|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay Marriage: Religious 'opt-in' but not for CofE
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
With the news that the government has now decide on the formula it wishes to have for it's proposed gay-marraige Bill and the settlement reached for faith groups (reported here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924 ) I was wondering how people feel about the CofE and the CinW being specially singled out as institutions which will find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they do perform such services.
I also wonder if anyone can answer the question in regards to the CinW: how come Westminster is legislating for the CinW by name and by singling it out in this legislation. Surely the disestablishment of the Church in Wales means that Westminster cannot do this and the Church in Wales should have been rightly covered by the 'opt-in' scheme proposed for other faiths and denominations?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
The Church in Wales is an odd beast. While disestablished it retains various privileges of establishment, one of which is that the legal framework under which it marries people is the same as that of the CofE (banns and all that). I suspect this is a consequence of that.
Marriages in all other Christian traditions require civil preliminaries via the registrar first.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Um, wow. I wasn't expecting that. I don't quite know what this news really means. It seem to me as if it is almost intended as a punishment for the C of E: "Won't get with our plans for gay marriage, huh? Object to being forced to poerform them? Ok then, let's see how you like being forbidden from performing them, when others are allowed to." It's almost as if the government wants this to cause internal trouble for the C of E and discredit it in the eyes of others.
The reason given for this exemption also strikes me as suspicious: quote:
Culture Secretary Maria Miller said [...] that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.
Er, so has the Catholic Church. It's not being forbidden the opt-in though.
What is all this really about?
[ 11. December 2012, 13:35: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Further fresh funny-stuff from the same BBC article: quote:
In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex.
I can see why the non-consummation thing is cut - how are you going to decide what is going to count as the same-sex "equivalent"? - but no unfaithfulness grounds? Why not?
If two people of the same sex can marry just as fully and validly as a hetero couple, why cannot they divorce on the same terms? It's frankly laughable - I'm in a cafe on my own and I LOL-ed (not in the David Cameron sense tough...). What does that tell you about what the government really thinks about the equivalence of gay and staright marriages? That question is only in part rhetorical...
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Is the CofE singled out because it's the Established Church in England? In which case, why is the CinW included? If you're including the CinW, then why not include the Catholic Church?
DHs aside, this makes no sense whatsoever; it's about as logical as a bag of frogs.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
it's about as logical as a bag of frogs.
... on LSD.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
Box of frogs indeed. My gut feel is that someone doesn't know the difference between the CofE and CiW! I think they're trying to say that Canon Law governs decisions made in the CofE, not Parliament, but they've come out with a garbled message.
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
SM, you're new here. This is a Dead Horse. Review the FAQs for each board so you know where to start threads. I will move this to DH for you.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Cast aside the conspiracy theories - this all makes perfect sense. CofE and CinW clergy are permitted (by virtue of establishment and its consequences) to marry people. Everyone else needs to have it done by a registrar. But to permit those clergy to perform such a function would overriding the wishes of the church, and perversely would be infringing on their freedom of religion. If a motion to permit same-sex marriage in church were to pass through General Synod, however, it would be nodded through into law in no time.
The other consideration that may have motivated this is the persistent and disingenuous claims that clergy would be forced to conduct such services. There was never any danger of that, but the function of clergy who are able to perform a service of marriage on behalf of the state left a legal challenge as a theoretical possibility. By explicitly prohibiting such a service, the government would completely protect the church from such a risk, as any challenge would have to be to the law itself.
Possibly a little surprising at first glance, but a simple, effective way of ironing out a few potential wrinkles.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The Catholic Church can register marriages also, can't it? I still don't get why it isn't likewise excluded ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The Catholic Church can register marriages also, can't it? I still don't get why it isn't likewise excluded
Unless I've missed some fairly major change, the Catholic church can't give you a valid certificate of marriage, you need to have that done separately. A quick check seems to confirm that they require a marriage to be registered according to civil law, i.e. to have a valid registrar's certificate, before they can marry you. Marriages have to be registered by either registrars or CofE/CinW clergy, hence the exclusion.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Cast aside the conspiracy theories - this all makes perfect sense. CofE and CinW clergy are permitted (by virtue of establishment and its consequences) to marry people. Everyone else needs to have it done by a registrar. But to permit those clergy to perform such a function would overriding the wishes of the church, and perversely would be infringing on their freedom of religion. If a motion to permit same-sex marriage in church were to pass through General Synod, however, it would be nodded through into law in no time.
