Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Henry Troup: I was musing today about V. Gene Robinson, Jeffrey John, etc. I live in Canada, where same-sex marriage is the law of the land. And I'm an Anglican, which contextualizes the discussion.
So what would happen if a legally married Canadian same-sex couple were to begin attending a church in Canada which did not formally bless same-sex relationships, but nevertheless, the couple expected to be treated as a couple? You know, one set of envelopes, one copy of the newsletter, being listed as a couple in the directory, that sort of thing. Would they be welcome at a marriage-enrichment course? Would it depend on the individual congregation or the local leadership? OliviaG
-------------------- "You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
I can think of numerous American parishes including my own where this is true - couples - not having same-sex blessings, but accepted as members in full: joint pledge cards, joint listing in parish address books, spoken of as couples &c.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
UKCanuck
Shipmate
# 10780
|
Posted
My partner and I are "the only gays in the village" at our parish church in South Wales. When we moved here from another very accepting parish in Essex 2½ years ago, we weren't sure what we would encounter.
It's one of the friendliest and most welcoming little village churches I've ever been in. We were accepted as a couple at face value without any question from day one.
-------------------- "No, the Canadian flag does not look like a giant nosebleed, so put that thought out of your mind right now." - Will & Ian Ferguson
Posts: 148 | From: Cardiff, Wales | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by OliviaG: ...Would it depend on the individual congregation or the local leadership? OliviaG
I would think so; but then, a lot does! After the mandated "Day of Dialog", I have a pretty clear idea of the spectrum of opinion in the parish I attend, and that it wouldn't be a huge deal there.
OTOH, some of the churchgoers I know have made remarks on the lines of rainbow paraphernalia being "flaunting it". I checked; the guy in question doesn't wear a wedding ring (but is married.)
I suspect that for most Anglican churches in Canada (I can name one or two exceptions) it wouldn't be a scandal. Four Anglican churches in town are listed on Proud Anglicans - there are twenty-three Toronto parishes listed, too!
-------------------- "Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Just to back up what Henry said -- my parish is one of those on the website he linked to (though I notice his is not!!).
We're quite small, and the last same-sex married couple to be part of the congregation have now left, in despair at the delays in getting the national church to move. They were always treated as a couple. No questions about that, even from the more conservative members of the congregation who may not have been as comfortable as the rest of us about the situation.
ETA -- they wanted but did not ask for a blessing of their marriage, because they knew there was a strict rule in the diocese against it and didn't want to put the rector in a bad situation. They (and we all) knew perfectly well that God had blessed their relationship, and us through it. But they didn't want a hole-and-corner pretense -- either the real thing, or not at all -- and as God's blessing was clearly on them, they weren't all that bothered by the lack of the churhc's blessing.
John [ 23. February 2007, 23:49: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by John Holding: We're quite small, and the last same-sex married couple to be part of the congregation have now left, in despair at the delays in getting the national church to move.
Just out of curiousity, did they go to another congregation or denomination? OliviaG
-------------------- "You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by UKCanuck: My partner and I are "the only gays in the village" at our parish church in South Wales. When we moved here from another very accepting parish in Essex 2½ years ago, we weren't sure what we would encounter.
It's one of the friendliest and most welcoming little village churches I've ever been in. We were accepted as a couple at face value without any question from day one.
We are the only 'ones' too at our church. We have been at this church for 18 months and have had no problems nor did we have at our last church where we were both elders for a couple of years, at different times, though. We never flaunt it nor do we hide it, we have worn rings for the last 15 years of our 26 years of being 'together'. The minister is very supportive as is his wife and our elders. We have our suspicions that at least two couples in the church have gay sons but we don't dare ask, yet.
-------------------- "Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by OliviaG: quote: Originally posted by John Holding: We're quite small, and the last same-sex married couple to be part of the congregation have now left, in despair at the delays in getting the national church to move.
Just out of curiousity, did they go to another congregation or denomination? OliviaG
Not to another Anglican church, for obvious reasons -- their problem was not with us, but with the Anglican Church of Canada. They had specifically avoided the local "gay church" (which isn't, really, just the one that includes the "gay area") anyway, figuring that they wanted to be treated as people, not as gay people.
