Posted on 04/20/2012 5:18:14 AM PDT by marshmallow
David Cameron will not be able to exempt the Churches from a duty to offer marriages to gay couples, a senior Catholic barrister has warned.
Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said that the Prime Minister’s assurances to the Church that they would not be compelled to perform religious marriage for gay couples are worthless.
He said two judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg combined with a Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 clearly showed that the Government would be acting illegally if it legalised civil gay marriages without permitting them on religious premises too.
It means that if the Coalition Government presses ahead with its plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples the Catholic Church could face prosecution under equality legislation for acting according with its teachings.
“The Government will be obliged to permit same-sex marriage on religious premises on exactly the same basis as it permits heterosexual marriage,” said Mr Addison, a specialist in religious discrimination law.
“How this will affect the rights of Churches who are registered for marriage and in particular how it will affect the Church of England and its clergy who are registrars of marriage by virtue of their status as priests of the established Church is legally very arguable,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Duh!
So will all the apologists who say homosexuality is a private matter quit with the bs already?
time for civil disobedience.
I keep looking up for the big asteroid.
I agree to a point (see my #3)
in my world...Govt. would not be involved with marriage....all those legal things that are determined by a legal partnership...should be just that...a legal partnership
let the churches determine marriage protocol and hand out their churches marriage certificates and let the govt hand out a partnership certificate at the same time or by itself if no church marriage is performed..
God defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The State can huff, rant and legislate all it wants, but it cannot change that fact. Any clergy who performs a ceremony for people whom God declares to be ineligible is not only null and void but disqualifies the clergy.
This “movement” keeps believing that enacting (Insert law or rule here) will satisy them and give them peace and happiness. And every time they get it, they are found wanting.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, please pick up the courtesty phone...
I know this is the UK, but isn’t there s separation of church & state?
The priests should just shrug and say “We don’t answer to you or the the EU Court of Human Right’s, we answer to the Pope in the Vatican, take it up with him.”
Will Islamic mosques have the same legal requirement?
Civil Disobedience is what is being “compelled”.
There is no “law” that can “force” me to perform any act.
Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII about 130 years ago.
The modern state’s involvement in the institution has been a disaster. It has simply taught folks that the state defines marriage, and marriage comes from the state, like charity and education. And when the state is involved, the definition it uses will simply be whatever judges, pols, or the majority think it is at any one time.
Freegards
Instead, there's a big ass in DC (when it's not out golfing) ...
In the U.S. Their is NO Separation of Church and State called for in the constitution. There is simply an understanding that there is no state run religious institution and the State will NOT start and require adherence to a specific religious institution. That, in spite of what the Leftest idiots say, doesn't preclude the idea that a deity exists. As a matter of fact the entire Constitution and Declaration is based on the fact that our rights are given directly by God and can not be denied by any government.
The ‘right’ to marriage IS NOT a Right at all. Marriage is a contractual arraignment that allows for the protection of both the female of the species as well as it's offspring. It requires certain LEGAL qualifications and therefore CAN NOT be a right. Their are certain people who legally CAN NOT marry each other.
No person, regardless of sexual orientation is denied anything that another is also not denied in the realm of marriage. Any gay man can marry any single women who is willing and is available for marriage, IE of legal age, not presently legally married to another man, and not a blood relative.
I may desire to marry a particular super model but the fact that she may not want to marry me, or that we may both already be legally married, DOES NOT constitute discrimination or a denial of fundamental human rights, regardless of how much I want society to condone my personal LUST for that individual.
To whom? Any two people who apply? Any two people living together? Any two people who can prove they're in some kind of genital contact? Why two people and not three, four, or twelve?
There is a legitimate economic interest for people who want to establish the range of economic provisions that are generally aggregated under "marriage." A parent with a dependent adult child ... a person with a dependent parent or other elderly family ... siblings sharing a residence ... friends who want to face the world as an economic unit. I think there should be a provision such as "contractual household," which puts those legal arrangements in one basket, as it were.
The State has a right to involvement in marriage. What other earthly institution can arbitrate child custody disputes?
The modern errors of the State with regard to marriage illustrate the inherent limitations of a secular State, which is the root of the problem.
Yes, we would be better off with an established church. I could accept any tolerant Christian church as the State church (see England, etc.). But consider how different our society would be as a Catholic State: no abortion, no no-fault divorce, and restrictions on Mohammedan immigration.
We reflexively reject the notion of an established church because of a fear of religious oppression. But historically, which form of government has been more oppressive of religion?
And so, does this also apply to mosques... or just Christian churches?
Once the muslims express their displeasure, the UK government will snap-to and quickly make that distinction.
“The State has a right to involvement in marriage.”
The state does not have rights(I know you probably didn’t mean it that way).
This would never come up if the state’s definition of marriage will remain valid. But it will not, it hasn’t been for a long time. The state’s involvement in marriage, at least in the modern era, has been terrible for the institution. This is because the state’s definition has been changed and will continue to change for a variety of reasons. Right now they are marxist reasons.
“What other earthly institution can arbitrate child custody disputes?”
Child custody? What is the % of unwed mothers again? The modern marxist state has a vested interest in creating damaged people to rely upon it to survive. One good way to do this is to condition folks to look at marriage as just a lousy gubberment contract that can be broken and resumed between anyone as long as the state says it is OK. To say we need the state to resolve custody of children between married people is like watering the garden while the house is on fire, in my opinion. A recent poll has 40% of the folks thinking that marriage comes from man and thus the state.
Freegards
-—The state does not have rights(I know you probably didn’t mean it that way).-—
In a sense it does, because the State represents society —its citizens.
We, as citizens, have a responsibility or “right,” to arbitrate, or to oversee the arbitration of, child custody disputes, and to define a legal marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.