Ship of Fools: One more step along the world I go...

Thread: One more step along the world I go... 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=028613

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

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]

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]

[ 02. November 2011, 15:49: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
oh dear yes this is SO worrying for heterosexuals

No, just for some individuals.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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'.

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

AS I said you have it all already

- so why not Take more

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

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 ?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

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 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

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?

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

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]

X

[ 02. November 2011, 16:22: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

i know i know -

mine are in a twist too - see what u do to me ?

[Angel]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.'

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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 ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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]

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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?

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

Here is the Government response to the consultation. I haven't read it yet so you may well get the answer first.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

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.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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!

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

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.

Posted by frisky (# 15776) on :

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!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

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).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Interesting though that the government recognises that this will cause trouble for the church - both outside and inside.

Posted by frisky (# 15776) on :

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.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

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...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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".

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

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.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

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.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

'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]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

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.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

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.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

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: The preachings of our church are already causing dreaful friction and heartache in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. They are dividing family, cogregations, and denominations. But as long as we can keep our bigotry swept under the carpet it's not our problem even though we are causing it.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Time for the Church to eschew its bigotry its bigotry and bring the Gospel into the 21st century. Scripture needs to be treated as the historical document it is rather than in a literalist fashion.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Translation: The preachings of our church are already causing dreaful friction and heartache in the parish, town, and neighbourhood. They are dividing family, cogregations, and denominations. But as long as we can keep our bigotry swept under the carpet it's not our problem even though we are causing it.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

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.

Anglican_Brat,

I thought that Louise's 1.5% was her estimate of Sally Army members (which includes Mudfrog) rather than those who support same-sex unions. That is obviously a much larger figure, as you say.

Joanna

Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Lyn Featherstone MP said :

""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."

Well, at least someone is finally being honest about excluding the T (transgender) contingent from the equation; people do it all the time anyway, but usually while paying lip service to being inclusive, so it’s actually quite refreshing to hear someone be up front about not considering the ramifications for the T in LGBT.

I realize that this may be tangential to the specific focus of this thread, but it’s something that gets excluded from virtually every conversation about same sex-marriage, so I hope you’ll indulge me for a moment. The thing is, ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ are not interchangeable terms. The prohibition against same-sex marriage actually affects many heterosexual couples as well, in which one partner is transgender and is unable to change their gender on their legal documentation for whatever reason (rules on that vary widely from place to place). And there are many homosexual couples who are able to marry legally for the same reason.

This population may be a minority within a minority, but it’s still an issue for a large number of people—real people, who have names and faces and families. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the same conservatives who defend traditional marriage don’t know what to make of these situations. Let’s take a hypothetical; it’s simplistic, and reality is much more complicated, but this will do for my purposes. John was assigned female at birth, but has identified as male since he was a small child. He began transition in his teens, taking hormones which induced male puberty, and had sexual reassignment surgery in his early 20s. He now has both primary and secondary male sex characteristics. Because of where he lives, however, while he can change his name and possibly even his gender on his driver’s license, he cannot change either his name or his gender on his birth certificate. Now the question for the gatekeepers of traditional marriage becomes, Who would you allow John to marry? Even the staunchest conservative will say that a gay man is perfectly welcome to marry—so long as he marries a woman. (That’s a perfectly repugnant statement as far as I’m concerned, but it’s one we’ve all heard more times than we’d care to count.) But what if John wishes to marry a woman? Well, he was raised as female; surely that must make it a homosexual relationship, and therefore wrong. What if John wishes to marry a man? He is a man, and is perceived by others as a man; surely that must be a homosexual relationship. To people who see everything in black and white, anything they perceive as a shade of grey is maddening, and there is no way they can see someone who is transgender as anything other than homosexual. (This affects intersex people as well, of course; but I’m not addressing their specific issues here because I have no personal experience with them and as such won’t presume to be an expert, and because intersex people are often looked upon with a small amount of compassion because their situation is perceived to be an accident of birth.)

So there are many out there who would deny those of us in the transgender community, particularly those who have transitioned both socially and medically, the right to marry anyone at all. We’re used to being an afterthought even in parts of the LGBT community and all the more so elsewhere; but this is one area where it’s particularly galling to be pushed aside. It’s one thing to become a eunuch voluntarily for the kingdom of heaven; it’s quite another to be made one against one’s will because people don’t know what the hell to do with you otherwise.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Cupbearer, you're absolutely right to bring this up. There was a time in the past when I was working on transgender issues, and was struck by what an awful legal mess transgender people get caught up in through no fault of their own - often a far worse mess than I would ever face as a gay man.

Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on :

Orfeo, i'm grateful for your kind response. I was concerned after I posted that I might have come off as sounding as though I think I as a transgender person have it harder than everyone else/O Woe Is Me, etc. That really wasn't my intent at all; I simply wanted to indicate that, as you said, the situation is uniquely complicated for trans people.

I also appreciate your work on behalf of the transgender community more than I can say. There has been some tension at times between the LG and T (as there has been between the LG and B); but when that alliance works, it's a thing of beauty and a joy forever. And I think that as abysmally as many gay cisgender men have been treated, most of them would be quick to acknowledge that trans people have a unique status with conservatives as the lowest of the low. How fortunate we are that Christ appeared to have special affection for just that stratum of society....

