Aibu to think that sueing the church over gay marriage is not acceptable?

(565 Posts)
Orlux Sat 03-Aug-13 08:59:28

Here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html

I supported the right of gay couples to have same rights as heterosexual ones, but I feel this is going to far. Plus my religious friends (I'm agnostic) are now having a go at my naivety. blush

nooka Wed 07-Aug-13 07:10:26

Forcing issues through the courts has led to society moving forward though, and in this case it isn't the church that has set the rule but the government, and challenging government legislation through the courts has a long history, although less so in the UK than in other countries with constitutions or charters.

Not totally sure about your many wives means homosexuality is particularly bad. Generally one of the pernicious effects of polygamy, especially where it is practiced in a highly patriarchal society is that you get redundant males. It's probably likely that Solomon (who had apparently 700 wives) was fairly unusual, but even so you don't need every available male to be heterosexually active to have the maximum volume of children. Plus you would expect to see a much more fierce line against lesbians as they would presumably be much more problematic on the procreation front.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 14:40:05

I agree with Dervel, but I'm not passionately in favour of gay marriage, I'm neutral but strongly against this court case and this way of going about it. I think it will take only time for a peaceful arrangement to come about.

Skyler perhaps this answers your question (though it wasn't directed to me) about a court case brought by another couple.

My posts do make sense but I posted my responses without reference to the questions they answered.

The truth is, it's terribly inconsistent to insist on equal rights from a religious institution despite freedom of religion and then accept discrimination by a religious institution because of freedom of religion.

There is a big difference between establishment and the legal right to carry out ceremonies with legal standing. (for example you can marry in a mosque, without a civil ceremony.) That means you need to be very consistent in applying your new rules. It means that you will have to remove the right to carry out religious ceremonies with legal standing from all mosques, all synagogues and all churches. You will also have to make a decision about blessing gay marriages because the moment will come when a church will be sued about that - make no mistake - and then it comes down to personal religious freedom - that is: a priest in the position of being forced to do something, carry out a ceremony with no legal significance, only religious significance, which he feels is against his religion - if he or she doesn't want to lose the job. That means you have to be ready to push the principle through of for example forcing an imam from his position over homosexuality. You have to be very ready to do these things because they will arise, no doubt about it.

I notice Annie that you didn't answer my question about whether you think the Archbishop is a homophobe. I guess it was easier to avoid. Also you haven't apologised for accusing me of pretending to be someone else, or for calling me names, or traducing my motives.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 14:43:39

Sorry on the end of that should be: if you think the blunt force of this manipulative, attention seeking court case is the right way to finesse these sensitive and troubling issues, then I think you are absolutely wrong. I think this is one step and in time, when people have got used to the idea and seen that enacting it is not the end of the world, passionate opposition will quietly fade, and there will be a resolution which is the result of tolerance and patience. Not this, a decision bound, if not designed, to generate hostility and fear.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 14:45:29

But then I'm just a homophobe, apparently, so you can ignore anything I say and just call me names again. Much easier.

skylerwhite Wed 07-Aug-13 14:51:48

It means that you will have to remove the right to carry out religious ceremonies with legal standing from all mosques, all synagogues and all churches.

Precisely. Blessings have no legal standing, therefore it's not a matter for the state's equalities legislation. Discrimination in how the law is applied is where I have a problem.

Catsize Wed 07-Aug-13 16:42:19

I thought that if you had a wedding in a mosque in the UK, you had to have a civil ceremony too, to make it a legal marriage in the UK. That is what my friends did anyway. Because I thought they had to.
Thought only CofE/CinW/CofS weddings were recognised legally in the UK. Forgive me, would have to look up Northern Ireland position.

Catsize Wed 07-Aug-13 16:43:20

Should clarify that they didn't have the civil wedding because of me. [Grin]
Sorry. Juxtaposition thingy.

Catsize Wed 07-Aug-13 16:44:05

grin grin grin. Oops.

skylerwhite Wed 07-Aug-13 17:04:27

That's certainly not true. All religious weddings are recognised in the UK, so long as the religious official performing the ceremony is licensed to do so. CofE and CinW don't have to obtain a license, nor do Jewish or Quaker ministers.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 17:48:53

There would definitely be a legal action over blessings in the end, and it would be treated as a service like selling a shirt or serving someone in a restaurant, or hosting someone in a BandB, where discrimination is not allowed. A legal challenge would certainly follow.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 17:53:48

What if the legal standing of CoE or Muslim weddings/marriages was removed but they continued anyway, as full services not weddings, so that people would feel married "in the eyes of God" but were perfectly happy to have a civil ceremony to match it up in law?

