|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Disestablishment
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Catholics and non-conformists might want an established Church, but then how much of the population of England consider themselves christian believers of whatever denomination? Does it even acount for a half?
At the time the last census results were released, IIRC, the figure was just over 70%.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Got it in one IngoB.
Current practice is that the good ol' CofE does allow divorcees to marry. But it is left to the conscience of each individual priest as to whether he or she will actually conduct a service.
Should a couple which includes a divorcee wish to marry in a certain church building (some are more aesthetically pleasing than others) which they qualify to use for the service by either residence in the parish or habitual attendance but the local vicar will not officiate they can still use the building but find another priest. It is not uncommon for the local vicar to find their own replacement.
The government proposals on same sex marriage are somewhat different, as churches will not be asked to perform same sex ceremonies.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
Sorry, but I think this is a load of nonsense. The sky doesn't seem to have fallen in on the oldest daughter of the Catholic church following her committing regicide and guillotining large numbers of bishops. ....
Are you sure of that? From over here, its history since 1789 looks rather a rocky ride - the Terror, Napoleon, the retreat from Moscow, occupation in 1815, three invasions by Germans, one beaten off, the other two not, and one by Perfide Albion and the Americans caused by the second of the two German ones.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Am I right in assuming that the CofE generally does marry divorcees - or at least that a sufficient fraction of CofE parishes do, so that a legal challenge is more cumbersome than simply going to another church close by?
In my limited experience (being a lay person) some priests simply will not marry divorcees. Some of these priests object to all re-marriages, others are theoretically more liberal, but don't want to be put in the position of sitting in judgement on individual cases, and adopt a policy of saying "no" ibn general to avoid having to say "no" on the merits.
Other clergy will re-marry someone who is an innocent, or at least repentant, party to a failed marriage, if this is demonstrated to their satisfaction, but not otherwise.
Others will say "yes" as a default.
Some priests (and I think my own vicar is one, or at least has been on occasion) will allow their churches to be used for re-marriages which they personally wouldn't be comfortable celebrating, but will co-opt a curate or non-stipendiary, or visiting priest to perform the actual ceremony.
Your impression that most people can find a CofE church to get married in, if they want to, matches with mine. And, of course, there are other churches than the CofE, many of them with very nice buildings, so even those unfortunate enough not to find an accommodating vicar will be able to have an equally traditional church wedding elsewhere, if they wish. Otherwise, a lot of priests who are not prepared to conduct a remarriage will (for reasons which I confess I utterly fail to understand) be perfectly happy to conduct an almost-identical service of blessing immediately following a civil marriage.
So you are right - in practical terms the difference between what a copule would ideally want, and want they can almost certainly have, is usually so slender as not to be worth litigating about (though that's not to say that the whole thing can't still a minefield of bruised feelings and resentment).
If we end up "forced" to marry gay couples, it'll be the same situation. Some will, some won't, some will compromise. Just about every gay couple who wants it will have a church ceremony of some sort - most of them in the church they want, fewer (but probably still the majority) with the priest they want - usually a marriage, sometimes a 'blessing'. A few will have to go outside the CofE as a denomination. Probably we will manage to give quite a lot of offence to a fair number, but insensitive priests and over-sensitive parishioners have been giving and taking offence since Peter's day, and will continue to do so until the Lord's return, so again, no change there.
It is, in my opinion, as close to a non-problem as it is possible to get. If we were ever forced to make a straight choice between disestablishment and marrying gays, and we thought (we'll assume for the sake of argument) that disestablishment was a Bad Thing, then the choice ought to be a no-brainer. We should marry the gays. There are quite enough clergy who could and would do it without moral scruple that no one need be forced to act against their conscience.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
AIUI there is supposed to be a blanket ban on remarrying a divorcee who was responsible for the breakdown of their first marriage.
--------------------
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
|
|
jrrt01
Shipmate
# 11264
|
Posted
A few points.
1. Politically, it is much easier to introduce SSM if it involves no loss or change to the large majority who will never avail themselves of it. Giving a small group an extra right is easy if it doesn't seem to cost anything. But if there is any cost, then it becomes much harder. Whether that cost is disestablishment, or the removal of church weddings (everyone has a civil ceremony, followed by a church service for those who want it), or any other proposal, is immaterial. 'Do you think gay people should have the right to marry?' - a majority will answer yes. 'Do you think gay people should have the right to marry if it means you can't have the whole wedding in church like you used to be able to...' - might get a different answer. So the Church of England's response has just made SSM less likely in this parliament.
