Thread: The freedom to blur boundaries 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=028530
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
On this week's 'Sunday' programme (BBC Radio 4) the Bishop of Leicester said that he will not support Lord Alli's amendment to the Equality Bill. This amendment, which has been supported by the Bishop of Salisbury, the Dean of Southward and 4 prominent retired bishops, would allow those religious groups who so choose (Quakers, Unitarians and liberal rabbis) to 'marry' gay couples. The Bishop argued that this will involve a blurring of the boundaries, leading to a 'confusion' about the difference between marriage and civil partnerships in the public mind.

If you take the view that marriage has "all sorts of ingredients that a civil partnership cannot have", then you are entitled to preach that, and you are entitled to refuse marriage to same-sex couples - but you don't have the right to prevent other faith groups doing so. If that blurs the boundaries for your congregations, that is your problem and you should deal with it. You don't hold copyright on the word 'marriage'.

At the moment, the law does not allow religious language to be used in a civil partnership ceremony - surely this is totally unacceptable in a free society? The bishops who wrote to 'The Times' apparently said that everyone who supports spiritual independence should support this amendment. The Bishop of Leicester has a right to a different opinion; but surely, if he votes against the motion, rather than abstaining, he is abusing his rights as an Anglican Bishop and adding power to the voices of those who call for a radical reduction of CofE representation in the Lords?
 
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If that blurs the boundaries for your congregations, that is your problem and you should deal with it. You don't hold copyright on the word 'marriage'.
How true. I would add one thing: it's his faith's problem. It's not a personal stance of the bishop. He is trying to be faithful to the religion he received, a religion which changes more the more as years go by, in a society that has little to do with it.

And it's not just the odd bishop of CoE. Bishops in other churches speak as if they own the copyright for marriage, priesthood and of course God. Statements of Greek Orthodox bishops that didn't make it in the English-speaking press for example would be enough to make one's hair stand on end.

And it's not just bishops. Simple laypeople think they own the copyright of all kind of concepts. My recent exchange with various Shipmates who thought my not accepting their version of God makes me an atheist comes to mind. It's a much bigger problem than what it appears at first glance.
 
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
I must admit that I listened to the broadcast this morning with some dismay. I agree with the OP. My view is that 'marriage' isn't a trade mark and that it isn't up to members of the established church to define it for everyone or every faith tradition.
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
quote:
The Bishop of Leicester has a right to a different opinion; but surely, if he votes against the motion, rather than abstaining, he is abusing his rights as an Anglican Bishop and adding power to the voices of those who call for a radical reduction of CofE representation in the Lords?
I don't see that at all. Surely the Anglican Bishops don't vote as a block and are entitled to vote according to their own opinions.

Also I don't think that the bishops in the Lords are representative of Anglican opinion as such though they would tend to have similar opinions on many things.

Hensley Henson was notorious for disagreeing with his fellow bishops in the Lords and out.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Good for the Bishop of Salisbury et al.

The Bishop of Leicester really has no leg to stand on. Having said that, I can't see any procedural reason why he shouldn't try to stand on his non-existent leg. I mean, yes, it doesn't look good if bishops start arguing with each other in public, but I think that at this point that's trying to shut the bag after the cat has bolted.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
The Bishop of leicester, or any Anglican bishop for that matter, has full right to discuss what is appropriate for Anglicans, and to legislate those matters.

If he is engaged in direct discussion with that other denom on matters that might affect their intercommunion, he has more voice

But he has no more right to an opinion than any other citizen in a public space on how another church should manage its affairs.

Unless you actually want an ecclesiocracy (lovely word, glad I came across it here on The Ship). And then the can of worms is: which one?
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
Haven't unitarians, quakers and other types of sane-to-moderate religious people been blessing gay marriages for ages already?

As I understand it, you get the legal formalities of the civil partnership done at the registry office, then trundle along to the local unitarian shack, or whatever, and get married.

It's really no different from, say, a heterosexual couple in a civil-law country, where civil marriage precedes "nuptial benediction".

The weird thing in Britain (and other common law countries?) is that the clergy, in the case of heterosexuals, can do both the legal and the spiritual parts. Why this should be so I cannot understand. Rather than giving clergy the right to do this for homosexual couples, why not just require a civil partnership for all as the legal basis, and then let those who so wish to go to a church afterwards?

[ 28. February 2010, 19:09: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Our yearly meeting has only confirmed we will use our form of marriage for same sex couples in spring this year. As yet I am not sure the wording and administration has been finalised.

This will not be a blessing of a civil partnership, it will be a marriage according to the usage of Friends, as our heterosexual mnarriages are. Whether the government will give it the same legal status is a different question.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I haven't been following the ins and outs of the Equality Bill debate (or the Bill itself) so I only have QLib's initial post to go off, but I think the Bishop of Leicester raises a reasonable point.

If you ask 'what is the legal definition of marriage?' I think it can be said that one is entitled to a reasonably concise and understandable definition. To define marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman, except if you are a liberal Jew, or if you happen to be a Quaker', etc. seems to be a recipe for confusion in public administration, never mind society's understanding of the concept of marriage. (In writing this, I presume that the amendment would allow these institutions to marry gay couples in law, rather than marry them in name only, which is the case with Quakers and others at the moment).

[ 28. February 2010, 19:35: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Part of the problem is the distinction between the state's need to regulate tax/benefit and inheritence law vs the idea that marriage is a religious sacrament.

Churches who marry gay couples are claiming to have discerned God's will - which you are entirely free to disagree with - what the State is claiming to discern is not entirely clear.

