Archbishop of Canterbury: Government has no right to introduce gay marriage

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Not relating to Muslims directly but this topic has the potential to become a serious issue, so we should be aware of whats happening.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned the Government has no “mandate” to introduce same-sex marriage.

Launching his strongest attack yet on the Coalition’s plans to allow homosexual couples to marry, Dr Rowan Williams questioned the right of ministers to make the change when it had not been included in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat election manifestos. His intervention follows the publication last month of the Church of England’s response to the Government’s consultation on same-sex marriage. The document warned the move would threaten the established status of the Church, labelling the plans “divisive” and “essentially ideological”. This weekend Dr Williams faced a series of questions on the proposals in a meeting of the General Synod, the Church’s governing body, in York.

Asked about discussions between Church leaders and ministers on the plans, Dr Williams said: “Following the Prime Minister’s announcement last autumn there have already been several formal and informal discussions with a number of Government ministers, including the Home Secretary.

“There have also been discussions between Home Office and Church House officials.” He added: “The basis of the mandate for changing the state’s understanding of marriage given the lack of any commitment in the election manifestos of the main parties has been one of the many issues raised in those discussions.”

Asked by Gerald O’Brien, a lay Synod member from Sevenoaks, Kent, if it would be correct to infer that Dr Williams “does not accept that the Government has a mandate to make these changes ”, the archbishop replied: “I think that would be a reasonable inference”.

But Dr Williams also appeared to accept that the Church was fighting a losing battle against the proposals, continuing: “It is only right to note, however, that same sex-marriage now has the official support of all three main parties.” The Church’s official response to the proposals to introduce same-sex marriage has fuelled a growing internal row over homosexuality which surfaced on Friday night as the leadership was also trying to avoid a second split, over the appointment of women bishops.

While some Synod members welcomed the document as a restatement of traditional values, others challenged its theological basis, as well as the right of the Church’s authorities to draw up such a definitive response on their behalf without consultation. Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, also faced demands to release the initial findings of a panel of bishops reviewing the Church’s position on civil partnerships, but he said the report was “confidential”.

Father Ian Stubbs, an Anglican priest from Glossop, Derbyshire, delivered a petition to Dr Williams and Dr Sentamu, signed by almost 4,000 people who object to the church’s refusal to endorse homosexual marriage.

The Government’s proposals — which ministers intend to make law by 2015 — have also been strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Chief Rabbi, and the Muslim Council of Britain.

But other religious groups, including the Jewish Reform and Liberal movements, have backed the plans.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-marriage.html

[Ali137]

intersting article

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Gay marriage plans condemned in church services
A letter criticising the Scottish Government for supporting plans to legalise gay marriage will be read out in all of the country's Catholic parishes today.

The Roman Catholic Church has declared August 26 as National Marriage Sunday and is calling on politicians to "sustain rather than subvert marriage". The letter, which will be read in all of Scotland's 500 Catholic parishes, will urge followers to continue to act against efforts to "redefine" marriage. The Scottish Government has said it is right to introduce same-sex marriages, but has stressed no clergy would be forced to carry them out.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Church in Scotland, last week broke off discussions on the issue with First Minister Alex Salmond. In a strongly worded message, the letter will highlight the church's "deep disappointment that the Scottish Government has decided to redefine marriage and legislate for same sex marriage."

It will also announce the launch of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family to co-ordinate a campaign against gay marriage.

Cardinal O'Brien, who has described gay marriage as a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right", said: "The Church's teaching on marriage is unequivocal, it is uniquely, the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that governments, politicians or parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality." He added: "With this letter we will announce the creation of a National Commission for Marriage and the Family, a body which will be charged with promoting the true nature of marriage, it will develop an online presence and produce materials and organise events which will help Catholic families to support and sustain marriage.

"While we pray that our elected leaders will sustain rather than subvert marriage, we promise to continue to do everything we can to convince them that redefining marriage would be wrong for society."

The Scottish government has pledged to bring forward a Bill on the issue later this year, and has indicated the earliest ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015.