The other consideration that may have motivated this is the persistent and disingenuous claims that clergy would be forced to conduct such services. There was never any danger of that, but the function of clergy who are able to perform a service of marriage on behalf of the state left a legal challenge as a theoretical possibility. By explicitly prohibiting such a service, the government would completely protect the church from such a risk, as any challenge would have to be to the law itself.
Possibly a little surprising at first glance, but a simple, effective way of ironing out a few potential wrinkles.
However CinW clergy are not members of an established church. My confusion stems from a piece of legislation that specifically states about a disestablished church, and a minister of the Crown stipulating that (athough it now seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the news report) that the CinW was specifically against the legislation so was named as being a Church that would be acting illegally if it did carry out a same-sex wedding. No mention of registrars etc. which would have been easily covered by the legislation of opt-in/opt-out with the legislative protection being offered. Other denominations can have their ministers registered as registrars with the state so your point unfortunately doesn't hold*. Clergy are however restricted to a denominational church in which they can act for the state and cannot act for the sate in marraige outside a building of that denomination (for example my friendly Anglican Priest can't act as registrar in my local Methodist chapel)
*AS the CaB website stipulates:
"Ministers and priests of all other religions [ie non CofE and CinW] can be authorised to register marriages and must have a certificate or licence to do so from the local Superintendent Registrar. For Jewish and Quaker marriages, the authorisation is automatic."
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The Catholic Church can register marriages also, can't it? I still don't get why it isn't likewise excluded
Unless I've missed some fairly major change, the Catholic church can't give you a valid certificate of marriage, you need to have that done separately. A quick check seems to confirm that they require a marriage to be registered according to civil law, i.e. to have a valid registrar's certificate, before they can marry you. Marriages have to be registered by either registrars or CofE/CinW clergy, hence the exclusion.
Oh, I didn't know that - you learn something new every day!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Storm
Apprentice
# 878
|
Posted
With the caveat that it's been a while since I had to look at the detailed law of what was necessary for a legal marriage in different types of church, I think The Great Gumby's point makes perfect sense.
Am I right in thinking that even though the CiW is disestablished you still get married there by banns and neither the church nor the vicar has to be registered with the state, while all other religious bodies/venues/officiants carrying out legal marriage have to be licensed in a different way. If so it makes a great deal of sense to me for the government to say "lets leave banns, canon law and the legal right to be married in your own parish out of it and put a law in place that will give the option to anyone who wants it".
(I speak as someone who would like to see the CoE carry out same sex marriages and I'm sure Chesterbelloc is right that there may be more internal CoE trouble over it, but I'm not sure that's the government's problem)
Posts: 18 | From: a place called vertigo | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
*AS the CaB website stipulates:
"Ministers and priests of all other religions [ie non CofE and CinW] can be authorised to register marriages and must have a certificate or licence to do so from the local Superintendent Registrar. For Jewish and Quaker marriages, the authorisation is automatic."
That's the whole point! They can be - if they wish. But in any case, that's adding a religious layer onto a civil procedure of registering the marriage. The difference, as is explained directly above the quote you snipped, is that for the CofE and CinW, there's no distinction. The religious and civil processes happen at the same time. Hence the difference.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
If you start from the premise that the whole gay marriage initiative was a pathetic attempt by Cameron to buy the "pink vote" -
- and you then take into account that banning the CofE from doing it was a pathetic attempt by Cameron to appease his own backbenchers -
- then it all makes perfect sense.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The other consideration that may have motivated this is the persistent and disingenuous claims that clergy would be forced to conduct such services. There was never any danger of that, but the function of clergy who are able to perform a service of marriage on behalf of the state left a legal challenge as a theoretical possibility. By explicitly prohibiting such a service, the government would completely protect the church from such a risk, as any challenge would have to be to the law itself.
At least one expert in religious discrimination law disagrees with you - on the basis of recent ECHR rulings.
And if this technical legal reason (which still doesn't mkae complete sense to me, I must admit) were the actual reason for the ban on CofE and CinW performing such ceremonies, why did the minister concerned not say that? Instead she gave a totally different reason - that both churches had shown strong opposition to gay marriage.
In fact, especially if the reason you give is the actual one, her giving the "strong opposition" reason instead looks designed to make those churches appear unreasonably awkward and makes their exemption look a bit punitive. To me, at any rate. I think the govenrment is pissed off with the C of E and would not be displeased if this exemption on those grounds made it look bad to the electorate.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
So many flaws in his hysteria.
