Today's news about same-sex marriages

[MissM]

I am not a Christian, or religious in any way. Culturally I am Jewish, but would describe myself as an atheist.

However, I am very interested in religious and spiritual issues, and in other people's perspectives on them. So in that light, could I ask Christians on this thread to give me their feelings about the C of E's announcement today that it feels that the church is threatened by same sex marriages (link?

Does this announcement by 'the church' represent what you also think? I personally feel quite astounded at their arrogance, and at their implied dismissal of gay and lesbian people who are also church-goers.

The C of E's statement should not have been made without wider consultation amongst its authorities as to the position it holds.

I think the Church is reasonable to be wary about the legislation that might be brought to bear upon it to conduct same-sex marriages, even though personally I think they should happen. It's no good the govt saying "you'll be okay, it won't happen".

Since there is a huge mix of opinion in the C of E on this matter, they are in an impossible position. It would be lovely if they had jumped the other way and said, yes, that's fine and okay, we don't mind the government changing the meaning of a religious term or altering canon law, and most of us or at least half of us are okay with gay marriage but the others who are theologically/morally against it, will just have to manage with lawsuits against them if they don't comply.

I want there to be a binding covenantal ceremony in church for same-sex relationships. I'm not sure "marriage" is the right word because that has a very particular meaning, but in the absence of any other useful word, 'marriage' would have to do. It's not just semantics - what gives the govt the right to alter what a word means and entails?

I want a church ceremony that will do this, and the church to be fully supportive of this, but that's not where the whole body of the church is right now - which makes it very difficult.

What I don't want is the Disestablishment of the C of E.

Can the meaning of the word 'marriage' not be altered though Dandy? Is the definition that given in the Bible? If so, the world has moved on considerably since then! If the definition of marriage is that given in the Bible, then presumably those of us who married in a register office aren't actually married, as we didn't marry in the eyes of God. Definitions can't be imposed by governments (or rather, they shouldn't be), but they can be debated and meanings altered to fit the times we live in.

I found this interesting quote by the author Elizabeth Gilbert: ?The only thing marriage has ever done, historically and definitionally speaking, is to change. The Silly Putty-like malleability of the institution, in fact, is the only reason we still have the thing at all. Very few people today? would accept marriage on its thirteenth-century terms. Marriage survives, in other words, precisely because it evolves.?

I can't think of a better way of putting it.

Couldn't agree more, MissM. If marriage had been on even 19th century terms when I got married (in the 20th century) there is no way I would have done it. I got married as an equal, with no one to give me away, no need to change my name, no promise to 'obey', rights to my own property, a right to only have sex when I consented etc etc.

It is a long time since the legal definitions and expectations of marriage were the same as traditional religious ones.

I really don't see what making a relatively minor change in civil law - removing the artificial distinction between marriage and civil partnership - has to do with the church.

Yes, the meaning of the word "marriage" can be altered, but I think it perhaps entails a greater degree of concensus and discussion than this rather sudden announcement.

The nature of marriage has changed but the definition - "man and woman, for procreation etc" - has not, until this point. Some would argue that a committed religiously-endorsed covenantal ceremony is good and valid but not strictly the same thing as a marriage.

In the end, I agree broadly with the points above - yes, marriage does 'evolve' but clearly there is some degree of disagreement still in society as to whether this new move is "marriage" or not. Articles in newspapers confirm that the majority of under-50's are quite happy for this to go ahead, but that would appear to ignore a large population of people over-50, who are both religious and non-religious.

It is a more difficult issue than the comment-writers in newspapers this morning seem to think.

I don't think there is anything in a civil wedding ceremony about the purpose of marriage being for procreation, is there? It's so long since mine that I can't remember, but I think that is only in the church service (one of many reasons I wouldn't have wanted to get married in church).

