Scottish Catholic Observer

A leading QC has warned that Catholic schoolchildren could be forced to attend ‘gay history lessons’—and workers could be sacked for opposing unions between gays and lesbians—if Scottish Government proposals to redefine marriage laws to include same-sex couples are introduced.

The full impact the proposed legislation could have on society has been revealed by Aidan O’Neill QC of the Scotland for Marriage Group that is opposed to the Scottish Government’s proposed legislation change.

Mr O’Neill also revealed that ministers and priests face being sued for refusing to allow wedding ceremonies to take place in their churches and that couples will be rejected as foster parents if they oppose the new legislation.

Threat to schools, workplace

Reacting to the legal opinion of Mr O’Neill that parents will be ‘hard pressed’ to use human rights laws to prevent their children from attending lessons promoting same-sex ‘marriage,’ Cardinal Keith O’Brien, president of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, said that ‘it is clear that Scotland’s schools will be banned from promoting a traditional understanding of marriage if same-sex ‘marriage’ becomes law.’

“This means that the reassurances offered by the Scottish Government that schools and churches will be protected have been utterly hollow,” Cardinal O’Brien said. “I would urge the Scottish Government not to make promises they cannot fulfil or offer protection it is not in their power to provide.

“If they enact same-sex ‘marriage’ legislation there is no question that the work of Catholic schools and parishes will be impaired, undermined and damaged.”

Mr O’Neill, who specialises in European human rights and employment law, was asked to study the possible implications for freedom of conscience and the exercise of religious liberty should the Scottish Government remove the current ‘legal impediment to marriage where… both parties are of the same sex.’

“Once a state has legislated to allow for the possibility of marriage between two individuals regardless of their sex or gender, then the full panoply of non-discrimination law would apply to prevent any discrimination among the married on the basis that their spouse was same sex or opposite sex,” Mr O’Neill said. “Any difference in treatment between the same-sex ‘married’ and the opposite sex married could be caught both by a prohibition against discrimination on grounds of sex and on grounds of sexual orientation.”

No protection for Church

The Scottish Government has said its proposed legislation would contain clauses exempting clerics of all denominations and traditions from conducting same-sex ‘marriages’ against their will, however, the promise would be worthless if the redefinition of marriage becomes effective, the latest developments have revealed.

A spokesman for umbrella opposition group Scotland For Marriage, which commissioned the legal opinion, said: “This detailed legal analysis shows same-sex ‘marriage’ is not about allowing same sex couples to walk up the aisle as politicians and campaigners have wrongly claimed, it is about redefining society.

“Sadly, not one of the MSPs who signed up for same-sex ‘marriage’ was in possession of the legal facts, they have supported a law which would outlaw religion and belief in many walks of life and actively discriminate against their constituents. They should be ashamed of their actions and they should think again.”

English consultation

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has issued a response this week to the UK Government’s consultation on same-sex ‘marriage.’

In an accompanying letter to the Home Secretary, Theresa May, Archbishop Peter Smith, vice-president of the Bishops’ Conference, said: “In the interests of upholding the uniqueness of marriage as a civil institution for the common good of society, we strongly urge the Government not to proceed with legislative proposals which will ‘enable all couples, regardless of their gender to have a civil marriage ceremony.’”

The Church of England this week said the redefinition of marriage would ‘alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.’

—[email protected]