BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 09:29 PM

There are at least two issues... maybe more, depending on how you make lists.

1)Should the 'government' have ANY say in the rights of ANY couple to have a legal marriage with all civil advantages.

2)What should the various churches do IF the government allows any combination of couples to marry?

It seems to me, as in my earlier post, that the government should NOT take a position. Thus, couples could legally marry, whether or not their chosen church agrees to 'sanctify' the union.

Of course, many would not 'feel' married properly unless they had religious approval, but that is gradually changing as the idea that only M/F unions are 'natural'. Science is proving more every year that sexual choice is largely determined by genes and DNA and hormones, etc.
   I consider myself fortunate that I do not have to fight the system and its religious background, but in my LONG experience now, I have known enough good people who did... and who simply and honestly could NOT live a heterosexual life.

I am sad & sorry that so many still feel they must apply a religious test to all of these important matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 08:09 PM

All churches aim to be faithful to biblical teaching. As I've heard it expressed, conservatives take the Biblec literally, and liberals take it seriously. Or, conservatives who accuse liberals of having a "pick 'n' mix" attitude to the Bible, only seem to have read the first few chapters of Genesis, selected chapters of Leviticus, the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, and the Book of Revelation.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:24 PM

Who gives a shit what the regulars think on accounta they don't think or perhaps cannot think or give two shits from Monday morning about anybody but themselves. But, I know what you mean... they will turn it into a never ending thread about why they think everybody else should accept their narrow ass intolerance... I'll stop now.

And leave as well. Although I do reserve the right to come back, of course. But, if I don't, to the regulars... get a life and a brain.

At the risk of offending mp and others with a touch of humour (for which I have been smacked before)... GO GAYS!

Hey, I made myself laugh so sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:21 PM

i suspect that what starts as voluntary participation of liberal churches in "marrying"homosexuals/lesbians will at length turn to persecution of churches that aim to be faithful to biblical teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:16 PM

As I see it there are three possible types of marriage (maybe more?) - for whomsoever. Civil marriage is useful for those who want the the legal perks therein. It is available in some places and yet to come in others.

Spiritual marriage is open for all, in a church which is willing to offer their support of whichever type persons are choosing this type of marriage or in no church at all. A church is not a building; it is the community of people who choose to "worship" in a certain manner. A simple exchanging of vows in private or the presence of, a community of, friends seems perfectly reasonable to me and I know people who have done this. Spirituality is not confined to a church or a religion, it is a personal choice.

Then, of course, there is the option, where it is legal, of a combination of both. A religious ceremony which is also legal in the jurisdiction in which it takes place. The last wedding I attended was presided over by both a rabbi and a minister. It was legal, religious, spiritual and celebrated with Contra dancing.

In 1959, it was a hard choice for my Quaker Meeting in Pennsylvania to support my marriage to an African American. Today it would be no problem. Sigh! Even Quakers are not always as reasonable as I might hope.

A Quaker View of Sex, published at least 30 years ago, gave gay relationships the thumbs up. Many Quakers did not and do not agree. In Canada, however, there have been a number of gay marriages in Quaker Meetings. And some day, the rest of the world will catch up. When people learn to be tolerant of each other person and realize that we can celebrate our differences rather than fight them.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:56 PM

Shal we start a pool on when "the regulars" will show up in this thread?
I am guessing Monday morning (~12 hours).

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:33 PM

I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it.

I cannot imagine how a homosexual couple could wish to stay in a bed-and-breakfast arrangement in the home of people who believed strongly enough that it was wrong that they would object to their choosing it. However people are strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 05:43 PM

Well, I guess I'm torn on the issue. I think it's high time for the federal and state governments in the U.S. to accept gay marriage. I can see no logical reason for a civil prohibition of gay marriage. If two people want to get married, why should anyone else be able to interfere.

As for churches blessing gay marriages, that's another matter. I think that a church wedding implies that the vast majority of members of that church, offers its blessing to the marriage - and I think that blessings have to be freely given, not coerced. Some churches are ready for that, notably the Unitarian and Unity churches and maybe Reform Jews; but I'm not so sure about the others. I can't imagine the Roman Catholic Church blessing gay marriage in the next couple hundred years, although some Catholic priests and many Catholic nuns privately approve of gay marriages (lay people seem to be far more conservative on this, as do bishops).

It's an interesting question, and it will be interesting to see how it works out.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 03:02 PM

pdq, this is a measure to curb government power - but it is a power that I wonder why it has in the first place. And why would a religious Muslim couple want to be married in a synagogue any more than a religious Jewish couple would want to be married in a Catholic cathedral?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

pdq... eloquent, elucidating, concise. And true.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: pdq
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:51 PM

If one's government has the power to force a Roman Catholic church to host a gay marriage, then they also have the power to force a synagogue to host a Muslim marriage.