They supposedly have been looking for something else, but I fear have not so far found anyplace that works for them. It has to be sacramental and place a value on music (though not necessarily "anglican" music -- good praise music works for them just fine). That means their choices are Lutheran and RC -- the latter impossible for obvious reasons, and the convenient Lutheran church isn't suitable for a variety of reasons.
One is an Associate of the Order of St. John the Divine, so I suspect they get what spiritual feeding they can from retreats with the order.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Most of my SS-partnered friends in Anglican parishes are received as couples, same envelopes etc. Indeed, one older couple I knew (27 years and counting) told me that they weren't looking for a blessing; they already had the blessing they needed when their entire parish turned up for the funeral of the father of one of them.
However, I am currently located in probably the only parish in the Diocese where a SS-couple would not be welcomed (the climate of the parish has deteriorated gravely in recent years, for reasons which I need a strong drink and half an hour to go into)-- it is, in my experience of Anglicanism in Canada, a not-admirable exception to a nigh-universal rule.
My SS couple friends in RC parishes are acknowledged as couples, but they get two sets of envelopes and two invitations. The two Orthodox SS couples of my acquaintance get one set of envelopes, although one of them was told by the lay parish council chair that he would be happier in a monastery 'for that sort of thing,' and another that it was sad that she could not find herself an nice Arab girl.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
What's this "nigh-universal in Anglicanism" thing you speak of? I don't think there's an Anglican church in Moncton (6) that could deal with an openly-gay couple (although don't ask don't tell would probably keep the lid on) and there are only two parishes in the diocese that openly state that they would accept such. [ 28. February 2007, 00:53: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
-------------------- It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MaryO
Shipmate
# 161
|
Posted
Our rector declared on Sunday that since she's been at our place, she's done more same-sex blessings than heterosexual weddings.
-------------------- Hanging around off and on since 2001.
Posts: 349 | From: New York City | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
MaryO -- I'm curious. I'm actually a proponent of gay marriage in church -- being Canadian where gay marriage is legal means blessing of same sex unions is a bit passe for us. Around here, even those clergy who agree with me, by and large stay well away from even the appearance of performing such actions until there is some canonical authority to perform them. They believe that to do otherwise would be to break their ordination vows. FOr example, the bishop of Niagara, who has said he approves of same-sex marriage, has refused assent to a positive vote from his synod until the proper authorities have had a chance to consider and decide.
So how is it that, by your and other US epsicopalians' comments, all these clergy down your way have no compuntion at all about doing what at best is dodgy canonically and at worst is completely illicit?
I know I'd be really ticked if my parish priest, who also favours them, actually performed a same-sex blessing because it would be, in canonical terms, both illicit and probably invalid. So what are the two people involved getting?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Horseman Bree: What's this "nigh-universal in Anglicanism" thing you speak of? I don't think there's an Anglican church in Moncton (6) that could deal with an openly-gay couple (although don't ask don't tell would probably keep the lid on) and there are only two parishes in the diocese that openly state that they would accept such.
I have just finished spinning through my roladex and can affirm that I have comfortably queer practising Anglican friends in the dioceses of NS/PEI, Québec, Montréal, Ottawa, Ontario, Toronto, Huron, Rupertsland, Qu'Appelle, Edmonton, Kootenay, Athabasca, the Yukon, New Westminster and British Columbia; there are 14 other dioceses where I do not personally know what the situation is like on the ground. So I qualify my statement. Evidently, I know of no lesbians in Newfoundland, where I imagine there likely would be a large number.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
If God blesses them (as I believe God does), nothing a priest does or doesn't do makes a difference.
The question is about what authority a priest should be given by his or her congregation who openly and willingly breaks the canons. Frankly, those of us who want to move towards doing what we think CHristianity ought to do are not helped by having as part of our base people who openly and happily flout episcopal and canonical authority.
I happily acknowledge that sometimes it helps to create facts. Certainly the battle for the ordination of women was helped by non-canonical action at the time of the first US ordinations of women. But in 2007, one of the loudest cries by opponents of gay marriage is that proponents have no respect for any authority, either of scripture or of canons and the traditions of the church.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
So why isn't the communion up in arms about the lay presidency issue in Sydney? Seems to me that's a far more obvious breach of canon.
I'm with Martin Luther King on this, I'm afraid. If you wait around for everyone to come to the party, you wait forever (well, that's rather a paraphrase of his fine words).
