Gay Marriage In England And Scotland

[isanbirder]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

It is to be made illegal for the Church of England to decide to celebrate same-sex marriages. At the same time Scotland, which has a different legal system, is beginning consultations to see whether or not to sanction gay marriage.

Both countries already have Civil Unions available, which, as far as I know, confer the same legal rights as marriage, except for the right for gay couples to have their unions solemnised in church.

(This differs from the patchwork American system, if system it can be called)

In my opinion, it is for the Church of England to make its own decision, as other religious bodies have done. The difference, of course, is that the Church of England is still the State church. That does not prevent the British Government from giving it the option to make its own decision.

[catmac]

They seem to have created an unholy mess with this proposal, IB. How a Minister can be both in favour of allowing same-sex marriages to be held in religious premises and, at the same time, to be proposing a law to make that illegal is beyond me.

As you know, I'm not a great enthusiast for gay "marraige", I remain a strong advocate of equality under the law as provided by the Civil Union system.

[Jingthing]

(This differs from the patchwork American system, if system it can be called)

Yes it differs. In the U.S., no state sanctioned marriage or civil union has the same national rights as marriage. and most states as yet have neither state same sex marriage or civil unions. Fix in progress. It's clear at the national level the federal government via Supreme court decisions is going to treat state marriage and civil unions as the same thing, whether they widen federal rights or not, and are not hung up on the BRANDING of the thing which it seems UK people are. In other words, IF they decide to grant full federal rights to STATE same sex marriages they will also grant that to same sex civil unions and regard them from a legal secular standpoint: MARRIAGES.

I agree religious bodies have the right to make their own decisions on recognition of gay marriages and/or civil unions and no problem with that being separate from SECULAR civil rights in any country.

Having a state religion -- yes, that's a wrinkle y'all have to deal with.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

It's to be made illegal so that the CofE (and the Church of Wales) can't be forced by equal rights legislation into conducting same sex marriages. At the moment, because the CofE and CofW are established they are legally obliged to marry anyone who is entitled to be married and who simply turns up and asks. They cannot legally refuse.

If same sex marriages are made legal then the CofE/CofW will be legally obliged to marry any same sex couple who ask so the government intend to make it illegal so they don't have to. Thus even if a CofE/CofW vicar wants to marry a same sex couple he will not be allowed to even if he wants to - unlike all the other religious organisations who will have a choice.

It's about time the CofE was disestablished so they can celebrate their death throes in private.

[isanbirder]

It's to be made illegal so that the CofE (and the Church of Wales) can't be forced by equal rights legislation into conducting same sex marriages. At the moment, because the CofE and CofW are established they are legally obliged to marry anyone who is entitled to be married and who simply turns up and asks. They cannot legally refuse.

If same sex marriages are made legal then the CofE/CofW will be legally obliged to marry any same sex couple who ask so the government intend to make it illegal so they don't have to. Thus even if a CofE/CofW vicar wants to marry a same sex couple he will not be allowed to even if he wants to - unlike all the other religious organisations who will have a choice.

It's about time the CofE was disestablished so they can celebrate their death throes in private.

I don't think equal rights legislation could be used to force a religious body to marry people against its own principles. I can't see the Catholic Church knuckling under in such circumstances! My own feeling is that any religious body should have the right to make its own rules about marriage, and enforce them on its own members. Same-sex couples who are married in a religious ceremony will presumably still have to register with the civil authorities.

Disestablishment of the CofE and CofW is another matter entirely., partly at least because it is so closely entangled with the future of the monarchy. Something for a different forum, I think!

[LeCharivari]

If same sex marriages are made legal then the CofE/CofW will be legally obliged to marry any same sex couple who ask so the government intend to make it illegal so they don't have to. Thus even if a CofE/CofW vicar wants to marry a same sex couple he will not be allowed to even if he wants to - unlike all the other religious organisations who will have a choice.

That's not quite correct, endure, but there is a lot of confusion over the Bill - including by some MPs and by some Bishops and Archbishops.