I am pleased to make your acquaintance, and honoured that you would take the time to address my post.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I think part of the tension or difficulty is that gender identity really shouldn't be lumped in with sexuality. The two are really quite different and entirely independent of each other - your own sense of gender has no correlation with your sense of who you are sexually attracted to. There are cases of transgender people changing to 'become straight' and cases of transgender people changing to 'become gay'.

Rules that did not care whether a relationship was 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual' would at least assist transgender people by removing one source of difficulty, but they certainly wouldn't remove all the problems. I only run into issues by reference to a relationship. You run into issues all on your own.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
Because of where he lives, however, while he can change his name and possibly even his gender on his driver’s license, he cannot change either his name or his gender on his birth certificate.

Luckily in England it is possible to change the birth certificate. It requires a bit more evidence than changing gender on a passport (which is trivially easy with just a doctor's note), but it's definitely doable.

Regarding marriage, the law treats trans people who've changed their birth certificate as fully belonging to the gender they transitioned into, so John would be able to marry a woman but not a man. There were no bans on churches being allowed to offer weddings for trans people, and civil partnerships for trans people fell under the same law that's being discussed here.

I think that's why the MP being quoted only referred to LGB people — they're the only ones who were suffering a ban on their partnership ceremony taking place in a church.

There is an exception to some of the Equality Act regarding trans people and the church. If I recall correctly, someone's status as a trans person is allowed to be taken into consideration (as a negative factor) for people applying for ministerial jobs in a church, but not admin jobs, for example.

Still, I think this country is doing quite well compared to many others as far as provision for trans people goes. The fact that the NHS will fund medical costs for transitioning is already awesome.

Amorya

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Very interesting post, cupbearer.

The more I read this, the more I think part of the problem was infelicitous phrasing on the part of the speaker:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Lyn Featherstone MP said :

"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 "but" in the middle prompts fear from those who were anxious anyway, because it seems like it will contradict or limit the thought of the first part of the sentence. (Example: "I'm not a racist, but... [racist crap]"). It's at least understandable even if wrong.

If I were suspicious or anxious about the activities of a leadership group anyway, then anything they said could be construed this way. "None of you will be forced to show your papers on demand, but... " everything after the "but" would raise my anxiety, even if it were, "but tea will be served at 6."

Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
Because of where he lives, however, while he can change his name and possibly even his gender on his driver’s license, he cannot change either his name or his gender on his birth certificate.
Luckily in England it is possible to change the birth certificate. It requires a bit more evidence than changing gender on a passport (which is trivially easy with just a doctor's note), but it's definitely doable.

Regarding marriage, the law treats trans people who've changed their birth certificate as fully belonging to the gender they transitioned into, so John would be able to marry a woman but not a man. There were no bans on churches being allowed to offer weddings for trans people, and civil partnerships for trans people fell under the same law that's being discussed here.

I think that's why the MP being quoted only referred to LGB people — they're the only ones who were suffering a ban on their partnership ceremony taking place in a church.

There is an exception to some of the Equality Act regarding trans people and the church. If I recall correctly, someone's status as a trans person is allowed to be taken into consideration (as a negative factor) for people applying for ministerial jobs in a church, but not admin jobs, for example.

Still, I think this country is doing quite well compared to many others as far as provision for trans people goes. The fact that the NHS will fund medical costs for transitioning is already awesome.

Amorya

Thanks, Amorya; that makes sense in the context of the UK. If someone has an easy (or at least easier) time changing their gender on their birth certificate, it does make sense specifically to address the issues surrounding gay marriage.

I live in the States, where depending on where one lives, it can be a nightmare getting one's ID changed. Not only is it an expensive, time-consuming process, in some places it's actually impossible. Someone may live and transition in one state, but if they were born in another, more conservative state, changing one's birth certificate there may be prohibited by law. And some states require a copy of a birth certificate in order to obtain a marriage license. So there are heterosexual couples in the US who are denied the right to marry because one of them happens to be transgender and to have been born in the wrong state (in more ways than one, heh). It's incredibly frustrating. And it doesn't matter one whit to the conservatives defending traditional marriage because they don't acknowledge trans people anyway.

As Orfeo said, being transgender doesn't have anything to do with one's sexuality per se; it mostly has to do with how others perceive one's sexuality. But somehow the fact of physically altering one's sex to match one's gender seems, in the eyes of many who were lucky enough to have been born with a matched set, to paint us as a special breed of perverts. Which is rather funny in many ways, not least of which being that the entire market for trans porn was essentially created by straight cisgender men and that asexuality as an orientation is significantly higher in the trans community than it is elsewhere (I'm asexual myself, and celibate in my relationship as well, so I have a difficult time understanding why I'm considered to be such a dire threat to the morals of this nation).

I'm not part of the trans population that's at high risk for physical assault; I'm white, well-educated, and I'm transitioning to male, which is more socially acceptable than transitioning to female. Because of my privilege, I generally encounter insulting language and institutionalized discrimination, rather than fists and baseball bats. I have much for which to be grateful. But it's possible to work for more than one good at a time, and I believe it's necessary not only to work to stop violence against trans people (and particularly trans women, who are at the highest risk), but to work for full rights and acceptance at all levels of society.

Thanks for indulging me on this tangent. It's wonderful to participate in a discussion where the subject's not swept under the carpet the moment I bring it up.

[ 07. November 2011, 13:49: Message edited by: cupbearer ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0