jezsmith
quakercentre
kevinmredpath
gerrymillar
vernon39
johndrewery
stagbeetle63
kmredpath
It seems as though all the so-called quality newspapers have reported our decision in an even-handed way. I’ve read the online reports in the Guardian, the Telegraph (which simply records yesterday’s item from the BBC News website), the Times and the Independent. The Independent gets extra marks for including comment by Peter Tatchell, who is quoted as saying, “The Quakers’ decision to open up marriage to same-sex couples, on exactly the same basis as heterosexual couples, is an honourable, courageous, trail-blazing decision.
“It exposes the homophobia of other faiths that refuse to recognise love and commitment between couples of the same sex, and it specifically exposes their denial of religious marriage to same-sex couples.”
A quick Google search shows that dozens of local newspapers around the country have also reported on the issue, including the Evening Standard in London. I can’t find any reports in the online editions of the Sun or the Daily Mail.
On Twitter, I sent out the fact that Quakers had reached this decision, and got back 8 warm messages of support from friends on there, most of them young gay men with no religious beliefs. One friend followed up with the following: “I am incredibly proud to count Quakers as friends; they follow their faith so consistently, in such a dignified way, as in history.” Another friend said, “You lovely lovely people. I’ve always said Quakers are the best of all the Xtians.”
I feel very affirmed by this, and of course it’s a lot more personal than the reports in the newspapers.
Filed under: Uncategorized Tagged: | Friends, media, News, responses, same-sex marriage, ymg09
Gerry, I’ve done the same. Sorry to disappoint but most of the broadsheets and local media are just regurgitating the Press Association story, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gPAeJkEIYVUdUo9npnXkRGKP-UZA
Let’s not get away from the fact that it is a groundbreaking story but sadly any original analysis will come from comment pieces, the religious as well as the gay/lesbian press and fellow bloggers.
Gerry, I did the same. Sorry to disappoint but the Tatchell comments come from the Press Association release which seems to have been copied wholesale by many news media, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gPAeJkEIYVUdUo9npnXkRGKP-UZA
It was a landmark decision, which we rightly got media coverage for, but any real analysis is going to come from op-ed pieces/commentaries, the religious, gay/lesbian press and fellow bloggers.
Am a Quaker from Kenya. Did the decision take into consideration views of kenya Quakers or Africa Quakers for that matter?
Did this decision take into account the peculiarities of African beliefs/traditions etc? Were Africa/Kenya/Kaimosi or Tuloi congegations enjoined in this decision?
Bernard, this is a decision taken by Britain Yearly Meeting and as such meetings within its jurisdiction were consulted on the issue in the months leading up to the gathering in York. Minute 25 clearly states that this has been an ongoing process since the issue was first raised at Meeting for Sufferings, the executive body, some 22 years previously. BYM does not seek to speak for Friends outside England, Scotland, and Wales although it is aware that its decisions may affect its relations with other Yearly Meetings within FWCC positively or negatively. BYM is not the first Yearly Meeting to take such a step; Australia was some years ahead of it.
I think the Indy loses 4 points for using the V word.
I need some tutorials on The Religious Society of Friends – Quakers in particular if there is any formal hierachy.
Bernard, there is no formal hierarchy in the Religious Society of Friends in Britain. There are people who hold particular posts within the Society, but all of these are temporary roles which will get laid down after a year, or 3 years, or 6 years, depending on the role. There are paid workers at Friends House in London, but they don’t get to make decisions on behalf of British Quakers.
I can’t speak for all British Quakers, so the following are my own thoughts: Concerning the impact of the decision about same-sex marriage on other Quakers throughout the world, I’m sure most of us were conscious that some other yearly meetings would be unhappy about it. One Friend said in our assembly that he would be travelling in Kenya in a few months’ time, and he asked us to hold him in our prayers. I am aware that at least two of the Kenyan Yearly Meetings have in recent years commented in a forceful manner about same-sex relationships, in their Epistles. These Epistles have certainly been upsetting and hurtful for British Quakers to read. I’m sure that Kenyan Quakers were doing what they believed to be the will of God. My conviction is that over the past week, British Quakers have been doing what we believe to be the will of God.
Today I was back in worship at my own Meeting House in central London. One piece of ministry that was offered this morning may be pertinent here. This Friend said that one of the most challenging things we have to do as Quakers and as Christians is to love those amongst us with whom we disagree. Maybe this is our task now, Bernard.
This really gets to the heart of the problem over discernment in a Quaker Meeting for Business Affairs. Presumably it is an axiom that there is only one god. So if in Meeting, Friends are seeking the will of God and, after much prayer and centring, believe they have found it, how can different Yearly Meetings arrive at totally different conclusions as have East African and Britain Yearly Meetings in the matter of gay relationships?
JHH, I don’t have a direct answer to your question. I think that Rosemary Hartill in yesterday’s Guardian described the Quaker business method better than I, here.
The fact is that we can only do our best, as human beings, to follow where the spirit leads. I think it’s pretty unlikely that George Fox, one of the founders of Quakerism, would have countenanced this decision by British Quakers last Friday. But understandings change over time and space. What might be right for British Friends may not currently be right for Kenyan Friends. I know where my heart leads me, however.
Presumably Quakers are a liberal democratic ‘organisation’ where concensus is, by ballot/influence rather than as a Holy spirit descending from God to them in prayer as his ‘Will’ but not for all to speak in tongues(The Pentecostal)/different languages hence varied views/interpretations and decisions as to what really is THE WILL OF GOD?
Thank you very much Gerry for pointing me in the direction of that article. I think that it correctly describes a Quaker business meeting without the errors which can occur; for instance, see http://philica.com/printer_article.php?article_id=14 for “Participation in Unanimous Decision-Making: The New England Monthly Meeting of Friends” where Ethan Mitchell states that the decisions by Friends are made “by consensus”. However, as consensus would allow for different Meetings arriving at different decisions on the same topic, true discernment of the will of God would seem to me to negate that, and there the hold remains in my mind.
As an atheist who opposes religion insofar as it relies on irrational habits of belief formation, justification, and indoctrination, I would still rather see religions interpret themselves in the most humane and ethically defensible way possible. And, so I for one was proud of you Quakers yesterday (and featured the story on my blog).
In case you’re interested, here’s my articulation of the case for gay marriage from what I take to be the implications of the belief in a good God (for those, who have such a belief, even though I do not): http://camelswithhammers.com/2009/07/09/gays-and-christianity-3-if-god-exists-and-is-good-he-cannot-oppose-gay-love/
Hi, my name is Richard Wright, and I am a 29 year old gay man from Liverpool. I would not class myself as particularly religious, but I visited your website to congratulate your decision to support and to fight for same sex marriage in Britain. You have truly taken a leader’s step and I hope other faiths will now follow in your footsteps. You are carrying the torch for human rights and I congratulate you. Best wishes from Liverpool XxX
Quakers are quite a tolerant religious group when compared to Anglicans and Catholics just to mention a few. In my part of the world, just to pick an example, funerals for Friends would be conducted by the ‘Church’ elders BUT after the ‘ christian’ rites other traditional rites would be conducted after the burial by clan elders. Some of these rites border on ‘voodooism’. It is as if Quakers do tolerate/condone such practises. Dont know whether similar situations exist in South America or Australia where Quakers have congregations. The Question is what inluenced the emergence and evolution of religions, customs and practices and whether all had a similar origin and may have one end/convergence?