|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Celebrating Civil Partnerships in Churches
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Are people aware that, while General Synod was getting enmired in the question of women bishops, the United Reformed Church was meeting in its General Assembly down the road in Scarborough and decided to allow its churches to register for the celebration of Civil Partnerships if they so desire? At least one church resolved, the very next day, to make application to do so at the earliest opportunity.
This resolution has been a long time in coming - indeed, some churches have been offering "non-legal" blessings on such partnerships for some time - and it is hoped that churches with differing theological positions will be able to "live together in difference".
The decision is not without its practical difficulties: individual churches will have to decide whether they wish to register or not, which could be a difficult decision for them to make. And, under the terms of Government legislation, it will be impossible for a URC in an Ecumenical Partnership to make such a decision until the other sharing denominations are in agreement - which might be never!
PS I was present at the debate.
[ 10. July 2012, 10:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
The ecumenical partnership issue is interesting. Is there any way round it? For example if the celebrant was a URC clergyperson acting under the authority of the URC alone when performing the ceremony? I have no idea how ecumenical partnerships work in practice, so I don't know what is or isn't possible. No doubt the URC's congregationalist roots make it easier to effectively out-source the decision to individual congregations. The Baptist Union could theoretically follow the same path (although the number of interested churches would probably be tiny), but it would presumably be much more difficult for denominations with a more centralised ethos.
PS I'm now wondering if the URC church which has applied immediately is St. Columba's in Oxford.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Individual churches with a congregational polity will presumably be able to make use of this without much bother, but presumably it won't be of much use to denominations that make such decisions centrally, until they get everyone to agree.
It will be awkward for Local Ecumenical Partnerships between the URC and the Methodists and/or the CofE. On the other hand, even in LEPs, the actual church building usually belongs to one denomination or another, doesn't it? If a URC/Methodist LEP is based in a church owned by the URC, and the URC wanted to conduct civil partnerships there, then the Methodists wouldn't be able to object constitutionally or a legally, would they?
Usually, LEPs are formed with congregations that are fairly similar theologically, so it's hard to imagine that the two groups couldn't find a loophole, if they wanted to!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
The ecumenical partnership issue is interesting. Is there any way round it? For example if the celebrant was a URC clergyperson acting under the authority of the URC alone when performing the ceremony?
No - the Civil Partnership is just that: a ceremony performed by the Civil Registrar with no religious input whatsoever. No clergyperson takes part. Any blessing has to follow separately and this is not governed by any legal restrictions.
quote:
No doubt the URC's congregationalist roots make it easier to effectively out-source the decision to individual congregations. The Baptist Union could theoretically follow the same path (although the number of interested churches would probably be tiny), but it would presumably be much more difficult for denominations with a more centralised ethos.
I believe this is correct, though Baptist Union ministers may not bless Civil Partnerships.
quote:
I'm now wondering if the URC church which has applied immediately is St. Columba's in Oxford.
No, I only found this out from the Internet: it's Stepney Meeting in London. From the little I know of the church I would be surprised if St. Columba's didn't apply - or, for that matter, St. Columba's in Cambridge.
[ 10. July 2012, 11:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It will be awkward for Local Ecumenical Partnerships between the URC and the Methodists and/or the CofE. On the other hand, even in LEPs, the actual church building usually belongs to one denomination or another, doesn't it? If a URC/Methodist LEP is based in a church owned by the URC, and the URC wanted to conduct civil partnerships there, then the Methodists wouldn't be able to object constitutionally or a legally, would they?
My understanding is that they are not free to take any decision until Methodist Conference (or General Synod) has passed a resolution on the matter - even if the building itself was entirely URC. The law seems to be pretty restrictive, even if the ecumenical sharing is local and informal rather than constructed under the terms of the 1969 Sharing of Churches Act.
[ 10. July 2012, 11:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Congratulations to the URC. I presume though that it is up to the conscience of an individual minister whether he or she wishes to officiate?
I hope this soon follows officially or unofficially in the CofE. I'm not sure how a cleric can be stopped from 'blessing someone' - even if it is two!
Oh course this doesn't take into account the usual po-faced prurients who would shop him or her to the bishop - and given their usual makeup, probably anonymously.
And what will swing the CofE finally (and it will)...think of the extra fees rolling in!
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A brief chat amongst the Hosts confirms that this thread belongs in Dead Horses. So away you go.
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I hope this soon follows officially or unofficially in the CofE. I'm not sure how a cleric can be stopped from 'blessing someone' - even if it is two!