The idea that marriage is only for procreation is nonsense if you think about it - does that mean infertile/sterilised/post-menopausal/terminally ill/transgender people should not get married? If you plan to adopt children or have them through IVF rather than conceive them through heterosexual intercourse, does that somehow invalidate the whole purpose of marriage?

I think most people now see marriage as a way of confirming and legalising a long-term, committed, loving relationship, which may or may not include plans to include children (whether born or adopted into the relationship, or coming from previous relationships). There is absolutely no reason why any of that cannot apply to same-sex couples, many of whom are or want to become parents anyway.

I think the problem with the argument is that not everyone who gets married in church is either a) religious or b) heterosexual.

If marrying in church was strictly only for practicing Christians that stuck to every single element (including the few soddomy scriptures quoted earlier) of the bible strictly then fair enough.

We have all been to lots of weddings where the pretty church was far more important than any religious reason.

I personally married at the church because I am Christian, I was christened there, sang in the choir there and attended services there. I couldnt have imagined marrying anywhere else.

I can also honestly say that had I not been married in the presence of god in a church, I frankly wouldn't feel as though I had actually got married. So I understand the pain that homosexual couples must feel at not being able to celebrate their union with god.

It was only in 1991, I believe, that rape within marriage was recognised in Ireland.

WTF did that take so long?

Marriage has changed immeasurably, from a property transaction through to the 19th Century to present day lies about monogamy, romantic love and the need for a nuclear family.

It is a nonsense to say it has always been thus, because it clearly hasn't, not in law or in religion.

'Yes, the meaning of the word "marriage" can be altered, but I think it perhaps entails a greater degree of concensus and discussion than this rather sudden announcement.'

Perhaps the problem is that there has been years of discussion and debate within the church, but they continue to refuse to budge on the issue, or to apparently recognise the evolution that has taken place within marriage as summarised so well by Crunchy above. Perhaps it has simply come down to 'you've had your chance, now move with the times' (i realise I'm being generalistic and possibly a little facetious).

I think Sherbertpips is spot on. The church is happy to turn a blind eye to those using the church as a nice venue, those who have already been divorced or those who have committed adultery, for example, but takes issue with potentially committed Christians who are in a loving relationship (which may also include children) because they happen to be gay. I wonder when the church will stop trying to fit people into some kind of outdated straightjacket and recognise the reality of diversity. Many ordinary Christians seem to have no problem with it, so why do the leaders feel so threatened?

That's not true as this infographic shows.

Gah! That should've been:

The nature of marriage has changed but the definition - "man and woman, for procreation etc" - has not, until this point.

That's not true, as this infographic shows.

I was also rather shocked to hear some bod from the C of E saying that the majority of people in the UK believed in marriage as a special thing between a man and a woman and did not want gay people to be allowed to marry.

I would like to understand what evidence they have to back up that assertion.

I'm a Christian and I think if the churches are going to make such a fuss about this then the easiest thing would be to remove their privilege to perform legally binding marriage ceremonies and make everyone have a civil ceremony and then a religious one if they want to, and the religious organisation will allow it.

It works perfectly well in countries like France, and perfectly well for other religions in this country.

I don't understand why the church is getting so het up about it - the proposals as they stand are purely for civil marriage, and churches would not be allowed to carry out same sex marriages - it is specifically ruled out in the draft proposals.

Not to allow them seems silly to me, as I think some churches are keen to be able to, but that's another matter; the main point is that there is no legislation planned which would force CofE vicars to marry same-sex couples.

The church isn't even bound to marry couples where one has been divorced (they sometimes do, it depends on circumstances), so even if they were alllowed to do same-sex weddings, I don't see how they could be forced to.

Isn't that what happened with Charles and Camilla? They couldn't marry in church cos they'd both been divorced and having an affair, but they had a church blessing after the civil ceremony. Or am I making that up? Heard it somewhere...

You're right. The "forcing" argument is a complete red herring. Churches are not forced to marry anyone.

