# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/81 "2013-08-06T02:20:45Z")
> [@Filbert](#): > > …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? Presumably it relieves pressure on the General Synod to make a choice on it’s own. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/82 "2013-08-06T04:55:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. That’s not a valid reason to refuse that permission. But if, upon questioning, either intended spouse gave an answer that indicated their definition of marriage would not have made it canonically valid (for example, “if it doesn’t work we’ll just get a divorce”), then that is valid grounds. It’s possible the priest was a jackass, but the cases I’ve personally met who were saying it was “because Paco is an atheist” turned out to be for the other reason. Of course, “because Paco is an atheist” is both shorter and less bitter than “because Paco said the only reason he wanted a Church wedding was so our mothers won’t kick up a fuss”. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/83 "2013-08-06T07:22:44Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > “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. Sorry, that’s how I was lead to understand it. My bad. Either way, the rest of what I said is basically true. A Catholic wedding is one of the Sacrements, and all that. I believe, AFAIK, it’s one of those times when the church is like, super serious. 😉 Again, you’re not just renting out a building, or whatever. I’m NOT saying that a Catholic marriage is anymore valid than a civil one or whatever, but it’s not something like, you can just walk in and say, “Oh hey, we wanna schedule a wedding, where do we sign up?” ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/84 "2013-08-06T22:55:01Z")
> [@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. > . That’s ludicrous. Churches aren’t businesses, they’re private associations. I’m perfectly free to create my own club and only allow white able-bodied heterosexuals males younger than 60 to join some or all the activities I’m organizing. A Church is just a big private club. There’s no general right to become a member, or to be allowed to take part in such or such ceremony in any western country I know of. I can’t ordain priests in a Catholic church, since I’m not a Catholic bishop, regardless how bad I want to ordain some. If I’m unhappy with it, it’s up to me to create my own Clairobscur Catholic Church where anybody can ordain anybody and sanctified group marriages between male members are mandatory. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/85 "2013-08-06T23:11:23Z")
> [@SpoilerVirgin](#): > > Actually, it is part of the law. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 does specifically exclude the Church of England from being able to perform same sex marriages. Provisions in the law allow various other denominations, including Quakers and Jews, to opt in to performing same sex marriages, but excludes the C of E from this provision. The so-called “quadruple lock” provisions require that if the C of E wants to perform same sex marriage, there must not only be a change to canon law, but new legislation must also be passed by Parliament. I should have read the whole thread, as usual. Ok, then. If you’re right about the British government/parliament deciding who gets to be married in a CoE church, I withdraw my comment and agree that it shouldn’t have passed such a discriminatory law and that the couple mentioned in the OP has a perfectly valid reason to go to court. However I have a question : the CoE is a State Church so let’s forget about it. How comes the law has provisions about Quakers or Jews? Does it mean that they could as well have forbidden Jews from marrying homosexual couples in synagogues, and mandated that Quakers should, on the other hand, marry them without discrimination? It seems baffling to me that a law would contain such provisions. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2013, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/86 "2013-08-06T23:26:36Z")
The problem here is having established religion. Changing the particular set of ridiculous superstitions they ascribe to is just stupid. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/87 "2013-08-07T00:14:05Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > The problem here is having established religion. Changing the particular set of ridiculous superstitions they ascribe to is just stupid. Agreed 100%. You can blow hard about how it isn’t a “real” state religion or whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that it is, and its a problem now. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/88 "2013-08-07T08:18:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Does the UK have the equivalent of our 5th/14th amendment to its unwritten constitution where state actors cannot deprive certain rights based on race, religion, etc.? And if so, does sexual orientation rise to our equivalent of “strict scrutiny”? As you say, we don’t have a written constitution. We DO, however, have various equality laws on the books designed to protect people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation - and this extends to employers and businesses as well. You can’t refuse to serve someone in a shop because they are gay, for instance. The various complex laws were brought together under the Equalities Act 2010, which > [@](#): > > requires equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services, regardless of the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Note the word ‘public’ - that’s the state stuff you were looking for. ---
**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 7, 2013, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/89 "2013-08-07T09:46:04Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > That’s ludicrous. Churches aren’t businesses, they’re private associations. I’m perfectly free to create my own club and only allow white able-bodied heterosexuals males younger than 60 to join some or all the activities I’m organizing. A Church is just a big private club. There’s no general right to become a member, or to be allowed to take part in such or such ceremony in any western country I know of. I can’t ordain priests in a Catholic church, since I’m not a Catholic bishop, regardless how bad I want to ordain some. Aren’t you in France? EU law says otherwise about that club, you may not discriminate your offer of services based on various protected classes. Someone else has already cited them. It’s time these laws were enforced properly, and the establishment stops protecting bigots. Whatever the reason for their bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/90 "2013-08-07T10:40:03Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Aren’t you in France? EU law says otherwise about that club, you may not discriminate your offer of services based on various protected classes. Someone else has already cited them. IANAL, but I think there must be a difference between businesses offering services to the general public, and private clubs. There are still golf clubs in the UK, for instance, that don’t allow women members, including Muirfield, where this year’s Open was held. ---
**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 7, 2013, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/91 "2013-08-07T10:44:27Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > IANAL, but I think there must be a difference between businesses offering services to the general public, and private clubs. There are still golf clubs in the UK, for instance, that don’t allow women members, including Muirfield, where this year’s Open was held. It probably won’t surprise you to learn that I think those should be banned, too. I actually thought they had been, there was a lot of fuss about them a few years back. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/92 "2013-08-07T11:29:02Z")
> [@Filbert](#): > > 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? But why would you make that type of provision unless you thought it could stand the test of a lawsuit? It seems like they were afraid that, without that provision, the state churches would have to perform same sex marriages. Or they thought that the State churches were the only churches they could legally control in that way. There’s no other way that the law makes sense to me, anyways. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2013, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316/93 "2013-08-07T11:54:49Z")
Actually, the Church in Wales is not banned from opting in. See [section 8 of the act](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/section/8/enacted). If/when the CiW decides to perform same-sex marriages, the Lord Chancellor can (and must) make the necessary amendments to allow it. Apparently the General Synod of the Church of England actually has power to make its own legislation through Church Measures, which can even amend parliamentary legislation on church matters. So perhaps when the CoE decides to perform SSMs it can do so of its own volition. Church Measures are still subject to parliamentary approval, but not the full process of passing an Act. (To my mind, all this complication demonstrates why disestablishement would be a good idea.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-advocacy-goes-too-far/665316.md?page=4)