Gay Marriage, MPs vote next week Options

[Strafin]

Well I won't tick the gift aid box on any donations I make in the future then.

[On the edge]

Is the any such thing as a common law marriage?

In the strictest terms, no. However, common law is built up over many years and gradually incorporates custom and practice. Its what gave English law its strength. Not so much these days, where legions of lawyers only want to consider black or white rules. Perhaps another reason why we find Europe so very hard.

So, a common law wife came into parlance simply to describe situations where a man and woman had taken to each other as husband and wife. Important for many reasons in probate and other family law.

Ironically, came into much relevance in the late 1960s where people had started to live together saying marriage was nothing more than a bit of paper. In fact back then. a good few thought that marriage was wholly outdated and would eventually disappear!

[On the edge]

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

The parsons freehold! Think your assumption has to be right, otherwise the Rector could quietly unload the premises / land which in town centres at least must be worth a few bob.

[Simon Kirby]

Well I won't tick the gift aid box on any donations I make in the future then.

No, really, you've given the church's opposition to gay marriage a good airing, now I'd like to know: 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?

[Strafin]

As much right as anybody else I guess, you seem to keep shifting from one thing to another though. I am not opposed to gay marriage, I am opposed to the gay community insisting that they should have the same rights and everyone else and more just because they are gay. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and is religious. A civil partnership is exactly the same in law, but has a civil title, perhaps you can tell me what's wrong with that?

[Simon Kirby]

As much right as anybody else I guess, you seem to keep shifting from one thing to another though. I am not opposed to gay marriage, I am opposed to the gay community insisting that they should have the same rights and everyone else and more just because they are gay. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and is religious. A civil partnership is exactly the same in law, but has a civil title, perhaps you can tell me what's wrong with that?

This is my main problem: marriage is not religious. It is a legal state, and like many people I was married in a civil ceremony without any religious ceremony. Churches can also be licensed to perform marriages and swing the bells and smells, and for them that ceremony may well constitute one of ther rites of their church, but the marriage they are performing still creates the self-same legal state of marriage as does the civil ceremony.

Now why do you object to same-sex couples getting married in a register office?

[Andy Capp]

I am opposed to the gay community insisting that they should have the same rights and everyone else and more just because they are gay.

Gays shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else?

[Strafin]

The venue is unimportant. I object to same sex marriage anywhere. I think marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. I also think it should be for life and only done once. I'm old fashioned that way. Civil partnerships are a good compromise in my opinion, but I am mildly religious so I do think the church is important. However whilst I hold here views, I treat them as being about as important as my views on Marmite, in the grand scheme of things it's not that important. But rather than everything be on me, why don't you tell us why the current set up isn't good enough?

[Simon Kirby]

The venue is unimportant. I object to same sex marriage anywhere. I think marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. I also think it should be for life and only done once. I'm old fashioned that way. Civil partnerships are a good compromise in my opinion, but I am mildly religious so I do think the church is important. However whilst I hold here views, I treat them as being about as important as my views on Marmite, in the grand scheme of things it's not that important. But rather than everything be on me, why don't you tell us why the current set up isn't good enough?

Because the current situation is unjust. A same-sex couple can get the same legal status as a married couple as long as they are not allowed to call their union a "marriage"? For all practical purposes they are married, but you want to deny them the social status and only allow them the second-class civil-partnershipage? That's unjust.

[Andy Capp]

The venue is unimportant. I object to same sex marriage anywhere. I think marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. I also think it should be for life and only done once. I'm old fashioned that way. Civil partnerships are a good compromise in my opinion, but I am mildly religious so I do think the church is important. However whilst I hold here views, I treat them as being about as important as my views on Marmite, in the grand scheme of things it's not that important. But rather than everything be on me, why don't you tell us why the current set up isn't good enough?

I think the jist of Simon's argument is that because the church is integrated in to our legal frame work, they may have undue influence on laws which might contradict current established rights. Gays, for example, are not meant to be discriminated against, but the church is being forbidden to marry gays, thus avoiding any potential accusations of discrimination.

[JaneGibbs]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Why can't we all be treated normal and equally? In other words share everything equally and fairly. What is important is that people are in a loving marriage and are happy. Most heterosexuals haven't managed to show us what marriage should be all about. We might just learn something from gay marriages.

[On the edge]

I for one can't see any secular why anyone not creating children would want the legal encumbrance of marriage, It brings no advantage other than what can easily be created by a will, or by contract. Of course, people will hold religious views and if appropriate would want to satisfy the sacraments of their faith, nothing wrong with that. Arguably all marriage does is record formal lineage for future generations. I must admit, I feel the latest hiatus is simply politics, by both Conservatives and Gay lobby. It would seem to me that the most sensible option would be to wholly abolish marriage as a state function and let people simply choose how they live together and rear children. Subsequent separations would be far less painful and potentially more easily resolved. That would leave marriage in its traditional state as a religious sacrament which could be chosen by whoever subscribed to that religion. If you aren't religious and wanted to make a declaration then a simple contract could be arranged and details published in a paper of record.

[Simon Kirby]

I think the jist of Simon's argument is that because the church is integrated in to our legal frame work, they may have undue influence on laws which might contradict current established rights. Gays, for example, are not meant to be discriminated against, but the church is being forbidden to marry gays, thus avoiding any potential accusations of discrimination.

I've been arguing two different points really.