If the state is saying we are defining marriage as whatever the Church of England decides it is - because we are not a secular state and that is the established church. Then they should just say that, with the proviso that if the CofE changes it's mind they will change the law.

If it is a decision made on secular priniples, that's what it says in such and such and edition of the dictionary, is not a viable argument - unless you are happy for the editors of the OED to make this particular social decision.

If you want a third definition - you to define what it's based on - and that is really unclear at the moment.

[ 28. February 2010, 19:49: Message edited by: Think² ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
the state is claiming to discern is not entirely clear.
Although marriage has its roots in religion couldn't one say that marriage is a social institution in its own right? For example, in a CofE wedding, the social, secular, side to the institution co-incides entirely with the religious side, but the religious side is entirely absent in a Registry Office wedding.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Yeah but if you so a sociological analysis of the social institution of marriage, it will tend to show it is about the regulation of property and the rearing of children. Giving the existence of civil partnerships and gay adoption it is a clear our society now accepts gay couples are responsible enough to do these things. Therefore, the major objection to legalising gay marriage is moral - and is broadly speaking that morality is tied to the teachings of various institutions.

You can therefore either say we could look at social attitude surveys and see what most people say about it nowadays and base your decision on that - or tie it to the decision of a specific religious institution.

But I do think you should be explicit about the reason for refusing to permit gay marriage. If you can't say publically that you - for example - think homosexual marriage would be to raise the status of an inferior relationship, then you should be thinking seriously about why. If it is because you might jepardise your seat, because alot of people disagree with you, then that is democracy in action. If it is because you will imediately violate various laws and treaties we are signed up to - then perhaps you should think about whether you are violating the promises you made. If it is becuase you think 'the public won't wear it' then perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions and argue the case you actually believe in.

Prinicpled refusal for a denied reason I can live with - though I may disagree. "It might be a bit confusing" is intellectual dishonesty and does us all a disservice.

(You in this sense being generic or political you - rather than necessarily you personally.)
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Although marriage has its roots in religion couldn't one say that marriage is a social institution in its own right?
I'm not sure it was that way round. I get the impression that there were all sorts of handfastings that the church didn't have a say in until they started to come down hard after the Council of Trent. And even then. Gretna, after all, just seemed to involve a passing blacksmith.

My own opinion is that the prevailing religion may be invoked to add gravitas to an ongoing set of practices to do with all sorts of things such as property, inheritance, alliance, social control etc.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you ask 'what is the legal definition of marriage?' I think it can be said that one is entitled to a reasonably concise and understandable definition.To define marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman, except if you are a liberal Jew, or if you happen to be a Quaker', etc. seems to be a recipe for confusion in public administration, never mind society's understanding of the concept of marriage.
As opposed to er.. the simple definition that a UK marriage is a union of one man with one woman who must be both aged 16 or over, not already married, not each others Mother (also step-mother, former step-mother, mother-in-law, former mother-in-law, adoptive mother or former adoptive mother)Daughter (also step-daughter, former step-daughter, daughter-in-law, former daughter-in-law, adoptive daughter or former adoptive daughter)Sister (also half-sister),Father's mother (grandmother),Mother's mother (grandmother), Father's father's former wife (step-grandmother)Mother's father's former wife (step-grandmother) Son's daughter (granddaughter),Daughter's daughter (granddaughter), Wife's son's daughter (step-granddaughter),Wife's daughter's daughter (step-granddaughter), Son's son's wife (grandson's wife)
Daughter's son's wife (grandson's wife),Father's sister (aunt),Mother's sister (aunt),Brother's daughter (niece),Sister's daughter (niece),Father (also step-father, former step-father, father-in-law, former father-in-law, adoptive father orformer adoptive father), Son (also step-son, former step-son, son-in-law, former son-in-law, adoptive son or former adoptive son). Brother (also half-brother or step-brother), Father's father (grandfather),Mother's father (grandfather)
Mother's mother's former husband (step grandfather),Father's mother's former husband (step-grandfather),Son's son (grandson),Daughter's son (grandson),Husband's daughter's son (step grandson), Husband's son's son (step grandson)
Son's daughter's husband (granddaughter's husband)
Daughter's daughter's husband (granddaughter's husband),Father's brother (uncle),Mother's brother (uncle), Brother's son (nephew), Sister's son (nephew), remembering also that in Scotland a man may not marry his great-grandmother or great-granddaughter and a woman may not marry her great-grandfather or great-grandson and bearing in mind that in England, Scotland and Wales (not Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey) the Marriage Act, 1986, allows for certain step-relatives and relatives-in-law to marry and further who must if under 18, gain their parent's or guardian's written consent, otherwise it is a criminal offence, although the marriage would still be valid, and also who must make sure that they have at least two witnesses to sign register on the day and that the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district and that the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage is either reformed by a Registrar, taking place in a Registry Office or any other premises approved for marriage by a local authority (a stately home, theatre, zoo etc) except in Scotland where the law is different - to name but some of the legislation that springs to mind.

Was that the 'reasonably concise and understandable definition' you had in mind? Because if so, no it probably doesn't matter a monkeys if you also add, 'and same-sex marriages, adhering to the non gender specific parts of the marriage law, conducted by liberal Jews, Quakers etc.'

We can all spot the anti-gay special pleading by now. A few weeks ago, it was all about 'religious freedom' and now people who are not anti-gay have said 'Oi, what about our religious freedoms?' a new excuse is needed. The Bishop can pull the other one and see if it rings Plain Bob Major.


L.

[ 28. February 2010, 20:13: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
An interesting post and people in favour of gay marriage who I've spoken to have put forward similar points of view.

