Speaking only from the US’s perspective, this simply isn’t a good analogy. There is the “minor” matter of the 1st amendment guaranteeing the free exercise of religion. You may believe this, personally, but you’ll need to pass a constitutional amendment in the US to make it valid.
No, the more accurate analogy is if I went into (US women’s clothing retailer) Lane Bryant and sued them for not selling me a men’s suit. Or for that matter, sued the Church of England for not performing a bris.
The legal issue is getting the marriage certified by the state. When/if I ever get married, I’m going to find a church that performs same-sex ceremonies; going to a southern Baptist church and insisting they perform the ceremony or I’ll sue is nothing more than petulant. tomndebb is right: the way to encourage the church to be more inclusive is through persuasion, not litigation.
So what? One couple does not a trend make and to imply that is does is a logical fallacy.
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”?
I lolly’ed.
Yes, and as I understand it, marriage in the Church of England is a legal right for heterosexual couples when neither person has a living former spouse. The church does not have the power to refuse to marry a Muslim woman to a Buddhist man, for example.
[QUOTE=tomndebb;]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Before the conflict over churches providing reproductive health care, it seems that most of the impetus in the US has been conservative Christians attemting to accrue more privilege to their churches rather than individuals attempting to get government to exert more power over churches. I guess maybe someone will sue for nonexistent rights, but that confirms the general stupidity rather than anything specifically about gay rights. And I agree that any such lawsuit is doomed to failure.
How does that work, exactly? Can the Muslim/Buddhist couple walk into the vestry and ask the rector or vicar to indulge them with a liturgical service using the Book of Common Prayer, etc.?
Or does the clergyman simply use his vested powers to conduct the same service as they would encounter had they gone to the local Registrar?
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.
I really have no idea what distinction you think you are making here. In either country, particular religious organizations that perform marriages can chose to perform same sex marriages or not, as they prefer.
What makes you think that? It is simply not true. A secular registrar probably has that obligation, but the Church of England most certainly does not. For instance, not so long ago (and possibly still, for all I know) the C of E would no perform marriages for divorced people, although they certainly had a legal right to marry, and could do so in certain other churches, and in secular registry offices.
No, the C of E as an institution does not really have that freedom. The institution of the C of E is tied up with the institution of the monarchy, and neither is free to cast of the other. Of course, any individual (apart from the sovereign) is perfectly free to stop being members of the “state religion” if they want to, and many do. (And many were ever members in the first place.) The sovereign could leave the Church too, I suppose, but tehy would have to abdicate.
Well yes, people are free to pursue frivolous and meritless lawsuits, aren’t they, until the court throws them out.
Do you have any cite for this? I very much doubt that it is true, and even if it is technically the law, in practice I am sure many Anglican clergy would kick up a hell of a stink if asked to provide a church wedding for people who were openly representing themselves as non-Christians, or even just as non-Anglicans. I bet the clergyman would get a lot of support, too. Heck, I’d be on their side, and I’m an atheist. All the fuss might even lead to this law (if it really exists) getting changed.
It is just so god damn scary when a group you and your like have successfully marginalized finally achieve equal rights with you.
For me it’s just delicious. Please, continue the tantrums.
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!)
A marriage in the Church isn’t just seen as oh, just another wedding, like going to a civil marriage. You’re not just renting out the building. It’s one of the Seven Holy Sacrements. Srs biznizz, people.
Reading over the actual text, it seems to be a statement that you are permitted to use the building as the location for the wedding. It does not appear to be a statement that the local vicar or rector will actually officiate at the ceremony or that the ceremony will be conducted according to the CoE rites.
From the site:
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.
Jesus fucking Christ, just get married at the official governmental level. WHy do you have to convince some Neolithic sheepherders that they should perform your wedding ceremony?
Don’t like that they won’t marry you? Well, suck it up and get married somewhere else. Why are you so eager to be member in club that doesn’t want you as a member? Start your own damn club!
It’s not “a service”, it’s a sacramental rite. But you know that. You just scorn the very concept and wish for society to grant it no consideration whatsoever.
This is why I like the system in some Civil Law countries, where the “real” marriage is the one formalized before the Notary Clerk, and the church ceremony is exclusively that: ceremonial.
I’d be very interested in a cite for this claim.
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.
Your cite made reference to the “Church of England Marriage Measure 2008,” of which Section 3 appears to say that a person can exercise the right to be married in any parish if:
But Section 1 says that you have only the same right for any of those parishes as you would for your own parish of residence or ordinary place of worship:
I don’t read this law, in other words, as saying that the CoE must agree to marry a Muslim woman and Buddhist man. This law says, in effect, “Whatever right you already had to marry in your parish of residence, or parish you habitually attend, you ALSO have for the parish in which you were baptised and the parish at which your parents or grandparents married.”
This law does NOT say what circumstances give you the right to marry in your own parish in the first place.
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.