2. I personally disagreed with much of the response, but on the legal issues it seems to have made some telling points. The consultation doesn't allow for religious SSM. The response points out that this may well not hold (and why should it - some denominations want the right to hold religious SSM, e.g. the Society of Friends). So at the least the legislation needs to be extremely carefully worded to ensure an airtight conscience clause for churches and for individuals.
3. If religious SSM does become legal, I cannot see what would stop an incumbent who wished to do so from performing such a ceremony in their church, irrespective of what the official church position was. They would be entitled to do so from their legal position as registrar. This would be similar to my understanding of the history of marrying of divorcees. Initially, the CofE didn't allow it; individual priests did it anyway; eventually the CofE official position caught up with this. So the consequence of SSM may well be the situation where SSM couples will be in the same position as couples where one of the partners is divorced - can you marry in church? Depends on the vicar...
Posts: 62 | From: Manchester | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO disestablishment might be a good thing for the church, but would be very dangerous territory for the state. It would make it apostate.
Cosmically, that is of a quite different order from a state that starts off with no religious allegiance and has never placed itself under one.
Sorry, but I think this is a load of nonsense. The sky doesn't seem to have fallen in on the oldest daughter of the Catholic church following her committing regicide and guillotining large numbers of bishops. ....
Are you sure of that? From over here, its history since 1789 looks rather a rocky ride - the Terror, Napoleon, the retreat from Moscow, occupation in 1815, three invasions by Germans, one beaten off, the other two not, and one by Perfide Albion and the Americans caused by the second of the two German ones.
You can prove cause and effect?
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. (I may be wrong there, neither being British nor Anglican, and will stand happily corrected - in which case pretty much ignore the rest.) If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
Far from it. Plenty of Church of England members think that's a good thing. When we get disestablished we'll carry on doing it. I used to think it was a bad thing myself, but was persuaded by Colin Buchanan, our suffragan bishop at the time. He was trying to convince our congregation that infant baptism should be the norm, and he didn't persuade me of that, but his case on marriage was pretty convincing.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I don't think there is really much for the Quakers to crow about - if SSM was the law, they could apply to have their building registered - like many churches, hotels and other buildings are. Other than the state law, they could have whatever format they like for the service.
I am sure there are some for whom SSM in the Anglican setup is what they really want - and some who insist on it even though they're not even part of the Anglican setup themselves. And in that respect the Anglicans are in a unique position - in that they're enforcing the state marriage law, unlike other religious groups who are (as it were) just co-operating with it.
I am interested to know how the divorce/conscience thing actually works. How does an Anglican church (possibly the vicar himself, I suppose) actually enforce the system? I mean, is there a specific legal framework stating that the Anglican church has an exemption from the normal you-will-marry-anyone-who-is-legally-able-to-be-married state of things?
And could a vicar actually refuse on any other grounds?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We should marry the gays. There are quite enough clergy who could and would do it without moral scruple that no one need be forced to act against their conscience.
That's an interesting "bottom-up anarchic" approach to church governance. One I totally disagree with, of course, but since it's not my church that is neither here nor there. What is more interesting is whether you propose this as a general principle of how the church should be run, and whether this is in fact already the way the CofE is run in principle. I am not sure about either?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
My understanding is that the CofE currently by secular law has to marry any (unmarried) man and woman that requests this of her. ... If the CofE had any spiritual backbone, she should instantly disestablish over this of course - rather than being forced to marry non-Christian couples if they so wish.
Far from it. Plenty of Church of England members think that's a good thing. When we get disestablished we'll carry on doing it. I used to think it was a bad thing myself, but was persuaded by Colin Buchanan, our suffragan bishop at the time. He was trying to convince our congregation that infant baptism should be the norm, and he didn't persuade me of that, but his case on marriage was pretty convincing.
Glad to hear that you will be disestablished. What's your prediction on the time frame for that? As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it. It's a bit of a tangent, I guess, but it may well be relevant in an analogous sense? You decide.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
2. I personally disagreed with much of the response, but on the legal issues it seems to have made some telling points.
Yes, some. The fears that a change in the official civil understanding of marriage could lead to a legal challenge forcing the church to conduct such a marriage have some basis, but were massively overstated, and all the evidence is that this possibility could be headed off with some careful drafting. There was also a valid point that the proposed continuing existence of civil partnerships for same-sex couples alone would be an inequitable anomaly, and any legal challenge would surely succeed.
