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
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Er, so has the Catholic Church. It's not being forbidden the opt-in though.
Culture Secretary Maria Miller said [...] that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.
quote: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?
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.
quote:... on LSD.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
it's about as logical as a bag of frogs.
quote: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.
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
quote: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)
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.
quote:Oh, I didn't know that - you learn something new every day!
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
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."
quote:At least one expert in religious discrimination law disagrees with you - on the basis of recent ECHR rulings.
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.
quote:I think you're reading too much into this. Occam's Razor and all that....
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:At least one expert in religious discrimination law disagrees with you - on the basis of recent ECHR rulings.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
b) because they have made it clear that they do not want to.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[Reply to chesterbelloc / ToujoursDan]
It would be nice if Mr Addison specified what those two ECHR rulings were ...
quote:Cos the latter has been disestablished since 1920, whereas the former is still Established.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[Reply to chesterbelloc / ToujoursDan]
It would be nice if Mr Addison specified what those two ECHR rulings were ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:No the Roman Catholic Church has to use registrars like the other Free Churches.
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
quote:Fashion. If they had waited another fifty years it might have been the Church FOR Wales.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
than me.
quote:I think it's just incompetence/discourtesy - it would have been more complicated and held everything else up.
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I think it's just incompetence/discourtesy - it would have been more complicated and held everything else up.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote: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.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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]
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yes, possibly, if that is the case. But AIUI the target would be the legislation rather than the CofE/CinW's refusal to marry gay couples, because the churches are not required to act in defiance of the legislation.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[QUOTE]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.
quote:CB - if what you say about the ECHR is correct, then surely the above (if it makes it that far) will cause the proposed form of the legislation to hit the buffers long before anything to do with the CofE or CinW- ?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Further fresh funny-stuff from the same BBC article:quote: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?
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.
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...
quote:Given the Church seems to be in the midst of a long long discussion about Same Sex Civil Partnerships it seems reasonable not to delay the passage of the law to wait for a response from the C of E on when they might figure out how to hold Same Sex Marriage. The discussion could take decades...
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote: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.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I think it's just incompetence/discourtesy - it would have been more complicated and held everything else up.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I would go so far as to say the discussion will take decades.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Given the Church seems to be in the midst of a long long discussion about Same Sex Civil Partnerships it seems reasonable not to delay the passage of the law to wait for a response from the C of E on when they might figure out how to hold Same Sex Marriage. The discussion could take decades...
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:I'm really puzzled by this element of the so-called 'quadruple lock'. My suspicion is that it's a sleight of hand and they don't propose a ban at all. We'll see when the legislation comes out. Presumably what they mean by the disingenuous statement that there will be a ban on the CoE and CinW conducting same-sex marriage is that they do not propose to change canon law. In canon law marriage can only be between a man and a woman. In other words it would take an act of primary legislation to change canon law. Any change will have to be initiated by the church. I may be wrong but this is not a ban or an exemption, it is merely spin.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, you can imagine the scene when government lawyers were pondering how to deal with the C of E on this issue; I suppose a mixture of hilarity and resignation. Making it illegal is surely an act of kindness - there, you don't have to tie yourselves in knots over it, now.
quote:Sorry, but that just seems like political speak for not addressing the issue of a specific illegality of the CofE and CinW performing ssm. Effectively whoever wrote the statement is calling the SoS a great big fibber from what I can tell.
Originally posted by Spawn:
It seems I'm right that there isn't an outright ban on CinW or CoE written into the legislation. I've just had an email with this briefing.
quote:Why should it surpise you that politicians are 'fibbers' or 'spinners'? The fact is that the government isn't changing canon law - and rightly so. Those changes should properly be made by the church. My view is that the government is spuriously claiming responsibility for giving CoE and CinW extra protection beyond what they have sought. The reality is that the government merely recognises that it would be improper for it to initiate change to canon and liturgy.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Sorry, but that just seems like political speak for not addressing the issue of a specific illegality of the CofE and CinW performing ssm. Effectively whoever wrote the statement is calling the SoS a great big fibber from what I can tell.
Since Archbishop Barry has now come out and said this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 I would posit that he is taking a different view of what has been said by the SoS and the situation the CinW now finds itself than the CofE does.
