Scottish Catholic Observer

David Kerr

Catriona Clark has given her life to the cause of Scottish independence. An SNP member for over 40 years, she even met her husband Bill through the party. Catriona, though, is increasingly concerned.

“Myself and Bill are Christians and I really worry that any move by the Scottish Government on same-sex ‘marriage’ will alienate many people in the Christian community,” Catriona said.

She tells me that she is already hearing expressions of fear and worry at her weekly church prayer meeting in the Stirlingshire town of Kilsyth.

“Even if other parties are for it too, we’re the Government and we’d be the ones seen to be promoting it,” she said. “I’ll always be convinced of independence and will always remain an SNP member but I fear this issue could have damaging long term effects—and could really divide the party too.”

The Christian faith of Catriona and Bill is just one strand in the remarkable Caledonian coalition that is Scotland’s independence movement.

Sit randomly in any seat at an SNP conference and take a look along the row; the fiscally-conservative Muslim businessman, the socially-liberal trade unionist, the young evangelical Christian, the Catholic grandmother, the entire hall is as diverse as it is united around the cause of self-governance. ‘Freedom come all ye’ indeed.

It is a living national tartan made up of all the communities, colours and creeds of modern Scotland and it has been largely woven together by one man—Alex Salmond.

Born into a Kirk-going, upper working class family in Linlithgow, Mr Salmond is the personification of middle-Scotland. Combined with the character and confidence his upbringing seems to have instilled, he has developed an instinct for our national psyche that is almost preternatural. He can relate to all Scots and, in the main, they can relate to him.

It’s doubtful any other politician could have courted and co-opted so many key groupings within Scottish society into the national movement.

So could the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ dent or even derail that movement ahead of our first ever referendum on national sovereignty? The early evidence suggests it could.

In August, SNP parliamentarian John Mason put down a motion at Holyrood on the issue of same-sex ‘marriage.’ He didn’t condemn it. He didn’t even critique it. He merely requested that ‘no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.’

The torrent of, well, hate that was then showered upon him by numerous nationalists was deeply disturbing to many SNP members on all sides of the debate.

One nationalist MEP publicly denounced him as a ‘small, mean, angry… bigot’ whilst a Westminster colleague labelled his comments a ‘nasty little anti-gay marriage motion.’ And if you want to read more, much more, of a similar stripe then visit John Mason’s Facebook page as it quickly became the unofficial conduit for such anti-Christian cant.

So what is it about this debate that produces such a lack of light but an excess of heat? Possibly because it brings together two interest groups who each feel their fundamental civil liberties are being threatened and trampled on.

As lawyer Marc Stern of the American Jewish Committee recently observed, the conflict between religious liberty and same-sex ‘marriage’ is a ‘train wreck’ waiting to happen.

How can civility and rationality be re-introduced to this debate in the SNP and beyond? For one thing, those who support the re-definition of marriage should attempt to recognise that our existing laws—and those who uphold them—are not motivated by ‘homophobia.’

We Scots have never shaped our marriage laws on the basis of hate but always according to what is in the best interests of children and the common good of society.

Hence our Scots Law does not allow a brother and sister to marry. This is not because we hate said brother or sister as individuals but because such a union is not in the best interests of children or the common good.

Similarly, we now have several generations-worth of hard evidence which clearly re-affirms that children are most likely to flourish within a family based upon a mum and dad who are married to each other. Indeed, the married family is Scottish society’s first, best and cheapest department of health, welfare and education.

And while it is an ideal which is not always achievable it is still a concept held in high esteem by most Scots and in particular, say polls, by the young.

Not only would a same-sex ‘marriage’ law further undermine this norm to the detriment of children, it would also make it increasingly difficult to even promote it as an ideal.

Yes, priests may initially have an opt out from performing such ceremonies but what about the Catholic state school that wants to uphold the traditional Christian view of marriage?

How long before the Bible or Catechism is removed from the classroom for promoting ‘unlawful discrimination?’

It is time for the marriage re-definition lobby to display a degree of compassionate responsibility towards children and the common good. To wilfully deny any child a mum or dad is misguided at best and self-indulgent at worst.

As for Alex Salmond, he will now have to decide if he wants to expend his Government’s political capital on waging war against much of Scottish society—including the Catholic Church—in order to make us only the 11th nation in the world to re-define marriage.

I trust him to make the correct call.