Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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 20:35

And it that case religious freedom is meaningless and irrelevant - it's against the law and that's that.

Anniegetyourgun · 06/08/2013 20:39

Separate but equal, as the Land of the Free had it.

Or to quote another classic: "Some are more equal than others".

Anniegetyourgun · 06/08/2013 20:44

"do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury is a homophobe? do you really?"

Do you think the Archbishop of Canterbury suffers hurt and consternation over the idea of same sex couples marrying in church? Do you really?

Anniegetyourgun · 06/08/2013 20:46

... as for what I think of the A of C myself, I don't much, as I've no idea what he's talking about unless it's mentioned on Radio 4 during the small slot in the day when I have the radio on. I vaguely remember he kind of likes the idea of women priests but not of same sex marriages, or was it the other way round?

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 20:54

...just to note. a previous arch bishop of canterbury supported the ordination of women and I am not going to discuss his other beliefs because i'm not entirely clear but i know at least one or two of his social circle (who are clergy) have supported gay marriage.

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 21:07

Crumbled your last posts make no sense. I can't even begin to understand them.

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 21:11

If you think a blessing will have the same status as that performed by a pub landlord, your religious faith is rather weird. Is your faith predicated on the established nature of the church?

For the third time, how exactly will the church be brought to its knees by gay marriage?

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 21:16

So you don't mind if a church refuses to bless a gay marriage or baptise a gay man or woman? Because these aren't legally binding? You think that's OK? Why?

I Do mind actually. I am entirely uncomfortable with anyone being discriminated against. BUT at the same time, i do not wish to live in a 'regime' which would disallow people to participate in rites and ceremonies that are important to them. If people want to bless a marriage, christening, armchair sport in the name of their higher power,what ever that is.. it would be highly oppressive to want to stop them doing that.

As I have said before. The view I think from most people who are involved in this discussion is this:

NOBODY (regardless of their religion) in any position carrying our activities with endorsement from the state, (i.e a licence to conduct a marriage) should be allowed to discriminate who can and can't use this service on the basis of any of the eight protected characteristics stated in the Equalities Act 2010. One of them being a person's sexuality.

This discrimination would make them unfit people to conduct a wedding as they would not be operating within the states acceptable boundaries. i.e boundaries of law which protect people from discrimination.

As in EVERY other area in civic life, if a person breaches this law, there are consequences.

In terms of how the Church manage this, I would suggest that there should be a respectful period where clergy who support gay marraige can go and conduct ceremonies wherever people want them, allowing those that can't cope with equality within the church to step back on these occasions. Eventually in time, the church would grow to become a church which would include everyone.

PeriodFeatures · 06/08/2013 21:18

Can I ask you a question Crumbled?

What do you think marriage means to people and and why do you think people choose to marry?

Thank you.

x2boys · 06/08/2013 21:35

these two have always annoyed me their the ones who have had various children by donor/surrogate mothers all well and good but one provided the sperm specifically for the girls one for the boys a friend of mine [who is incidentally gay felt it was all very contrived] every time I see them on a programme or in the paper I just feel they think they can have whatever they want because they can pay for it. I in no way think that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people but if it is fundamentally against the beleifs of some churches and as a catholic I know it is against the catholic church,s belief[this is in no way my belief can I make myself absolutley clear] then why try to sue them some churches have I believe already said they will marry same sex couples great but I don't think anybody no matter how much money they have should try to change some churches fundamental beleifs /values[wether I agree with a particular church on this or not.]

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 22:03

So you don't think gay people should be denied the same rights as straight people, yet you're ok with the fact that the CofE is prohibited from performing gay marriage? That makes no sense. And this couple's arrangements for surrogacy have nothing to do with their wishing to get married.

x2boys · 06/08/2013 22:30

did not mention c of e I,m not c of e if the church of England is prohibited that's because of the laws of the church [cof e] I just don't get why some very rich men think they should be allowed to challenge the fundamental beleifs of some churches because they can they are incredibly rich and they think it gives them the right to have whatever they want great so find a church that will marry them there are some that have said they will so get married in those churches? but that wont get them in the papers and on programmes [yet again ] will it?

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 22:32

Oh dear. You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? It's the laws of the state that prohibit the Church of England from performing gay marriages.

x2boys · 06/08/2013 22:45

no I don't I,m catholic so haven't a clue about the church of England but I have seen these men in many programmes and newspaper articles and they do seem to believe they can get what they want by paying for it so why don't they find a church that will marry them?

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 22:47

Because they are members of the Church of England. They wish to get married in their own church, which is the established church of the state, and which is the only one which is prohibited by law from performing gay marriages.

x2boys · 06/08/2013 22:54

well the paper I read stated they were Christian which covers not just the church of England if they were so intent on proving there love why not just find a Christian church to marry them my grandmother did she changed her religion to marry her catholic husband or are they more bothered about yet more publicity?

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 22:58

There are differences between the Christian churches, you know. Quite substantial ones. In fact, the Catholic Church doesn't even recognise Protetant churches as churches at all. Maybe your grandmother was happy to change religion to get married, but not everyone is.

