Should the church have a say in gay marriage? I am undecided on this and would be interested in people views
Gay marriage: Bishop of Bath and Wells calls for debate
The bishop called for "constructive" discussions
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
The Bishop of Bath and Wells has called for more time to reflect on government proposals to allow gay marriages.
Bishop Peter Price said the church needed to recognise there are many Christians who accept the reality and validity of homosexual relationships.
He said: "There are both heterosexual and homosexual couples who deeply believe God has brought them together and want that union blessed.
The government wants to introduce gay marriage by 2015
The government wants to introduce same sex civil marriage.
The church needs to remember the difference between theocracy and democracy.
I'm all for gay marriage: civil and religious.
The only people 'The Church' - which is an incredibly self-agrandising name for one limited section of one (not the largest) religion - can dictate to, is members of that same subsection of a religion. The members of that organisation should have no more say in UK civil law than any other individual human being.
They should never be able to force any of those religious choices into laws that affect any other people. OK some laws are universal (not killing people for instance) but laws based on one single religion's internal rules are utterly unacceptable. And the fact that people are even discussing it as a possibility just shows how dangerous and pervasive these beliefs can be. If your skyfairy tells you to jump off the cliff - why should I be forced by law to follow you down?
The Church has no say in this. Not the Catholic Church, not the C of E, not Jews or Muslims, not any one other of the religious institutions recognised in this country, because marriage is not ordained by God. Partly cos God doesn't exist, no matter what you imagine He / She / It to be, so has no say whatsoever in the laws of a secular democracy, but mainly because marriage is not a religious institution in the first place.
Marriage is licensed and supervised by The State, not The Church, because The State knows full well that there are huge social and economic advantages in doing so . . . so it reciprocates, and confers advantages on those who opt into it. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a social contract that in all probability pre-dates any single one of the organised religious institutions out there. It's a two-way street between citizen and state that's designed to be mutually advantageous.
If The State recognises the social good of marriage enough to confer those advantages on some, The State, being an equal opportunity, impartial arbiter who's role according to the libertarian definition is to moderate competing interests in a democracy, has to confer those advantages on ALL those who opt for marriage, otherwise they are creating an inequality, which is something they cannot forever tolerate because equality under the law is meant to be guaranteed, if not by what passes for a Constitution in this country but by Treaties we have signed.
of course the church should have a say in this. anyone who gets married in a church is doing so in " gods house ",and the catholic church and other christian religions are against gay marriages. if they deem that is against the very fundamentals of there faith, why should anyone force it upon them? that is what will happen though. the law will be changed so it will be an offence to deny a gay couple the right to marry in church. what a whole load of hypocrits some are.
gay couples have civil partnerships, the same rights as a married couple yet peeple still push for more. the marriage vows are clear " the joining of a man and a woman ". not to men or to women. some have said that if peeple love one another it should not matter what sex they are. if that is the case and gay marriage is then made legal, how long will it be before someone from stonewall demands that as three men are living together, and love each other, then why cant three peeple now get married to each other? silly? yes indeed but no more silly than 20 yeers ago peeple saying that civil marriages would be allowed, or that even the thought of gay marriages being possible.
debate is on in this matter and for me i beleeve that marriage should be between one man and one woman. anything else i find distasteful and offensive. nothing to do reely with the church but my views on a single thing that i hold very dear. the sanctity of marriage. the thought of a church who base there thoughts and faiths against gay marriage possibly being forced by law to allow it, i find typical now of this country.
labours 2007 equalities bill will see this bill passed through parliemant and the very soul of what christianity stands for will be another thing that is put to dust.
if the government change the law to allow gays to marry but make sure that churches are allowed to opt out, many would be in agreement with this as there are many places now where peeple can marry. the need to marry in a church is not an essential part of marriage. i would possibly be ok with this if churches were allowed to not partake in these marriages. somehow though i think that many who are screaming for this, will never rest until the churches fold and give in. i beleeve that to be a wrong approach.
I think it is more fundamental than star eludes to.
In the UK, the Church and State are not separate, as indeed they are in so many other places such as (dare I say it) France since 1905 (Laïcité), a particular product of French history and philosophy, which was formalized in the law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power.
