Even as an atheist, non-homophobic, I think it is ridiculous to expect religions to conduct gay marriage. AIBU?

[Wamster]

I mean why would they if they only believe marriage to be between a man and a woman? I DON'T see it that way-as far as I'm concerned, marriage is a legal issue and as gay people already have civil partnership which offer same legal rights as marriage, I find the moaning about gay marriage irritating.

But that is besides the point: the fact is that some religions only believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and it is ridiculous to force them to change their minds without seriously messing that religion up.

People cannot expect religions to mould themselves to a nice politically-correct world. I accept this as an atheist. It's time the religious did, too.

Sigh...oh fine.

I wouldn't be very good at unreasonable power. And I don't even think that state schools should be funded by taxes.

'Biblically, marriage was created by God '

maybe so, 'biblically', but pair-bonds are a natural phenomenon which surely precede the invention of religions. And if you look at the natural world, these bonds are not exclusively heterosexual and procreative. Marriage is the human legalisation of pair-bonding.

Lily... there's a deep imbalance when Anne Atkins gets a regular spot but never a word from (say) AC Grayling. There's a bloke who gets to talk about astronomy because he happens to also be a Rev. Its just odd.

They chose to close and end their relationship with the state as adoption agencies, as part of a campaign to essentially in hopes of galvanising voters on this sort of issue. It might work in some states but probably not in others. Ironically the states where this sort of campaign is least likely to work are those where there are a lot of Catholics (Massachusetts, New York, Illinois); places where people have similar opinions to the official RC church stance tend to be more fundamentalist/ protestant.

Grimma - religion is not God and there are plenty of things in religion which have indeed been invented by man and which I'm fairly sure God doesn't like....

And according to the Bible humans are separate and distinct from animals (humans are made in God's own image) so the 'rules' which apply to animals do not apply to humans (which is why, for example, we can eat animals but eating humans is generally frowned upon). And surely if you take your argument further and the same rules apply to both humans and animals then we should allow animal couples (same sex or otherwise) to marry...

'according to the Bible' - if those are your rules by all means adhere to them but don't presume the rest of the world wants to. (I don't mean cannibalism...that's tabu for all sorts of good reasons, you don't need the Bible for that!!)

Marriage (like religion) is a human construct. It applies to humans.

Religions can do whatever they like - it's their silly club, they can make the rules.

NO ONE is suggesting that any religious organisation should be forced into carrying out ceremonies that they don't want to.

This is all about secular marriage ceremonies that happen in registry offices. Given how important equality laws are to all of us, it's is truly appalling that in this one area, gay and straight couples are being treated differently. That's called discrimination, and must stop.

I've never voted Tory in my life, and never would, but I am impressed with Cameron's stance on this and hope he holds firm.

I'm not impressed by his stance at all. Because:
a, It's a deflection aid to distract us from really important stuff like, er, I dunno jobs and the economy.
b, It's such an obious attempt to 'get down with the gays'
c, It is POINTLESS. Gay people already possess the ability to legalise their relationship that offers all the legal protections of marriage in the form of ci il partnerships. Is Cameron too dim to realise that this is 'good enough'? Is he too dim to realise that there is no way that the popular religions are going to allow gays to marry?

What a prat he is. New Labour -for all its faults- DID get the issue of civil partnerships right. They recognised the absolute fairness of allowing gay people the option of having a system that gave them same legal rights as married people while respecting religions views, too.

Julie Bindel is right: waste of time and effort

in this one area, gay and straight couples are being treated differently. That's called discrimination, and must stop.

Its that simple. It doesn't matter whether the OP thinks its discrimination - there are gay people who do.

It's not discrimination because they are being offered the same legal framework that gives same rights of marriage. They were discriminated against before civil partnerships, not any more.

"NO ONE is suggesting that any religious organisation should be forced into carrying out ceremonies that they don't want to."

I think the point is that if they change the name of civil partnerships to marriage, then Equality Laws can in theory force churches, mosques etc to perform gay marriage ceremonies, just as the Catholic Adoption agencies were forced to close.

Cameron says not, but, he is a fool who just announces things on whims, and never thinks through a policy.

The lawyers think there is an issue.

That's the problem I think. And it's one Cameron should have thought about before trying to boost his own image on the back of this issue.

Really?

a) Equality matters - it's not a distraction at all.
b) Too silly to respond to.
c) Gay people can have civil ceremonies....they can't get married. This fact appears to have escaped your notice, so let me repeat it..... A CIVIL CEREMONY IS NOT, AND CANNOT BE CALLED, A MARRIAGE. You have the right to get married, what business do you have telling other adults that they can't?

Are you familiar with the concept of a "principle"?

We either avoid discriminating against same sex couples in this country, or we don't.

Personally, I would rather we don't.

