Thread: Disestablishment Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023148
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Maybe the CofE is really indicating that it wants to be disestablished. Would non-Anglicans really care? Perhaps the purpose of equality would best be served not only by having same-sex marriage, but by not having an established church.
It could be a win-win situation for quite a lot of people.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
No. There's a lot of posturing at the moment by C of E bishops but there is no desire on either side for disestablishment. The C of E bishops, on the whole, don't want to lose their status and parliament really doesn't want to spend years getting bogged down in the minutiae of passing the necessary legislation to enact disestablishment. Look at how parliament (other than hardline Lib Dems) doesn't really want to reform the House of Lords - which is a piece of piss compared to disestablishment.
I think that what we are seeing here in the issue of SSM is the C of E adopting the tactics employed AGAINST it by those vigorously opposed to women bishops - utter threats of catastrophe in the hope that this will elicit further concessions. It is not a pretty sight.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
NO! This is where I despair of the bishops. They pontificate as if they and they alone speak for the C of E. Well, they don't. There are plenty of people (lay and ordained) who do not agree with their vaguely homophobic pronouncements. As WATCH have just forcefully pointed out (in regards to the matter of women bishops), the house of bishops have developed a remarkable ability to ignore what they do not want to hear.
I don't think it will come to a split, though. Although, in my mischievous days, I harbour the insane vision that a significant portion of the C of E may rise up, rebel and ask for alternative episcopal oversight from TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada. Now that WOULD be interesting...
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
It looks like the CofE (or a part of it) is in a Violet Elizabeth Bott state of mind.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
The established church has a privileged position in England with regard to marriage (albeit one which has considerably less impact than in the past), so it will be interesting to see whether anyone challenges the right of the Church to fulfill only part of a legal function (if it refuses to conduct Gay Marriage).
The government lawyer I heard earlier was suggesting that it wouldn't and that it and the European courts take faith professions seriously. I'm no lawyer, but it strikes me that the established church is in a different position than any other faith group in that respect.
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on
:
Disestablishment is not going to happen while QEII is on the throne. It also follows on from the completion of House of Lords reform. It won't be about dead horse issues. I'd guess 15-20 years.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
It's a natural progression of sorts from questions not so long ago as to whether Britain needed a monarchy. Back then you all had a big party - for a reason I forget - (looked like a monied traveller wedding complete with gold coach) and lots of people waved umbrellas and cheered outside Buckingham Palace and there was a bit of glitter and everyone thought, 'O God no, we really need this family in a big house at tax payers expense - it's who we are.'
In the same way, even though the church costs the average tax payer nothing, the question arises if you do need an established church and I suspect the answer eventually will be the same with a new twist; 'It's who we are - and heck, we don't even have to pay for it.'
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Establishment is an embarrassment. Can you imagine Saints Peter and Paul coolly donning their togas to take their seats in the Roman senate?
But to disestablish over this particular issue may be a bigger embarrassment still.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Establishment is an embarrassment. Can you imagine Saints Peter and Paul coolly donning their togas to take their seats in the Roman senate?
Paul yes. His epistle to the Romans would become an oration to them. I can't imagine Peter doing it though.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe the CofE is really indicating that it wants to be disestablished. Would non-Anglicans really care?
Yes actually, there are many of us who do care.
Christianity has been an integral part of the governance of this country for centuries and just because many of us belong to nonconformist or catholic churches, doesn't mean that we want the entire edifice of the state to be fragmented and for the CofE to become just another Christian sect.
It seems to me that the CofE actually speaks for us all - Angicans and nonconformists alike. We value an official voice and influence that we can say 'Amen' to; and it was said over the Jubilee weekend that in actual fact the presence of Christianity in the government of the country makes it easier for people of other faiths to practice their own religion in peace and tolerance.
We don't want the Anglican church to become just another denomination.
We want the voice of the Church in Parliament.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
The problem is that as a Christian, the bishops don't speak for me. As far as I can see, they rarely speak for their own church, never mind anyone else's.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
According to Stonewall (in this link):
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
Ha! Well they never asked me. The Salvation Army as a denomination has said it doesn't support gay marriage.
And I bet these 'people of faith' didn't include the Muslims who would be even more vocal against homosexual marriage than many Christians.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
Much as we should all devoutly wish and pray for disestablishment, the CofE has disagreed with the government on all sorts of things in the past, and none of them has ever led to disestablishment yet.
When it does come it will come because the CofE wants to escape from government, not because government is fed up with the CofE. Because they couldn't care less on the whole.
quote:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
The bit that has bishoips in the House of Lords.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Biggest threat to the Church in 500 years?
Blimey, I suppose that is what Thomas More felt when King Henry VIII issued the Act of Supremacy, separating the CofE from Rome.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
<disclaimer: I am not Anglican>
Listening to Radio 4 this morning, I became more convinced than ever that disestablishment would be a very good thing indeed for the Church of England. I just can't buy the nonsense they've been spouting about how it would be the end of the world for religious and civil marriage to be separated. I live in a country where they are separated in exactly this way, and it's a perfectly good arrangement. I would rather see the church stop being the servant of the State and get on with being the church.
I get the impression that (certain members of) the House of Bishops are labouring under the quaint illusion that they are the tail that wags the dog. They're wrong. The dog *always* wags the tail.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
Um, no. The ruling for the CofE is that a church can choose to marry divorcés, a lot of churches choose not to. The rule is that they are not allowed to marry couples who were involved in the breakdown of the previous marriage
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
Um, no. The ruling for the CofE is that a church can choose to marry divorcés, a lot of churches choose not to. The rule is that they are not allowed to marry couples who were involved in the breakdown of the previous marriage
Indeed, and neither is there a law that says the church MUST marry divorcees.
There is a difference between saying the church MAY marry them if conscience allows and the church MUST marry them because the law says they have to.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
The cynic in me thinks that the state and the population at large do very well out of establishment. The C of E preserves thousands of historic churches and cathedrals which the state would otherwise be lumbered with, while a largely secular post-Christian population get access to eye-candy venues and charming rituals for hatches, matches and dispatches without the inconvenience of actually believing anything. Bar a few militant atheists the only people I know who seem arsed about disestablishment are Christians ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear La Vie En Rouge
<disclaimer: neither am I>
I agree with your analysis. The only equitable way forward is for ALL couples to be married in a civil ceremony first and then those who want to can go to the church, synagogue, mosque or temple for divine union and blessing or whatever other description might be appropriate.
There are two problems here though for the CofE. Notwithstanding the Coalition Governments assurances there are bound to be legal challenges eventually in respect of same sex couples, perhaps also bold Anglican clergy who will want to try and use the Equality legislation to extend SSM beyond Civil ceremonies. As soon as that hole in the wall is breached it's game over (in the CofE at least) for those who will not countenance Anglican celebrations of SSM. (Maybe Quakers will push through first). Under my proposal Anglican clergy would stop functioning as Registrars but that would not mean disestablishment anymore than not having Anglican bishops in the House of Lord would mean disestablishment PROVIDED THAT the second issue (below) was addressed.
The second problem has to do with a Protestant theology of marriage. This holds that it is a creation ordinance and not something that the Church can reserve to itself. Of course Anglican clergy prefer couples to have a church marriage ... but they cannot under their own teaching disadvantage those who do not. There is already a dissonance between Anglican canon law and statute in that at least one party to the marriage should be baptised. As far as the State is concerned two non-baptised Buddhists have the right to marry in the Church of England because neither the State nor the Anglican Church accept any difference between what happens in the Town Hall and what happens in the Church. The proposed legislation as it stands is a unilateral move away from that is the CofE holds her ground. If however the CofE were to change her teaching and say that a marriage isn't a marriage until it is blessed in church then the pressure to disestablish from its own practice (not blessing SSM's) would evapourate.
[ 12. June 2012, 14:30: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Well, the CofE won't conduct services of marriage for divorcees, so I think the rejection (if that's what it is) of SSM is no shocker.
K.
Um, no. The ruling for the CofE is that a church can choose to marry divorcés, a lot of churches choose not to. The rule is that they are not allowed to marry couples who were involved in the breakdown of the previous marriage
Really? I thought that was the whole reason the Church of England existed in the first place.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Really? I thought that was the whole reason the Church of England existed in the first place.
[History pedant hat on] IIRC (and its ages since I studied the English Reformation) Henry VIII argued that his marriage to Catherine was actually invalid in the first place on grounds of consanguinity, so that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was actually his first legitimate one.
His marriage to Anne of Cleves was annulled on the grounds of non-consumation, and his other marriages were entered into as a widower.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Hehehe you have to love the idea that if fat Henry had asked for a marriage after divorcing his wife the church he created wouldn't have allowed it.. but being a widower on account of beheading his wife was no problem.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
It is also - before anyone pleads this - quite different from Welsh disestablishment. That was the repudiation of a particular ecclesial community which did not command the loyalty of most Welsh Christians at the time, but was not a repudiation of the Christian faith. Disestablishment in a modern context would be bound to be.
It's a pity that it's sex (yet again) that has prompted debate on something that is a lot more important than where people put their grubby genitalia, and has little to do with that question. Nevertheless
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory
perhaps also bold Anglican clergy who will want to try and use the Equality legislation to extend SSM beyond Civil ceremonies. As soon as that hole in the wall is breached it's game over (in the CofE at least) for those who will not countenance Anglican celebrations of SSM.
If the UK went over to having separate civil and church marriages, which does not automatically follow from disestablishment, this would be even more likely. Blessing an existing marriage is something that takes place outside law and that would then apply to all church marriages. Given the state of clerical discipline in some parts of the CofE and the pride some clergy seem to take in disobedience, then even assuming the present rules continued, some would be bound to make a point of breaking them.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Hehehe you have to love the idea that if fat Henry had asked for a marriage after divorcing his wife the church he created wouldn't have allowed it.. but being a widower on account of beheading his wife was no problem.
Yes, although the important things is that on HVIII's terms, which of course were the terms on which Anglicanism was founded, he was never actually divorced.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
My point Enoch is that the establishment of the CofE can only be saved - assuming that SSM does indeed remain a point of irreconcilable difference - on the basis that both parties accept a distinction between civil and Christian marriage ... which would be de facto the case anyway for most Christian communities on approval of SSM legislation. I am not sure if a State can become apostate, except perhaps if it constitutionally repudiates Christianity.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
The cynic in me thinks that the state and the population at large do very well out of establishment. The C of E preserves thousands of historic churches and cathedrals which the state would otherwise be lumbered with, while a largely secular post-Christian population get access to eye-candy venues and charming rituals for hatches, matches and dispatches without the inconvenience of actually believing anything. Bar a few militant atheists the only people I know who seem arsed about disestablishment are Christians
100% true.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
. If however the CofE were to change her teaching and say that a marriage isn't a marriage until it is blessed in church then the pressure to disestablish from its own practice (not blessing SSM's) would evapourate.
