Gay marriage...UK

The Coalition government is considering a change in the law to allow gay people to have marriage-style ceremonies in places of worship.
Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is expected to announce later this week that a ban on civil partnerships being conducted in religious venues is to be lifted.

The move, which could also allow hymns and readings from the Bible, is likely to be welcomed by gay rights groups but met with strong opposition from traditionalists within the Church of England, other mainstream religions and the Conservative party.
However minority religious groups such as Unitarians, Liberal Jews and Quakers, who already carry out ceremonies for gay people, will be sympathetic to the move.
"The government is currently considering what the next stage should be for civil partnerships, including how some religious organisations can allow same-sex couples the opportunity to register their relationship in a religious setting if they wish to do so," a spokesman for the Equalities Office said last night.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/13/civil-partnerships-churches-mosques

It can be done.

 

should be up to the religious venues, whether they decide to allow it or not. the law shouldn't have been in place to begin with, and if repealed it should see no opposition because it should still be up to the religious venue; it's not like the church of england will be required to marry gays (or at least it shouldn't be).

 

Yeah, I heard this earlier. Finally! I hate religions having say over what everyone else can and can't do and that's what seemed to be happening.

 

watching and occasionally taking part in the downfall of religious influence over law and society is one of the truly beautiful things about being alive at this time in the UK :sunny:

if it continues for another half century or so, we might be able to finally call ourselves intelligent and civilised :mickey:

 

All marriage is gay IMO

 

Wasn't the whole point of the Anglican church to make the head of state the head of the church (ie: seperate from Catholicism and legalize divorce). If anybody is more familiar with English history, feel free to correct me. But if this is true, technically the government should be able to tell the Anglican church what to do.

 

There are no plans to compel religious organisations to hold ceremonies.
Civil partnership ceremonies are currently entirely secular.
Permitting faith organisations to make their own decision on whether to conduct same-sex civil partnerships is the democratic and decent thing to do.
The current law prevents them from doing so, even if they want to.
No religious institution will be forced to perform civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.
The legislation would also cover synagogues and mosques.

 

^as it should be. there's no reason for opposition if this is the case.

to sitka: could be, i apparently know less of english history than you.

 

“The Church of England, or Anglican Church as it is also known, came into existence in 1534. The King installed himself as head of the Church, and the title of the Supreme Governor has been held by the King or Queen ever since. /…/ The Queen or King also has the right to appoint a number of senior church officers, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the head of the church.

A head of state is the individual or collective office that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchy, republic, federation, commonwealth or other kind of state. His or her role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution and laws. In nation states the head of state is often thought of as the official "leader" of the nation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and the diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury. In his role as head of the Anglican Communion, the archbishop leads the third largest group of Christians in the world.
The current archbishop is the Most Reverend Rowan Williams.


The Queen and the Archbishop are not the Government (anymore ) .

I have a feeling neither would have a problem with this...it's those below them that would.

Rowan Williams believes that gay sexual relationships can “reflect the love of God” in a way that is comparable to marriage.

He wrote: “I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.” Dr Williams described his view as his “definitive conclusion” reached after 20 years of study and prayer. He drew a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian and his position as a church leader, for which he had to take account of the traditionalist view.

Liberals have been bitterly disappointed that a man whom they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda has instead abided by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece

 

it's fair to get the option but i don't understand why anyone would want to get married if they were gay. christianity hates gay people, that will not change

instead of a change of law to allow gay people to marry, they should entitle the benefits a couple receive from the marriage system to everybody.

i've been to a civil partnership ceremony. i don't see the need to press for marriage but unanimously support it nonetheless.

 

It might.
...and not all of Christianity hates gays.
I understand what you mean, but the truth is there are a few million gay people who also have deep religious convictions...or like a lot of married couples just want to get married in church and are not particular religious at all.
It is odd. But that seems to be the way it is.

They do pretty much.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3584285.stm
(I'm sure it has even improved since then, but i'm being a little lazy)

It's all about equality, man.

 

i'm talking about the actual religion, not the people - i agree they are more accepting.

i'm unsure whether this is true. this is an american article, but there's an alleged 1,049 benefits to heterosexual couples - so i'm sure some of this is evident in the uk also.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

yeah well, we are equal. i would look pathetic in a pair of pink corduroy trousers :biker:

 

Some might say it is some Christians interpretaion.

I edited in a link.
I'll have to have a longer look for the balance between the two.

Are we?

 

Hey, I just thought, we are two straight guys talking about gay marriage on Valentines day...lol :biker:

 

I thought this was already law, I mean Charles and Camila got married in a church didnt they?

 

Charles is a man. Camila is a woman.
They were married in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.
A chapel is a building used by Christians, members of other religions, and sometimes interfaith communities, as a place of fellowship and worship.
Chapel/Church...can't be bothered to find out if there is a huge difference.

 

Do you have any evidence for that?

 

What do you need? A DNA test/Birth certificate or something like that?

 

A photo of her badger would suffice.

 

Ditto, thats gotta be a dude