careful now or I'll send you to the naughty corner
That is precisely what the government is trying to do - allow any pair of consenting adults to marry regardless of their gender which is equality.
They can do so in a registry office or a religious building where that religion is happy to do so.
They are currently allowed a civil partnership, but that is not the point, the point is that they can't get 'married' which is predjudice.If someone wants to marry in a registry office then they should be allowed to.
The state is simply applying equality. The main objections and hence expence and time wasted on this issue is primary down to religious groups trying to enforce their view of marriage upon everyone else.
Correct he has wanted to appear liberal since he can support the rights for gay couples and look good in the process
So they are not trying to force churches too marry same sex couples ? That was my understanding. So if the hierarchy of the C of E are happy not to allow same sex marriages then they are not forced to do so ?
As I'm not religious I haven't followed it that far. I would have quite happily not called my marriage a marriage then in that case. Quite happy with civil partnership if its going to cause such a bloody fuss. Then, all marriages outside of church can be called civil partnerships in the same way as having a swim isn't called baptism. I think couples who do get married in church but don't follow the religion should have their marriages terminated and called civil partnerships. Would that make churchy types happy ?
Religion has a lot to answer for. Can we not just ban it.
The mistake was not to re-label the procedure in registry offices to be 'civil partnership', reserving 'marriage' for the ceremony in a place of worship. That way it separates the legal aspects of union from the faith-based element and it's a matter for each faith to recognise same-sex marriages (or not) and keep the State out of it.
Given what the Bible says about homosexuals (Leviticus 18:22), it seems implausible for a Christian church to recognise same-sex unions 'before God'.
That works for me. Marriage therefore should also have a religious commitment and not simply a pretty ceremony. Or we could at that a contract of marriage in a church was not seen as a legal contract of marriage. Take away the churches lawful and contractual powers.
When you get married in a church you make your vows before God. People who are religious see this as the most important part of marriage.
The secondary part is after the main ceremony. The couple is escortedto a small room in the church (vestry) to sign the paper work which is the legal bit.
So already the marriage is not valid in law unless the state's paper work has been done. However, as I said, for someone with faith in terms of validating the marriage, the reverse is true.
And there are many religious folks who are gay.......
But what's being argued here is simply a label. Either everyone is a civil partnership or everyone is married.
I don't see why the church can monopolise the label. However I don't see any reason for churches to grant that their ceremony is available to sales sex couples. The Bible explicitly denounces sex between males. I'm saying it needs to be seen that it is the churches that are out of step and there should be no requirement to force a church to change its own ruling.
I have to say that I struggle to understand a church that is set up with a set of rules and then decides it doesn't agree with half of them. I don't get religion anyway, but it seems that they are committed to being popular instead of sticking with their original mandate. If suddenly a big chunk of the bible is now redundant, then why not all of it. Why have a religion at all. Anyone can make their vows before God, no one needs to be in a specific club or place to do it.
I think the label of marriage (man women) has been around for a lot longer than the church. Due to the power of religion, Islam and Christianity, the rules to live by were ordained by men of religion -way before the state. Correct me if I am wrong but I suspect the state only got involved in the last few hundred years with actual marriage, births and death registers.
Before that, "in the eyes of God", made it official.
The rules are there in the Bible and the Koran. I am sure these rules were based on how civilisations should behave at the time and many years before.Now the state is pushing the faiths to change on the issue. Can't see how they can do this when homosexuality is considered an abomination!
The C of E has dug its heels in and said no, but I believe the Quakers have given it the amber light.
No word from other religions yet.
None of the legislation or campaigns are forceing religions to marry same sex couples.
Only those that wish too can do.
Religion, especially individual religions don't own the english language or the rights of the rest of the citizens, however they seem to feel they do.
While some may be happy with civil partnerships, letting religion claim marriage etc, it is a case of if a gay couple want to get married in a registry office or in a religion that welcomes them to do so, who the hell believes they have the right to deny them such. Even if the majority of the population was against it, it would still be prejudice and denial of rights, as it is, the majority of people are in favour. It is a minority of people demanding their rights to dictate what others can and can't do with claims of traditions and beliefs poorly masking prejudice imho.