The Equality Network, which is campaigning in support of same-sex marriage in Scotland, said politicians should stand firm over the plans. Tom French, the charity's policy co-ordinator, said: "It is increasingly clear that the Church has an anti-gay agenda that it wants to impose on the rest of society. "We urge the Scottish Government to stand firm on plans to introduce equal marriage and not give in to demands that would discriminate against LGBT people." "In particular, the Equality Network would be deeply concerned at any attempt to promote an anti-gay agenda in schools. School should be a welcoming environment for all young people, regardless of their sexual orientation or their family situation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9500275/Gay-marriage-plans-condemned-in-church-services.html

[Pygoscelis]

I completely agree that the state should have no right to force any church to participate in homosexual marriage ceremonies. I also strongly oppose the church having any sway in what legal rights should be afforded to homosexual couples (as opposed to heterosexual couples). I would like to see all "marriage" broken down into the secular civil union carrying the civil rights (such as visitation rights, custody rights, tax benefits, etc) and the spiritual union, which I am agreeable to being called "marriage", which can be recognized or not by whoever wants to. Would you muslims agree to such a compromise?

Homosexual couples could then get "married" to each other in their own ceremonies and you can simply declare their marriages invalid as far as you are concerned.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

Although I agree in principle with the Archbishop, my feeling is that we should be promoting marriage between one man and one woman, before God, until death do we part. As a matter of faith this is the greatest path to aim for between the husband and wife, and the greatest stability for children. If we are talking a matter of faith, then any other path falls short of a greatest good, like divorce, same sex marriage and single parents.

I believe the church and the state should do far more to promote the importance of families, rather than fight against other unions.

In the spirit of supporting families and communities.

Eric

[Santoku]

For once I agree totally with the reverend Doctor.
The bible is specific in its condemnation of homosexuality so a Christian service should be right out.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

Cameron accused of 'broken promise' as gay couples told they can marry in church

David Cameron is facing a major clash between church and state and the biggest Tory rebellion since coming to power after announcing a u-turn on religious gay weddings.



He was accused of breaking promises to religious groups as he confirmed that homosexual couples could marry in churches, mosques, synagogues or temples under plans to be unveiled next week.

It represents a reversal of the position set out earlier this year which proposed a blanket ban on same-sex ceremonies on religious premises. Instead those which want to carry out same sex weddings would be able to “opt in”.

Ministers insist a series of “multiple lock” legal safeguards will prevent religious groups which refuse to carry out same-sex marriages facing challenges under human rights laws. But Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said the shift made a “mockery” of the consultation and said the move was “madness” which would “boomerang” on the Conservatives. Letters to constituents passed to The Daily Telegraph suggest that at least 130 Tory MPs are preparing to vote against the plans.

It is understood that the change was triggered by Government legal advice that a complete prohibition would be vulnerable to legal challenge and open the way for further challenges against the Church of England and others.

But writing in The Daily Telegraph today, the Culture Secretary Maria Miller said the Government had also heard persuasive arguments from groups such as the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism which want to carry out same-sex weddings.

“My own personal view is that we should not stand in the way of this, especially if it means that those that don't want to will be even further protected,” she writes.

“It is a fundamental point of religious freedom that religious bodies should be able to make their own decisions on this issue.”

“For me, far from being a radical departure, this is simply one more in a long line of reforms which have strengthened marriage, ensuring it remains a modern and vibrant institution.”

Mr Cameron said: "Let me be absolutely 100 per cent clear, if there is any church or any synagogue or any mosque that doesn't want to have a gay marriage it will not, absolutely must not, be forced to hold it.”

But the Coalition for Marriage, which gathered more than 600,000 signatures against same-sex unions, said it was “risible” that any legal safeguard would be able to protect churches from challenges at the European Court of Human Rights, forcing them to marry gay couples. Colin Hart, its campaign director, said: “The PM is writing a cheque that he knows will bounce.”

Although David Cameron has promised a free vote on the issue a large number of his own MPs voting against would represent a blow to his prestige. There were also predictions that the bill could potentially be defeated in the Lords and warnings that the Government would be unable constitutionally to force it through under the Parliament Act because the Conservatives did not make gay marriage a firm electoral pledge. Among those who have emerged as likely to vote against are John Randall, the Deputy Chief Whip, and Michael Fallon, the business minister, who wrote to constituents that he was “minded to” vote against.

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, also signalled that he will vote against and Oliver Heald, the Solicitor General also confirmed he “does not support” the Bill.

Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, said that the bill would be “massacred in the Lords” adding: “Arrogant Cameron knows best.”

Both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are strongly opposed to the redefinition of marriage. Last night the Church of England threw down the gauntlet to the Government insisting that only an “overwhelming mandate” for the change in the consultation results would justify pressing ahead in the absence of any manifesto commitment. But the official announcement next week comes at the worst possible time for the Church of England which has seen its authority battered as a result of the rejection of women bishops. Next week will see the publication of census figures expected to show a drop in religious observance, a bruising Parliamentary debate on women bishops likely to include calls for disestablishment and a meeting between MPs and the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

The previous Archbishop, Lord Carey said last night: “I think it makes a mockery of the Government’s attempt to consult and then review in the light of that consultation.

