Aibu to think that sueing the church over gay marriage is not acceptable?

[Orlux]

Here:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2383686/Millionaire-gay-fathers-sue-Church-England-allowing-married-church.html

I supported the right of gay couples to have same rights as heterosexual ones, but I feel this is going to far. Plus my religious friends (I'm agnostic) are now having a go at my naivety.

I wouldn't want to get married somewhere where I wasn't wanted or by someone who didn't agree with my marriage..

They are millionaires surely they can find somewhere they like that wants to celebrate their marriage.

I don't know on this one to be honest.

I think it was always going to happen. It was my one objection to gay marriage, not that I don't agree with it per se, just that no-one should be forced to perform the ceremony against their own beliefs. For me, the compromise should have been that people can get married where ever they want to, but they need to find someone happy to perform the ceremony. So, if a gay couple, couple who don't attend church, divorcees or whoever want to get married in the pretty 16th century church up the road, they have the right to do so, but might need to get a registrar from the registry office to perform the ceremony, rather than the priest/ vicar. For me, this just adds fuel to the sceptics and those people who opposed gay marriage in the first place.

Doesn't this have the same chance of success as sueing the church for sex discrimination?

Not sure where I stand on this one. Just as an example- I was brought up a Catholic but I couldn't get married in (a Catholic) because my husband had been previously married in church and then subsequently divorced. I would not have dreamt of sueing the church, but that's probably because

a) I'm now an atheist and

b) as the above poster has said why would you want to get married in place that clearly doesn't want you there?

Having said that, they're millionaires, they have the money to do it so good luck to them. Don't think they'll get anywhere with it though.

I'm an atheist and think it's very wrong to force any Church to marry gay people. Just like non-religious people, gay people had myriad options for marriage now so should make use of them.

If they feel affronted that their religious community is rejecting them, then maybe they need to consider whether that community is right for them.

I was a bit when I saw the headline.

I think the compromise that no church would be forced to hold a gay marriage ceremony was a good one in the grand scheme of things. There are plenty of clergy members who do support gay marriage so in theory society and time would render the clause irrelevant.

In my limited experience rules of the church have relaxed a lot depending on where you are. As an example, I've been to a christening in a catholic church that was also attended by a protestant vicar as the parents were different denominations, they were also unmarried! This was in Ireland btw, who I was under the impression were a lot more traditionalist than England.

It comes across very antagonistic to take it to court.... although I haven't followed the whole thing very closely so could be missing something important.

Why would you want to be married by someone who disagreed with the marriage?

Church of England allow vicars to decide when marrying divorcees if they are happy to conduct the ceremony. In the same way I don't have an issue with Gay Marriage being down to the individual to decide.

Rightly or wrongly (and IMO it is wrongly) a lot of people (religious or not) don't agree with Gay marriage - in general the "if you don't like it you don't have to do it" attitude works but its not that simple if you are asking someone to play a key role in the ceremony.

Yanbu. I'm all for gay rights but I do think the churches should be allowed their own opinion.

It's absolutely true because I read it in the Daily Mail

Iirc that couple are always out to try and shock aren't they? Or am I thinking of someone else?

They shoulder be able to get married in the church, you can't change te bible, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If your Gay you cannot get married in a Mosque or a Synagogue, a church is no different. They could have a religious blessing

the 'it's against my beliefs' line is utter bullshit.

Is a church allowed to refuse to marry someone on grounds of race? Why is homophobia so much more acceptable?

I do agree though that suing so that you can get married somewhere staffed by homophobic bigots seems a bit pointless.

I think it must be massively hard to be a gay christian and feel excluded from your own community because you're gay.

The article doesn't seem to make it clear if they are regular church goers at the church they are wanting to get married out?

If they do allow same sex marriage I the church it should be up to th individual priest, not forced upon the Church

I thought the church had been excluded from the new gay marriage laws and wasn't allowed to do them anyway?

I agree with the couple in question. Marriage venues should not be allowed to discriminate. Other solution is to allow marriages only in civil surroundings for all and if they wish a couple can later go to the church. As it is done in many European countries.

Tabula tat goes for other religions, not just Christians

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought to avoid some churches allowing gay marriage and some not, the govt just banned it altogether? So surely appealing that decision would be the way to go, not blaming the people whos hands are tied by it being illegal?

Independent.co.uk link (not Daily Fail)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/church-of-england-banned-from-offering-samesex-marriages-but-all-other-religious-organisations-can-opt-in-for-gay-ceremonies-8405966.html

Personally I'd like anyone to be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Hell, AdultS if they want. I stopped going to my local church due to a petition to keep marriage 1 man 1 woman (and the crazy man who was telling us not to thank doctors for saving our lives, but God as it was Him really, and if anyone tried to tell us different we could ignore them because they are ignorant).

OK, it's in the Mail. But it's also in The Telegraph and pinknews.

I think it's time to separate sacramental and civil marriage. I don't see why all marriages shouldn't be civil and then you can have a sacramental one as well if you choose to. It seems to work for other countries and it wasn't that long ago that people here did it who were marrying outside the CofE. Gay people can and do get sacramentally married in my church but its absurdly clandestine and under the radar and, of course, not legally binding.

OutragedFromLeeds, it's not bullshit at all.

It's one thing the government forcing registrars to perform a public duty and carry out the law in telling registrars 'marry this gay couple or lose your job'. Fair enough.

But this is a church: a religion-no religion should be forced to marry anybody.

And I'm afraid your homophobic line is questionable: the Church's stance is that race is irrelevant as it's the gender that matters when it comes to Christian marriage.

Can't believe I'm defending religion, lol.

'OutragedFromLeeds, it's not bullshit at all'

It really is! Homophobic bullshit.

Is a church allowed to refuse to marry someone on grounds of race? Why is homophobia so much more acceptable?

They are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex too - female bishops? Female catholic priests?

Regardless, homosexuality goes against the fundamentals of Christian marriage. Race does not.

OutragedFromLeeds, no it's not; it's just that marriage is seen by the Church as a way of uniting a man and woman for the procreation of children.

That doesn't mean to say that they fear or hate gay people at all. Which is what a phobia is.

(Again cannot believe I'm defending the Church, but sometimes the 'other side' are just as bad).