Gay Couple May Sue Church of England to Wed in Church

Aug 6, 2013 Full story: EDGE 26

CANTERBURY, England The British government's promise that no religious organization will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings following the passage of a gay marriage bill may soon be tested.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1 Aug 6, 2013
Oh po'thangs
.
If the Church of England will kindly get back to the Business of Jesus they won't have time for arrogant hissy fits

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#3 Aug 6, 2013
Why are they doing this. It's wrong, especially after the Church of England was reasonable enough to back off from fighting against the marriage equality bill. There are plenty of LGBT-friendly churches they could get married in.

I hope this case goes nowhere.
well

Hamilton, Canada

#6 Aug 6, 2013
The church should ask government for the return of inquisition.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#7 Aug 6, 2013
I'm a bit of an Anglo-phile, but I'm not sure where I come down on this. My spouse owns property in England, and we visit about every year and a half. He has family there. I cannot presume to tell the English how to handle this, but if it were American churches, I would say no. Beings this is the Church of England, I would leave it up to the English to decide. After all, it is the state church.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#8 Aug 6, 2013
I would agree that it's stupid to take a church to court to force them to perform same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, in this case, it was inevitable because the church in question has long lorded over the whole UK the fact that it's the "official church" -- it's not called the Church of England for nothing.

As the official church they had (and continue to have) preferential treatment in laws in the UK and have long been deferred to in the making of new laws, including the one that legalized same-sex marriage.

If they had wisely chosen to separate church and state and had distanced themselves from meddling in secular laws then they wouldn't be in this legal challenge mess in the first place.

It must really suck to have a problem that is a direct consequence of the special position the Church of England has set itself.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#9 Aug 6, 2013
To those against the suit, I notice that all unhidden locations are the US. Do we know if marriages must have a religious idiot leading them or can a more reasonable and intelligence "justice of the peace" do it there?

Since: Jan 08

Chon Buri, Thailand

#10 Aug 6, 2013
While I don't really agree with the suit, there is a sort of poetic justice in seeing a bigot forced to perform a SSM. While I'm sure there are many Church of England clergy who would have no problem with this, there are many who would. Tee hee.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#11 Aug 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
To those against the suit, I notice that all unhidden locations are the US. Do we know if marriages must have a religious idiot leading them or can a more reasonable and intelligence "justice of the peace" do it there?
According to the UK gov't website at https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnershi... it is possible to have a "civil wedding" where the ceremony is not conducted by a church etc. However it is apparently forbidden for a ceremony performed outside a church/synagogue/temple to include any sort of religious component -- no Bible quotes or the like at all.

So that makes it really difficult for any same-sex couple who is religious in any way to include a religious element in their wedding even if it's done someplace other than a church.

It sounds a lot to me like one of those preferential treatment rules that were put in place at the behest of the "official church" trying to preserve its monopoly.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12 Aug 6, 2013
That's the problem you get when you don't have separation of church and state.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Aug 6, 2013
This is a REALLY BAD idea.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#14 Aug 6, 2013
I'm all for separation of church and state. If the two are separate, this couple has no claim. No private religious organization should be forced to perform any kind of ceremony against it beliefs.

But the Church of England is an established church. While tax subsidies don't directly support it, millions of pounds of government funds go into the upkeep, alterations, and repairs of church facilities. This allows the church to remain solvent.

Either completely disestablish the church (and its head, the monarch), or allow all British citizens the same right to marry in its churches as others currently do.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#15 Aug 6, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
I would agree that it's stupid to take a church to court to force them to perform same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, in this case, it was inevitable because the church in question has long lorded over the whole UK the fact that it's the "official church" -- it's not called the Church of England for nothing.
As the official church they had (and continue to have) preferential treatment in laws in the UK and have long been deferred to in the making of new laws, including the one that legalized same-sex marriage.
If they had wisely chosen to separate church and state and had distanced themselves from meddling in secular laws then they wouldn't be in this legal challenge mess in the first place.
It must really suck to have a problem that is a direct consequence of the special position the Church of England has set itself.
How odd they prohibit anything from the bible, and even hymns if you aren't in a church. It didn't specify if any religions are prohibited, but you must register two weeks ahead, and have lived locally for a week. No Las Vegas quickies, unless you actually go to Vegas.

