|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is this what they expect?
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I see that the only religious groups to offer SSMs are, at the moment, the Quakers and the Metropolitan churches.
Can anyone here see the obvious problem?
However willing the Quakers might be to offer weddings to same sex couples, do they really think that anyone outside the society will be satisfied with the very basic ceremony, the building and the lack of a service?
Surely, part of the attraction of a church wedding for most people is 1) the service with music and hymns, 2) the venue itself.
What is going to happen when 2 guys want to get married but are totally unimpressed with the minimalist ceremony done by a strange religious group they've hardly heard of, in what looks like, in many cases, a large front room?
Is there going to be an assumption that being married in church means exactly that?
And there, I feel, the problems will begin because people will start to demand a 'real' service 'like my relative/friend had' - with 2 hymns, readings, familiar prayers, etc and an aisle to walk down at the end. When they realise they local CofE, RC, Methodist, Baptist won't do it - that's where the arguments will start because I doubt very much the Society of Friends will/can provide what the consumer wants.
I guess that it will be the metropolitan churches - housed as many are, in 'normal' looking churches and using familiar worship, that will get the franchise.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Surely, part of the attraction of a church wedding for most people is 1) the service with music and hymns, 2) the venue itself.
To comment quickly before this thread is DHed, I'd guess the attraction of a church wedding is primarily wanting to celebrate your wedding with your church community. I suppose you could argue that the only reason anyone goes to church at all is for the music, hymns, and venue, but most believers would disagree with your assessment of their faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is going to happen when 2 guys want to get married . . .
As is usual in discussions of this topic, lesbians seem to disappear entirely.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
Just to be clear, the OP is talking specifically and only about the UK. There are multiple denominations in the US that will and do perform same-sex marriages that are quite similar liturgically to any other marriage.
That said, I hardly think the limited options will change what people's ideas of getting married in a church means...
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Don't quite get your problem?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Does one assume that this is merely a marketing stunt?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Put me down as asking why someone who is not a regular at any church want to get married in a church? Seems to treat the Church as a vending machine.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Over here, lots of people who are not 'members' (in the ordinary sense of that word) of a church want to get married in a church. There is a veritable host of reasons for this: partly it's to do with having an Established Church so it's still part of the cultural furniture so to speak, partly it can be a but of social kudos, people also like the setting of some of our older churches, it's romantic to some people, etc - none of which have much if anything to do with faith.
--------------------
"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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I'm getting deja vu here but my experience suggests that you either feel that a wedding in church is in some way more of a proper one, or that you are enough of a believer to want to involve God in your marriage yet haven't yet managed to make the step of formally joining up to a church. These two positions can quite often be related, obviously.
Or it could be that you like stained glass windows.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It must be that 'pond difference' again.
Here in the UK loads of people get married in church. they have a 'church do'; a white wedding, an aisle to walk up, hymns, gothic architecture, a vicar, "God", etc, etc.
Mosdt pof the people who get married in church are like those who go to Christenings and funerals - it's the only time they go - they attend when they are 'hatched, matched and despatched.'
The UK is different to the US it seems - where at the moment, if you want to get married in a building that is not a church you are simply not allowed any religious ingredients whatsoever in your ceremony.
Therefore, if you want so much as a prayer, it's off to church you go. And in the UK, that means a real church with a real service - hymns and everything.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Or it could be that you like stained glass windows.
This Church has made weddings its mission field. The even stream their services online for those who can't get there.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
[tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
I suppose you could argue that the only reason anyone goes to church at all is for the music, hymns, and venue, but most believers would disagree with your assessment of their faith.
Well, if that happens to be your view, then I can only congratulate you on your acknowledgement that we Christians are - in the context of your philosophy - not deluded. If we were 'deluded' then, according to atheism, we would go to church to actually worship and experience God, but since - apparently - we actually only go "for the music, hymns and venue", then clearly we must 'know' that there is no God!!
Presumably you will be expressing your view to the good Professor, in the hope that he may withdraw his obviously misguided tome from circulation (you know, the one with the word 'delusion' in it)?!