Really? I don't see that at all. What difference would it make?
Whatever Establishment is its not a system that requires the CofE and the government to agree with each other on anything much. So disagreement between the two puts not pressure on the government to disestablish.
Anyway, the other way round is more likely. The CofE ismore or less certain to be disestablished sometime, probably not that far in the future, but I doubt if it will decide that only church weddings count.
For at least five reasons:
1) most people in the CofE actually believe that weddings outside church are valid. In fact I suspect that many of them believe that couples can marry each other and don't really need any external ceremony even though its nice if they have one. At any rate they would not want to unmarry half their family, friends, and neighbours.
2) Lots of communicant members of CofE churches were not married in church. At least some of them are ordained clergy. It would be an awful lot of hassle telling them to have another wedding. And would probably piss a lot of people off.
3) The general trend in the CofE, of at least a century oif not more like one and a half, has been away from making self-aggrandising legalistic claims about its own importance in society (Only a trend - there is still a lot of it about - just imagine how insufferable some High Churchmen must have been in pre-Victorian times). Rejecting non-Church weddings would seem like a step backwards.
4) It sounds awfully like defining marriage as a sacrament. And that's one of the many arguments that the Church of England has to tolerate both sides of in order to carry on. (The list includes the tactile Apostolic Succession, the exact nature of the Real Presence, the supreme authority of Scripture, whether or not Christians should be pacifists, marrying divorced persons, and of course the ordination of women - and it looks as if gay marriage will be added to that list soon - as it de facto already has in many churches)
5) The bible-bashing evangelicals will come up with a list of Old Testament characters from Eve to Esther who were married by neither Christian nor Jewish rites, and ask you if you think they were not really married. That will be a rhetorical qestion of course.
[ 12. June 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Of course Ken ..... all that you say is true in the sense that the CofE upholds by teaching and practice the Protestant understanding of marriage. Moreover I know that this isn't going to change anytime soon. I wasn't even commending a sacramental approach ... I was simply saying that a distinction between civil and religious marriage ... if only a legal distinction might be one less loose brick in the dodgy wall of establishment if (and only if) the CofE holds the line on SSM. This isn't about triumphalism or grand standing ... it's about the application of the law. THAT is not a small matter ... for anyone.
[ 12. June 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Notwithstanding the Coalition Governments assurances there are bound to be legal challenges eventually in respect of same sex couples, perhaps also bold Anglican clergy who will want to try and use the Equality legislation to extend SSM beyond Civil ceremonies. As soon as that hole in the wall is breached it's game over (in the CofE at least) for those who will not countenance Anglican celebrations of SSM.
(Good to see you posting here again, Father)
I don't think it would be game over. I imagine some priests and potential priests would choose to leave, or not seek ordination, if they thought their parish church would have to marry same sex couples, but as there are plenty of priests who would happily marry gays, it seems to me much more likely that some rota system will get set up in each diocese so that a willing officiant can be found to supply local pastoral needs*. A traditionalist incumbant may have to glower and sulk in the vestry while some upstart curate from the next parish waves his hands over a troublesome couple who insist on promising eternal love and commitment to one another in ‘his' church, but that really is the worst that any priest is ever going to have to put up with. Hardly ‘game over'.
It doesn't need to be anything like the issue that ordaining women was (is). In that case, the issue, for some, was that the whole priestly ministry was compromised. Here, the most that can be said is that some priests will be going about blessing solemn commitments that some other priests think ought not to be blessed. And, as this is the Church of England, and we disagree on practically everything, SFW?
(*Which will not be onerous. There are about 8,000 formalised gay relationships a year, I think. Say a quarter of those will become CofE marriages. 90% of those will look for gay-affirming priests - using the most special day of your life as an opportunity to piss off the conservative local vicar is likely to be a minority taste - so essentially "forcing" the CofE to conduct gay marriage means, in effect, forcing the CofE throughout the whole of England to stump up for 200 return bus fares a year. We could live with that.)
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Yeveran:
quote:
.....which of course were the terms on which Anglicanism was founded......
Really? That seems a tad over-simplistic considering that there must surely have been other people involved and not just Henry. After all I think someone else did compile the Prayer Book, and none of this happened in grand isolation either - we aren't talking Japan here. Britain was somewhat influenced by other goings on in Europe I suspect.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Its a tangent...I'm summarising fairly spectacularly...
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
Ha! Well they never asked me. The Salvation Army as a denomination has said it doesn't support gay marriage.
And I bet these 'people of faith' didn't include the Muslims who would be even more vocal against homosexual marriage than many Christians.
Muslims make up less than 5% of the UK's population and a lot of them are rather pro-gay rights (Polls says Muslims are proud of Britain's stance on gay rights) and Salvationists, even fewer.
[ 12. June 2012, 17:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Eliab
I think you underestimate the evangelical "awkward squad." They won't break the Establishment but they might just break the episcopacy.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Father Gregory: good to see you back!
This is probably a tangent, but I don't understand why a marriage can't be sacramental even without the Church's blessing. After all, the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest: I believe this is RC teaching though it may not be Orthodox of course.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Maybe a bit of traffic direction at this point. I recognised that this thread was always doing the splits between
a)a Dead Horse (same sex marriage as an aspect of homosexuality) and
b) a Purgatory topic (Disestablishment)
So I suggest that those whose primary interest is discussing a) wend their way to page 11 of this thread?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
According to Stonewall (in this link):
quote:
Stonewall would be publishing its major five-yearly polling of public attitudes on Tuesday, showing that between 80-85% of people in the UK under the age of 50 support extending the legal form of marriage to gay people – and three in five - 60% of people of faith in modern Britain – say gay people should be able to get married.
I heard that on the radio this morning - made me think "So if you are over 50 your opinion doesn't matter?" How to win friends and influence people ....
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
]I heard that on the radio this morning - made me think "So if you are over 50 your opinion doesn't matter?" How to win friends and influence people ....
It's more an attempt at demographic projection. It's not uncommon on social issues to try and work out how views are evolving.
Alternatively they're just saying, chances are that if you're over 50 you'll be dead or rapidly losing marbles by 2050 so we're not going to worry too much about you.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Biggest threat to the Church in 500 years?
This is the thing that really pisses me off in this debate - the argument that this is the most important issue facing the church at the moment (never mind in the last 500 years).
I think that the irrelevance of the church to society today might be a more important issue. Or the cost of maintaining a structure with an ever aging population. Or whether the church should be fucking around with making pompous declarations when the economy is in a state of crisis, and many people across the country are suffering from the "austerity" measures.
It is times like this that make me glad I am out of the CofE.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Dear Eliab
I think you underestimate the evangelical "awkward squad." They won't break the Establishment but they might just break the episcopacy.
You mean that we Anglicans might fuck up our own church out of spite? Yeah, i suppose we might. But that will be our own fault. It won't be because of gay rights or law reform.
On any reasonable view, if having to organise a corps of volunteers to marry the gays is as bad a persecution as the English church had to face, we are laughing. There's no need for it to lead to disestablishment, schism, litigation or the sky falling on our heads.
Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on
:
Dear Angloid
Briefly because we are off topic ... no, in Orthodoxy the marriage is conferred by the Church, not the couple themselves. Goodness, we don't even have vows!
[ 12. June 2012, 23:39: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
We want the voice of the Church in Parliament. [/QB]
So what about electing christian politicians then?
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
<tangent alert> At the time James i/VI was proceeding towards London to be crowned, he was met by Puritan divines who wanted his attention on certain absolute essentials for the continuance of proper "church", threatening disorder within the state if these demands were not satisfied.
Quoting from a ten-year-old article in the Winnipeg Free Press:
"The church in 1603 was divided into warring factions -- Puritan and High Church -- as it is divided now between those who accept a bishop who is a practising homosexual and those who do not. The Puritan party was hoping that the new king would back its side of the dispute.
The points in dispute in 1603 read rather oddly now. The petitioners then were asking that the service of confirmation should no longer be used, that priests should no longer wear surplices over their cassocks during services, that rings should not be used in wedding ceremonies and that priests should not ask people to bow at the name of Jesus. It seems difficult now to imagine disorders in the streets over these points, but in England 400 years ago, these were the things people got angry about."
Just think of the really good religious fights we could have over topics that you might want to open up!
And, to add another more contwmporary comment, let me add Simon Jenkins (no, the other one) on today's Grauniad.
Among others things, he writes: quote:
If any proof were needed for church disestablishment, it is the capacity of canon lawyers to find quarrels in straws. What consenting adults do in private should be of no concern to governments, and that applies to worship as much as sex. If grownups want to dress in Tudor costume, douse babies in water, intone over the dead and do strange things with wine and wafers, it is a free country. But for a Christian sect to claim ownership of the legal definition of a human relationship is way out of order.
and then points out that the RC church at one time actually preached that marriage was only foer the fallen, since the desirable state was Chastity, which would leave marriage, in whatever form, as basically irrelevant to the faithful.
And I didn't realise that "common-law" marriage was illegal in England after 1753. Funny, it is fairly normal and has legal standing over here.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Sorry for the double post, but I hadn't noticed Giles Fraser's comment.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
At the time the last census results were released, IIRC, the figure was just over 70%.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
At the time the last census results were released, IIRC, the figure was just over 70%.
However, as discussed before, identification and belief are very different things.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. (I may be wrong there, neither being British nor Anglican, and will stand happily corrected - in which case pretty much ignore the rest.) If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
The government proposes now to call all civil unions "marriages", for the express purpose of achieving total equality before the law. Yet it also proposes to let the CofE continue as is. In which case we end up with the situation that the only remaining inequality before secular law is exactly the accommodation given to the CofE.
It is clear that this situation cannot last for long. So whatever one may think on the subject of calling gay civil unions "marriages" or on the particular threats the CofE sees now (from European courts), it remains perfectly fine for the CofE to call foul on this one. By whatever means this will happen in the end, one cannot really doubt that this move by the government will eventually end in either disestablishment or the CofE "marrying" gay couples.
The only other alternative I see here is for the government to declare that the CofE has the right to marry people (in the secular sense), but no obligation whatsoever to marry any particular couple, maintaining complete control over when she wishes to exercise that right. This is, of course, just what it should be like (if one wants to continue the current porneia between government and CofE in the first place).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. (I may be wrong there, neither being British nor Anglican, and will stand happily corrected - in which case pretty much ignore the rest.) If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
The fact of being obliged to marry non-Christian couples is an interesting point.
The current situation is that the Church is not obliged to marry divorcees - in other words, it already has a conscientious 'opt-out'.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The current situation is that the Church is not obliged to marry divorcees - in other words, it already has a conscientious 'opt-out'.
