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.

Marriage as we know it, as it has developed in the Christian west. It is considered a sacrament in the RC church, like holy orders, baptism, etc.

The legal contract part of a marriage is separate from the sacramental part of the marriage at least in the RC church. Same goes for civil divorce, which is legal but not recognised as the end of a Catholic marriage. What is over is the civil contract.

I really don't see what the fuss is about to be honest - I see why the RC and CofE churches are making a fuss - they think they should have power of veto over other people's actions but I don't see what the fuss is about on MN.

I am a straight Quaker. My gay fellow Quakers are not ALLOWED by law to even mention god or their religious beliefs when they have a civil partnership. they are even not allowed by law to have their civil partnership ceremony in our lovely meeting house. All they are allowed to do is have a civil partnership using secular language in a secular setting. WE want them to be able to have a Quaker marriage just like I could, surrounded by friends and family in the sight of God. WE want the law to change so that this is allowed to happen.

Quakers have already decided that we want to press for a change in the law for this to happen. The Catholic church does not want it to happen and will not allow it to happen in it's churches - just like it won't marry divorced people in its churches (unless they have an annulment but that 's a whole other issue!). ATM the religious groups pushing for a change in the law are Quakers, the United reform church and Liberal Judaism. We all just want to be able to treat our members equally - if the RCC and C of E want to continue to discriminate then that's their choice -and people choose to stay in those churches or not, it's up to them - but we think we should be allowed to follow our own beliefs and be able to treat our gay members in exactly the same way as our straight members.

We believe marriage is a life long commitment between two consenting adults who love each other - we don't believe it's necessarily about procreation (that would count me out from ever getting married again) and we tend to think some of the other churches are a tad inconsistent in this respect, given that they will marry non-gay couples clearly incapable of having children - but that's their issue to deal with, we just want to be able to follow our own beliefs, with our own members in our own little Quaker meeting houses - why is that a threat to anyone?

GrimmaTheNome From memory in one or other of the links I posted it mentions that recognised marriages diminished because folks resented being told that marriages with their choice of ceremony wern't marriages.... hang on a minute... .

I suppose the anglican church became like the registary office of today, you got the legalities dealt with there and probably had the religious ceremony of your choice later, I don't know, just guessing.

This quite interesting The Scottish Case that led to Hardwickes Marriage Act My impression is that the act was about orderly record keeping and inheritance more than anything else.

I don't understand why anyone would be irritated about the 'moaning' going on from the gay community. I just think they want recognition as being equal human beings to heterosexual couples. Quite right too. Hate religion for the hypocritical bigotry that seems the norm. Everyone is equal in God's eyes right? Oh apart from gay people, black people, unmarried mums and muslims.
pah!

cats, your post exemplifies why I have always been drawn to Quakers, despite being an atheist.

and to those saying CPs are just marriage by another name, and who cares about names: if you don't care about a name why can't I get married? is my (hopefully) lifelong partnership less equal than yours?

I love a Quaker, me

It's probably more equal than mine, which went tits up in spectacular fashion

Round of applause for Crocko.

Thirty minute of silence in support of catsrus!

"Marriage as we know it, as it has developed in the Christian west."

Which we? We know all sorts of marriage it ain't all christian. Plus where ever you go in history there will always be something that came before whatever it is you're doing that someone is going to argue is more vaild.

"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."

Well, no big surprise here, but I disagree.

Every UK resident is goverend by the Law which is made by the State who may or may not choose to listen to outside influences. The State determines what is legal marriage and that applies to everyone, they have changed the definition of marriage whether the church has liked it or not. RC rules apply to practicing Roman Catholics or at least one's who want to follow family tradition, Muslim rules applies to practicing Muslims or at least those who want to follow family tradition and so on and so on.

So, from my POV it would be far more sensible to call any union conducted in a legally recognised venue for the solemnisation of marriage or (currently) civil partnership a marriage regardless of gender combinations and for the religous stuff to be a blessing. Then because the whole thorny subject of what constitutes a marriage has de-religioned the law can allow religions to make their own mind up about whether they are prepared to bless same sex unions or not... Which they should, because religous texts are written by human beings, not Gods, based on their interpretations of holy messages that might, IMO, just be caused by eating the wrong sort of mushroom or alternatively be a bunch of rules that seemed like a good idea at the time to preserve an orderly community.

Interpretations are always open to debate anyhow

But you say potato and I say Powtarto.

Cats!

What do you mean they can't mention God in their civil partnerships! Why the hell not?! What if they write their own vows?!

