![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Bizarreness
Very odd things going on at the moment. Perhaps it’s the full moon (certainly there were plenty of strange people on the streets yesterday). Last Saturday, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pentagramwearer posted this:
When I saw that (on Sunday or Monday, can’t remember which), I was shocked – and puzzled. As it’s written, this doesn’t entirely make sense, since there is no legal mechanism for gay people to be married in a religious service (or any other way, despite the loose way “civil partnerships” are described as “gay marriage” at times), so it’s not possible for a PF celebrant (or anyone else) to do that. If this were true, then the only explanation could be that Sandy’s licence had been withdrawn because she wanted to handfast a gay couple separately from the civil partnership ceremony – which seemed, frankly, incredible.
On the other hand, it was clear from comments onpentagramwearer’s journal that Sandy was very upset, and that comment that this was “not the kind of publicity we need” sounds far from incredible.
What on earth was going on?
On Monday night, we went to a moot which was actually fun, despite how grotty I was feeling at the time. After the main bit of the moot was done, and people were chatting and drinking in little groups, we had a conversation with a handful of friends, and as at least one of them knows people on the pagan scene that we don’t, we thought that one of them might know Sandy (we don’t) and what had been going on. They didn’t, and asked about the post. Their reaction was the same as ours: if this were true, it was shocking that a celebrant who wanted to handfast a gay couple should have her recognition withdrawn, but it was difficult to believe that the PF had behaved like this. Nothing for it but to wait and see; and we went on to talk of more interesting things.
On Tuesday, messages from PF Scotland started to circulate stating the legal facts about marriage and civil partnerships, and a response inpentagramwearer’s journal stated that “the statement on ... is completely untrue. Sandy’s license has in fact been renewed.” That was a relief, although it still begs the question why Sandy was reportedly so upset. Presumably one of her friends had misunderstood something.
All that’s fair enough so far, but then the PF Scotland responses started to deny that there had been confusion, but insisted that “this nonsense was put out deliberately to damage both the PF and myself personally” (according to Louise Park) and “this ‘original source’ told you a pack of lies ... They have been malicious” (according to John Macintyre) — which suggests a level of paranoia at the top of PF Scotland I’d never suspected.
The really bizarre thing, though, was on Wednesday, when another member of the Scottish Council posted on an egroup (which is neither connected to the PF or specifically to Scotland) a message which stated that “a certain couple” had been saying at “recent Glasgow moots” that PF celebrants have been “ordered to discriminate against same-sex marriages”, adding that this couple were “just stirring up trouble.”
Given that there had only been one moot sincepentagramwearer posted this, and only one conversation about celebrants, and only one couple involved in that conversation, this could really only have referred to us, although it was so far from an accurate depiction of the conversation that we wouldn’t have recognised it otherwise. But then, the person who posted that is one we have previously found to have a remarkable tendency to grab the wrong end of any given stick, and clearly whoever had told her (she wasn’t present, in fact doesn’t live in Glasgow) about the conversation had only heard part of it and drawn the wrong conclusions. Which happens, but...
Is it now, I wonder, the case that anyone who says anything about the PF that departs from the “What a wonderful job they’re doing” script (and they are, in some respects at least, doing a good job) is “stirring up trouble” or is that just down to one individual’s loopiness? If friends of a celebrant say she’s had her recognition withdrawn, there’s something wrong with discussing that with friends? Are we supposed to simply assume that everyone involved in the PF is A Good Person who can be trusted, and therefore any troubling rumours should simply be ignored? No wonder so many people roll their eyes whenever the PF is mentioned.
pentagramwearer posted this:[A]re the PF getting rather out of touch? I am asking because one of my friends (Sandy) is a celebrant, and was going to marry a gay couple on Dec 21st. However, the PF have refused to renew her license as her marrying a gay couple is, according to the PF, “not the kind of publicity we need”.
