I find this notion that 'equality' is the be all and end all of a 'modern liberal democracy' to be more disturbing than not. It doesn't bring actual democracy or liberalism, its' just another form of socially enforced conformism.

Do we really want to all be 'equal'? Is that even feasible? We're just not. We're tall and short and fat and thin and gay and straight and black and white and blond and red-headed.. We're all different. Any system which tries to maintain arbitrary equality within such a population is like spinning plates, it's eternal work simply to maintain, and you make no progress. Progress is not stubbornly stating that we all must be 'equal', it is recognising that differences will occur but making sure as many people as possible are as happy as possible. A 'civilised' society doesn't pick one set of beliefs and says 'that is The Rule and you must live by it', it accepts everyone lives by different rules and as long as no one harms anyone else, that's fine.

I have no problem with other people being better than me, or having things I don't have. I can live with that, as long as I have enough. I try as much as possible to help those who don't have things I have, outside the trivial stuff. Also, (for example) I have no problem that various religious people have rituals and ceremonies which I, as a non-member of those religions, will not be able to partake in. If they are willing to let me share, I'm very glad. If they say 'I'm sorry, you're not a believer so you can't be part of this bit', the civilised thing is not to say 'tough luck mate, I'm coming in anyway because I believe I have the right to', it's to go find something else to do.

We have two concepts - the idea of civil partnership and the idea of marriage. Some people call both 'marriage' but legally they aren't. A 'marriage' has in fact no force in law, every church marriage in fact includes the signing of a civil partnership as well. Legal process paired with religious ritual.The religious part is entirely decorative, it only has value in the eyes of the people who believe in it. If a bunch of people, be they christians or the followers of the holy prophet Zarquon, say "I'm sorry, you don't follow our faith, so you can't take part in this bit", which is a bit which has no significance other than to those adherents, then in an actual civilised liberal society, everyone else would accept it and get on with their lives, rather than saying 'my beliefs are more valid than your beliefs so what I say goes'. Taking one set of beliefs and imposing them on everyone isn't liberal, in fact it's the opposite of liberal.

I have to admit I do struggle to see the validity of marriage in any case. I've never been married, I never plan to. I've been to several marriage ceremonies, I've been to a couple of civili partnership ceremonies. I've been equally happy in all cases, because events made the people I was there to see happy. I don't honestly see how making it into a bunfight and leaving one segment or other of our 'civilised society' pissed off either way is helping anyone.

I think the way said member of the clergy has expressed himself is stupid, but if the church want to keep their ceremonies and rituals to themselves I don't really see anyone has a right to say 'oh no, you have to do things the way we want you to'. That's not civilised, and it's definitely not liberal.

Gay couples who get 'married' in a registry office and heterosexual christian couple who get 'married' in a church are exactly equal already, in the eyes of the law, which is the only thing that actually matters, frankly. The only people who recognise the difference between the two are the followers of religion. if you don't care about religion, why do you care whether they agree with what you think about their faith or not?

Jon

I am guessing the fear from the religious lot is the use of the word “marriage”. This opens a few cans of worms. It means that gay marriages are equal to those sanctified by god. And in this instance, I’m referring to the Abrahamic character who features heavily in three major world religions (other sky pixies (and tea pots) are available). Those who get married do have the choice to do so in a religious setting, but so far it’s limited to heterosexual couples. By allowing homosexual marriage, you are in effect saying that, yes, you too CAN get married in church. This means that if a church decides that, for some reason, they do not want to perform homosexual marriages, then they could be open to the same kind of legal sanctions as those guest house owners who got sued for turning away a gay couple. That will go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. I’d like to see that one tested in such a court. I suspect the church will have a tough time.

No doubt the CofE are having similar issues to the Catholic church. It’s just that they are keeping their views on the matter quiet, however there will be a general feeling of agreement with the Cardinal’s position. The CofE, having quite a few foreign countries in tow (who are somewhat against women bishops, let alone the notion of accepting homosexuality), as in a bit of a shaky position already. This will clearly cause even more fragmentation, so I’m expecting the ABofC to be speaking to the PM on this subject.

