|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: One more step along the world I go...
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
THIS REPORT reveals a brand new development. Civil partnerships can now be celebrated in church.
But, to me, there is a danger.
It is said that churches will not be made to agree to conduct these ceremonies - ie the vicar/minister/priest/officer can legally say no, but Lyn Featherstone MP said something rather strange in that context:
""The government is advancing equality for LGB (lesbian, gay and bisexual) people and ensuring freedom of religion for people of all faiths. No religious group will be forced to host a civil partnership registration, but for those who wish to do so this is an important step forward."
What does that mean? A step forward? To my mind any steps forward mean that a further step is to be taken. Can someone enlighten me as to what may be intended and just what the 'next step' will be?
Oh yes, no coercion today, but will the next step be an obligation in law to perform same sex civil partnerships and then marriages? Does anyone believe that Mr Tatchell will be satisfied at voluntary compliance? It's all well and good saying "Oh the Quakers will do it for you." but what if Peter and John want to get hitched in that pretty church with the roses at the door? It won't be long before the 'next step but one' sees the local rector in court for failing to provide the legal ceremony. Full compliance byu all churches will be the next milestone in the equality gender.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
oh dear yes this is SO worrying for heterosexuals -
who having everything seem to want more and perhaps to bar the way to lesbians and gays
beautiful piece of eisogesis though ! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Do you worry too about vicars and ministers prevented from taking CPs for their members, by any national church policy ?
Btw I rejoice for all those wonderful couples who can now have a religous ceremony - albeit in a minority of shacks (it would seem) and not the national Church which might have act in a more fitting was as the erm
National Church
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[ 02. November 2011, 15:49: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
what if Peter and John want to get hitched in that pretty church with the roses at the door?
What if they do? It's not like the priest or congregation have to turn up and give their blessing - it's no different to them using any other pile of stones with roses at the door.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
oh dear yes this is SO worrying for heterosexuals
No, just for some individuals.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
oh dear yes this is SO worrying for heterosexuals -
No, it's 'worrying' for those who genuinely and sincerely do not agree with the premise of gay marriage. You can believe in it all you like but don't fall into the trap that says tolerance and freedom of faith and religious expression must only apply to those who want something different. Tolerance must MUST also be shown to those whose conscience will not allow them to perform a ceremony they believe to be against the Tradition of the church and more importantly the general tenor and the specific text of Scripture.
You cannot demand that the Christian church in the UK changes its doctrine and theology to suit 1.5% of the population.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
We've had a brief confab on the Host board and think the topic belongs on the DH board under the "any aspect" guideline.
Discussion having hardly got started on the closed thread on the same topic (different slant), I'll just transfer this one "as is" and those interested in the topic (I predict more than a few) will be able to catch up in the new location.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Tolerance must MUST also be shown to those whose conscience will not allow them to perform a ceremony they believe to be against the Tradition of the church and more importantly the general tenor and the specific text of Scripture.
Don't worry - I doubt such people would be invited anyway!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The point is that the priest has to be invited or at least give his permission for the building to be used!
The danger is that the next step is not mere 'allowance' but 'compulsion'.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
AS I said you have it all already
- so why not Take more
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
PS
Sorry the other thread closed (Bpatist train) - seemed on a different tack to me.
Do you think it will be raised again - like this one ?
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point is that the priest has to be invited or at least give his permission for the building to be used!
The danger is that the next step is not mere 'allowance' but 'compulsion'.
*Yawns*
The Roman Catholic Church has for time immemorial refused to marry divorcees despite marriages between divorcees being legal. Find me a case where a Roman Catholic priest has been forced to marry one. Then we'll talk about how compulsion is likely. Rather than the compulsion banning gay religious marriages.
And why aren't you cheering? Churches are now allowed to do things they were banned from doing in the past.
[ 02. November 2011, 16:09: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
AS I said you have it all already
- so why not Take more
But you don't want what is 'ours', you want to alter it and make it into something different. You not only want to use buildings and Christian words, you want to actively change the definition of what the institution of marriage means.
And in any case, you cannot ask God to bless what he has already said no to.
Don't like it? Then sue him.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point is that the priest has to be invited or at least give his permission for the building to be used!
The danger is that the next step is not mere 'allowance' but 'compulsion'.
