Well done, Scotland

This topic has come up before and at the risk of repeating myself, I will just say that if any such law is passed, it won't be long before someone is suing some unfortunate priest/rabbi/ minister for refusing to carry out a religious marriage ceremony against his or her conscience. I'm all in favour of egalitarianism in the matter of civil rights but it seems to me that having a religious ceremony when you get hitched isn't a civil right. If you want a religious knees-up after a legal and secular ceremony, what's to stop you organising your own? And why does that need legislation?

Anno - there is no intention to COMPEL churches to marry anyone if they choose to exclude certain people. After all the C of E and RC varieties have long refused to 'marry' divorcees and lots of churches require that couples are both members or have been baptised. That is fair enough and entirely up to them. However their are other branches of christian churches - notably the Quakers who are willing to conduct same sex marriages according to ther rites but require a change in law to have such marriages given legal status.

ATM Civil Marriages and Partnerships cannot (at the insistance of the churches) include anything with a religious connotation in their ceremonies. This ruling leads to many secular songs and readings being barred because they include words or phrases e.g. angels, blessed, heaven and is a nightmare for registrars, who are faced with declining to include the couple's favourite pieces. How do you decide if the very popular pipe tune 'Highland Cathedral' is permissable or not?

The discrimination is coming from some, not all, of the Churches who are not only denying religious divorcees and same sex couples the opportunity to marry in church but also restricting their freedom to introduce religious elements into civil ceremonies.

Bags you might not have intended the pun but anyway!

bags and us! Is there an above average number of GNetters who attended convents?

Jane - we are not in disupute here. I agree that the churches can make any rules they like about what happens with their own ceremonies. I loathe their attitude to homosexuals and women, and I can't understand anybody who is not treated like a full human being wanting to be part of such an organisation, but that is their choice.
Like many others, not just atheists, I object to the churches having any say in legislation that affects the general public.

I see what you mean, jane but I still think Churches have purloined the idea in the first place – taken rules that were already in place and changed them to suit their own agenda. That said, I find it odd that people want a church wedding when their church won't do it how they want it done. But then, there's nowt so queer as folk (pun not intended).

Bags I agree with you that civil marriages are none of the Church's business.
But if people want a ceremony conducted in church, according to the sacraments of that church, to be joined in holy matrimony, is it not reasonable to expect the Church, and not politicians, to define what holy matrimony is?
What you are suggesting is rather like entering a soccer team into a British competition and then saying you are going to play Australian Rules, if you will permit the analogy

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

We had to put it at the top of every piece of work!

AMDG? Yes, I know that story, when Jesus said 'The poor you will have always with you' and I thought it was a very odd thing to say. Not up to his usual caring standards.

Greatnan Jesus also rebuked the disciples who complained that the woman who anointed him with expensive ointment should have sold it instead and given the money to the poor. All AMDG.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien takes same sex marriage row to the pulpits. Scotsman newspaper.

The Church likes to get steamed up about what is none of its business though. That's what it does.

I think the media had picked up on wotsisname O'Brien's comments in Scotland. O'Brien is the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland.

There is no point in getting steamed up about a proposal that hasn't been made - at least in England. The consultation about same-sex marriage, which closed in June (and I'm sure we discussed it then) was only about civil marriage and there was no intention to compel any church to conduct such marriages.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/

And according to the BBC web site, the situation in Scotland is similar.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18981287

People invented marriage for reasons of social cohesion and to prevent various problems.
It is right that people define what marriage is.
It is right that people tell their governments what laws they want.
It is right that governments make laws that their people want.
What has any of it got to do with any church? The church (any of them) did not invent marriage. People did.

Marriage is not a theological matter. Marriage is a social matter which it makes sense to make into a legal matter for the protection of its participants and, if any, their offspring.

The fact the The Church has 'taken possession' of marriage (or think they have) does not mean The Church has any say in the matter.

According to this article from the Guardian last year, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 gave same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities similar to those in a civil marriage.
One can only surmise, then, that if gay people believe that there is a difference between a partnership and a marriage, it must be to do with the spiritual aspect of a church marriage, since in law there is no difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage.
I still do not see that it can be right for politicians to tell the Catholic Church how to define marriage.

I agree with much of what you say, naNANA, and I too cannot understand why anyone would want to marry in a church that so obviously does not want them. However, I can see no reason why a civil marriage, exactly like that enjoyed by hetrosexuals, should be denied to homosexual couples.
I also agree that civil partnerships, in order to enable other types of couples to inherit, be next of kin, etc. should be allowed.

I asked my father what a womb was. He answered, a uterus! That was ok. I knew what that was! I also knew what a penis was ( my little brother had one, lucky thing. ) but not a willy!

Greatnan, I have no problem with civil partnerships I think anyone who has a live in partnership should have the same rights as the majority, insomuch as they shouldn't be penalised when one dies, their estate, should as in a hertrosexual marriage be unencumbered by Inheritance Tax and I am glad that is now the case. I would also like to see this benefit afforded to siblings who have lived together all their lives and who would also be liable for Inheritance Tax when one dies and possibly the other can't afford to live in the home any more. However, I think Hell will freeze over before the Catholic church would marry gay people and I wonder why they would want pursue a religious ceremony in what is after all a very conservative organisation, just look at their stance on contraception. I think they should put their energies into trying to deal with those who advocate violence towards them because of their sexual orientation.

The funny thing was that we had to say the Hail Mary before every lesson in Junior School, but when we asked what the word 'womb' meant we were told we were too young to know. Similar response when we asked what a virgin was. I suppose it is really quite amusing that allegedly celibate men should be making the rules about women's procreative activities.

I remember once going to a choir festival at wells when the chalices were all pottery!

Thinking about what JessM said, the Roman Catholic church is sex obsessed isn't it. I hadn't noticed before.

Of course it is their choice, Lily - I would personally rather give to the poor and I thought that was what Jesus advocated. Did he really want his followers to erect huge cathedrals and fill them with treasures, while people starved? Weren't most big churches erected for the glorification of the man who funded them, rather than his god?

Gay people think there is. If not, why not allow it anyway? In my book, equal means equal, not equal but.......

Greatnan is there a difference between a gay civil marriage and a gay civil partnership?

Where did you get that about the host, Vampire? Silver is often used because it has a slightly antiseptic quality. The decorations and the communion vessels are nearly always gifts, often in memory of a loved one or loved ones. If people want to give valuable gifts to the church/religion of their choice, surely that's their right?