Oh course this doesn't take into account the usual po-faced prurients who would shop him or her to the bishop - and given their usual makeup, probably anonymously.
So what's your red line about which you would find the behaviour of a fellow cleric unacceptable? Surely it's got to be something? Rebaptism perhaps? Or using beer and rice cakes at communion? Or an orgy in the sanctuary?
Incidentally anonymous denounciations are wrong - I entirely agree. But if they are evidenced and the bishop does nothing, he really can't expect the treasurer to bother to sign his quota cheque.
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
And what will swing the CofE finally (and it will)...think of the extra fees rolling in!
Humbug - the income that dioceses will lose by crossing that red line with conservative Evangelicals will easily exceed the extra fees. This is now the line in the sand; if dioceses fail to challenge this behaviour, then there will be an increasing unwillingness to pay more than the absolute minimum of quota.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
drnick
Shipmate
# 16065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Congratulations to the URC. I presume though that it is up to the conscience of an individual minister whether he or she wishes to officiate?
Yes, but it's up to church meetings to decide, rather than ministers. As are many other things in the URC.
I must say as a URC member I am very pleased about this, and will certainly be arguing in favour when it comes up at my church. It also shows that differences within a denomination do not have to be a problem. And gives me a goos response next time somebody assumes that all Christians are homophobic.
--------------------
"Christians like you are why God invented lions" Pagan Wanderer Lu.
Posts: 58 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In the United States the United Church of Christ already allows for SSM. The Metropolitan Community Church has long allowed it's pastors to perform SSM. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has said it will allow pastors to bless same sex civil unions, but as more states allow for SSM there will be more pressure to allow local pastors to perform them.
Lutherans teach marriage is a social estate of the earthly kingdom of creation, not a sacred estate of the heavenly kingdom of redemption. So if society approves of SSM, there is no doctrinal reason for Lutheran pastors not to perform such weddings.
I do believe this will have to be formally approved by the churchwide general assembly, but individual pastors are already doing it.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Well, this stuff has been going on in the CofE with winks and nudges for many years already. Now it may just come out the closet, so to speak.
This is a 2002 article from the Telegraph which discusses it:Telegraph: Vicars bless hundreds of gay couples a year
If only the CofE would preach what it actually practises. [sigh]
Yes, but what you must realise is that, while some URC ministers/churches have been openly doing such blessings for years, they can now have the "legal bit" done in their churches as well. Although the clergy can't actually take any part in that bit as, in law, it can only be performed by the Civil Registrar.
What has happened is that CPs can now be celebrated in URC churches as well as other (secular) venues.
[ 10. July 2012, 21:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Congratulations to the URC. I presume though that it is up to the conscience of an individual minister whether he or she wishes to officiate?
Yes, but it's up to church meetings to decide, rather than ministers.
Well, both actually.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
drnick
Shipmate
# 16065
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, but what you must realise is that, while some URC ministers/churches have been openly doing such blessings for years, they can now have the "legal bit" done in their churches as well. Although the clergy can't actually take any part in that bit as, in law, it can only be performed by the Civil Registrar
The FAQs on the Home Office website here suggest that ministers of religion can apply to be civil partnership registrars.
Of course, you are correct that it is up to individual ministers to decide if they wish to conduct ceremonies or not.
--------------------
"Christians like you are why God invented lions" Pagan Wanderer Lu.
Posts: 58 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.)on July 9 approved liturgical resources for blessing same gender relationships ...
More here -- as well as many secular resources.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
And what will swing the CofE finally (and it will)...think of the extra fees rolling in!
Humbug - the income that dioceses will lose by crossing that red line with conservative Evangelicals will easily exceed the extra fees. This is now the line in the sand; if dioceses fail to challenge this behaviour, then there will be an increasing unwillingness to pay more than the absolute minimum of quota.
I couldn't care less if there was an orgy in the sanctuary, and would gladly say 'good riddance' to those Nazi rally like churches with their zombies who leave their brains in a bucket at the door.
You do raise an interesting poin which somewhat supports my own: the CofE is sufficiently pragmatic to realise on what side its bread is buttered. Were there to be a whole market f same-sex weddings on offer, then it would probably become quite acceptable. However, if what you say is true, then it probably won't.
But agian, the CofE governance loves hotch-potches and fudges, so we will probably have a half-way house of civil partnership blessings in some churches (maybe with a seperate episcopate?) as well as affirming the distinctiveness of marriage to keep the money from the large evo churches.