*Yawns*
The Roman Catholic Church has for time immemorial refused to marry divorcees despite marriages between divorcees being legal. Find me a case where a Roman Catholic priest has been forced to marry one. Then we'll talk about how compulsion is likely. Rather than the compulsion banning gay religious marriages.
And why aren't you cheering? Churches are now allowed to do things they were banned from doing in the past.
I', not cheering because I don't WANT churches to have to do this stuff!
And why is there no forcing of the RC Church to marry divorcees? Because there is no media and cultural lobby to support divorcee rights and equality issues. And because most people accept that divorce is a desperately sad sign of failure anyway.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
This article is gibberish to me. From the headline it appears that same-sex couples are enabled to commandeer whatever religious building they wish for their civil ceremony.
But the fine print explains that no religious organization will be compelled to co-operate.
So what possible interpretation remains? Maybe for those whose denomination agrees, their clergy will have the authority to conduct legally recognized services (i.e. civil partnerships) which they previously had no authority to do? (Same as they now have the authority to solemnize marriages in the U.K. and the U.S., but not in every country).
If this is the situation, then I am at a loss to see an encroachment of the state upon religious doctrine. Rather the opposite. But I hope that someone closer to the ground can clarify.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I', not cheering because I don't WANT churches to have to do this stuff!
But no one is making them do any of this.
What has happened is that churches who want to perform certain ceremonies now legally can. Are you openly trying to have religious services banned? Or is that merely a side effect of your position?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
AS I said you have it all already
- so why not Take more
But you don't want what is 'ours', you want to alter it and make it into something different. You not only want to use buildings and Christian words, you want to actively change the definition of what the institution of marriage means.
And in any case, you cannot ask God to bless what he has already said no to.
Don't like it? Then sue him.
HAVE it ALL
SEIZE EVERYTHING
-- leave those awful queers with nothing
-you KNOW it makes sense
btw why are ur nickers soooo twisted ? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
X
[ 02. November 2011, 16:22: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
i know i know -
mine are in a twist too - see what u do to me ?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I', not cheering because I don't WANT churches to have to do this stuff!
But no one is making them do any of this.
What has happened is that churches who want to perform certain ceremonies now legally can. Are you openly trying to have religious services banned? Or is that merely a side effect of your position?
Please go back to the OP. The issue is centred around the words 'important step forward' - implying there will be other steps. I am afraid that the next step will move us closer to 'compulsion', rather than merely 'allowance.'
It has happened in other areas, e.g. adoption. The RC Church closed the agencies rather than be compelled to allow same sex couples to adopt, which is exactly what the law now says.
The next step could very well be 'you will provide your building'; the step after may be, 'you will provide the minister.'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I think you have all been taken in by the British Press whose natural tendency is to publish rubbish about anything related to churches.
The article linked in the OP says:
quote:
Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said no religious group would be forced to host them, but those who wished to could apply by the end of the year.
So no-one is being forced to change anything.
And plenty of churches already celebrate civil partnerships as if they were normal weddings.
There is nothing interesting here at all.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point is that the priest has to be invited or at least give his permission for the building to be used!
He doesn't have to be there at all - the idea is that the church can host a civil partnership. You know, the same way hotels, halls and botanical gardens do right now.
I doubt the manager of those venues has to be present while the ceremony takes place, so why do you think a priest would?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Please go back to the OP. The issue is centred around the words 'important step forward' - implying there will be other steps. I am afraid that the next step will move us closer to 'compulsion', rather than merely 'allowance.'
Let's go back to what the OP actually says, shorn of all paranoia.
"No religious group will be forced to host a civil partnership registration, but for those who wish to do so this is an important step forward."
The step forward is that it's a step to allowing gay marriages in churches that want them. Not a step to forcing civil partnerships on churches that don't.
quote:
It has happened in other areas, e.g. adoption. The RC Church closed the agencies rather than be compelled to allow same sex couples to adopt, which is exactly what the law now says.
The Roman Catholic Church closed charities providing a public service and for which they were paid by the local authority rather than either make them private organisations or obey the law of the land. The adoption agencies in question were taking money to subcontract the work of the local authority. And like all subcontractors they had to follow the same rules as the local authority which they refused to do.