The People need to curb government power, not expand it.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:10 PM

As I read the link from the OP, this is a proposal that the UK government eliminate the current prohibition on G & L couples being married in a church (even though the main-stream religious bodies ( C of E and RC) say "no way". IHMO, and acknowledging that nobody in the US has any business commenting on the issue - since our governments' (plural intended) position on this is a mess - what business does any governmental body have in telling any church what they can and cannot do...short of human sacrifice or snake handling?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:10 PM

DMcG ~~ I take your point indeed. Civil [register office] marriage is at present intended to cover that need ~ perhaps it is just a matter of what you call it. The confusion you rubricate is probably down to the fact that many misguided people will persist in the belief that those who have been together for a certain time have the rights of a so-called 'Common Law Marriage', while there is in fact no such status recognised in law ~~ as one lawyer put it not long ago, "You might as well call a nut-cutlet a Common Law Steak". But there are people who believe the folklore and just will not be persuaded different. It is their own obstinate fault if they have inheritance problems when they could have sorted out the whole matter over a brief period for about £70 and a quarter-hour spent in front of the registrar. Perhaps calling it a civil partnership instead might work with them; but I doubt if it would make much difference.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:50 PM

Hmmm... ahhh... isn't (at least part of) the problem that "government" won't recognize same sex marriage because the "government" is influenced by "religious" morals? Such influence is backwards and despicable to me. Of course, the government requiring religions to perform same sex marriages is also backwards and despicable to me. Live and let live eh?

Maybe I have misunderstood the hypotheses and the proposals altogether.

In any case, I do not have a dog in this fight as I am Canadian and we kicked religion out of this debate 5 or 6 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:48 PM

I doubt many would feels that Bill. Christian debates/objections will include whether or not homosexuality is a sin, whether or not a gay couple can be joined by God in Holy matrimony and whether or not a church would be following God by holding a same sex marriage.

Personally, while I have no objection civil partnerships - that is a state issue, I would not support a church that married same sex couples. It goes against my best understanding of the bible and my faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:47 PM

Well, Micheal, I am not sure it does in practical terms. There is a case before the courts, though, of a straight couple demanding the right to have a civil partnership.

However, the reason I said it is for a reason that has nothing to do with gay/straight issues. Many people who have been in long standing relationships - say 15+ years - don't realise that they have almost none of the legal rights and protections they would have if they had been married. For example if they have separate bank accounts and one dies the other has no inheritance rights to that account if no will has been made. Similarly pension rights and so forth. At the opposite end of the lifeline are young couples who want to marry but completely confuse marriage and weddings so put off getting married until they cann afford say £15k for the hoopla. So in the meantime they live with the risks I outlined above. The solution is to find a way for society as a whole to separate the legal agreement (which we could keep very low key) with the huge-party-stuff, which is really a totally separate thing. We could do that now, but socially we think of registry office weddings and church weddings as broadly equivalent. If we were able to keep civil partnerships as low key affairs, it might give us a shot at solving this problem, which is actually one that affects a lot of people,many of whom don't realise it until too late.

But do I hold out much hope? Almost none, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:31 PM

It is important to note that the OP was about UK changes. In the US, it is still a complex mess. Most states still have have prohibitions against gay marriage being 'legal', even IF one's church allows it.

I really do not see why anyone feels that allowing others freedom to marry anyone they wish in anyway diminishes their own status.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:23 PM

and even more in favour of allowing straight couples to have a civil partnership if they so wish. ····

DMcG ~~ how does/would this differ from the present civil register office wedding?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:18 PM

I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it.

I'd go as far as to say I can imagine a few deliberately seeking out such churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:17 PM

(.. NO registrar for example ...)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:13 PM

I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it.

Oh, I can. There are all sorts of folks, including those who would do that because it is an important point of principle. And I could imagine a protest group outside a church that refused gay weddings but allowed hetrosexual marriages. And wouldn't that make the straight couple's day? And what resentment might that trigger? As I say, handled badly this could be very divisive.