Am I right in assuming that the CofE generally does marry divorcees - or at least that a sufficient fraction of CofE parishes do, so that a legal challenge is more cumbersome than simply going to another church close by? Even if that is the case, I'd be somewhat surprised if this had not been legally challenged. It provides a good test case. If the CofE can get away with not marrying divorcees, in spite of them trying (including legal means), then she presumably can get away with not marrying gays.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
Sorry, but I think this is a load of nonsense. The sky doesn't seem to have fallen in on the oldest daughter of the Catholic church following her committing regicide and guillotining large numbers of bishops.
Also, under the new covenant, God deals with people, not states, IMO.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
At the time the last census results were released, IIRC, the figure was just over 70%.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
Got it in one IngoB.
Current practice is that the good ol' CofE does allow divorcees to marry. But it is left to the conscience of each individual priest as to whether he or she will actually conduct a service.
Should a couple which includes a divorcee wish to marry in a certain church building (some are more aesthetically pleasing than others) which they qualify to use for the service by either residence in the parish or habitual attendance but the local vicar will not officiate they can still use the building but find another priest. It is not uncommon for the local vicar to find their own replacement.
The government proposals on same sex marriage are somewhat different, as churches will not be asked to perform same sex ceremonies.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
Sorry, but I think this is a load of nonsense. The sky doesn't seem to have fallen in on the oldest daughter of the Catholic church following her committing regicide and guillotining large numbers of bishops. ....
Are you sure of that? From over here, its history since 1789 looks rather a rocky ride - the Terror, Napoleon, the retreat from Moscow, occupation in 1815, three invasions by Germans, one beaten off, the other two not, and one by Perfide Albion and the Americans caused by the second of the two German ones.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Am I right in assuming that the CofE generally does marry divorcees - or at least that a sufficient fraction of CofE parishes do, so that a legal challenge is more cumbersome than simply going to another church close by?
In my limited experience (being a lay person) some priests simply will not marry divorcees. Some of these priests object to all re-marriages, others are theoretically more liberal, but don't want to be put in the position of sitting in judgement on individual cases, and adopt a policy of saying "no" ibn general to avoid having to say "no" on the merits.
Other clergy will re-marry someone who is an innocent, or at least repentant, party to a failed marriage, if this is demonstrated to their satisfaction, but not otherwise.
Others will say "yes" as a default.
Some priests (and I think my own vicar is one, or at least has been on occasion) will allow their churches to be used for re-marriages which they personally wouldn't be comfortable celebrating, but will co-opt a curate or non-stipendiary, or visiting priest to perform the actual ceremony.
Your impression that most people can find a CofE church to get married in, if they want to, matches with mine. And, of course, there are other churches than the CofE, many of them with very nice buildings, so even those unfortunate enough not to find an accommodating vicar will be able to have an equally traditional church wedding elsewhere, if they wish. Otherwise, a lot of priests who are not prepared to conduct a remarriage will (for reasons which I confess I utterly fail to understand) be perfectly happy to conduct an almost-identical service of blessing immediately following a civil marriage.
So you are right - in practical terms the difference between what a copule would ideally want, and want they can almost certainly have, is usually so slender as not to be worth litigating about (though that's not to say that the whole thing can't still a minefield of bruised feelings and resentment).
If we end up "forced" to marry gay couples, it'll be the same situation. Some will, some won't, some will compromise. Just about every gay couple who wants it will have a church ceremony of some sort - most of them in the church they want, fewer (but probably still the majority) with the priest they want - usually a marriage, sometimes a 'blessing'. A few will have to go outside the CofE as a denomination. Probably we will manage to give quite a lot of offence to a fair number, but insensitive priests and over-sensitive parishioners have been giving and taking offence since Peter's day, and will continue to do so until the Lord's return, so again, no change there.
It is, in my opinion, as close to a non-problem as it is possible to get. If we were ever forced to make a straight choice between disestablishment and marrying gays, and we thought (we'll assume for the sake of argument) that disestablishment was a Bad Thing, then the choice ought to be a no-brainer. We should marry the gays. There are quite enough clergy who could and would do it without moral scruple that no one need be forced to act against their conscience.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
AIUI there is supposed to be a blanket ban on remarrying a divorcee who was responsible for the breakdown of their first marriage.
Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on
:
A few points.
1. Politically, it is much easier to introduce SSM if it involves no loss or change to the large majority who will never avail themselves of it. Giving a small group an extra right is easy if it doesn't seem to cost anything. But if there is any cost, then it becomes much harder. Whether that cost is disestablishment, or the removal of church weddings (everyone has a civil ceremony, followed by a church service for those who want it), or any other proposal, is immaterial. 'Do you think gay people should have the right to marry?' - a majority will answer yes. 'Do you think gay people should have the right to marry if it means you can't have the whole wedding in church like you used to be able to...' - might get a different answer. So the Church of England's response has just made SSM less likely in this parliament.
2. I personally disagreed with much of the response, but on the legal issues it seems to have made some telling points. The consultation doesn't allow for religious SSM. The response points out that this may well not hold (and why should it - some denominations want the right to hold religious SSM, e.g. the Society of Friends). So at the least the legislation needs to be extremely carefully worded to ensure an airtight conscience clause for churches and for individuals.
3. If religious SSM does become legal, I cannot see what would stop an incumbent who wished to do so from performing such a ceremony in their church, irrespective of what the official church position was. They would be entitled to do so from their legal position as registrar. This would be similar to my understanding of the history of marrying of divorcees. Initially, the CofE didn't allow it; individual priests did it anyway; eventually the CofE official position caught up with this. So the consequence of SSM may well be the situation where SSM couples will be in the same position as couples where one of the partners is divorced - can you marry in church? Depends on the vicar...
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
Sorry, but I think this is a load of nonsense. The sky doesn't seem to have fallen in on the oldest daughter of the Catholic church following her committing regicide and guillotining large numbers of bishops. ....
Are you sure of that? From over here, its history since 1789 looks rather a rocky ride - the Terror, Napoleon, the retreat from Moscow, occupation in 1815, three invasions by Germans, one beaten off, the other two not, and one by Perfide Albion and the Americans caused by the second of the two German ones.
You can prove cause and effect?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. (I may be wrong there, neither being British nor Anglican, and will stand happily corrected - in which case pretty much ignore the rest.) If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
Far from it. Plenty of Church of England members think that's a good thing. When we get disestablished we'll carry on doing it. I used to think it was a bad thing myself, but was persuaded by Colin Buchanan, our suffragan bishop at the time. He was trying to convince our congregation that infant baptism should be the norm, and he didn't persuade me of that, but his case on marriage was pretty convincing.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
I don't think there is really much for the Quakers to crow about - if SSM was the law, they could apply to have their building registered - like many churches, hotels and other buildings are. Other than the state law, they could have whatever format they like for the service.
I am sure there are some for whom SSM in the Anglican setup is what they really want - and some who insist on it even though they're not even part of the Anglican setup themselves. And in that respect the Anglicans are in a unique position - in that they're enforcing the state marriage law, unlike other religious groups who are (as it were) just co-operating with it.
I am interested to know how the divorce/conscience thing actually works. How does an Anglican church (possibly the vicar himself, I suppose) actually enforce the system? I mean, is there a specific legal framework stating that the Anglican church has an exemption from the normal you-will-marry-anyone-who-is-legally-able-to-be-married state of things?
And could a vicar actually refuse on any other grounds?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We should marry the gays. There are quite enough clergy who could and would do it without moral scruple that no one need be forced to act against their conscience.
That's an interesting "bottom-up anarchic" approach to church governance. One I totally disagree with, of course, but since it's not my church that is neither here nor there. What is more interesting is whether you propose this as a general principle of how the church should be run, and whether this is in fact already the way the CofE is run in principle. I am not sure about either?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. ... If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
Far from it. Plenty of Church of England members think that's a good thing. When we get disestablished we'll carry on doing it. I used to think it was a bad thing myself, but was persuaded by Colin Buchanan, our suffragan bishop at the time. He was trying to convince our congregation that infant baptism should be the norm, and he didn't persuade me of that, but his case on marriage was pretty convincing.
Glad to hear that you will be disestablished. What's your prediction on the time frame for that? As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it. It's a bit of a tangent, I guess, but it may well be relevant in an analogous sense? You decide.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
2. I personally disagreed with much of the response, but on the legal issues it seems to have made some telling points.
Yes, some. The fears that a change in the official civil understanding of marriage could lead to a legal challenge forcing the church to conduct such a marriage have some basis, but were massively overstated, and all the evidence is that this possibility could be headed off with some careful drafting. There was also a valid point that the proposed continuing existence of civil partnerships for same-sex couples alone would be an inequitable anomaly, and any legal challenge would surely succeed.
But these are easily-solved administrative matters, and it's not a surprise if most of the comment has centred on the church's noisier complaints on the substance, rather than the fine detail.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I suppose the question needs to be posed: could a divorcé(e) refused remarriage in a CofE gaffe successfully sue under the HRA? I know it hasn't happened but could it?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
If I can attempt to answer my own question (having thought about it further but bearing in mind that this is not my area of law ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
), I think that the HRA is a bit of a red herring here and that both +Leicester and Ben Summerskill banging on about it yesterday on the Today programme were misdirecting themselves: the former for claiming that the HRA would lead to a claim being brought by a S-S couple against the CofE for refusing to marry them and the latter for referring to the fact that no claims have been brought by divorcé(e)s refused remarriage by the CofE. The HRA (IIRC & AIUI) can only be applied to organs of the state, for starters (someone correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here) and it is very much a moot point whether the CofE, despite its Establishment, so qualifies.
What those opposed to SSM in the various churches - not just the CofE - should be far more concerned about is surely the Sexual Orientation Regulations: once the legal definition of marriage is extended to S-S couples, then it follows that churches offering to marry Opposite Sex couples but not S-S couples are automatically discrminating against S-S couples under these Regs.
Posted by badman (# 9634) on
:
I think the first time the established church "opted out" of certain marriage ceremonies on a conscience basis was after the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907, which allowed marriages (the title says it all) which were contrary to the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the Book of Common Prayer. As, later, with divorcees, the clergy were allowed to refuse to conduct the marriage.
This reform had been attempted in Parliament, and successfully opposed by the Church and others, since 1842, so the rearguard action succeeded for 65 years in that case.
The argument that the established church cannot be established if it opts out of marriage permitted by law was, I would have thought, lost when establishment continued after 1907.
One poor fellow who married his deceased wife's sister in 1907 was excluded from Holy Communion by his parish priest on the basis that he and his wife were "notorious and open evil livers" within the rubric of the BCP because of their affinity. The House of Lords had to put that right in Thompson v Dibdin [1912] AC 533.