It also raises the question, when did the CinW specifically ask for a guarantee such as is being proposed (pending final analysis of the legislation) if the spokesperson for the CinW has come out and said he thinks it's a step too far?
quote:i don't know... maybe I live in a place where politicians and clergy are upright members of society... In my mind (as Eddy Izzard was once fond of saying)
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Why should it surpise you that politicians are 'fibbers' or 'spinners'? The fact is that the government isn't changing canon law - and rightly so. Those changes should properly be made by the church. My view is that the government is spuriously claiming responsibility for giving CoE and CinW extra protection beyond what they have sought. The reality is that the government merely recognises that it would be improper for it to initiate change to canon and liturgy.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Sorry, but that just seems like political speak for not addressing the issue of a specific illegality of the CofE and CinW performing ssm. Effectively whoever wrote the statement is calling the SoS a great big fibber from what I can tell.
Since Archbishop Barry has now come out and said this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 I would posit that he is taking a different view of what has been said by the SoS and the situation the CinW now finds itself than the CofE does.
It also raises the question, when did the CinW specifically ask for a guarantee such as is being proposed (pending final analysis of the legislation) if the spokesperson for the CinW has come out and said he thinks it's a step too far?
I may however be wrong in my reading of the situation and the government is indeed putting something else into the legislation.
quote:The Church of England Press Release states precisely what the legal position is. It is interesting to compare Archbishop Barry's reported comments with the Bench of Bishops' official response to the consultation here.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Since Archbishop Barry has now come out and said this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531 I would posit that he is taking a different view of what has been said by the SoS and the situation the CinW now finds itself than the CofE does.
quote:Changes in marriage law still require Westminster legislation. A Bill had to be introduced quite recently to allow the 'qualifying connection' rules to be extended to Wales.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Since Westminster does not have a say on CinW canon law
quote:Is this not clear enough?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Let me get this straight...
If the CofE or the CinW wishes to perform same-sex marriages in the future, not only would it need approval by General Synod, but it would need Parliament to amend the act?
quote:Either people have just not read this, or they think it's bollocks - but it happens to be true.
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.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by becki:
The logical response to the illegality of gay marriage in the Churches Of England and Wales: an open letter to priests.
Dear Priests,
It seems that the institution is screwing you from both sides, what with the recent events on a dismal synod vote and the recent government announcement that the new "quadruple lock" could mean gay marriages continue to be illegal in places of worship. And I think that if we were to invoke the inimitable evangelical what would Jesus do? mantra, it's safe to say that many of us liberally minded people out there would say that these very acts contravene notions of loving thy neighbour and social equality Jesus stood for. Therefore, Jesus would do and say the exact same things that were written about millennia ago; excuse my turn of phrase but he would go anarchic on people's arses.
So let down have priests been, by ecclesiastical and governmental hierarchy, that I propose one solution. That you, priests of all ilk all over the fair British Isles, start a campaign of ceremonial civil disobedience. I propose guerilla-style priests, ready to perform gay marriage ceremonies in their Parishes, in other people's Parishes, wherever possible. Midnight marriages by candlelight, under cover of darkness. Underground weddings in crypts. Protest ceremonies in the grandest of Cathedrals or tiniest of rural village chapels. Being both truly righteous and looking cool? It's what Mel Gibson could only dream of.
I feel this is the only way to demonstrate to wider society that the Anglican Church is ready to modernise its own dogmas and norms, ready to question its own attitudes itself and with religious communities writ large. This is a call to arms, for a stand against the state which wants to exert enormous pressures upon free speech within spiritual society. It's either that, or you go to the Quakers.
I wish you all luck on your quest.
Best Wishes and Merry Christmas,
An anonymous armchair theorist
quote:
Originally posted by becki:
Will decades of squabbling signal the death of the Church? Who knows. And maybe the death of the institution would lead to something new, better. These are all very open situations, but I believe that priests who believe that marriage should be inclusive should express that.... and I see guerilla weddings as the best way to "make a statement" that the press dearly love so as well as to make free speech and actions expressed.
quote:
quetzalcoatl Shipmate# 16740 - Posted 12 December, 2012 10:58 Guerilla weddings certainly sound exciting! Perhaps we should meet at the cross-roads at midnight, I will be wearing a black cloak, and my sword will be sheathed, to prevent the moonlight reflecting on it; the priest will be dressed as a peasant woman; and the bride will be in her father's clothes (shades of Oedipus).