According to the proposals, all religious organisations will have a choice to opt in or opt out of conducting gay marriages, including the CofE and CofW - it will actually be illegal for any minister of any religion to conduct a gay marriage unless their governing body has expressly opted in to permit gay marriage (as the Quakers, Unitarians, etc, have already done), so "rogue" ministers cannot conduct gay marriages against their organisations' wishes.

The CofE and CofW are singled out and named specifically only because of Canon Law.

Once a religious organisation opts in it will then be up to individual ministers from that organisation whether they want to conduct gay marriages or not, protecting their personal religious beliefs, hence the need to make an exception to the 2010 Equality Act.

I think the proposal is actually surprisingly balanced and reasonable, protecting bigots on all sides!

[LeCharivari]

Same-sex couples who are married in a religious ceremony will presumably still have to register with the civil authorities.

No, the whole point is that authorised religious marriages are automatically registered, and if the Bill is passed that would apply to all marriages (gay or straight) - that's one of the reasons why "rogue" ministers who may be tempted to carry out a gay marriage against their organisation's wishes will not be allowed to do so, as such marriages would not have any legal standing.

[LeCharivari]

..... not hung up on the BRANDING of the thing which it seems UK people are. In other words, IF they decide to grant full federal rights to STATE same sex marriages they will also grant that to same sex civil unions and regard them from a legal secular standpoint: MARRIAGES.

Very few "UK people" are actually that bothered about the "BRANDING", either for or against, except from a religious standpoint - I think the Bill recognises that and its just part of a rational progression which the majority accept.

Same sex Civil Partnerships in the UK already confer all* the same rights as marriages "from a legal secular standpoint".

* except for peerages by marriage, which simply don't work with same sex marriage/civil partnerships - hardly a problem for most people.

[LeCharivari]

Having a state religion -- yes, that's a wrinkle y'all have to deal with.

The idea that the Church of England is a "state religion" is a widely accepted fallacy - it is NOT a "state religion".

It is a state CHURCH, which is a very different matter - a state church is a religion created by a state for its own use (in this case Henry VIII, so he could get divorced again), while a state religion is one recognized in a country's constitution as its official religion. That does NOT apply in the UK or in England. It is the officially established Christian Church in England (not the UK or the Commonwealth) with the monarch as the Supreme Governor and its policies requiring approval first by the General Synod, then the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, and then by Parliament - the state controls the church, NOT the other way round*.

It has to be particularly singled out from other religions in England because legally its established position means that anyone, regardless of their beliefs, whether or not they have been baptised/christened, has the legal right to get married in a CofE church**.

*: the future position of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords is under review as part of the House of Lords review, with the recommendation that their numbers are reduced from 26 to 12 and that representatives from the main minority faiths (Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh) are included.

**: legally any CofE church, subject to a few conditions such as having lived in the parish for 6 months or a parent or grandparent having lived there for 6 months or been married there, or having moved there from any other parish where they had lived for 6 months.

[endure]

If same sex marriages are made legal then the CofE/CofW will be legally obliged to marry any same sex couple who ask so the government intend to make it illegal so they don't have to. Thus even if a CofE/CofW vicar wants to marry a same sex couple he will not be allowed to even if he wants to - unlike all the other religious organisations who will have a choice.

That's not quite correct, endure, but there is a lot of confusion over the Bill - including by some MPs and by some Bishops and Archbishops.

According to the proposals, all religious organisations will have a choice to opt in or opt out of conducting gay marriages, including the CofE and CofW - it will actually be illegal for any minister of any religion to conduct a gay marriage unless their governing body has expressly opted in to permit gay marriage (as the Quakers, Unitarians, etc, have already done), so "rogue" ministers cannot conduct gay marriages against their organisations' wishes.

From the BBC website (my bold):

In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
  

• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
  

• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
  

• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply
  

[endure]

It's to be made illegal so that the CofE (and the Church of Wales) can't be forced by equal rights legislation into conducting same sex marriages. At the moment, because the CofE and CofW are established they are legally obliged to marry anyone who is entitled to be married and who simply turns up and asks. They cannot legally refuse.

