[mmmpie]

(Original post by Lord-Voldemort)
It may also come under the remit of Article 8. Further, any limits on religious discrimination could be 'necessary in a democratic society' - which has wide interpretation.



That's not how Article 17 works.

I'm not sure you could invoke article 8 - marriage is by definition a public matter, not a private one.

Once again, the ECHR binds states, but does not bind directly the entities that exist within those states. The state is only obliged to provide under article 12 that people can marry - the ECtHR has defined 'necessary in a democratic society' to include 'implying a pressing social need' (see page 30), but if the facility to marry in the eyes of the state is already provided for then that need would not exist. Without the pressing need to fulfil the requirements of article 12, there would be no justification for abridging rights under article 9.

Article 17 is probably the most tricky part of the ECHR. But it's clear from the wording that invoking the right to marry to create a general restriction on religious conscience would be no different in terms of article 17 then invoking religious freedom of conscience to create a general restriction on the right to marry. A general restriction is not the same thing as what we're talking about though, which is a specific religion refusing to perform it's marital rite.

As much as you may not like it, there is no human rights argument for interfering in the things that a church does if people can still have their rights fulfilled but some other reasonable means.

[j0hn]

(Original post by mmmpie)
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.

That's not necessarily true, there's been strong concerns about if the opt out is actually worded strongly or clearly enough to class the UK as being exempt, thus issues have arisen, such as the recent debate over privacy laws in the uk and their legality on an EU level.

[The Socktor]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
Marriage existed as early as 3000 years before Christ. So the church is a newer concept for us than marriage was the Jesus.

And gay marriage existed for as early as 1000 years before him.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by j0hn)
That's not necessarily true, there's been strong concerns about if the opt out is actually worded strongly or clearly enough to class the UK as being exempt, thus issues have arisen, such as the recent debate over privacy laws in the uk and their legality on an EU level.

The wording is unambiguous. We are not subject to the Charter. We are subject to the Convention. Most people that oppose the ECHR and HRA don't know the difference.

[Mm_Minty]

(Original post by .eXe)
Theres nothing to be astounded about really. The church is a Christian entity. Christianity forbids homosexual marriages (it doesn't forbid homosexuality though) and thus, the church cares very much about the gender of the couple.

What is so astounding about that? Not everything has to be PC.

Also, yes i agree with your first point. I don't believe the church should be speaking on these matters but that doesn't mean that it cant haves rules and regulations on who can get married on its premises. The church is at full authority to deny someone who does not share its beliefs. I see nothing wrong with that. I just don't agree with the church unanimously denouncing something, rather than just on its premises.


Posted via TSR iPhone App

What is astounding is letting an institution marry you and your partner if said institution cares more about your gender and orientation than the fact that you both love and care for each other. If marriage really is so special and sacred, I don't understand why gender matters so much. There is plenty in the bible that christians pretty much everywhere choose to ignore so I don't know who decided that homosexuality being an 'abomination' should be something the church followed rather than leaving it to the dark ages, along with slavery, death by stoning etc etc

[Krov]

(Original post by Mm_Minty)
What is astounding is letting an institution marry you and your partner if said institution cares more about your gender and orientation than the fact that you both love and care for each other. If marriage really is so special and sacred, I don't understand why gender matters so much. There is plenty in the bible that christians pretty much everywhere choose to ignore so I don't know who decided that homosexuality being an 'abomination' should be something the church followed rather than leaving it to the dark ages, along with slavery, death by stoning etc etc

Surely by now you're realized that groups of people don't really abide by the same logic and concern for rationality you can hold individuals to.

Nothing astounding about this.

[Mm_Minty]

(Original post by Krov)
Surely by now you're realized that groups of people don't really abide by the same logic and concern for rationality you can hold individuals to.

Nothing astounding about this.

Perhaps I am simply too optimistic... I suppose the internet really should have proved to me that reason is in short supply these days...

[Krov]

(Original post by Mm_Minty)
Perhaps I am simply too optimistic... I suppose the internet really should have proved to me that reason is in short supply these days...

It's not pessimism.

Rather, it's just observing that conversations with people can be wonderful.