[/ tangent over]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Aside from the fact that I'm not sure why you're bringing up a DH in Purgatory, I don't think the Quakers are viewing this as a 'market' anyway. Since non-Quakers having Quaker weddings are relatively uncommon in any case, those who are sympathetic to Quaker worship will be having Quaker weddings. Simple. Not too sure of the statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if civil ceremonies 'outsell' (for want of a better word) religious ones - so those wanting a wedding because it's pretty will have civil ceremonies anyway. Most people choosing a religious ceremony now are religious or have religious sympathies.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Put me down as asking why someone who is not a regular at any church want to get married in a church? Seems to treat the Church as a vending machine.
I attended a wedding of a bride who strongly wanted to be married in a church. She had been reared Episcopalian. She was not a member of any church. But she had been reared that a wedding is not really a wedding unless it is in a church.
She went to church after church, they all said no, members only, and she was not willing to lie by joining a church she did not intend to remain with.
Her friends all said the reason she wanted a church wedding was probably her dead mother influencing her to get into some contact with a church again.
Finally, one clergy guy agreed to do the wedding on two conditions. 1) She and her husband had to do 6 weeks pre-marital counseling with him. 2. She had to change her language, instead of "I am not going to join your church" she had to tell him "I might consider joining some day." She was willing to do both, the second because one cannot really say what we will never do, and the bishop required some reason to believe a person to be married in the church was at least a potential future member.
I went to the wedding at that church.
For someone reared in the church, there really can be a feeling that a non-church wedding isn't a real wedding. It's not just about photos.
But the most fun wedding I went to was by a judge in a bar that was rented by the wedding party for the afternoon.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Over here, lots of people who are not 'members' (in the ordinary sense of that word) of a church want to get married in a church. There is a veritable host of reasons for this: partly it's to do with having an Established Church so it's still part of the cultural furniture so to speak, partly it can be a but of social kudos, people also like the setting of some of our older churches, it's romantic to some people, etc - none of which have much if anything to do with faith.
And not just that, everyone living in any parish has a legal right to get married in the church. It certainly is not 'members only' in the UK.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is a Dead Horse.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
drnick
Shipmate
# 16065
|
Posted
There's an obvious solution if a same sex couple want to have a civil partnership ceremony in a mainstream Christian church - they should go to their URC. Which may help them, and if not (the decision being down to each church meeting) there'll be another which will. They can have as many hymns, prayers and sermons as they want.
--------------------
"Christians like you are why God invented lions" Pagan Wanderer Lu.
Posts: 58 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
What is your problem, Mudfrog? You are, IIRC, a member of the Salvation Army. Are you worried that phalanxes of Hoplite couples are going to besiege you?
The Church of England has been dealing comfortably with the problem you describe since 1907. If a person has a qualifying connection to a parish, but the incumbent has qualms of conscience about officiating at the service, that parson may, in law, decline it.
As it was with the Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Act of 1907 (not to be confused with the Deceased Wife's Sister Act) and with the regulations governing the Remarriage of Divorced Persons In Church (2002), so it will eventually be with this matter.
ETA You seem to have left the Reform and Progressive Jewish congregations out of your OP. How come? Do you think that gay Jewish couples are going to demand to stand under the chuppah at the local Orthodox synagogue? And if not, why not?
[ 10. December 2012, 18:29: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
We got married in a United church and have been worshipping in an Anglican church ever since returning from our honeymoon.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
Point of information :In Britain, Only Quakers and Attenders at Meeting for Worship are generally able to marry 'after the manner of Friends.' At least one of the couple.
This may be of use :
http://www.hitchin.plus.com/Quakers/Nqmar.htm
http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/clr/networks/Marriage%20Q.pdf
Since about 2009 The Society of Friends in UK has been marrying all couples on the same basis whether same or opposite sex. The same sex couples' marriages are not recognsied in British law, but are recognised by the RSoF.
Hope this helps.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It must be that 'pond difference' again.
Here in the UK loads of people get married in church. they have a 'church do'; a white wedding, an aisle to walk up, hymns, gothic architecture, a vicar, "God", etc, etc.
Mosdt pof the people who get married in church are like those who go to Christenings and funerals - it's the only time they go - they attend when they are 'hatched, matched and despatched.'