Then we process to the church by means of dark lantern, we break in, the peasant woman carries out the service, and I carry off the bride to the nearest hostelry, where we will feast upon each other's bodies until daybreak.
Meanwhile the priest will drink himself into a stupor, in sheer relief.
Vote yes!
quote:
Ricardus # 8757 - Posted 12 December, 2012 11:06 But presumably there is nothing in civil law (as opposed to canon law) to prevent a priest from blessing a gay marriage. What they're prevented from doing is acting as the legal registrar, and if they try to do so anyway all that will happen is that the marriage will be invalid. Unless I've misunderstood ...
quote:
leo Shipmate# 1458 - Posted 12 December, 2012 11:29 There have been plenty of clergy willing to marry divorcees (under the law of the land but against church law in the past) and bless gay couples.
It's almost as if this has become less possible now that it has been debated and rules past.
Giles Fraser said something on the lines of: Oh good - now there is something worth going to prison for.
Reminiscences of anglo-catholics who went to prison for lighted candles onj the altar or vestments.
Though I'd prefer civil disobedience for more important issues like nuclear weapons bases.
quote:
Sioni Sais # 5713 - Posted 12 December, 2012 11:47 I expected some kind of shabby compromise but not one like this, with the arse out of it.
I have already wondered what will happen in those churches that currently leave decisions about marriage to ministers; it looks like the proposed legislation insists on denominations as a whole deciding on a policy to be imposed on its ministers which must constitute government interference in the running of a church, especially those run by congregational means.
To be honest, if a government can interfere to this extent with the regulations of marriage, I would have expected it to intervene regarding the ordination of women as bishops.
quote:
Angloid # 159- Posted 12 December, 2012 12:06
Quite. All that would happen if there was a campaign of mass disobedience with priests solemnising gay marriages is that their certificates wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on. Unfortunately.
What is needed is a concerted campaign by clergy to positively welcome gay couples and perform services of blessing on their civil marriage. It's something that has been done many times with official sanction for heterosexual couples, and it's what happens in many countries where the legal ceremony is separate from the church one. Apart from the lack of legal registration the liturgy could be identical.
In the long term, the special 'privilege' which C of E and C in W clergy have of being state-recognised registrars should be abolished. Then all marriages, gay and straight, religious or secular, would be registered in the same way by the state, and all religions would have the option of also celebrating them with a religious ceremony.
quote:
jacobsen # 14998 - Posted 12 December, 2012 12:15
I agree with Angloid. The way forward is to separate church and state. All couples marry in a registry office or other venue, and the church provides a blessing. Problem solved.
quote:
becki Apprentice # 17469 - Posted 12 December, 2012 12:18
There is nothing to prevent blessings, true, and it has happened with the effect of "great controversy", so the news media have said.
What would be the effect of a growing number of people getting married as an act of civil disobedience, and then attempting to take their free action in a high court? Although the numbers would be few, there is at least the ability to challenge on a legal level that which exists in law.
Also Leo, I agree that there should be civil disobedience about what could be classed as "more important" concerns in our moral hierarchies. But the point of challenging this legislation can be said to exhibit a more fundamental challenge, to those who want to silence in all forms.
And anyway, I believe that civil disobedience should happen in all kinds of forms for all kinds of causes.
Quezalcoatl, I love your getting carried away. Go with it.
Jestocost, I am merely a person for inclusivity. Personally I am in a long term relationship and do not feel the need to get married. I wish to defend the rights of those who wish to say and act freely.
Angloid and Sioni, what can I say? I agree in many ways.
Hope I've responded to everyone thus far, this discussion has been a nice introduction to this forum. Hello, nice to meet you all
quote:
The Great Gumby # 10989 - Posted 12 December, 2012 12:38
But the government is very clearly not interfering. The whole reason for doing this is to ensure that a church which has expressed horror at the very idea of same-sex marriage can't get into any sort of trouble through refusing to conduct a marriage as an agent of the state.