But these are easily-solved administrative matters, and it's not a surprise if most of the comment has centred on the church's noisier complaints on the substance, rather than the fine detail.
--------------------
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
I suppose the question needs to be posed: could a divorcé(e) refused remarriage in a CofE gaffe successfully sue under the HRA? I know it hasn't happened but could it?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If I can attempt to answer my own question (having thought about it further but bearing in mind that this is not my area of law ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), I think that the HRA is a bit of a red herring here and that both +Leicester and Ben Summerskill banging on about it yesterday on the Today programme were misdirecting themselves: the former for claiming that the HRA would lead to a claim being brought by a S-S couple against the CofE for refusing to marry them and the latter for referring to the fact that no claims have been brought by divorcé(e)s refused remarriage by the CofE. The HRA (IIRC & AIUI) can only be applied to organs of the state, for starters (someone correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here) and it is very much a moot point whether the CofE, despite its Establishment, so qualifies.
What those opposed to SSM in the various churches - not just the CofE - should be far more concerned about is surely the Sexual Orientation Regulations: once the legal definition of marriage is extended to S-S couples, then it follows that churches offering to marry Opposite Sex couples but not S-S couples are automatically discrminating against S-S couples under these Regs.
--------------------
"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
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
I think the first time the established church "opted out" of certain marriage ceremonies on a conscience basis was after the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907, which allowed marriages (the title says it all) which were contrary to the Table of Kindred and Affinity in the Book of Common Prayer. As, later, with divorcees, the clergy were allowed to refuse to conduct the marriage.
This reform had been attempted in Parliament, and successfully opposed by the Church and others, since 1842, so the rearguard action succeeded for 65 years in that case.
The argument that the established church cannot be established if it opts out of marriage permitted by law was, I would have thought, lost when establishment continued after 1907.
One poor fellow who married his deceased wife's sister in 1907 was excluded from Holy Communion by his parish priest on the basis that he and his wife were "notorious and open evil livers" within the rubric of the BCP because of their affinity. The House of Lords had to put that right in Thompson v Dibdin [1912] AC 533.
The Lord Chancellor said that the position taken by the clergyman "would, as it seems to me, if it were not so serious a matter, be ludicrous"; although Lord Loreburn was kinder and kept his judgment as short as possible, observing "it is easy to give needless offence to deep and sincere convictions upon matters which affect private conscience."
So, exactly 100 years ago, a hysterical reaction to a similar departure from tradition and, 100 years on, here we all still are, established church and all.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Legally any couple who have the requisite qualifications (which can merely be residence in the parish) are entitled to be married (according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England) in their Church of England parish church. The only exception is in the case of a divorced person whose former spouse is still living. Here, as others have noted, the practice varies.
The House of Bishops has issued guidelines (PDF) for those who will marry divorcees, but it remains the case that "a minister is not under a duty to solemnise the marriage or to allow his or her
church to be used for it".
The Church of England's view on marriage is that it is "a gift of God in creation" aka a creation ordinance. Thus, like food, for example, it is a gift from God to anyone whatever their belief. It believes marriage to be the (by intention) lifelong and exclusive union of a man and a woman. Wherever that union is formed that is a marriage. It takes the view that if people of little or no belief want to make that union in the context of prayer and an acknowledgement of the presence and power of God, then that is a good thing.
Since I've only heard the reportage, and not actually read the Church of England's response to the consultation (linked from this page I don't feel qualified to comment further.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What those opposed to SSM in the various churches - not just the CofE - should be far more concerned about is surely the Sexual Orientation Regulations: once the legal definition of marriage is extended to S-S couples, then it follows that churches offering to marry Opposite Sex couples but not S-S couples are automatically discrminating against S-S couples under these Regs.
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
Badman, good to be reminded once again of the Deceased Wife's Sister saga. Unlike remarriage and SSM, where whatever our own views, we can see why people feel strongly either way, it's as good as impossible now to feel oneself into why this aroused so much controversy.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
CK, that doesn't explain the legal position, just the practice of the CofE.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The practice of the CofE is the legal position - the whole damn lot has to go to Parliament if you want to change it. And you really, really don't want me to find the right acts, do you?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We should marry the gays. There are quite enough clergy who could and would do it without moral scruple that no one need be forced to act against their conscience.
That's an interesting "bottom-up anarchic" approach to church governance. One I totally disagree with, of course, but since it's not my church that is neither here nor there. What is more interesting is whether you propose this as a general principle of how the church should be run, and whether this is in fact already the way the CofE is run in principle.