The Lord Chancellor said that the position taken by the clergyman "would, as it seems to me, if it were not so serious a matter, be ludicrous"; although Lord Loreburn was kinder and kept his judgment as short as possible, observing "it is easy to give needless offence to deep and sincere convictions upon matters which affect private conscience."
So, exactly 100 years ago, a hysterical reaction to a similar departure from tradition and, 100 years on, here we all still are, established church and all.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Legally any couple who have the requisite qualifications (which can merely be residence in the parish) are entitled to be married (according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England) in their Church of England parish church. The only exception is in the case of a divorced person whose former spouse is still living. Here, as others have noted, the practice varies.
The House of Bishops has issued guidelines (PDF) for those who will marry divorcees, but it remains the case that "a minister is not under a duty to solemnise the marriage or to allow his or her
church to be used for it".
The Church of England's view on marriage is that it is "a gift of God in creation" aka a creation ordinance. Thus, like food, for example, it is a gift from God to anyone whatever their belief. It believes marriage to be the (by intention) lifelong and exclusive union of a man and a woman. Wherever that union is formed that is a marriage. It takes the view that if people of little or no belief want to make that union in the context of prayer and an acknowledgement of the presence and power of God, then that is a good thing.
Since I've only heard the reportage, and not actually read the Church of England's response to the consultation (linked from this page I don't feel qualified to comment further.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What those opposed to SSM in the various churches - not just the CofE - should be far more concerned about is surely the Sexual Orientation Regulations: once the legal definition of marriage is extended to S-S couples, then it follows that churches offering to marry Opposite Sex couples but not S-S couples are automatically discrminating against S-S couples under these Regs.
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
Badman, good to be reminded once again of the Deceased Wife's Sister saga. Unlike remarriage and SSM, where whatever our own views, we can see why people feel strongly either way, it's as good as impossible now to feel oneself into why this aroused so much controversy.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
legal aspects of marriage in the CofE from the CofE website - rules on divorce
Rules for links to allow marriage in a CofE church.
Sokay, of course working as a church administrator for the CofE means that I know nothing, I realise this.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
CK, that doesn't explain the legal position, just the practice of the CofE.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The practice of the CofE is the legal position - the whole damn lot has to go to Parliament if you want to change it. And you really, really don't want me to find the right acts, do you?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We should marry the gays. There are quite enough clergy who could and would do it without moral scruple that no one need be forced to act against their conscience.
That's an interesting "bottom-up anarchic" approach to church governance. One I totally disagree with, of course, but since it's not my church that is neither here nor there. What is more interesting is whether you propose this as a general principle of how the church should be run, and whether this is in fact already the way the CofE is run in principle.
I hadn't addressed my mind to the question of "how the church should be run" at all in composing that post. I was taking the following as ‘given', and working from there:
1. The CofE is in actual fact in disagreement about homosexuality, likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, and has no effective mechanism to tell one side or another that they are wrong.
2. The CofE, being an established Church, may have to live with an external compromise with the state if it wants to keep that status (and I'm assuming we do, although I am well aware that many of us actually don't, or don't care).
3. In the absence of clear authority that allowing religious same sex marriage (as the state may hypothetically require us to do) definitely is (or isn't) compatible with the Christian faith, the question is not whether some legal requirement crosses that line. We aren't even agreed that the line exists. The question is whether we are placing an intolerable burden on the consciences of actual Christians.
We can then look at how we manage the extremely similar issue of remarriage - with the same sort of disagreements and objections - and find that on this point the CofE manages pretty well (for definitions of ‘pretty well' meaning that almost everyone who wants to get married does, and none of the objectors are required to participate or approve). If the state said that we absolutely had to marry all divorcees who wanted it, as the price of Establishment, and Establishment was what we wanted, it is a price that we could easily pay.
Since exactly the same working compromise could be put into effect as easily for gay marriage (indeed, more easily - a substantial minority in the CofE think it positively good to be gay and would celebrate gay marriage with conviction and joy, whereas very few think it positively good to be divorced, and celebrate remarriage largely as a concession to human weakness) I am simply making the point that the argument that gay marriage leads to disestablishment is a crap one. Gay marriage doesn't need to lead us there. It is absolutely obvious that it doesn't need to. If that is the price of Establishment, we can easily afford it.
Obviously it can be said that the CofE should not be established at all, but I'm not addressing that issue, because that is another way of saying that the contention I'm arguing against is crap. I'm conceding the points that Establishment is good, and that allowing gay marriage might be a requirement of Establishment, and arguing that even if that's all true, we can just allow gay marriage.
My arguments are really CofE-specific. If the Tempter should approach ++Vincent Nichhols in the guise of David Cameron, and offer to Establish the Catholic Church in England if only it agrees to permit gay marriage, then the Archbishop should refuse, no matter how vividly he can imagine himself conducting the next coronation. The Catholic Church ‘knows' gay marriage to be wrong in a way that the CofE, for better or worse, doesn't, and the Catholics do not (as far as I know) have a substantial number of priests-in-good-standing positively eager to start celebrating them, nor a tradition of liberty of conscience in deciding which marriages they personally approve or disapprove of.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The practice of the CofE is the legal position - the whole damn lot has to go to Parliament if you want to change it. And you really, really don't want me to find the right acts, do you?
I'm mostly curious to know on what basis the Vicar (or whoever else has the keys to allowing a marriage in church) can refuse and why.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Canons on impediments to marriage
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Amendments allowing marriage after divorce from July 2002
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Amendments allowing marriage after divorce from July 2002
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears from that that the Anglican church is actually operating a completely parallel legal marriage system to the civil system - which the civil registry and other churches work under.
So they can just say what they're going to do and then do it (so long as they've gone through the correct procedure) and it is automatically law, even if it seems to conflict with the civil system.
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears from that that the Anglican church is actually operating a completely parallel legal marriage system to the civil system -
No.
It is the same system. Anglican churches are register offices as far as the civil system is concerned. It's part of being the established church. The civil definition of marriage is binding on Anglican churches.
That having been said the Angican Church does not have to register all marriages, see the opt outs for divorcees. So there's no reason to believe that Anglicans will be forced to marry same sex couples.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It's more complicated than a parallel legal system. Historically Canon Law was part of the legal system and it's still intertwined. The law governing the Church of England goes through Parliament. That's why the House of Bishops is part of the legal system and the church is also the established religion.
Marriage, originally was only governed by Canon Law. According to wikipedia it was 1836 when the requirement for a marriage to take place in a religious establishment (CofE, Quakers or Synagogue) was abolished.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
Yes, but refusing to marry Opposite Sex couples for various reasons (consanguinuty to deceased spouse, divorce) does not fall foul of the SORs. On what basis are you saying that churches' refusal to conduct SSMs won't contravene the SORs?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
I'm not sure whom you are actually addressing, since the quote was from Matt Black, not me. At any rate, there is absolutely no way that the RCC will conduct gay marriages in the foreseeable future, and I think it would be essentially political suicide to try to stop the RCC from marrying its faithful. The hardest ball that I think could be played there realistically is to deny RC ministers the ability to register their marriages with the state on account of overall RC policy. But then simply the same situation results as for example in Germany, where Catholics marry first civilly to get the secular stuff out of the way, and only then in the Church (unless they have a special dispensation granted by the bishop to not marry civilly - for the state they then remain unmarried). I have no issues with that, that seems like a perfectly fine system to me.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
Yes, but refusing to marry Opposite Sex couples for various reasons (consanguinuty to deceased spouse, divorce) does not fall foul of the SORs. On what basis are you saying that churches' refusal to conduct SSMs won't contravene the SORs?
You could do worse than start here.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
I'm not sure whom you are actually addressing, since the quote was from Matt Black, not me. At any rate, there is absolutely no way that the RCC will conduct gay marriages in the foreseeable future, and I think it would be essentially political suicide to try to stop the RCC from marrying its faithful. The hardest ball that I think could be played there realistically is to deny RC ministers the ability to register their marriages with the state on account of overall RC policy. But then simply the same situation results as for example in Germany, where Catholics marry first civilly to get the secular stuff out of the way, and only then in the Church (unless they have a special dispensation granted by the bishop to not marry civilly - for the state they then remain unmarried). I have no issues with that, that seems like a perfectly fine system to me.
Indeed, it has always puzzled me why the eminently practical continental approach is not embraced by churches in the UK (as well as in Canada). The state does its marriage thing for its reasons; and churches then can focus on the pastoral and sacramental aspects, cheerfully using their rules in exercising this ministry.
They can then marry or not people of the same sex, or divorcees, or convalidate away. We would also be spared the embarrassment of trying to distinguish blessings from weddings and the greater humiliation of watching bishops do the same. Valuable resources could then be more productively directed toward improving the quality of alcohol in rectories and palaces, and freeing up valuable time for its consumption.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by me:
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
The point I was making is in the "if".
IngoB the argument is that even if Parliament were to say 'no CofE priest shall be required to celebrate a SSM or allow his or her church to be used for one', a SS couple might take the priest to court claiming that by deciding to exercise that discretion, he or she was discriminating against them on grounds of orientation. They might also argue that Parliament, by allowing that discretion, was infringing their human rights.
One would hope such a claim would be thrown out, but the track record of other cases implies that one cannot have confidence in this.
It is also, regrettably, almost certain that some b___ minded litigants with an eye to make a point and some money, would sooner or later bring such a claim.
The first claim would probably be brought against the CofE. But if it were successful, it would immediately place the RC church in the same cross-hairs. Not being an established church would make no difference. Which is why, IngoB, responding to Matt Black's post engages you also. This is not just an issue for the established church or Prods.
As Matt B explains, this opportunity to make a quick buck is not available to formerly married heterosexual couples because they are not a category of people who have rights under the various pieces of anti-discrimination legislation.
Possibly the best line of defence for the churches might be 'as there are cases (e.g. on ghosts) which have held that the law doesn't take account of the supernatural, any service or blessing that a person is being denied by being refused a church wedding is not a benefit the law can evaluate or take account of; so there is no loss that can be quantified'.
But none of this has a great deal of bearing on whether the CofE should be established. I've already said what I think on this. So perhaps I shouldn't comment any further.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
This is utterly ridiculous and akin to trying to sue a tennis club for refusing to allow a darts competition.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not being an established church would make no difference.
Indeed. The Church in Wales is not established, but says it is in the same position nonetheless.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
This is utterly ridiculous and akin to trying to sue a tennis club for refusing to allow a darts competition.
Alas not. The Catholic Church has already had to give up running adoption agencies for this reason.
The difference is that darts players are not one of the categories in the legislation who can claim they have been discriminated against.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Adopted children is a different issue - the church is imposing its values on children.
This case involves adults and freely held beliefs. How is it different to complaining that a RC church refuses to allow someone to conduct a Buddhist ceremony?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
Yes, but refusing to marry Opposite Sex couples for various reasons (consanguinuty to deceased spouse, divorce) does not fall foul of the SORs. On what basis are you saying that churches' refusal to conduct SSMs won't contravene the SORs?