The UK is different to the US it seems - where at the moment, if you want to get married in a building that is not a church you are simply not allowed any religious ingredients whatsoever in your ceremony.
Therefore, if you want so much as a prayer, it's off to church you go. And in the UK, that means a real church with a real service - hymns and everything.
Very much a poond difference. Under the First Amendment, the U.S. government typically steers clear of deciding which churches are "real" (aside from a few determinations for tax purposes) and doesn't have a Prayer and Decor Police. If the U.K. needs to cut its budget, I'd suggest starting with those guys.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And not just that, everyone living in any parish has a legal right to get married in the church. It certainly is not 'members only' in the UK.
Which is part of the problem with having an established church. It's my understanding that the Church of England is supposed to be the Church for all the Englanders who want/need a church. This can cause a bit of tension if the state recognizes homosexuals as being the legal equals of straights if the Church holds a different opinion. Perhaps something similar to the 'Separate but Equal' solution of establishing civil partnerships could be worked out, like having two established churches: a Church of Straight England and a Church of Gay England.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Just to be clear, the OP is talking specifically and only about the UK. There are multiple denominations in the US that will and do perform same-sex marriages that are quite similar liturgically to any other marriage.
That said, I hardly think the limited options will change what people's ideas of getting married in a church means...
My understanding, from the FB posts and comments I read from CofE laity, clergy and bishops, is that it's fairly common for CofE same sex religious ceremonies to he held in the UK. Gay couples who want a church wedding can easily find a vicar willing down do it on the down-low, with often the bishops knowing about it but looking the other way. In fact, it happens quite often. I don't know whether they use a modified BCP marriage rite or piece together something else - perhaps a bit of both happens.
This is one of those moments where the CofE doesn't preach what it practises.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QB] Very much a poond difference. Under the First Amendment, the U.S. government typically steers clear of deciding which churches are "real" (aside from a few determinations for tax purposes) and doesn't have a Prayer and Decor Police. If the U.K. needs to cut its budget, I'd suggest starting with those guys.
I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of buildings designated for public worship and those licensed to hold civil weddings. It's a matter of planning consent more than anything else.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
At the moment I believe there's an issue where the law has been changed to allow churches to be licensed for the registration of civil partnerships but (some) local authorities effectively rule out the possibility by charging exorbitant fees.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I have been trying to find the text for TEC's "I will bless you and you will be a blessing." This is the rite that General Convention authorized for trial use last summer by means of resolution A049. Under A049 in the convention's agenda, it is too much to ask to find the text of what is being authorized along with the text authorizing it, if you want to read it in English. But if you would like to see it in French, you're in luck! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I'm curious about the fact that words such "marriage" or "matrimony" are used very gingerly if at all in mentioning this rite and wonder whether it is modeled rather after the medieval forms for "making of brothers" that John Boswell wrote about. (Can someone provide a link to the text?) If so, it would not disappoint me, even if Bishop Robinson told me that he used to favor them as well but eventually decided that "separate is not equal." The usage does envision preparatory counseling of the couple very similar to marriage. According to what I have seen, they promise monogamy, and in States that recognize same-sex marriages, the rite is used to solemnize it legally.
If the differences from traditional wedding liturgies are significant, how attractive would it be to couples (especially outside the denomination) who just want the procrustean bed?
[ 10. December 2012, 22:41: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I see that the only religious groups to offer SSMs are, at the moment, the Quakers and the Metropolitan churches.
Can anyone here see the obvious problem?
That it will take time for the churches to get their house in order?
I'm fairly sure that civil partnerships are going to start getting blessed at churches if they aren't already by both Anglicans and Methodists far in advance of those denominations officially switching.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
There's an obvious solution if a same sex couple want to have a civil partnership ceremony in a mainstream Christian church - they should go to their URC. Which may help them, and if not (the decision being down to each church meeting) there'll be another which will. They can have as many hymns, prayers and sermons as they want.
Not strictly true. Under current legislation a URC church can legally host a CP ceremony (if it has decided to do so) - you are right to say this.
