Gay Marriage, MPs vote next week Options

[Simon Kirby]

MPs vote next week on Gay Marriage - see the bill. It's a free vote so MPs will be voting with their conscience and not along party lines.

The act will give same-sex couples some of the same rights to marry as those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, but intolerant religious groups will still be free to discriminate against gay couples who want to marry in their buildings, and the Church of England specifically will not be free to host a gay wedding even if the parish priest wanted to.

Dear Mr. Benyon

I'm married, and have been for the last 26 years. My marriage, and the public celebration of the committment that it signifies, has and will always be the single most significant act of my life. I can't imagine how intolerable it must be for other couples to be denied that same recognition of their love and committment for no better reason than their common gender.

I'm not happy that the discriminatory views of the religious have been protected in the Bill. No one has supernatural authority for their point of view, and this debate has made it clear to me that the disestablishment of the Church of England is well overdue.

Please support the Bill.

[lordtup]

It is like the old adage of which came first the chicken or the egg ?

Did a religious service of marriage supersede the civil ? Research on the matter is a little thin . We know there were ceremonies for those in high places but when did the hoi polloi get involved ? At what junction did the two become intertwined in order for a common outcome ?

The point is , has the church more or less right to dictate who should and who shouldn't marry and by whom ,and does the state have a mandate to interfere anyway ?

Like a lot of things is it more a case of both sides making up the rules as they go along and when it suits to do so.

[On the edge]

It is like the old adage of which came first the chicken or the egg ?

Did a religious service of marriage supersede the civil ? Research on the matter is a little thin . We know there were ceremonies for those in high places but when did the hoi polloi get involved ? At what junction did the two become intertwined in order for a common outcome ?

The point is , has the church more or less right to dictate who should and who shouldn't marry and by whom ,and does the state have a mandate to interfere anyway ?

Like a lot of things is it more a case of both sides making up the rules as they go along and when it suits to do so.

That's quite interesting! I suspect the primitive relationship was simply a matter of nesting and survival. The ecclesiastical authorities came later and put the formality round it. Our tradition is probably enshrined in the original prayer book words where marriage was designed for the procreation of children and not to satisfy man's carnal lusts. During the nineteenth century, family law became much more the province of the state. Arguably, today its the State definition of marriage that counts.

In real terms its simply a personal partnership contract, which is formally recorded and can only be terminated via the State's laws. This latest bill probably double underlines that. In effect, it nsays to the Church, you can keep what ritual you like, we, the people, own and define marriage. So that's really an end to it.

If people are upset about the Church stance on this, then join the church and campaign to get heir rules changed. So its a wholly different issue and I can't see why anyone who is not a member would even be interested. After all, if you are a Church member and want to marry according to their conventions, you still can. Indeed, there are some branches of the Church that wholly embrace the change anyway. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.

So then, all this new law is doing is confirming that the State owns marriage and that it can only exist between just two people. No religion in there at all.

I must say, I'm rather surprised because this bill does not deal with all the issues that presently exist with marriage. For instance, no mention is made of what is often termed common law marriage, and it still keeps the numbers involved at two. This latter point is a serious issue for some, but I suspect its tied up with the tax problem.

[Simon Kirby]

If people are upset about the Church stance on this, then join the church and campaign to get heir rules changed. So its a wholly different issue and I can't see why anyone who is not a member would even be interested. After all, if you are a Church member and want to marry according to their conventions, you still can. Indeed, there are some branches of the Church that wholly embrace the change anyway. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.

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.