If same sex marriages are made legal then the CofE/CofW will be legally obliged to marry any same sex couple who ask so the government intend to make it illegal so they don't have to. Thus even if a CofE/CofW vicar wants to marry a same sex couple he will not be allowed to even if he wants to - unlike all the other religious organisations who will have a choice.

It's about time the CofE was disestablished so they can celebrate their death throes in private.

I don't think equal rights legislation could be used to force a religious body to marry people against its own principles. I can't see the Catholic Church knuckling under in such circumstances!

The Catholic Church doesn't have the legal obligation to marry anyone who walks through their doors. The CofE does.

[LeCharivari]

If same sex marriages are made legal then the CofE/CofW will be legally obliged to marry any same sex couple who ask so the government intend to make it illegal so they don't have to. Thus even if a CofE/CofW vicar wants to marry a same sex couple he will not be allowed to even if he wants to - unlike all the other religious organisations who will have a choice.

That's not quite correct, endure, but there is a lot of confusion over the Bill - including by some MPs and by some Bishops and Archbishops.

According to the proposals, all religious organisations will have a choice to opt in or opt out of conducting gay marriages, including the CofE and CofW - it will actually be illegal for any minister of any religion to conduct a gay marriage unless their governing body has expressly opted in to permit gay marriage (as the Quakers, Unitarians, etc, have already done), so "rogue" ministers cannot conduct gay marriages against their organisations' wishes.

From the BBC website (my bold):

In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
  

• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
  

• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
  

• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply
  

Agreed, endure - my point was that "even if a CofE/CofW vicar wants to marry a same sex couple he will not be allowed to even if he wants to - unlike all the other religious organisations who will have a choice" was only partially correct and could be misleading.

ALL "religious organisations" will have a choice, but other "vicars" or ministers will not*, even if they want to, unless their governing body has opted in (point 2 above). The reason the CofE and CinW have to be singled out at point 4 above is because Parliament is their "governing body", not (as some think) the General Synod - hence my point above that the CofE is a state church subject to Parliament, not a state religion.

The CofE and CinW and their ministers are in exactly the same boat as everyone else under point 2: their governing body has to agree to gay marriage before any individual minister can conduct a gay marriage (if he/she wants to) - their governing body, though, is Parliament, who act on this on the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Committee, who in turn act on the recommendations of the General Synod**.

*: apart from choosing not to marry gay couples

**: an example is the ordination of women priests, which required a change in Canon Law and Royal Assent and Licence following the General Synod's recommendation in 1992.

Edited December 14, 2012 by LeCharivari

[isanbirder]

Having a state religion -- yes, that's a wrinkle y'all have to deal with.

The idea that the Church of England is a "state religion" is a widely accepted fallacy - it is NOT a "state religion".

It is a state CHURCH, which is a very different matter - a state church is a religion created by a state for its own use (in this case Henry VIII, so he could get divorced again), while a state religion is one recognized in a country's constitution as its official religion. That does NOT apply in the UK or in England. It is the officially established Christian Church in England (not the UK or the Commonwealth) with the monarch as the Supreme Governor and its policies requiring approval first by the General Synod, then the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, and then by Parliament - the state controls the church, NOT the other way round*.

It has to be particularly singled out from other religions in England because legally its established position means that anyone, regardless of their beliefs, whether or not they have been baptised/christened, has the legal right to get married in a CofE church**.

*: the future position of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords is under review as part of the House of Lords review, with the recommendation that their numbers are reduced from 26 to 12 and that representatives from the main minority faiths (Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh) are included.

**: legally any CofE church, subject to a few conditions such as having lived in the parish for 6 months or a parent or grandparent having lived there for 6 months or been married there, or having moved there from any other parish where they had lived for 6 months.

You've got as confused as the rest of us over religion/church, LeC. A state church is NOT a religion... by becoming state-sponsored it does not change its spots. (And it was created to facilitate Henry VIII's first divorce (not "again") from Katherine of Aragon. It couldn't have happened, either, if not for the corruption within the Catholic Church, which was addressed at the Council of Trent in 1564).

