Is the any such thing as a common law marriage?

Good points all OtE.

On this point though: I'm not greatly bothered about what any particular religion preaches as long as they keep it to themselves. I'd like to thing that I support equality and oppose discrimination, but for example if the Church of England doesn't want women bishops I couldn't give a stuff - if the church wants to make its own rules about who is and who isn't qualified to wear the biggest pointy hat then that's entirely their own affair.

I'm also not particularly bothered what the Methodists, Christian Scientists, Plymouth Brethren, Wee Free, Shakers, Quakers, Baptists, Coptics, Third-Day Adventists, Mormons, or any number of other sects and denominations think. If your Local doesn't serve London Pride then either poke up with Guiness Extra Cold, or go and find a pub that suits you better, and likewise with your church, if it doesn't suit your requirements then go and find one with a more accomodating god.

But the Church of England is different, because it's not about marrying in the church, it's about marrying in the building. It's the price the CofE has to pay for being the established church and having been at the centre of the cultural and social community for 1500 years. You might not ever go to church, and you might not have any religious faith, but for many the idea of a "proper" church wedding is deeply rooted, and the CofE owes them that right - at least the right to use the building.

That's the whole point really and it wasn't so long ago that you got married in a licensed church or a registry office so it was pretty much sown up. I'm not sure why same sex couples would want to be married in a church anyway unless they are trying to make their union acceptable to their God. A just in case scenario, a bit like when we die, we still feel the need to get the local clergyman along to officiate and say a few prayers. That along nowadays with music from Robbie Williams or Queen.

I don't think it does owe you the right to use their building.

OK fair enough. Certainly an associated issue and establishment or otherwise in probably a big issue which is likely to come much more into focus as time goes by; the Queen isn't getting any younger! Cutting across all of that, if its simply that any venue licensed for marriage should be open to all, then I'd agree. The French, as mentioned earlier have got over it by making only the civic office 'licensed'. We, on the other hand, are willing to permit any number of venues. So then, so long as the rules about dignity and decorum can hold good, there should be no restriction on Church premises being used. After all, the building is not, by its own teaching, the church. Indeed, most churches are used for secular purposes, classical concerts in particular, so there seems no reason why a secular marriage could not take place. In fact, most are historic monuments rather than effective places of worship anyway, so it would make far more sense for the buildings to be managed by a secular historic premises trust. Certainly, for the CofE, that would solve a financial crisis at a stroke. There is good precedent for that, after all after the Civil War churches were used for other things, St.Pauls became a horse repository amongst other things. No reason why that should not work immediately; arguably the only organisation that could be upset would be the Roman Catholics, who owned them in the first place!

If gays want to get married then so what? Why should heterosexuals be the only miserable ones.

Does it matter who marries who? We are all free people who have a free choice. If somebody want to marry somebody of the same sex then that should be fine, it has nothing to do with anybody else. The problem is organisations (like religious ones) who try to manipulate and control others to their way of thinking. We need to break away from such control and be individual thinking people.

Penelope , you don't by any chance attend the same bridge club as lady Tup ?

Non, je suis desole.

Maybe you should .

You're right of course, the law as it stands, and the Bill as drafted, do not give everyone the right to a church wedding, churches are indeed allowed to discriminate on the grounds of gender, and the CofE is not allowed to offer same-sex marriages even if the priest wanted to.

Incidentally, all same-sex couples have a legal right to be married in their CofE parish church, so while the CofE is prevented by law from marrying committed same-sex christians, it is obliged to marry opposite sex practising satanists.

It's not discrimination though, I assume you're not a member of the church, you don't pay into it directly or indirectly, and you don't follow it's rules. They don't want you there either, so why do you want to push it so much?

I believe that people should be treated equally irrespective of (amoungst other things) their sexual orientation, meaning that they should have equal opportunity and equal access to goods and services. I'm not a member of the Church of England, but I am a citizen, and that qualifies me for an opinion on church matters that affect the world at large.

Now let me ask you: What mandate does the church have to comment on marriage in a civil ceremony? Granted churches have an interest in who marries in their own buildings, but what is their mandate for commenting on marriage in a Register Office, where any form of religious ceremony is prohibited by law?

*D'oh!*

Peut-etre

Do the CofE actually own the building? They have stewardship, which is a subtly different thing.

Incidentally, as you mention it:

The Church of England generate £750,000,000 in revenue each year from their paying customers, but pay no corporation tax whatsoever. That really rather knocks the tax-avoidance of Starbucks into a cocked hat doesn't it?

And they also claim back £60,000,000 annual from HMRC on Gift-Aided donations.

And they also claim back another £6,000,000 annually on VAT under the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.

And of the £4,400,000,000 assets managed by the Church Commissioners, it's a resonable guess that some of that has been appropriated by the state on behalf of the church over its 1500 years of history, not least the land it acquired in the enclosures - no wonder then that the Church did little to speak out against the dispossession of the labouring poor.

So we all pay into the Church of England indirectly.

So, in a nut shell, wholly agree that these ancient monuments should be used by all, it that's where they want to marry, but not the local chapel, unless they agree, because their premises would be owned and operated by them without subsidy.

According to this page CofE churches are generally owned by the rector or vicar, and I'd assume they were owned in trust.

Just on that: I do love the buildings. I'll invariably visit the CofE church in any town or village I visit, usually just for a quiet walk around the church yard, but sometimes for a walk around inside too. For me they do have a magical timeless quality and some of them are indeed very old. Just off the top of my head I've visited the Cathedrals of St. Magnus on Orkney, Winchester, Salisbury, York, Beverley Minster, and parish churches at Southwold, Avebury, Orford, Aldeburgh (and spent some time at the graves of the lifeboat men), Goring, Corfe Castle, Bedwyn, Little Bedwyn, Marlborough, Amesbury (and looked for the grave of a queen), Hungerford, Kintbury, Wantage - to be honest it's unusual for me not to visit the church when we go for a day out. The buildings are significant and have a significant place in our culture.