UK Government unveils its plans for Gay Marriage

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,053
http://news.sky.com/story/1023573/gay-marriage-government-unveils-its-plans

The Government is unveiling its plans to allow same-sex marriage in Church despite bitter opposition from some Tory MPs.
The measures will clear the way for civil marriages in places of worship as early as 2014, although venues will not be forced to comply.
Minister for Women and Equalities Maria Miller is outlining the proposals in the Commons.
Her statement comes after a Tory MP warned that pushing ahead with legislation would be a "disaster" for the Conservative Party.
MP Stewart Jackson on gay marriage legislation Stewart Jackson opposes legislation
Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told Sky News: "I believe this is a mistake. It's a very divisive issue and an unnecessary piece of legislation.
"It is fundamentally an un-Conservative policy and if (Prime Minister David Cameron) presses ahead with this it will be a disaster for the party and the country."
When the vote happens next year, MPs are likely to be allowed to decide according to their conscience rather than follow the party line.
Mr Cameron has promised a change in the law in England and Wales by the next election in May 2015 at the latest.
The news has been widely welcomed by the gay community with one leading vicar hailing it as a "breakthrough".
Reverend Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said: "It has been a real roller coaster of emotions, but this is brilliant news.
"We are all God's children and he loves us all equally. So why shouldn't I be able to marry the person I love in church?"
She added: "It takes a good year to plan a good wedding, so we'd better get planning."
However, Mr Cameron is facing fierce criticism from some Tory MPs over the legislation and he has promised there will be a free vote.
As many as 130 backbenchers are expected to oppose him when the measures are before the Commons.
Interesting how this has become one of the defining issues of politics this year.
 

Merlin

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
2,492
People like these, who sit around, talking tripe, holding back progress and generally lack the capacity to think beyond their own needs, do they wake up with overwhelming regret in their twilight years?

WtF cares if two guys, two girls or any other combination of self-appointed identification or creation want to be bonded, for whatever reason?

Happy pairing.
 

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
30,346
Aren't the conservatives in power right now in the UK:confused:. Why would they oppose their own proposal? Must say they should let the church decide for itself if it wants to allow same sex marriages in their "hallowed" halls - it is unfair to make it law that you can't deny it when those people believe allowing such would lead to them spending eternity in torment.
 

Jab

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
3,245
Aren't the conservatives in power right now in the UK:confused:. Why would they oppose their own proposal? Must say they should let the church decide for itself if it wants to allow same sex marriages in their "hallowed" halls - it is unfair to make it law that you can't deny it when those people believe allowing such would lead to them spending eternity in torment.
Yes, their bigotry should be protected.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,098
Aren't the conservatives in power right now in the UK:confused:. Why would they oppose their own proposal? Must say they should let the church decide for itself if it wants to allow same sex marriages in their "hallowed" halls - it is unfair to make it law that you can't deny it when those people believe allowing such would lead to them spending eternity in torment.
It is a knotty one for me. I want people to be able to decide what they can and can't do with their property but I also don't want people discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. To turn customers away because they are homosexual strikes me as thoroughly repugnant. I'm not sure a civilised society should be tolerating that sort of bigotry.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
Not sure how gay marriage is progress but anyway.

Let the churches decide for themselves. A marriage is made of two parts these days. There is the civil union and there is he religious union. You can have a civil marriage without the religious ceremony but you can't have the religious ceremony without the civil part. The marriage license is the civil bit and as far as the law is concerned is the only important thing.

Taking the rights argument to here says the Adam and Steve have he right to get married. But the church, by the same token, can refuse to hold the ceremony. Pop off to the registry office and do it there. But I supposed every princess has dreamed of the traditional wedding.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
It is a knotty one for me. I want people to be able to decide what they can and can't do with their property but I also don't want people discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. To turn customers away because they are homosexual strikes me as thoroughly repugnant. I'm not sure a civilised society should be tolerating that sort of bigotry.
We could have an awesome discussion about the separation of church and state.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,098
Not sure how gay marriage is progress but anyway.

Let the churches decide for themselves. A marriage is made of two parts these days. There is the civil union and there is he religious union. You can have a civil marriage without the religious ceremony but you can't have the religious ceremony without the civil part. The marriage license is the civil bit and as far as the law is concerned is the only important thing.

Taking the rights argument to here says the Adam and Steve have he right to get married. But the church, by the same token, can refuse to hold the ceremony. Pop off to the registry office and do it there. But I supposed every princess has dreamed of the traditional wedding.
While I agree that a marriage is very much divided into a spiritual and legal component I am not so sure about allowing churches to decide for themselves.