Presumably you'd have no legal/equalities/rights objection to priests or imams who refused them to same sex couples? (obv you personally would disapprove, but in the name of religious freedom you wouldn't support a legal/equalities challenge?)

skylerwhite Wed 07-Aug-13 17:56:38

People are allowed to take legal challenges, you know. On whatever issue they wish. Even if you don't like them. They can be heard in court, and the courts can adjudicate.

You might call legal challenges blunt force but they are pretty effective in bringing about much-needed social change: simply look at the forced integration of universities and high schools in the southern states of the US in the 50s and 60s, following successful legal challenges by the NAACP. Following your logic, black people ought to have just sat around and waited for their white counterparts to decide 'it's about time now, we can let the black people come to our schools/universities'.

Oh and another thing: there were theological justifications for slavery as well, which persisted well into the 19th century. Doesn't mean they were right.

Catsize Wed 07-Aug-13 17:57:41

skyler, have a look at this re:Islamic position perhaps.

Catsize Wed 07-Aug-13 17:58:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8493660.stm

Sorry, here is the link!

skylerwhite Wed 07-Aug-13 18:00:38

What point are you making with that link?

Presumably you'd have no legal/equalities/rights objection to priests or imams who refused them to same sex couples? (obv you personally would disapprove, but in the name of religious freedom you wouldn't support a legal/equalities challenge?)

Yes. Although I support the right of anyone to take a challenge if they wish.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 18:19:48

Of course they're allowed to bring legal challenges, and they certainly would, over blessings, and they certainly would, over religious weddings with no legal standing. Would you support such challenges? Are you prepared to accept that they will come, and that if they succeed, many priests and imams will have to stop being priests and imams because of those challenges?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 18:20:53

No but do you support the claim behind the challenges? Would you like them to succeed?

skylerwhite Wed 07-Aug-13 18:21:15

I've already answered that.

Presumably you'd have no legal/equalities/rights objection to priests or imams who refused them to same sex couples? (obv you personally would disapprove, but in the name of religious freedom you wouldn't support a legal/equalities challenge?)

Yes. Although I support the right of anyone to take a challenge if they wish.

catinabox Wed 07-Aug-13 18:38:59

I am in favour of gay marriage in churches or anywhere else that a heterosexual couple might get married.

It doesn't really bother me that these two guys are looking to sue the church. I guess i just think that it is good that someone is willing to take a stand for equal rights and that's what is important. Not the individuals. Because, like a lot of people have said, non Christian people, people who are older than child baring age, people who have had affairs and people who have been in prison can get married in a church so really, it's not about observance of the Christian faith.

I notice Annie that you didn't answer my question about whether you think the Archbishop is a homophobe. I guess it was easier to avoid. Also you haven't apologised for accusing me of pretending to be someone else, or for calling me names, or traducing my motives

Hi Crumbled, I think this question was answered further back in the thread.

...just to note. a previous arch bishop of canterbury supported the ordination of women and I am not going to discuss his other beliefs because i'm not entirely clear but i know at least one or two of his social circle (who are clergy) have supported gay marriage

There you go!!

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 19:53:53

I asked whether you would like the challenge to succeed. You haven't answered that.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 19:56:45

by the way Catinabox that does not answer the question I asked

one poster said "homophobes people who are against gay marriage" ie implying that everyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic

that poster is not the only one to imply that

a pretty sweeping statement really

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 19:58:22

Skyler I think you need to acknowledge that religious ceremonies with no legal standing will eventually face a legal challenge over equalities - and that, in turn, if successful, will lead to the forcing of imams and priests from their jobs.

So - would you want it to succeed or not?

skylerwhite Wed 07-Aug-13 20:00:18

Read my post again. I have answered it directly.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 07-Aug-13 20:10:21

Is it this?

Presumably you'd have no legal/equalities/rights objection to priests or imams who refused them to same sex couples? (obv you personally would disapprove, but in the name of religious freedom you wouldn't support a legal/equalities challenge?) Yes. Although I support the right of anyone to take a challenge if they wish.

So that means you support the right to a challenge say to a ban on same sex weddings without legal standing. But you'd want it to fail and you'd want the church to be able to carry on exercising discrimination.

Catsize Wed 07-Aug-13 20:50:51

skyler, the link was referring back to your assertion that Islamic weddings in the UK are legally recognised. This link seems to support my original contention that this is not necessarily so.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now