You could do worse than start here.
Yes I could: the commentary is entirely on the HRA and doesn't mention the SORs at all. The SORs are the elephant in the drawing room once 'marriage' is redefined.
@ The Long Ranger: were your analogy to be correct, it would indeed be ridiculous, but the correct analogy is two gays suing the tennis club for not allowing them to play tennis.
[ 13. June 2012, 14:58: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
Apologies, I don't know what you mean by SORs, and Google isn't being my friend. But the HRA dictates all other appropriate legislation, so as long as that's fine, any other legislation can be redrafted if necessary.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The first claim would probably be brought against the CofE. But if it were successful, it would immediately place the RC church in the same cross-hairs. Not being an established church would make no difference. Which is why, IngoB, responding to Matt Black's post engages you also. This is not just an issue for the established church or Prods.
As I've just stated above, the "worst case" realistic scenario that I can see is the wholesale separation of civil and church marriages, as has been the case in many places in continental Europe. It's hard to see how government our courts could force the RCC in the UK to conduct gay marriages. RC bishops and priests have exactly zero room to manoeuvre there. Shall they all be thrown into prison?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Sexual Orientation Regulations - I had to scroll back to where Matt first used it the first time
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 which were issued under the Equality Act 2006. Having now looked more closely, Reg 14 appears to provide an opt-out for churches, albeit subject to 14 (8), which arguably could apply to the civil aspect of religious marriage...which I suppose takes us full circle back to the disestablishment argument albeit via the SORs rather than the HRA.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
Are the SORs the Sexual Orientation Regulations? (The 2007 regulations contained a clause which seemed to exempt ministers of religion, unless I misunderstood it).
The 2007 regulations appear to have been replaced by the Equality Act 2010, which exempts religious organisations from providing civil partnerships in section 202: "nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so". I don't know if that helps this discussion or not?
[cross-posted with Matt Black]
[ 13. June 2012, 15:28: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Apologies, I don't know what you mean by SORs, and Google isn't being my friend. But the HRA dictates all other appropriate legislation, so as long as that's fine, any other legislation can be redrafted if necessary.
Sexual Orientation Regulations, I think.
The point being that discrimination on such grounds is (rightly) prohibited, and that providing a service to opposite sex couples but not same sex ones is (pretty obviously) discrimination.
I think it would be possible to fix the law so that the legitimate interest of freedom of religion is served (which, clearly, must incluude freedom to celebrate gay marriage as well as freedom not to) but even if it isn't, so what? If the law says faith groups must marry gays, the Anglicans (and others) will work with it, the Catholics (and others) will defy it, and both groups will receive their reward in heaven. The sky will not fall. And even if it does, fiat justitia.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But Alwyn and I have pointed to the opt-out which would apply certainly to religious marriages (whether it would apply to the civil aspect of a church marriage is another matter for M'Learned Friends - at least those who sit down - I would guess).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If the law says faith groups must marry gays, the Anglicans (and others) will work with it, the Catholics (and others) will defy it, and both groups will receive their reward in heaven. The sky will not fall. And even if it does, fiat justitia.
This is inhumane bullshit of the "kill them all, let God sort them out" kind. We cannot simply delegate justice back to God, we are responsible for the morality of our own actions. An epic showdown between government and religion over relationship issues is entirely unnecessary and bound to come at massive human costs. This is mere revenge fantasy for supposed injuries suffered by the gays. Or perhaps the British require ever so often religious persecutions and sectarian violence, if not outright religious war, so that there's something other to talk about than the weather...
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Well, in England at least, not for about 350 years ( barring the odd few riots I suppose).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If the law says faith groups must marry gays, the Anglicans (and others) will work with it, the Catholics (and others) will defy it, and both groups will receive their reward in heaven. The sky will not fall. And even if it does, fiat justitia.
This is inhumane bullshit of the "kill them all, let God sort them out" kind.
You're right, it's exactly equivalent to the massacre of Béziers.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
IIRC, Ingo, it was Your Lot™ who were responsible for doing over the Cathars in that way.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
You're right, it's exactly equivalent to the massacre of Béziers.
My statement "of the X kind" of course makes no claim of exact equivalence to X.
Eliab was talking about nothing less than the potential secular suppression of Catholicism (and other religions) in the UK over this issue. What else would the sky falling over defiance of the government and courts mean?
Whether that would result in the same body count as Béziers I do not know. But to call that "fiat justitia" is just the same sort of inhumane bullshit that was at work there. (Note the "sort of"? Yeah? Good.)
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
IIRC, Ingo, it was Your Lot™ who were responsible for doing over the Cathars in that way.
And your point is? Two wrongs make a right? You've had that one coming? Or something even less sensible?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
[tangent alert]
Question: if the CofE marries people who are not necessarily Christian, do the CofE use the same liturgy as it does for self-proclaimed Christians? Or does the CofE has a separate "secular" liturgy?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Anglican Brat, the CofE doesn't have any secular liturgy. Whoever approaches the CofE for a wedding gets the same service (or the same range of services ie, Common Worship or Book of Common Prayer), the presumption being, I suppose, if one goes to a Christian church for a wedding ceremony, it will be a Christian wedding ceremony.
Just like any other faith, I suppose.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Anglican Brat, the CofE doesn't have any secular liturgy. Whoever approaches the CofE for a wedding gets the same service (or the same range of services ie, Common Worship or Book of Common Prayer), the presumption being, I suppose, if one goes to a Christian church for a wedding ceremony, it will be a Christian wedding ceremony.
Just like any other faith, I suppose.
I vaguely remember a vicar getting into considerable trouble a while back because he had been conducting services without using the prescribed terms needed to wed people. I can't remember what happened.
Being someone who doesn't believe in sacraments, I suppose this will be obvious - but I don't really see what a 'Christian' wedding is. You stand at the front and make promises and sign in a book - whether it is in a registry office or a church. Presumably the same thing happens in Temples and Mosques and Synagogues, although I've not been to weddings in any of them.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is inhumane bullshit of the "kill them all, let God sort them out" kind.
I get it. When you say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “deontological ethics”. When I say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “inhumane bullshit”. This would be one of those irregular verb things, right?
quote:
An epic showdown between government and religion over relationship issues is entirely unnecessary and bound to come at massive human costs.
I agree that it's completely unnecessary. That's what I've been arguing, on this and other threads. I wish my church wasn't picking a fight over the secular definition of marriage. I wish your church wasn't. But, if they do, I want them to lose, because they are in the wrong.
quote:
This is mere revenge fantasy for supposed injuries suffered by the gays.
Where are you getting that from? I have no interest in revenge fantasies.
This was my fantasy – my naïve, hopeless dream of what I would love to see happen:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
everyone who wants to get married does, and none of the objectors are required to participate or approve
That's what I want. I want churches and individual Christians to have the freedom to decide whose marriages they celebrate, and everyone to have the freedom to have a civil or religious marriage with the person they love.
The sad thing is, we (Anglicans) could do that. Everyone knows that. We already do it for divorcees. It's easy. It's obvious. And it is so plainly fair, just and reasonable that there could be no sensible objection to it. We know we could manage it without disestablishment, schism or litigation. This is a dream that could come true. And we are probably going to fuck it up, and pick a fight we needn't and shouldn't, and lose, embarrassingly.
Your church isn't in the same position, I know that. But your lot are still picking a fight you don't need to, and if some of my frustration and anger at my church spills over to yours, then I'm sorry for that.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Eliab was talking about nothing less than the potential secular suppression of Catholicism (and other religions) in the UK over this issue. What else would the sky falling over defiance of the government and courts mean?
Whether that would result in the same body count as Béziers I do not know. But to call that "fiat justitia" is just the same sort of inhumane bullshit that was at work there.
No, no, no. You've misunderstood me.
The justice that should be done is marriage equality and religious freedom. And we should do justice “though the heavens fall”. We should not be put off being fair to gay people because of the hysterical screams of persecution and irrational prophecies of doom from the unjust.
Now, as a matter of fact, I think the doomsayers are wrong. They are wrong about the consequences for Anglicans (obviously) because we have a clear precedent in the case of remarriages proving that Anglicanism can (if it wants to) take this in its stride.
They are also wrong (I think) about the consequences for Catholicism, but that's not as obvious. And I didn't explain my reasons for that, so it's entirely my fault that you misunderstood me here.
What I think would happen (worst case) is that if the law says to the Catholic Church (as I hope it will not) “You must marry same sex couples”, the Catholics will simply refuse. No threat is at all likely to move them. And there's an excellent example of this already in English law – the seal of the confessional. There is no legal guarantee of confidentiality for priests, so, in theory, every time a Catholic is charged with an offence, the prosecution could subpoena his priest, and ask (with the threat of prison if he refuse to answer) whether the defendant had disclosed his guilt. How often does this happen? Never. There's no point. A Catholic priest would willingly go to jail (or the gallows) rather than break that confidence, and as a result no one fights them on the issue. I predict that if the sky falls, and the UK law ends up providing that all churches must marry gays (and really, I think there's next to no chance of that happening), that's a fight that in practice you will win, whatever the law says, because you are just too principled and fucking stubborn to lose it. I don't want to see that put to the test, but my point was that even if it was, I don't think you have anything to be afraid of.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Anglican Brat, the CofE doesn't have any secular liturgy. Whoever approaches the CofE for a wedding gets the same service (or the same range of services ie, Common Worship or Book of Common Prayer), the presumption being, I suppose, if one goes to a Christian church for a wedding ceremony, it will be a Christian wedding ceremony.
Just like any other faith, I suppose.
I vaguely remember a vicar getting into considerable trouble a while back because he had been conducting services without using the prescribed terms needed to wed people. I can't remember what happened.
Being someone who doesn't believe in sacraments, I suppose this will be obvious - but I don't really see what a 'Christian' wedding is. You stand at the front and make promises and sign in a book - whether it is in a registry office or a church. Presumably the same thing happens in Temples and Mosques and Synagogues, although I've not been to weddings in any of them.
I think the legal minimum is for the two partners to declare their vows in front of a minimum of two witnesses. The registrar isn't even obliged to do the famouts "speak now and forever hold your peace" bit, as your wedding license is displayed in the local registry office for x days beforehand, and it nobody objects to that then you can go ahead.
There was a query at a wedding I attended once because the happy couple signed the register using a Biro, and someone questioned whether it was all legitimate because it wasn't indelible ink. I think that "urban myths" like this are legion.
As a Methodist and not a CofE member, I think we are at liberty to decline to sanction any ceremony without the same obligations the CofE have.
Personally I think I favour the separation of the civil and religous parts of it - such that if people want to get married, the state will fulfil the legal requirements, but the church (of whatever flavour) should not have any obligation to bless that.
Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on
:
If "gay-marriage" goes through, I suppose that those of us who think it a blasphemy will just find a new word for real marriage. Will the gays then demand that word too for themselves?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
If "gay-marriage" goes through, I suppose that those of us who think it a blasphemy will just find a new word for real marriage. Will the gays then demand that word too for themselves?
I imagine that people (of all sexual orientations) making promises of lifelong love and commitment, will want to use whatever the common word happens to be for "making promises of lifelong love and commitment". In English, at present, we usually call that "getting married". If some group or other manages to change the language so that we start to use a different word, I'll start using the new one for my relationship. Why should gay people do otherwise?
Gays are some different species, you know. They are ordinary people, doing what ordinary people do when they are in love, and using ordinary words for it.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get it. When you say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “deontological ethics”. When I say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “inhumane bullshit”. This would be one of those irregular verb things, right?
You don't get it at all. Beziers is an egregious example of somebody commanding evil to achieve good. Yes, I actually happen to think that the world is a better place without Carthars. However, mass murder to achieve sectarian cleansing is an unfathomable evil. To do the latter to achieve the former is morally illicit to the highest degree. Now, you want to achieve a good, that gays can marry. I don't think that this is a good, but that's not the point. The point is rather that you are apparently quite happy with the clear evil of disrupting Catholic life in a serious manner if that serves this purpose. You even think it appropriate to call this justice being done. Well, if you want to get away with the evil you are proposing, you have to go through the motions of feeling sorry for that, you have to pretend that the evil is not intended, but an unintended side effect. Your "whatever" attitude doesn't qualify you for "double effect" excuses.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I wish my church wasn't picking a fight over the secular definition of marriage. I wish your church wasn't. But, if they do, I want them to lose, because they are in the wrong.
Except the churches aren't picking a fight, the government is. And it is in the wrong and should lose. Does the government have to call all civil unions "marriage" in order to guarantee their total equality before secular law? Of course not. It could simply pass a law that says that all civil unions are to be treated equally to marriages before all old law that only mentions marriages. That would leave the status quo intact concerning who is going to provide civil unions and marriages in the first place, respectively. But no, the government has to get into the word definition game and thereby raise the question whether churches will end up having to "marry" gays against their will.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
No, no, no. You've misunderstood me. ... What I think would happen (worst case) is that if the law says to the Catholic Church (as I hope it will not) “You must marry same sex couples”, the Catholics will simply refuse. ... I predict that if the sky falls, and the UK law ends up providing that all churches must marry gays (and really, I think there's next to no chance of that happening), that's a fight that in practice you will win, whatever the law says, because you are just too principled and fucking stubborn to lose it. I don't want to see that put to the test, but my point was that even if it was, I don't think you have anything to be afraid of.
That's breathtakingly naive. If churches must marry same sex people by law, then at the very first refusal by a RC church to marry a gay couple litigation will start immediately. You will indeed see court case upon court case, probably class actions, priests and bishops going to jail and/or dioceses bankrupted by legal fees and damages, ... This is nothing like the seal of confession, where essentially the state decides to limit its powers because the state will have to deal with the fallout if it doesn't. This will be about individuals seeking their "rights" through the courts, at whatever cost to the common - or at least Catholic - good. It is proper for government to anticipate this disaster and avoid providing these "rights". But once they are out there, it's going to be a bloody mess.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You don't get it at all. Beziers is an egregious example of somebody commanding evil to achieve good. Yes, I actually happen to think that the world is a better place without Carthars. However, mass murder to achieve sectarian cleansing is an unfathomable evil. To do the latter to achieve the former is morally illicit to the highest degree. Now, you want to achieve a good, that gays can marry. I don't think that this is a good, but that's not the point. The point is rather that you are apparently quite happy with the clear evil of disrupting Catholic life in a serious manner if that serves this purpose. You even think it appropriate to call this justice being done. Well, if you want to get away with the evil you are proposing, you have to go through the motions of feeling sorry for that, you have to pretend that the evil is not intended, but an unintended side effect. Your "whatever" attitude doesn't qualify you for "double effect" excuses.
What about the possibility that the Catholic Church's policy on contraception spreads AIDS? Your Church's view seems to be that, since discouraging condom use is a good thing, the unintended consequences are immaterial.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, you want to achieve a good, that gays can marry. I don't think that this is a good, but that's not the point. The point is rather that you are apparently quite happy with the clear evil of disrupting Catholic life in a serious manner if that serves this purpose.
Really, I'm not. I'm sorry to have given that impression. It was not intended.
I don't want to see Catholics forced by law to accommodate same sex weddings. Or Jews, or Muslims, or Quakers, or anyone else. The only church where I think there's even an argument that this should be considered is my own - because of Establishment. It is not as obviously intrusive to ask the state church to perform what the state calls marriage as it is to require the same of anyone else. Even then, I would rather it didn't. I am in favour of religious freedom.
My "whatever" attitude is the result of my assessment that this bad consequence won't happen. No one wants it. Gays who want church weddings don't want to bankrupt churches. The politicians don't want it. There might be a few intentionally hostile gay people to sue out of pure devilment, but the English Courts are perfectly capable of knocking that sort of nonsense on the head. It won't happen. If I'm dismissive (and I admit that I was, and it was probably a fault) it's only because I think the chance of the disaster happening at all is negligible, not because I think the scale of the disaster, if it happened, would be negligible.
And I also think, that if it did happen, you'd tough it out.
You are wrong, though, in thinking that I would consider forcing shurches to do anything "justice". For me, the justice of the case requires BOTH marriage equality AND religious freedom. And I think we can have both. I think scaremongering the threat to religious freedom that my church is engaged in as a way of denying justice to others is utterly shameful and wrong, but that doesn't mean that I don't think religious freedom is a basic human right.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's breathtakingly naive. If churches must marry same sex people by law, then at the very first refusal by a RC church to marry a gay couple litigation will start immediately. You will indeed see court case upon court case, probably class actions, priests and bishops going to jail and/or dioceses bankrupted by legal fees and damages, ... This is nothing like the seal of confession, where essentially the state decides to limit its powers because the state will have to deal with the fallout if it doesn't. This will be about individuals seeking their "rights" through the courts, at whatever cost to the common - or at least Catholic - good. It is proper for government to anticipate this disaster and avoid providing these "rights". But once they are out there, it's going to be a bloody mess.
Who said that churches will be made to conduct SSM? Everyone I have seen specifically rules that out (Gov, Human Rights courts etc).
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
The rather frantic statements about how the churches would eventually be forced to conduct SSMs, against their own wishes, and against what everyone else has said, indicate that there is no other argument against SSMs.
The case in Canada is instructive, in that, despite all the similar wailing before SSMs were made legal, there have been absolutely no appeals to the courts. Why would there be? No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them. They just want to commit themselves to each other in a public ceremony.
I cannot understand why someone living in Germany wants to upbraid the English government over something that just isn't going to happen...
unless he has no other argumment to advance, beyond "well, WE don't do it that way."
The point about religious freedom is not just that you are free to be religious in your manner, BUT ALSO so is everyone else, and those manners won't coincide.
The argument is about making everyone in a specific country able to commit to another person in the same way.
The existence of an established church muddies the waters somewhat, but even that is something that can be dealt with, as it was in the case of divorced persons.
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The rather frantic statements about how the churches would eventually be forced to conduct SSMs, against their own wishes, and against what everyone else has said, indicate that there is no other argument against SSMs.
The case in Canada is instructive, in that, despite all the similar wailing before SSMs were made legal, there have been absolutely no appeals to the courts. Why would there be? No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them. They just want to commit themselves to each other in a public ceremony.
I cannot understand why someone living in Germany wants to upbraid the English government over something that just isn't going to happen...
unless he has no other argumment to advance, beyond "well, WE don't do it that way."
The point about religious freedom is not just that you are free to be religious in your manner, BUT ALSO so is everyone else, and those manners won't coincide.
The argument is about making everyone in a specific country able to commit to another person in the same way.
The existence of an established church muddies the waters somewhat, but even that is something that can be dealt with, as it was in the case of divorced persons.
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them.
Yet the same does not hold true for staying in a B & B, or any other public service that a service provider makes available.
The chances of finding a single litigant would seem rather high to me (particularly if a number of charities/pressure groups/wealthy individuals assisted with funding).
I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, although the case law of Ladele would make be nervous if I were a Marriage Registrar with a conscientious objection to the proposed reforms.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What about the possibility that the Catholic Church's policy on contraception spreads AIDS? Your Church's view seems to be that, since discouraging condom use is a good thing, the unintended consequences are immaterial.
The RCC consider the use of a condom (in marriage, by the way) to be an evil. Hence the good of preventing the spread of STDs, or for that matter the (potential) good (!) of limiting the number of children, must not be achieved by doing this evil. Whatever you may think of the premise that condom use is evil, this is entirely consistent with the general principle that one may not do evil to achieve good.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
The rather frantic statements about how the churches would eventually be forced to conduct SSMs, against their own wishes, and against what everyone else has said, indicate that there is no other argument against SSMs.
Actually (and I say this as someone who is quite liberal on The Issue) I think the likelihood of churches being penalised for refusing to conduct same sex marriages within the next few decades is actually very high. The opt outs granted to churches/mosques/synagogues etc are dependent on the willingness of the secular majority to allow minorities exemptions from the law on religious grounds. There is no reason to assume that that willingness will continue. It quite possibly won't.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them.
Yet the same does not hold true for staying in a B & B, or any other public service that a service provider makes available.
The chances of finding a single litigant would seem rather high to me (particularly if a number of charities/pressure groups/wealthy individuals assisted with funding).
I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, although the case law of Ladele would make be nervous if I were a Marriage Registrar with a conscientious objection to the proposed reforms.
Not unless running a B&B became a form of religious worship since I last looked. And if it is a form of worship then everything else one can possibly imagine is also, and is protected by the freedom of religious practice human rights legislation.
Of course most people would say it wasn't remotely the same thing.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships?
God can bless anything and anyone he chooses.
Anyway, this the fact that you and others do not believe in SSM is rather irrelevant. Other do, and the state has a responsibility to protect their interests as much as yours.
You keep doing your own little thing and let the state decide whether - and how to - let them do theirs.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships?
God certainly blessed Jacob and his marriage to two sisters. Why aren't you advocating we legalize polygamy to follow the Bible?
[ 14. June 2012, 12:58: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them.
Yet the same does not hold true for staying in a B & B, or any other public service that a service provider makes available.
The chances of finding a single litigant would seem rather high to me (particularly if a number of charities/pressure groups/wealthy individuals assisted with funding).
I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, although the case law of Ladele would make be nervous if I were a Marriage Registrar with a conscientious objection to the proposed reforms.