But sometimes you'll see people grouping together, and then start wearing brown shirts and marching, and you realize some intellect got lost in socialization.

At least, it's how I see it.

[Wookie42]

I don't get why people are saying The Church shouldn't get involved with politics, since short of doing as they're told, surely there is no way The CofE can prevent it from being so? If they feel like their religion is being threatened/undermined then they have no choice but to defend it. Still don't get why people argue about this kind of stuff so much on forums like this though, especially when its pretty obvious that gay marriage will happen in churches after not too long...

[krishan369]

I know this is a bit late, but doesnt anyone find it weird that its the Church of England that's basing their argument that gay marriage should be banned because its a redefinition of marriage...Their Church was created to redefine marriage to include a clause about divorce being allowed, its how their entire sect was formed. Any argument they use about gay marriage affecting children in society or it being wrong because it changes the original meaning of marriage could (with very little tweaking) be used against them.

[dem503]

(Original post by Ineluctable)
Whether homosexuals intend to or not, they are violating God's word and a sacred tradition. You deserve to be treated equally, I completely agree, but please don't think that homosexuals can just hijack marriage and still pretend that it will mean something, because it won't. Marriage is sacred, reserved for man and wife

if you want to talk about hijacking, christianity (along with most religions) hijacked the institution of marriage in the first place. If you want to talk about sacred, that's gone out the window since every other marriage ends in divorce. And here is the final nail in your anti-gay marriage coffin: It's been around for centuries, specifically in christianity. http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

[radoxme]

this country rewards men for sticking their penises up eachother's bottoms by providing a womb to bear their children. that is the most ridiculous thing ever.
If you go against the christian morals you were taught you are blessed with children. this country is not christian. closer to devil worship for me.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by radoxme)
this country rewards men for sticking their penises up eachother's bottoms by providing a womb to bear their children. that is the most ridiculous thing ever.
If you go against the christian morals you were taught you are blessed with children. this country is not christian. closer to devil worship for me.

But, no it doesn't - thanks to modern advancements those not capable of having children by themselves can now have children. No-one is rewarded, they're just not set back by something.
Not everyone was taught those morals - my parents focused more on the being tolerant and kind stuff than hating someone for something they can't change.
Well, it is - given the state church is the CoE, the head of state is the head of the church and the majority religion is Christianity.

[Bart1331]

(Original post by dem503)
if you want to talk about hijacking, christianity (along with most religions) hijacked the institution of marriage in the first place. If you want to talk about sacred, that's gone out the window since every other marriage ends in divorce. And here is the final nail in your anti-gay marriage coffin: It's been around for centuries, specifically in christianity. http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

Is there anything wrong with the current system? I understand that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, however being keen on equal rights I support civil partnerships for gay men and lesbians.

[madders94]

(Original post by radoxme)
this country rewards men for sticking their penises up eachother's bottoms by providing a womb to bear their children. that is the most ridiculous thing ever.
If you go against the christian morals you were taught you are blessed with children. this country is not christian. closer to devil worship for me.

... so leave and find somewhere that isn't "devil worshipping" - I hear America's Bible Belt is quite good

[RandZul'Zorander]

Oh good. Someone remind me why a supposedly secular society should be listening to what the church says about laws?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Bart1331)
Is there anything wrong with the current system? I understand that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, however being keen on equal rights I support civil partnerships for gay men and lesbians.

But civil partnerships aren't equal.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by radoxme)
this country rewards men for sticking their penises up eachother's bottoms by providing a womb to bear their children. that is the most ridiculous thing ever.
If you go against the christian morals you were taught you are blessed with children. this country is not christian. closer to devil worship for me.

So you think everyone in the country should be forced to be Christian against their will and judgement?

[Bart1331]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
But civil partnerships aren't equal.

Except they are though. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. However we live in modern times, where gay people and lesbian people (quite rightly) expect equal treatment. The solution is civil partnerships, which are pretty much the same.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by Bart1331)
Except they are though. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. However we live in modern times, where gay people and lesbian people (quite rightly) expect equal treatment. The solution is civil partnerships, which are pretty much the same.

Have you not heard the adage 'separate is inherently unequal'? Them being 'pretty much' the same is not the same.