The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, etc. are also subject to ECHR rulings. Many have had gay marriage for close to a decade. But there are no examples of any churches being compelled to hold gay marriage against their conscience.
The ECHR has also issued several rulings regarding employment discrimination on the basis of gender, yet none have been used to force churches to ordain women. As far as I know, Catholic churches haven't been forced by the authorities to appoint any women to the priesthood or be consecrated bishops.
Same with religious discrimination, yet I have yet to see one church be forced to appoint an atheist to the office of formulating and teaching doctrine.
It seems pretty obvious that the ECHR has exempted religious institutions from the burdens of equality legislation and there is nothing in his article that suggest otherwise.
But it does make for good scaremongering though.
[ 11. December 2012, 15:52: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
The other consideration that may have motivated this is the persistent and disingenuous claims that clergy would be forced to conduct such services. There was never any danger of that, but the function of clergy who are able to perform a service of marriage on behalf of the state left a legal challenge as a theoretical possibility. By explicitly prohibiting such a service, the government would completely protect the church from such a risk, as any challenge would have to be to the law itself.
At least one expert in religious discrimination law disagrees with you - on the basis of recent ECHR rulings.
And if this technical legal reason (which still doesn't mkae complete sense to me, I must admit) were the actual reason for the ban on CofE and CinW performing such ceremonies, why did the minister concerned not say that? Instead she gave a totally different reason - that both churches had shown strong opposition to gay marriage.
In fact, especially if the reason you give is the actual one, her giving the "strong opposition" reason instead looks designed to make those churches appear unreasonably awkward and makes their exemption look a bit punitive. To me, at any rate. I think the govenrment is pissed off with the C of E and would not be displeased if this exemption on those grounds made it look bad to the electorate.
I think you're reading too much into this. Occam's Razor and all that....
As The Great Gumby has so clearly explained, the CoE/CiW are currently different from all other denominations in regards to how marriages are done and registered. Therefore, it is only natural that the government would have to address them separately from all other denominations. For everyone else, their organisations can choose whether or not to "opt in" to these new provisions. The CoE/CiW cannot:
a) because they run under a different system
b) because they have made it clear that they do not want to.
That leaves the door open in the future (should they so wish) for both to change their mind.
Rather than any sense of trying to "punish" the CoE or make it look bad, I would suspect that the main motivation for the government in how they have done this is to avoid touching anything to do with banns etc. It would just add enormously to the legal complexity of the new bill, without very much additional benefit.
Some years ago, the Blair government looked long and hard about reforming marriage law, including the CoE's part in it. Once they realised what a minefield they were getting into, the whole thing was dropped very suddenly.
No government is going to touch the legal framework regarding marriages in the CoE/CiW unless they absolutely have to.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
the HRA only binds 'public authorities' and bodies performing a public function. This might get us a bit closer to understanding the proposed ban. IANAL but my guess is that churches who need a registrar's certificate to carry out marriages can claim not to be exercising a public function because the crucial element conferring legal validity on the marriage is carried out by the state. But CofE and CinW marriages don't need a registrar so it could be claimed that in marrying people those churches are acting on behalf of the state and therefore carrying out a public function - in which case even if they weren't public authorities (CinW pretty certainly isn't, CofE quite possibly isn't) they would be open to challenge under the Human Rights Act.
BUT AIUI the HRA says that public authorities and bodies performing a public function have to act in a way that is in accordance with the HRA unless they are forbidden to do so by another Act of Parlaiment. So my guess is that the proposed ban on the CinW and CofE carrying out gay marriages is covering their back in case of a challenge under the HRA to which, because of their peculiar position in relation to marriage law, they, and they alone among the Churches, might otherwise be open.
If we have any experts in Human Rights law aboard, does this sound possible?
[ 11. December 2012, 16:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
[Reply to chesterbelloc / ToujoursDan]
It would be nice if Mr Addison specified what those two ECHR rulings were ...
[ 11. December 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It's almost as if the government wants this to cause internal trouble for the C of E and discredit it in the eyes of others.
Yep. Same as Thatchers government. The Tories got fed up with the CofE back in the 1960s and 1970s and since then have wanted to cut it down to size. Just like their attitude to the BBC.
They are nationalists and centralists at heart. Any national institution has to be either an agent of central government, or else its rival. So the Church, the BBC, even to some extent the courts, the police, or even the Royal Navy, are morally repellent to the Tories to the degree that they follow their own agenda rather than central government's.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The Catholic Church can register marriages also, can't it? I still don't get why it isn't likewise excluded
Because the British government no more wants to make laws telling the RCC what it can or can't do than it wants to smear peanut butter all over its naked body and leap into a pit full of starving minks.