Gays have equality via civil partnerships. It is deeply immature to make a fuss over the name of something. If something delivers something but is called something else, who cares? Nothing is perfect and civil partnerships are the best gays are going to get because, let us face it, the major religions are never going to accept gay marriage.
Pragmatism beats principles.

I mean did Cameron think that New Labour hadn't considered the ins-and-outs of this previously?

No, they do not have equality when I can get married and they can't. How on earth can't you see that?

There should be no difference whatsoever under the law between how the state treats straight and gay couples. None.

And you are still not getting the point that this has nothing to do with religion. They can do whatever they want - this is about the state which MUST treat us all equally.

And, sorry, but what's "immature" is any grown, rational adult claiming the prime minister is just trying to "get down with the gays".

(BTW: In 60s America, Black's had their own toilets, so what was the problem, right? So what if they couldn't use white toilets/restaurants/schools - not like they went without? And yes...it is EXACTLY the same. Principles matter...to some of us).

Civil partnerships are 'the best gays are going to get' because of religious homophobia and you think that is acceptable?

Seriously?

no-one is forcing any religion to do anything - the catholic church is not forced to marry divorced people in church, those churches that do allow the marriage of divorced people are allowed to do it. I belong to a religion (Quaker) that wants to be allowed to marry same sex couples in a religious ceremony - the Catholic church and the CofE are campaigning to stop my religion carrying out our beliefs. We believe that all people are equal and that loving relationships between consenting adults who want to commit to each other should be celebrated as marriages. Its not complicated really.

I think Blair was tremendously clever on this one. If he'd said that the govt was allowing gay marriages, there'd have been an enormous fuss. Instead, he said he was introducing something called "civil partnerships" and there wasn't so much as a whisper. But civil partnerships provide, as far as I'm aware, exactly the same rights as marriages, and everybody who enters into a civil partnership treats it as a marriage. Even the Sun refers to a male civil partner as a 'husband'. So, Cameron not so clever, I think. Unless he is trying hard to appear liberal to deflect attention from the fact that he is Mrs Thatcher in drag.

Civil partnerships do not offer equality, by nature of their own existence. They are a means of treating same sex couples 'differently' to heterosexual couples. They are not accepted as a marriage by those that enter into them because they can't call the ceremony a marriage and they can't describe themselves as married. Yes, it may convey equal legal rights, but a civil partnership does not convey equal status. This needs to change.

The Church does not own marriage, marriage existed without Church rule after the 12th century and before 1753 (though people did get married in Church, it was simply just as valid if you didn't) so why can't a single sex union be called a marriage? Things change.

" The first [Divorce] took place in 1551 and this marked the point from which the law did not hold marriage to be indissoluble." From: A brief History of Marriage

The state overruled the Church because of changing needs. The state made it clear that it and not religious institutions owned marriage. There is no historical reason for the state to consider religous concerns when deciding if a same sex union is a marriage or not. There is historically no need for the State to consider any particilar religions rules when making these changes.

So, the state will or won't do it to their own agendas, I'd assume they're currently influenced by folks who tend to see marriage as religious property.

And also...

The Law of Marriage UK Parliment

"In 1753, however, the Marriage Act, promoted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, declared that all marriage ceremonies must be conducted by a minister in a parish church or chapel of the Church of England to be legally binding...Although Jews and Quakers were exempted from the 1753 Act, it required religious non-conformists and Catholics to be married in Anglican churches...This restriction was eventually removed by Parliament in the Marriage Act of 1836 which allowed non-conformists and Catholics to be married in their own places of worship."

So the state actually imposed their rule regarding marriage on certain religions. Not saying they should do it, just saying they have.

Marriage is a religious concept that was brought into the fold of the civil authorities lock, stock and barrel during the 13th to 15th centuries. Different religious denominations have a different concept of what it is, who can do it.

What makes someone married in the eyes of the law is signing the registry together and entering into the civil contract. What makes you married in the eyes of most churches is a wedding in the church, with certain preconditions met and promises stated. AFAIK the RC church doesn't recognise marriages that take place in a registry office nor does it accept that people who have had a civil divorce may remarry in the church. It considers a registry office marriage a civil partnership and a civil divorce does not affect your marital status in the eyes of the RC church, if you are a Catholic.

The cure to all this is for the civil authorities to stop calling civil partnerships (which is what everyone who dispenses with a church ceremony and goes to the registry office instead enters into) 'marriage' and call every civil partnership a civil partnership.

Wyrd - I infer from that that people of no religion, or anything not Judeo-Christian couldn't get married at all. Blimey.

Anyway, good information. The cardinals and the archbishop of york can say what they want but they do not decide the law of the land. If the law changes in a way that makes it impossible for them to perform the legal contract part of a marriage - well frankly that's their problem.

Marriage is a religious concept
I just looked up Roman marriage... didn't mention religion at all. Its a legal concept.