“Gay dads set to sue over church same-sex marriage opt-out”
You may remember mad right wingers being made fun of for suggesting legalising gay marriage might lead to marriages to animals and polygamy and churches being forced to go gay. These idiots seem to have taken that as a suggestion.
“The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown.”
I lol’d
I don’t get what the couple might be suing for.
England has a state church, so they’re a little different in this respect than the US.
I see this story takes place in England and the couple has a civil union. A couple of questions:
Is the CoE an official state religion?
Do marriages (as opposed to civil unions) exist outside of CoE religious recognition?
If so, that seems to be a very different scenario than we have in the US.
Yep.
A Church which is established as the state religion, receiving money from the state is not the same as a private entity. And it doesn’t matter if right-wing, anti-SSM folks go bonkers over this. They’re just ignorant.
The right to marry in church, like a straight couple would have. The right to practice your religion should end the minute you discriminate against someone. I hope they win, and the church (and all religions) are forced to end discrimination based on sexuality.
Are you freaking kidding me? More like “The slave begins by demanding not to be jailed and ends up wanting to be treated like everyone else.” BTW, some more evolved countries do perform SSM marriages in churches, so it’s not really far-fetched or presumptuous to demand it.
Yes, in a sense. No-one apart from the sovereign is obliged to subscribe to it, though.
Yes they do. You can be married in churches, chapels, of other denominations, mosques or what have you, or in a secular registry office. These guys are not being prevented from marrying, they are merely unable to get married in a Church of England Church by a Church of England minister. There are almost certainly other Christian denominations in England that would gladly marry them in their churches or chapels. These guys seem determined to be married by the C of E, however. They seem to be being jerks, really.
I believe there are many openly gay ministers in the C of E. Currently, however, it appears to be baulking at having gay bishops or performing gay marriages. This probably will not last much longer.
But does it receive money from taxes that everyone, in theory, pays?
Talking of ignorant, the C of E is not funded by the Government.
Thanks for your answers. Frankly, I’m as pro-SSM marriage as it gets, and I reserve the right to judge churches that won’t perform them, but I don’t think they should be compelled to.
As far as I can tell, only in the sense that, as a charity, it can reclaim income tax against donations (where those donations were made by a taxpayer).
I’m not exactly bubbling over with sympathy, either. If the argument is that C of E clergymen are government functionaries because the C of E gets government funding, therefore the clergy should fulfill the same function as other functionaries that will legally marry the couple, i.e. whatever the English equivalent is of a Justice of the Peace, well… too bad. You’re not entitled to a big fancy Church of England wedding just because you want it so badly, and is the religious ceremony even a necessary element to getting legally married in England? It’s not in Canada or the U.S. (and in fact strikes me as a waste of time and money since you have to file the banal paperwork anyway, but that’s another matter).
I don’t know. Actually I would have thought not, but I am not sure. The C of E, like other churches, has its own wealth and sources of income. The C of E has some powers and privileges under the British constitution that other religious denominations do not, and I think the Queen and Prime Minister (even if not an Anglican), get some say in the appointment of bishops. That is the main sense, these days, in which it is “established”.
Anyway, I do not really understand why you think the matter of whether they receive money from taxes, pay money in taxes (more likely I would guess), or neither, has to do with the gay marriage issue. Even if they do give them some money, the government does not have control over the Church’s doctrines. (The Queen probably theoretically has some powers, but they are not going to be exercised in this day and age.)
Actually, they could be married in church in Great Britain. Unfortunately, they would have to go to a different church than the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church. (Several denominations in the U.S. have recognized SSM for several years, although I have no idea which of their corresponding denominations in the UK have done the same.)
The issue, however, is one of demanding that the government dictate theology. That never ends well.
There is no question that someone in the U.S., sooner or later, will bring a suit in a state that recognizes SSM, demanding that the state compel various religious groups to perform such ceremonies. In that respect, those on the Far Right are probably correct that such demands will be made.
However, it is not going to happen. The demands are going to be turned down. (The suits are liable to be dismissed without ever coming to trial.) So the fears of the Far Right are still silly.
Two quotes from the linked story:
This is correct. If they want the church to change, they need to persuade the church to change.
This is nonsense. Unless he went to a specific Gurdwara or synagogue where that particular group recognized SSM, he would have no more chance of being married at the Gurdwara or Synagogue that he would at Westminster Abbey or Canterbury Cathedral. Canada has had SSM for several years and several Sikh and Jewish groups, there, have declined to perform SSM weddings, while others have been happy to perform them.
The new UK law says nothing about “Christian” churches opting in or out. The language used is, consistently, “religious.” I am pretty sure that the couple in question would also be barred from having a religious wedding in a Mosque–but not by law.
C of E clergymen are not government functionaries.
No (as I already said). You can get married in a registry office by a registrar (who is a government functionary), and many people do. You can also get married with a religious ceremony of other religions, or other Christian denominations. Whether any of these religious groups perform same sex marriages is their business (and I have little doubt that some will be very happy to do so).
Yes, and that just leads back to the question I asked in post #3. Is the couple suggesting they’d sue to compel C of E clergy to perform a ceremony that has no legal significance anyway?
Heck, can I sue to compel Olivia Munn and Keira Knightley to perform a lesbian sex show at a bachelor party?
If you’d like to try, I will offer my (belated) bachelor party as a test case.
A C of E marriage service has the same legal significance as any other marriage ceremony - it’s just one of several options available to people wanting to get married.