There are no votes to by won by it, but there is lots and lots of potential embarrasment, and plenty of time to be wasted.
[ 11. December 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
b) because they have made it clear that they do not want to.
Part of me wants to point out that I wasn't asked my opinion. I suspect this stems less from any desire to have been asked than from my irritation at not being able to decide whether the Church of England is supposed to be governed by the Bishops, the Queen, the House of Commons or that shining example of dubious democratic deficit known as General Synod.
But I suspect the truth lies somewhere between your point about the huge amount of work that would be required to disentangle the various laws, and Adeodatus's theory of political ineptitude.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
As an aside, why is the CofE known as the Church OF England, whereas the CinW is known as the Church IN Wales?
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
As The Great Gumby has so clearly explained, the CoE/CiW are currently different from all other denominations in regards to how marriages are done and registered. Therefore, it is only natural that the government would have to address them separately from all other denominations. For everyone else, their organisations can choose whether or not to "opt in" to these new provisions. The CoE/CiW cannot:
a) because they run under a different system
b) because they have made it clear that they do not want to.
With regard to (a) the government could have rectified that legislatively, to allow them to opt in they desired. They chose not to. With regard to (b), so has the Catholic Church! Furthermore, the explanation given by the minister was (b) on its own. Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Rather than any sense of trying to "punish" the CoE or make it look bad, I would suspect that the main motivation for the government in how they have done this is to avoid touching anything to do with banns etc. It would just add enormously to the legal complexity of the new bill, without very much additional benefit.
[...] No government is going to touch the legal framework regarding marriages in the CoE/CiW unless they absolutely have to.
Now, this makes much more sense to me. I'll buy that. But then (again) why say instead that it's because the C of E objected to being included rather than because it was legally too complex? It seems to me that, in part, it was to make the govenment look better than the church. I could be crazy-wrong. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[Reply to chesterbelloc / ToujoursDan]
It would be nice if Mr Addison specified what those two ECHR rulings were ...
This Pink News article names the cases Addison was talking about: Gas & Dubois v. France (2011)and Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (2010). I know far too little about religious exemption to judge whether Addison has a good point here - I just wanted to challenge the notion that no-one had questioned the legal soundness of this exemption.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As an aside, why is the CofE known as the Church OF England, whereas the CinW is known as the Church IN Wales?
Cos the latter has been disestablished since 1920, whereas the former is still Established.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
But it's still "the Church OF Ireland". I once knew why Wales is different - but I forget.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[Reply to chesterbelloc / ToujoursDan]
It would be nice if Mr Addison specified what those two ECHR rulings were ...
This Pink News article names the cases Addison was talking about: Gas & Dubois v. France (2011)and Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (2010). I know far too little about religious exemption to judge whether Addison has a good point here - I just wanted to challenge the notion that no-one had questioned the legal soundness of this exemption.
Neither case buttresses his assertion that allowing gay marriages forces on church property leads to the forcing of churches to hold marriages against their doctrine.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The Catholic Church can register marriages also, can't it? I still don't get why it isn't likewise excluded
No the Roman Catholic Church has to use registrars like the other Free Churches.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
If you say so, Dan. I for one don't know nearly enough about the law here to say one way or the other.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
As an aside, why is the CofE known as the Church OF England, whereas the CinW is known as the Church IN Wales?
Fashion. If they had waited another fifty years it might have been the Church FOR Wales.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ToujoursDan
quote:
The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, etc. are also subject to ECHR rulings. Many have had gay marriage for close to a decade. But there are no examples of any churches being compelled to hold gay marriage against their conscience.
I imagine that the cultural context is different in every country. In England, where there is still a state church, and where the cultural awareness of other Protestant denominations is decreasing, what the CofE chooses to do matters. Some people will be unimpressed when they realise that none of the denominations they've actually heard of will perform these marriages! Others may feel that Quaker and Unitarian marriages hardly represent mainstream acceptance, which is what they really want.
If the CofE persists for several years in refusing to perform these marriages, and if there are even one or two court cases that take place in a blaze of publicity, it may ultimately strengthen the case for disestablishment, though only as one of several factors. (I don't think disestablishment would be such a bad outcome, myself.)