In the unlikely event that the CofE or CinW change their minds and decide that they quite like SSM after all (probably around the time they become more concerned about human-martian marriage), that can and undoubtedly will be reflected in legislation. Since the CofE isn't even prepared to allow its clergy to bless civil partnerships, let alone marry same-sex couples, I'm struggling to see how this is anything but respecting their wishes.
quote:Yes, that's pretty much it. It looks like they will be writing into the face of the bill the fact that the legislation does not alter one jot of canon law. In which case if the CoE wishes to opt-in at some point in the future, there will have to be amending canons and amendments to the equal marriage act. The Church in Wales faces a greater difficulty because their governing body does not write its own legislation and will have to rely on Parliament.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So can I just get this right, then? When the government says that it 'will be illegal' for the C of E to marry gays, they are pulling a fast one, since it is already illegal. That is, canon law forbids it, and always has, and canon law is the law of the land. Is that correct?
quote:That is the current position on grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership. So it simply transposes it to same sex marriage. Ordinary marriages can be dissolved also for unreasonable behaviour by a party. This does apply to civil partnerships in which context, it includes infidelity, without defining exactly what is and is not an offending physical act. That would also transpose to a same sex marriage. Behaviour also may well include not delivering the goods. I suspect part of the problem hitherto has been a distaste for trying to define what the same sex equivalents of adultery or non-consummation actually are, particularly for female same sex partnerships.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Further fresh funny-stuff from the same BBC article:quote: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?
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.
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 straight marriages? That question is only in part rhetorical...
quote:I don't see the parallel at all. In the case of marriage, you would expect that a couple approaching a church would share the view of that church about marriage, same-sex or otherwise. In the case of a (the) couple providing a service to the public, there could be no expectation or requirement that members of the public should share the same moral stance as the providers.
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, the recent bed and breakfast case calls into question what one would otherwise thought ought to be obvious. It doesn't seem to have been regarded as even relevant whether alternative accommodation was readily available.
quote:And the bed and breakfast case was an Equality Act case, not a Human Rights Act case. You can't invoke the Human Rights Act against a private person or private organisation which isn't carrying out a 'public function' (= doing something that is quasi-state or on behalf of the state)
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:I don't see the parallel at all. In the case of marriage, you would expect that a couple approaching a church would share the view of that church about marriage, same-sex or otherwise. In the case of a (the) couple providing a service to the public, there could be no expectation or requirement that members of the public should share the same moral stance as the providers.
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, the recent bed and breakfast case calls into question what one would otherwise thought ought to be obvious. It doesn't seem to have been regarded as even relevant whether alternative accommodation was readily available.
quote:The thing is this is SOP for the CofE - the way they change canon law normally. For the CinW I think it would be extraordinary so that part doesn't work.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:Is this not clear enough?
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Let me get this straight...
If the CofE or the CinW wishes to perform same-sex marriages in the future, not only would it need approval by General Synod, but it would need Parliament to amend the act?
quote:Either people have just not read this, or they think it's bollocks - but it happens to be true.
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.
quote:Because it further illustrates that the whole conceptual mess created by civil partnerships isn't being resolved, it's just being made worse.
Originally posted by Enoch:
That is the current position on grounds for dissolution of a civil partnership. So it simply transposes it to same sex marriage.
...
For those that advocate same sex marriage, why should this be a problem?
quote:Based on the announcements, I don't think that's true. My understanding was that adultery would remain a cause for divorce and non-consummation would reain a cause for annulment, it would simply be left to case law to determine whether the facts of a particular case were adultery or non-consummation, rather than writing exactly which acts were required or prohibited into primary legislation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[In other words, it's going to create a second category of marriage: there'll be 'marriage' with one set of rules, and there'll be 'gay marriage' with a similar slightly different set of rules. [/QB]
quote:I don't think that is correct, Storm - not if the BBC article I quoted above is correct:
Originally posted by Storm:
quote:Based on the announcements, I don't think that's true. My understanding was that adultery would remain a cause for divorce and non-consummation would reain a cause for annulment, it would simply be left to case law to determine whether the facts of a particular case were adultery or non-consummation, rather than writing exactly which acts were required or prohibited into primary legislation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[In other words, it's going to create a second category of marriage: there'll be 'marriage' with one set of rules, and there'll be 'gay marriage' with a similar slightly different set of rules.
