Church of England warning on gay marriage

Original post by lazershus

this argument can be very stupid, the way i see it gay people can get married and if they want to get married in churches they can do whatever as long as the church itself agrees, otherwise no.

Except that the law prevents them doing that, even with the new proposals to allow gay marriage. They will still be prevented from getting married in a church, even if the church is ok with it.

Original post by lazershus

i don't see why people want it to be that by force homosexuals should be allowed to get married in all churches

Pretty much no one is asking for that. That's now what is being suggested, and it never has been. The Church is just worrying that someday they might be forced to, but there's no reason to think that might happen.

Reply 243

lazershus

10

Original post by Psyk

Except that the law prevents them doing that, even with the new proposals to allow gay marriage. They will still be prevented from getting married in a church, even if the church is ok with it.

Pretty much no one is asking for that. That's now what is being suggested, and it never has been. The Church is just worrying that someday they might be forced to, but there's no reason to think that might happen.

ohh okay, so basically the church are kind of digging a big hole for themselves by mindlessly complaining when nothing has been done yet?

Reply 244

Original post by lazershus

ohh okay, so basically the church are kind of digging a big hole for themselves by mindlessly complaining when nothing has been done yet?

Pretty much, yes. They seem to think that they'd be forced by European anti-discrimination laws to not discriminate against gays. But there are also European (and British) laws about freedom of religion, so I'm pretty sure that forcing religious organisations to defy their beliefs would be breaking human rights laws.

Reply 245

Original post by Psyk

Pretty much, yes. They seem to think that they'd be forced by European anti-discrimination laws to not discriminate against gays. But there are also European (and British) laws about freedom of religion, so I'm pretty sure that forcing religious organisations to defy their beliefs would be breaking human rights laws.

Freedom of belief is an absolute right, freedom to manifest one's belief (such as through discrimination) is not, however.

Reply 246

.eXe

11

Original post by Lord-Voldemort

Freedom of belief is an absolute right, freedom to manifest one's belief (such as through discrimination) is not, however.

I would tend to agree with this. Religious ideologies are problematic when they become intrusive rather than instructive.

I am a Christian by the way, but I still feel that the church is behaving wrongly here.

Reply 247

Original post by Lord-Voldemort

Freedom of belief is an absolute right, freedom to manifest one's belief (such as through discrimination) is not, however.

True. But forcing a Church to do something against their religion actually defeats the point of the service the Church is offering in the first place.

Reply 248

bkeevin

7

Original post by .eXe

Wow this is sad. I am actually against the church on this one. Go read my posts again. I have never defended the church on this thread. Reason being, i dont like it when churches involve themselves politically. You have literally read nothing ive typed if all you understood was that i was defending the church. What a baseless accusation.

Posted via TSR iPhone App

Sorry. You are right that I did not read all of your posts before I barged in. I apologise if I wrongly accused you and misrepresented your position.

Reply 249

heyhey922

Original post by Psyk

True. But forcing a Church to do something against their religion actually defeats the point of the service the Church is offering in the first place.

Indeed, but obviously that's not what is being proposed by the government.

Reply 250

Original post by heyhey922

Indeed, but obviously that's not what is being proposed by the government.

I know, I only brought it up because lazershus thought it was :tongue:

Reply 251

j0hn

8

What I'm actually questioning about this report is, who is actually speaking for the Church of England? Quite a few prominent leaders from the church have come out and announced their support for the church, so how can the official statement claim to represent the entire church and have the power to split it from the state?
Apart from anything else, I think what they're saying is ludicrous, the Bible has many differing interpretations and vague statements open to manipulation and remodelling around ones political persuasion, but one thing is clear, and that's that currently gay people live effectively as second class citizens in second rate marriages. The Government isn't proposing that churches be forced to carry out the ceremonies, just that they have the option and that's what underpins freedoms and democracy. In order to balance faith with rights, this option has to be there because its fundamental human rights and freedoms. Ask yourself, would any of you say that interracial marriage is wrong? No, of course you wouldn't. Would you say that apartheid was right? No. Would you say that women shouldnt be allowed to vote? Again, no. But the Bible says it all if you interpret it the way you want it and the people of the future will one day look back on this abuse of religion with shame on its failure to protect basic rights. The Bible didn't create marriage and thus can't claim to define it and neither can any of you, so the Government should go ahead with the proposals.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 252

Original post by Psyk

True. But forcing a Church to do something against their religion actually defeats the point of the service the Church is offering in the first place.

