Couple Consider Legal Challenge To Church’S Gay Marriage Opt-Out

[naomi24]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10219802/First-couple-consider-legal-challenge-to-Churchs-gay-marriage-opt-out.html

As far as I can see, since the bible specifically forbids same sex relationships, the church and the state are facing a huge dilemma. If this couple succeed in their challenge, what impact will it have on the church?

Your thoughts?

[boxtops]

already being discussed on this one, naomi? http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1264263.html

[naomi24]

I know Boxy - I've contributed to that - but I thought people here might like to discuss it from the religious point of view.

[boxtops]

Good idea, naomi, I get your drift.

[emmie]

separate issue, if they sue and win, the church will be seen to be weakened , even more than it already does in some eyes, further eroding their hold over the moral high ground. I am no believer, but the church has been shooting itself in the foot for too long, this will add another nail in the coffin.

[jim360]

"As far as I can see, since the Bible specifically forbids same-sex relationships..." Goodness me, I think we interpret the Bible in the same way for once! I've never really understood why anyone can say otherwise.

No idea what the impact of a successful challenge will be, but I suspect that it won't be the end of the Church. It might be the end of its role in the state, which would be a good thing. I expect the political fallout to be more significant.

[emmie]

jim, if the church ends it role in the state, another religion will i believe take it's place, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

[sandyRoe]

In the past clerics, such as Lattimer, Ridley, and Cranmer, braved immolation rather than compromise their deeply held principles. Does the flame of faith burn less brightly now than it did then?
"We're not doing this, whatever the cost.", should be their reply.

[boxtops]

Given the somewhat more open approach which Justin Welby is bringing to the Archbishopric, it'll be interesting to see what he has to say on the matter.

[jim360]

Well in that case, it would be a good thing if no other religion replaced it. If another one did we'd be no further forward, possibly even worse off, but I don't think that it's likely. At least not for a while.

[naomi24]

Thanks Boxy. It just seems to me that any successful challenge must undermine the authority of the church simply because, in effect, it would rule the bible wrong.

[naomi24]

//"We're not doing this, whatever the cost.", should be their reply. //

I agree.

[sandyRoe]

What! We agree?
miracles will never cease :-)

[naomi24]

Unusual, true - but principle is important to me. ;o)

[jim360]

I suppose the principle is that if it is wrong for religionists to impose their will and practices on others, then it is just as wrong for atheists to impose their will on religions. So for that reason I think it's in most people's interest that this challenge should fail.

[naomi24]

Jim, the principle is that the bible forbids same sex relationships. If the law deems that wrong, then in effect the law is overruling ‘God’.

[jim360]

I agree with your interpretation of what the Bible says, but I think the principle I gave is also important.

[naomi24]

Jim, it's not my interpretation of the bible. It's quite clear. No interpretation necessary.

Your principle is valid, but with 'human rights' and 'political correctness' being what we have allowed it to become, pleasing everyone - which is what we appear to try to do - is an impossibility.

[whiskeryron]

//"We're not doing this, whatever the cost.", should be their reply. //

I absolutely agree, I have no objection to people who love each other living together & having a civil partnership agreement where they have the same legal rights as a married couple but I still maintain that marriage should be between a man & a woman only, lets face the honest truth here since Homosexuals stole our word Gay & have been living a life of what is described as sin in the Bible ( Our Holy Scriptures ) morals appear to have gone down the pan in this, my beautiful England. So I say let them be satisfied with what they have gained thus far & leave things as they are.
( Stands back & waits for the explosive outcome)

WR.

[jim360]

I'm just hedging my bets again :)... Most people I know who have read the Bible in any way properly would agree with you. I don't see that there's any other possibility, short of discarding the relevant passages -- but then if you did that why stop there?

Pleasing everyone isn't possible, no. But I think success in this legal bid would please almost no-one.

[naomi24]

Jim, it’s too late to discard passages. Although various interpretations of the bible do alter the meaning in some instances, all the major alterations to the texts were carried out hundreds of years ago – and the verses relating to homosexuality, in all their very dubious glory, remain. They won’t be going anywhere.

This really is a dilemma for the state. If a judge overruled ‘the word of God’, I wonder what the impact would be?