I hadn't addressed my mind to the question of "how the church should be run" at all in composing that post. I was taking the following as ‘given', and working from there:
1. The CofE is in actual fact in disagreement about homosexuality, likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, and has no effective mechanism to tell one side or another that they are wrong.
2. The CofE, being an established Church, may have to live with an external compromise with the state if it wants to keep that status (and I'm assuming we do, although I am well aware that many of us actually don't, or don't care).
3. In the absence of clear authority that allowing religious same sex marriage (as the state may hypothetically require us to do) definitely is (or isn't) compatible with the Christian faith, the question is not whether some legal requirement crosses that line. We aren't even agreed that the line exists. The question is whether we are placing an intolerable burden on the consciences of actual Christians.
We can then look at how we manage the extremely similar issue of remarriage - with the same sort of disagreements and objections - and find that on this point the CofE manages pretty well (for definitions of ‘pretty well' meaning that almost everyone who wants to get married does, and none of the objectors are required to participate or approve). If the state said that we absolutely had to marry all divorcees who wanted it, as the price of Establishment, and Establishment was what we wanted, it is a price that we could easily pay.
Since exactly the same working compromise could be put into effect as easily for gay marriage (indeed, more easily - a substantial minority in the CofE think it positively good to be gay and would celebrate gay marriage with conviction and joy, whereas very few think it positively good to be divorced, and celebrate remarriage largely as a concession to human weakness) I am simply making the point that the argument that gay marriage leads to disestablishment is a crap one. Gay marriage doesn't need to lead us there. It is absolutely obvious that it doesn't need to. If that is the price of Establishment, we can easily afford it.
Obviously it can be said that the CofE should not be established at all, but I'm not addressing that issue, because that is another way of saying that the contention I'm arguing against is crap. I'm conceding the points that Establishment is good, and that allowing gay marriage might be a requirement of Establishment, and arguing that even if that's all true, we can just allow gay marriage.
My arguments are really CofE-specific. If the Tempter should approach ++Vincent Nichhols in the guise of David Cameron, and offer to Establish the Catholic Church in England if only it agrees to permit gay marriage, then the Archbishop should refuse, no matter how vividly he can imagine himself conducting the next coronation. The Catholic Church ‘knows' gay marriage to be wrong in a way that the CofE, for better or worse, doesn't, and the Catholics do not (as far as I know) have a substantial number of priests-in-good-standing positively eager to start celebrating them, nor a tradition of liberty of conscience in deciding which marriages they personally approve or disapprove of.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The practice of the CofE is the legal position - the whole damn lot has to go to Parliament if you want to change it. And you really, really don't want me to find the right acts, do you?
I'm mostly curious to know on what basis the Vicar (or whoever else has the keys to allowing a marriage in church) can refuse and why.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears from that that the Anglican church is actually operating a completely parallel legal marriage system to the civil system - which the civil registry and other churches work under.
So they can just say what they're going to do and then do it (so long as they've gone through the correct procedure) and it is automatically law, even if it seems to conflict with the civil system.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears from that that the Anglican church is actually operating a completely parallel legal marriage system to the civil system -
No.
It is the same system. Anglican churches are register offices as far as the civil system is concerned. It's part of being the established church. The civil definition of marriage is binding on Anglican churches.
That having been said the Angican Church does not have to register all marriages, see the opt outs for divorcees. So there's no reason to believe that Anglicans will be forced to marry same sex couples.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's more complicated than a parallel legal system. Historically Canon Law was part of the legal system and it's still intertwined. The law governing the Church of England goes through Parliament. That's why the House of Bishops is part of the legal system and the church is also the established religion.
Marriage, originally was only governed by Canon Law. According to wikipedia it was 1836 when the requirement for a marriage to take place in a religious establishment (CofE, Quakers or Synagogue) was abolished.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
Yes, but refusing to marry Opposite Sex couples for various reasons (consanguinuty to deceased spouse, divorce) does not fall foul of the SORs. On what basis are you saying that churches' refusal to conduct SSMs won't contravene the SORs?
--------------------
"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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
I'm not sure whom you are actually addressing, since the quote was from Matt Black, not me. At any rate, there is absolutely no way that the RCC will conduct gay marriages in the foreseeable future, and I think it would be essentially political suicide to try to stop the RCC from marrying its faithful. The hardest ball that I think could be played there realistically is to deny RC ministers the ability to register their marriages with the state on account of overall RC policy. But then simply the same situation results as for example in Germany, where Catholics marry first civilly to get the secular stuff out of the way, and only then in the Church (unless they have a special dispensation granted by the bishop to not marry civilly - for the state they then remain unmarried). I have no issues with that, that seems like a perfectly fine system to me.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
Yes, but refusing to marry Opposite Sex couples for various reasons (consanguinuty to deceased spouse, divorce) does not fall foul of the SORs. On what basis are you saying that churches' refusal to conduct SSMs won't contravene the SORs?