In the case of Sweden, the disestablishment of the Lutheran Church came before the Lutherans agreed to perform gay marriages. Moreover, I doubt that the Lutheran Church was ever as publicly torn on the issue of homosexuality as the CofE has been. Sweden is even more secular than England, and the Lutherans there probably don't have a growing evangelical constituency to the extent that the CofE does. Church values and societal values don't seem to be as publicly at odds there as they are here. This might make the Swedish Lutheran Church a less satisfactory target for criticism and legal action than the CofE.
I'd be interested to hear from others who know more about how this has all worked in Sweden.
[ 11. December 2012, 16:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
But the legal context would remain the same if it was based on a ruling from the ECHR.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Retaining the illegality of a C of E gay wedding is designed to protect the C of E, isn't it? I mean, protect it from any attempted appeal to ECHR; as others have said, ECHR shows no sign of wanting to overturn such laws.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you say so, Dan. I for one don't know nearly enough about the law here to say one way or the other.
The French case deals with the state recognition of joint custody. The Austrian case, touches on rights provided by the state. In both cases, the gay couples filing suit lost, not won.
If either were cases where the state forced churches to conform to state anti-discrimination laws or equality statutes he may have a point, but none of these come close to infringing on the doctrines of religious institutions.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
From the link in the OP: quote:
Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
Is this enough to prevent some freeminded clergy from taking a gay wedding? I pin my hopes on just how bloody-minded Anglican priests can be.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
The relationship of the CofE and the CinW to the law is different from other religious bodies. While the CinW was disendowed in the 1920s it was only partially disestablished. Marriage law in both the CofE and the CinW has to be established both in those churches' governing bodies and in Parliament. In other words, as far as marriages and some aspects of burials are concerned we are still subject to the bonds of establishment - for better or for worse ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I think the actual legal point is that there would need to be legislation both in Synod/Governing Body and in Parliament before the law could be changed for the CofE/CinW.
The way forward should either body wish to establish law permitting SSM would be to pass it in their respective legislations and then request Parliament to alter the law accordingly. neither the churches nor Parliament can do this on their own. Hence the inability of the Government to propose unilateral changes - the new legal framework will not so much exclude/ban the CofE/CinW: it will simply be irrelevant.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
The latest, from BBC news (just been listening whilst washing the dishes), is that the Church of England claims not only not to have proposed but even not to have been consulted about the exclusion from the forthcoming legislation, the spokesman saying it came as a complete surprise to them. This confirms my (possibly delusional) suspicion that the government are adopting a contemptuous attitude to the Church of England over this issue.
If you choose to believe that this has nothing to do with:
(a) the CofE's vote on women bishops and the government's sabre-rattling determination to get that changed;
(b) the govenment's determination to push this new legislation through as soon on the new year as possible
then, well... you're just less than me.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The latest, from BBC news (just been listening whilst washing the dishes), is that the Church of England claims not only not to have proposed but even not to have been consulted about the exclusion from the forthcoming legislation, the spokesman saying it came as a complete surprise to them. This confirms my (possibly delusional) suspicion that the government are adopting a contemptuous attitude to the Church of England over this issue.
If you choose to believe that this has nothing to do with:
(a) the CofE's vote on women bishops and the government's sabre-rattling determination to get that changed;
(b) the govenment's determination to push this new legislation through as soon on the new year as possible
then, well... you're just less than me.
I think it's just incompetence/discourtesy - it would have been more complicated and held everything else up.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you say so, Dan. I for one don't know nearly enough about the law here to say one way or the other.
The French case deals with the state recognition of joint custody. The Austrian case, touches on rights provided by the state. In both cases, the gay couples filing suit lost, not won.
If either were cases where the state forced churches to conform to state anti-discrimination laws or equality statutes he may have a point, but none of these come close to infringing on the doctrines of religious institutions.
I really don't have the time right now to look this up - and it's probably not appropriate to drag it up on this thread - but I do recall reading somewhere (NOT in the Catholic Herald) that the ECHR ruled that no country need legislate for same-sex marriage, but that any country who does MUST make it available on precisely the same terms as hetero marriage. If that were the case, then the ECHR could, potentially, rule against the UK proposed legislation exempting the C of E. I could be completely wrong.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I think it's just incompetence/discourtesy - it would have been more complicated and held everything else up.
You're probably right, AberVicar. I just can't seem to get that particular taste out of my mouth, however. Discourtesy at the very least, it seems to me - deliberate snubbing is not out of the question. And why would it have been so bad to have held things up a bit to get this bit right? The government seem in an unseemly rush to me.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If you say so, Dan. I for one don't know nearly enough about the law here to say one way or the other.