(And I think that it's case law which has pinned down the exact definition of adultery for stright people in the UK, it's just that there's an awful lot of case law over a long period to draw on). [/QB]
quote:And this, I am led to believe, is because the legal definitions of both adultery and consummation are explicitly penis-in-vagina stuff.
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.
quote:At the risk of bringing the TMI territory, but does that mean that evidence of other "sex acts" doesn't prove adultery in a contested divorce? I had assumed that - e.g. photos of your wife "Fellating a naked man" (link is to Wikipedia, not photos!) would be evidence of infidelity, but maybe not! I assume that the spouse would still be able to claim that the oral sex was unreasonable behaviour and get a divorce that way, but it does seem silly not to recognise the infidelity as actually being the cause.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And this, I am led to believe, is because the legal definitions of both adultery and consummation are explicitly penis-in-vagina stuff.
quote:I'm trusting the guardian for now that this is something someone in government actually said.
When the government put the proposals out for consultation earlier this year, it said: "Non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law.
"However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery."
quote:The fact that something might appear to be barmy has never stopped it from being part of English Family Law. For many years, it was the law that if one party had committed adultery, the other could get a divorce, but if both had, neither could get one. I think it still may be the case that it is possible for a decree to say that H has committed adultery with Mrs C, but Mrs C has not committed adultery with H. What that actually means is that H has admitted adultery so as to be divorced, but Mrs C hasn't.
Originally posted by Storm:
quote:At the risk of bringing the TMI territory, but does that mean that evidence of other "sex acts" doesn't prove adultery in a contested divorce? I had assumed that - e.g. photos of your wife "Fellating a naked man" (link is to Wikipedia, not photos!) would be evidence of infidelity, but maybe not! I assume that the spouse would still be able to claim that the oral sex was unreasonable behaviour and get a divorce that way, but it does seem silly not to recognise the infidelity as actually being the cause.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And this, I am led to believe, is because the legal definitions of both adultery and consummation are explicitly penis-in-vagina stuff.
It still seems to me to be a flaw with the definition of adultery rather than the creation of a new "class" of marriage though. Under the p-i-v definition, a woman whose husband leaves her for another man or vice versa wouldn't be able to get a divorce on the grounds of infidelity either, despite it being "true". That does seem bonkers to me though.
quote:I can pretty much guarantee that the Catholic Church is not worried about this at all. This particular Catholic was merely interested in what it might mean for the supposed equivalence of gay and straight marriage that adultery was deemed no ground for divorce for the former. I get that there is no directly analogous act of consummation or "strict" adultery in cases of gay relationships.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't see why the Catholic Church is worried about there being no way to annul a same sex marriage if in Catholic canon law a same sex marriage is no more a marriage than a CofE vicar is a priest.
quote:I think people may be overinterpreting this point. As has been pointed out what counts as adultery in law is a result of case law rather than statute. So when the Government says it's not going to change the definition of adultery or consummation it simply means that it's not going to depart from current practice and try to define it in statute. Of course case law up to now has only addressed adultery and consummation in terms of heterosexual marriage because that is the only sort of marriage there has been. So this is not to say that adultery will not be grounds for divorce in a gay marriage but that the courts will, once again through case law, determine what adultery is in such a marriage.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But thanks for clearing up that only p-in-v sex counts as adultery in law. This of course could explain why it is not grounds for divorce in same-sex marriages.
quote:Not quite. Also, the law needs to have some bearing on what most people think - otherwise they won't respect it. Divorce law is also expected to enshrine at some minimal level the sort of thing people ought to expect to be entitled to expect or to put up with.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Essentially, non-consummation and adultery are relic basis that are not needed for then law to function any more - but the government is not going to mess around trying to repeal when it makes no practical difference.
quote:I could imagine adultery charge having been brought because the accused spouse had an affair with a member of the same sex. Not sure if any have, but, it wouldn't require SSM to be legal or not.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Of course case law up to now has only addressed adultery and consummation in terms of heterosexual marriage because that is the only sort of marriage there has been.
