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

[glo]

As an add-on, for me the vows and promises made to each other BEFORE GOD are much more important and meaningful than any vows made before the law. I am sure that my Muslim friends can relate to that.

Because my husband does not believe in God, we only ever married in a Registry Office. That means we both have certain legal rights and we have made promises to each other in front of human witnesses - but for me something is missing without seeking God's blessing on the union too.

 

[جوري]

is that anybody can come to any Anglican

Does 'anybody' make use of that allowance? in fact it is nice in theory but folks who seek a union before God, usually seek it through their own religious mediums not someone else'. God already stated in his books (if you follow the Abrahamic) faith that is, on what that union means and it means a marriage between man and woman. It doesn't aggrieve me either way what the Anglican or any other church does so long as they don't try to export their ever evolving views and values to other regions.

best,

 

[Pygoscelis]

I have been dating a somewhat lapsed Catholic girl for th past six months, and when pondering a future marriage I would have no problem with doing it in her family's church (or even letting them believe I converted). Would you have preferred this sort of thing instead of at city registry? Or would your knowing your husband doesn't truly believe in the spiritual aspect m feel empty? Or maybe actually make it worse (an insult to God or something?)

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Wait...I'm pretty sure you said before you were dating a Muslim women, a very liberal one.

 

[جوري]

pyg is a fool for love

 

[GuestFellow]

^ Asslamu Aliakum,

Do you remember it too? I think it was a topic in the clarification section...

 

[glo]

Does 'anybody' make use of that allowance? in fact it is nice in theory but folks who seek a union before God, usually seek it through their own religious mediums not someone else'.

Well, you'd be surprised how many people 'fancy a nice church wedding', despite not being Christians or at least not practising Christians. It is still considered a 'traditional' wedding - you know, being driven to the church in a limo, the flowers, walking up the aisle, pictures taking outside the church ...

Of course, people who are active in another faith marry within that faith.
But many non-religious people still marry in church ...

Whether it's sense of tradition or to please the spouse/in-laws, I don't know ...

 

[glo]

I have been dating a somewhat lapsed Catholic girl for th past six months, and when pondering a future marriage I would have no problem with doing it in her family's church (or even letting them believe I converted). Would you have preferred this sort of thing instead of at city registry? Or would your knowing your husband doesn't truly believe in the spiritual aspect m feel empty? Or maybe actually make it worse (an insult to God or something?)

The post I wrote this morning got lost, so I'll try again, Pygo.

At the time of our marriage I wasn't a practising Christian myself, so it didn't much matter then.
But in answer to your questions, no, I would not want my husband to go through any process which he did not believe in or felt uncomfortable with. Besides, I know he would not agree to it either, because it would feel hypocritical to him to pretend to be part of something that he doesn't believe in.

I really appreciate that in him, because it shows that he has respect for the faith of others and for how important it is to them.

Having said all that, I would dearly have a our marriage blessed in church one day. But that will only EVER happen if my husband comes to believe himself.
Until such a time I bring my marriage to God in prayer, and I have a sense of divine protection and blessing that way.

 

[Pygoscelis]

^ Wait...I'm pretty sure you said before you were dating a Muslim women, a very liberal one.

lol That was over a year ago. We broke it off about 8 months ago, when she took a job overseas.

 

[جوري]

you'd be surprised how many people 'fancy a nice church wedding'

Can you show me the number of known practicing Jews/Muslims/etc. who prefer a 'fancy church wedding'? Everyone has a nice tradition in their own culture.… This is just a nice in theory thing that makes the church on paper appear more accommodating & appealing than it actually is.

best,

 

[glo]

Can you show me the number of known practicing Jews/Muslims/etc. who prefer a 'fancy church wedding'? Everyone has a nice tradition in their own culture.…

best,

Did you read my whole post??
I wrote this:

Well, you'd be surprised how many people 'fancy a nice church wedding', despite not being Christians or at least not practising Christians. It is still considered a 'traditional' wedding - you know, being driven to the church in a limo, the flowers, walking up the aisle, pictures taking outside the church ...

Of course, people who are active in another faith marry within that faith.
But many non-religious people still marry in church ...

I have highlighted the sentences which relate to your question. I hope that clarifies it.

 

[جوري]

I have highlighted the sentences which relate to your question. I hope that clarifies it.

That's neither congruent with your previous statement of the church being open to all, nor does it take care of my query in a practical sense, i.e the numbers.. Yes many things are nice in theory!

best,

 

[glo]

That's neither congruent with your previous statement of the church being open to all, nor does it take care of my query in a practical sense, i.e the numbers.. Yes many things are nice in theory!

best,

Look, with the Church of England being a state church, its clergies are "responsible for the spiritual well-being of all citizens". That's not me saying that, that's the CoE saying that.

In that sense everybody and anybody (literally, not just figuratively speaking) can approach a clergy in the CoE and ask to be married (or baptised or buried, for that matter).
So, if a Muslim couple came to our local church and asked to be married, then our vicar would have the legal duty to do so.

