Gay Marriage? Straight Civil Partnership!

https://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/24/heterosexual-couple-refused-civil-partnership?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

A heterosexual straight couple have been refused the right to engage in a civil partnership as in the UK only same-sex couples may unite in a civil partnership!

Well we have to protect the sanctity of civil partnership.

Maybe they should just make marriage an civil partnership the same thing, that would make everyone happy. They could call it "cimarvilgepartnersharriageship".

If you ask me, the government should only do civil partnerships.

Leave marriage to the churches to do whatever they want with.

I agree. Marriage is a religion thing anyways. The license and certificate part are the government part of it.

I was thinking about something, the Minister at what used to be my local kirk is openly gay. There were a few tepid protesters (mainly from other Christian demoninations interestingly) but he's generally seen as a good minister.

He said on the Scottish news that he supported Gay Marriage as he felt that God loves love and would wish to bless any two people who love each other. It got me to wondering, why can't he perform gay marriages? Is it because the Kirk itself wont permit him, or is it because the law wont permit him?

I completely agree. That would completely remove this whole "morality" argument from gay marriages. And there will always be a church somewhere that will be willing to do a gay marriage.

That is obviously the best idea.

Pshh, why don't you just marry him or something?

Sadly, some other hussy has already put a ring on his finger.

I'm not sure if things are different in Scotland, JMO, but in England every council holds a list of venues within its boundaries where Civil Ceremonies can be performed. I could have gotten married on the pitch at Charlton Athletic Football Ground if I had wanted to, but not in the church I was baptised, confirmed, took first communion in, and was a bridesmaid to both of my sisters on their wedding days...!!!

Absurd, but that's how it is..!!

I would be extremely surprised if your minister's church is on any such list in your area. According to the Civil Partnerships Act, only those venues listed can perform Civil Ceremonies, with an official Registrar to act as Celebrant.

When the Civil Partnerships Act was being drafted, the only reason gay weddings were given the title of "Civil Partnership" was to placate the churches. The churches were quite vehement in their demand to NOT be involved in Civil Partnerships. Despite all that, it's quite clear that Civil Partnership is marriage by another name.

According to this married lesbian, it doesn't matter to us. We had our "big day", we are legally joined, we have all the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of any couple married in a church and so as far as we are concerned the difference in name is no big deal.

Having said that, it's pretty obvious that the phrase "Gay Marriage" has passed into common parlance. I don't think any but the most pedantic ever use "Civil Partner".

As for your minister, well, he may not be able to celebrate gay marriages.... Ooops, Civil Partnerships (naughty Jenny... slapped wrist)but what he may be able to do is to bless the union after the Civil Ceremony.

I know of a number of religious gay couples who have had Civil Ceremonies, and then had their union blessed within their church, by their priest / vicar / minister / whatever.

I think that's a reasonable compromise and should be absolutely inoffensive to any but the most fanatical. Perhaps you might like to suggest to your minister that he perform blessings to the happy couples whose union he is not allowed to perform as celebrant.


Pax Vobiscum.

.

When I read that this controversy was taking place in Islington, I couldn't help having a little smile.

It occurred to me that the hypocrite Lilian Ladele would have been in quite a quandary over this one. For our American friends who may not know the background....

Lilian Ladele was employed as a Registrar by Islington Council at the time the Civil Partnerships Act became law. When it became clear that she would be required, as part of her job, to officiate at Civil Partnerships, she refused on "Strong religious grounds".

She was suspended by her employers for refusal to perform her duties and so took her case to a tribunal.

At the tribunal, she stated that she had a sincere and very deep conviction that "Marriage can only be between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation of children born within the wedlock of that marriage".

At the time, she kept very quiet about her background and two things only became revealed AFTER she had won her case.

Firstly, she had been a member of a shadowy, far right, extremist religious group who had funded her legal costs for the case, thus making the matter a political one, rather than a matter of deep conviction.... and not only that, one of the tribunal panel members was strongly suspected of being a covert member of the same shadowy religious group as Ms Ladele. There is a strong suspicion that the panel was loaded in her favour from the start, and that she knew this, but kept quiet about it.

Secondly, the background of her life, prior to coming to England from Nigeria was not put before the panel. It seems the deeply religious Ms Ladele, who believes that children should only be born within the sanctity of wedlock, had given birth to a child fathered by another woman's husband back in Nigeria. She had been a deeply religious person since childhood, attending a church school and being an active member of her church but that didn't stop her sleeping with another woman's husband and having his child..!!

So much for her "Deeply held religious conviction".

She won her case to be made exempt from having to officiate over Civil Ceremonies, but the door has now been closed on future tribunals of that nature. With all this in mind, the mischief maker in me would love to see how she would deal with this situation.

(wicked evil grin)

.

It just got me to thinking, I mean the Kirk is relatively liberal, and I reckon a high number of ministers would be more than happy to marry a same sex couple. So is it the law of the land stopping them from doing it. Should the law not at least permit churches to perform same sex marriages if they so wish?

If it's anything like the states, the law isn't stopping them from marrying anybody. It's generally church doctrine that gets in the way.

my take is that a civil partnership is like getting married in a registry office, which alot of people prefer to do , so they don't feel hypocritical getting married in a church