First point is that same-sex couples should have the same rights as anyone else to marry in a civil ceremony. This is what the Bill will introduce if it passes.

Strafin objects to that because his position is that marriage is a religious rite, even when the marriage is performed in a civil ceremony, and despite their being no a consensus amoungst christian denominations that gay marriage is wrong.

My further point is that the Bill is wrong for allowing the Church of England to continue its discrimination against gay marriage. The CofE is no longer the centre of communities, but the idea of a "propper church wedding" is still very much part of our cultural identity, and while all straight couples have a legal right to marry in their parish CofE building it is wrong to deny gay couples that same right. The church is not the building, the church is the community of believers, and there is no good reason why everyone shouldn't have equal access to the building within the obvious limits of decorum and decency even if the parish priest should choose as a matter of personal faith not to conduct the ceremony - I still that that would be a cop-out for the established church, but it would have been a better arrangement than the statutory discrimination against gay couples that the Bill has created, and it's this tension between religion (or prejudice hiding behind religion) and the position of the CofE as the established church that raises the issue of the disestabishment of the church.

[Andy Capp]

I for one can't see any secular why anyone not creating children would want the legal encumbrance of marriage, It brings no advantage other than what can easily be created by a will, or by contract. Of course, people will hold religious views and if appropriate would want to satisfy the sacraments of their faith, nothing wrong with that. Arguably all marriage does is record formal lineage for future generations. I must admit, I feel the latest hiatus is simply politics, by both Conservatives and Gay lobby. It would seem to me that the most sensible option would be to wholly abolish marriage as a state function and let people simply choose how they live together and rear children. Subsequent separations would be far less painful and potentially more easily resolved. That would leave marriage in its traditional state as a religious sacrament which could be chosen by whoever subscribed to that religion. If you aren't religious and wanted to make a declaration then a simple contract could be arranged and details published in a paper of record.

That is an interesting argument.

I would imagine some might see church marriage as a sort of filtering process. That is, if you are prepared to pay all that money and go through all that hassle, you must be serious (at the time). I suspect many people also look forward to their 'special day'.

[newres]

I'm afraid that I am old fashioned too. Marriage to me is a state for a man and a woman. I don't have a huge objection to same sex marriage although no church should be forced to perform ceremonies.

To be honest I object more to the "right on" campaigning of some people.

[Andy Capp]

I've been arguing two different points really.

First point is that same-sex couples should have the same rights as anyone else to marry in a civil ceremony. This is what the Bill will introduce if it passes.

Strafin objects to that because his position is that marriage is a religious rite, even when the marriage is performed in a civil ceremony, and despite their being no a consensus amoungst christian denominations that gay marriage is wrong.

My further point is that the Bill is wrong for allowing the Church of England to continue its discrimination against gay marriage. The CofE is no longer the centre of communities, but the idea of a "propper church wedding" is still very much part of our cultural identity, and while all straight couples have a legal right to marry in their parish CofE building it is wrong to deny gay couples that same right. The church is not the building, the church is the community of believers, and there is no good reason why everyone shouldn't have equal access to the building within the obvious limits of decorum and decency even if the parish priest should choose as a matter of personal faith not to conduct the ceremony - I still that that would be a cop-out for the established church, but it would have been a better arrangement than the statutory discrimination against gay couples that the Bill has created, and it's this tension between religion (or prejudice hiding behind religion) and the position of the CofE as the established church that raises the issue of the disestabishment of the church.

Which is what I think I said!

[Simon Kirby]

I for one can't see any secular why anyone not creating children would want the legal encumbrance of marriage, It brings no advantage other than what can easily be created by a will, or by contract. Of course, people will hold religious views and if appropriate would want to satisfy the sacraments of their faith, nothing wrong with that. Arguably all marriage does is record formal lineage for future generations. I must admit, I feel the latest hiatus is simply politics, by both Conservatives and Gay lobby. It would seem to me that the most sensible option would be to wholly abolish marriage as a state function and let people simply choose how they live together and rear children. Subsequent separations would be far less painful and potentially more easily resolved. That would leave marriage in its traditional state as a religious sacrament which could be chosen by whoever subscribed to that religion. If you aren't religious and wanted to make a declaration then a simple contract could be arranged and details published in a paper of record.

I don't have children, and have never wanted to have children. I wholly reject the notion that marriage is centrally about procreation. For me it is a public declaration and celebration of my love and committment to my wife, and that's a state that I think is recognised and understood across all peoples of the world.

[Andy Capp]

I'm afraid that I am old fashioned too. Marriage to me is a state for a man and a woman. I don't have a huge objection to same sex marriage although no church should be forced to perform ceremonies.

To be honest I object more to the "right on" campaigning of some people.

I think if we are to have laws that state that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality, then perhaps that has to be enforced some times. The church don't come out of this with any kudos and are are just making it even harder to take them seriously. It is a pity that they don't apply the same amount of effort to route out the more sinister goings behind their doors, as they do with equality issues.

[Andy Capp]

All that being said, I see it as a big load of old codswollop. A waste of flipping time and money. Just call civil partnerships marriage and have done with it. The happy clappies can just carry on with their apparent anachronistic bigotry and perhaps some wealthy gay can sue them.

With the way the world is going and the population explosion that is occurring, we should perhaps encourage homosexuality!

[Strafin]

They'll be letting girls into the scout movement next.