Skip to comments.British MP urges government to force churches into same-sex unions
Posted on 09/09/2011 6:32:36 AM PDT by massmike
A member of U.K. Prime Minister David Camerons government is calling for a ban on marriages at Christian churches if they refuse to also perform same-sex unions.
As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality, wrote Mike Weatherley, the Conservative MP for Hove and Portslade, in an August 21 letter to Cameron.
While Weatherleys proposal is currently a minority view, it could quickly become a main stream point of view, warned Neil Addison, national director of the U.K.s Thomas More Legal Centre.
The U.K.s 2004 Civil Partnership Act, which legalized same-sex unions, forbade them from being performed in religious venues or from using religious imagery.
But Camerons Coalition government has proposed an amendment to the 2010 Equality Act that would allow churches and other religious venues to perform same-sex unions if they choose.
Critics have warned that the measure will lead to even more pressure on religious institutions who refuse to perform the ceremonies, such as the Catholic Church and the Church of England. They note that the government itself admitted in its public consultation document on the amendment that it could lead to lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform the unions.
Addison said that when the same-sex civil partnerships were first introduced, those who said that Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, etc. would eventually be forced to perform same sex marriages were ridiculed as being alarmist, but it is now a point of view that is becoming dangerously mainstream.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
homosexual agenda ping
But, but, but...What consenting adults do in the privacy of the own homes is none of my...Oh nevermind.
How ‘bout this one instead: “How could two homos getting married possibly affect you??”
What would happen if they tried to force the homosexuals to come to church?
This will be the same argument made here in a very short time. The Gaystapo are already saying it in secret.
Good luck with the Mosque part. I suspect such a law would be applied far more vigorously to passive religions.
This won’t happen.
It’s high time the Church fights back. Not only in America but around the world.
Christians should just get married in the church and refuse to apply for a marriage license etc.
If the state does not recognize what a marriage is, why ask for their permission or give them the information?
Marriage is a religious sacriment, so if the state thinks it is something else, why should I bother with the state when I am involved in my religious sacriment?
Get a church marriage and file the appropriate legal paperwork for limited powers of attorney, guardianship, etc.
Time for the round heads to ride again.
Marriage predates religious sacraments - and manmade civil codes as well.
Exactly. Some faith’s already don’t really think little pieces of paper from the gubberment necessarily make anyone married or not.
The statists and homosexualists love that many have been conditioned to think the state defines marriage, that way they accept whatever the state says about marriage, including impossibilities like “gay marriage”. Same thing with education and charity.
The Abomination of Desolation spoken of in the Book of Daniel.
Wasn't Eve made for Adam by God? Doesn't get more sacramental than that.
Point is, that "marriage" is a word that has historically held meaning well beyond "sexual coupling" or "domestic partner". What we currently have is an attempt to redefine the word to mean nothing more than those two things.
Control of the words meaning is probably not controllable in the face of a Leftist media; however, the religious shouldn't accept that meaning, even if it means adding an adjective, such as Holy or Sacramental. This can be reinforced by rejecting the state's authority over marriage altogether.
So the British MP are now no different than Hitlers Reich?
Remember Adolf attempted to force the Church in Germany to do
as the Reich dictated. How so are we to see this plan by the Brits as any different-the evil remains the same.
And I thought we Americans had the monopoly on lunacy.
Read, “The Pink Swastika.”
Perhaps you’re using the word sacrament in a way other than its usual sense. Beyond that, we’re quite in agreement.
Yes, the first wedding ceremony took place in Eden, and marriage was established and defined by God creating the woman for the man and bringing her to him. There is no other definition of marriage, nor can there be.
As you say, the word “marriage” itself may be twisted and misused to refer to other couplings. But marriage is what it always was: the joining by God of a man and woman. The state has no authority here. It will have just as much success legislating that the sun rise in the west and set in the east as it will legislating that two people of the same sex can be married. “Unisex marriage” is self-contradictory.
As the punch line to old joke says, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. :-)
“A member of U.K. Prime Minister David Camerons government is calling for a ban on marriages at Christian churches if they refuse to also perform same-sex unions.”
Why isn’t MP Weatherley calling for a ban on marriages at Islamic mosques or Jewish synagogues then?