My own, personal, view (for what it's worth) is that marriage, as it has been commonly understood in the West for at least the last couple of millennia, is a union of one man and one woman. My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).

How do you square this malleable definition of marriage with polygamy? Polygamy, or at least having multple, concurrent, sexual partners, is rare in Western society but not unheard of. We have more Moslems living in Western society nowadays and although not all would want to practise polygamy, some might (indeed, as I understand it, the UK benefits system already discreetly provides for second and third wives).

If you think that the definition of marriage can change from 'one man and one woman' to 'one man and one man', is there anything to stop it from becoming 'one man and two women' and if so, what?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
As far as love and legality go I would ask for 'one man and one woman' to be completely on a par with 'one man and one man' or 'one woman and one woman'

I see no reason whatever for it to be otherwise.

Marriage love is, ideally, a special and deep union between two people. imo

I would see polygamy as set up for convenience - not love.

Mind you - there are supposedly three persons in the trinity ....
 
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My own, personal, view (for what it's worth) is that marriage, as it has been commonly understood in the West for at least the last couple of millennia, is a union of one man and one woman. My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).
I think your last sentence is most revealing. The problem is that you can't say that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner. Which is why the definition of marriage needs to expand to cater for a new understanding of same-gender unions.

That for centuries people had certain views this does not mean that this is a reason for maintaining those views. After all, discrimination with regards to race or gender existed for centuries as well; this doesn't mean that we shouldn't have embraced change as far as the rights of women or non-white people were concerned. The situation with homosexuals is similar. Prejudice and discrimination needs to go away and we need to expand our worldview to accommodate for the acceptance of homosexuality.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).
The problem is you can't. And this is essentially what is so offensive about it.

quote:

How do you square this malleable definition of marriage with polygamy? Polygamy, or at least having multple, concurrent, sexual partners, is rare in Western society but not unheard of.
Bigamy is illegal for a) religious reasons and b) because it has usually been - in our culture - a con trick in that the second partner didn't know about the first with many undesirable consequences c) because of that there have been vanishing few happily polyamours people lobbying for change. To be completely frank, I would not have an objection to freely consented polygamy. I think you would need somekind of safegaurd like all partners in the marriage must be present and sign the register on the addition of a new partner to the relationship.

Essentially you are changing the functional definition of a marriage to - one adult freely making a committment to a long term intimate relationship to another adult(s), and that such a committment is intended to be permenant, will confer parental rights for any children of the union, and obligations ad responsibilities in the situation of a a breakdown of the relationship.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If you think that the definition of marriage can change from 'one man and one woman' to 'one man and one man', is there anything to stop it from becoming 'one man and two women' and if so, what?
Well, in some societies, it is one man and two women (though not usually married at the same time), isn't it? It's still marriage, it's just not Christian marriage as most people understand the term and it's not legal in our society to enter into such a marriage, but it would be legal if we changed the law.

You used to have to have a licence to keep a dog - is there anything to stop us saying you have to have a licence to keep goldfish? Apparently not, and yet it never happened. Then again - we abolished dog licences, so is there anything to stop us abolishing car licences or gun licences? No, yet we still have them.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[qb]My innate conservatism doesn't want to change that definition and if gay pairings become socially acceptable (as they have, and rightly in my view) then Civil Partnership offers them a chance to be separate, but equal (if I can write that without sounding like a 1940s Afrikaner).
The problem is you can't. And this is essentially what is so offensive about it.

And yet some gay people seem to manage it.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
And Lenny Henry spent some time in the Black and White minstrel show - that he now regrets.

Also in lobbying for rights people have had to pick their battles, seperate and equal is one up from separate and illegal.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
"The boundary"

One heterosexual to another:
quote:
"Hey, they won't let gay people get married. Now I understand the value of a faithful, lifetime, monogamous heterosexual marriage!

When they were talking about letting gay people get married, it appeared to me that heterosexual polyandry, promiscuity and unfaithfulness was the way to go. But now I understand the value of Holy Matrimony so clearly!"

 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Also in lobbying for rights people have had to pick their battles, seperate and equal is one up from separate and illegal.
If we ever do have gay marriage in this country, I wonder whether - perversely - it will be the Daily Mail wot won it. Every time they report on the goings on of Elton John or Stephen Gately, they talk about their 'marriage' and their 'husbands'.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
You may well be right, and that people have read this stuff and realised that the sky didn't fall in as a result.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
It seems the Bishop of Leicester is not a lawyer, for he has the law completely backwards. There is a better way.

In Canada marriage is regulated by the Federal government and we have the Civil Marriage Act, 2005. Marriage in this country is defined as the union two spouses, who may may not be of the same gender. There is no such thing as "Civil Partnership" in Canadian law. And a good thing too. I took training in life insurance, and what this law did was say that in same-sex marriages the same old law that the civil professions have followed for a thousand years still applies. So we don't have to reinvent the wheel. That makes things really easy down on the retail level.

As respecting churches, individual churches may opt in our out without fear of a penalty. The Roman Catholic Church will not of course do same-sex marriage, the United Church of Canada usually will, depending on the views of the local Session. The municipal office is open to everybody.

Did I mention that this legal ball got rolling in 2003 with a marriage by banns at the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto?

Or that the Law Lords/Supreme Court of the UK often find Canadian law persuasive as it is enacted in a similar legal and political structure to that of the UK?

The Bishop of Leicester would be far better to carve out a "conscience clause" for the CoE than trying to manhandle the definition of marriage directly.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Also in lobbying for rights people have had to pick their battles, seperate and equal is one up from separate and illegal.
If we ever do have gay marriage in this country, I wonder whether - perversely - it will be the Daily Mail wot won it. Every time they report on the goings on of Elton John or Stephen Gately, they talk about their 'marriage' and their 'husbands'.
My understanding is that general language in the UK and some other countries with 'civil union' schemes had indeed tended towards 'marriage' and 'husbands'.

