as i lay in bed last night, drifting off to the land of nod i listened to 'today in parliament' on radio 4, and a discussion about the new 'civil partnership' bill that is going through the house of commons currently. an amendment had been suggested to open it up to brothers and sisters who live together (by a conservative christian lobby group), because it has implications on inheritance and pension rights.

what set me thinking was the differences for brothers and sister and gay couples (i know there are the obvious ones). the main one that i could think of (at that time of night) is the next of kin thing. brothers and sisters have the automatic right to be next of kin, they are family, gay couples don't have that. the particular kind of situation that i thought of was in hospital type situations, when life or death decisions are being made, (or for organ donation), who should get to make the choices: the person's partner of many years or their family? (in the soap opera version the family would have disowned the person many years previously and want a completely different choice from the partner) this bill will give the civil partner these rights legally. the thought that carried me off to sleep was that wherever you stand on homosexuality in this very broad family we call Church, surely this is an injustice that needs righting? even if you believe homosexuality to be the utmost abomination (as some do) isn't allowing the love of someone's life to take part in the decision of how it is ended part of mercy?

i know that this is not all the bill is about; it has incrediably wide ranging implications, but things like this always raise questions for me about 'setting the oppressed free' and whether the Church is an oppressor. surely it is possible to disagree with someone's views/behaviour without actively oppressing that person?

~disclaimer~ the above is not a reflection of my views necessarily, purely a late night ponderance! ;)

|