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 23:00

Btw, if your grandmother was Protestant, she wouldn't have had to change religion in order to get married. That would have been her own choice.

x2boys · 06/08/2013 23:00

To be honest we are really not going to agree on this one I have seen this couple on several programmes and magazine articles and my opnion is that they just want to prove a point and they couldn't really give a toss about the religious side of things [this is the first time I have heard of their devotion to the church ] I think its just a publicity stunt but I will agree to disagree with you

x2boys · 06/08/2013 23:02

she was Methodist and yes it was her choice but she wanted her kids brought up catholic they can still be christians

skylerwhite · 06/08/2013 23:05

Right. So if it was some other gay couple taking this case, would you support it?

x2boys · 06/08/2013 23:10

course I would as long as they are doing it for the right reasons and not for publicity everybody has a right to get married finding a church that will marry you however is a different matter and if it was truly about religious beleifs I would support this couple but I don't think it is I think its just about them thinking they can have everything they want because they can pay for it!

Catsize · 07/08/2013 05:12

Hi folks. Haven't read the whole thread yet, but very interested in it, as I am doing a dissertation on this very subject.
The problem for me is that the CofE is the Established Church. It has powers to make legislation that binds us all, and has numerous bishops in the House of Lords. The Church in Wales, although disestablished, maintains the obligation to marry. This is why both churches are 'protected' (hate that term in this context) from this legislation. Further, there would be a conflict between the laws of the CofE and the state.
What bugs me is that the General Synod was never consulted about this, and as mentioned above, a large number within the CofE support the proposals.
You are entitled to get married in your local CofE church whatever your faith or lack thereof.
As a Christian in a civil partnership, I have always wanted to get married in church, but couldn't and can't. It must be galling for a gay vicar to marry two atheists who just want a pretty building because it's tradition.
Radically, I think that it is time for the CofE to disestablish.
Freedom of religion does not seem to extend to all when it comes to people who want to get married and those who wish to marry them.
For what it is worth, I do not think this couple is the right one for a test case.
Hope this makes sense. Hard night of teething troubles (toddler's, not mine)...

Dervel · 07/08/2013 05:32

I don't think it is quite as black and white as people seem to think it is. Just to note my biases in at the door so nobody misunderstands me. I am unilaterally for gay marriage, and I'm also pro-marriage in a church. However I think it is deeply unfortunate for the issue to be forced legally in this manner.

The Church, or any church for that manner is like a family, and like any family is not going to be perfect. Religion has had a hand in the oppression of women, destruction of other cultures, abuses committed against children the list goes on, but it has also contributed to great acts of kindness, charity, art, music, architecture in short an equally long list. It is in ultimately a reflection of us as humanity both good and bad.

Forcing action through the courts does not automatically shift the consciousness of the Church or even humanity for that matter in the right direction. Rather that the truth of the cause, standing on its own merits should and I believe will affect that change.

I can whilst I do not personally agree with it sympathise with the viewpoint that a marriage performed in a church symbolises the male/female relationship expressed with the purpose to create children. As such two men or two women are not through sexual union able create children.

I believe it is possible to hold that belief and not be against gay rights or homophobic in any way whatsoever. To lambast someone in that way over a point of their faith who has not expressed any hateful opinions (or actions) towards homosexuality betrays a lack of comprehension of the theological landscape surrounding this issue.

To people who do hold that view earnestly whilst I certainly do not speak for God in this matter please consider this: There is a comparable amount in the bible about not eating pigs as there is condeming homosexuality. In addition there is a lot written biblically that is of a practical rather than spiritual nature. The pig ban for example is good sense for its difficulty in keeping safe to consume in the environments in which it was written too.

Homosexuality I suspect goes hand in hand with the having multiple wives parts of the Old Testament. For a civilisation to thrive against its neighbours it needs numbers (for protection if nothing else) so making sure every possible potential mother got to bear children was vital, as was ensuring every male contributed too. Losing a valuable male to a same sex marriage would limit this (and I say valuable merely as a numerical expression as a great many more women reached sexual maturity in those times than males, hence taking multiple wives).

Now it's safe to say in modern times we don't need to ban pork, encourage men to take multiple wives, and in fact looking at the world with all of the overpopulation we should herald every homosexual as a potential blessing. If you believe God created us in his image, we were endowed with reason to figure out and apply ancient teachings sensibly, rather than holding on to what was common sense for life thousands of years ago, and embrace it out of blind obedience now. I appreciate you may believe this is wrong, but at least consider what I have said, I may well be wrong, and should one day I stand before my creator to be told I homosexuality is a sin, I will in all humility apologise and ask for forgiveness. However it was my attempt to follow the bedrocks of my faith namely love, and compassion that have led me to my conclusions.

On a final note marriage used to occur when two people consummated a relationship (we're talking the very early days of Christianity here). No churches or priests just an honest expression of love between two souls. Ceremonies in Churches came much later when primogeniture needed to be established once kings and such started to convert, and the priest became a witness to who was precisely married to who. So yes in a sense marriage as a ceremony may be about that, but in the eyes of God I believe a great many homosexual couples have been joined in love under his gaze. I hope for the day the whole humanity follows suit.

nooka · 07/08/2013 07:10

Forcing issues through the courts has led to society moving forward though, and in this case it isn't the church that has set the rule but the government, and challenging government legislation through the courts has a long history, although less so in the UK than in other countries with constitutions or charters.

Not totally sure about your many wives means homosexuality is particularly bad. Generally one of the pernicious effects of polygamy, especially where it is practiced in a highly patriarchal society is that you get redundant males. It's probably likely that Solomon (who had apparently 700 wives) was fairly unusual, but even so you don't need every available male to be heterosexually active to have the maximum volume of children. Plus you would expect to see a much more fierce line against lesbians as they would presumably be much more problematic on the procreation front.