[ 10. July 2012, 22:36: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In the United States the United Church of Christ already allows for SSM. The Metropolitan Community Church has long allowed it's pastors to perform SSM. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has said it will allow pastors to bless same sex civil unions, but as more states allow for SSM there will be more pressure to allow local pastors to perform them.
Lutherans teach marriage is a social estate of the earthly kingdom of creation, not a sacred estate of the heavenly kingdom of redemption. So if society approves of SSM, there is no doctrinal reason for Lutheran pastors not to perform such weddings.
I do believe this will have to be formally approved by the churchwide general assembly, but individual pastors are already doing it.
The United Church of Canada, the URC's and British Methodist's Canadian offspring, has allowed GLBT clergy to be ordained since 1988. Several dozen congregations were doing "blessings" with winks and nudges prior to 2004.
After the Metropolitan Community Church case in Toronto in 2004 in which the Superior Court of Ontario allowed said same-sex marriage to be registered and the ruling copied in seven other provinces, Parliament passed the Civil Marriage Act, 2005. Gender is not a barrier to marriage in Canada. Further, it is marriage, there is no such thing as "Civil Partnerships" under Canadian law.
When I wrote my life insurance license exam, there was a question in this. It is marriage, period. And a good thing too, for those of us at the retail end of things, it means the thousand years of marriage property law applies in full and without question, which makes life much easier.
As there is only marriage in Canada, the United Church does not need nor provide new service forms for SSM. We don't have them, we just use the same old marriage services we always have. Our service book, Celebrate God's Presence provides four marriage services as options.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
SPK is basically correct in that there are no civil partnerships in Canadian law but--- in Québec! Always a distinct society, no?
That province brought in civil unions in 2002 as a marriageyesque procedure and it was for a few years popular enough, but was soon trumped by the introduction of SSM in 2004, when the then-Liberal government decided not to appeal a ruling on the supremacy of the Charter clause on equality over the existing marriage legislation. Québec civil partnerships still exist but are used (according to the lawyer who gave a workshop on wills at my retirement workshop) by a very few and for religious reasons. Most are observant RCs (without annulments) or Jews (unable to obtain a get) who are unable to re-marry in their churches/schuls but wish to obtain the benefits of marriage/civil partnership.
In any case, cynical Canadians such as myself view civil partnerships as let's-pretend-it's-not-marriages and wonder why spades cannot be called spades. If particular churches have objections to SSMs, then they need not bless them. Given that there is (IMHO) no difference between a civil partnship and a marriage, I cannot see any possible reason for withholding a marriage service from a civil partnership one might bless. What is the difference?
Certainly, I see that churches (or synagogues) might wish to not bless SSMs-- the theology of it is quite arguable. Perhaps if, as in most European countries, there be no ecclesiastical participation in the legalities of marriages-- the visit to the mayor's office in France for the legal wedding, followed by the stroll to the parish church for the religious ceremony) preserves the integrity of all-- then this nonsense of discussing blessing civil partnerships would end. Let the legalities serve the state's requirements and the blessings if the union serve a particular church's requirements.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.)on July 9 approved liturgical resources for blessing same gender relationships ...
More here -- as well as many secular resources.
The House of Deputies also approved it by orders this evening, so it's pretty much a done deal...
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
And what will swing the CofE finally (and it will)...think of the extra fees rolling in!
I don't think there will be much money to be gained from this. The take-up of civil partnerships in general is rising steadily, but it's not huge. Most straight weddings don't take place in churches anyway, and it's hard to imagine that the percentage will be different for gay civil partnerships in churches. In any case, gay couples are a much smaller percentage of the population.
I've also read that the fees for churches registering to host these ceremonies are quite high, although maybe the CofE would be exempt, since it's the state church.
I don't know how the URC defines the theology of civil partnerships, but at any rate, it's a more liberal domination than the CofE. CofE clergy are allowed to enter into them privately, but hosting them on church premises, with the addition of a bunch of religious words, might add to a sense of theological confusion. The happy couples themselves might not care, but a church without a coherent theology surely lacks substance?
As a very broad church and as a state church the CofE might be more defined by form than sustance anyway. However, by hosting civil partnerships and encouraging the evangelicals to leave, the CofE would become smaller, less broad and more single-minded in its liberal trajectory. This would have pros and cons.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Augustine:
Given that the Constitution states that the "definition of marriage" is a federal power (hence the Civil Marriage Act), your "spade is a spade" argument, with which I agree, makes Quebec's civil unions constitutionally dubious. Marriage is the one civil right that provinces cannot legislate on. IMHO the Federal Government has a case that such a provision was ultra vires Quebec.