Except that cl 14 of the SORs gives churches an opt-out, although Yerevan's warning about the longevity of this opt-out is a point taken.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
... The opt outs granted to churches/mosques/synagogues etc are dependent on the willingness of the secular majority to allow minorities exemptions from the law on religious grounds. ...
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
... There is no reason to assume that that willingness will continue. It quite possibly won't....
True, it possibly won't. However, it seems that the last three versions of the relevant UK law all had religious exemptions. The 2003 regulations had a religious exemption in clause 7(3). The 2007 regulations and the 2010 Equality Act both had religious exemptions (linked in my previous post).
I agree with Eliab that I'd like the law to allow that "everyone who wants to get married does, and none of the objectors are required to participate or approve". Of course, some Christians strongly disagree with SSM and wouldn't want their churches to be forced to carry them out - fair enough. If you don't want to be forced to carry out SSMs, can you reasonably expect that the law will forbid churches that do want to carry them out from doing so, without moral inconsistency? Don't they have the same right to religious freedom?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
If you don't want to be forced to carry out SSMs, can you reasonably expect that the law will forbid churches that do want to carry them out from doing so, without moral inconsistency? Don't they have the same right to religious freedom?
Agreed completely. As others have said, the logical solution seems to be to a French style system, although its hard to see how this would fit with establishment in England and Scotland.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Glad to hear that you will be disestablished. What's your prediction on the time frame for that?
More than five years, less than five hundred
Actually disestabl;ishment is a low process because there is more than one thing to change. Some of it has already happens. There is so much legislation invovled that I doubt if any likely near future government could be bothered to wast their time on it. So I suspect we will slowly drift into disestablishment and one day look back and realise it has already happened.
Just as the English (and later United Kingdom) constitution slowly drifted from being a constitutional monarchy (as it was in the Middle Ages) into being a de facto republic with a hereditary but almost entirely powerless head of state (as it is now) with no sudden change. There were a couple of great leaps forward in the 17th century, and a large but in the end futile stumble or two backwards under the Tudors and early Stuarts whn they flirted with absolutism, but by Victoria's time we had in effect ceased to be a real monarchy. But when exactly that happened between about 1640 and 1800 is a hard question maybe with no precise answer.
quote:
As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it.
Mostly already said here and on the other thead.
I would guess most British Protestants would agree with all or most of the follwoing points, and most of the secular majority of the British people would agree with the non-theological ones:
- Marriage is a creation ordinance, available to all.
- Marriage is natural to the human species. and was not set up by either church or secular legislation, though it can be regulated by legislation in the interests of fairness or convenience - as for example by consent laws intended to prevent the exploitation of young women.
- it precedes Christianity, and it precedes our current legal system
- the Bible characters who had non-Christian or non-Jewish weddings (Esther) or no wedding at all (Eve) were in fact married.
- Jesus himself attended and blessed Jewish weddings
- a wedding is performed by the couple themselves. Its not something done to them by either church or state. Church and state and neighbours can register and witness what is done, they do not make it happen, it could be real and it could be valid without them
- people married under different legal systems than ours are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- Christians who wed outside church are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- non-Christians who have been valildly married (in church or elsewhere) are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- Christians validly married to non-Christians are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- we cannot see into the minds of others. If someone is willing to stand up in church and make the explicitly Christian promises required by our liturgy at marriage, or at Baptism, who are we to say they don't mean it?
- weddings are a significant service we perform for the community as a whole.
- weddings are a real occasion for outreach
And no doubt others
The validity of weddings of non-Christians is not a significant source of argument in the Church of England - we'd be more likely to drop open infant baptism to be honest.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
who cares?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Judging by the numbers who still tune in to big royal occasions (a recent wedding springs to mind) a massively revamped coronation ceremony would probably be of interest to quite a few people, especially given the symbolic signifance of removing the Christian aspect. It would be an interesting break with many centuries of English history for one thing. Of course, that isn't necessarily an argument against it, but it would be fairly significant.
[ 14. June 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
who cares?
Well, for one, I do, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question!
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
who cares?
Well, for one, I do, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question!
Other places survive with monarchs but without established churches, no?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
True. How do the Dutch, Belgians and Scandinavians do it?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
True. How do the Dutch, Belgians and Scandinavians do it?
IIRC, the Belgians and Swedes have a swearing-in, but no coronation. While the RCC has an official position in Belgium, and the Lutherans are the established church in Sweden, they have no crowning role. In any case, it is the anointment which is the sacramental and religious part; the crowning itself is of course more visual and more easily remembered.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But who administers the oath and who anoints?
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
God.
Or not.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
More practically...?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers. The Archbishop of Canterbury administers the oath at Westminster Abbey (although I think that there were mediaeval coronations where the oath was administered by the bishops of London or Winchester) and is also the minister of anointing.
For Spain, in case anybody's still reading, Juan Carlos was proclaimed King by a resolution of the Cortes, and five days later was anointed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo (as Primate of Spain) at a Mass of the Holy Spirit. This took place under the previous constitution, and the RCC is no longer the state church, but I imagine that the same two-ceremonies approach will apply at the next succession.
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on
:
As far as I'm aware, there has been neither coronation nor anointing of any Danish monarch since the passing of the constitution in 1849. The prime minister proclaims the new king/queen in the immortal words, 'the King is dead, long live the King (or Queen).'
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers.
Wait - the Belgian speaker is involved in the kingmaking of the King of Sweden?!?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers.
Wait - the Belgian speaker is involved in the kingmaking of the King of Sweden?!?
hmmm.... It made sense when I typed it out. I was trying to avoid being repetitious but ended up making no sense at all. The Speaker of the Belgian Senate administers the oath to the new King of Belgium-- I remember watching it on television when I was home sick one day, and couldn't find any good sitcom reruns.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it.
Mostly already said here and on the other thead. I would guess most British Protestants would agree with all or most of the follwoing points, and most of the secular majority of the British people would agree with the non-theological ones: ...
I would agree with practically all your points as well, except for making some distinctions about sacramental marriages. However, I see no argument for marrying non-Christians in church in this. Really, I come up with a total blank on that from what you have said so far. The only thing that seems remotely relevant is this:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
- we cannot see into the minds of others. If someone is willing to stand up in church and make the explicitly Christian promises required by our liturgy at marriage, or at Baptism, who are we to say they don't mean it?
In fact, we can see in their mind insofar at least that they are apparently not ready to become Christians yet. Given that they can get married easily apart from the church, and get their marriage recognised easily by the church if they become Christians later, all is well and we can politely explain to them that Christian rites are intended for Christians.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
IngoB - not under current Church of England canon law we can't. The presumption is that anyone who lives within a parish, whatever their religion or none, can get married in the local church, so long as they are over 18, British citizens and are not already married. There aren't a lot of other exceptions, and all the proof steps are to do with checking if they do live in the parish, their citizenship and marital status. They do not have to be baptised.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
They must, however, be willing to be married by a priest of the Church of England using the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. There is no legal objection to that priest requiring them to attend marriage preparation classes as a condition of their marriage taking place in the church. I have no problem with this. But then I'm one of these people who baptises the babies of people who aren't regular churchgoers.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it.
Mostly already said here and on the other thead. I would guess most British Protestants would agree with all or most of the follwoing points, and most of the secular majority of the British people would agree with the non-theological ones: ...
I would agree with practically all your points as well, except for making some distinctions about sacramental marriages. However, I see no argument for marrying non-Christians in church in this. Really, I come up with a total blank on that from what you have said so far. The only thing that seems remotely relevant is this:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
- we cannot see into the minds of others. If someone is willing to stand up in church and make the explicitly Christian promises required by our liturgy at marriage, or at Baptism, who are we to say they don't mean it?
In fact, we can see in their mind insofar at least that they are apparently not ready to become Christians yet. Given that they can get married easily apart from the church, and get their marriage recognised easily by the church if they become Christians later, all is well and we can politely explain to them that Christian rites are intended for Christians.
Sorry, is it not the case that, according to RCC and Anglican dogma, anyone who was baptised is already a Christian? Seeing that I guess the majority of people were Christened as babies, is not this argument about marrying 'non-Christians' a red herring? Should you not rather be saying 'non-attenders at church'?
You can't believe in a sacrament of baptism and then accuse the baptised of not being Christians - what does that say about the sacrament?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 16. June 2012, 08:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
@Mudfrog - you do not have to be baptised to be married in a CofE church
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Also I'd dispute that a majority of babies are baptised.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
They must, however, be willing to be married by a priest of the Church of England using the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. There is no legal objection to that priest requiring them to attend marriage preparation classes as a condition of their marriage taking place in the church.
Actually I think the priest cannot make their attendance at marriage preparation classes a *requirement* for getting married in their parish church, although there may be some wriggle room around the minister's duty "to explain to the two persons who desire to be married the Church's doctrine of marriage"
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But it is quite possible, and the usual practise around here, for the priest to say that he/she will not marry them unless they do some form of pre-marriage counselling.
He/she usually adds that a lot of the counselling is about how to live together, rather than being a totally-religious session, since there is no-one else who gets that opportunity.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Mudfrog - you do not have to be baptised to be married in a CofE church
That's not the point I was making.
I was saying - quite clearly, I thought - that these alleged 'non-Christians' who were turning up, horror of horrors, to be married in a church (and why??) were actually Christians by virtue of baptism.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
But actually, quite a few of them are not Christians by virtue of baptism, because they are not baptised. That's what I was saying. There is no requirement to be baptised to be married in a CofE church, just to live in the parish and meet the other requirements (over 18, not already married, British citizen or legal resident)
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships? (emphasis added)
Mudfrog, my dear old chap, someone who has been on the Ship as long as you have ought to know that there are many Christians who do not think the Bible "clearly states" that homosexuality is against his will. Some things in the Bible are clear; that isn't.
[ 16. June 2012, 13:34: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Maybe (at least partly) what Mudfrog is asking is 'how are these non-Christians identified'?
Can other Christian officiants comment here on their experience of marrying people they know self-identified as non-Christians?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given the absolute block the CoE has put on SSMs, is there a likelihood that said church will lose its established position in England?
Much as we should all devoutly wish and pray for disestablishment, the CofE has disagreed with the government on all sorts of things in the past, and none of them has ever led to disestablishment yet.
When it does come it will come because the CofE wants to escape from government, not because government is fed up with the CofE. Because they couldn't care less on the whole.
quote:
Is the church actually united against the threat of gays being married? If it splits, which bit might retain the ilusory notion of being "established"?
The bit that has bishoips in the House of Lords.
Perhaps a closer link with the state might be more worthwhile - the CofE being an Erastian religious department of state for those who like such things. Then when parliament led the way on SSM, the CofE would follow along quite naturally.