The French case deals with the state recognition of joint custody. The Austrian case, touches on rights provided by the state. In both cases, the gay couples filing suit lost, not won.
If either were cases where the state forced churches to conform to state anti-discrimination laws or equality statutes he may have a point, but none of these come close to infringing on the doctrines of religious institutions.
I really don't have the time right now to look this up - and it's probably not appropriate to drag it up on this thread - but I do recall reading somewhere (NOT in the Catholic Herald) that the ECHR ruled that no country need legislate for same-sex marriage, but that any country who does MUST make it available on precisely the same terms as hetero marriage. If that were the case, then the ECHR could, potentially, rule against the UK proposed legislation exempting the C of E. I could be completely wrong.
But that isn't the case now. Several European states (Portugal comes to mind) do not grant equal adoption rights between same sex and opposite sex couples, even though they have same sex marriage. So even SSM isn't equal marriage.
Secondly, again, the cases were in regard to in the provision of services and rights vis-a-vis national states. The government must make the provision of SSM equal, not every institution within the state. No ECHR ruling, in even a state with same sex marriage, has ever been used to force a religious institution to do anything against its doctrine. None.
It's fearmongering.
[ 11. December 2012, 18:19: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[QB] But that isn't the case now. Several European states (Portugal comes to mind) do not grant equal adoption rights between same sex and opposite sex couples, even though they have same sex marriage. So even SSM isn't equal marriage.
Secondly, again, the cases were in regard to in the provision of services and rights vis-a-vis national states. The government must make the provision of SSM equal, not every institution within the state. No ECHR ruling, in even a state with same sex marriage, has ever been used to force a religious institution to do anything against its doctrine. None. [QB]
Dan, I am probably wrong here. But wouldn't it take a legal challenge from citizens of one of those states to establish that you're right? The ECHR can't really rule before the relevant laws or legal arrangements are actually challenged by, say, a gay would-be adopting married couple? Has there been such a challenge? I genuinely don't know. I'm just asking.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
If you're asking whether it would take a legal challenge to establish a right for countries to enforce anti-discrimination measures in churches, I suppose that it correct. Courts around the world do respond to legal challenges by handing down rulings. But whether gay marriage exists or not wouldn't change that fact.
Someone could just as easily lodge a legal challenge on the Roman Catholic Church forcing it to ordain women, atheists and observant Jews even without gay marriage legislation by invoking already-existing laws against discrimination on the basis of religion or gender.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with whether the secular state can force laws onto religious institutions. Trying to raise this as a threat in this particular case is fearmongering.
[ 11. December 2012, 18:47: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
We have, of course, recently been informed by the Bishop of Leicester, that society is going to collapse because of this.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Rendering it illegal also gives the C of E some respite, doesn't it? It does not have to go through the business of deciding what to do, which might cause further division and destruction, after the women bishops vote. The decision is taken out of its hands, which I suppose might be seen as infantilizing!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
If nothing else the Bishops don't have to worry about a loose cannon (or indeed, a loose Canon) deciding unilaterally to perform a gay marriage.
More importantly, it also makes clear what is and what is not a legally binding gay marriage on the basis as to whether or not it was performed by a secular or clergy registrar. This is potentially quite important if a divorce is on the cards. More generally it means that there won't be a class of doubtfully married gay people, the validity of whose union has not been tested in court. As The Great Gumby points out if General Synod passed the 'Sing It Out, Sing It Loud, We're Not Homophobic, We Are Proud' act legalising gay marriages in Anglican churches the law would most likely follow pdq. But because of the status of Church of England canon law, clearly HMG decided that ambiguity as to the legal status of gay marriages was undesirable. This strikes me as being eminently sensible.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
The CofE, becoming ever more irrelevant day by day. Good Lord, she's become an embarrassment.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If nothing else the Bishops don't have to worry about a loose cannon (or indeed, a loose Canon) deciding unilaterally to perform a gay marriage.
I was thinking about this earlier. In the event that the CofE was allowed to conduct a same-sex marriage but chose not to, if a clergyman were to act lawfully but in breach of canon law (IYSWIM), what would the outcome of that be? I suppose the only people who would look forward to such an eventuality are the lawyers.
And to be honest, I'm struggling to understand why the government should have discussed this any further than they did with the church. The church was very clear in opposing same-sex marriage, the constitutional situation makes this a simple and efficient way of dealing with the matter, so what's the problem?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