In France, you want to get married. You do so at a civil ceremony first and then have the union 'blessed' at whatever 'church' you wish - or not if that is your preference but the underlying principle is unassailable; it is the State which grants the licence under the law and religion has nothing to do with it. France is very much a mix of different faiths underpinned by Catholicism as its primary religion but forcing a Catholic Priest at your local Église to conduct a service blessing between two men or two women is not going to get you very far.
In the UK, the Queen is the head of the Church as well as, if not only constitutionally, Head of State and Parliament thus sits in Her name.
If the gay rights people want to turn this around, there would have to be a revolution deposing the Sovereign - and that is about as likely as Tony Blair winning the Grand National with Lord Mandelson strapped to his back with his dick up his arse!
Entertaining though it might be...
No Star. I don't think anyone's suggesting Churches should be forced to marry a same sex couple. Churches have their own requirements for people wanting the religious ceremony, the Catholic Church refusing marriage to divorcees or some orthodox Rabbis refusing to marry Jew to gentile for instance and they're quite within their rights to do that. We're talking marriage as a civil contract conferring a certain legal status and certain rights and responsibilities on those who enter into it, not marriage as a religious ceremony. The two things are completely distinct, a religious ceremony being nothing but a ceremony prior to the registration of the civil contract at which point your actual marriage takes place.
Section 202 of the Equality Act already makes provision for civil partnerships on religious premises and is clear that that's opt-in, entirely voluntary, no compulsion on religious institutions whatsoever to offer registration of civil partnerships. That permissive aspect will probably be retained in any legislation making same-sex marriages legal. It's possible there could be a legal challenge to that at some point, and possible a European directive will trump UK law, but a similar legal challenge could I think be made to the existing legislation on civil partnership registration on religious premises but as yet noone seems to think there's an issue there, and no suggestion that any institutions so far have been compelled to offer civil partnerships against their own wishes.
I wouldn't worry about it. If it's like heterosexual marriage they'll all be divorced within 10 years anyway.
As an aside I sometimes wonder what century we are living in.
I have to say I am confused by this one and find it difficult to have a clear cut view. :sad:
Foxy and Nielinleeds are quite right in much of what they say, yet so is Star. If/when it becomes law the church will not be able to refuse gay couples the right to marriage in there churches and this also can not be right.
Northwest,
21st century, or modern thinking does not automatically equate to be correct or for the best.
Civil marriage is a civil matter.
Th last time a Monarch wished to over-rule the Church, it ended in many be-headings and the established Church lost.
I somehow can't see the present Sovereign following the same route.
But she is deeply religious, extremely knowledgeable on these matters and is not afraid of standing her ground with the General Synod of which the majority probably agree with her anyway.
There are some things that the Government of the day can change but removing the Sovereign is not one of them. Telling the Church of England that they must allow same sex marriages within their walls is not one either.
I think 'Stonewall' is an appropriate name; that is what they will meet if they try to impose their will against the weight and might of the English secular machine.
Far better that they set up their own Church with their own pastors and offer 'cheapies' on the side with defrocked priests.
i am ok bluefish with gay civil partnerships. i am not ok with gay marriage. i am very much against what i know will be forced on peeple to accept something that goes completely against there faith. whatever anyone says on here the church will be forced to comnply with ether human rights laws or labours fantastic equality law.
gays have civil marriages that are legal in the eyes of the law. they have the same rights in that civil marriage as a hetrosexual couple do. can anyone therefor explain why gays want the same marriage rights on top of that? i am sorry gay marriage is certainly not the norm but even on here i see peeple with 22nd century values. to say you do not agree with gay marriage then gets you being of a 19th century mind set.
stonewall and there like will never be satisfied until there rights weigh more than a normal marriage. i am waiting for the first person on here to accuse someone they are homophobic, simply because they do not agree with a gay marriage. :dry:
He slammed the 'ignorance and dim-witted prejudice' of those against people wearing a cross around their neck :thumbup:
:thumbup::thumbup:
Blue given that 26 Bishops sit in the house of Lords they do have a say in this whether we like it or not .... I don't
come on mr staggers throw some figures at us all, as to your interpretation of a "small minority" please. 