I mean... if you allow churches to decide for themselves why can't restaurants now decide for themselves?... straights only... whites only?... right-handed people only?... I don't see a difference and I don't see how you can allow religious institutions to be bigoted and not extend that same power to other parties.

Either nobody gets to discriminate or we all do. This shilly-shallying about makes no sense to me.
 
Last edited:

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
While I agree that a marriage is very much divided into a spiritual and legal component I am not so sure about allowing churches to decide for themselves.

I mean... if you allow churches to decide for themselves why can't restaurants now decide for themselves?... straights only... whites only?... right-handed people only?... I don't see a difference and I don't see how you can allow religious institutions to be bigoted and not extend that same power to other parties.
Actually freedom of association is a constitutional right and so is fair discrimination. The deciding point would it be fair for a church to discriminate? It might well be especially as people have a right to religious freedom too. Restaurants do have as many rights on their side - assuming that that was a way of swinging the balance.

A restaurant can always discriminate. It may reserve the right of admission. But I think most people have realized that money has no race. There is also the downside to exercising the right of admission. Do it wrong and you'll have someone with too much time on heir hands phoning up the HRC
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,098
Actually freedom of association is a constitutional right and so is fair discrimination.
It also says discrimination will be deemed to be unfair until proven otherwise.


The deciding point would it be fair for a church to discriminate? It might well be especially as people have a right to religious freedom too.
I fail to see how marrying 2 people in a legal sense within your church as a representative of the state in any way infringes upon anyone's right to freedom of religion.


Restaurants do have as many rights on their side - assuming that that was a way of swinging the balance.

A restaurant can always discriminate. It may reserve the right of admission. But I think most people have realized that money has no race. There is also the downside to exercising the right of admission. Do it wrong and you'll have someone with too much time on heir hands phoning up the HRC
As far as I am aware, in this country a restaurant cannot officially reserve the right of admission based upon race or sexual orientation or any other criterion mentioned in the Bill of Rights so no I disagree. While a restaurant can discriminate it cannot discriminate in an official manner like religious institutions are permitted to.
 

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
30,346
Yes, their bigotry should be protected.
It's 'bigotry' upon which the entire church is based so you would have to force them to rewrite their bibles to fit in with the new laws.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
It also says discrimination will be deemed to be unfair until proven otherwise.



I fail to see how marrying 2 people in a legal sense within your church as a representative of the state in any way infringes upon anyone's right to freedom of religion.



As far as I am aware, in this country a restaurant cannot officially reserve the right of admission based upon race or sexual orientation or any other criterion mentioned in the Bill of Rights so no I disagree. While a restaurant can discriminate it cannot discriminate in an official manner like religious institutions are permitted to.
The church has nothing to do with the 'legal sense'.

Years ago the world was run by royalty and the clergy with God given dominion. I guess that around the time of the Magna Carta things changed and we basically ended up where the governments and the churches agreed not to mess with each others domains. And more recently the church has become less relevant in the day to day lives of people. And government has become more and more intrusive.

So now we have government trying to tell us how to live and trying to tell the church how you get to heaven. And government has no clue about how to get there. And many will say that neither does the church. But it does beg the question as to why government thinks that it can dictate entry to heaven.

So does it boil down to it being man that decides? The you and Is of the world? Well that is pretty arrogant if we claim that to be so.

Note to those who don't believe - just because you don't believe doesn't give you any right to dictate to the church. You are, by definition, out of the argument.

I did allude to the restaurant needing to be careful about how it discriminates.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,472
It appears the churches will not be forced to comply and that they have the right to uphold the rational and logical definition of marriage as opposed to the definition that fancies whatever fad is passing.
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
It appears the churches will not be forced to comply and that they have the right to uphold the rational and logical definition of marriage as opposed to the definition that fancies whatever fad is passing.
And that seems so sensible. Some sanity at last.
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,501
Actually freedom of association is a constitutional right and so is fair discrimination.
Since the UK has no written constitution no act of parliament can be seen as being unconstitutional. ;)
 

Albereth

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
15,860
Since the UK has no written constitution no act of parliament can be seen as being unconstitutional. ;)
Yeah. But actually using our constitution to argue some points and basically carrying on the discussion from the Bo Kaap thread
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
36,325
And more recently the church has become less relevant in the day to day lives of people.
Yet they are more and more trying their damnedest to impose their morals on everyone.
 
Top