If they'd been a private adoption agency rather than an agency doing local authority work open to the general public (supplemented by donations) matters would probably have been different. For instance, Catholic Care are still running nursing homes which is a private rather than public service.
quote:
The next step could very well be 'you will provide your building'; the step after may be, 'you will provide the minister.'
And after that comes "You will provide your blood" and after that comes "everyone is gay, by order". Riiight.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point is that the priest has to be invited or at least give his permission for the building to be used!
He doesn't have to be there at all - the idea is that the church can host a civil partnership. You know, the same way hotels, halls and botanical gardens do right now.
I doubt the manager of those venues has to be present while the ceremony takes place, so why do you think a priest would?
I said 'or'.
And in any case, do you think a priest would allow his church to be used if he didn't agree with the event?
[ 02. November 2011, 16:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Please go back to the OP. The issue is centred around the words 'important step forward' - implying there will be other steps. I am afraid that the next step will move us closer to 'compulsion', rather than merely 'allowance.'
It has happened in other areas, e.g. adoption. The RC Church closed the agencies rather than be compelled to allow same sex couples to adopt, which is exactly what the law now says.
The next step could very well be 'you will provide your building'; the step after may be, 'you will provide the minister.'
Or the next step could be that we'll all be forced to be gay! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) Or that the gov'mint will force us all to bow at their feet and worship them! Who knows what this fictional 'next step' might be? It could be anything so let's pretend it is. We should all take to the streets! You first. Let me know how you get on.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think you have all been taken in by the British Press whose natural tendency is to publish rubbish about anything related to churches.
The article linked in the OP says:
quote:
Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said no religious group would be forced to host them, but those who wished to could apply by the end of the year.
So no-one is being forced to change anything.
And plenty of churches already celebrate civil partnerships as if they were normal weddings.
There is nothing interesting here at all.
The point is (said he getting tired) the MP spoke about a step forward. There is no way that this is the destination, this is a stage towards a more specific goal.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And why is there no forcing of the RC Church to marry divorcees? Because there is no media and cultural lobby to support divorcee rights and equality issues. And because most people accept that divorce is a desperately sad sign of failure anyway.
Isn't there? I'd say that there's massive public support, not just in the media or some "cultural lobby" but in all levels of society that regards anyone remarried after divorce to be both legitimately married and the legal equals of married couples who have never been divorced. I'm also dubious that there's a widespread attitude that remarrying after a divorce is seen as "a desperately sad sign of failure". I'd say not remarrying and spending your remaining years alone is more likely to be seen as "a desperately sad sign of failure" by most Westerners today.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The point is (said he getting tired) the MP spoke about a step forward. There is no way that this is the destination, this is a stage towards a more specific goal.
Indeed. And the goal the MP spoke of is incredibly obvious and not the one you are talking about. The goal the MP spoke of is legal gay marriages in willing churches. Not forcible civil unions.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
To take a different tack from my slightly different thread which got closed down:
The original proposals seemed rather odd in that the actual ceremony, even though it was taking place in a religious building, still could not include religious language. In fact, there would have to be a clear division between the "partnership bit" and the "religious bit". It was not to be a "religious service" but still the "hosting of a civil registration on religious premises" - which is a sort of unsatisfactory halfway house.
I know that some folk pointed out the fallacy of this during the Consultation process - what was the outcome? Did things get changed? Does anyone know?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Here is the Government response to the consultation. I haven't read it yet so you may well get the answer first.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Here is the Government response to the consultation. I haven't read it yet so you may well get the answer first.
Link fixed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
I can't get the government response page to open but AFAIK the civil ceremony has to be conducted as prescribed so that it is a legal contract. The person conducting this would need to be a civil registrar. After that it is OK to have any further ceremonial because this is not part of the legal bit. So a religious ceremony, something like a service of blessing would be appropriate.
Since it involves use of a church building I assume a PCC or at least the churchwardens would need to be in agreement. However, I can imagine cases where a same sex couple in a congregation would be supported in arranging a church-based ceremony.