quote:I think that just demonstrates how thoroughly unimaginative British marital law is, frankly. Because how many people actually accepted Clinton's spot of attempted hair-splitting?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Heh! Exactly the point one of the divorce sites I stumbled across ("Just for this thread, darling!") made. If Clinton had sworn that he had not committed adultery with "that woman" instead of that he had not had sexual relations with her, he would have been strictly telling the truth (as far as British marital law was concerned, that is).
quote:What? That involves an assertion that when a priest or minister says "I now pronounce you husband and wife", he's jumping the gun.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Non-consummation is a bit different. It has to do with certain minima that are necessary for a marriage to come into existence in the first place.
quote:No, they aren't overinterpreting. At the moment, adultery has to involve a p and a v. If there are 2ps or 2vs, it's unfaithful. It's classed under the current law relating to civil partnerships as unreasonable conduct. It already was before that, and still is, where one partner in a straight marriage committed gay sex with someone else against their husband or wife.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:I think people may be overinterpreting this point. As has been pointed out what counts as adultery in law is a result of case law rather than statute. So when the Government says it's not going to change the definition of adultery or consummation it simply means that it's not going to depart from current practice and try to define it in statute. Of course case law up to now has only addressed adultery and consummation in terms of heterosexual marriage because that is the only sort of marriage there has been. So this is not to say that adultery will not be grounds for divorce in a gay marriage but that the courts will, once again through case law, determine what adultery is in such a marriage.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But thanks for clearing up that only p-in-v sex counts as adultery in law. This of course could explain why it is not grounds for divorce in same-sex marriages.
quote:Again, not quite, and others will know more about this than me. Though you are married from the ceremony, it's not fully completed until consummated. If it is not consummated, and then dissolved, you are treated as not having been married, rather than married and then divorced.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:What? That involves an assertion that when a priest or minister says "I now pronounce you husband and wife", he's jumping the gun.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Non-consummation is a bit different. It has to do with certain minima that are necessary for a marriage to come into existence in the first place.
The usual position is "now that you're married, you can have sex". Not "you've been through a ceremony, but you won't actually be married until you have sex".
quote:At least in E&W, non-consummation is NOT a ground for annulling a marriage. Incapacity or willful refusal to consummate are, but the mere fact of non-consummation is not.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:What? That involves an assertion that when a priest or minister says "I now pronounce you husband and wife", he's jumping the gun.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Non-consummation is a bit different. It has to do with certain minima that are necessary for a marriage to come into existence in the first place.
The usual position is "now that you're married, you can have sex". Not "you've been through a ceremony, but you won't actually be married until you have sex".
quote:I was primarily thinking of legal approaches to SSM, rather than changing the rules for OSM (though on re-reading my post that was far from clear). I don't think there's any compelling reason to change the adultery definition for straights. To achieve practical equality for gays, we could either rely on "unreasonable behaviour" to do the job, or add a same-sex parallel of "sexual infidelity".
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I imagine that lots of people would object to adultery being removed as a legal cause for divorce. Although 'unreasonable behaviour' would cover the same range of acts, I think the symbolic change is what would cause problems. Some conservative minds would surely see this as another nail in the coffin for Christian marriage, since adultery was the one thing that Jesus did mention as a reasonable cause for divorce.
quote:I'm not sure there is such an issue with the border parishes as the CiW is also on the illegality side of SSM and marraige law is a non-devolved issue.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting tangent. The 'established' C of E has a presence outside of England, in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Diocese in Europe. There is surely no way that Westminster can legislate for any of them. I'm not sure how it applies to the anomalous parishes (of which I believe there are one or two) on the Welsh Borders which are geographically in Wales but within an English diocese.
quote:Well outside of England/Wales local law and canon law would apply. So in France no CoE churches can legally marry anyone because French law doesn't permit church marriages (they can have a church ceremony after a civil marriage). I guess the big question is whether marriage by CoE rules (banns or license) is governed by Parliament, by canon law, or by the local authorities in Man or the Channel Islands (or some combo). Gibraltar might be another oddity.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting tangent. The 'established' C of E has a presence outside of England, in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Diocese in Europe. There is surely no way that Westminster can legislate for any of them. I'm not sure how it applies to the anomalous parishes (of which I believe there are one or two) on the Welsh Borders which are geographically in Wales but within an English diocese.