Anyho, in the meantime, enjoy Tim Minchin’s NSFW song about the Pope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2 ... plpp_video

Where I come from, marriage declared by church has no legal value and the couple has to also get married by a civil servant for the wedding to be valid. I don't see where it's the religions business if gays want a civil ceremony, anyone should be entitled to the same treatment by the government.
Also I really don't feel like the higher hierarchy in catholic church represent what people actually believe. Somehow they manage to go backwards with this pope. Hoping for a south american pope next.

The situation FrenchNun explains (presumably in France) is actually what we have here, just in France the separation between church and state is generally more formalised. The bare fact is that while we do still have bishops sitting in the HoL, we've actually been deprecating the influence of religion in our state systems for a very long time.

Getting 'married' in a church in the UK legally means nothing. It has no more legal validity than a birthday party. It a nicety, a piece of religious ritual that can by definition have no meaning to those who do not follow that religion. Why anyone who isn't christian would care about getting married in church I cannot possibly imagine.

I can't imagine a gay marriage ceremony in a church being any fun. Imagine having what should be the happiest event of your life and holding it somewhere where you know that the people for whom the place holds significance don't want you to be there. Why do it? Why taint the occasion with such bitterness? The only real justification I can see for wanting to do it is to force the point that you should be able to do it. Who needs their marriage turned into a socio-political protest? What sort of person wants that?

I have no love for the catholic church. At all. Believe me. However there needs to be a better argument here than 'well they're just a bunch of peado's anyway, who cares what they think?' or by ridiculing their rituals or beliefs. That's no strong argument. It's the argument of a barren intellect and an uncivilised heart. Whether a person believes in Christ, Allah or the Easter bunny, in a civilised society their right to believe that, in any way they choose provided it does no harm to others, is respected even while we argue that their beliefs are invalid. We must not do so by descending to the same level of dogmatism; by forcing our views upon them, we become as bad as them.

Jon

is it just me or has Jon become sensible in his postings?

FWIW, I don't see why all "marriages" can't be called "parriages" (or something other than marriage), then the use of the word "marriage" will fall out of favour and will only mean something to the religious.

I haven't been well recently.

.. I bet you hear that a lot don't you?

Personally I say go for it.

At some point the CofE would be taken to court because they refuse to marry homosexual couples. At that point the CofE would have to either marry homosexual couples or give up the privilege of carrying out of legal marriages. They would, of course, have to give up being able to amend the marriage register. This would merely serve to make the CofE marriage purely ceremonial - a situation which isn't a problem with any other denomination. I suspect, though, that ‘the religious lot’ would simply develop a new word or phrase that would continue to exclude homosexual couples.

At root here however is a problem of words. When I was a boy, I didn't want to have a civil partnership - I wanted to be married. I cannot conceive of a time where the phrase ‘civil partnership’ would preferable to the word ‘marriage’; the former is rather cold and mechanical whilst the latter carries with it a certain romantic, emotional and cultural weight. So it is perfectly understandable that those currently excluded would want access to it. Words are important.

However, I really can't see the Tories having the big brass ones to try this for real.

If you're not religious, a civil wedding is a true wedding. Religious orders shouldn't be forced to go against their beliefs. A religious wedding should be for religious reason, not for show or for pleasing the older generations.

yes. But it doesn't automatically give them the right to.

Jon

That's a bit like saying 5 pound coins and a 5 pound note are not equal because the coins weigh more. It overlooks that the important factor is that they are equal in terms of what they can purchase. Pluralism requires that there should be plenty of differences between people, but can only work when there is a more important sense in which they are entirely and unequivocally equal.

Part of that pluralist requirement though is that all religious opinion is equal too, including the ones that on Utilitarian grounds might be considered morally wrong. So it's no more plausible for pluralist argument to require a vicar to marry two men than to demand a Rabbi should rim a pig. There's really no obvious justification for promoting equal rights legislation above human rights (which are necessarily infringed when we order believers to betray their sacrament). But that element of this discussion is frivolous anyway given that no proposal has been made to enforce any such rule.

As for what the cardinal actually wrote, it's pure stupid [LIFTED]. The duplicitous writings of an educated man trying to bamboozle morons. His invocation of slavery in order to contest extending a right to those who presently lack it is in itself a crime against reason, the work of an inbred and delusional being. His citing of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights displays an absurd misunderstanding of the purpose of such a declaration - which is to provide a minimum standard, not to draw a line of maximum extent. It is impossible for me to express my full contempt for the man in a single medium-length paragraph.

