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.

(I agree in principle it's a good way forward! Just can't see it happening at all!).

And actually, it would be disestablishmentarianism he'd be wary of (and I was SO proud for spelling it right!!!).

Top marks for spelling!

You are sadly right, he doesn't mind opening a can of worms with regards to religion but doesn't want to do anything to upset the establishment.

And really, he doesn't want to hear about a good idea, he just wants to distract everyone from the real agenda and like you said, try to paint this picture of the Tories being all for equality when in reality, they don't give a shit about taking away other peoples rights, like workers' rights. I think most people can see past this and know exactly what Cameron's game is.

Imo his current campaign has a lot to do with

TheRhubarb, couldn't agree more.
Plus, the 'look at how trendy I am' aspect.

I agree -- I think there should be a clear distinction between civil and religious marriages. Nobody should be considered civilly married unless they sign the book in the registry office and this should not be done in churches.

Religiously married, do it in church or wherever you can get a minister to officiate for you; civil marriage, do it in the registry, and no civil benefits of marriage (tax etc) should be forthcoming unless the civil Ts are crossed and Is dotted. That way anyone could get married in the civil sense and religions could marry anyone they wanted and exclude anyone they wanted.

Having the Queen as head of state and head of the church wouldn't make any difference. The church (CoE) is not established any more. The Queen is only head of the CoE, not any other church. The views of the CoE on gay marriage only count for CoE clergy and members.

I actually think the way church and state are muddled together in both marriage, with the civil register there in the church, and in education (but that is a different can of worms) is something non-CoE churches should have much more of a problem with than they seem to have. IMO church and civil government should be clearly separate.

TheRhubarb -- I agree.

Lily - I must admit I rather like the fact that MN threads give me the chance to legitimately use the word antidisestablishmentatarianism but you do need to watch that double negative!

No, I can't see the constitution changing like that in the Queen's lifetime - but then again, the British way tends more to gradual evolution. I don't have any particular objection to a monarch being head of a church - it doesn't have to mean that particular religion retains special priveliges. And in the case of marriage, currently other religions can perform marriages, so I don't think its particularly relevent whether the CofE is established or not.

"Having the Queen as head of state and head of the church wouldn't make any difference. The church (CoE) is not established any more. The Queen is only head of the CoE, not any other church. The views of the CoE on gay marriage only count for CoE clergy and members."

The problem is that to avoid falling foul of the equality laws, you would need to remove the right from the CE to hold weddings without a registrar present (I believe that non-CE churches have to have a registrar there?), and so this would be tricky to do without opening up the knotty problem of the Queen!

The problem is that to avoid falling foul of the equality laws, you would need to remove the right from the CE to hold weddings without a registrar present (I believe that non-CE churches have to have a registrar there?), and so this would be tricky to do without opening up the knotty problem of the Queen!

why would this be a knotty problem? I really don't see it. As an ex-nonconformist, its just not a problem to have to have a registrar (I have completely forgotten whether we had to have one or not. If we legally had to there must have been one but its just not a big deal!). I wouldn't even restrict the legal bit to the registry office, I'd allow weddings on a beach or in a church so long as a registrar turned up with the register.

Yup, in catholic weddings there is a registrar present who witnesses the signing of the contract.

Good grief this thread! I still haven't seen an answer to the question I posed earlier, just more and more bleating about how all religions are shite and/or rubbish about if this is passed all churches will have to marry gay men and lesbians, want to or not.

The question was, just because SOME churches/faith groups don't want to marry same sex couples, should they have the right to prevent OTHER churches/faith groups from doing it if they wish?

For what it's worth, off the top of my head, I can think of two same sex couples - one gay, one Lesbian, who have been in partnerships for over 30 years, who would dearly love to have their relationships validated within their worshipping community in the same way that straight couples do all the time. That faith community happens to be one that supports the change to enable them to conduct marriages for same sex as well as opposite sex couples. The people I'm thinking of aren't just folks on the fringe. One person in each couple hold roles that are similar to that of a minister or elder/deacon in other churches.

One couple had a civil partnership because they are getting older, one has a chronic illness and for reasons of clarifying next of kin, inheritance, stuff like that, they decided this would be the best step legally. But, that was no substitute for marriage. For the other couple, basically on principle they are waiting until they can have a marriage within their faith.

So, why should a completely different religious institution dictate that these two couples can't get married when they and their own faith community are totally up for it?

Folks who are saying they don't "agree with" religion and anyone who does is deluded/deserves what they get are missing the point completely.

Another here who doesn't see a knotty problem. In fact, to say the registry bit must be done at the CoE church means that the CoE premises and the Registry are pretty much one and the same. If they are not one and the same, if the CoE claims some sacramental element to marriage in the church by a minister that cannot be conferred by the official at the Registry, then religious ceremony and registration of the civil union should be done on separate premises.

