# Gay marriage advocacy goes too far **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 4, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316 "2013-08-04T13:26:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/61 "2013-08-05T13:38:15Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > It is not (these days) a state religion in anything like the sense you seem to think it is. It is a religious denomination with some fairly loose ties to some, mostly merely ceremonial, aspects of the state’s institutions. It is not to any significant degree controlled (or paid for) by the government, it is not a service provided by the government, and it is of virtually no relevance to the lives of those British citizens, religious or otherwise, who do not freely choose to be active members of it. The Prime Minister still appoints bishops and other liturgical worthies, doesn’t he (or recommends appointments to the Crown)? Prince Charles will take a coronation vow to defend the church, won’t he? One that will compel him to deny assent to a bill that, say, dissolved the church? Sure, you can call those largely ceremonial functions, but they’re also very meaningful functions in a way. > [@Steophan](#): > > So when a church, or synagogue, or mosque denies someone a service based on any of those criteria, they are discriminating, and should be prevented from doing so. Should my local gas station be sanctioned for refusing to stock _The Advocate_? Why not? Aren’t they discriminating based on sexuality? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/62 "2013-08-05T13:43:28Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The paragraph you quoted was about marrying in a church other than the one you’re entitled to marry in. The church has to marry you (if you’re not an icky divorced or gay person), but only in your local parish church. > > [Your Church Wedding | The Church of England](http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/faqs/can-a-vicar-from-a-different-church-do-our-wedding.aspx) > > [Your Church Wedding | The Church of England](http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/youre-welcome/you-can-marry-in-a-church.aspx) My hesitancy is that this page is basically an ad for having a church wedding, as opposed to a more official declaration of CoE canon law (or UK secular law). So a web page saying vaguely that it’s the “duty” of a vicar to marry you is not as persuasive as the specific boundaries of that “duty.” Elsewhere on the same site, for example, the issue of marrying persons previously divorced from others is delicately addressed: > [@](#): > > So in certain circumstances the Church of England accepts that a divorced person may marry again and this has been the case since 2002. > > There may be a way forward for you to remarry in a church, but you should talk to your Vicar about this. Every Vicar will want to help you, though there are some who don’t feel able to offer a wedding to couples where one or both of the partners has been divorced. In any case your Vicar will want to talk frankly about your past and hopes for the future and will then be able to advise you. So obviously there’s at least one case in which your Vicar doesn’t have a “duty” to marry you. Are there others? What are they? ---
**Author:** ![LawMonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@LawMonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LawMonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/63 "2013-08-05T14:06:15Z")
And just when I was wondering why I was still skimming this thread… > [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, I’m not a UK lawyer or a CoE canon lawyer **(although I do have a licentiate in Roman Catholic canon law)**. But I welcome correction from someone who can shed more detailed light on the issue. If you’ll pardon the tangent, and the possibly rude question (which isn’t intended that way)… _why?_ Heck, I’m not even sure I realized this was a thing–had you asked me fifteen minutes ago, “who does the canon-lawyering in the RCC?”, I would’ve guessed “the clergy”, and specifically rather non-pastoral members thereof who spend their days perched over high desks, poring over dusty scrolls in tiny rooms of ancient, rough-hewn stone by candlelight. Are canon-lawsuits common? I’m honestly curious–never gave this any thought before. Feel free to open up another thread, if you think others would be interested (or if you don’t want to clutter up this thread). ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/64 "2013-08-05T14:38:21Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, you’re saying that a Catholc church refusing to perform an Islamic marriage is an act of criminal discrimination? Maybe not as long as the couple agree to raise any children of that marriage as Catholics. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/65 "2013-08-05T15:24:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, if the C of E gives out documentation of some kind that legalizes or helps legalize a marriage, fine. But to make someone perform a ceremony against their will… that’s just rude. I rather like it when my state functionaries do their jobs. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/66 "2013-08-05T15:31:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, I’m not a UK lawyer or a CoE canon lawyer (although I do have a licentiate in Roman Catholic canon law). But I welcome correction from someone who can shed more detailed light on the issue. There definitely is some kind of duty to marry that applies to the CoE and its priests. I suspect that the actual legal duty may be a matter of common law that is not explicitly written in some piece of legislation. [The church website says](http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/same-sex-marriage/same-sex-marriage-and-the-church-of-england-an-explanatory-note.aspx): > [@](#): > > […] because Church of England clergy normally have a legal duty to marry people by virtue of their office. while [the Department for Culture, Media and Sport says](http://blogs.culture.gov.uk/main/2012/12/equal_marriage_and_the_church.html): > [@](#): > > The Church of England, as the established church, is a special case. It has a duty in law to marry any person in their local parish church, regardless of their religious affiliation. The Church’s own [commentary on the Marriage Measure 2008](http://www.churchofengland.org/media/45651/mmqanda23.rtf) states that: > [@](#): > > Under the existing law, a couple, in general, have the right to marry in the parish church of a parish where one or both of them are resident or one or both of them have their names on the church electoral roll. […] There are a few exceptions to the right to marry in the parish church of the parish where a person is resident or on the church electoral roll. The most important one in practice is where a divorced person wishes to re-marry when his or her former spouse is still alive ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/67 "2013-08-05T15:37:10Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > I rather like it when my state functionaries do their jobs. Well, in this case, the conditions of “their job” might be satisfied with filing a marriage license and other paperwork. Getting all dressed up in vestments and reading from scripture and singing gospel music (or whatever the couple have in mind for “a big lavish ceremony, the whole works”, as Barrie Drewitt-Barlow puts it), that’s kind of extra. I don’t see the value in making a vicar or bishop or whatever recite phrases he doesn’t want to (especially if it’s of no legal relevance). I invite the couple to hire an actor to dress up as a vicar or bishop and make the performance as lavish as they like. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/68 "2013-08-05T15:45:33Z")
I support marriage equality, but this sort of behavior seems remarkably hypocritical and counter-productive to me. It’s hypocritical because a large number of those who are against same-sex marriage do so because of religious beliefs, and the primary argument against that is the idea of separation of church and state; religious beliefs should not be the determining factor in creating law. Yet, here, suing a church to force them to perform a marriage for a gay couple is using the law to try to set religious doctrine. Separation of church and state should go both ways. Moreso, why would a gay couple want to seek out the religious sanctioning from a congregation who would only do so begrudgingly when forced? I appreciate that there are plenty of gay Christians out there, but surely they seek out churches that share their views, including that homosexuality isn’t a sin and should be religiously sanctioned. And it’s counter-productive because it feeds exactly into the fear of “the gays are forcing their lifestyle on us”. The way to assuage that sort of fear isn’t to legally force people to recognize them, it’s to let sensible people see that they’re just normal people. Just in the last 10 years or so, I’ve seen a remarkable change in gay acceptance, and it will continue to improve, but I think this sort of act is just going to add fuel to the fire for those who will fight against it. You just cannot legislate social change, it will take time. They should drop their case, get legally married, or maybe find a denomination that will sanction their marriage and just be patient. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/69 "2013-08-05T16:06:25Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > There definitely is some kind of duty to marry that applies to the CoE and its priests. I suspect that the actual legal duty may be a matter of common law that is not explicitly written in some piece of legislation. > > [The church website says](http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/same-sex-marriage/same-sex-marriage-and-the-church-of-england-an-explanatory-note.aspx): > > while [the Department for Culture, Media and Sport says](http://blogs.culture.gov.uk/main/2012/12/equal_marriage_and_the_church.html): > > The Church’s own [commentary on the Marriage Measure 2008](http://www.churchofengland.org/media/45651/mmqanda23.rtf) states that: Yes, it’s clear there’s a general duty. That’s also true for Roman Catholics; a priest may not withhold any sacrament from someone properly disposed to receive it. What I’m seeking, though, is a more complete and authoritative list of the exceptions to this general duty. Even the text you quote says: > [@](#): > > Under the existing law, a couple, in general, have the right to marry in the parish church of a parish where one or both of them are resident or one or both of them have their names on the church electoral roll. […] There are a few exceptions to the right to marry in the parish church of the parish where a person is resident or on the church electoral roll. The most important one in practice is where a divorced person wishes to re-marry when his or her former spouse is still alive… So what are some of the other, less important exceptions? I get that there’s a general duty: what are the SPECIFICS of that duty? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/70 "2013-08-05T16:18:33Z")