BUT there can be no "liturgical integration" between the "legal bit" and the "religious bit" - you have the CP first, as an entirely secular event (although it is in church), then there must be a clearly-defined pause, then you can have as many prayers and hymns etc. as you like.
But you can't make the CP ceremony part of the actual religious service - that is not legal. (I was a member of the General Assembly which voted to permit CP ceremonies in URC churches, and this situation was made very clear to me, certainly in the preparatory information we were given and - I think! - during the debate itself).
Presumably things would be different if same-sex church marriages came into being. To my mind the current position is an uncomfortable "half-way house" and needs to be remedied.
[ 10. December 2012, 23:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Just to be clear, the OP is talking specifically and only about the UK. There are multiple denominations in the US that will and do perform same-sex marriages that are quite similar liturgically to any other marriage.
That said, I hardly think the limited options will change what people's ideas of getting married in a church means...
My understanding, from the FB posts and comments I read from CofE laity, clergy and bishops, is that it's fairly common for CofE same sex religious ceremonies to he held in the UK. Gay couples who want a church wedding can easily find a vicar willing down do it on the down-low, with often the bishops knowing about it but looking the other way. In fact, it happens quite often. I don't know whether they use a modified BCP marriage rite or piece together something else - perhaps a bit of both happens.
This is one of those moments where the CofE doesn't preach what it practises.
Sort of - it's a civil partnership blessing, analogous to the blessing of a marriage that were legally married in a civil ceremony. In the UK civil and religious ceremonies cannot be mixed, so while civil partnerships can be held in religious buildings, they cannot use a religious ceremony, religious readings or religious music. Churches can only do the religious stuff for a gay couple if they don't do the legal bit.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I see that the only religious groups to offer SSMs are, at the moment, the Quakers and the Metropolitan churches.
Can anyone here see the obvious problem?
That it will take time for the churches to get their house in order?
I'm fairly sure that civil partnerships are going to start getting blessed at churches if they aren't already by both Anglicans and Methodists far in advance of those denominations officially switching.
I am proud to say that my Anglican church and its three sister churches do indeed bless civil partnerships in church and would be delighted to marry gay couples once it becomes legally possible ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Presumably things would be different if same-sex church marriages came into being. To my mind the current position is an uncomfortable "half-way house" and needs to be remedied.
Yes - and I am sure this is what the new bill is addressing. I hope it gets through.
What do Methodist and Baptist Churches do at the moment?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
My understanding of Baptist (Union) Churches is that individual churches could vote to perform CPs in church. This is possible since we are a "bottom up" heirarchy and do not require authorisation by Synod, General Assembly or whatever. The denominational Trustees of their building would have to give consent - I cannot say whether they would or not, but their default position is to not hinder local churches from doing thins unless said thngs are illegal!
HOWEVER accredited Baptist Union minsters are not permittd by the denomination to endorse CPs or carry out services of blessing - theoretically it is a disciplinary matter. So one could, I suppse, have a situation where a church wants to host CPs but the Minister cannot be involved. (Although a lay minister or a local Deacon culd do that!)
I think that there has been an underlying assumption that Baptist churches simply won't want to do CPs or SSMs. However I think that is untenable and I cerainly know a few ministers who would at least want the freedom to do so (and who feel that the present situation is an anomaly in a denomnation which prizes the autonomy of the local congregation.
I doubt if the question is even being discussed in the "Grace" Baptist churches, but I don't know.
I canont really comment on Methodists, but I know that the issue of allowing churches to celerate CPs has not yet been to Conference, whose endorsement is legally required first. However a formal Question was put at this year's Conference so I suspect the issue will return next year.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Point of information :In Britain, Only Quakers and Attenders at Meeting for Worship are generally able to marry 'after the manner of Friends.' At least one of the couple.
This may be of use :
http://www.hitchin.plus.com/Quakers/Nqmar.htm
http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/clr/networks/Marriage%20Q.pdf
Since about 2009 The Society of Friends in UK has been marrying all couples on the same basis whether same or opposite sex. The same sex couples' marriages are not recognsied in British law, but are recognised by the RSoF.
Hope this helps.
That is not strictly true, Britain Yearly meeting decided to recognise same sex marriages - but explicitly chose not to ask its registering officers to break the law, believing the social backlash this might cause would be counter-productive. Instead it was decided to lobby for change in civil law.