Well, what if a new church was created which would not marry black people? They would be protected by the concept of freedom of religion as well.

But I imagine the European Court of Human Rights would deem such a manifestation of religion not protected under the Convention.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 253

M4LLY

This old chestnut again?

Reply 254

mmmpie

Original post by Lord-Voldemort

Well, what if a new church was created which would not marry black people? They would be protected by the concept of freedom of religion as well.

But I imagine the European Court of Human Rights would deem such a manifestation of religion not protected under the Convention.

As distasteful as it is, I think they would be protected. It's not the business of the state to interfere in the religious rites of any church - I think that's well established at European level.

Reply 255

j0hn

8

Original post by mmmpie

As distasteful as it is, I think they would be protected. It's not the business of the state to interfere in the religious rites of any church - I think that's well established at European level.

Refusing black people to marry would be illegal, the right to marry and the rights from freedom of discrimination is laid out pretty clearly in the charter of fundamental rights. The only reason why it's doesn't cover gay marriage is because it currently takes the view that marriage is between one man one woman, although that's being challenged at the minute. The commission enforces law on marriage so it's not like this is some distant, irrelevant law. People should be protected from discrimination, refusing black people to marry isn't the way civilised society works.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 256

mmmpie

Original post by j0hn

Refusing black people to marry would be illegal, the right to marry and the rights from freedom of discrimination is laid out pretty clearly in the charter of fundamental rights. The only reason why it's doesn't cover gay marriage is because it currently takes the view that marriage is between one man one woman, although that's being challenged at the minute. The commission enforces law on marriage so it's not like this is some distant, irrelevant law. People should be protected from discrimination, refusing black people to marry isn't the way civilised society works.

But the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not apply to the UK. We're exempt, it's in the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU Commission can only enforce EU laws by suing member states before the European Court of Justice, but since there is no EU law on marriage aside from the CFR, there's no law for them to enforce here.

The ECHR does apply, but the Convention defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The European Court of Human Rights, which is not a component of the EU, is responsible for holding whole countries to the Convention, but does not actively enforce it - if you feel your convention rights have been violated by the state you can bring a case before the court.

The purpose of the convention is to protect the population from the excesses of the state. If the law were to prevent black people from marrying, that would violate the convention. If a religion were to refuse to perform their marriage rites for black couples, that would not violate the convention - the state still provides for them to get married, but an individual religious group is not willing to provide a ritual for it.

If the state tried to compel that religion to marry a black couple, the religion could almost certainly sue the state and win under the ECHR because of their rights to conscience and free exercise of religion. The rights of the individual are only compromised when they are prevented from exercising them, not when some other individual(s) refuse to assist in exercising them.

Reply 257

Original post by mmmpie

If the state tried to compel that religion to marry a black couple, the religion could almost certainly sue the state and win under the ECHR because of their rights to conscience and free exercise of religion.

Disagree. See Article 9(2) and Article 17 of the Convention.

Reply 258

mmmpie

Original post by Lord-Voldemort

Disagree. See Article 9(2) and Article 17 of the Convention.

Article 9 states that expression can be limited where necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. But the right to marry, which as far as the convention is concerned is entering into a contract before the state, would not be compromised by one religion refusing to perform it's religious rituals.

Invoking article 17 would create as many problems as it solves. One could just as well argue that by extending the right to marry to black couples, gay couples, or whatever else you've compromised the rights of people opposed to it as the other way around.

Reply 259