Gay marriage thread

[Pabmusic]

OK - but, aside from this particular consideration, I remain puzzled and perplexed as to why whoever drafted this Bill considered it necessary to ban Churches from participation in the act for which its very purpose is to endorse it in law; it would, I think, have been no more bizarre and equally illogical had the Bill proposed that only Churches - i.e. not register offices - could marry gay couples.

Yes. It sounds like a poor attempt to befriend the churches, and it will have been a government decision (Home Secretary?), not that of the poor person who had the thankless task of drafting it.

[ahinton]

It was to protect the churches - especially the C of E - against any such challenges.

That's as maybe, but how does it do this if such challenges could be made successfully under human rights legislation? - and, in view of this, what business is it of the legislators to seek to tell Churches what they can and cannot legally do in such matters, especially when the Churches are not the principal focus or purpose of the legislation?

[Pabmusic]

It was to protect the churches - especially the C of E - against any such challenges.

I see, although it may not stop challenges at all.

[ahinton]

Yes. It sounds like a poor attempt to befriend the churches, and it will have been a government decision (Home Secretary?), not that of the poor person who had the thankless task of drafting it.

Indeed - and I can already hear the backfiring from here...

[ahinton]

I see, although it mat not stop challenges at all.

Quite - but I just don't get why the Churches were dragged into this legislation at all when it's not about Churches but about gay marriage, which is no more all about the Church than it is necessarily against the Church; I suppose that what might be useful is for there to be official statements from the various Churches on this, in terms not of their preparedness or otherwise to conduct gay marriages (which is and indeed should be a matter of their respective discretion) but about whether the government should implement legislation telling them what they can and cannot do about this.

[Pabmusic]

Indeed - and I can already hear the backfiring from here...

Here's a thought. If you're Prime Minister (I speak figuratively) it may be preferable to be forced by the law to open the churches to gay marriage than to decide to allow it yourself. Can't you imagine the headlines calling for the abolition of the Human Right Act and withdrawal from the ECHR?

[vinteuil]

Here's a thought. If you're Prime Minister (I speak figuratively) it may be preferable to be forced by the law to open the churches to gay marriage than to decide to allow it yourself. Can't you imagine the headlines calling for the abolition of the Human Right Act and withdrawal from the ECHR?

... from which we see the benefits Pab gained from his earlier reading of Machiavelli!

[Pabmusic]

... from which we see the benefits Pab gained from his earlier reading of Macchiavelli!

Oh yes, indeed.

[AuntyKezia]

Re msgs 461 & 462: I read with interest the citations from articles 12 & 14, which made me wonder on what legal basis the authorities can deport non-EU individuals involved in so-called sham marriages plus, I believe, hand down a jail sentence for the offending registrar.

[Pabmusic]

Re msgs 461 & 462: I read with interest the citations from articles 12 & 14, which made me wonder on what legal basis the authorities can deport non-EU individuals involved in so-called sham marriages plus, I believe, hand down a jail sentence for the offending registrar.

I guess the important point is the 'sham' marriage, since that wouldn't be a real one.

[ahinton]

Here's a thought. If you're Prime Minister (I speak figuratively)

Well, that's a relief!...

it may be preferable to be forced by the law to open the churches to gay marriage than to decide to allow it yourself.

Perhaps, but I still cannot help but feel that the part of the legislation that discriminates against Churches would have been better left out in order that those particular Churches that prefer not to conduct gay marriages may do so and those that are prepared to do so may do so at their discretion; there are, after all, other reasons to which some Churches can have recourse in support of their refusal to marry certain couples already. I rather suspect that the inclusion of these clauses may have helped to bring about the opening of a can of worms.

Can't you imagine the headlines calling for the abolition of the Human Right Act and withdrawal from the ECHR?

As a matter of fact, the present Prime Minister was indeed contemplating attempts to do this in the run-up to the last General Election and my own MP was one of the more vociferously persuasive of his party members who wisely and successfully counselled him against such folly - but no, I can't imagine headlines calling for any such thing, actually - or at least not headlines that would carry more than a vanishingly small amount of general public credibility even amongst those members of the public who are against gay marriage; I imagine that a far greater proportion of the electorate favours maintaining and developing human rights legislation than either favours gay marriage or is against it, frankly.

[amateur51]

It appears that the virulently anti -equal marriage Cardinal Keith O'Brien's resignation was a long time coming.

The resignation of Cardinal Keith O’Brien was triggered by a claim of inappropriate behaviour towards a priest in 2001, that was lodged with the Vatican in October.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3702721.ece

So it appears that once again the Vatican knew about this allegedly inappropriate behaviour several months ago and chose to do nothing about it, rather reminiscent of recent revelations about the Lib-Dems and Lord Rennard and the BBC and Sir Jimmy Savile, of course.

And yet some people will still remark "well why is it only now that these allegations are being made?"

[gurnemanz]

It appears that the virulently anti -equal marriage Cardinal Keith O'Brien's resignation was a long time coming.

The resignation of Cardinal Keith O’Brien was triggered by a claim of inappropriate behaviour towards a priest in 2001, that was lodged with the Vatican in October.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3702721.ece

So it appears that once again the Vatican knew about this allegedly inappropriate behaviour several months ago and chose to do nothing about it, rather reminiscent of recent revelations about the Lib-Dems and Lord Rennard and the BBC and Sir Jimmy Savile, of course.

And yet some people will still remark "well why is it only now that these allegations are being made?"

Unfortunately, that link is behind Murdoch's paywall.

I've just been listening to the World Service. A very interesting interview with Father Bernard Lynch, himself gay, who has claimed that half of all Catholic priests are gay. (I found a relevant article here.) He referred to an undercover exposé carried out in Rome as long ago as 1992 by the German magazine Der Spiegel. (in German).

[scottycelt]

Of course, but the statement that I questioned was nevertheless yours, not Jean's and the connection between gay marriage and both tabloid scaremongering about immigration and EU and your reference to UKIP remains unclear.

Not at all if you had 'bothered' to read Jean's post which preceded my own. Go on, ahinton, all will become 'clear' if you really give it a go!

That wasn't what I said; please re-read your statement and my response and try a little harder to understand. It really isn't so difficult.

I have done both as you most kindly suggest yet, sadly, still remain wholly perplexed as to what you are actually trying to say. Can you give me any sort of meaningful clue?

The loss is indeed yours, the desperation is not mine and the success is no one's so far; I don't think that it could possibly be made any clearer.

I'll take your word for it on the first three claims but the 'clear' forum evidence suggests you might be somewhat misguided on the last ...

[ahinton]

Not at all if you had 'bothered' to read Jean's post which preceded my own. Go on, ahinton, all will become 'clear' if you really give it a go!

I had. It didn't.

I have done both as you most kindly suggest yet, sadly, still remain wholly perplexed as to what you are actually trying to say. Can you give me any sort of meaningful clue?

Thank you for that; I fear, however, that I can do no more than refer you to what I wrote and accept that, if you remain unable, unwilling or both to understand it, then so be it.

I'll take your word for it on the first three claims but the 'clear' forum evidence suggests you might be somewhat misguided on the last ...

Thank you for the first of these; as I do not, however, understand what you mean by "'clear' forum evidence", there is as yet no opportunity for the possibility of "misguidedness" on my part.