-------------------- Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: So why isn't the communion up in arms about the lay presidency issue in Sydney? Seems to me that's a far more obvious breach of canon.
I'm with Martin Luther King on this, I'm afraid. If you wait around for everyone to come to the party, you wait forever (well, that's rather a paraphrase of his fine words).
Many of us are. But unlike bishops and the like, not many people are listening to us. And it would appear that most of the bishops people like to listen to don't think it a real enough danger: they'd rather talk about sex.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
And its a "People Like Us" issue. Sydney is so evo that it is, to my mind, no longer Anglican, but they don't like women or queers so they're OK. And they're a Western diocese that will agree with Africa on The Issue.
But it rather puzzles me, because I am dead sure a humble fella like Akinola wouldn't let a layperson celebrate. No authority, you know.
I know in my case, in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, there was no doctrine covering gay and lesbian people's existence in the church, just a whole heap of opinion, none of which had any standing as church doctrine. There's doctrine now, but that happened after the fact (and still doesn't include existing gay ministers, who are free to be practising homosexuals because the church can't afford to pay out that many lifetime-loss-of-earnings payments following the employment law case that would be taken otherwise).
Is the debate in the Anglican church based on actual canon law, or is it just ecclesiastical zeitgeist masquerading as canon law?
-------------------- Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reuben
Shipmate
# 11361
|
Posted
Arabella said: quote: There's doctrine now, but that happened after the fact (and still doesn't include existing gay ministers, who are free to be practising homosexuals because the church can't afford to pay out that many lifetime-loss-of-earnings payments following the employment law case that would be taken otherwise).
Arabella, I'm intrigued, are you saying that the NZ Presbyterian Church has now clarified its position being anti towards gay ministers but in light of the financial penalties payable won't move on pushing out existing gay clergy?
-------------------- "I got nothing." Barrie Unsworth
Posts: 227 | From: New South Wales | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
That's my take on it, rather confirmed by what I've heard from the lesbian and gay ministers involved and from some of the other ministers who have been involved in the politicking. And truly, it would bankrupt the denomination, which is already under some financial strain.
The position has been clarified for those applying for ministry - no way unless you lie through your teeth. Don't know what would happen to someone who successfully managed that and then came out after ordination - I'm guessing they could be sacked since they had been ordained under false pretenses. Its kind of sickmaking, really.
-------------------- Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Seems like the Council of General Synod in the Anglican Church Canada is full-steam ahead for same-sex marriage in the church: News and Resolutions
That distant popping sound you hear is a mixture of champagne corks and cerebral arteries, I think!
-------------------- "Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reuben
Shipmate
# 11361
|
Posted
It had to come to this I suppose......!
-------------------- "I got nothing." Barrie Unsworth
Posts: 227 | From: New South Wales | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by bradleys: It had to come to this I suppose......!
Classic!
-------------------- small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Now this is interesting. Here's a news story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/6284114.stm
Notwithstanding the rather complicated circumstances, it does seem odd to me that in order to enter into a civil partnership a person must confirm they aren't married to anyone else. Surely, if a civil partnership is not a marriage, what should it matter?
-------------------- "He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
I'd guess because "civil partnership" has some rules so stating. Perhaps that a person cannot enter into one if they are married to somebody else, or if they are in a civil partnership with somebody else?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
I spose 'cos the civil partnership probably duplicates some legal rights that would fall to the marriage partner in the case of a marriage. Leading to two equally entitled people fighting it out (marriage spouse and civil partner spouse) in the courts over stuff like who a body is released to, inheritance in the case of an intestate person. (I'm guessing Civ partnerships confer those rights but don't know)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Yes. Here's the relevant section:
quote:
3 Eligibility (1) Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if-
(a) they are not of the same sex,
(b) either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married,
(c) either of them is under 16, or
(d) they are within prohibited degrees of relationship.
(2) Part 1 of Schedule 1 contains provisions for determining when two people are within prohibited degrees of relationship.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I know Rosie had to provide her divorce papers when we applied for the civil union license.
Certainly in NZ the two forms of partnership are considered equal. In NZ straight couples can civilly unite too, unlike in the UK, where it is only queer couples.
-------------------- Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison: Is it still a sin to sin?
