Are We Heading Towards Another...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Will These Proposed Measures Finally Take The 'heat' Out Of The Marriage Equality Debate?
http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/11/church-of-england-to-be-banned-from-
carrying-out-gay-marriages-3312009/
One of the major concerns expressed over civil same sex marriages is that religious organisations would have to perform ceremonies that are an affront to them.
It would seem that the government are taking sensible steps to ensure this doesn't happen, and tying it to article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (rights to religious freedom) looks like a bit of a master stroke (in that once written into law, the legislation would have primacy).
carrying-out-gay-marriages-3312009/
One of the major concerns expressed over civil same sex marriages is that religious organisations would have to perform ceremonies that are an affront to them.
It would seem that the government are taking sensible steps to ensure this doesn't happen, and tying it to article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (rights to religious freedom) looks like a bit of a master stroke (in that once written into law, the legislation would have primacy).
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/#Differences
/// A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage almost always contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership.///
//// There are also vast similarities between the two. In both a civil partnership and a civil marriage, the couples are required to give public notice of the intentions. The records of both are kept as official and public documents with the registry offices. Couples are required to wait a total of 15 days prior to registration but after giving notice of the partnership. After the 15 day waiting period the registration is given, and then it is valid for one full year after the date of registration. ///
/// A vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage almost always contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. Additionally, a clergy can perform civil marriages, whereas only specified registrars can perform a civil partnership.///
//// There are also vast similarities between the two. In both a civil partnership and a civil marriage, the couples are required to give public notice of the intentions. The records of both are kept as official and public documents with the registry offices. Couples are required to wait a total of 15 days prior to registration but after giving notice of the partnership. After the 15 day waiting period the registration is given, and then it is valid for one full year after the date of registration. ///
My simple point is should marriage be viewed as a religiously motivated commitment in the modern day? I dont have any evidence of course, but how many couples get married in the eyes of God... and how many get married, because, they just want to get married and a church is suitable and traditional place to do it? As long as religion forms the basis of marriage, this debate will only go one way... will it not??
young That's true but there is the legal side to consider also many people do things because it's a part of our culture and an obligation.
I remember a vicar's wife describing most people as 3 wheelers, the only time they see them in church is for ; baptism, marriage and deaths.
I should imagine even that doesn't apply any more.
I remember a vicar's wife describing most people as 3 wheelers, the only time they see them in church is for ; baptism, marriage and deaths.
I should imagine even that doesn't apply any more.
naomi24
AOG, what's your point?
I was merely addressing sp1814's statement,
/// There's no legal difference between CPs and marriage, but one of the arguments put across is that CPs are 'pretend marriages'. They have all the trappings of marriage and people entering them call them marriages and refer to them as 'our wedding day', but legally, they're no more than agreement dressed up to look like a marriage ///
Heterosexuals who get married in a registry office don't class their marriages as 'pretend marriages' and also don't class their Wedding Day as little more than agreement dressed up to look like a marriage, and most go on to enjoy many years of a happy married life.
If it is and was good enough for them, what is all the problem that Gays seem to attach to civil partnerships?
AOG, what's your point?
I was merely addressing sp1814's statement,
/// There's no legal difference between CPs and marriage, but one of the arguments put across is that CPs are 'pretend marriages'. They have all the trappings of marriage and people entering them call them marriages and refer to them as 'our wedding day', but legally, they're no more than agreement dressed up to look like a marriage ///
Heterosexuals who get married in a registry office don't class their marriages as 'pretend marriages' and also don't class their Wedding Day as little more than agreement dressed up to look like a marriage, and most go on to enjoy many years of a happy married life.
If it is and was good enough for them, what is all the problem that Gays seem to attach to civil partnerships?
According to the bible all gays should be put to death then why on earth should churches be made to marry same sex couples.
I think if same sex couples want to get married they should get it done in a registry office or a similar arrangement.
I think same sex couples should be permitted to marry but keep religion out of it.
I think if same sex couples want to get married they should get it done in a registry office or a similar arrangement.
I think same sex couples should be permitted to marry but keep religion out of it.
@jd, sorry but to coin a phrase from H2G2, who is this "god" person anyway? I am saddened that despite huge advances in all sorts of areas we as a species must persist in this illogical belief in some sort of deity. We often quote our intelligence as superior and yet persist in believing what are no better than fairy tales.
RATTER15
That's exactly what these proposals are introducing.
AOG - you wrote: Heterosexuals who get married in a registry office don't class their marriages as 'pretend marriages'
Exactly - because what they are doing is 'getting married' rather than 'performing a contract agreement signing' - which is effectively what a CP ceremony is.