It would be both bold and ingenious to argue that the Holy Spirit works more effectively through General Synod than parliament.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Permission/duty to marry the unbaptised could be seen as an Erastian thing or a doctrinal thing. Or maybe the latter as a rationalisation of the former. But whereas in a neatly ordered system (which neither the world nor the C of E is) there is a logical case for insisting on baptism as the prerequisite for all other sacraments, that's not to say that God can't work through anomalies in our systems (or even that She's not all that bothered about them).
In any case, even in these post-christian days when not as many adults were baptised as infants, I don't think I've ever officiated at a wedding where neither party was baptised. Usually these days if they want a church wedding it's because of some residual connection with the church in the past, which makes it more likely that they were baptised. It may of course be different for more photogenic churches than the ones I've been involved with.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships? (emphasis added)
Mudfrog, my dear old chap, someone who has been on the Ship as long as you have ought to know that there are many Christians who do not think the Bible "clearly states" that homosexuality is against his will. Some things in the Bible are clear; that isn't.
Of course I know that - but there are equally an awful lot of Christians who DO believe that it is 'clearly stated'.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
But that is the point of this discussion.
The Bishops have said that, in their opinion, the issue is settled on the "anti" side, while the congregations that they represent are divided very largely. The Bishops may even represent a slim majority of the regular attenders, but they certainly do not represent enough of the members, adherents and just-interested to claim that they speak with a united voice.
The Bishops could easily put themselves into the position of the RC hierarchy, with large groups of the faithful ignoring or actively opposing them... or just walking away from the church as ahomophobic club that is now proving to be irrlevant (see the DH thread)
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Of course I know that - but there are equally an awful lot of Christians who DO believe that it is 'clearly stated'.
The problem is when there are sizeable minorities who believe equal-and-opposite things and yet the hierarchy only seems to back one group.
Of course, the problem in the Anglican church which makes the whole thing worse is that it is a seemingly unworkable organisation comprising of 5 or more fighting factions. The only reason they don't split seems to be that they don't believe they'd survive for long as separate churches (even though most seem to agree this would make more sense).
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Of course I know that - but there are equally an awful lot of Christians who DO believe that it is 'clearly stated'.
The problem is when there are sizeable minorities who believe equal-and-opposite things and yet the hierarchy only seems to back one group.
Of course, the problem in the Anglican church which makes the whole thing worse is that it is a seemingly unworkable organisation comprising of 5 or more fighting factions. The only reason they don't split seems to be that they don't believe they'd survive for long as separate churches (even though most seem to agree this would make more sense).
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
Just FYI - THIS LETTER shows clearly The Salvation Army's position.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army. As any idiot can tell. Gah, why am I bothering.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army. As any idiot can tell. Gah, why am I bothering.
I think you'll find that given its nature and it's very strict membership covenant, the majority of salvationists go along with this wholeheartedly.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The problem is real life changes views - famously Bishop James Jones* He changed his mind on homosexuality and rumour has it that it was because a close relative came out as gay.
I am sure that various Salvationists are dealing with this in their lives too.
* sorry, that's using tiny url as the wiki link has brackets
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem is real life changes views - famously Bishop James Jones* He changed his mind on homosexuality and rumour has it that it was because a close relative came out as gay.
I am sure that various Salvationists are dealing with this in their lives too.
* sorry, that's using tiny url as the wiki link has brackets
I know some who are.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
@Mudfrog - :blink: and you don't accept that not all Salvationists are happily going along with this statement?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army.
Yes you clearly were. Or rather you were talking about the official position of the Church of England, and speculating on various reasons why it might suit the bishops politically to stick to it, and then you said the SA might be in the same sort of situation, and Mudfrog demonstrated that their official position is the same as the CofE one.
quote:
why am I bothering.
Maybe because, like most theological liberals and agnostics you think believers are stupid or ignorant or misled, and being a decent sort of chap, you want to educate us.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Mudfrog - :blink: and you don't accept that not all Salvationists are happily going along with this statement?
There will always be difference of opinion, but seeing that full covenant membership of TSA is not open to non-celibate gay people there is unlikely to be much dissent.
Just to be clear, however, adherent membership which an awful lot of people avail themselves of, requires no subscription to anything other than a statement of faith in Christ and will therefore have a lot more leeway in matters of personal conscience - small example, many will drink alcohol whilst that is barred for covenanted 'soldiers'.
People know where the Army stands and therefore won't disagree too.
Regarding morality and ethics TSA is very close to the RCC on most things (apart from contraception).
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I realise that this article was written by a self-defined atheist, but the point of his headline is arguable: A church fit only for bigots and hypocrites
How does a church walk when there are so many holes being shot in it's feet?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I realise that this article was written by a self-defined atheist, but the point of his headline is arguable: A church fit only for bigots and hypocrites
How does a church walk when there are so many holes being shot in it's feet?
Is it wholesome for anyone to insist that an organisation should let itself be defined by its enemies?
If a fellow Christian argues that according to their understanding of the faith, Christians should think or do X one should give them a hearing. They might be right. If an atheist tells us that according to his parameters, Christians should think or do X, the wholesome reaction is a polite version of 's*d off'.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army.
Yes you clearly were. Or rather you were talking about the official position of the Church of England, and speculating on various reasons why it might suit the bishops politically to stick to it, and then you said the SA might be in the same sort of situation, and Mudfrog demonstrated that their official position is the same as the CofE one.
It seems like you need to go back and read what I actually wrote in my exchange with @Mudfrog. To repeat what I actually wrote,
quote:
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
The fact that the SA have an official position is not relevant when discussing whether there are tensions under the surface of most churches and large organisations, because the official policy doesn't reflect the tensions under the surface. I didn't say that I knew for certain, I just said I would be surprised.
I stand by this comment. If you want to infer other made-up-shit about what it shows that I believe about it, infer away in your own time.
quote:
quote:
why am I bothering.
Maybe because, like most theological liberals and agnostics you think believers are stupid or ignorant or misled, and being a decent sort of chap, you want to educate us. [/QB]
You know almost nothing about what I believe, so I'll ask you to refrain from putting me alongside how other 'theological liberals and agnostics' act or believe in your experience and furthermore I'll thank you to refrain from casting aspersions as to my intent on this thread.
I believe that there are tensions on issues of conscience in all large organisations including churches NO MATTER THE STATED POLICY OR THEOLOGY. I don't really care if you think that is a liberal or agnostic view, because I've been around enough churches and large organisations to know that what happens on the surface is a pale reflection of the true undercurrents.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
So, Enoch, there can be no possibility that the outside observer might see things in a useful way?
[ 18. June 2012, 01:17: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
1. I think the legal minimum is for the two partners to declare their vows in front of a minimum of two witnesses.
2. The registrar isn't even obliged to do the famouts "speak now and forever hold your peace" bit, as your wedding license is displayed in the local registry office for x days beforehand, and it nobody objects to that then you can go ahead.
3. There was a query at a wedding I attended once because the happy couple signed the register using a Biro, and someone questioned whether it was all legitimate because it wasn't indelible ink. I think that "urban myths" like this are legion.
A clarification from someone who has taken a few weddings, albeit in a baptist church. Information correct as of the moment - we reregistered for weddings last year as we had a new building.
1. Correct - and the assent to marriage/vows taken have to be in one of the agreed forms. You will find them on the CofE website and (I think) on the form issued by Registry Offices. Note that only these vows are legally necessary - you can add what oithers you like as long as they don't contradict the "legal" ones. (I've had couples write their own vows, in the wpords of Ruth to naomi e.g).
Technically it's possible to do a wedding in church or anywhere using just the legal bits in about 5 mins. The rest is the religious service or civil padding.
The vows are the same whatever the location. Standard legal declarations.
2. Incorrect. The couple and the congregation must be asked about "any legal impediments" to marry. Weddings conducted in Anglican churches aren't advertised outside Registry Offices - the church itself is effectively a Registry Office and they just have to give notice in the services (technically all of them).
3. Signing in anything other than indelible ink makes the marriage technically invalid, irrespective of the words used in the ceremony. This will be picked up - as errors are - on the quarterly returns.
4. Bear in mind that the Church of England operates as a Registry Office and so has a different status to other religious groups. We (e.g baptists) have Registrars (ministers or church members) who carry out the instructions of the Superintendant Registrar at the Registry Office.
5. We could choose to do SSMs if it becomes legal to do so as the Quakers wish to do and as we have been marrying divorcees for many years (decision based on individual cases, rather like all marriages - we don't have to marry anyone). We are unlikley to assent to SSM as a denomination but there is strong sympathy for this position in some cases in the denominations hierarchy and perhaps a growing openness in soem churches. It is still a minority view IMHO and IME.
[ 18. June 2012, 06:04: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I am not talking about the OFFICIAL position of the Sally Army.
Yes you clearly were. Or rather you were talking about the official position of the Church of England, and speculating on various reasons why it might suit the bishops politically to stick to it, and then you said the SA might be in the same sort of situation, and Mudfrog demonstrated that their official position is the same as the CofE one.
It seems like you need to go back and read what I actually wrote in my exchange with @Mudfrog. To repeat what I actually wrote,
quote:
I suspect these tensions are actually under the surface of most large organisations and churches. I'd be very surprised if there was no tension in the Sally Army - if not about this issue then about another issue of conscience.
The fact that the SA have an official position is not relevant when discussing whether there are tensions under the surface of most churches and large organisations, because the official policy doesn't reflect the tensions under the surface. I didn't say that I knew for certain, I just said I would be surprised.
I stand by this comment. If you want to infer other made-up-shit about what it shows that I believe about it, infer away in your own time.
And let me just suggest that you cannot equate TSA with the Church of England.
When an Archbishop makes a statement, all Anglicans can be mildly interested in it, accepting of it or vehemently opposed - you are a broad church and there are no set standards of behaviour and morality. It is also, so I understand, perfectly acceptable to be an active gay couple in the church, unless you are a clergyman/woman.
That is why, in the CofE, there are tensions and disagreements about this issue.
The Salvation Army is entirely different. To be a uniformed member one has to sign up to some pretty strong covenantal promises. And where there are some abberations, usually in younger people, we have a system of discipline that actually removes Salvation Army membership from those who cease to live by their promises.
People know where TSA stands and if they don't want to 'sign up' they don't. There will be very littkle dissent over this, not because we don't allow it, but because of the standards that Salvationists accept for themselves in other areas of life.
Of course, mistakes are made, people fall from grace and are often lovingly restored, but as far as lifestyle choices are concerned, you will not find much in the way of 'tension' regarding the SA's position on gay marriage.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers.
Wait - the Belgian speaker is involved in the kingmaking of the King of Sweden?!?
'King 'ell - that means John Bercow would swear Brian in! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, Enoch, there can be no possibility that the outside observer might see things in a useful way?
Not totally impossible, but a hostile journalist writing in the Grauniad, no.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0