> [@LawMonkey](#): > > And just when I was wondering why I was still skimming this thread… > > If you’ll pardon the tangent, and the possibly rude question (which isn’t intended that way)… _why?_ Heck, I’m not even sure I realized this was a thing–had you asked me fifteen minutes ago, “who does the canon-lawyering in the RCC?”, I would’ve guessed “the clergy”, and specifically rather non-pastoral members thereof who spend their days perched over high desks, poring over dusty scrolls in tiny rooms of ancient, rough-hewn stone by candlelight. Are canon-lawsuits common? I’m honestly curious–never gave this any thought before. Feel free to open up another thread, if you think others would be interested (or if you don’t want to clutter up this thread). It’s somewhat more common for clergy to have this degree, yes – in fact, it’s a prerequisite for a bishop (that, or a more advanced degree). But it’s not by any means unheard of for lay persons to obtain a licentiate in canon law, and they can serve as advocates in ecclesiastical trials. At one time, of course, such trials were much more common for a much wider range of subject matter; today they survive primarily in the context of requests for annulment. It’s not uncommon to retain a lay lawyer to handle cases requesting a decree of nullity for a putative marriage, and for lawyers who can do so to donate their time to assist people needing the counsel but unable to afford it. That’s not all of it. Canon law, for another example, gives strong rights to a parish priest, and if a priest resists being fired from his post as pastor by his bishop, he has a number of canon law remedies available to him, and given the obvious conflicts, he may not have much assistance available from within his diocese. Enter the lay canon lawyer. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/71 "2013-08-05T16:20:07Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, in this case, the conditions of “their job” might be satisfied with filing a marriage license and other paperwork. Getting all dressed up in vestments and reading from scripture and singing gospel music (or whatever the couple have in mind for “a big lavish ceremony, the whole works”, as Barrie Drewitt-Barlow puts it), that’s kind of extra. I don’t see the value in making a vicar or bishop or whatever recite phrases he doesn’t want to (especially if it’s of no legal relevance). I invite the couple to hire an actor to dress up as a vicar or bishop and make the performance as lavish as they like. Well, reading LB’s link, it sounds like a vicar is legally required to read the vows, but you can include priests, rabbis, etc also. If the vicar is merely fulling a legal requirement, I don’t have much sympathy for his poor widdle feewings. No one is going to make him wear assless chaps and a boa or turn him gay or anything. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/72 "2013-08-05T16:32:38Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I support marriage equality, but this sort of behavior seems remarkably hypocritical and counter-productive to me. > > It’s hypocritical because a large number of those who are against same-sex marriage do so because of religious beliefs, and the primary argument against that is the idea of separation of church and state; religious beliefs should not be the determining factor in creating law. Yet, here, suing a church to force them to perform a marriage for a gay couple is using the law to try to set religious doctrine. Separation of church and state should go both ways. It’s a little unfair to call British people hypocritical based on arguments that are largely only happening in the US. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/73 "2013-08-05T16:44:32Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Should my local gas station be sanctioned for refusing to stock _The Advocate_? Why not? Aren’t they discriminating based on sexuality? While I am miles from Steophan on the subject, I don’t think this is an apt analogy for the point he is trying to make. I _think_ his position is that your local gas station is free to sell any magazine it wants to, but once it offers it for sale, it cannot discriminate against who might want to buy it. Now, I’m not sure if he takes that further in holding the belief that, say, if your local gas station carries Playboy, that they must also carry Playgirl, or some gay skin magazine. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/74 "2013-08-05T17:51:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a little unfair to call British people hypocritical based on arguments that are largely only happening in the US. But for the most part, it doesn’t seem that the as a whole British agree with the couple in the article, per some of the discussion upthread. The idea that the law is opt-in seems to me to be a pretty clear nod to separation of church and state. It’s not clear to me what the specifics are in why the CoE hasn’t opted in. Perhaps this couple has always been in favor of pushing religion to accept gay marriage, so maybe it isn’t hypocritical on those grounds, though it does make them jerks. It still seems hypocritical to me that, generally, the message about gay marriage hasn’t been about making a church recognize two people as married, but in ensuring that a gay couple and a straight couple are able to get the same legal recognition and rights. Just as with civil rights here in the US, we can force people to have equal rights through legislation, but we can’t force people to just accept eachother over night. The article explicitly says that they can convert their civil partnership into a marrige, yet they want “a big lavish ceremony, the whole works” but “don’t want to force anyone into marrying” them. If it’s just about the marriage, the church isn’t involved at all. So why do they need to sue at all, if not just because they want that whole lavish ceremony? And what does it mean to sue someone if it isn’t attempting to legally force someone into doing something? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/75 "2013-08-05T19:40:46Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Well, reading LB’s link, it sounds like a vicar is legally required to read the vows, but you can include priests, rabbis, etc also. If the vicar is merely fulling a legal requirement, I don’t have much sympathy for his poor widdle feewings. No one is going to make him wear assless chaps and a boa or turn him gay or anything. Well, it turns out I’m not overflowing with sympathy for the poor widdle feewings of the gay couple, either. They can get legally married with the attendant legal rights and privileges. That they can’t get the big fancy church wedding they want is disappointing, I’m sure, but I can’t quite seem to bring myself to the point where litigation sounds justified. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/76 "2013-08-05T20:22:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What if the Muslims refuse to be Baptized into the Catholic Faith? Because as long as they did agree to be Baptized, then the RCC would have no problem allowing them to marry in the Church. Being baptized as RCC is not a requirement to celebrate a wedding in an RCC church, following the RCC rite, or to have it be considered theologically valid. Having a concept of marriage that matches the RCC’s concept of theological marriage does, though. Couples can and have been refused a wedding because they don’t, despite both being baptized. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/77 "2013-08-05T21:43:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > While I am miles from Steophan on the subject, I don’t think this is an apt analogy for the point he is trying to make. I _think_ his position is that your local gas station is free to sell any magazine it wants to, but once it offers it for sale, it cannot discriminate against who might want to buy it. That is my position, and it is also my position that religions should be held to the same high standards of basic human decency as gas stations. > [@](#): > > Now, I’m not sure if he takes that further in holding the belief that, say, if your local gas station carries Playboy, that they must also carry Playgirl, or some gay skin magazine. No, I’m not saying that. If they carried Playgirl (which is ostensibly aimed at women, though mostly bought by gay men, at least last time I checked), they would not be allowed to only sell it to women, though. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/78 "2013-08-05T22:04:46Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Being baptized as RCC is not a requirement to celebrate a wedding in an RCC church, following the RCC rite, or to have it be considered theologically valid. Not in general, but I know of a number of couples who were refused permission to marry in Catholic churches because one of them wasn’t a Catholic. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/79 "2013-08-05T23:37:19Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Thing is, like in the Catholic church, there are some requirements to get married in the Church. Obviously, you have to be Catholic, duh. Well, at least one spouse-to-be does, but the non-Catholic has to agree, for example, that you raise any children you might have in the Church. (You want to marry in the Church, you gotta EARN it, pal!) “Fighting ignorance”, indeed. The CATHOLIC spouse-to-be has to agree to do “everything in their power” to raise the kids as Catholics. The non-Catholic spouse has to agree to nothing in this regard. Cite: my own mixed marriage - cradle Catholic wife, unbaptised husband. ---
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/80 "2013-08-06T00:03:06Z")
I think a lot of people are missing the point that the C of E church has not _chosen_ not to opt in to offering same sex marriages, it is _legally barred_ from opting in, weird though that seems. The Church of England and the Church in Wales are the only religions banned from opting in, due to being the state religion. This does change the whole discrimination argument for me- as it’s the state not the church making that decision. If the church does not itself want to opt in- well, that’s its choice, but why should the government be stepping in to specifically ban the state religion from choosing freely? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316.md?page=5)