Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To thjink that MPs should not legistate on whether the church of england should hold same sex marriages

190 replies

ReallyTired · 11/01/2016 13:02

I feel its right that religious organisations are not forced to hold gay marriage cermonies. Freedom of religion is as important as equality for homosexuals. I feel that the matter of same sex marriages should be a matter of conscience for a religious leader. No synagogue, mosque or church should be forced to support gay marriage.

However I am unhappy that the church of england has been banned by MPs who may not even be christian from holding gay marriage cermonies. I feel that the matter of gay marriage should be decided by the general synod of the church of england. Our local priest offers to bless civil partnerships and I am sure she would be very happy to conduct a same sex wedding.

I would like homosexuals to be offered a list of churches where the priest would be happy to bless a gay marriage. I do not like homosexuals being shut out of our churches. (Assuming that the homosexual couple has a connection with a church or that its their nearest church which is prepared to carry out a blessing. As far as possible homosexual couples should meet the same criteria rules as hetrosexual couples.)

OP posts:
cleaty · 12/01/2016 10:28

Quakers actually campaigned to be allowed to hold same sex marriages.

Religions should not have exemptions from discrimination laws. It should not be fine to discriminate simply because you hold certain faiths.

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 10:32

I don't see why it should be an issue, either. It's just one of those things about choice.

The state has set up a mechanism for same sex marriages.

The Church of England doesn't want to join in.

The government has said OK and, as it is 'constitutionally' obliged to, agreed to make that legal.

So, if any CofE members wish to change that they can do so, from within, via the Synod - who may yet surprise us.

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 10:34

cleaty again... it is because of the combined nature of church and state. If they weren't 'as one' then it wouldn't happen. But Henry VIII went to a lot of trouble to make it so and even a civil war didn't change it.

cleaty · 12/01/2016 10:38

Religious institutions are exempt from a lot of equality legislation.

redstrawberry10 · 12/01/2016 10:42

Religious institutions are exempt from a lot of equality legislation.

lovely, isn't it.

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 10:44

Most because of the EHCR, many because of their charitable status, some because of forebearance. Only CofE because of its status in England* and the Act of Settlement.

  • Church of Scotland became in dependent in 1921, Church in Wales since 1920
Original poster
ReallyTired · 12/01/2016 10:54

I am in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England. Most of the U.K. are not members. How can it be right that the prime minster gets to approve the appointment of bishops? I am in favour of the reform of the House of Lords as well.

OP posts:
OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 10:57

One word: history!

It may change, this may be one of the catalysts for that change.

But it is a little naive to cry "How can that be?" it is, and has been for centuries. The reasoning behind it is well known, taught in history classes up and down the land, shown on tv screens (Wolf Hall, for example) and written into all sorts of faction and fiction - Game of Thrones included.

redstrawberry10 · 12/01/2016 11:03

One word: history!

yes, of course that's why it is. But why is it persisting?

It's persisting because of vested interests, despite being discriminatory.

But i just love the irony that institutions of supposedly superior moral compasses need exemptions from equality legislation.

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 11:09

And that might be why this might be the catalyst for change.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I believe the current position is fine and dandy. I don't. I just know why it is as it is and have an idea of how it will change.

LurkingHusband · 12/01/2016 12:27

Religion is an odd one out, as a protected characteristic, and really has no place whatsoever when compared to ethnicity (I hate that weasel word), gender, sexuality and age.

Because the bottom line - no matter what people say, is a persons religion is a matter of choice for that person. They are either choosing to believe in any old guff or not. Whereas I have no choice about being an old fart my age, etc etc.

I appreciate of late the concept of choice and gender has become hot news, but I think it's a fair premise that people can't choose their gender.

It's trying to treat religion as equivalent to other protected characteristics that has caused the "problem". Although as far as I'm concerned, as long as the law of the land applies to all equally, it's hard to see problem. (Unless it's an unjust law, naturally).

Separation of church and state - like "no taxation without representation", and "all are born equal" should be the core of our constitution. Which we don't have.

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 12:51

I've just been having this conversation in real life, Lurking.

The mature woman I was talking to thinks homo-sec-shoo-ulls should be helped! And she repeatedly referred me to the constitution and our rights in this democracy.

I tried to correct her, honest, guv! But after a while her shouting and calling me dangerous and stupid I decided that I would leave her to it. Smile

nextusername · 12/01/2016 12:54

Is religious belief really a "choice" though? How many of us could deliberately change what we genuinely believe, simply by setting out to do so?

cleaty · 12/01/2016 12:56

People should be free to believe what they want. But it does not give them the legal right to discriminate against others.