Sooner or later there'll be a test case; a bishop will take some action against a cleric accommodating a civil partnership ceremony and this will be challenged in court. The CofE will make a prat of itself as usual.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Paragraphs 2.40-2.44 is the relevant passage. It says that the majority of responses focussed on the issue of separate civil and religious sections, although it doesn't say what the majority view was. Anyway the Government is basically continuing with its previous proposals although with a bit more flexibility around order. I can't help thinking this is a bit of a red herring. In a church marriage there is already a religious part and a civil part (the signing of the registers) where the civil part equally contains no religious language.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
There could be a negative impact on organisations who do not register to conduct civil partnership
registrations as they face pressure to do so, possibly damaging relations with their wider community.
Conflict could also be caused if the competent authority of a denomination decides not to opt in but an
individual wishes to conduct these ceremonies (or vice versa). However, the internal structures and
governance of religious bodies would not be for Government to interfere with.
Translation:
This may cause dreadful friction and heartache in your church and in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. It may divide clergy colleagues, whole congregations and denominations, it might cause the letters page of the local rag to be filled with months' worth of letters pro and con, dragging the church through the mire, but hey, that's not our problem even though we caused it!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
Thanks for fixing the link. The 'person or persons' whose consent is required for an application to be made in respect of Church of England premises is the General Synod.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There could be a negative impact on organisations who do not register to conduct civil partnership
registrations as they face pressure to do so, possibly damaging relations with their wider community.
Conflict could also be caused if the competent authority of a denomination decides not to opt in but an
individual wishes to conduct these ceremonies (or vice versa). However, the internal structures and
governance of religious bodies would not be for Government to interfere with.
Translation:
This may cause dreadful friction and heartache in your church and in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. It may divide clergy colleagues, whole congregations and denominations, it might cause the letters page of the local rag to be filled with months' worth of letters pro and con, dragging the church through the mire, but hey, that's not our problem even though we caused it!
Translation:
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There could be a negative impact on organisations who do not register to conduct civil partnership
registrations as they face pressure to do so, possibly damaging relations with their wider community.
Conflict could also be caused if the competent authority of a denomination decides not to opt in but an
individual wishes to conduct these ceremonies (or vice versa). However, the internal structures and
governance of religious bodies would not be for Government to interfere with.
Translation:
This may cause dreadful friction and heartache in your church and in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. It may divide clergy colleagues, whole congregations and denominations, it might cause the letters page of the local rag to be filled with months' worth of letters pro and con, dragging the church through the mire, but hey, that's not our problem even though we caused it!
Translation:
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
#
No, don't be daft - just hassle for the church when it doesn't need it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Mudfrogs' verbiage happened in NZ when the law changed. Pastors predicted the end of civilisation as we know it.
As I said at the time, any queers who wanted to civilly unite in a church were (a) likely to be members already, and (b) not stupid enough to want Pastor Fundy-anti-gay to perform the ceremony in the first place.
Since I notice the COE's response is to have to apply to General Synod, and General Synod has held up their collective hands screaming to priests, "Don't do it until we've had at least another 40 years of discussion," I think we can be sure some priest IS going to challenge it, and some bishop IS going to take them on. And that is going to be the act that makes it an issue.
Whereas, had the COE recognised that it is the state church, with legal bonds to the state, and just kept its trap shut, it probably would have gone without much notice (don't want to get into church-state here, but them's the breaks in the UK).
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
To go back to my point about what the legislation says: the "legal" and "religious" bits of the service have to be separate, and a clergyperson can't do the "legal" bit unless they are registered as a Civil Partnership registrar. (That's different to weddings: in our church we have two Registrars, neither of whom are the Minister).
I won't quote the legislation as I don't want to breach copyright. But it's paragraph 15 of Schedule 2A on page 34 of the Home Office document mentioned above.
One other issue is that the restriction on not eating and drinking in the same place for an hour before and after the ceremony has been softened if there is a religious reason for it, so you can have Communion, for instance.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Interesting though that the government recognises that this will cause trouble for the church - both outside and inside.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
frisky
Apprentice
# 15776
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Mudfrogs' verbiage happened in NZ when the law changed. Pastors predicted the end of civilisation as we know it.
As was pretty much the case in South Africa also. After the hubhub died down, religious organisations have pretty much been left to themselves in figuring out whether they want to solemnise the marriages of same-sex couples. Some of them do, some of them probably never will. In some of them, the topic pops up every now and then for a short while.