Though since the problem affects only a few, it's probably better to let sleeping dogs lie. Besides, other provinces explicitly do not recognize civil unions. What to make of a Quebec civil union at law if such a couple moves to Ontario is a real problem because Ontario won't recognize it as a marriage, nor New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, or BC.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
@SPK. This point was touched on by the lawyer at the extremely useful pre-retirement workshop (a couple had been under the assumption that they were common-law married but discovered that this is not so in Québec, even for anglophones, and that the province believed them to be nothing more than very good friends-- and it caused a certain amount of kerfuffle in the class).
It is, of course, complicated further by Nova Scotia's Domestic Partner provisions of the 2000 Family Law Act, as well as Alberta's Adult Interdependent Relationships Act of 2002. I would have thought that most provinces have enough to do without trying to wiggle around and about federal law.
But married is, in truth, what these couples are, and states and churches are not (IMHO) well-served by more-clever-than-thou hypocrisy born from their internal incoherence and political juggling. My line that changing the marriage canon in this way is likely ultra vires for the ACoC is another tangent, but at least we're on the right board for it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The problem is that there are only two federal laws on marriage, the other one being the one that prohibits marrying your cousin. Courts and lawyers are accustomed to treating family law as a provincial matter. They did the same thing on divorce before 1968; most provinces let divorce in by including the English Divorce Act in their common law, Ontario had a special federal statute and Quebec and Newfoundland didn't allow divorce at all. The Divorce Act, 1968 changed all that let let loose the true scope of federal power in way only dreamed of at the Quebec Conference.
People who ask that the Constitution be strictly adhered to in Canada should be careful what they wish for; that would let loose the Federal Government without restraint.
I know they are married, you know they are married, any clergyperson who regularly engages in the business of marrying people could tell that they are married. "In Pith and Substance" as the Supreme Court likes to say, they are married. And the law that says whether they are married or not is federal, not provincial.
No need to make a big political show of it, but a word from the Federal Minister of Justice to the Minister of Justice of Quebec that Civil Unions should be struck from the Civil Code, it's a federal matter and it should go so people aren't disappointed or hurt is all that is required.
It's the same with same sex divorce, the Conservatives let in Same Sex Divorce because being petty about the Divorce Act was just mean, cruel and unwarranted. Principled opposition does not mean standing on every technicality to deprive people of justice.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Returning to the OP, what may prevent URC churches from actually registering their buildings for CPs are:
1. Failure to agree at the Church Meeting (of course).
2. The apparently high costs involved - it appears that a church in our county will have to pay £1800 to register, and that registration lasts for only 3 years. Such a fee would, I imagine, be prohibitive to many churches unless they knew that they would be celebrating many such CP ceremonies.
[ 11. July 2012, 11:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Unlike Canada, in the United States, the power to define what is a marriage lies in the prerogative of the state. However, we do have the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution which guarantees equal rights to all.
Some years ago the US Congress passed a Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between a man and a women and said the US government would only recognize such a marriage. Bush was president so he signed the bill. This DOMA law has now been successfully challenged in several federal courts and will likely be on next years docket at the US Supreme Court. In all likelihood the law will be ruled unconstitutional. This has got conservatives all upset. They had thought that the court would be split on this and there would be only one swing vote. However with the recent ruling on Universal Health Care it looks like the court will rule six to three to strike it down.
In addition to the DOMA law, the US Court will also look at the California
state constitutional ammendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Again, in all likelihood it will be struck down.
If both rulings are in favor of same sex marriages then it will become the "Law of the Land." Some states may still fight it, but it will be a losing battle.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Unlike Canada, in the United States, the power to define what is a marriage lies in the prerogative of the state. However, we do have the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution which guarantees equal rights to all.
Some years ago the US Congress passed a Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between a man and a women and said the US government would only recognize such a marriage. Bush was president so he signed the bill. This DOMA law has now been successfully challenged in several federal courts and will likely be on next years docket at the US Supreme Court. In all likelihood the law will be ruled unconstitutional. This has got conservatives all upset. They had thought that the court would be split on this and there would be only one swing vote. However with the recent ruling on Universal Health Care it looks like the court will rule six to three to strike it down.
In addition to the DOMA law, the US Court will also look at the California
state constitutional ammendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Again, in all likelihood it will be struck down.
If both rulings are in favor of same sex marriages then it will become the "Law of the Land." Some states may still fight it, but it will be a losing battle.