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 13:01

But if the CofEs stance is enshrined in law, then they aren't discriminating!

cleaty · 12/01/2016 13:13

It is still discrimination, even if it is legal.

JeanneDeMontbaston · 12/01/2016 13:27

really, my issue with you is that you keep talking as if there are these individuals called 'homosexuals', and then there's 'the C of E', including the priests who might or might not deign to marry or bless same-sex weddings.

That is not a true picture of the Church I see. You know there are actual, married gay priests, right?

I can't imagine many couples want to be married by someone ideologically opposed to their marriage. Obviously. But you are ignoring the fact that many members of this Church do believe in and accept the idea of equal marriage. There's not some unsavoury plot by scheming gays to subvert the faith of everyone else in the congregation.

LurkingHusband · 12/01/2016 13:57

Is religious belief really a "choice" though? How many of us could deliberately change what we genuinely believe, simply by setting out to do so?

The fact people do change religion - even if it was only ever one person in the history of ever - proves it is choice. You dress it up in all the mumbo jumbo you like. You can behead people who try to exercise a choice. But all you are really doing is reinforcing the fact that it's a choice. Because if it wasn't a choice, you wouldn't be able to change your mind. It's exactly (not like, exactly) the same as political beliefs. And should be treated the same.

Even the Bible - certainly the Christian bits - is written to show that it's a choice to follow Jesus. Otherwise why have the ceremony of baptism, and try to turn people from other religions ?

What we really need, is a return to the original Roman approach to religion. Which was pragmatic and inclusive (unless you were a druid).

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 14:00

Cleaty you said But it does not give them the legal right to discriminate against others. But it would. Technically they would not be discriminating. Which is why the law would exist.

LurkingHusband · 12/01/2016 14:06

I'll just add that it was interesting that as soon as most car parks started charging for BB parking, the same as normal parking, the number of cars using BBs in those car parks dropped noticeably.

Obviously, because owning a BB gave some benefits, there was an incentive to abuse the system.

The reason I'm thinking that out loud, is because I was pondering on the sort of society that would arise if people of a certain religion were to gain some advantage over others in some way ?

nextusername · 12/01/2016 14:09

So could you choose to become religious then LurkingHusband? How would you do that, if your deeply held belief is that it is all "mumbo jumbo"?

The Bible says that yes, it's a choice to follow Jesus. But that's once people believe he was who he said he was, and then have to choose whether to follow him or not. Christians would say even the devil believes in Jesus but has chosen not to follow him. So in that case it's not the belief where the choice occurs, but whether to act in a particular way upon it.

OurBlanche · 12/01/2016 14:10

It would be weird, wouldn't it? A bit like living in a foreign country, like America or the UAE!

chilledwarmth · 12/01/2016 15:23

While I support gay marriage, I don't think that any religious organization should be forced to perform a ceremony that goes against their beliefs. I think it would make the whole thing meaningless. Freedom of religion is, as the OP said, just as important as equality for gay people.

redstrawberry10 · 12/01/2016 16:46

So could you choose to become religious then LurkingHusband? How would you do that, if your deeply held belief is that it is all "mumbo jumbo"?

of course it's a choice.

I am willing to concede that it's less of a choice than other things. In the next minute, it's a choice for me to run my fingers through my hair. Clearly, that's more of a choice. But religion is less of a choice than liking eggs.

Race and gender (in that order) are less of a choice.

People should be free to believe what they want. But it does not give them the legal right to discriminate against others.

oh, but it does. that's the sad thing about our country. We have lovely fair play equal rights laws that only "good" people don't have to follow.

LurkingHusband · 12/01/2016 17:10

So could you choose to become religious then LurkingHusband? How would you do that, if your deeply held belief is that it is all "mumbo jumbo"?

Yes, of course you can choose to be religious. It's not like we're born religious are we ? Whereas we are born with our gender, our ethnicity our sexuality. And until we have time travel, you are no more able than I am to choose our age.

How would it happen ? It's almost what the word epiphany was invented for.

If it wasn't for the fact that (as I alluded to earlier) people are getting their heads chopped off for either not believing (or not saying they believe in) or for saying they no longer believe, then this topic and thread would be no more than a nice diversion during General Studies. Sadly, daily news events tell us how much there is at stake.