When I saw that (on Sunday or Monday, can’t remember which), I was shocked – and puzzled. As it’s written, this doesn’t entirely make sense, since there is no legal mechanism for gay people to be married in a religious service (or any other way, despite the loose way “civil partnerships” are described as “gay marriage” at times), so it’s not possible for a PF celebrant (or anyone else) to do that. If this were true, then the only explanation could be that Sandy’s licence had been withdrawn because she wanted to handfast a gay couple separately from the civil partnership ceremony – which seemed, frankly, incredible.
On the other hand, it was clear from comments on
pentagramwearer’s journal that Sandy was very upset, and that comment that this was “not the kind of publicity we need” sounds far from incredible.What on earth was going on?
On Monday night, we went to a moot which was actually fun, despite how grotty I was feeling at the time. After the main bit of the moot was done, and people were chatting and drinking in little groups, we had a conversation with a handful of friends, and as at least one of them knows people on the pagan scene that we don’t, we thought that one of them might know Sandy (we don’t) and what had been going on. They didn’t, and asked about the post. Their reaction was the same as ours: if this were true, it was shocking that a celebrant who wanted to handfast a gay couple should have her recognition withdrawn, but it was difficult to believe that the PF had behaved like this. Nothing for it but to wait and see; and we went on to talk of more interesting things.
On Tuesday, messages from PF Scotland started to circulate stating the legal facts about marriage and civil partnerships, and a response in
pentagramwearer’s journal stated that “the statement on ... is completely untrue. Sandy’s license has in fact been renewed.” That was a relief, although it still begs the question why Sandy was reportedly so upset. Presumably one of her friends had misunderstood something.All that’s fair enough so far, but then the PF Scotland responses started to deny that there had been confusion, but insisted that “this nonsense was put out deliberately to damage both the PF and myself personally” (according to Louise Park) and “this ‘original source’ told you a pack of lies ... They have been malicious” (according to John Macintyre) — which suggests a level of paranoia at the top of PF Scotland I’d never suspected.
The really bizarre thing, though, was on Wednesday, when another member of the Scottish Council posted on an egroup (which is neither connected to the PF or specifically to Scotland) a message which stated that “a certain couple” had been saying at “recent Glasgow moots” that PF celebrants have been “ordered to discriminate against same-sex marriages”, adding that this couple were “just stirring up trouble.”
Given that there had only been one moot since
pentagramwearer posted this, and only one conversation about celebrants, and only one couple involved in that conversation, this could really only have referred to us, although it was so far from an accurate depiction of the conversation that we wouldn’t have recognised it otherwise. But then, the person who posted that is one we have previously found to have a remarkable tendency to grab the wrong end of any given stick, and clearly whoever had told her (she wasn’t present, in fact doesn’t live in Glasgow) about the conversation had only heard part of it and drawn the wrong conclusions. Which happens, but...Is it now, I wonder, the case that anyone who says anything about the PF that departs from the “What a wonderful job they’re doing” script (and they are, in some respects at least, doing a good job) is “stirring up trouble” or is that just down to one individual’s loopiness? If friends of a celebrant say she’s had her recognition withdrawn, there’s something wrong with discussing that with friends? Are we supposed to simply assume that everyone involved in the PF is A Good Person who can be trusted, and therefore any troubling rumours should simply be ignored? No wonder so many people roll their eyes whenever the PF is mentioned.
no subject
Which is really quite sad.
no subject
You have a point, although to be fair the current PF president, Amergin Og, is trying to change things. That's why the PF (though not PF Scotland) has removed the Three Principles as conditions of membership.
no subject
How can the PF Scotland retain the three principles? Surely it can't actually be a part of the PF any more?
no subject
no subject
So I'll be able to join PF UK then, but not PF Scotland?
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's a pity that well-known non-control-seeking, information-sharing resource, Paganlink seems to have died the death....
no subject
As for Paganlink, I think that now simple information-sharing resources are probably not so necessary as they used to be because the Net provides so much information; it was different when most information was disseminated in cheaply produced magazines.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Who bloody died and made the PF an established church, anyway?