Which is a way of saying that this 'separate but (supposedly) equal' business is a lot more fiddly than the average man/woman in the street can be bothered with. It's a legal distinction set up as an unsatisfactory compromise.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

In Canada marriage is regulated by the Federal government and we have the Civil Marriage Act, 2005. Marriage in this country is defined as the union two spouses, who may may not be of the same gender.
Er, I think you mean "now", not "not".

John
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It seems the Bishop of Leicester is not a lawyer, for he has the law completely backwards. There is a better way.

In Canada marriage is regulated by the Federal government and we have the Civil Marriage Act, 2005. Marriage in this country is defined as the union two spouses, who may may not be of the same gender. There is no such thing as "Civil Partnership" in Canadian law. And a good thing too. I took training in life insurance, and what this law did was say that in same-sex marriages the same old law that the civil professions have followed for a thousand years still applies. So we don't have to reinvent the wheel. That makes things really easy down on the retail level.

As far as I can see, the introduction of Civil Partnerships has been legally straight-forward. Welfare documents that used to refer to 'spouse' now say 'spouse or civil partner' and those words 'or civil partner' have been inserted into all necessary legislation, including obscure stuff like the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

As far as I can see, the introduction of Civil Partnerships has been legally straight-forward. Welfare documents that used to refer to 'spouse' now say 'spouse or civil partner' and those words 'or civil partner' have been inserted into all necessary legislation, including obscure stuff like the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947.
Okay, I have to say: as a person who (1) was involved in the process of dealing with all the references to 'spouse' in Australian legislation in order to make it apply to de facto same-sex couples and (2) now works as a legislative drafter, I can tell you that if you THINK this is legally straight-forward, you really have no idea what is involved!

You just see the end result of a few words added to every reference in legislation. You don't see the massive amount of work that goes into finding all those references. Or to getting everyone to agree on the policy. Or to considering whether there's a particular reason why the general policy won't work in a particular context.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There are two basic legal approaches to providing a legal framework for same sex marriage. The Canadian model which opens up pre-existing family law to same couples, and the British model which creates an entire separate legal framework. As orfeo points out there is a lot of fidgety editing in the Canadian-style approach, but it does spare you the difficulty of having to re-invent the wheel.

The main purpose of a British-style system with separate tracks for couples depending on whether they've got matching or complimentary genitals is that the different tracks are inherently unequal. That's only reason to maintain the separation that I've ever been able to figure out.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main purpose of a British-style system with separate tracks for couples ... is that the different tracks are inherently unequal. That's only reason to maintain the separation that I've ever been able to figure out.
How are they 'inherently unequal' if the substantive rights are the same?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I always figured it was so that the bigots could pretend to themselves that those "dirty filthy gays" don't really have marital rights, not like ours by God.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main purpose of a British-style system with separate tracks for couples ... is that the different tracks are inherently unequal. That's only reason to maintain the separation that I've ever been able to figure out.
How are they 'inherently unequal' if the substantive rights are the same?
Civil union statutes typically include some but not all of the same rights as marriage, so they're unequal in that regard.

As for your 'what if' hypothetical, the only reason to segregate couples along those lines is, as mousethief indicates, to make sure the legal demarkation around a despised group remains in place while reassuring oneself of one's own magnanimity for even going that far.

[ 01. March 2010, 18:54: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
I was about to say "spot on" but I think on reflection its more of a splodge - hiding difficult bits round the edges. I know of at least one RC lady in a civil partnership who would never get "married" to her spouse because she thinks the prime reason for marriage is the production of children. Now that belief may have been inculcated by bigots but I think her reservations are genuine, if misguided. She aint no bigot.

[ETA that was in response to MT]

[ 01. March 2010, 19:00: Message edited by: pimple ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Civil union statutes typically include some but not all of the same rights as marriage, so they're unequal in that regard.
I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any differences in terms of rights (and certainly no major differences) between marriage in the UK and a Civil Partnership in the UK.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are two basic legal approaches to providing a legal framework for same sex marriage. The Canadian model which opens up pre-existing family law to same couples, and the British model which creates an entire separate legal framework. As orfeo points out there is a lot of fidgety editing in the Canadian-style approach, but it does spare you the difficulty of having to re-invent the wheel.
Actually my point was that the Canadian system DOESN'T have a whole lot of fidgety editing. In Canada you edit in one place - the marriage legislation - and you say "they're all marriages". End of discussion.

In the UK and Australia, on the other hand, you have an enormous amount of fiddling in order to say "yes, we'll let this separate group of people have this right in this particular spot".
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Civil union statutes typically include some but not all of the same rights as marriage, so they're unequal in that regard.
I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any differences in terms of rights (and certainly no major differences) between marriage in the UK and a Civil Partnership in the UK.
You'll have to search through every single piece of UK legislation to ascertain whether there are differences or not. Or find someone else's research on the subject.

There may well be no difference in legal rights. However, in order to KEEP it that way, your poor drafters and policy people in government will have to remember EVERY single time a new law is being written to refer to both marriages and civil unions.