You could do worse than start here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
I'm not sure whom you are actually addressing, since the quote was from Matt Black, not me. At any rate, there is absolutely no way that the RCC will conduct gay marriages in the foreseeable future, and I think it would be essentially political suicide to try to stop the RCC from marrying its faithful. The hardest ball that I think could be played there realistically is to deny RC ministers the ability to register their marriages with the state on account of overall RC policy. But then simply the same situation results as for example in Germany, where Catholics marry first civilly to get the secular stuff out of the way, and only then in the Church (unless they have a special dispensation granted by the bishop to not marry civilly - for the state they then remain unmarried). I have no issues with that, that seems like a perfectly fine system to me.
Indeed, it has always puzzled me why the eminently practical continental approach is not embraced by churches in the UK (as well as in Canada). The state does its marriage thing for its reasons; and churches then can focus on the pastoral and sacramental aspects, cheerfully using their rules in exercising this ministry.
They can then marry or not people of the same sex, or divorcees, or convalidate away. We would also be spared the embarrassment of trying to distinguish blessings from weddings and the greater humiliation of watching bishops do the same. Valuable resources could then be more productively directed toward improving the quality of alcohol in rectories and palaces, and freeing up valuable time for its consumption.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by me:
IngoB, if that does prove to be the case, it will apply to the RC church just as much as anyone else.
The point I was making is in the "if".
IngoB the argument is that even if Parliament were to say 'no CofE priest shall be required to celebrate a SSM or allow his or her church to be used for one', a SS couple might take the priest to court claiming that by deciding to exercise that discretion, he or she was discriminating against them on grounds of orientation. They might also argue that Parliament, by allowing that discretion, was infringing their human rights.
One would hope such a claim would be thrown out, but the track record of other cases implies that one cannot have confidence in this.
It is also, regrettably, almost certain that some b___ minded litigants with an eye to make a point and some money, would sooner or later bring such a claim.
The first claim would probably be brought against the CofE. But if it were successful, it would immediately place the RC church in the same cross-hairs. Not being an established church would make no difference. Which is why, IngoB, responding to Matt Black's post engages you also. This is not just an issue for the established church or Prods.
As Matt B explains, this opportunity to make a quick buck is not available to formerly married heterosexual couples because they are not a category of people who have rights under the various pieces of anti-discrimination legislation.
Possibly the best line of defence for the churches might be 'as there are cases (e.g. on ghosts) which have held that the law doesn't take account of the supernatural, any service or blessing that a person is being denied by being refused a church wedding is not a benefit the law can evaluate or take account of; so there is no loss that can be quantified'.
But none of this has a great deal of bearing on whether the CofE should be established. I've already said what I think on this. So perhaps I shouldn't comment any further.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
This is utterly ridiculous and akin to trying to sue a tennis club for refusing to allow a darts competition.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Not being an established church would make no difference.
Indeed. The Church in Wales is not established, but says it is in the same position nonetheless.
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
This is utterly ridiculous and akin to trying to sue a tennis club for refusing to allow a darts competition.
Alas not. The Catholic Church has already had to give up running adoption agencies for this reason.
The difference is that darts players are not one of the categories in the legislation who can claim they have been discriminated against.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Adopted children is a different issue - the church is imposing its values on children.
This case involves adults and freely held beliefs. How is it different to complaining that a RC church refuses to allow someone to conduct a Buddhist ceremony?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Enoch, @Matt Black - I think that is pugwash. I know of several non-Anglican churches who have refused to marry people (for various reasons), the idea that anyone could force a religious congregation to go against their marriage beliefs is preposterous and specifically denied by both government and the European human rights courts.
The issue is a mess, but scaremongering about who might force whom to do what is not going to help.
Yes, but refusing to marry Opposite Sex couples for various reasons (consanguinuty to deceased spouse, divorce) does not fall foul of the SORs. On what basis are you saying that churches' refusal to conduct SSMs won't contravene the SORs?
You could do worse than start here.
Yes I could: the commentary is entirely on the HRA and doesn't mention the SORs at all. The SORs are the elephant in the drawing room once 'marriage' is redefined.