How odd they prohibit anything from the bible, and even hymns if you aren't in a church. It didn't specify if any religions are prohibited, but you must register two weeks ahead, and have lived locally for a week. No Las Vegas quickies, unless you actually go to Vegas.

Much like here, it appears both religious leaders of various faiths, and non religious civil servants may perform marriages, though religious marriages must be performed in a "religious building".(Stonehenge count?) This illustrates the problems you have when the church is part of the government.
spider

March, UK

#16 Aug 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
How odd they prohibit anything from the bible, and even hymns if you aren't in a church. It didn't specify if any religions are prohibited, but you must register two weeks ahead, and have lived locally for a week. No Las Vegas quickies, unless you actually go to Vegas.
How odd they prohibit anything from the bible, and even hymns if you aren't in a church. It didn't specify if any religions are prohibited, but you must register two weeks ahead, and have lived locally for a week. No Las Vegas quickies, unless you actually go to Vegas.
Much like here, it appears both religious leaders of various faiths, and non religious civil servants may perform marriages, though religious marriages must be performed in a "religious building".(Stonehenge count?) This illustrates the problems you have when the church is part of the government.
It's all quite ridiculous,,, if all the populace of the UK decided to attend church on the sabbath, then there would not be enough churches. The majority of folks here attend church for weddings and funerals but little else. Getting married in church is all about tradition, pomp and ceremony, it has little to do with faith, hypocritical maybe,,,, but brides want their big day, the church wants the money, ohhhhhh how they love the money.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#17 Aug 7, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the UK gov't website at https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnershi... it is possible to have a "civil wedding" where the ceremony is not conducted by a church etc. However it is apparently forbidden for a ceremony performed outside a church/synagogue/temple to include any sort of religious component -- no Bible quotes or the like at all.
So that makes it really difficult for any same-sex couple who is religious in any way to include a religious element in their wedding even if it's done someplace other than a church.
It sounds a lot to me like one of those preferential treatment rules that were put in place at the behest of the "official church" trying to preserve its monopoly.
In that case I consider the lawsuit perfectly valid, the church is nothing more than a business now, and it's a federally managed one. Governments should never be allowed to discriminate, which is the case by-proxy in this situation.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#18 Aug 7, 2013
RalphB wrote:
I'm a bit of an Anglo-phile, but I'm not sure where I come down on this. My spouse owns property in England, and we visit about every year and a half. He has family there. I cannot presume to tell the English how to handle this, but if it were American churches, I would say no. Beings this is the Church of England, I would leave it up to the English to decide. After all, it is the state church.
A good seven or eight years ago we visited Canterbury Cathedral and had a lovely chat with a nice guy who was a Canon there. It was interesting, he showed us the stairs where Beckett was stabbed, and they were NOT the huge graceful ones to the alter that Richard Burton was stabbed on, but a tiny small set at a side doorway.

He had NO problem with gay marriage and wondered why the Americans were so far behind on it. I wonder what HE thinks about all this today?

I am not real up on my Christian promotions, but I think a Canon is pretty up there, isn't he?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#19 Aug 7, 2013
Jerald wrote:
I'm all for separation of church and state. If the two are separate, this couple has no claim. No private religious organization should be forced to perform any kind of ceremony against it beliefs.
But the Church of England is an established church. While tax subsidies don't directly support it, millions of pounds of government funds go into the upkeep, alterations, and repairs of church facilities. This allows the church to remain solvent.
Either completely disestablish the church (and its head, the monarch), or allow all British citizens the same right to marry in its churches as others currently do.
I think you're right on target here. It's specifically BECAUSE the Church of England is a state church that it might be possible to hold them to equal rights standards. That's FAR different than how religious institutions are treated in the U.S.