One has to ask what the point is of having two distinct legal categories if they're treated exactly the same on every occasion. To which the answer has to be, so that some people can walk around mentally thinking "they're not REALLY like us".
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

There may well be no difference in legal rights. However, in order to KEEP it that way, your poor drafters and policy people in government will have to remember EVERY single time a new law is being written to refer to both marriages and civil unions.
That's a considerably easier task though, isn't it? I appreciate that some intense legislative drafting may have been required to integrate Civil Partnerships into UK law but, going forward (to use that ghastly phrase), the task becomes easier, does it not? If a new statute is being drafted, the words 'and civil partner' can be added to 'spouse'. I appreciate that it might not be quite that simple, but it is certainly not a task beyond the wit of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office.

quote:
One has to ask what the point is of having two distinct legal categories if they're treated exactly the same on every occasion. To which the answer has to be, so that some people can walk around mentally thinking "they're not REALLY like us".
As I said before, I think it can be said that there is a long-standing understanding of what marriage is (and what it is not). I don't think that necessarily means condemnation of any other group.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One has to ask what the point is of having two distinct legal categories if they're treated exactly the same on every occasion. To which the answer has to be, so that some people can walk around mentally thinking "they're not REALLY like us".
What was important to my gay friends in the UK who had Civil Partnerships was that the law recognized them as a couple and as having the associated legal rights of a couple. As far as they are concerned, they are "married" and my lesbian friends introduce their partner to other people as "my wife".

I don't personally think that there is any practical difference between marriage and civil partnerships other than satisfying the segment of the population that thinks that gay people need to be kept outside of some kind of social boundary. Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
Unlikely - no leading UK political party supports their abolition.
 
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
Unlikely - no leading UK political party supports their abolition.
Seven months in the US and already I'm losing my perspective! [Biased]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't personally think that there is any practical difference between marriage and civil partnerships other than satisfying the segment of the population that thinks that gay people need to be kept outside of some kind of social boundary. Although making that argument makes me worry that someone will start campaigning to get rid of Civil Partnerships.
Which begs the question of why it is important (or appropriate) to use the law to enforce the social boundary around gay people? Why is it so critically important to the Crown that gay people not be legally allowed to describe themselves as "married" if, as Anglican't indicates, there is no difference between a civilly partnered same sex couple and a married opposite sex couple?

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I said before, I think it can be said that there is a long-standing understanding of what marriage is (and what it is not). I don't think that necessarily means condemnation of any other group.
How can an official government position stating that a couple's relationship is so inherently alien that it will never qualify as "marriage" not a condemnation? And just how "long-standing" does an "understanding" have to be before it's completely immunized against all change?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

There may well be no difference in legal rights. However, in order to KEEP it that way, your poor drafters and policy people in government will have to remember EVERY single time a new law is being written to refer to both marriages and civil unions.
That's a considerably easier task though, isn't it? I appreciate that some intense legislative drafting may have been required to integrate Civil Partnerships into UK law but, going forward (to use that ghastly phrase), the task becomes easier, does it not? If a new statute is being drafted, the words 'and civil partner' can be added to 'spouse'. I appreciate that it might not be quite that simple, but it is certainly not a task beyond the wit of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office.
It's not beyond the wit, no. But the point is that the conscious decision has to be made every time. As a matter of both policy and drafting, someone has to say "yes, TODAY I will treat these two groups as equal".
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm willing to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any differences in terms of rights (and certainly no major differences) between marriage in the UK and a Civil Partnership in the UK.
Apart, of course, from the right to make your vows to each other using religious language - which is where we came in.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
Hostly Hat ON
This thread appears to be devolving into a DH. If it continues to develop as a screed on gay marriage, I will move it where it belongs.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I said before, I think it can be said that there is a long-standing understanding of what marriage is (and what it is not). I don't think that necessarily means condemnation of any other group.
Your current understanding of marriage is a few hundred years old. Before that, only the nobility bothered with the whole formal marriage business, because it was useful when it came to property transfer.

As Croesos has pointed out with his link, up until the 19th century part of the property that was transferred was the wife herself!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hostly Hat ON
This thread appears to be devolving into a DH. If it continues to develop as a screed on gay marriage, I will move it where it belongs.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
"Devolving into"? The OP was about gay marriage!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hostly Hat ON
This thread appears to be devolving into a DH. If it continues to develop as a screed on gay marriage, I will move it where it belongs.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF
"Devolving into"? The OP was about gay marriage!
I can never quite work out the Dead Horses distinction, but it seems to be that it's only DH territory if you talk about the morality and religious aspects of gay marriage, not about the law of the land.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can never quite work out the Dead Horses distinction, but it seems to be that it's only DH territory if you talk about the morality and religious aspects of gay marriage, not about the law of the land.
That question was kicked around a Styx thread for a while. The general consensus seemed to be that anything/everything gay belonged in Dead Horses.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
I think Croesos is right, The thread belongs in DH. Down you go.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
The main problem with separate-but-equal types of legal regimes is that they tend to concentrate on "separate" at the expense of "equal". The premise of the whole enterprise is that there is some key inequality that must be recognized by creating a whole separate body of law to deal with a class of people. It seems counterproductive to try to get to ". . . but equal" by starting out with an assumption of inequality.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main problem with separate-but-equal types of legal regimes is that they tend to concentrate on "separate" at the expense of "equal". The premise of the whole enterprise is that there is some key inequality that must be recognized by creating a whole separate body of law to deal with a class of people. It seems counterproductive to try to get to ". . . but equal" by starting out with an assumption of inequality.
While I can see that the MA approach of just declaring same-sex marriage legal may be cleaner in law, the desire of those who would create a civil union in law hardly seems nefarious. Rather, there are two strongly-held views that are in tension -- many churches will not recognize gay marriage as a valid church possibility, and the majority of many states (since all things of value happen only here in the US) are fully on-board with the secular legitimacy of same-sex unions. The intent is simply to thread this needle.