[LeCharivari]

...You've got as confused as the rest of us over religion/church, LeC. A state church is NOT a religion... by becoming state-sponsored it does not change its spots. (And it was created to facilitate Henry VIII's first divorce (not "again") from Katherine of Aragon. It couldn't have happened, either, if not for the corruption within the Catholic Church, which was addressed at the Council of Trent in 1564).

Confused over the wives (first and fourth!), but definitely not over the position of the Church of England, IB.

The Church of England is a branch of the Christian religion rather like Sunni and Shi'a are branches of Islam; its part of the Anglican Communion, which is an association of over 40 Anglican churches with no formal or legal organisation - important to note here, because all the various members of the Anglican Communion are separate, fully autonomous "religious organisations" for the purposes of the proposed Act and their "governing bodies" would each have to opt in to the provisions of the Act for any gay marriages they conduct to be legal.

A number of members of the CofE think that the church should be disestablished and independent of Parliament, particularly in ecclesiastical matters, but the plain fact is that it isn't. CofE clergy have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch. The General Synod can make recommendations as canons or measures, but although Parliament cannot amend these any canons have to be granted Royal Licence and Assent and any measures (such as the ordination of women or gay marriage) have to be have to be approved by Parliament.

I realise that the Christian church in England pre-dates the Reformation, but I'm afraid I'm completely baffled by your point - the Church of England IS the state church (of England) and Church of England IS a religion (but NOT a "state religion").

Are you saying that CofE is not a religion, or not the state church? It has to be one or the other, but either one seems bizarre.

[isanbirder]

"The idea that the Church of England is a "state religion" is a widely accepted fallacy - it is NOT a "state religion"", quoted from you, LeC.

The CofE is the state church. The religion is Christianity. But since, as you do, we also talk about " the Christian Church", the terminology is somewhat woolly.

Similarly, we never talk about the Catholic religion; we say the Catholic Church (or Roman Catholic Church, if you will, to distinguish us from Anglo-Catholics etc).

[LeCharivari]

Agreed - I think!

The Church of England is the state church, and it is also a religion in its own right as "Christianity" has no governing body, but it is not the "state religion" with its associations of theocracy.

"Christian" is such a broad term that I think very few practicing Christians if asked their religion would reply "Christian", but most would say they were Catholic, Church of England, Quaker, Anglican, etc.

[isanbirder]

Some more information about the proposed legislation:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20840531

Muslims have claimed that the ban on the CofE opting in is discriminatory. This seems to mean that they want to be banned from opting in, whereas the legislation gives them the right not to opt in if they want to. Their logic is more than a bit odd.

Catholic Archbishop Nichols says that the way the legislation has been presented is a shambles.... and it seems as if he is right.

The Catholic Primate of Scotland has asked for the matter to be put to a referendum, which is fair.

[tombkk]

This is beautiful. Is the CofE so powerful in England and Wales that anybody actually gives a hoot about their opinion?

I agree that it doesn't make sense to forbid one organisation to perform same-sex marriages and allow others, but I think the CofE has legal powers in the sense that if they perform a marriage, you are married and don't need to go to the amphur any more, is that right? All the other denominations' and religions' weddings are just for the photo opportunities, you still have to go to the amphur, right?

But the Muslims just singled themselves out. So they want to be forbidden to conduct same-sex marriages, otherwise they might accidentally celebrate them? There must be many gay Muslims wanting to marry, and many accommodating imams in England (and Wales) so that someone in charge asks the government to forbid them to perform the service.... The mind boggles.

[LeCharivari]

This is beautiful. Is the CofE so powerful in England and Wales that anybody actually gives a hoot about their opinion?

The CofE covers England, not Wales - that's covered by the Church in Wales. Its not that the CofE is "powerful" so much as its legally the "state church". Numbers-wise there are actually more regularly practicing Moslems in England than regularly practicing members of the CofE.