The point is that, in a country which has a guarantee of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution, you don't get churches being sued because "Peter and John want to get hitched in that pretty church with the roses at the door". (BTW, if your only problem with this situation is that John isn't Joan, your standards for religious marriage are somewhat shaky to begin with).
This is about enabling churches who do want to solemnise some form of same-sex union in doing so. I don't see how anyone who takes religious freedom seriously should have a problem with this.
Posts: 26 | From: Cape Town, South Africa | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
Marriage needs to be protected!!!!!
Mostly, I think, from heterosexuals who abuse it.
...I can't think why Kim Kardashian and hubby are coming to mind... or Britney Spears... or...
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Marriage needs to be protected!!!!!
Mostly, I think, from heterosexuals who abuse it.
...I can't think why Kim Kardashian and hubby are coming to mind... or Britney Spears... or...
Hey, I'm not sure that any venture that can bring in US$18 million in 72 days can really be called a failure. The Kardashian marriage probably exceeded expectations*.
*As longs as "expectations" is understood to be a euphemism for "earnings projections".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There could be a negative impact on organisations who do not register to conduct civil partnership
registrations as they face pressure to do so, possibly damaging relations with their wider community.
Conflict could also be caused if the competent authority of a denomination decides not to opt in but an
individual wishes to conduct these ceremonies (or vice versa). However, the internal structures and
governance of religious bodies would not be for Government to interfere with.
Translation:
This may cause dreadful friction and heartache in your church and in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. It may divide clergy colleagues, whole congregations and denominations, it might cause the letters page of the local rag to be filled with months' worth of letters pro and con, dragging the church through the mire, but hey, that's not our problem even though we caused it!
The arguments over church patronage which caused enormous schisms in the Churches in Scotland certainly did that, so I take it you're in favour of non-evangelical landowners using their money to make sure nobody dares preach an evangelical sermon on their land or in their kirk? Or to make sure that their useless lazy cousin Archie gets the call rather than anyone actually interested in ministering to poor people. Because God forbid ordinary Christians should be able to choose their pastor instead of rich people who know what's good for them.
My word, that caused friction, heartache, division, letters to the press, but I take it since you are agin such things you side completely with the landowners. Down with those uppity poor and working class evangelicals! Don't they realise the trouble they're causing asking for 'rights'? And do you know they're calling it a step forward? Next they'll be wanting the vote! Pass the port, my dear Mudfrog, where will it all end?
The 'step forward' is that churches which want to have equal marriage now can, without having the law dictated to them by churches/faiths which don't recognise equal marriage. The Salvation Army doesn't have sacraments, probably 98.5% churches think at least one of them (baptism) is essential and God has just spoken on the matter, so sue him. If they were to legislate to impose their view on the 1.5% or whatever you belong to, I have no doubt you would be outraged, but this is what you are happy to do to the Quakers, Unitarians, MCC, liberal Presbyterians and Episcopalians, Reform Judaism etc. whose faith can accommodate equal marriage.
If you regard allowing them freedom of worship as an intolerable 'step forward', and who cares about such minnows, God has Spoken! then why should the big sacramental churches tolerate you and your unpopular tiny minority beliefs about sacraments?
It's a shame that some churches are letting what looks like an exaggerated fear of gay people having stable faithful relationships rooted in their faiths take them veering into hypocrisy, where they deny freedom of worship to others while representing their oppressive behaviour as defence of the very value they are attacking. You are attacking other people's freedom of worship. Nobody is attacking yours. As they say on Monty Python ' Now stop that, it's silly!'
cheers,
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There could be a negative impact on organisations who do not register to conduct civil partnership
registrations as they face pressure to do so, possibly damaging relations with their wider community.
Conflict could also be caused if the competent authority of a denomination decides not to opt in but an
individual wishes to conduct these ceremonies (or vice versa). However, the internal structures and
governance of religious bodies would not be for Government to interfere with.
Translation:
This may cause dreadful friction and heartache in your church and in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. It may divide clergy colleagues, whole congregations and denominations, it might cause the letters page of the local rag to be filled with months' worth of letters pro and con, dragging the church through the mire, but hey, that's not our problem even though we caused it!
