The Coalition government is considering a change in the law to allow gay people to have marriage-style ceremonies in places of worship.

Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is expected to announce later this week that a ban on civil partnerships being conducted in religious venues is to be lifted.

The move, which could also allow hymns and readings from the Bible, is likely to be welcomed by gay rights groups but met with strong opposition from traditionalists within the Church of England, other mainstream religions and the Conservative party.

However minority religious groups such as Unitarians, Liberal Jews and Quakers, who already carry out ceremonies for gay people, will be sympathetic to the move.

"The government is currently considering what the next stage should be for civil partnerships, including how some religious organisations can allow same-sex couples the opportunity to register their relationship in a religious setting if they wish to do so," a spokesman for the Equalities Office said last night.

"Ministers have met a range of people and organisations to hear their views on this issue. An announcement will be made in due course."

It was not clear to what extent the change in law would allow civil partnership ceremonies to be brought into line with traditional weddings between heterosexual partners, or whether the term "marriage" would be officially used.

Civil partnerships, introduced in 2004, provide most of the same legal rights as marriage, but are often seen by gay people as lacking the spiritual depth conferred by a religious ceremony.

While many Anglican clergy already carry out blessings for gay couples, there is no authorised church ceremony and the issue has led to divisions in the Church of England.

Pope Benedict XVI has regularly condemned same-sex marriage and gay relationships, calling them "a destruction of God's work".

Quakers, who have been in favour of same-sex unions for almost two decades, agreed to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples in 2009 and have previously urged the government to change the law to allow Quaker registering officers to handle same-sex partnerships in the same way as marriages.

Gay marriages are already legal in a handful of countries, including Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden, Spain, and some American states,

David Cameron, in 2009 interview, suggested that same-sex partnerships were no different from marriage but admitted that not all in his party held a similar view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/1 ... es-mosques

I have images of heads exploding Scanners-style if this goes through

Oh, and lol at the Conservatives who might be upset by it, I mean they know about the gays and married philanderers in the party, right?

It's very possibly a reaction to that recent case with the B&B and their plans to give tax breaks to married couples. If there's any chance the law could say 'married' rather than 'civil partnership' then they could be done under the same laws as the B& couple were.

I heard one Tory on the radio this AM, who said the law would be changed to allow gay couple to marry but it would be up to the individual church priest to decide whether he wanted to officiate or not. Yeah, that's going to last. First time some crusty old vicar says no, we're going to be in the same situation again, just with him instead of the B&B couple.

Personally, I'm entirely apathetic about marriage but I think priests deserve the right to choose too. Nobody should be forced to perform an act which they personally find abhorrent, no matter how wrong they may actually be about it. Some other priest who didn't have the same 'issues' could perform the ceremony just as well, even in the same church if necessary.

Jon

+1, and it's all made me wonder if Sinéad O'Connor's busy

I do think that they should be allowed to get married in Church, but I do think that civil partnerships should have full status as married. They should also be applicable to straight couples as well.

Good.

Whilst nobody, gay or otherwise, should have a right to commit in a religious context, they absolutely should have the freedom to do so.

Personally, it would all be so much simpler if the CofE lost the ability to act as a registrar. All partnerships, whether homo- or heterosexual, to be a single secular legal ceremony at the local registry office and to be termed a "civil partnership". Any other part, modification or ceremony, such as faith "marriage", faith "blessing", saying lovely words on Worthing Pier etc. to have no legal status whatsoever. All couples should have a "right" to the first part but only a "freedom" to the second.

Making that distinction between a right and freedom allows for legal equality between couples but also allows for individual expression, religious or otherwise.

Or have I missed something?

Can this be applied to attending uni lectures, filling out tax returns etc?

I still struggle to understand how one can be gay and religious at the same time. It seems like opposite ideas to me. Also I dont think the government has any business is sorting out religious matters.

Technically the Queen is the head of the Church, but equality should apply to everyone. Many want a church wedding even if they are not religious, or will go with the flow if family want it. No religion should be allowed to be discriminatory.

I get that. I just not sure why gay people would want to in the first place....

It depends largely on how one defines and relates to being gay and being religious. I mean, you could take being gay to mean attracted to members of the same sex, and religious to mean having a belief in a deity; the two ideas not exactly being mutually exclusive.
In christianity, there are relatively few references in the bible, that relate to homosexuality, and each one, if read in the original languages, could be seen to relate to something completely different (one instance which is often translated as condemning homosexuality can instead be read as condemning a master beating a slave, for example). On the other hand, the bible does also talk of remaining true to convictions, so if a priest/minister/leader disagrees, they should be allowed to without being forced to go along with it.
There are ways to view the two existing together, although I cant exactly imagine many would choose to.

anyone can believe in a deity. I'm just not sure how modern religion is compatible with being gay. at least not Christianity.

good ...

Quite a lot of the employees are gay. So does seem quite hypocritical. I am not religious at all but if the other half* wanted it. Then yes would go along with it. Just to keep the peace.

*somewhere out there and at a unknown location.

I'm not sure how Christianity is supposed to be incompatible with homosexuality.

The New Testament passages often spouted are nebulous at best and could mean many things, anywhere from all forms of homosexuality to exploitative pederasty. Secondly Jude and the Pauline Epistles are quite obviously not written to be applied universally - they are very context-dependent.

Consequently, trying to use vague sections of hard-to-understand letters as the fundamental basis of a doctrine will result in nothing but trouble and theological drivel.

The most devastating argument for me however is that Jesus quite simply never mentioned it. I'm told that as a Christian I'm supposed to get my knickers in a twist about homosexuality and yet, as regards the Gospels, it is not present at all. Not once.

If I'm going to base my faith on the Bible, I think perhaps I should restrict my beliefs to the actual contents.

Yeah. What he said.