Thursday, March 20, 2008

Civil Partnership: Catholics 1 Police 0

Cranmer just loves it when conflicting minority sensitivities, agendas and assertions of ‘rights’ are found to be mutually exclusive and irredeemably irreconcilable. Hitherto, the Christians and their orthodoxy have lost on such issues as civil partnerships, gay adoption, wearing crosses or ‘chastity rings’ in schools, or even the traditional free vote in Parliament on contentious issues of morality.

But a brave Roman Catholic couple who objected to their marriage being listed alongside ‘civil partnership’ have won the first round in an employment tribunal action against the Strathclyde Police Force.

Lucille and Frank McQuade (with whom, judging by their picture, you would not want to mess) have 26 years of faithful marriage behind them, and are claiming that Strathclyde Police Force is guilty of sex discrimination and religious discrimination after altering its civilian employee records to change their status from ‘married’ to ‘married/civil partnership’, as though there were some equivalence. They deem it to be an unacceptable change to their ‘true legal and religious status’ because, as Mrs McQuade states, ‘The concept of homosexuality is not compatible with our faith’.

Quite so, Mrs McQuade, quite so. You are simply obeying Scripture and the traditional teachings of the Church; an orthodoxy which His Holiness has even very recently reiterated.

Cranmer is not inclined to revisit the complexities of the concept of ‘concept’, so he is relieved that Mrs McQuade states rather more straightforwardly: ‘We find it offensive that people don't know if we are married or civil partners."

But Strathclyde Police are bound by sexual orientation ‘guidance’ (courtesy of ACAS), which stated that ‘outing’ an individual's sexual orientation against their wishes or without their clear permission was inappropriate and a breach of privacy. In order to avoid this undesired ‘outing’, the two categories are considered synonymous because ‘in most situations they were treated the same, so there was no need to identify them separately’.

Peter Kearney, spokesman for the Catholic Media Office, said: "When civil partnerships were introduced, politicians stressed they were not the same as marriage. It is absurd that a public body cannot list these separately." But Tony Grew, the editor of the Pink News, a campaigning newspaper for homosexuals, said: "Many people in the police, and the vast majority of people they serve, are proud of the fact that their gay and lesbian colleagues no longer have to hide in the shadows. It seems this couple are not among them. They are entitled to their view, but in 2008 it looks like the sad relic of a prejudice that has no place in modern Scotland."

The distinction between marriage and civil partnership is becoming semantic. Whilst Parliament advocated equality on matters including pension provision and inheritance, it was never intended that official forms would be amended to re-classify marriage as a status equivalent to civil partnership.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien observed at the time: "The Scottish people must be aware that we are indulging in an experiment which will always have huge social consequences. The Catholic Church teaches clearly that we, as individuals and a society, harm ourselves when we do not protect and promote the female-male lifelong relationship that we know as marriage."

The Christian Institute unequivocally terms ‘civil partnership’ a ‘counterfeit marriage’, the ultimate aim of which is to ‘completely equate homosexual relationships with marriage’. In the case of Strathclyde Police they appear to have been prophetic. The Institute further observes:

UK gay rights groups are fully aware of the significance of civil partnerships in achieving legal same-sex marriage. The Government commented on its consultation: “it was clear that many of those who supported the principle of a civil partnership scheme would prefer that marriage was made available to same-sex couples.”

Civil partnerships equate homosexual relationships with marriage in law, though not in name. The Government’s Women and Equality Unit wants all official documentation asking for a person’s ‘marital status’ to be altered to read ‘civil status’. This would include both marriage and civil partnerships.’


All that Strathclyde Police needs to do is to amend ‘Married/Civil Partnership’ to ‘Civil Status’, leaving the McQuades to be free to insert ‘Married’.

But that still leaves the problem of those in a ‘civil partnership’ who do not wish to be ‘outed’.

Doubtless this dilemma is occupying Sir Humphrey inordinately and disproportionately.

12 Comments:

Blogger BrianSJ said...

One of A.P. Herbert's 'Misleading Cases' was when Albert Haddock re-married after 18:30 so he was married in the eyes of God but not the law. People should be clear that the civil status is about tax. Marriage is a holy estate.

I cannot understand the logic of a 'civil partnership' where they do not want to be outed; that is tax evasion.

20 March 2008 at 08:03  
Blogger Skin One Up said...

Isn't this a case of rendering unto Caesar? The McQuades know in their hearts what they are and Caesar has his, relevant to him, fact. Who cares what anyone else thinks? And, if there are those who mistakenly believe that the McQuades are homosexuals, what is the problem? Is religion supposed to protect people from the misperceptions of others? Or is it that we should all kow-tow to the "Holy Estate" business as if it were an image of Mohammed?

On the other hand, if insurance companies detect a difference in risk between the two states, and have the moxy to reflect it in their premiums or willingness to underwrite, then we would have an issue. Hopefully the law handles this.

20 March 2008 at 08:40  
Anonymous WannabeAnglican said...

Good on the McQuades!

Would the English show this sort of backbone.