Further translation:
We haven't got the balls to man up in public about our real views about gays, preferring to hide behind the skirts of Government regulation.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Further translation:
We haven't got the balls to man up in public about our real views about gays, preferring to hide behind the skirts of Government regulation.
It may come as a surprise to some but I completely agree with this.
And Ken's comment. When you read the small print there is no evidence of compulsion at all.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
You cannot demand that the Christian church in the UK changes its doctrine and theology to suit 1.5% of the population.
Not only 1.5% of the population support same-sex unions as equivalent to heterosexual marriage. To say that is to falsely portray the move towards equality for same-sex couples as a plot concocted by a small minority against the wishes of a majority of people.
There are many heterosexuals, including quite a few Christians, who support same-sex marriage.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'll start talking about compulsion to marry Harry and Tom when someone provides any evidence that it's currently possible for Harry and Sally to rock up to a church and demand that the vicar marries them.
Harry and Sally are total atheists (though Harry has a Hindu background), and despise the church, but the building is incredibly pretty and they love the whole traditional English wedding look. It just wouldn't work unless they got the vicar into the bargain.
If the vicar can say no to Harry and Sally, then the vicar can say no to Harry to Tom. Simple really. A sudden moral panic that a same sex couple could have EXTRA rights over a heterosexual one is just woolly thinking.
[ 03. November 2011, 01:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This may cause dreadful friction and heartache in your church and in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. It may divide clergy colleagues, whole congregations and denominations, it might cause the letters page of the local rag to be filled with months' worth of letters pro and con, dragging the church through the mire, but hey, that's not our problem even though we caused it!
Because it's not as if the arguments over whether same-sex relationships are morally licit are causing dreadful friction and heartache already.
Remember, folks: if someone tells gay or lesbians couples that their relationship isn't approved of by God that isn't causing heartache or friction. It's only heartache and friction when it happens to the people who agree with you.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
'Heartache and friction'?
Heartache and friction because they can't allow that people may have a different sexuallity (and ways of expressing it) from them and still be loved, approved of and accepted by God? Poor souls - they must suffer terribly.
Let them try the heartache and friction caused by being raised in a family/church/culture which rejects the very person they are - then come and tell us about it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
There could be a negative impact on organisations who do not register to conduct civil partnership
registrations as they face pressure to do so, possibly damaging relations with their wider community.
Conflict could also be caused if the competent authority of a denomination decides not to opt in but an
individual wishes to conduct these ceremonies (or vice versa). However, the internal structures and
governance of religious bodies would not be for Government to interfere with.
Translation:
This may cause dreadful friction and heartache in your church and in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. It may divide clergy colleagues, whole congregations and denominations, it might cause the letters page of the local rag to be filled with months' worth of letters pro and con, dragging the church through the mire, but hey, that's not our problem even though we caused it!
So, business as usual then.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[del]
And plenty of churches already celebrate civil partnerships as if they were normal weddings.
There is nothing interesting here at all. [/QB]
Are you sure, ken? I know lots of churches celebrate a civil partnership as if it were a normal blessing-of-a-marriage, but that's not the same thing. I thought that the Friends in particular have been (rightly) very miffed that presssure from the CofE establishment has stopped them legally celebrating civil partnerships per se. That's now to be changed, but as everyone apart from the press know, this is a removal of a coercion, not an imposition of one.
I think it will be interesting to watch the CoE line unravel: by ensuring that the only body which can apply for permission to register a parish church is the General Synod the powers that be have blocked immediate change at a local level. But all the loopholes will be exploited. Divorcees in the bad old days could get the religious bit at the Savoy Chapel (I forget what its curious status is/was). In the present case I expect quite a few Oxford and Cambridge Colleges will want to register their chapels; chaplains with careers to build may not be willing to officiate, but there are plenty of retired clergy who'll oblige. More imaginative minds than mine will be able to find other peculiarities.
So it really is one more step along the road, I reckon, for the CofE. It won't be long before parishioners who wish to celebrate their civil partnership in their parish church are entitled [as in case of marriage] to do so, although [as for marriage] there will be an opt-out clause for the incumbent. And rightly so!---surely the incumbent holds the building in trust for the people who live in the geographical parish, not for him/herself or the bishop or the general synod or the PCC.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