It may not fully satisfy those who would oppose all forms of recognition of gay unions and it may not fully satisfy those who insist that every institution must recognize the absolute identity of gay marriage to heterosexual marriage. But neither of these are the intent of those who would establish civil unions as a way of granting full secular rights to gay unions. The belief that there are no legitimate political views except those on the extreme ends of the spectrum strikes me as not only false, but the malady of our politcal age.

--Tom Clune

[ 02. March 2010, 14:15: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
While I can see that the MA approach of just declaring same-sex marriage legal may be cleaner in law, the desire of those who would create a civil union in law hardly seems nefarious. Rather, there are two strongly-held views that are in tension -- many churches will not recognize gay marriage as a valid church possibility, and the majority of many states (since all things of value happen only here in the US) are fully on-board with the secular legitimacy of same-sex unions. The intent is simply to thread this needle.
Except that creating a whole new body of law is not usually the way we deal with religious objections to certain types of unions. For example, no one suggested making a separate legal category for those who wish to remarry after a divorce in order to satisfy Roman Catholic objections to the practice. (It could be called 'civil reunion'.) Or a separate legal category for Jews who marry non-Jews. ('Shiksa union' or 'shegetz union', depending on the gender of the non-Jewish spouse.) Religious organizations seem to be perfectly capable of sorting out whether they consider a marriage valid regardless of what the state says in cases that don't involve homosexuality, so the most likely conclusion to be reached is that their vigorous campaigning against legal equality is motivated by something other than keeping their internal marriage categories 'straight'.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It may not fully satisfy those who would oppose all forms of recognition of gay unions and it may not fully satisfy those who insist that every institution must recognize the absolute identity of gay marriage to heterosexual marriage. But neither of these are the intent of those who would establish civil unions as a way of granting full secular rights to gay unions. The belief that there are no legitimate political views except those on the extreme ends of the spectrum strikes me as not only false, but the malady of our politcal age.

--Tom Clune
I find it distressing that having everyone subject to the same laws is regarded as an extremist position.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I find it distressing that having everyone subject to the same laws is regarded as an extremist position.
But this also is a matter of parsing. Everyone who wishes to enter into a gay union would be subject to the same law. It is not directed at individuals, but groups. Isn't that true of all laws? If we say that people driving motor vehicles on pubic highways must get driving licences, we are subjecting all people who fall within that category to the same regulation.

It does not mean that our categories are value-neutral. Of course they are not. They reflect where we are as a society. One may well prefer that the society as a whole held the same values that we do as individuals. But the notion that failing to do so somehow reflects legal discrimination is pushing the envelope.

WRT remarriage, it would indeed be possible for a different legal category of marriage for remarriages. I presume the reason that it did not happen in this country was because the RC church was in the minority -- and for most of our history, one of politically limited influence. In truth, I suspect that the rise of "civil unions" is at least as reflective of our declining interest in the legal import of marriage as it is a reflection of our growing acceptance of homosexuality.

Nonetheless, the limitations on gay unions appear to me to be more a matter of differences of state acceptance of such unions under whatever name than they are reflective of two legal terms for marriages. ISTM that the conflict of real import is e.g., whether and how MA marriages are honored in other states.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I find it distressing that having everyone subject to the same laws is regarded as an extremist position.
But this also is a matter of parsing. Everyone who wishes to enter into a gay union would be subject to the same law. It is not directed at individuals, but groups. Isn't that true of all laws? If we say that people driving motor vehicles on pubic highways must get driving licences, we are subjecting all people who fall within that category to the same regulation.
Interestingly enough, that mirrors the defense position in Loving v. Virginia, that anti-miscegenation laws were not racist because they applied equally to whites and blacks. The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out that this was not the case with the statute as written and that, even if it were the case, it would still be unconstitutional.

Of course, the idea that "[e]veryone who wishes to enter into a gay union would be subject to the same law" inherently highlights the implied inequality in the "SEPARATE but equal" legal regime, the idea that there is one law for gays and another for straights.

To continue on with your highway example, let's say that the government decided that a certain class of people (let's say those born with a last name beginning with letters U through Z) would no longer be issued driver's licenses. They would instead be issued "driving certificates" which would have all the same requirements and grant the same privileges as a driver's license. They would, of course, be granted by a different branch of the government and might not be accepted as valid in other jurisdictions like a license would, but the state insists that in most important ways the two are "equal".

Wouldn't that strike you as a lot of effort to go to in order to achieve what are ostenstibly the same results as would be provided by an already existing system? And wouldn't the government's claims of "the same, but different" be subject to a lot of suspicion/skepticism because of the Rube Goldbergian administrative apparatus set up? And wouldn't you expect a better explanation for the government's disparate treatment of its citizens than (hypothetical) religious prejudice against names inhabiting the tail end of the alphabet?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The approach Canada used of just re-writing the definition of marriage was a result of several legal factors.

1) The Government of Canada ordinarily has no jurisdiction over civil law, which is reserved to the provinces. Marriage and divorce is the one big exception. So the Feds can't rewrite every law.

2) Quebec uses the Civil Code like Louisiana does, except that the marriage portions were orphaned in 1867 and reserved to Ottawa. The rest of the provinces use Common Law.

3) The lawyers at the Department of Justice didn't want to reinvent the wheel when they couldn't deal with all of the parts. So they just rewrote what was in their jurisdiction, the definition of marriage, and read in gay rights.

