http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412222

Seems as if the men in suits want it because it will be a vote changer from the pink vote,to vote blue, while the ones in dresses(clergy) and a lot of the conservative party want it scrapped.

But just perhaps DC, could you do something to create work, sort out the ecconomy, reduce vat on fuel,the killing in Syria,and afganistan and other important things to the majority of taxpayers, instead of spending so much time and effort on a name change.

While it cant be a bad thing, just remember it was your party that brought in section 28 in schools, now you seem to be going the other way and allienating a lot of people on the way.

Can’t do anything right can he? 🙄

Haterz gunner hate.

Its a lib dem policy that they made him right into the manifesto as a part of their price for supporting him

the frothing from the church is laughable tho – just ridiculous. Saying that the would be forced to do gay marriages in chuch ( beacue of the humna rights act) and thus they are going to stop doing marriges that count in law at all.

call thier bluff – thats what happens in most countries anyway – you have your church ceremony if yo want one then go to the registrar to get legally married

Bunch of reactionary bigots

Slightly bemused by some of the homophobes that have been reeled out on the news tonight. One was saying how you can’t separate marriage into civil marriage and religious marriage – there is only one marriage. Somebody should tell him about registrary offices,,,

And that Dr Chris King (I think?) guy ranting at Peter Tatchell was amazing, I swear he was a parody, proper bonkers.

The way I see it is simple:

Gay, Christian, Married – Pick any two.

Why anyone would want to be a member of a church is beyond me, let alone if they didn’t accept you for who you were. It is the Church’s loss.

Unfortunately, TroutWrestler, the CofE don’t see it the same way as you – they want to stop even the Gay & Married option, regardless of whether the people involved are interested in religion.

Rachel

I like the way they are tryin gto claim marriages as theirs and only they can decide who can do it.
the churches role in marriage is [ relatively] very recent 12 th Century ish.

They cannot claim it as theirs it is a civil ceremony that predates them

I think there is a great irony that they want to be exempt from equality laws and then preach to us about tolerance. I think they can have the right to discriminate against who they marry of we can discriminate against the religious.

as captain mannering might say “they dont like it up em”

Bunch of reactionary bigots

C’mon TJ get off the fence and say something reactionary and a bit extreme this sort of wishy washy seeing it from all sides is so unlike you 😉

Oh, and while we’re at it; we’re not looking for “gay marriage”, we’re looking for “marriage”. Just like everyone else…

Rachel

Rachel. I am fully on your side. Do you care about the CofE?

well said Rachel, why have the tag on it.

I’ve never really given much serious thought into what particular “flavour” of religion my own beliefs fit best with. TBH I find the whole idea of being told how to believe and behave to be a little wrong, anyway.

Anyway, very few major religions approve of how I have had to live my life!!

Rachel

Like I said, it’s their loss…

Wouldn’t have thought call me Dave could have married Nick unless he got divorced and even then he’d have trouble getting married in a church.

The CofE folk on the radio this morning amused/irritated me.

I was a bit confused though…

Does the church just object to the name “civil partnership” changing to “marriage”?

Is the church actually as embracing of homosexuals as they were suggesting they are? Is it still a “don’t ask, don’t tell” or is it ok if you don’t inhale, as it were?

Are the church aware that anybody who currently wants to get married can do so at a registry office(what is a heterosexual union at a registry office if not a civil partnership? Presumably “The Church” don’t recognise it) and not involve the local parish CofE at all?

Does the church think that scaremongering about them losing their “established” status is going to help? Who exactly, other than them, cares if they do lose it? Do they deserve special treatment anyway?

Let’s have a secular republic, re-name civil partnerships to marriage, let the CofE Synod spend the rest of eternity talking about gay bishops behind closed doors with no media coverage and be done with all of this nonsense.

Are the church aware that anybody who currently wants to get married can do so at a registry office(what is a heterosexual union at a registry office if not a civil partnership?

Maariage and civil partnerships are not the same legally – although its a bit hair splitting definition

Maariage and civil partnerships are not the same legally – although its a bit hair splitting definition

I do know this. The difference is small, but it was enough to get it accepted. The final push for the full marriage is the next step.

My registry office wedding to my wife was a partnership recognised by the state, it had nothing to do with any church, “established” or otherwise. It is de facto civil partnership.

As I understand it from Christian friends, the churches objection rests on the idea that marriage exists for the creation and raising of kids. Quite what that says about heterosexual couples who either choose not to have kids or can’t have kids, I’m not sure.

The idea that an organisation which was brought into being entirely to allow a king to get divorced being against marriage reform is pretty laughable, really.

As a bonus, it’s being hinted that bringing about marriage equality might lead to the separation of church and state. So, win-win.

My registry office wedding to my wife was a partnership recognised by the state, it had nothing to do with any church, “established” or otherwise. It is de facto civil partnership.

However you are legally and actually married you are not in a civil partnership.
IIRC only same sex can have a civil partnership.

Indeed – you cannot have a man/ woman civil partnership

CofE and the RC could be strung up on so many equality laws it’s a joke.

