Sadly I found myself this weekend having to respond to something that we predicted would eventually happen once SSM became law – however even I did not expect it so quickly! The Green Party leader Natalie Bennet said she was open to polyamorous marriage….Below I include the Free Church response and the articles in The Herald and The Press and Journal What I want to specifically mention here Ms Bennett’s comment that The Greens are unique in allowing their members to formulate policy. I have a friend who was a Green Councillor, who was bullied out of the Greens because she did not go along with the parties ‘consultation’ on SSM. You can read her story at this link. The bottom line is that the Greens are as authoritarian as any other party – if you don’t tow the line you are out. A sad but inevitable story.
The Free Church
http://freechurch.org/news/moderator-designate-aghast-at-prospect-of-three-person-marriages
The next Free Church of Scotland Moderator has criticised remarks from the Green Party that the UK should consider legalising three-person marriages. Days before the general election, Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett(pictured above) told a hustings event that she was “open to further conversation and consultation” about polyamorous relationships.
Rev David Robertson, who takes up the role of Moderator on 18 May, described it as a “sad consequence of the unthinking rush into same-sex marriage”.
Mr Robertson said: “Natalie Bennett is of course just being consistent. “Given her presuppositions and philosophy, why shouldn’t ‘marriage equality’ extend to multiple people who ‘love each other’? “We warned that the redefinition of marriage would not end with same-sex marriage and were ridiculed and abused as being ridiculous. It gives us no pleasure to know that we were right.”
The Dundee minister continued: “It is a sad consequence of the unthinking rush into same-sex marriage, just to demonstrate how ‘liberal and progressive’ our politicians are. “I would be interested to know if David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nicola Sturgeon agree with Ms Bennett – and if not, why not?”
The Free Church Moderator Designate concluded: “We are witnessing marriage nihilism in the UK. “If marriage is not understood and legally defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, it can and will mean anything.“Politicians and LGBT lobby groups who campaigned for same-sex marriage will inevitably be leading the calls for the legalisation of other forms of ‘marriage’ too.”
Bennett ‘open’ to idea of three-way marriages
The Herald 2 May 2015
GREEN Party leader Natalie Bennett has said she is open to discussing the possibility of legalising three-way marriages. She was quizzed by a Pink News reader who said he was living with two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship and asked: “Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”
Ms Bennett replied: “At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people.“We are, uniquely in this country, a party whose policies are developed and voted for by our members.“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation on this issue.”
Ms Bennett denied that being open to three-way marriages was “outlandish” and said the Greens were simply willing to listen to any evidence in favour of it. The Green Party leader said she had no personal view on the matter.Asked if more moderate left-wing voters might be put off Green policies they see as outlandish, Ms Bennett replied: “I don’t think saying we will listen to the evidence is in any way outlandish.”
However, Rev David Robertson, the next Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, described the proposal as a “sad consequence of the unthinking rush into same sex marriage”.“We warned that the redefinition of marriage would not end with same sex marriage,” he said. “It gives us no pleasure to know that we were right.”
‘Three-person marriages’ attacked
The Press and Journal 2 May 2015
A Scottish church leader has slammed comments by the Greens’Natalie Bennett that she is “open” to three people marriages. Free Church moderator elect David Robertson said it was a “sad consequence of the unthinking rush into same-sex marriage”.
Ms Bennett, the UK Green Party leader, upset him with comments made during a conversation on the LGBT website PinkNews. Dr Redfern Jon Barrett asked: “At present those in a ‘trio’ (a three-way relationship) are denied marriage equality, and as a result face a considerable amount of legal discrimination.
“As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support ongroup civil partnerships or marriages?”
Ms Bennett replied that the Greens did not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people.“We are, uniquely in this country, a party whose policies are developed and voted for by our members,” she said.“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”
Mr Robertson, who takes up his role as moderator later this month, said the church was “witnessing ‘marriage nihilism’ in the UK”.“We warned that the redefinition of marriage would not end with sames e x ma rriage and w e r e ridiculed and abused as being ridiculous.It gives us no pleasure to know that we were right,” said the churchman. “It is a sad consequence of the unthinking rush into samesex marriage, just to demonstrate how ‘liberal and progressive’ our politicians are.
“I would be interested to know if David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nicola Sturgeon agree with Ms Bennett, and if not, why not?” he added.
The Daily Mail Online –
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
You blame Natalie Bennett in your piece (whilst totally failing to note the existence of the Scottish Green Party and its leader Patrick Harvie – remember marriage is a devolved issue).
Regarding the actual issue I suppose it relates to what you think poltiical parties are for. Are they to tell people what do to and think or are they to reflect the aspirations and ideas of their members? Of course, the reality is that poltical parties sit on a spectrum between the two but the Green Party is very close to the member-decides-policy end of that spectrum.
Now, as a person totally committed to the Bible and a clear belief that the text of the Bible is clear and not open to changing interpretation you have a different way of working than Natalie Bennett who has a member created policy document that changes with each conference and motion. Green Party rules means she would find it very difficult to deny a policy that her members have passed. To challenge her is a weird approach as she is actually the wrong target and therefore a pointless focus of your commentary. You have to instead challenge the members who backed the policy. Of course, that would make your challenges more nebulous and less media friendly.
As a humanist I am actually open to the idea of polyamourous relationships but there would need to be some safeguards to ensure that all parties are equal.
Douglas – I was commenting on what Natalie Bennett said so why would I talk about someone else? Although I suspect Patrick would not disagree….As to how you ‘ensure all parties are equal’ – good luck with that one. I guess its part of your faith that we can legislate equality!
Well you linked the issue to Nicola Sturgeon so I thought you were expanding it to Scottish politicians. I note that you don’t address the substantive and move the challenge from one people to a larger number of people in a political party who approve of the policy.
Also, I don’t have a faith. I have a belief, a belief in the potential of human beings and that humanity alone is able to meet that potential. And I really do believe that it is possible to legislate equality.
Whats the difference between a faith and a belief?
What a sad slide after SSM…
“Whats the difference between a faith and a belief?”
Faith is defined as belief, confidence or trust in a person, object, religion, idea or view despite the absence of proof.
Belief is an opinion or judgement in which a person is fully persuaded.
No it is not! That is the new atheist definition of faith. It is not one that existed in Christian theology or any dictionary before the last couple of decades. If you just make up meanings of words then it is little wonder that atheists get so confused! Faith in Christ is not ‘despite the absence of proof’. It is being ‘fully persuaded’. On the other hand your belief in the innate goodness of human beings does really fit your definition of faith…confidence despite the absence of proof!
I just went with the Wikipedia definition of Faith. Admittedly this will have been informed by philosophy and science. And we could walk round Dundee and I would see far more examples of the goodness of humanity that you would of religion and God.
Oh dear Douglas…Wikipedia? Try a real dictionary. Wiki is not ‘informed by philosophy and science’ – it is by activists….No-one disputes that there is plenty evidence of the goodness of humanity (we are after all made in the image of God), but you seem to dispute that in every human being there is also evil. Why?
David – I think you’re being quite unreasonable here. Natalie Bennett was asked a direct question on the topic, and I have no idea how she could have given a more noncommittal answer than the one she gave. She just stated the facts: no current policy, members can propose new policy, so (clearly) the party is open to discussing it. What did you want her to say?
It was not non-committal. What I would have wanted her to say was that she was opposed to polygamy. Clearly she is not. As I have often said it is the next inevitable step…