“Bearing in mind that so many Conservative MPs are unhappy about this, it seems to be madness on the part of the Government to rush through in this kind of way – this is not wisdom.

“I think a lot of people are going to be very unhappy with it and I think it is going to be very boomerang on the Conservatives.”

But Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, a leading rabbi of the Movement for Reform Judaism, said: “This is not only very welcome and but is essential for religious integrity.

“I cannot conceive of a God who creates homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9730801/Cameron-accused-of-broken-promise-as-gay-couples-told-they-can-marry-in-church.html

[GuestFellow]

One solution is to eliminate the concept of marriage in the UK. Just have a contract between parties stating the rights and benefits . Now before some members try to stab me, I'm not saying I support gay marriage. The practicable solution here is for parties to draw up a contract, containing terms and conditions that they agree upon. The parties themselves can call their relationship whatever they want whether it is marriage, civil partnership or a union of lovers or whatever crap they manage to conjure.

I do support that churches should NOT be forced to carry out the gay marriage. That's just dumb. >_> Just go create another church and make up a religion and God that suits you. End of story.

Now the government should focus on more SERIOUS issues like unemployment, economy, EU, crime rate, drugs, discrimination, debt, revenue, taxes and bla bla.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon; and thanks for the update;

“I cannot conceive of a God who creates homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.”

You could use this argument to say God created all of us with the freedom to murder, but does God want us to exercise this choice?

In the spirit of praying for families.

Eric

[Independent]

It is understood that the change was triggered by Government legal advice that a complete prohibition would be vulnerable to legal challenge and open the way for further challenges against the Church of England and others.

This looks like the heart of the issue. The Government is concerned that international human rights legislation (to which it has signed up) would make banning such unions illegal. Of course, this legislation also applies to other countries who will take different actions. But the UK is an exceptionally legalistic culture. If it signs to a law, it means to keep to it. It's the same reason the UK refuses to sign many EU laws, which other countries sign, but have no actual intention of keeping.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update. A Leader from the Daily Telegraph.

Culture wars are an unwelcome American import

David Cameron is using the gay marriage debate to pit his modernist credentials against traditionalists

If David Cameron hoped to assuage critics of gay marriage by offering additional legal protection to the Church of England and other religious bodies, then he will have been taken aback by the reaction in the Commons yesterday. Dozens of Conservative MPs made clear their deep unhappiness with the way this matter has been handled, and they clearly represent a sizeable number of traditionalist Tory voters. After all, there was no great public clamour for same-sex marriage: many imagined that the inequality of treatment had been properly dealt with in 2005 by the introduction of civil partnerships.

What we appear to be witnessing is the import from America of “culture war” politics, where a leader seeks to parade his modernist credentials by pitting them against the values of people judged to be out of step with mainstream opinion. Unfortunately for Mr Cameron, most of them are in his own party; but perhaps he thinks there is a political advantage to be had by picking a fight with his bedrock supporters.

In trying to meet the concerns of critics, the “quadruple lock” protection is unexpected to say the least: the Church in England and Wales is to be banned from offering gay weddings. Not only would this write an anti-gay measure into statute but, bizarrely, it would prohibit the Church from carrying out same-sex marriages in future should it wish to do so, whereas other religious denominations will be able to opt in.

Since Labour will almost certainly try to remove this proposed exemption, the established Church will be drawn deeper into unnecessary controversy. Furthermore, by denying heterosexuals access to civil partnerships, the legislation will create a new inequality once gays can marry. So, while the Government may hope that the measure is human-rights-proof, it would be a surprise if it were not challenged in the Strasbourg court.

Nor do the religious protections address another matter that vexes critics – namely the redefinition of marriage, understood by every human society through the ages to be a legal relationship between people of opposite sexes. Many Tory MPs and voters will simply not be reconciled to this, and neither will the churches, which have not even begun to organise against the Bill. They have millions of followers, and should they target vulnerable Conservative seats – as happened to Labour when the Roman Catholic Church forced the last government to retreat over faith schools’ admissions quotas – Mr Cameron may come to rue the day he embarked on this reform. Sad to say, but in a country that prides itself on its tolerance, he risks sowing division where none previously existed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9737733/Culture-wars-are-an-unwelcome-American-import.html

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

But Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, a leading rabbi of the Movement for Reform Judaism, said: “This is not only very welcome and but is essential for religious integrity.

