Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

564 replies

Orlux · 03/08/2013 08:59

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. Blush

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 08:47

The role is as the established church. If the establishment is taken away it's simply a private religion. Do you think mosques should also be forced into this, and synagogues?

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 08:48

Are you a Christian Crumbledwalnuts? Do you mind me asking?

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 08:49

What if no priest wants to marry a same sex couple on religious grounds? Would you force them to do that?

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 08:51

Not a good one. This doesn't traumatise me, but it's troubling so many people in ways that obviously you can't imagine, because you just think they are homophobes and deserve it, even though they have no problem with partnerships, adoption, anything else at all. Do you want to answer my questions?

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 08:51

If the establishment is taken away it's simply a private religion

Absolutely. The establishment ought to withdraw from Churches which do not operate under equalities laws.

Do you think mosques should also be forced into this, and synagogues?

Absolutely. Although these religions are not our 'State' religion so i recognise that it would be more difficult to legislate.

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 08:54

What if no priest wants to marry a same sex couple on religious grounds? Would you force them to do that?

There are plenty of priests that would be happy to marry a same sex couple. Churches need to make provision somehow for couples to be married. All couples. regardeless of individual priest views.

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 08:55

The Church of England wouldn't be a state religion any more so they would have the same standing as mosques. It would be just as easy to legislate for mosques as for churches.

Do you think priests and imams should be forced to carry out ceremonies, by law?

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 08:55

What if there were none? This is about the principle.

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 08:56

Do you think there are plenty of imams willing to carry out these ceremonies? do you think imams should be forced into this?

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 08:56

Not a good one Me neither!

But I don't think it matters too much. No one is judging!

I've got to go. really late but thank you for the discussion. It's helped my think about things.

I might drop in later if it's still going on!

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 09:00

I hope you can come back and answer these questions. Or anybody, in fact, who agrees with you. They are difficult questions but to take such a strong position, you must have thought about them and come to conclusions.

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 09:17

Just to Clarify: I believe that anyone conducting a legally binding wedding ceremony in the UK needs to be operating under the Equalities Legislation. It doesn't matter who they are.

If they are not willing to operate under laws that protect people from discrimination, they simply lose their licence to conduct a legally binding wedding.

Simple.

Individual feelings are a moot point.

People used to believe it was o.k to keep slaves. There were individual people that were unhappy with that becoming illegal.

It used to be o.k to take a cane to school children, Some people were unhappy when that became illegal.

It used to be o.k for a man to rape his wife within marriage. Some people were unhappy when that became illegal.

It used to be o.k to pay women less than men.........well...

I know these are very strong an emotive examples but i hope you can see the point I am making.

Anyway REALLY REALLY got to go now!!

If the Church of England wants to detach itself from state in order to up hold what MANY people recognise as discriminatory and prejudice beliefs then there will be some people that are damaged.

It is part of state. It needs to operate within state law. Simples.

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 09:27

So if the right to marry people is removed from all religious institutions, because all its officiators believe marriage is between a man and a woman, what about blessings? Would they have the right to bless a marriage removed from them too?

MidniteScribbler · 06/08/2013 09:31

But they have chosen, out of a sort of wealthy pique, to stamp their feet and demand something that will cause such ructions of faith for so many people, which will cause so much hurt, such deep consternation, could destroy an establishment which has informed the civic code of this country for the better over hundreds of years.

How will it cause a ruckus to the faith? How will it impact my life in any way shape or form? How will it impact my own faith if on saturday afternoons the church marries some same sex couples among the heterosexual couples it marries? It doesn't affect me at all.

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 09:31

It's not "simples" - many people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean believing that a gay person is less than a straight person. Why would it? It means they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. You say that people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman must also believe that gay people are "lesser" than straight people. Why? Why is this implied at all? It's completely unconnected. There's no value judgement at all. It's simply they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 09:32

Scribbler: if you're alright, then how can anybody at all be affected? I should think that because your fridge is full, no one goes hungry.

Hmm
tabulahrasa · 06/08/2013 09:59

"many people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean believing that a gay person is less than a straight person."

How can anyone possibly think that people deserve to be treated differently without it also implying that they don't think of them as equal? Otherwise what basis is there for treating them differently?

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 10:13

Very easily. Being different doesn't mean being lesser. I thought that was what you believed.

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 10:20

How arrogant you are, Crumbled. So you do consider yourself the arbiter of whether this couple has 'repented' or not. Are you the Archbishop of Canterbury?

I think Period has hit the nail on the head: if a church wishes to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, then they must abide by equalities legislation. If not, the marriages are not legally binding. Civil and religious marriages should be entirely decoupled, anyway, like in France; but then we are back to disestablishment.

Crumbledwalnuts · 06/08/2013 10:25

I'm not the arrogant one here. Not in the slightest. That's a complete topsy turvy view of it. No, I don't consider myself the arbiter. It's between them and god, if they even believe in God.

All the questions to period, I repeat to you. Can you answer them?

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 10:29

If it's between them and god - and I note your p.a. dig there - why are you insisting that it's relevant?

As for your questions to Period: I don't care what a religious institution does with regard to blessings/purely religious marriage ceremonies, it's legally binding ceremonies that I am concerned with.

MidniteScribbler · 06/08/2013 10:35

It means they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Then those people are welcome to marry a person of the opposite sex. Just because they think that their marriage should be between a man and a woman, doesn't mean others should agree with them. I don't like smoking, but as long as it's not affecting my life, why should I dictate what someone else does?

Scribbler: if you're alright, then how can anybody at all be affected? I should think that because your fridge is full, no one goes hungry.

If my fridge is full, then I should do what I can to help others to be able to eat as well. If my faith is strong, then I should be willing to support others in their faith as well, and if that means wanting to marry in a church, then I will support that.

tabulahrasa · 06/08/2013 10:53

"Being different doesn't mean being lesser."

Unless you're treating them as lesser - that couple is different from that one = different. That couple is different from that one and because of that difference they should not be allowed a marriage = lesser.

OutragedFromLeeds · 06/08/2013 14:46

crumble Do you think gay people should have the same rights as straight people?

nooka · 06/08/2013 15:51

The CoE church has come through much more significant change than this in any case. The ordination of women was a much much more disruptive change that had a direct impact on far more people than permitting gay marriage ever will, but was not the terrible act of destruction that many of the congregation or clergy who were against it predicted at the time.

I would not want to see any priest or religious person forced into something that they are adamantly against, simply the ban lifted so those that are comfortable are not restricted as is the case right now. I'd also like to see disestablishment so that the church and state are not intertwined and situations like this did not come up in the first place. Also so that people didn't feel they had the right to meaningless (to them) ceremonies in churches just because they are pretty or an excuse for a party. As there are non religious equivalents for christenings, weddings and funerals the church services should be for those that believe whatever brand of religion the church/synagogue/mosque preaches.