quote:I'm not a lawyer but under the proposed 4 way lock there would be two locks on the CofE. One is the current canon law requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman. One is the new British law requirement forbidding the CoE from marrying two people of the same sex which overrides another law that requires the CoE to marry parishioners who can be legally married (this includes those who aren't Christian, etc.). The second could be construed as interference with the right of Man and the Channel Islands to determine their own marriage laws (e.g., if a CoE cleric in Jersey performs a same sex marriage [assuming Jersey has permitted SSM and hasn't explicitly banned the CoE] is he in violation of only canon law or of canon and this new UK law?). However I believe both the Channel Islands and Man are well behind England/Wales/Scotland in their vviews on homosexuality so any problem is likely to be far in the future.
Originally posted by Garasu:
I may have missed something... but isn't the issue the fact that canon law (for the CofE) has to be changed by the (Westminster) Parliament?
Isn't it therefore irrelevant which jurisdiction the CofE is operating in?
quote:As I well know! I was already born (albeit very young) when they finally decriminilised 'homosexuality' in '92... although it has come along way, (people can still be a bit funny, I remember hearing about one of my ex's being beaten up in a supposedly 'gay-friendly' bar) with civil-partnerships recognised and although you can't have a SSM on the Island the'same-sex marriages' done in places where they do exist are recognised by the authorities...
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The Isle of Man was the last part of the British Isles to decriminalise homosexuality, and attitudes are still very old fashioned over there. Although I don't know for certain my guess is that the present Bishop is anti-gay, so I doubt he'll be leading a campaign for SSM on the Island.
quote:Sorry to double post but I forgot to mention - not all of the CofE's canon law necessarily extends to Diocese of Sodor and Man (as I understand the situation still is) unless it explicitly mentions it extends, or has been legislated to come into effect by the Diocese and Tynwald - matters purely Spiritual come into force by long-standing convention I think, but matters which are temporal (like marriage - hence why the CofE in the Diocese does not necessarily follow all of the same rules as in Uk Dioceses (? - on spelling!) on marraige) do not extend to the Island except by explicit mention etc. etc.
Originally posted by Garasu:
I may have missed something... but isn't the issue the fact that canon law (for the CofE) has to be changed by the (Westminster) Parliament?
Isn't it therefore irrelevant which jurisdiction the CofE is operating in?
quote:No, but although IANAL, a quick search on Wikipedia suggests that church marriages- including SSM- are legal in Denmark, Norway and Sweden: so one might hypothetically see a conflict there. Having said that, I don't even know whether CofE chaplaincies in those countries are actually authorised to marry straight couples. Perhaps some shipmate will know.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:Well outside of England/Wales local law and canon law would apply. So in France no CoE churches can legally marry anyone because French law doesn't permit church marriages (they can have a church ceremony after a civil marriage).
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting tangent. The 'established' C of E has a presence outside of England, in the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and the Diocese in Europe. There is surely no way that Westminster can legislate for any of them. I'm not sure how it applies to the anomalous parishes (of which I believe there are one or two) on the Welsh Borders which are geographically in Wales but within an English diocese.
quote:I did a quick check. St. Albans in Copenhagen can marry people though they need a Prøvelsesattest from the Town Hall. At least one person in the couple must have attended the church for 6 months or be an Anglican. Both must be baptized and various bits of canon law apply. They aren't required to marry all (in contrast to a parish church in England or Wales). Nothing about same sex marriages though the wording implies opposite sex only. They are very open about offering blessings where marriage isn't appropriate. The Danish church with which the Anglicans are in full communion does do same sex marriages.
Originally posted by Albertus:
No, but although IANAL, a quick search on Wikipedia suggests that church marriages- including SSM- are legal in Denmark, Norway and Sweden: so one might hypothetically see a conflict there. Having said that, I don't even know whether CofE chaplaincies in those countries are actually authorised to marry straight couples. Perhaps some shipmate will know.