“I cannot conceive of a God who creates homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.”

This keeps troubling me from your last post, God did not create homosexuals to make babies together, so there is your inequality, it is not a religious inequality, because it comes from God.

In the spirit of praying for families

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

You could use this argument to say God created all of us with the freedom to murder, but does God want us to exercise this choice?

I have noticed this comparison made a number of times here now. At first I thought it was just being made as a slippery slope or logical examplar, etc. But now I am wondering, does Islam hold Murder and Homosexual Sex as equally bad? Why is murder always brought up in these threads where homosexuality is discussed on this forum?

As to the topic, I stand by what I wrote above. I would still like to know if you guys would find the compromise I suggested acceptable to you. I think it would fix this issue pretty nicely and not infringe on anybody's rights.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

I have noticed this comparison made a number of times here now. At first I thought it was just being made as a slippery slope or logical examplar, etc. But now I am wondering, does Islam hold Murder and Homosexual Sex as equally bad? Why is murder always brought up in these threads where homosexuality is discussed on this forum?

I mentioned both murder and homosexuality on this thread, and I am Catholic, so I was not speaking on behalf of our Muslim brothers and sisters here. I guess putting murder and homosexuality together might seem extreme, I could just have said that God has given us the freedom to steal from each other, it does not mean we should.

Homosexual couples could then get "married" to each other in their own ceremonies and you can simply declare their marriages invalid as far as you are concerned.

If we declare their marriage invalid, it seems to imply it is wrong, and if it is wrong then we should openly oppose it.

Marriage as it stands today seems to be a failed institution, divorce is at an astronomical level and children are deeply disturbed when their mum and dad split up. The government should be openly promoting the union of one man and one woman in marriage for life. If families have a firm foundation, communities become more stable and the nation benefits.

In the spirit of praying for families

Eric

[سيف الله]

Salaam

And the consequences become apparent, final update, Ill leave it for a bit after this

Scottish parents 'cannot withdraw children from all gay marriage lessons'

Parents face being forced to allow their children to learn about gay marriage regardless of their religious beliefs, under Scottish ministers’ plans to legalise the practice.

The Scottish Government said they will forbid parents removing children from all lessons where gay marriage is discussed, even in primary school, as this could harm “a child’s right to receive an education”. The Lord Advocate will also issue new guidelines on prosecuting opponents of same-sex marriage who have been deemed to have committed a breach of the peace or displayed “threatening or abusive behaviour”.

Among the other provisions in a public consultation on the draft Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill are:

• A retrospective change to the legal definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘husband and wife’ to include same-sex couples.

• An ‘opt-in’ system for celebrants and religious groups that want to conduct gay marriages.

• Measures aimed at protecting from legal action celebrants who refuse.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said the proposals struck the right balance between making a “proud step forwards for equality” for gay people and defending freedom of speech and religion. They have support across the Holyrood chamber and the first gay marriages are expected to take place in 2015, but the Catholic Church and Church of Scotland said they feared there were “inadequate safeguards” for those who disagree.

Faith aspects of the curriculum in Roman Catholic schools will continue to be determined by the church, while the consultation said state schools have to inform parents about “sensitive aspects of learning”. However, ministers are to issue updated guidance on teaching gay marriage in sex education lessons. They said it was not “appropriate” that gay marriage and homosexuality should “never be raised in primary schools”.

Existing exemptions covering sex education and religious lessons will remain, but parents will not be allowed “to withdraw children from any lesson where same sex marriage, civil partnerships or homosexuality might be mentioned.” According to the consultation paper, the move would breach the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects their right to an education. The document noted that gay marriage could “arise in lessons in a variety of situations” before concluding: “It would not be feasible to provide for parents to withdraw their children from all lessons where these issues might arise, sometimes very briefly.”

Ministers have ruled against introducing specific statutory protections for teachers and other public sector workers, such as NHS chaplains, opposed to the change. The consultation argued it would set an “unwelcome precedent”.

Neither do they want instant disciplinary action for teachers who refuse to teach gay marriage, with councils advised to discuss the issue and take into account religious beliefs. However, the consultation warned staff they must follow the profession’s code of conduct on “equality and diversity”. This states they must act in accordance with the law in a “non-judgemental” manner regardless of their personal “values and beliefs”.

Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, is to issue new guidelines for prosecuting opponents of same-sex marriage. This will not affect individuals “expressing views” but could include anyone thought to be using inflammatory or offensive language.