Here, oddly enough, our tax dollars DO support churches by allowing them tax-free income, but they're in no way subject to equal rights laws. Here, they can be as discriminating and exclusive as they want with total immunity AND they (apparently) get to run political campaigns and actually *attack* human rights, too! And yet they still cry and complain and pretend to be victims all the time. Amazing.

I think the CoE is eventually going to be forced to accommodate same-sex couples, but not because they're a church. Because they're the *STATE* church. Oops!

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#20 Aug 7, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>A good seven or eight years ago we visited Canterbury Cathedral and had a lovely chat with a nice guy who was a Canon there. It was interesting, he showed us the stairs where Beckett was stabbed, and they were NOT the huge graceful ones to the alter that Richard Burton was stabbed on, but a tiny small set at a side doorway.
He had NO problem with gay marriage and wondered why the Americans were so far behind on it. I wonder what HE thinks about all this today?
I am not real up on my Christian promotions, but I think a Canon is pretty up there, isn't he?
My seminary days were back in the early 70's, and truthfully, I quickly lost interest. I believe a Canon can be just the most senior pastor of a church, or could be a member of a group overseeing the rules of the church. I'm not real sure. But then, I don't really care, either. You probably know more about these matters than I do. We don't attend church either here or in England, when we are there. We are both agnostic-like, and don't really concern ourselves with religion or its' trappings.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#21 Aug 7, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
My seminary days were back in the early 70's, and truthfully, I quickly lost interest. I believe a Canon can be just the most senior pastor of a church, or could be a member of a group overseeing the rules of the church. I'm not real sure. But then, I don't really care, either. You probably know more about these matters than I do. We don't attend church either here or in England, when we are there. We are both agnostic-like, and don't really concern ourselves with religion or its' trappings.
I just like churches, for they are usually the height of all current day architecture, bleeding the congregation to anemia, but DAMN, they put up fine buildings. St. Paul's, Notre Dame, Chartres, etc. A lot of current day building techniques are based on early day church building. That does NOT give the clergy a pass, for you can say some valuable medical research was found by the Nazi doctors on prisoners.

A few years ago, I was looking around the new Our Lady of The Angels Cathedral in downtown Los Angeles. It was built with huge controversy and at the same time as the priest scandals were hitting. I bumped into Cardinal Mahoney, the BOSS who had the place built. He was beaming with pride and had the whitest white shirt I had ever seen on that day. I was on HIS turf, so complimented his edifice, which is quite grand. He told me "It is here for at least 500 years!" I said that in other days, they complained about costs, yet those places are still there. He agreed and thanked me for visiting and gave me THE cruise of my life. I don't mean he was TRYING, but it was a HUGE cruise just the same. BTW, we shook hands and I never felt softer more useless hands on a man in my life. Like pillows, never done anything physical in his life. NOT attractive.

He already has his tomb down in the crypts set aside, I guess it is never too early to plan.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#22 Aug 7, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
My seminary days were back in the early 70's, and truthfully, I quickly lost interest. I believe a Canon can be just the most senior pastor of a church, or could be a member of a group overseeing the rules of the church. I'm not real sure. But then, I don't really care, either. You probably know more about these matters than I do. We don't attend church either here or in England, when we are there. We are both agnostic-like, and don't really concern ourselves with religion or its' trappings.
The "trappings" are fun. They have almost nothing to do with the actual messages of the founders, but they remain fun.

Since: Aug 13

Albany, OR

#23 Aug 7, 2013
Churches have the right to say No...!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 6 min Blond Prince 5,144
Florida clerks won't give gays marriage licenses 18 min Rick Santpornum 18
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 28 min Mike 51,280
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 30 min Rick Santpornum 3,014
New Blood Donation Rules Would Still Exclude Ma... 41 min Sir Andrew 4
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 49 min Olive 68,586
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 26,897
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr KiMerde 6,073
More from around the web