I imagine that if this or similar legislation occured some churches (such as RC) would adopt saulgoldie's approach - which is, I think, what happens in France - that the church weddings would drop all civil aspects for all weddings, so that there is registrar for example. This would be followed by a completely separate civil ceremony at the registry office

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:57 PM

As things stand, I heard this morning, as gay couples can only have civil services, it is illegal to have any religious component to the service, as it is for heterosexual couples in civil services. I cannot imagine that a homosexual couple would actually want to be married in a church that believed strongly enough that it was wrong that it would object to them choosing it. Churches have refused weddings to heterosexual couples where divorce had been involved, so there is a right to refuse.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 12:15 PM

My take would be that if the law was changed to allow a full marriage in church, and it be legally recognised as that, then the church would have to abide by the law

There's a blurring of language there that is crucial. The proposal is that churches that wish can ALLOW full marriages in their building. That's a totally different to the b&b case and how your sentence seems to read, that the law would be churches CANNOT REFUSE full marriages in their building. I'm only uncomfortable with the 'allow' version because I doubt if it is sustainable and will inevitable be changed in time to the 'cannot refuse' version. I think sailgoldie is absolutely right that there is a confusion between the religious and civil aspects, but also that secular society finds it difficult to accept the religious folks believe that there is more to their church building than a pretty location.

I doubt that many secularists would insist that a foolball stadium had to allow a cricket team to play on their pitch just because they wanted to: both sides have rights and sometimes the rights of the owners do take precidence of the rights of the potential users. The question is always how you balance the rights. My personal view view is that any site that wants to allow a wedding to take place should be allowed to, be that church, hotel, historic site or forest glen, but that every site should have the right to decline to hold such a service, be that church, hotel, etc, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:51 AM

My take would be that if the law was changed to allow a full marriage in church, and it be legally recognised as that, then the church would have to abide by the law. Just like in the case had the law allowed for that hotel owner to be able to choose legally they could have. As it was trhe law was and is quite specific on what happened. In the one instance the law was in place that makes it illegal to discriminate. It sounds as if this new proposal will have legal conditions allowing a choice to be made. As I said, the detail will be in the small print and I suppose we will have to wait for that.

Nonetheless it is a step forward in the right direction.

I hope the government do not now change their minds as they have on gay men being able to have past convictions for certain acts removed from their records. They have made that process quite difficult and, in the end, it does not mean the conviction is actually removed. It seems that discarded and deleted
mean the same thing to some but on paper it won't!

Hopefully it will all sort out in the end

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:49 AM

Something that seems to me to be almost totally lost in the most discussions of flavors of marriage as we currently accept it is that marriage is BOTH a religious contract AND a civil law contract. Any religion may choose to marry whomever it chooses within the confines of that religion. The problem comes in when CIVIL authorities assign LEGAL aspects to marriage.

If the jack-booted government thugs would remove themselves from the marriage loop, then people could marry as they choose within their own faiths, and form their own civil contracts including or excluding whatever paragraphs they choose, relating to all financial issues, parenthood, health care, and so on. It is the GOVERNMENT'S MEDDLING in marriage that is the problem. Once we separate the religious from the legal, the discussion takes an entirely different shape.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:24 AM

Peter Tatchell is reported as saying that no-one is insisting that churches, etc, be obliged to marry people in their church but I see no essential difference between that and the bed-and-breakfast case where the owners refused a room to a gay couple. So it seems likely that if this law goes through within relatively short time a gay couple will insist on being married in a church. I fear that could be a major socially divisive move that does great harm to both sides.

On the wider point I'm certainly in favour of allowing gays to marry and even more in favour of allowing straight couples to have a civil partnership if they so wish. (I'd also like to see weddings be the tens-of-thousands hoo-hah with all the intensive market pressures that they are now so that we could use civil partnerships being legally equivalent but without all the expectation of that excessive spending, but I don't see that happening somehow)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 11:10 AM

I am not sure it is gnu but maybe someone with a better grasp on religious doctrines will be able to answer better. Personally I look forward to the day when sexuality is non issue for every religion. I do believe the day is surely coming, and it may be a long way off in some places, but each journey starts with a single step and some major milestones have been being put in place on this aspect of human life in recent times. I doubt it will happen in my lifetimes but it is surely on it's way... I truly hope.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:53 AM

True, but there's a long way to go yet. Is it "acceptable" to Muslims? Hindu's? etc? (I really don't know. That's why I am asking.)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: saulgoldie
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:48 AM

Homophobia is a dinosaur on its way to extinction. It is not if, but when. Religious fanatics may choose to spin in their graves if they like. The rest of us will just sing and dance, and live.

Saul

Subject: BS: Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go
From: mauvepink
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:15 AM

Gay church 'marriages' set to get the go-ahead

About time too! This has to be a step further in the right direction. It appears that there is a lot of common sense being used too in the positive responces so far.

I think some churches, or at least some Ministers, have been giving blessings to people's unions for some time but this goes a long way further forward. I personally think it's a right step and nothing but good should come from it. As ever, the detail will be in the small print so let's see what happens. I, for one, completely welcome it.

It's not liberalism... it's fairness

Opinions?

mp