I agree that it doesn't make sense to forbid one organisation to perform same-sex marriages and allow others, but I think the CofE has legal powers in the sense that if they perform a marriage, you are married and don't need to go to the amphur any more, is that right? All the other denominations' and religions' weddings are just for the photo opportunities, you still have to go to the amphur, right?

Wrong. ALL marriages in the UK performed by an ordained and authorised minister of any religion (CofE, Catholic, Quaker, Jewish, Moslem, etc,) are automatically registered just as they would be in a civil marriage once the marriage register is signed. The ministers are "authorised celebrants", while registrars are "authorised registrars". The only significant difference is that the CofE, as the state church, HAS to marry you whether they want to or not regardless of your religious convictions while other religious organisations have no such obligation.

But the Muslims just singled themselves out. So they want to be forbidden to conduct same-sex marriages, otherwise they might accidentally celebrate them? There must be many gay Muslims wanting to marry, and many accommodating imams in England (and Wales) so that someone in charge asks the government to forbid them to perform the service.... The mind boggles.

They are forbidden by their own religious organisation's governing body - just as the CofE is forbidden by its own, which happens to be parliament.

Its not complicated, but its in the interests of those who oppose same-sex marriage to try to make it complicated and make it look as if some people or religions are being forced to do what they don't want to do.

...The Catholic Primate of Scotland has asked for the matter to be put to a referendum, which is fair.

"fair", but it should be unnecessary - after all, that's why we have elections. Its hardly in the same league as a referendum on independence.

Edited December 25, 2012 by LeCharivari

[sustento]

The Catholic Church complaining about a lack of democracy?

[endure]

The Independent has conducted a survey in which ~60 per cent of those surveyed believe the UK government is wrong in banning the CofE from conducting gay marriages. They believe that CofE vicars should be able to conduct them just like any other religious who chooses to.

http://www.independe...ng-8431263.html

[isanbirder]

They are forbidden by their own religious organisation's governing body - just as the CofE is forbidden by its own, which happens to be parliament.

Muslims don't have a governing body.... that must be why they ask the Government to do the job for them.

I don't think it's the Government's business to tell the State church what to do.

[LeCharivari]

Muslims don't have a governing body.... that must be why they ask the Government to do the job for them.

I don't think it's the Government's business to tell the State church what to do.

I think the vast majority of members of the CofE would agree with you - I also think that although virtually all probably know the sovereign is head of the church, relatively few realise that Parliament actually governs it. It doesn't really make any sense at all now that MPs include other faiths so Muslims, agnostics, atheists and Jews all have a say. This may make it more of an issue, but the Queen has made it clear she won't be relinquishing her religious powers, although that puts her in the hot seat a bit.

Muslim sects have governing bodies in much the same way that Christians do - there isn't really any sole "Christian" governing body either.

[endure]

This will wind the antis up. Not the ordinary 'two men holding hands' picture as part of a gay marriage article but a black man and a white man holding hands.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/churches-hostility-to-gay-marriage-only-underlines-their-impotence-8432092.html

[catmac]

Not totally about the issue of gay marraige, but another example of the Catholic Church's wierd ways......http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20889039

[endure]

It gets even better!

Gay vicars can now become Bishops as long as they remain celibate:

http://www.independe...ex-8439002.html

So you can be a woman priest and shag the night away but you can't become a Bishop but you be a gay man and become a Bishop as long as you keep your willy in your trousers.

[endure]

Here are The Rules for Gay Bishops

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/dos-and-donts-for-gay-bishops-in-the-church-of-england-8439992.html

[endure]

The view from France...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/marriage-in-13_b_2432075.html

[tombkk]

The view from France...

http://www.huffingto..._b_2432075.html

Very good article, and published in the US Edition of a widely-read newspaper.

[endure]

You really can't make this stuff up

http://www.dailymail...ibate-life.html

"One option the panel is expected to consider is a compromise under which gay couples seeking a blessing could be asked to declare they intend to remain celibate, in line with official Church teaching."