The draft Bill changes the legal definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘husband and wife’ to include gay couples and has the affect of applying this to all existing legislation. The consultation states the “intention is that, where possible, opposite- sex marriage and same-sex marriage should be treated in the same way.”

A spokesman Scotland for Marriage, a church-organised group protesting the change, said: “For Alex Salmond to keep his word and protect the civil liberties of traditional marriage supporters, legal protections have to go beyond churches and marriage celebrants.

“Teachers, parents, school kids, NHS chaplains and others in everyday life must not be penalised for backing traditional marriage.”

Rev Alan Hamilton, convener of the Church of Scotland's legal questions committee, said that, unless the organisation's General Assembly decided otherwise, it would oppose same-sex marriage.

He added: “What we fear will be inadequate safeguards for religious bodies and ministers and people of faith who view this as being contrary to their beliefs.”

Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, of the Scottish Catholic Church, described the change as “unwise and unnecessary” and called for laws to be changed to prevent “the unjust penalisation of anyone who disagrees” with gays marriage.

But Alex Neil, the Scottish Health Minister, said: “We are introducing same sex marriage in Scotland because it is the right thing to do.

“We are striving to create a Scotland that is free, tolerant and fair and I am pleased to say there is support across the chamber for this significant step.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9740898/Scottish-parents-cannot-withdraw-children-from-all-gay-marriage-lessons.html

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Junon;

Existing exemptions covering sex education and religious lessons will remain, but parents will not be allowed “to withdraw children from any lesson where same sex marriage, civil partnerships or homosexuality might be mentioned.”

A Muslim student can opt out of lessons on Christianity, but if that same Muslim student also had strong views on same sex marriage, he would be forced to attend, this does not seem fair.

But Alex Neil, the Scottish Health Minister, said: “We are introducing same sex marriage in Scotland because it is the right thing to do.

This is sad.

In the spirit of praying for families

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

As to the topic, I stand by what I wrote above. I would still like to know if you guys would find the compromise I suggested acceptable to you. I think it would fix this issue pretty nicely and not infringe on anybody's rights

I think religion is very vocal about the things it opposes, in the past it was divorce now it is abortion and same sex marriage. All these things will happen regardless of religious views.

I think rather than oppose these things religion should promote a greatest good and I have to say we seem fairly quiet on promoting a faithful marriage for life. I think that whatever people’s views on partnerships might be, there is recognition that a traditional loving marriage for life is the best way to bring up children.

Both politicians and religious leaders seem to lack direction in promoting a greatest good definition of marriage, just my thoughts

In the spirit of praiong for families

Eric

[Pygoscelis]

Do you believe that same sex couples should enjoy the same civil rights as opposite sex couples? By this I mean things like hospital visitation, spousal benefits in insurance, end of life or substitute decision making, etc. I say these things should flow from civil union, not marriage. So give all couples civil union, and reserve "marriage" for the religious, and have it bring no civil rights with it, and only be a recognized spiritual union. I see this very much as a separation of church and state issue. The state h as no business forcing the church to marry homosexuals, or to force parents to recognize homosexual marriage as marriage, as we see in the example above. And likewise, the church has no business telling the state who should have legal rights. Do you disagree with this?

[GuestFellow]

^ Sounds very practicable for now.

[glo]

Do you believe that same sex couples should enjoy the same civil rights as opposite sex couples? By this I mean things like hospital visitation, spousal benefits in insurance, end of life or substitute decision making, etc. I say these things should flow from civil union, not marriage. So give all couples civil union, and reserve "marriage" for the religious, and have it bring no civil rights with it, and only be a recognized spiritual union. I see this very much as a separation of church and state issue. The state h as no business forcing the church to marry homosexuals, or to force parents to recognize homosexual marriage as marriage, as we see in the example above. And likewise, the church has no business telling the state who should have legal rights. Do you disagree with this?

As somebody who attends an Anglican Church and is very fond of the Church of England in many ways, I agree.

I am surprised that the Church of England has been given the clear instruction NOT to be allowed to marry homosexual people, when other denominations and faith groups have been given the freedom to follow their own conscience and make their own decision.

What seems strange at the moment is that anybody can come to any Anglican church in the UK and ask to be married - regardless of whether they are Christian or not - and the vicar is legally obliged to marry them. The only requirement they need is to live in the parish or to have been christened in the church when they were a child.

So a vicar in the church of England has to marry any heterosexual couple who asks, even if they are not practicing Christians; but he has to turn away homosexual couples, even if they are practising their faith. That doesn't seem right to me.