Gay Couple To Sue Church Over Gay Marriage Opt-Out

[mushroom25]

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/

Mr Cameron promised religious organisations a "quadruple lock" to ensure they would not be compelled to act contrary to their faith's doctrine (or in the case of the CofE, contrary to Canon Law).

Several contributors on AB argued it would never happen: after all, who'd want to be married by an organisation that doesn't want you?

Yet here comes the first legal challenge, before the ink is even dry on the legislation.

What's the chances of this succeeding and turning Mr Cameron's promises to the church into so much dust?

[jackthehat]

My heart sank when I read this article.

I hope that they are unsuccessful.

[gingejbee]

From "The Christian Institute"...so bound to be unbiased and without any "slant" to the piece?

[pixie373]

I hope they succeed. The Church shouldn't be more important than the Law. What i do find strange, is that they've both been named as parents on their child's birth certificate. I might be missing something here-but how can that be right?

[jackthehat]

It is now permissible for same-sex couples to be married in the eyes of the law. I take the view that no matter what anyone may wish, 'religion' does not accept gay unions and it is a nonsense to try to force your way into a establishment that doesn't want you.

All this lawsuit will do is give more ammunition to the nay-sayers and the bigots and try the patience of those who whilst not necessarily in agreement, weren't actively against.

[anneasquith]

this couple have done the gay community no favours.

[pixie373]

I don't see why it shouldn't be equal, as it's legal. I still don't understand the parenting part though. Is it legal to lie on a birth certificate?

[jackthehat]

They didn't lie, it is explained here;
ww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044805/Millionaire-gay-couple-Barrie-Tony-Drewitt-Barlow-facing-court-breaching-clinical-trial-regulations.html

[jackthehat]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044805/Millionaire-gay-couple-Barrie-Tony-Drewitt-Barlow-facing-court-breaching-clinical-trial-regulations.html

[mushroom25]

//From "The Christian Institute"...//

yes. because the only alternative link I could find led to the DM - and everyone knows the attitude of most news section contributors to that publication.

[pixie373]

Sorry, jackthehat. Couldn't open the links. The children have both their DNA and no mother?

[jackthehat]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044805/Millionaire-gay-couple-Barrie-Tony-Drewitt-Barlow-facing-court-breaching-clinical-trial-regulations.html

The children were born in America and the Americans courts ruled that they could both be named on the birth certificate.

[pixie373]

Thanks Jackthehat. So it was legal, but still a lie. They recorded two fathers, although there was only one and didn't record the mother, although the children had one. Bizarre!

[New Judge]

I'm saying nothing. But....

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1207529.html

[naomi24]

It's not really as simple as wanting to be married by an organisation that doesn't want you. The church simply can't marry gay couples because, according to the bible, same sex relationships are specifically forbidden. It would be interesting to see any judge attempt to overrule 'God'.

[baza]

will they have to swear on the Bible in court?

[ludwig]

Interesting. It's a mexican stand-off between politicians, the judiciary, religions, and the politically correct. All of whom think they're the most important people in the world.

I'm just going to sit back and watch the fun.

[craft1948]

I said it would end in tears........................

[jno]

I don't know of anything in the Bible forbidding gay marriage.

[Baldric]

Leviticus kind of gives a clue!

Leviticus 20:13
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

[FredPuli43]

Nobody has to swear on a bible in court. They may affirm if they have no religion or if the means of taking an oath which binds them is not available.

And , to the OP, the answer is no. And the ECHR won't interfere since religion is, as it were, sacred.