@ The Long Ranger: were your analogy to be correct, it would indeed be ridiculous, but the correct analogy is two gays suing the tennis club for not allowing them to play tennis.
[ 13. June 2012, 14:58: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"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
Apologies, I don't know what you mean by SORs, and Google isn't being my friend. But the HRA dictates all other appropriate legislation, so as long as that's fine, any other legislation can be redrafted if necessary.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The first claim would probably be brought against the CofE. But if it were successful, it would immediately place the RC church in the same cross-hairs. Not being an established church would make no difference. Which is why, IngoB, responding to Matt Black's post engages you also. This is not just an issue for the established church or Prods.
As I've just stated above, the "worst case" realistic scenario that I can see is the wholesale separation of civil and church marriages, as has been the case in many places in continental Europe. It's hard to see how government our courts could force the RCC in the UK to conduct gay marriages. RC bishops and priests have exactly zero room to manoeuvre there. Shall they all be thrown into prison?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 which were issued under the Equality Act 2006. Having now looked more closely, Reg 14 appears to provide an opt-out for churches, albeit subject to 14 (8), which arguably could apply to the civil aspect of religious marriage...which I suppose takes us full circle back to the disestablishment argument albeit via the SORs rather than the HRA.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Are the SORs the Sexual Orientation Regulations? (The 2007 regulations contained a clause which seemed to exempt ministers of religion, unless I misunderstood it).
The 2007 regulations appear to have been replaced by the Equality Act 2010, which exempts religious organisations from providing civil partnerships in section 202: "nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so". I don't know if that helps this discussion or not?
[cross-posted with Matt Black]
[ 13. June 2012, 15:28: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Apologies, I don't know what you mean by SORs, and Google isn't being my friend. But the HRA dictates all other appropriate legislation, so as long as that's fine, any other legislation can be redrafted if necessary.
Sexual Orientation Regulations, I think.
The point being that discrimination on such grounds is (rightly) prohibited, and that providing a service to opposite sex couples but not same sex ones is (pretty obviously) discrimination.
I think it would be possible to fix the law so that the legitimate interest of freedom of religion is served (which, clearly, must incluude freedom to celebrate gay marriage as well as freedom not to) but even if it isn't, so what? If the law says faith groups must marry gays, the Anglicans (and others) will work with it, the Catholics (and others) will defy it, and both groups will receive their reward in heaven. The sky will not fall. And even if it does, fiat justitia.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But Alwyn and I have pointed to the opt-out which would apply certainly to religious marriages (whether it would apply to the civil aspect of a church marriage is another matter for M'Learned Friends - at least those who sit down - I would guess).
--------------------
"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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If the law says faith groups must marry gays, the Anglicans (and others) will work with it, the Catholics (and others) will defy it, and both groups will receive their reward in heaven. The sky will not fall. And even if it does, fiat justitia.
This is inhumane bullshit of the "kill them all, let God sort them out" kind. We cannot simply delegate justice back to God, we are responsible for the morality of our own actions. An epic showdown between government and religion over relationship issues is entirely unnecessary and bound to come at massive human costs. This is mere revenge fantasy for supposed injuries suffered by the gays. Or perhaps the British require ever so often religious persecutions and sectarian violence, if not outright religious war, so that there's something other to talk about than the weather...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Well, in England at least, not for about 350 years ( barring the odd few riots I suppose).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If the law says faith groups must marry gays, the Anglicans (and others) will work with it, the Catholics (and others) will defy it, and both groups will receive their reward in heaven. The sky will not fall. And even if it does, fiat justitia.
This is inhumane bullshit of the "kill them all, let God sort them out" kind.
You're right, it's exactly equivalent to the massacre of Béziers.
--------------------
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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
IIRC, Ingo, it was Your Lot™ who were responsible for doing over the Cathars in that way.
--------------------
"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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
You're right, it's exactly equivalent to the massacre of Béziers.
My statement "of the X kind" of course makes no claim of exact equivalence to X.
Eliab was talking about nothing less than the potential secular suppression of Catholicism (and other religions) in the UK over this issue. What else would the sky falling over defiance of the government and courts mean?
Whether that would result in the same body count as Béziers I do not know. But to call that "fiat justitia" is just the same sort of inhumane bullshit that was at work there. (Note the "sort of"? Yeah? Good.)
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
IIRC, Ingo, it was Your Lot™ who were responsible for doing over the Cathars in that way.
And your point is? Two wrongs make a right? You've had that one coming? Or something even less sensible?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