What is this? I am all in a dither here!

Oh all right, wrong turn of phrase... marriage as the concept has come to be understood by a huge number of people in western Europe for many hundreds of years.

I doubt any church would be willing to relinquish its copyright on the term marriage in favour of 'blessing' and also that any government would be willing to take on that fight. It is understood to be a sacrament by the RC church, don't know about the CoE. A blessing would be far below the category of a sacrament.

"...marriage as the concept has come to be understood by a huge number of people in western Europe for many hundreds of years." Absolutely fair enough, but they don't have "copyright" on the word because it has other valid meanings.

But maybe you do own the "sacrement of marriage" as a term. I honestly don't know enough to have an opinion.

Cheerful Yank - nobody, gay or straight, can mention god, pray, sing hymns etc as part of their civil marriage/partnership ceremony - the difference is that straight couples normally have the choice of the religious version if they prefer it.

GrimmaTheNome

Exactly - and until they changed the law somewhere about 1990ish only the C of E church and regiser offices could hold legal marriages, any other xhurch / synagog / temple you had to either have two seperate ceremonies or employ a registrar to attend.

The Roman Catholic Church regards marriage as one of the seven Sacraments - a gift from God.
But to be married legally, you still need a registrar to attend.

In the CofE church you don't need a registrar, so you can have a religious service without a registrar to witness it for legal reasons.

Straight couples cannot have a civil partnership, they have to be married.

Many churches already offer blessings for civil partnerships, which you could say is the same as the catholic church does - you get the legal formalities done in the registry office and the religious stuff done in a sympathetic church.

I'm still on the fence by the way.

"Nobody, gay or straight, can mention god, pray, sing hymns etc as part of their civil marriage/partnership ceremony."
This should also be the law.

One marriage procedure for everybody equally, regardless of combination.

Optional afterwards: a big faff about in the religious building of your choice.

I'm almost with you on that one Gay40 so long as they don't try to insist we all take vows - we troublesome Quakers have never taken vows as it implies 2 standards of truth (i.e. NOW because I'm taking a vow or oath I am telling the truth / making a promise that I won't break) we believe that when you agree to something it is agreed and we should always tell the truth (no - not even 'white lies' are allowed!). The law was changed to allow Quakers to 'affirm' rather than take oaths or vows - but of course anyone can now do that - and our marriage ceremonies are legal even without vows (special case again).

I would be in favour of civil partnerships for all (gay or straight) - a binding, legal, partnership document just like starting a company with someone, just a legal formality that had to be gone through. Anyone who wanted a spiritual / religious marriage / ceremony would then go on and have that within the confines of their own religion - or on the beach with a mate in a dodgy kaftan if they wanted to! Religious groups could decide their own rules and if don't like them then change religion (I did )

Agree with Gay and Catsrus

Well that is ridiculous. I know a lot of gay couples who are extremely spiritual and they should be able to mention God or the Great Green Sea Monster of the Deep or whatever they want.

They can mention it in their religious ceremony. See above.

There are many Christians who believe that there is no conflict between gay marriage and Christianity. Therefore we will challenge what we believe to be an incorrect stance.

Cheerful - its ridiculous in the extreme. I'm trying to find some background as to exactly why people can't choose to have a religious reading or hymn if they want (doubtless its buried in 19thC legislation). I'm a paid-up secularist but to me that means the state butting out of people's choices regarding religon as much as it means religion butting out of the state.

Totally agree. You can say whatever you want!

Dear Lord, I'm becoming a Libertarian. Will wonders never cease?!

I mean, as you (may) know, I'm pretty into Jesus and all. But if someone wants to get married in a civil ceremony and sing blessings to the Unicorn On Venus, that is their own damn business. Seriously!

actually the current rule does make sense in a way.

There is a distinction between legal and valid. The state confers legality on marriage and different religions confer their own validity.

the state requires certain things to be true in order for a marriage to be legal
different religions require different things to be true in order for a marriage to be valid in their religion

Religious ceremonies differ - and if the state started to allow religious texts to be used in civil ceremonies then there is a danger someone would try and get past the rules and regs of their religion and claiming validity because of it. e.g. someone using the RC marriage rite in a civil wedding when one of them is divorced and not free to marry in the RC church. This would cause huffing and puffing by Bishops claiming that the state has no business allowing it's precious words and symbols to be used illegitimately!

The state tries to keep its role as solely the arbiter of legality - so ceremonies are 'clean' re. religious texts.

The confusion comes because the state then allows ministers of religion to also be civil registrars and combine the legal and the religiously valid.