Gender Recognition
“Civil Partnership” is being followed by “Gender Recognition”. These innocent-sounding words obscure the serious departures from biblical, and even natural, morality which parliamentary legislation promotes under these titles. At the time of writing, legislation is passing through Parliament – and therefore capable of amendment – allowing persons to be issued with birth
2For a brief explanation of this error, see The Free Presbyterian Magazine for November 2002, p 344.
certificates which state that they were born with the genders which they later claim to have acquired. For example, a person actually born male would be legally regarded as having been born female and require to be treated accordingly. Further, it will be an offence for any person who has privileged access to this information to divulge it to any other.
Apart from the unsoundness of this method of dealing with a psychological problem and the dishonesty of the new birth certificates as to matters of fact, the legislation will provide a new and mandatory ground of divorce in the case of married individuals, will promote civil partnerships and facilitate marriages between persons of the same natural gender. There can be little doubt that the legislation, if not amended, will interfere with the freedom of Churches, social bodies and public servants to act legally in accordance with biblical convictions when having to deal with individuals in this situation who may seek membership, office, services or privileges.
It is a phenomenon of our day that those who recognise situations as they are, and endeavour to deal with individuals with firmness and compassion as the Saviour did, are regarded as guilty of victimisation. In this way those who are labelled as vulnerable, and so excluded from moral or spiritual challenge, are shut in to their own lifestyle and deprived of the provision in the gospel: “to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Is 61:1).
Once again, to quote Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive, this legislation “flows from the United Kingdom Government’s obligation to comply with the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights . . . under the European Convention of Human Rights” – particular regard being had in this case to the right to respect for private life and the right to marry. On 5 February 2004 the Scottish Parliament, by 76 votes to 35, with 7 abstentions, voted in favour of adopting the United Kingdom legislation.
During the debate in the Scottish Parliament, questions were raised about the practical implications of the proposed legislation, but the impression was given that much of the opposition was to the procedure of allowing devolved matters to be decided at Westminster rather than to the substance of the legislation. The official argument for pressing ahead in Scotland in this way was to ensure “a consistent UK approach, and early compliance with, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights”. Yet again the Scottish Parliament has proved itself incapable of taking a principled stand on the basis of the Christian morality of this nation and has been to the fore in breaking down the bulwarks of many generations. Once again we have an
illustration of where we are being led, all too willingly, by the European Convention of Human Rights.
HMC
Lack of Moral Leadership
It is well known that every sitting of the House of Commons is opened with prayer. This prayer may be formally read from the appointed Church of England prayer book and not, as we would desire, extempore from the lips of a man of God. But it nevertheless constitutes a daily, public acknowledgement of the Most High, and for that we have reason to be thankful. What a pity that political leaders in that chamber are so little inclined to consider their accountability to that God – whose sovereignty is in this way acknowledged by Parliament – when it comes to framing policies and passing legislation, particularly legislation which is patently dishonouring to Him.
We had hoped that the appointment of the Rt Hon Michael Howard as leader of the Conservative Party would signal the adoption of a more morally-responsible attitude on the part of the Opposition but, alas, what we find is that, for reasons of expediency, he is ready to go with the stream. Thus we find it reported that he has announced that he will support the Civil Partnerships Bill, which legitimises same-sex relationships. It is all very well for him to express the view that “the conventional family remains the best environment”, but what value are we to attach to these words when we find him, at the same time, stating, “Families are changing. Not all conform to the traditional pattern. . . . To recognise civil partnerships is not, in any way, to denigrate or downgrade marriage. It is to recognise the fact that many people want to live their lives in different ways”? Is Britain then soon to sink to the moral and spiritual state to which another once-highly-privileged nation descended, when, in the absence of a caring leadership, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”?
JM