You can dress it up to look like a wedding, but CP ceremonies are not weddings. They're pretend weddings.
That's exactly what these proposals are introducing.
AOG - you wrote: Heterosexuals who get married in a registry office don't class their marriages as 'pretend marriages'
Exactly - because what they are doing is 'getting married' rather than 'performing a contract agreement signing' - which is effectively what a CP ceremony is.
You can dress it up to look like a wedding, but CP ceremonies are not weddings. They're pretend weddings.
Quite, sp. And some would argue that homosexual marriages would not be true marriages but pretend marriages. It depends on your point of view.
However, back to your question. These proposals may take the heat out of the argument - for the moment. Governments (and more notably the EU) have the knack of taking the heat out of current arguments by means of some sort of fudge, only to find the issue coming back to bite their successors after they themselves have ridden off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions in their saddlebags.
As I have argued before, so it will be with this matter. The government can legislate all it likes and can make all the provisions it promises to allow religous groups to opt out of same-sex weddings. However, it will be but a short time before a couple challenges that legislation firstly through the UK courts. If they are unsuccessful (and that's by no means a certainty), soon thereafter their argument will move on to either the European Court of Justice or more probably the European Court of Human Rights.
Once there their argument will be simple: the UK's legislation is unlawful in that it unfairly discriminates against them on the grounds of their sexuality (because no similar provision exists to allow religous organisations to refuse to wed heterosexual couples bad solely on their sexuality). They will almost certainly succeed and religous organisations will be forced to wed same-sex couples.
If that's what religous organisations and their followers want, fair enough. If not they should lobby their MPs forthwith to make their feelings known. (And a fat lot of good they will do them).
However, back to your question. These proposals may take the heat out of the argument - for the moment. Governments (and more notably the EU) have the knack of taking the heat out of current arguments by means of some sort of fudge, only to find the issue coming back to bite their successors after they themselves have ridden off into the sunset with their gold-plated pensions in their saddlebags.
As I have argued before, so it will be with this matter. The government can legislate all it likes and can make all the provisions it promises to allow religous groups to opt out of same-sex weddings. However, it will be but a short time before a couple challenges that legislation firstly through the UK courts. If they are unsuccessful (and that's by no means a certainty), soon thereafter their argument will move on to either the European Court of Justice or more probably the European Court of Human Rights.
Once there their argument will be simple: the UK's legislation is unlawful in that it unfairly discriminates against them on the grounds of their sexuality (because no similar provision exists to allow religous organisations to refuse to wed heterosexual couples bad solely on their sexuality). They will almost certainly succeed and religous organisations will be forced to wed same-sex couples.
If that's what religous organisations and their followers want, fair enough. If not they should lobby their MPs forthwith to make their feelings known. (And a fat lot of good they will do them).
// They will almost certainly succeed and religous organisations will be forced to wed same-sex couples. //
That would be one heck of a situation , given that a lot of religous orginisations in the UK ( other than the C of E , Catholic ) vehemently opposes same sex partnerships / ' weddings ' .
Can you see these leaders being prosecuted for non compliance with the law / ruling of the ECHR?
That would be one heck of a situation , given that a lot of religous orginisations in the UK ( other than the C of E , Catholic ) vehemently opposes same sex partnerships / ' weddings ' .
Can you see these leaders being prosecuted for non compliance with the law / ruling of the ECHR?
"Can you see these leaders being prosecuted for non compliance with the law / ruling of the ECHR?"
No. I see them being hauled before the civil courts in the same way that Christian Bed & Breakfast proprietors have been recently following their refusal to compromise their religous beliefs. So, yes, it would be a heck of a situation. But that's what happens when people's religous principles are sacrificed on the altar of "equality".
No. I see them being hauled before the civil courts in the same way that Christian Bed & Breakfast proprietors have been recently following their refusal to compromise their religous beliefs. So, yes, it would be a heck of a situation. But that's what happens when people's religous principles are sacrificed on the altar of "equality".
em10
Isn't it strange then, that th biggest group complaining is the CofE?
I've always assumed that it was Muslims who had the biggest issue with homosexuality - but in my day-to-day experiences, it's the Zchristians who won't stop banging on about the evils etc etc...
No idea why.
Jews seem 'not bovvered'.
Isn't it strange then, that th biggest group complaining is the CofE?
I've always assumed that it was Muslims who had the biggest issue with homosexuality - but in my day-to-day experiences, it's the Zchristians who won't stop banging on about the evils etc etc...
No idea why.
Jews seem 'not bovvered'.
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style7 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.