They can have rules about where the couple live, whether they are active worshippers, whether they've been married before or not, whether one is of a different faith or none. This is just another rule, which happens not to have to be a "rule" at the moment because the law of the land doesn't allow it, but I can see no problem with either individual ministers of religion, or denominations as a whole bringing in a rule of no same-sex marriages in their Church if they wanted to.

My friend wasn't allowed to marry her partner in a Catholic Church (she was CoE) until she agreed to bring up their children as Catholic - she though this was fair enough, their Church their rules. How is this any different?

Has anyone considered taking the Catholic Church to court for refusing to marry a couple from different denominations who wanted their offspring to be brought up as non-Catholics? No, of course not. How is this different?

Has anyone considered taking a Church of England vicar to court for refusing to marry a couple because they didn't live in the Parish? No, of course not. How is this different?

Has anyone considered taking a Church of Scotland minister to court for refusing to marry a couple because she didn't feel that they were sufficiently committed to one another? No, of course not. How is this different????

All good points Suzi. I think the church doth protest too much.

"Out of curiosity, does anyone here support polygamy?"

Nope, nor bestiality, either.

Your point?

Not personally...

Perhaps the point about polygamy (though sciencelover can explain what he/she meant) is to enquire further about how the meaning of the word "marriage" will have broadened and altered to included same-sex relationships. But a committed polygamist would possibly state why should marriage be limited to two people? Why not marry three or four people who are in loving committed relationships?

It could be argued further - does "marriage" necessarily imply sexual/romantic commitment (whether physically expressed or not)? Could two sisters/platonic best-friends argue to be married and live in lifelong union?

So the debate over whether the word "marriage" can be radically altered by the government is rather important, I think.

Anyway, I am in favour of there being something akin to marriage, if not actually "marriage" itself, occurring in churches for same-sex couples, so long as there are no legal repercussions for those who for reasons of conscience can't consent to conducting such ceremonies.

Ok -

Polygamy: this isn't legal in the uk although it is in other countries. It would be a whole other debate if people wanted to campaign for the legalisation of (say) Islamic polygamous relationships. Interestingly, conservative people don't seem to have a problem referring to these relationships as marriages, or their participants as husband and wives. Perhaps because there is so much biblical precedent?

Incest: tends to be an almost universal taboo, although definitions are more fluid (first cousins can marry in the uk). Actually, this is a good example as I believe the degree of relationship which constitutes incest is one of the ways where Canon and civil law used to differ, without an endless procession of priests being dragged through the courts.

Platonic relationships: male/female platonic couples can marry as the law stands so I can't see that this adds to the "slippery slope" argument.

Polygamy would require bigger legal changes than just extending marriage to same-sex couples: a contract between three or more people is much more complicated than a contract between two people, who have reciprocal rights and responsibilities.

In principle I wouldn't object to polygamous relationships gaining legal recognition if they were entered into with full consent and equal rights for everyone involved, but in practice they tend to be very detrimental to women's positions. I very much doubt that there would be majority support for polygamy in the UK.

Platonic relationships - this would be a good argument for extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, or even siblings, and for clarifying that they do not have to involve a sexual relationship.

There were some cases in the news when civil partnerships were being debated, including some where, as far as I remember, platonic female friends had been living together for decades, but when one became old and incapacitated to the stage where she needed to move into a nursing home, and then died, the surviving one lost the home they had shared because of having to pay nursing home fees and then inheritance tax. They could have registered as civil partners, but didn't want to have to claim that their relationship was sexual. Or was it that they were sisters? I might be confusing two cases. Anyway, there seemed to be fairly valid arguments for extending the legal rights of civil partnerships to people in long-term platonic relationships to protect their joint property, give recognition as legal next-of-kin etc.

But those are all questions touching on law, taxation, equality implications - nothing to do with the church. Why should one religious body have jurisdiction over a civil legal definition of a relationship?

great poster Snorbs