Necessarily. Which doesn't provide any information as to whether any particular action is sinful. Now go and defend Gordo in Hell, there's a good boy.
-------------------- insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison: Is it still a sin to sin?
Is marriage considered a sin now?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: Certainly in NZ the two forms of partnership are considered equal. In NZ straight couples can civilly unite too, unlike in the UK, where it is only queer couples.
What's the distinction between civilly uniting, and getting married, for NZ hetero types?
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf: quote: Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison: Is it still a sin to sin?
... Now go and defend Gordo in Hell, there's a good boy.
hosting
A comment which, as you should know, belongs in Hell. If you want to get personal with Davy Wavy, you can take it there, as per Commandment 4. No more personal digs on this thread please.
L.
Dead Horse Host
hosting off
-------------------- Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by MouseThief: quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: Certainly in NZ the two forms of partnership are considered equal. In NZ straight couples can civilly unite too, unlike in the UK, where it is only queer couples.
What's the distinction between civilly uniting, and getting married, for NZ hetero types?
Legally none, as far as I can tell. I think, and this is only my understanding, heterosexual couples have opted for civil union because of an objection to the historically religious nature of marriage.
Our niece and her bloke were very wistful about it when they visited earlier this year - they're getting married in the UK in September, and desperately wish they could civilly unite. No difference in the level of commitment, just a strong desire to bypass the politics and religious freighting of marriage. They are completely non-believing in any form of religious faith.
-------------------- Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: Legally none, as far as I can tell. I think, and this is only my understanding, heterosexual couples have opted for civil union because of an objection to the historically religious nature of marriage.
Gotcha. Thanks! [ 17. July 2007, 02:36: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom: ...Legally none, as far as I can tell. ..
Is there a legal concept of annulment of a civil union, and if so is non-consumation a ground?
-------------------- "Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
No, non-consummation is not a grounds - in the UK. The arcane reasoning behind it is that in the House of Lords they had bishops (opposing one another) trying to get civil partnership status for spinster sisters etc. as well as LGBTs. So it got tied up with next of kin status, inheritance tax etc. There was also a strong desire for it not be be equated with 'marriage'. Sex didn't enter into it. That's why clergy in the C. of E. are allowed to enter into CPs.
However, later in the debate, spinster sisters and the like were dropped.
-------------------- My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/ My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by leo: There was also a strong desire for it not be be equated with 'marriage'. Sex didn't enter into it. That's why clergy in the C. of E. are allowed to enter into CPs.
However, later in the debate, spinster sisters and the like were dropped.
I quite understand the idea that a CP is, in some ways, nothing like a marriage - clue's in the name, in fact. I understand that it is a legal way of tidying up matters that are more usually sorted out by marriage, thus a Good Thing for people who don't like, or aren't offered, church weddings.
I don't understand whether what you get if you "marry" in a registry office is, essentially, a CP (because both are non-religious legal documents).
I don't understand why the prohibited degrees of consanguinity come into CPs, given their legal loose-string-tying nature.
I don't understand why the state doesn't make all partnerships that any two consenting parties wish, for whatever reason, to contract, equal within the law, with one legal form covering everything from spinster sisters to Nuptial High Mass, and leave the religious element to decide what it does and doesn't want to bless.
-------------------- "Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).
Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Archimandrite: I don't understand why the state doesn't make all partnerships that any two consenting parties wish, for whatever reason, to contract, equal within the law, with one legal form covering everything from spinster sisters to Nuptial High Mass, and leave the religious element to decide what it does and doesn't want to bless.
Because that still leaves the issue of who gets to use the "M" word, or more accurately, who controls who gets to use the "M" word. You know, the old "I don't really care what they do, but don't call it marriage" argument. OliviaG
-------------------- "You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I take considerable umbrage at the notion that my civil union is nothing like a marriage and I suspect a hell of a lot of queer people in civil partnerships/unions would agree with me. Personally, my partner and I would marry like a shot if it was available to us, since we don't have problems with the religious bit.
It is the only option, however, that will give us the precious next-of-kin status.
Sisters, if they are each other's only relatives, are next-of-kin by right, so that argument can go down the toilet without my help. That amendment was suggested by the conservative Christians in NZ as well, but got firmly knocked down. Legally, my civil union is exactly the same as a marriage, but not called marriage. Everywhere the word "marriage" appears in NZ legislation, it now has "or civil union" following it - everywhere. Explain to me how that is different.