Unfortunately IMO there is such a problem here - a problem that comes from the peculiar nature of the Church of England.

At present, the CofE is established i.e. it performs certain public and governmental functions (such as crowning the monarch, sitting in every House of Lords debate, funerals and weddings). As such, any attempt to introduce gay marriage potentially puts the CofE and the Government in a legal and political difficulty.

1. If the Parliament introduces gay ‘marriage’ with no religion exemption, the CofE will simply refuse to carry it out. This would force the CofE to perform an act of discrimination in a public function. The CofE would be sued and would lose. This then potentially forces the establishment issue and possibly even full-scale Lords reform - which is something the Tories don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole right now. Either that or jump to 2.
   
   
2. If they try to introduce an exemption for the CofE, the exemption would be challenged under human rights law and the challenge could realistically win. In that case the legislation would have to be withdrawn or amended to not have an exemption. If the latter then you're back at 1. If the former then skip to 3.
   
   
3. If any government (especially a Tory-led one) tried to block or back out after 1st reading, they'd end up in a world of political hurt.
   
   
4. If any government (especially a Tory-led one) tried to remove the CofE's right to amend the marriage register, every political crank and crackpot would emerge from the woodwork. You'd end up with a protracted, hurtful pitched fight between the equality geeks and the anti-religious nutters (LibDems, Stonewall, Dawkins) on one side and the traditionalist boors and anti-human-rights nutters (CofE, Tories, UKIP) on the other. Basically the dogs of war will be let slip and everyone political gets bitten.

IMO the Tories will spend eight months figuring out that the political risks are horrible and the potential political pay-off pretty small. So I suspect we'll either see big, fat bugger all or civil partnerships for heterosexual couples - something I thoroughly approve of.

But I'll be betting on bugger all.

Would the CofE be allowed to refuse to marry someone on the basis that they don't believe in their dogma? If so that's the argument they would use to not marry gay people.

That's the trouble right there. The CofE is a charitably-funded organisation acting in a state capacity (it performs civil marriages). As such it is bound by discrimination laws unless it has an exemption from them.

If it had an exemption in this case, my belief is that that exemption would be challenged under human-rights law and would probably be found to be illegal. If the CofE wasn't given an extension they would have to give up that state marriage role.

It would be an interesting case with I think long term consequences, The ECHR states we all have a right not to be discriminated against and we all have a right to 'a family life'. However it doesn't strictly define what that 'family life' is. Sensibilities suggest any two people (of whatever gender) who have made a life together count, but I don't know if there's ever been a case that establishes it legally.

One thing is true though - you are guaranteed the right to marry (assuming that is part of 'a family life') but you are not guaranteed any particular form of ceremony. There is no 'right' to be married (either in a religious or civil sense) in any particular location i.e. a church. RB is right insofar as they can't refuse to perform a civil ceremony but again, they don't have to hold it wherever the couple in question request it to be. If, for example, they offered the religious ceremony in the church followed by civil proceedings in the grounds or some other building like say a church hall, that would be very much more 'grey' in discrimination terms. Especially if they offered the same terms to heterosexual couples - and it's actually a quirk of English law that the civil ceremony cannot take place in the same place the religious one. If you've ever been to a CofE wedding you'll know that for a short part of the ceremony the couple and witnesses have to leave and the priest isn't allowed to go with them while they perform the minimum requirements of a civil ceremony.

I don't pretend to say with any certainty how this will all end up. I'm of the opinion though that it's not a 'this drinking fountain for whites only' open and shut case.

However regardless I come back to my earlier point. Just because someone could force the issue in a legal case doesn't mean they always should. Legally forcing someone to do something against their will is not a pleasant thing and to mix that together with a marriage (of whatever form) seems to me to be a pretty counter-productive act. whoever did so would be taking a day which should be about two people and their commitment to each other and turning it into a political football. I find that... unpleasant.

Jon

Erm... that's not even close to true.

In the CofE wedding, the religious wedding is the ceremony and the priest directs the signing of the registers. There is no civil ceremony, no registrar present and the signing is often done in front of everyone.