Further, I can't see how a church not recognizing gay marriage is in any way an argument for civil unions. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't recognize civil divorce, but individual Catholics routinely get them. My aunt is in this category. So the DoJ wrote in a clause to allow individual churches to refuse to perform same-sex marriage. The RCC in this country was satisfied that they got to retain the status-quo.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
They would instead be issued "driving certificates" which would have all the same requirements and grant the same privileges as a driver's license. They would, of course, be granted by a different branch of the government and might not be accepted as valid in other jurisdictions like a license would, but the state insists that in most important ways the two are "equal".
I don't know what you are trying to invoke with the notion of a different branch of government granting the license. I am not familiar with civil unions, but AFAIK, they are issued by the same folks who issue marriage licenses. If not, would you please elaborate the differences that you see in this process?

As to your other point, if you had read my whole post instead of stopping when you found something to flame about, you would discover that I had indicated that the big issue that I see is precisely related to acceptance in other states. Your notion that calling everything "marriage" somehow precludes other states from being able to disregard them strikes me as less than obvious.

While it may be that states could disregard civil unions and honor MA marriages, it is far from clear to me that such a response is the only one possible for the states that wish to oppose gay unions. I would expect that, if it beomes a hot enough issue, some deep red state will refuse to honor MA marriages, or at least those MA marriages that would not conform to the laws of their own state (wink, wink). If that is a plausible scenario, then we're right back at the point of my last post that you conveniently dodged...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
While it may be that states could disregard civil unions and honor MA marriages, it is far from clear to me that such a response is the only one possible for the states that wish to oppose gay unions. I would expect that, if it beomes a hot enough issue, some deep red state will refuse to honor MA marriages, or at least those MA marriages that would not conform to the laws of their own state (wink, wink). If that is a plausible scenario, then we're right back at the point of my last post that you conveniently dodged...

--Tom Clune
This might look like an American-specific issue because of the way marriage is regulated.

However, bear in mind it's just as much an issue as to how federal law recognises a state marriage. Or whether one country recognises a marriage from another.

There's nothing to stop a deep red state saying exactly what you suggested - saying that it will only recognise marriages that are valid under its own laws. That is exactly what Australia says in relation to overseas marriages, so that it recognises heterosexual marriages from Canada, Spain, the Netherlands etc. but not homosexual ones.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
However, I'm not sure I understand WHY you see cross-recognition as a more important issue than how the recognition occurs in the home jurisdiction. Unless every single jurisdiction on the planet simultaneously agrees to this, there is going to be unequal recognition.

I don't see why bigotry away from home is any kind of justification for a softer form of bigotry at home. For starters, where I live is where I'm most likely to get married, and where I live is where I'm most likely to care about what the law says.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't see why bigotry away from home is any kind of justification for a softer form of bigotry at home. For starters, where I live is where I'm most likely to get married, and where I live is where I'm most likely to care about what the law says.
The context was Croesos's outrage at civil unions instead of marriages. My point was that the real threat is those who don't recognize either. I confess, I didn't consider the possibility of anyone who wasn't brain-dead actually living in such a state. But I take your point. I would just urge you to move out of the red and into the light...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, I live in the first part of Australia to manage 'civil unions'.

However, here marriage is federally regulated. So to move any further into the light I have to emigrate. Canada looks quite attractive sometimes.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
The amendment passed.

L
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The amendment passed.

L
Nice.

Any early predictions from the opponents as to when the sky will fall in?
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The amendment passed.

L
[Yipee]

(Now hopefully, in five years time someone will pass a bill allowing anyone in a civil partnership to go down the registry office and apply for it to be converted to a marriage - when they merge the categories.)
 
Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
[Yipee] Yay!
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Quebec uses the Civil Code like Louisiana does, except that the marriage portions were orphaned in 1867 and reserved to Ottawa. The rest of the provinces use Common Law.
And moreover it is the only province with civil unions as such, having created them under said Code as an interim solution while the judicial review was underway. Unlike civil partnerships in the UK, these are accessible by both same- and opposite-gender couples. There are also rumblings coming out of the Anglican Diocese of Montréal about getting the clergy out of the registrar business entirely and reserving church weddings to those who have had the legal paperwork taken care of at the civil level.

[ 04. March 2010, 04:55: Message edited by: LQ ]
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...How can an official government position stating that a couple's relationship is so inherently alien that it will never qualify as "marriage" not a condemnation?...
What bothers me (does it bother anyone besides me?) is that Man -- government -- has not, IMO, the power to decide what a marriage is. Moreover, the One who has the power has placed the power to create a marriage in the hands of the two doing so.

You (generic "you") and I can sit down over coffee and hammer-n-tong our arguments pro and con the validity of gay marriage all we want to, but I say we're missing an even more foundational argument.

We (generic "we") have messed up big time allowing Church and State to decide for us what a marriage is. Both Big Brothers can watch/tax/control us better if they get a grip on us that way. (I suppose along the way we felt there were benefits to be had from it.) The collar has become too tight for some of us, these days.

It remains to be seen if all our wriggling can loosen it up. If it goes beyond "loosened" to "shaken off", a lot of people on all sides will suddenly feel naked. It will be only then that some will realize they ever wore a collar.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Sorry if I appear a little dense here but, if the State can't decide what marriage is, what can?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Sorry if I appear a little dense here but, if the State can't decide what marriage is, what can?
The wife...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...How can an official government position stating that a couple's relationship is so inherently alien that it will never qualify as "marriage" not a condemnation?...
What bothers me (does it bother anyone besides me?) is that Man -- government -- has not, IMO, the power to decide what a marriage is. Moreover, the One who has the power has placed the power to create a marriage in the hands of the two doing so.

You (generic "you") and I can sit down over coffee and hammer-n-tong our arguments pro and con the validity of gay marriage all we want to, but I say we're missing an even more foundational argument.