[ 11. December 2012, 07:37: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Just to be clear, the OP is talking specifically and only about the UK. There are multiple denominations in the US that will and do perform same-sex marriages that are quite similar liturgically to any other marriage.
That said, I hardly think the limited options will change what people's ideas of getting married in a church means...
My understanding, from the FB posts and comments I read from CofE laity, clergy and bishops, is that it's fairly common for CofE same sex religious ceremonies to he held in the UK. Gay couples who want a church wedding can easily find a vicar willing down do it on the down-low, with often the bishops knowing about it but looking the other way. In fact, it happens quite often. I don't know whether they use a modified BCP marriage rite or piece together something else - perhaps a bit of both happens.
This is one of those moments where the CofE doesn't preach what it practises.
Sort of - it's a civil partnership blessing, analogous to the blessing of a marriage that were legally married in a civil ceremony. In the UK civil and religious ceremonies cannot be mixed, so while civil partnerships can be held in religious buildings, they cannot use a religious ceremony, religious readings or religious music. Churches can only do the religious stuff for a gay couple if they don't do the legal bit.
But nevertheless, the CofE's official policy is not to bless civil partnerships. (For all the special pleading about how they're perfectly happy for teh gheys to be partnered and it's just that they can't get married, this shows up how much they really love and accept people in same-sex relationships.)
The point, AIUI, was that at least some clergy are prepared to act outside their authority at the moment, and this is likely to continue. I agree, but the issue is plausible deniability. It's fairly trivial to find ways of blessing civil partnerships without using the sort of words that would cause trouble, but a marriage would require a certificate signed by the officiant. It's rather harder to get round that sort of paperwork.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
The government's proposals (press release, factsheet, ideas on the back of an envelope or whatever this is) now say that religious organisations could opt in to conduct SSMs, except the Church of England and the Church in Wales, which could not opt in without further primary legislation.
Why special treatment for these two - the Church in Wales isn't established, so surely is in a similar position to any other church? Does this make sense?
[ 11. December 2012, 12:50: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It must be that 'pond difference' again.
Here in the UK loads of people get married in church. they have a 'church do'; a white wedding, an aisle to walk up, hymns, gothic architecture, a vicar, "God", etc, etc.
Mosdt pof the people who get married in church are like those who go to Christenings and funerals - it's the only time they go - they attend when they are 'hatched, matched and despatched.'
The UK is different to the US it seems - where at the moment, if you want to get married in a building that is not a church you are simply not allowed any religious ingredients whatsoever in your ceremony.
Therefore, if you want so much as a prayer, it's off to church you go. And in the UK, that means a real church with a real service - hymns and everything.
It is indeed a pond difference, but not just one between the US and UK. In 2003 when the law changed in Canada, my partner and I were married at City Hall in Toronto, officiated by a robed protestant minister on the rota to do marriage ceremonies at City Hall. He used a modified BCP marriage rite. So, it was technically a civil marriage in a civil setting, officiated by a minister of religion acting for the Province of Ontario and using a religious form for the solemnisation.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Why special treatment for these two - the Church in Wales isn't established, so surely is in a similar position to any other church? Does this make sense?
The Church in Wales specifically asked for the same opt out as the Church of England in its response to the consultation.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
So presumably did the Catholic Church(?)
--------------------
"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
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So presumably did the Catholic Church(?)
No, the opposition of the Catholic Church was less analytical and more rhetorical. Their response was "Why you must not do this at all ever" whereas the Church in Wales response was "If you must do this, these are the points to address."
In other words, the Church in Wales had read the consultation brief, which made it clear that the question was "how" not "if". The Church in Wales succeeded in making a difference. The Roman Catholic Church let off steam, grabbed some headlines and delighted those who agreed with it, while making no impact at all on the Home Office. The Roman Catholic response made no difference to the outcome.
The Church in Wales response is here
The Roman Catholic Church response is here
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
bad man, that explanation makes no sense to me whatsoever.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Nor to me.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Point of information :In Britain, Only Quakers and Attenders at Meeting for Worship are generally able to marry 'after the manner of Friends.' At least one of the couple.
