In December 2003 we were consulted, through our participation in the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office, on the intention of the Scottish Executive to introduce a legal status for same-sex couples.  The Executive's proposals were to deal with this matter by referring it to the Westminster Government on the ground that it would be desirable for the same law to cover this issue across the whole of the United Kingdom.

We responded to the Executive's proposals in the paper which follows and also wrote to various MSPs, including Mr McConnell. The Convener and Clerk also wrote to Mr Blair.

Our protestations to the Executive were in vain and the matter was passed to Westminster.

The Free Church is totally opposed to homosexual practice as being contrary to God's law and very clearly stated in the Bible to be harmful to individuals and to society and absolutely forbidden for Christian believers. It follows that as a Christian church we will not support any legislation whose aims, whether openly stated or implied, include the general acceptance of homosexual practice. We believe the proposed registration has exactly such aims and no amount of semantic obfuscation such as using the term "civil partnership" can hide this fact.

In addition we believe that the proposed legislation is a serious attack on the fabric of our society in that it seeks to elevate homosexual relationships to the same status as heterosexual marriage. As such, it goes against the Scottish Executive's own stated desire to maintain and support the institution of marriage. The Executive’s statement at para 8, page 39 of the discussion document that “we recognise the role that marriage has in society” is therefore patently false.

The Free Church recognises that in the genetic make-up of some men and women there may be a hormonal imbalance which can give rise to homosexual orientation. We see it as our Christian and human duty to treat such individuals exactly the same as other men and women. We oppose any discrimination against them and encourage all our people to love, cherish and support such individuals fully. Such support would include encouraging them not to indulge in homosexual practice which we believe is not an inherited trait but rather learned behaviour.

The discussion document makes great play of the Executive's desire to comply with European law on avoiding discrimination. We see the proposed legislation as being indeed discriminatory, in a positive direction in favour of same sex couples but negatively as far as married couples or cohabiting (male/female) couples are concerned. The Executive could therefore find themselves in breach of European law by introducing this legislation.

The discussion paper also states that a main aim of the proposed legislation is to give homosexual (same sex) couples access to a comprehensive package of rights and responsibilities. Why is the same access not being accorded to cohabiting couples? If the answer is that this will be dealt with under future family law legislation, we would argue that for reasons of equity as well as logic the “access” for same sex couples should also be dealt with under family law legislation. If the answer is that this would undermine marriage, is it not plain that recognising homosexual partnerships is at least as damaging to the concept of marriage as recognising cohabitation?

We would also ask why special attention is being given to homosexual couples whilst other, far more deserving (in our view) and urgent cases are ignored. We refer, for example, to carers, whether family-related or not, who may devote their lives to handicapped, sick or ageing individuals but cannot claim pension or property or other rights on the death of the person being cared for, or even whilst that person is still alive. Statistics indicate that there are over 3 million such "co-dependent" households in the UK compared with only 50,000 homosexual households. If the Executive's aim is to achieve justice and fairness for the majority it is obvious that civil partnerships will not bring this about.

We note from the list of current legislative proposals that the Executive are concerned about problems in our society caused by anti-social behaviour, racism, drug addiction and alcoholism. We applaud the Executive's concern and offer our full support in dealing with these problems. Is it not a proven fact, however, that all of these problems are best dealt with in a caring, supportive, married family environment? Should we not therefore be doing all in our power to encourage, strengthen and improve that environment rather than endangering it?

When God created man as a species he created them male and female with different biological functions. He endowed them with sexual natures which would find expression in the love of a man and a woman in marriage and endowed them with responsibility for procreating the human race. He did not give Adam another Adam to be his companion nor Eve another Eve. God did not say that a man will "leave his father and mother and cleave to" another man. He expressly condemned male and female homosexual practice in the New Testament as well as in the Old.

back