And in terms of property, it is my considered opinion that nobody should be allowed to own property without also making a will. More money is made by lawyers out of the aftermath of intestate deaths than almost any other branch of family law - I read the regular bulletins from the family court, and arguments after rich single aunty (or dad with six children by six mothers) has died without making a will seem to take up a lot of space. I know a will isn't binding, but at least its some sort of indication.
-------------------- Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Well really a registry office marriage is a civil union. In fact, a church marriage is also a civil union, but one which those participating have augmented with a religious component. So you're quite right that the use of the terms is contradictory and confusing.
Unfortunately, this was seen as the only way of getting legal parity between gay and straight relationships whilst not getting the religious right too het up. Colloquially, CPs are still carried 'marriages' anyway, so unless you're desperate for the legal part of the ceremony to be performed in a particular place of worship, the two are almost identical.
-------------------- Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by leo: No, non-consummation is not a grounds - in the UK.
I understood that another facet of this was that "consumation" is a specifically heterosexual concept. I believe the legal definition revolves around the penetration of a vagina with a penis. Therefore, it's not applicable to CP's.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I'm contemplating a formal syllogism (or something close to it) here: - A "high" view of scripture takes it as very compelling
- Jesus has a very high view of marriage, in several places being an "impossibilist" on divorce.
- conservative Christians tend to a very high view of scripture and also marriage
- therefore, conservative Christians can be expected not to permit remarriage of divorced persons
Yet according to various sources such as Time Magazine quote: The divorce rate among Evangelicals,... has been as high or higher than the national average.
and later quote: a "majority" probably accept remarriage
So, how is remarriage after divorce, where Jesus says every sexual act is a sin (adultery) different from same-sex marriage, if you hold that same-sex acts are sinful?
(I started this as an OP, and maybe I should have, but it just continues this discussion.)
[ETA: clarify an assumption] [ 08. March 2008, 23:48: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
-------------------- "Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
A church could very well not permit remarriage, but what enforcement power does it really have? I mean, the only punishment power they have is shunning. What's to stop a person from, at the most, joining a new church and merely not talking about it?
Also, while the metaphorical shotgun may generate a ceremony or some signatures, it cannot sustain a relationship.
I agree that these circumstances make the rhetoric about gay marriage, etc. seem somewhat ridiculous, to put it kindly.
Gwai claims that some con-evo arguments might be that society is not respecting marriage enough as an institution, is making sexual relationships increasingly frivolous, bringing it up as if it's something even middle schoolers could get into safely and easily, and completely separating the act of sex from the work of raising a family. Sex has become, essentially, profane as opposed to sacred.
Note: Gwai does not hold these opinions, but understands them from hanging around more conservative churchfolk.
On a final note, I read an article a while back that claimed that a Catholic Priest once claimed that with the advent of birth control, the slackening of marriage and the acceptance of homosexual sex as a norm was inexorable.
It's an interesting thing, and while it's sometimes tempting to blame fundies for their own problems, I think there might be more to this than meets the eye.
-------------------- Some say that man is the root of all evil Others say God's a drunkard for pain Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by cqg: quote: Originally posted by leo: No, non-consummation is not a grounds - in the UK.
I understood that another facet of this was that "consumation" is a specifically heterosexual concept. I believe the legal definition revolves around the penetration of a vagina with a penis. Therefore, it's not applicable to CP's.
True.
-------------------- My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/ My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mirrizin: A church could very well not permit remarriage, but what enforcement power does it really have?
Exactly the same (in Canada) as same-sex marriage - they can refuse to permit it as a church marriage. And indeed, they have only social sanctions against those who proceed civilly.
-------------------- "Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
So, basically they have absolutely no authority whatsoever over anyone who isn't already in the church, and only symbolic authority within.
Again, a straight divorcee could probably remarry and simply join a new church if the social pressure in the old got to be too strong. All they'd have to do is basically not talk about it, figuring that no sane pastor does background checks on his or her parishioners. Or if one pastor doesn't approve, find one who does.
Of course, it wouldn't be nearly so easy for a gay couple to pull such a thing...
-------------------- Some say that man is the root of all evil Others say God's a drunkard for pain Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|