This may be of use :
http://www.hitchin.plus.com/Quakers/Nqmar.htm
http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/clr/networks/Marriage%20Q.pdf
Since about 2009 The Society of Friends in UK has been marrying all couples on the same basis whether same or opposite sex. The same sex couples' marriages are not recognsied in British law, but are recognised by the RSoF.
Hope this helps.
That is not strictly true, Britain Yearly meeting decided to recognise same sex marriages - but explicitly chose not to ask its registering officers to break the law, believing the social backlash this might cause would be counter-productive. Instead it was decided to lobby for change in civil law.
The RSoF has been marrying all couples (of whatever make-up) since that decision of Yearly Meeting.
Without fear or favour.
Though as I said, they have not legal recognition. So are no different to Qukaer weddings in the 17th century
[ 11. December 2012, 19:30: Message edited by: Imersge Canfield ]
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Presumably things would be different if same-sex church marriages came into being. To my mind the current position is an uncomfortable "half-way house" and needs to be remedied.
Yes - and I am sure this is what the new bill is addressing. I hope it gets through.
What do Methodist and Baptist Churches do at the moment?
At one point it was agreed that Methodist ministers could bless gay partnerships in church, but for some reason Conference later decided against this. Gay couples can have a Methodist minister bless their union at home. I doubt that the Methodist church will be marrying gay couples soon, but this isn't something that has been preoccupying minds at circuit level.
This is what the website says:
http://methodist.org.uk/news-and-events/news-releases/methodist-response-to-proposals-on-same-sex-marriage
Re the Quakers and the Unitarians, I agree with Mudfrog - most people who want to get married at a church they don't normally attend or have a connection with are looking for something mainstream. However, many secular people today have probably never heard of the Unitarians, and they may only have the haziest knowledge of the Quakers. They're highly unlikely to have any connections with either group.
I imagine that many gay couples won't see the proposals as much of a victory at all if the only Protestant denomination they're clearly aware of - the CofE - won't be willing or able to marry them! These other religious groups are just too marginal, yet marginality is surely what the marriage equality struggle is trying to escape from.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My understanding of Baptist (Union) Churches is that individual churches could vote to perform CPs in church. This is possible since we are a "bottom up" heirarchy and do not require authorisation by Synod, General Assembly or whatever. The denominational Trustees of their building would have to give consent - I cannot say whether they would or not, but their default position is to not hinder local churches from doing thins unless said thngs are illegal!
HOWEVER accredited Baptist Union minsters are not permittd by the denomination to endorse CPs or carry out services of blessing - theoretically it is a disciplinary matter. So one could, I suppse, have a situation where a church wants to host CPs but the Minister cannot be involved. (Although a lay minister or a local Deacon culd do that!)
I think that there has been an underlying assumption that Baptist churches simply won't want to do CPs or SSMs. However I think that is untenable and I cerainly know a few ministers who would at least want the freedom to do so (and who feel that the present situation is an anomaly in a denomnation which prizes the autonomy of the local congregation.
I doubt if the question is even being discussed in the "Grace" Baptist churches, but I don't know.
I canont really comment on Methodists, but I know that the issue of allowing churches to celerate CPs has not yet been to Conference, whose endorsement is legally required first. However a formal Question was put at this year's Conference so I suspect the issue will return next year.
Just to add to this, according to this blog post (which I accept may not be "gospel" on this), not only would Baptist ministers not be able to officiate at SSMs if the Baptist Union (or their equivalents elsewhere) said "no", but congregations wouldn't be able to go against the minister (who, unless they want to lose their accreditation, will be forced to take the BU's line). In short, if the minister says no (which they'll have to), the congregation cannot say yes. The same, of course, would go for other denominations.
If that's a true interpretation, then that seems to drive a coach and horses through congregationalism as a means of church polity - or am I over-reacting?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
As I understand it, due to its place as an established Church, the law of the CofE is the law of the land. If the recent synod vote on women bishops hadn't been blocked by a disaffected rump it would then have been taken to the British parliament.