I believe DOMA is only being challenged so far at that level on Federal non-recognition of marriages that are recognized in certain states not other state recognition (or Federal recognition of non-US marriages for the purpose of spousal visas etc.). They might or might not accept the appeal in regards to California's prop 8 (if they refuse, prop 8 is overturned but it only affects California).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It will be awkward for Local Ecumenical Partnerships between the URC and the Methodists and/or the CofE.
It already is. I attended a church blessing of a civil partnership about four years ago in a combined URC/CofE building (sort-of: the URC minister was also the local Methodist minister and the Anglican parish is part of a team ministry not all part of the LEP!) The couple were members of the Anglican congregation but their priests said they could not in conscience attend or conduct the "wedding". So it was done by a URC minister. Theoretically a blessing but no casual visitor could have told it from a church wedding. And then everyone went off to another CofE church in the vicinity for the party afterwards, with drinking and dancing, where the Anglican priest was present and said prayers for the couple...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ken
Your story suggests that everything worked out rather well! Perhaps this is because each minister seems to have had a set of different hats, and could put on or remove any of them at will, for the sake of convenience!
As far as I'm aware, Methodist and CofE clergy can't currently bless a gay relationship in one of their church buildings - but the presence of the URC minister in a (partially) URC building was evidently the 'get out clause' that the Methodists and CofE needed to be able to allow this blessing to go ahead!
This kind of situation could represent a potential growth opportunity and 'niche market' for the URC, who could provide 'mainstream' gay blessings for other mainstream denominations that don't want to rock the boat by holiding them!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
And, of course, you don't need any "legal" registration to do such blessings. The couple would need to go to the Registry Office to celebrate their actual CP. In fact there have been some URC churches which have been doing this for some years.
In fact this is how marriage itself happens in many European countries, where church weddings have no legal significance (I may have said that upthread).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...But married is, in truth, what these couples are...
Ah - but there's the core question; are they? If marriage is a creation ordinance defined by God as being between a man and a woman, then however much humans try to redefine it, it remains a creation ordinance between a man and a woman. If you produce a cat that acts exactly like a dog, that doesn't mean that it IS a dog, just that it looks like one. Now IMNSHO, it is the duty of the church as 'priests of God' to declare this fact to the world; if that's unfashionable, then tough. Of course the fact that we've sold the pass on the divorce issue by blatantly blessing relationships that don't match any biblical justification for divorce means that we've abandoned any moral high ground... YMMV
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Except that's a massive 'if'. Certainly (in my mind) far too much uncertainty to start telling gay couples what they can and can't do, or what they can and can't be.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...But married is, in truth, what these couples are...
Ah - but there's the core question; are they? If marriage is a creation ordinance defined by God as being between a man and a woman, then however much humans try to redefine it, it remains a creation ordinance between a man and a woman. If you produce a cat that acts exactly like a dog, that doesn't mean that it IS a dog, just that it looks like one. Now IMNSHO, it is the duty of the church as 'priests of God' to declare this fact to the world; if that's unfashionable, then tough. Of course the fact that we've sold the pass on the divorce issue by blatantly blessing relationships that don't match any biblical justification for divorce means that we've abandoned any moral high ground... YMMV
For clarification, they are married according to the law of Canada. If all the church is doing is rubberstamping a civil decision, then they are married. If the church has its own criteria on who can be married-- and Tradition and canon law would suggest this-- then they are not. But as Ender's Shadow has pointed out, we (Anglicans) have sold the pass on this one.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Don't read too much into it please.
The URC is not of one mind, it tried some fifteen years ago to sort the issue out over the ordination of a gay individuals who are in long term committed relationships by the Presbyterian approach and we almost tore ourselves to pieces. The end result is the one and only time Assembly has closed down debate for the sake of unity with a ten year moratorium on debate.
So this time around we decided to go Congregational. I would not be at all surprised if at sometime the Baptist Union follow suit but I am not holding my breath and expecting it tomorrow.
We have had a number of such "hot" issues. Some of them resolve e.g. the ordination of women and some of them don't e.g. whether Christians have to be pacifists. Yes the second is as hot a topic as the topic under consideration.
This has simply been added to them. If it is resolved then we will know because either registration will be normative or it won't but until then the URC as a whole is neither pro nor anti.
I can name one or two more churches I would expect to sign up pretty promptly, mainly big name congregations. I can think of perhaps several others that in twenty years if they are still going would also be signed up.
My home congregations does not hold registration for marriages let alone civil partnerships.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
