The Trouble This 'gay Marriage' Law Change Is Causing.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9752189/Muslim-leaders-demand-exemption-from-gay-marriage-laws.html

The Culture Secretary has made it expressly illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to conduct same-sex weddings.

But the Muslim Council of Britain, are now insisting that mosques and other religious centres under its control should be exempted also, yet there will already be a clause that says no religious group will be forced to marry gay couples.

But the troubles don't stop there, apparently gay couples will not be allowed to divorce on the grounds of adultery, because the legal definition of adultery involves intercourse between a man and a woman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9751431/Gay-marriage-divorces-over-adultery-face-legal-challenge.html

Notice the reference to unfaithful husbands, are there not also unfaithful wives?

[sp1814]

What's your core question?

Or are you raising a general point that marriage equality is just...a bad thing?

[China Doll]

Well I guess they'll just have to change the legal definition of adultery then. I wouldn't have thought that was an impossible ask.

[emmie]

it's a mess, why did the coalition think it necessary to get this started in the first place.

[baza]

they were looking for the pink vote.

[friedgreentomato]

Its about times the law changed and gay marriage and gay divorce should be allowed and inline with hetro laws.

[jackthehat]

^Because it's the 21st Century and there should be true equality in all things, across the board.....

The Government *do* seem to have got themselves in a bit of a pickle, don't they?

[AB Editor]

"The Culture Secretary has made it expressly illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to conduct same-sex weddings."

Odd isn't it? To make it possible for some they have to force others not to - seems like it would be easier to force the CoE to "marry whoever they like as long as they don't mind"?

"But the Muslim Council of Britain, are now insisting that mosques and other religious centres under its control should be exempted also, yet there will already be a clause that says no religious group will be forced to marry gay couples."

I think the second part of that means you can ignore the first part safely.

"But the troubles don't stop there, apparently gay couples will not be allowed to divorce on the grounds of adultery, because the legal definition of adultery involves intercourse between a man and a woman."

Feels like something which will be got round to eventually - I think the article points out a few "fun" test cases!

[emmie]

seeing as how the tories are not short of a few gay people in their ranks i doubt they are looking for the gay vote. It seems a total waste of time, energy, money. And going on the fact that they allowed the CofE to have a different set of rules, criteria, the other religious establishment are hardly likely to be happy with that. Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and any number of other established religions don't want this, and will definitely opt out.

[LoftyLottie]

Agree with Jack and Tomato

[jackthehat]

Too much is being made of the 'Religious' venues, etc. which hold weddings and the maiden aunts who are having fits of the vapours over the proposed changes.....and not enough newsprint is being given over to those couples (the majority, I suspect) who wish to have a secular 'wedding/marriage'.

[emmie]

if you can have a secular marriage in a registry office would that suffice.

[jackthehat]

I rather believe it would for many couples.

[LoftyLottie]

I simply can't understand why any churches should be exempt from any laws, including those on equality. Perhaps I am being too simplistic.

[emmie]

surely that would be a better bet than asking the local rabbi or imam who are likely to refuse.

[emmie]

many heterosexual couples get married in a registry office as the church ones are often prohibitively expensive. Perhaps we can put this to DC

[jackthehat]

Which has been the point all along......

Who, seriously, wants to plight their troth in front of a truculent and disapproving Vicar/Imam/Rabbi, etc?

[emmie]

not me..

[sp1814]

Ironically, the move was to appease the traditionalists in the CofE, because the established church has been the most vocal in their opposition of marriage equality.

And the crux of the matter is that these proposals have nothing to do with churches synagogues and mosques. The proposals are to introduce civil same sex unions....

...which are supported by about 75% of the nation, according to the latest Mori poll (see Huffington Post's UK site).

[LoftyLottie]

What I don't understand is that, as I understood it, the new laws would allow gay marriage in churches subject to the approval of the priest, vicar, etc. Also, as I understand it, any marriage in a church is subject to that same approval. So why is it thought necessary now to appease the CofE just because they have created the most noise about it? Why should the CofE be treated any differently to any other religions?

[emmie]

perhaps because they have enormous clout.