The situation that holds right now, with church officials and ministers of all stripes deputised as civil registrars under the Queen who is both head of the CoE and head of the civil government, is actually where the knotty problem lies from those churches' pov. They are of course making a distinction between the Queen as head of government and head of the CoE and making the point that they are all equal nuder the law, but they are still too closely tied to the civil marriage requirement if the civil register is signed on their premises imo. They could make the distinction a bit clearer and emphasise the religious solemnity more if the register book was elsewhere.

The question was, just because SOME churches/faith groups don't want to marry same sex couples, should they have the right to prevent OTHER churches/faith groups from doing it if they wish?

I'm pretty sure several (including me) have said of course they shouldn't be able to stop people of other religions (or none) from marrying.

No subsitute for marriage. . What is so special about marriage? All it is is a legal contract to let the state know that two people wish to be formally seen as a couple.
Now that gay people have- RIGHTFULLY- got the option of civil partnerships so that they too have access to these legal rights that marriage provides, it's hard to get excited and angered about their inability to marry in front of a sky pixie.

Can't these religious organisations hold blessings or something, anyway? Why on earth is the signing of a legal contract so bloody important that it has to be done in a faith setting?

I really think that people must be deeply insecure in their relationships if what that relationship is called actually matters. I mean 'civil partners', 'married' whatever. I don't give a monkey's what people call each other.

Re: the Queen problem. Cut her (probably metaphorical) head off. Monarchy is an anachronism, much like the power religion has in our mostly secular society.

Get the hereditary idiots and the men in frocks out of the Lords.

Job done.

CrunchFrog Yep, agree.

Wamster, instead of asking 'why should a civil partnership be called a marriage' instead ask 'why shouldn't it?'

Have you got an answer as to why a distinction needs to be made that doesn't involve religion?

Lily ^If someone has a faith - whether that is Muslim, or Catholic, or CE or Jewish or whatever, that is an intrinsic part of them. So a statement like;
"Actually I would like to see a complete demise of all religion." is actually as bigoted as saying "I would like to see a complete stop to gay relationships".^

How can you conflate being homosexual with religious belief? Religion is a choice, and a social/ cultural construct. (Otherwise, it's an amazing co-incidence that the children of RC people tend to become RC.) You don't choose your sexual orientation - well, at any rate, I never chose to be heterosexual, unless I was drunk at the time.

Churches have a right to express their opinion on pretty much any matter, to their respective flocks, and to anyone else who is listening, but they can only get to enforce that opinion when church and state are mingled together.

Generally speaking, the general view of what civil marriage consists of is closely related to the dominant religious view of what sacramental marriage consists of (sacramental marriage for want of a better word). In the case of the US, this translates to the legal assumption of the Judeo Christian view that marriage means one man and one woman but that view has been challenged by both Mormons and gays. The Mormons lost, and changed their religion to bring it into line with the law. It is generally accepted that there are issues surrounding monogamous marriage that trump issues of liberty and freedom to practice one's religion. The campaign for gay marriage acknowledges the state's vested interest in monogamy but questions who the practitioners of monogamy may legally be. Same in the UK.

I think, from looking at it as I went through the divorce process, that the state could really leave marriage to churches, and that all the other ramifications of marriage could be dealt with individually as issues arose by reference to existing law of contracts, of property, even of tort, and law relating to treatment of children and responsibility of legal guardians or parents. It would require tweaking of tax law.

IMO, saying "I would like to see the demise of all religion" is more akin to being a republican or an anti-capitalist - not prejudiced against individuals, but more an ideology.

I'm afraid I'm another one with no respect for any religion, and no understanding of why religion should be so insidious in schools and institutions as it is.

Wamster, you're missing the point by a country mile.

Here's a faith group. They can legally marry couples of the opposite sex within their faith tradition. They are currently prevented from doing that if a couple are of the same sex. If they just "hold a blessing" for same sex couples, they are just confirming that their relationships are effectively "second class" compared to marriage.

If marriage is important to the people involved, well then it is important, surely. Whether or not YOU or I think it's important isn't the issue. It's not about whether "you give a monkey's." It's also rather pompous to suggest that because someone wants to be married that they "must be deeply insecure in their relationships." Straight people have the choice whether to be married or not without anyone assuming they are "deeply insecure in their relationships," if they choose or don't choose to be married. Hetero privilege seeping in here again, methinks.

It's about the people involved, who are prevented from celebrating and validating their loving relationship on the same terms as other people are. And, the fact that there are faith groups who fundamentally believe they SHOULD be able to do this on an equal basis. Frankly, it shouldn't be about what YOU think, full stop.

They should have just called 'civil partnerships' 'civil marriages' from the start, I agree, but now we have civil partnerships which offer same rights as marriage for gay people, I feel that pissing about wasting more time on the issue is pointless.

If I was religious and gay I would feel wholly let down by both God and the Church, I don't think I could believe either saw me as equal.

As a non-homophobic religious person :o, I agree.

I think that gay couples should be allowed to be married in a registry office or a church that is open minded, but forcing anyone to do anything is only going to lead to more problems.