We (generic "we") have messed up big time allowing Church and State to decide for us what a marriage is. Both Big Brothers can watch/tax/control us better if they get a grip on us that way. (I suppose along the way we felt there were benefits to be had from it.) The collar has become too tight for some of us, these days.

It remains to be seen if all our wriggling can loosen it up. If it goes beyond "loosened" to "shaken off", a lot of people on all sides will suddenly feel naked. It will be only then that some will realize they ever wore a collar.
I think that there is a good case to be made that the state (in the non-US sense) legislates descriptively, rather than prescriptively, as regards marriage. It seeks to formulate laws which reflect how people actually live, rather than seeks to get people to live in a way which is in accordance with the law. This seems, to me, a wholly appropriate way in which to provide a legislative framework through which marriage can be recognised'

(There is another, maybe slightly more controversial viewpoint, hinted at in the last sentence of your first paragraph, that God does exactly the same thing. After all, churches "solemnise" marriage, but it is the people involve who create it in the first place.)
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that there is a good case to be made that the state (in the non-US sense) legislates descriptively, rather than prescriptively, as regards marriage.
Actually we use "state" in that manner also.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
Well rather predictably the main headline in today's Daily Telegraph is 'Vicars to be sued over gay weddings'.
quote:
Traditionalists fear vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they rejected requests to hold civil partnership ceremonies on religious premises
see online story here (interesting in the online version its buried deep within the news under 'religion' but on the print edition it really was the biggest headline for today)
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Well rather predictably the main headline in today's Daily Telegraph is 'Vicars to be sued over gay weddings'.
quote:
Traditionalists fear vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they rejected requests to hold civil partnership ceremonies on religious premises
see online story here (interesting in the online version its buried deep within the news under 'religion' but on the print edition it really was the biggest headline for today)
Religious groups routinely discriminate for all kinds of reasons that would be illegal if done by a government official. The best way to assess the reasonability of such fears is to ask things like "Has anyone in my jurisdiction ever successfully sued the Roman Catholic Church for refusing to marry someone previously divorced?" You can substitute in another sect or restriction if you're more familiar with other examples (e.g. can any religion that refuses to marry non-believers be sued for religious discrimination?) If the answer is "no", then such fears are likely unfounded.

Then you should ask yourself how likely is it that the 'traditionalists' in the linked article are unaware of these obvious examples of clergy not being subject to the same laws on discrimination as government officials or other institutional actors. If the answer is "not very likely" (as I believe it to be), then it's fairly probable that they're just demagoguing an issue that they oppose on other grounds but are reluctant to just come out and say so.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Well rather predictably the main headline in today's Daily Telegraph is 'Vicars to be sued over gay weddings'.
That was the Times' take on the story, too.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that there is a good case to be made that the state (in the non-US sense) legislates descriptively, rather than prescriptively, as regards marriage.
Actually we use "state" in that manner also.
Indeed, but I wanted to highlight the "Nation State" useage, sometghing akin to what you would call the Federal Government.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...How can an official government position stating that a couple's relationship is so inherently alien that it will never qualify as "marriage" not a condemnation?...
What bothers me (does it bother anyone besides me?) is that Man -- government -- has not, IMO, the power to decide what a marriage is. Moreover, the One who has the power has placed the power to create a marriage in the hands of the two doing so.

You (generic "you") and I can sit down over coffee and hammer-n-tong our arguments pro and con the validity of gay marriage all we want to, but I say we're missing an even more foundational argument.

We (generic "we") have messed up big time allowing Church and State to decide for us what a marriage is. Both Big Brothers can watch/tax/control us better if they get a grip on us that way. (I suppose along the way we felt there were benefits to be had from it.) The collar has become too tight for some of us, these days.

It remains to be seen if all our wriggling can loosen it up. If it goes beyond "loosened" to "shaken off", a lot of people on all sides will suddenly feel naked. It will be only then that some will realize they ever wore a collar.
If you want to stop and think about what you've just said, you will realise it applies equally to every single topic on which a commandment appears in the Bible. Murder. Theft. Adultery. And so on and so on.

You are more than welcome to live in a bubble of theocracy if you wish. But the fact of the matter is, the law in 'Christian'/'Western' nations doesn't operate this way, and hasn't for centuries. Parliaments have the authority to make laws, not churches. The Bible and the interpretation of the Bible plays no part in the legal system. The Bible doesn't form part of the constitution of the UK, and it certainly doesn't get incorporated into the law of those countries with written constitutions such as the USA and Australia.

There are a number of Muslim nations that continue to use the Koran and its interpretation as an underpinning of their legal system.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Sorry if I appear a little dense here but, if the State can't decide what marriage is, what can?
Well my husband decided four months ago that after 25 years, what we had wasn't a marriage but a sham. The state, however, disagrees, thanks to that little paper I keep zipped up in a folder safely.

I supose my husband might consider that a "collar", Janine, but I don't. I consider it a way to enforce his obligations to our daughter.

If our financial situations were reversed, I'd be considering it a way to enforce his financial obligations to me.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Well rather predictably the main headline in today's Daily Telegraph is 'Vicars to be sued over gay weddings'.
quote:
Traditionalists fear vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they rejected requests to hold civil partnership ceremonies on religious premises
Right-wing newspaper tries to whip up an alarmist story with no basis in fact. In other news, people drive to places in cars.
That said, I had thought that the Telegraph had a reputation for not being this alarmist.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
No this is one of the Telegraph's little hobby horses. They did a lot of scaremongering about the religious exemption from discrimination too, IIRC.
L.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0