The "exemption" the CofE has says merely "Parliament isn't to change anything about us until it is the will of the Synod". No other church has its rights and responsibilities woven into the law in Britain in the same way - and so the process needs to be different to be equivalent.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
My understanding of Baptist (Union) Churches is that individual churches could vote to perform CPs in church. This is possible since we are a "bottom up" heirarchy and do not require authorisation by Synod, General Assembly or whatever. The denominational Trustees of their building would have to give consent - I cannot say whether they would or not, but their default position is to not hinder local churches from doing thins unless said thngs are illegal!
HOWEVER accredited Baptist Union minsters are not permittd by the denomination to endorse CPs or carry out services of blessing - theoretically it is a disciplinary matter. So one could, I suppse, have a situation where a church wants to host CPs but the Minister cannot be involved. (Although a lay minister or a local Deacon culd do that!)
I think that there has been an underlying assumption that Baptist churches simply won't want to do CPs or SSMs. However I think that is untenable and I cerainly know a few ministers who would at least want the freedom to do so (and who feel that the present situation is an anomaly in a denomnation which prizes the autonomy of the local congregation.
I doubt if the question is even being discussed in the "Grace" Baptist churches, but I don't know.
I canont really comment on Methodists, but I know that the issue of allowing churches to celerate CPs has not yet been to Conference, whose endorsement is legally required first. However a formal Question was put at this year's Conference so I suspect the issue will return next year.
Just to add to this, according to this blog post (which I accept may not be "gospel" on this), not only would Baptist ministers not be able to officiate at SSMs if the Baptist Union (or their equivalents elsewhere) said "no", but congregations wouldn't be able to go against the minister (who, unless they want to lose their accreditation, will be forced to take the BU's line). In short, if the minister says no (which they'll have to), the congregation cannot say yes. The same, of course, would go for other denominations.
If that's a true interpretation, then that seems to drive a coach and horses through congregationalism as a means of church polity - or am I over-reacting?
Not quite: AIUI, a Baptist congo who voted to conduct SSM against the wishes of their BU-accredited minister would have the option of sacking the minister and calling someone more amenable (but not BU-accredited) to minister.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I have been trying to find the text for TEC's "I will bless you and you will be a blessing."
...
(Can someone provide a link to the text?)
PDF.
It uses "commitment", "covenant", "blessing", "vows" etc but not the M-word.
By the way, Church Publishing is now selling "I Will Bless You" as a supplement.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QUOTE]Not quite: AIUI, a Baptist congo who voted to conduct SSM against the wishes of their BU-accredited minister would have the option of sacking the minister and calling someone more amenable (but not BU-accredited) to minister.
A potentially possible solution but for one stumbling block: it all depends on the position of the trustees on SSM. To call a non accredited minister to a church with BUGB as trustees requires BUGB permission.
Since the vast majority of BUGB churches are held in overarching trust by the BUGB - whose (public) position - on SMM is apparently anti, then the chances of the aboce happening are small at the moment. Since thought the public position of the BUGB may not necessarily reflect the private views of key individuals, then we might expect a debate if not a change, soon. Civil patnerships are technically prohibitive but a blind eye has been turned in practice and perhaps this is the 1st step to an overall relaxation.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
HOWEVER accredited Baptist Union minsters are not permittd by the denomination to endorse CPs or carry out services of blessing - theoretically it is a disciplinary matter. So one could, I suppse, have a situation where a church wants to host CPs but the Minister cannot be involved. (Although a lay minister or a local Deacon culd do that!)
I heard recently (in the last 2 weeks) f one case that's been referred to BUGB headquarters where the minister was allegedly told "You won't be disciplined if you don't and you won't be disciplined if you do."
It's waiting for a precedent in the BUGB methinks - and I know that there are those in the Union who are more than sympathetic so I suspect a blind eye will be turned on the basis on local church autonomy. We already have ministers in civil partnerships in contravention to the codes so the way is open.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Note that the reverse scenario for BUGB is more problematic; if it agrees to allow SSM, then individual ministers or congregations who oppose could be hauled into court on equality grounds. So a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is probably the best solution'. OTOH it's one that the fanatics on both sides tend to like to upset, so a specific clause to protect individual congregations and ministers probably should be in there.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