20 March 2008 at 12:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unusual to see the words 'modern' and 'Scotland' in the same sentence

20 March 2008 at 14:45  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

I hope, Cranmer, that you are refusing to use the word "single" in your marriage registers to describe the status of those who are to be married, which the Registrar General has said you must do (instead of the precise legal terms "bachelor" and "spinster"). In the words of a well known canon lawyer, this is "worth going to prison for".

20 March 2008 at 16:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bloke with stupid handle said...

this is "worth going to prison for".

no it bloody isn't

get a life

20 March 2008 at 18:29  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 March 2008 at 22:04  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Anonymous 18.28. Clergy are being required to record whether people are in civil partnerships or not as a necessary preliminary to marriage in church (and being in such a partnership is a legal impediment to marriage, which means it is intended to be equivalent to marriage, whatever the Government may say). This makes the Church an accessory to a
change in the understanding of marriage which contradicts the Church's own teaching, so it is not something that should be allowed to go by default. That is why the person I quoted, putting it strongly, said it is worth going to prison for. (I can't see what getting a life has to do with the matter.)

20 March 2008 at 22:07  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
I think they have every right to defend the difference , it isnt the same as civil partnership and why on earth it wasnt more clearly stated from the top of every steeple and bell tower I do not know.
By all means if homosexuals want recognition in the sharing and dividing up of assetts and to make a commitment to each other , then fine but the sacredness of marriage must stand or else nothing is sacred !!

20 March 2008 at 22:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ask yourselves these simple questions.

When the majority of the British people do not want to be part of a European Super State, WHY are we?

When the majority of people what proper long sentences for serious criminals and the death penalty for murders, do we not have either?

When the majority of people think that marriage between a man and a women is sacred and essentially different to marriage between two men or two women, do we get the above bullshit?

When people do not want ID cards and certainly do not want to pay for them are we going to get them one way or another anyway, come hell of high water?

Answer

Because these are policies handed down by the ruling class establishment who are determined to inflict on us and the world there long planned masonic based New World Order.

This involves the traditional destruction of the family unit. The promotion of as much crime on the streets as can be promoted. The enforcement of micro chip ID preceded by ID cards. The promotion of a one world completely undemocratically accountable Government, namely the UN. Over a lower tier of completely undemocratically accountable government, namely the EU.

These policies are not designed for the good of the common man. They are designed to repress, depress, marginalize, and as much as possible impoverish, and therefore control the ordinary citizen.

Which is why, this is exactly what they do, and why we get them whether the people want them or not.

They are policies of the ANTI-CHRIST who is confirmed in complete power by multi-national banking and industrial corporations headed up by the main Royal Families of Europe and represented in person by the Pope in Rome.

If anyone can come up with even a half convincing argument for why the above is not 100% true. I would love to here it. No really I would very much.

Because if just taking on just one of these things would be difficult to say the least. Then taking on all five at once and much more is so impossible we might just as well drop our trousers now, grease up, and bend over. Like GB and TB have been doing all their adult lives.

You never know we might even like it. Especially when taking on a wife is now to a stright man, the quickest way to go mad and bankrupt next to having a strong addiction to fast cars, casinos, and hard drugs, all at the same time.

Although I hope we can all remember what God did the last time everyone was doing far to much bending over, or can we not? If not we are soon going to be remembered. IMO sooner then we would like.

Atlas shrugged

21 March 2008 at 00:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 0:34
i think your confusing communism with free masonry.

but i have to agree that those who sell drugs and gambling may well be the anti christ , i think gorbon brown has just ok 16 new casinos , that fits for me .

21 March 2008 at 02:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Unusual to see the words 'modern' and 'Scotland' in the same sentence"........RACIST!!

Anyway, let me make my point. ALL MARRIAGE is CIVIL irrespective of any religious flummery attached to it (remember that REGISTER you guys HAVE to sign!! or have you conveniently forgot?).

Secondly, Civil Partnerships are the same as Civil Marriage in ALL BUT NAME and only to appease some 'religious opposition' to equality.

On the point of equality, that can only occur when Civil Marriage is made available to ALL. To have a separate name for same-sex couples is ludicrous, and reeks of Apartheid. The only way of protecting the rights of privacy on the grounds of someone's sexual orientation is to simply have civil marriage apply to all (alternatively abolish civil marriage and retain Civil Partnerships opening them up to opposite sex couples).

Christians have NO copyright over marriage or its use of. It exists in many other contemporary religions and non-religions and pre-dates Christianity. Whatever ceremonies and blessing you want to 'add' to marriage is your only stake in it and no-one has any problems with that.

As for the McQuades, as there 'attack' isn't doesn't appear to advocate 'Christian Marriage' as opposed to Civil Marriage or marriage associated with any other religion, the premise is entirely based on someone's sexual orientation which is a direct breach of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulation 2003 and they should be sacked from Strathclyde Police forthwith (which I'm sure they will be after they fail in their Employment Tribunal publicity charade).

4 July 2008 at 10:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older