Sexist, Homophobic, Sectarian ……

All this while being the moral guardians of the world

Are they proposing to force Mosques to marry Gay Moslems? Or are there no gay Moslems because their religion forbids it? Funny that the CofE gets slated for standing against homosexuality, but the religion that would still stone gays to death is conspicuously quiet, and un-slated. Why doesn’t that self-advertising prick Peter Tatchell speak out about ‘honour killings’ in this country? Not much mileage in that I guess.

Interesting column from Giles Fraser: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jun/12/church-of-england-gay-marriage

one of my school friends is very into this

http://www.christiansatpride.com/

his view is that the church management is just misguided and he and others want to change it from within.

I’d encourage people to take part in this survey/consultation

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/v.asp?i=48356xhlqw

As a bonus, it’s being hinted that bringing about marriage equality might lead to the separation of church and state. So, win-win.

Unfortunately, this only appears to be the CofE’s main weapon. It appears that they think that ‘the people’ will be scared into opposing gay marriage if they believe that the queen will cease to be the head of the church, the bishops will lose their place in the lords and vicars will have the same status as the clergy of other religious groups when it comes to marriage.

Let’s call their bluff 😉

Are they proposing to force Mosques to marry Gay Moslems? Or are there no gay Moslems because their religion forbids it? Funny that the CofE gets slated for standing against homosexuality, but the religion that would still stone gays to death is conspicuously quiet, and un-slated. Why doesn’t that self-advertising prick Peter Tatchell speak out about ‘honour killings’ in this country? Not much mileage in that I guess.

The head of the CofE is also the head of state. Bishops vote in the House of Lords. The official religion of the country is CofE.

Yeah, if only Peter Tatchell would speak out about honour killings.

🙄

Yes Mike, but my point is that this sort of thing happens in communities in this country today, yet that seems to be largely ignored, whilst people are vociferous over Christian churches taking a moral stance. Whether or not you agree on the moral stance, it seems to me there are more pressing issues to shout about.

I think the Christan churches are getting it as they are making a lot of noise against it

genghispod – Member
it seems to me there are more pressing issues to shout about.

Quite.

Making the small step from civil partnership to homosexual marriage should be a non-issue (The world hasn’t ended in the countries that have already done so). It is being made an issue by ‘the church’.

genghispod – Member
Yes Mike, but my point is that this sort of thing happens in communities in this country today, yet that seems to be largely ignored, whilst people are vociferous over Christian churches taking a moral stance. Whether or not you agree on the moral stance, it seems to me there are more pressing issues to shout about.

Your point was that someone didn’t speak out against Muslims’ anti-gay actions. He does.

No one is intending to force churches to perform gay marriages – indeed they have exception from the equality laws – they are pretending they will have to in order to drum up controversy.

It is absolutely nothing to do with the church of England if the government wants to allow anyone to have a registry office wedding. They should keep their nose out of secular affairs.

I suspect this will backfire onteh badly.

Why doesn’t that self-advertising prick Peter Tatchell speak out about ‘honour killings’ in this country?

Yeah, if only Peter Tatchell would speak out about honour killings.

Yes Mike, but my point is that this sort of thing happens in communities in this country today, yet that seems to be largely ignored

So “honour killings” are largely ignored in the UK ?

And Peter Tatchell is a “self-advertising prick” ?

These sort of threads always bring out the most carefully thought out comments.

Ok so he does. I just feel that people are getting all jumped up about what might be considered (going by previous points) to be a technical issue. On the other hand we still have young women in this country being murdered by their parents for having relationships outside of their religion.

‘Tolerance’ seems to be an excusive word to express acceptance of otherwise unexcusable behaviour in other cultures (which happen to be endemic in the UK) whilst also being a stick with which to beat our own established principles into the ground. Are we to distance ourselves from moral values further? The Ancient Greeks and Romans had an acceptance of paedophilia as I recall.

Is the difference between marriage and civil partnership anything more than semantic?

On the other hand we still have young women in this country being murdered by their parents for having relationships outside of their religion.

It has already been established that what you describe is illegal in this country, there is absolutely no need for a change in the law. So I have no idea what you’re going on about – have you ?

Ah the we are not as bad as some of the others defence – at least we just tut at people and try and ignore them – it’s not like we actually stone them…..

Doesn’t really was does it

Well Ernie, it seems to me that we should concentrate on enforcing the laws we already have then, instead of defining them even more deliberately when they are already unenforceable.

My original point was to try and point out the injustice of persecuting the Christian church for homophobism when other accepted religions are far more homophobic. Yes they may be less vocal on the subject, but I think that may be because they are far less tolerant overall, so don’t accept that it is a problem for them.

You can all argue me in to a cocked hat if you like, but I am going to bed now, so carry on.

but I am going to bed now

Probably just as well, if you want to come out with some old bollocks claiming that laws in the UK concerning murder aren’t enforced.

Just who is persecuting the church here? they are sticking their noses into secular affairs where they are not wanted. None of this is anything to do with the church.

I personally think its fair enough if Churches don’t allow Gay marriage. But the whole argument over it being allowed in other places is just bolloxs.

Registry offices/hotels etc are business’s and the place for anyone who doesn’t want a religious wedding.