suggesting that it is best for children to be raised by two married parents, a comment that is controversial even though it should be uncontentious to the point of being inane.
As Charles Murray recently wrote in Coming Apart about the disadvantages of raising children outside of marriage: “All of these statements apply after controlling for the family’s economic status. I know of no other set of important findings that are as broadly accepted by social scientists who follow the technical literature, liberal as well as conservative, and yet are so resolutely ignored by network news programs, editorial writers for the major newspapers, and politicians of both major political parties.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100143612/sexual-liberation-a-great-idea-for-the-rich/
Clergy speak out in support of proposal for gay marriage
Church Times – Clerics have spoken out in favour of same-sex marriage, as a petition that opposes a change in the law reached 100,000 signatures. Asked about their views on same-sex marriage this week, nine signatories of a letter sent to the London representatives of the General Synod calling for the freedom to bless civil partnerships in church said that they would support the Government’s proposals to legalise same-sex marriage. Other clergy oppose such a change.
“A change in the definition of marriage to include two men or two women would seem to me to be an appropriate step in the redefinition of marriage for our particular contemporary society,” said the Lead Chaplain of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, the Revd Robert Thompson. The Vicar of St Lawrence’s, Eastcote, in Pinner, the Revd Stephen Dando, said that same-sex marriage should be “both allowed and celebrated”. “The Church should be in the forefront of showing love to all, but sadly it limps slowly behind,” he said.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=125502
Health and safety, wind turbines, climate change – how are the obsessions of the Church of England different from the twitter of the Left?
Telegraph – Peter Mullen writes – Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, concludes an article in a national newspaper by warning that the Church of England is in danger of losing “its voice in national life”. Well, it’s one thing to have a voice but quite another thing to know what to say. In fact for the last 40 years the Church has had no distinctive voice. Its leaders among the bishops and in the Synod merely echo the opinions of the Left-wing establishment. They have substituted Zeitgeist for Heilige Geist. In the 1960s they offered broad support for the liberal reforms of divorce law, abortion and homosexual reform bills. In a series of books and reports – most notoriously “Faith in the City” – they backed the profligate Left against Mrs Thatcher’s attempts to restore the nation after many years of Labour’s managed decline.
The Rev Dr Peter Mullen is a priest of the Church of England and former Rector of St Michael, Cornhill and St Sepulchre-without-Newgate in the City of London. He has written for many publications including the Wall Street Journal.
Scotland debate is about more than transfer of power
Christian Today – The debate about Scottish independence should focus more on issues of social justice says the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland has said that the debate surrounding Scottish independence must consider “real issues” affecting the country. In its response to the UK Consultation on Scotland’s Constitutional Future, the Church welcomed the debate but insisted that constitutional change should be justified by an improvement in the nation’s wellbeing, particularly in the areas of poverty, health and education. The Church believes that the debate so far has been too narrowly confined to questions about the transfer of power.”The key issue for the Church is to ensure that social justice would be improved by any constitutional change,” the response states.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/scotland.debate.is.about.more.than.transfer.of.power/29461.htm
Cross purposes? Nadia Eweida and the meaning of religious symbols
By Andrew Brown, Guardian – Religious symbolism depends on the intended message – courts are increasingly ruling on questions of theology
Any case that pits the equalities minister against the Equality and Human Rights Commission is worth enjoying, and even thinking about. And the problem of Nadia Eweida, the British Airways employee disciplined for refusing to remove her cross, does highlight the way in which even secularist governments are unable to get away from theological questions.
The EHRC originally opposed her, and is now backing her. The minister, Lynne Featherstone, has come out against her. Meanwhile, the archbishop of Canterbury, in Rome for a ceremonial exchange of futilities with the pope, appears to have come out against her as well, on the grounds that wearing a cross is no longer a Christian symbol, but just a piece of jewellery expressing personal taste.
Does Christianity demand that its adherents wear a cross? The courts here have decided that it doesn’t, but I’m not sure the question is well framed. You might as well ask “does Christianity demand that you go to church on Sundays?” or “does it demand pacifism?” There are just too many Christianities for such a question to make sense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/mar/12/cross-nadia-eweida-religious-symbols
Marriage is good for children and the state MUST back it, insists Iain Duncan Smith
Mailonline – Marriage provides a more stable environment for bringing up children than other relationships and should be supported and encouraged by the state, ministers will say today.
The Social Justice Strategy paper will stress that marriage is an ‘excellent’ environment in which to raise families, and warns that family instability or breakdown can have ‘devastating’ long-term consequences.
The hard-hitting document, launched by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, adds that children enjoy better life outcomes when the ‘same two parents’ give support and protection throughout childhood.
It warns that children who experience parental breakdown are more likely to have poor life outcomes than those who grow up with both of their parents.
The document adds that one in three cohabiting couples separate before a child’s fifth birthday, compared with a figure of around one in ten married parents.
Most significantly, the paper clearly spells out the Government’s support for the institution of marriage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114136/Marriage-good-children-state-declares-Iain-Duncan-Smith.html
Gay dean: Church of England’s relationship with gays is ‘a disaster
Pink News – Dr Jeffrey John, who has twice lost out on a post as bishop because of his public homosexuality, says his denomination has become the ‘last refuge of prejudice’ and is treating gay relationships as ‘inferior’ to straight ones.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/03/13/gay-dean-church-of-englands-relationship-with-gays-is-a-disaster/