Home & Garden0 min ago
The Trouble This 'gay Marriage' Law Change Is Causing.
39 Answers
http://
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://
Notice the reference to unfaithful husbands, are there not also unfaithful wives?
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://
Notice the reference to unfaithful husbands, are there not also unfaithful wives?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
this is about appeasing Tory backwoodsmen, not the church. The church hadn't asked to be banned, wasn't told it would be, and is not happy.
http://
http://
The Tories thought they could 'head off' protests from the CofE by explicitly banning same sex unions from the church. This was to counter the worry that the church would be taken to the ECHR. The four way lock was to prevent this.
The irritating thing in this debate is that the church has assumed it would be taken to court and that it would be forced to perform same sex unions against it's will.
It is very doubtful - how many divorced couples have successfully sued their local diocese to marr...
How the hell do you spell 'diocese'?
And what's the plural?
The irritating thing in this debate is that the church has assumed it would be taken to court and that it would be forced to perform same sex unions against it's will.
It is very doubtful - how many divorced couples have successfully sued their local diocese to marr...
How the hell do you spell 'diocese'?
And what's the plural?
http://
According to this link, gays can arrange their civil partnership any way they wish in a registry office, just as heterosexual couples can.
Best Man, vows, flowers, etc, etc, and of course the same legal protection.
So their partnership is no different to any other, except for one word 'marriage', so is it really all worth the bother for that solitary matter?
According to this link, gays can arrange their civil partnership any way they wish in a registry office, just as heterosexual couples can.
Best Man, vows, flowers, etc, etc, and of course the same legal protection.
So their partnership is no different to any other, except for one word 'marriage', so is it really all worth the bother for that solitary matter?
Yes it does matter AOG. Because it divides them into a separate group. If they want to be 'married' then why should they not have that opportunity. Of course, if you or I want a civil partnership (not to each other of course ;o) ) we don't have that option. We can have a civil marriage though. It's all very daft in my opinion. Everybody whether gay or hetro should have the same rights.
AOG
Not really one word.
As a civil partnership isn't a marriage, then the partner cannot call themselves husbands/wives. They would have to call each other 'partners' which doesn't imply marital status (and the term 'marital status' doesn't apply).
They can never say "I got married back in..". They instead would have to say, "I entered a civil union back in...", which about as romantic as "I signed a contract for an extended warranty on my washing machine back in..."
They cannot go on honeymoon, because of course, you go on honeymoon after getting married, and gay people are not allowed to get married.
The whole language of marriage and commitment is excluded from gay people as it stands. Instead, CPs are a fake version of marriage. You can dress it up to look like a marriage - you can have best men and bridesmaids (except of course, you don't have a 'bride' at a CP, you have a 'female contract signatory'), but it's still not a marriage.
However, if indeed you say that it's just words and it shouldn't matter - then I assume that you agree that gay people should wed. I mean...if it's only words and it shouldn't matter, what's the fuss all about?
Not really one word.
As a civil partnership isn't a marriage, then the partner cannot call themselves husbands/wives. They would have to call each other 'partners' which doesn't imply marital status (and the term 'marital status' doesn't apply).
They can never say "I got married back in..". They instead would have to say, "I entered a civil union back in...", which about as romantic as "I signed a contract for an extended warranty on my washing machine back in..."
They cannot go on honeymoon, because of course, you go on honeymoon after getting married, and gay people are not allowed to get married.
The whole language of marriage and commitment is excluded from gay people as it stands. Instead, CPs are a fake version of marriage. You can dress it up to look like a marriage - you can have best men and bridesmaids (except of course, you don't have a 'bride' at a CP, you have a 'female contract signatory'), but it's still not a marriage.
However, if indeed you say that it's just words and it shouldn't matter - then I assume that you agree that gay people should wed. I mean...if it's only words and it shouldn't matter, what's the fuss all about?
Its a dogs dinner of a compromise solution that Maria Miller has introduced - a compromise that attempts to keep all sides happy, and has ended up causing far more problems. To make it illegal for the CofE and the CofW opens them up for legal challenge on equality grounds from other religions, and open themselves and religions up to legal challenges whilst they are at it.
This compromise was clearly designed to attempt to head off a revolt by some tory MPs, and to keep the more traditionalist members of the anglican church on board.
This compromise was clearly designed to attempt to head off a revolt by some tory MPs, and to keep the more traditionalist members of the anglican church on board.
But any religious organization can "opt in" according to the minister. Nobody is suggesting that Jews, Muslims, or followers of the Giant Spaghetti Monster are to be forced to hold gay marriages if they don't want to. The minister focussed on the C of E and the C of W because they were thought the most trouble, and represented the most MPs and the most people. It's the squeaking hinge that gets the most oil!
AOG
No - in the same way that you could call yourself an artichoke and your partner a Ford Focus.
But you are not an artichoke and your wife/partner if you have one, is not a Ford Focus.
The difference that the passing of this law will make is that you would (hypothetically) be able to refer to yourself as a real artichoke/Ford Focus couple in the eyes of the law, and to the world.
No - in the same way that you could call yourself an artichoke and your partner a Ford Focus.
But you are not an artichoke and your wife/partner if you have one, is not a Ford Focus.
The difference that the passing of this law will make is that you would (hypothetically) be able to refer to yourself as a real artichoke/Ford Focus couple in the eyes of the law, and to the world.
It's because the CofE and the Church of England are the only churches subject to Canon Laws that make them legally obliged to marry anyone in the parish.
The same Canon Laws forbid the marriage of same sex couples. Canon Law is enshrined in Statute so it is all very complicated.
Every other church, temple, mosque or religious organisation can decide for themselves whether to marry same sex couples or not. Bear in mind that many people who get married in their own place of worship have to also have a civil wedding to make the marriage legal in UK law.
The same Canon Laws forbid the marriage of same sex couples. Canon Law is enshrined in Statute so it is all very complicated.
Every other church, temple, mosque or religious organisation can decide for themselves whether to marry same sex couples or not. Bear in mind that many people who get married in their own place of worship have to also have a civil wedding to make the marriage legal in UK law.
Ah, right, hc.
That Catholic country, France (well, we think of at as one, but the French see the Roman Catholic Church much as we do the C of E) doesn't recognise any marriage until it is solemnised in their civil ceremony, whatever rite the parties celebrate it under. Now that would make matters a bit simpler here.
That Catholic country, France (well, we think of at as one, but the French see the Roman Catholic Church much as we do the C of E) doesn't recognise any marriage until it is solemnised in their civil ceremony, whatever rite the parties celebrate it under. Now that would make matters a bit simpler here.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Jobs & Education5 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News7 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Technology11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.