Of course you are right, people who adhere to another faith would not consider a wedding in a Christian church - which is what we both commented on above. But in theory they are entitled to it.

So both of my statements are true!
Anybody can have a wedding in a CoE church, but in reality not everybody does.

With regards to your question about how many Jewish/Muslim couples would have a wedding in a Christians church, I don't know. I expect not many, if any at all. Have you tried googling it?

However, I know of a Muslim couple who once approached our previous vicar to ask for a burial of their still-born baby. So perhaps it is not that far fetched ...

 

[جوري]

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

Perhaps I misunderstood this statement for ''anybody can come to any Anglican church in the UK and ask to be married'' as a proof that anybody can come to any anglican church and be married for something other than lip service to make the church accommodating to things that apparently stand well in theory and not for practical purposes. All I have asked for, is that this statement be backed up with real life examples of practicing Muslims or practicing Jews or practicing Mandeans etc etc. going to Anglican churches to get married!

best,

 

[sister herb]

Anybody can have a wedding in a CoE church, but in reality not everybody does.

Thanks about this information; sounds interesting and a little different like in here - here even man or woman has to be member of church before priest can bless they marriage (but they need to take also civil marriage before marriage is legal). I know some muslims here whose have let priest to do so in the church - as respect the faith of they wife. And because imam told them it is ok as showing respect for they wife.

Oops... of topic.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update

The Government has no mandate to redefine the meaning of marriage

Support for the institution of marriage as the union between a man and a woman


SIR – As parliamentarians from different political parties and none, we are united in supporting the institution of marriage defined in law as a union between a man and a woman. We recognise the value of a loving and committed relationship and we respect civil partnership, but affirm the distinctive value of marriage reflecting the complementarity of a man and woman often evidenced in parenthood.

At the last election, none of the three main parties stood on a platform to redefine marriage. It was not contained in any of their manifestos, nor did it feature in the Coalition’s Programme for Government. These facts alone should have led to extreme caution on the part of those calling for this change to be made.

Instead the Government is ignoring the overwhelming public response against the plans. The consultation has ignored the views of 500,000 British residents in favour of anonymous submissions from anyone anywhere in the world. We believe that the Government does not have a mandate to redefine marriage.

We recognise these are issues of conscience which will be given free votes in Parliament. We will be seeking legal guarantees of the same freedom of conscience for our constituents and religious organisations to teach, preach and express a traditional view of marriage.

We are sceptical that the proposed protections will prevent the erosion of liberties of religion and conscience. The proposed redefinition of marriage is unnecessary, given the legal rights established through civil partnerships. We understand some parliamentarians support freedom for same sex couples to marry, but we support a freedom from the state being able to redefine the meaning of marriage.

David Burrowes MP (Conservative)
Joe Benton MP (Labour)
David Davis MP (Conservative)
Mary Glindon MP (Labour)
Lord Hylton (Crossbench)
Nigel Dodds MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)
Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative)
Jim Dobbin MP (Labour)

(Plus a whole host of other Mps)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...date-to-redefine-the-meaning-of-marriage.html

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Found an interesting debate on this subject, very illuminating. The most interesting part from me Was Peter Hitchens response, particularly at the end

Part 1

Part 2

 

[جوري]

I am curious which part you found illuminating per Hitchen' speech? I just listened to it and he echoes the views of allowing liberals everywhere!

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Oh come on sister that’s a bit harsh, not all liberals are that bad, just most of them

Anyway on the subject, No that’s not what I take from it,

For the record Peter Hitchens is against the redefinition of marriage. He follows traditional Conservative views on marriage.

His first response (part 1) was answering the question why David Cameron is so keen on this issue. In a sense he’s right about this issue being used as a stick to beat the traditionalist wing of the party, so it can become ‘trendy’ and ‘modern’. In his second response he speaks of how liberals have become so dominant they have pretty much taken over the ideological system and there so confident they can impose through various means their ‘vision’ of a ‘good society’ regardless of what other people think.

In his last response (Part2) he talks about those Those who hold contrary (traditional moral views etc) are being systematically marginalised, not only that but in the coming years they could even be prosecuted. Don’t be surprised that expressing the view that marriage between a man and women will preclude you from getting certain jobs (particularly in the state sector) or even be considered a hate crime.

And in the future I wouldn’t be surprised that (Anglicans particularly since they are the state church) will be pressured into hold gay marriages. With implications for other faiths.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[جوري]

Oh come on sister that’s a bit harsh, not all liberals are that bad, just most of them

You'll forgive me but if you've been following the so-called liberals of Egypt you'd be praying for a plague to take them in a slow and painful manner.

For the record Peter Hitchens is against the redefinition of marriage. He follows traditional Conservative views on marriage.

wasn't Hitchens the first speaker? the guy who was mocking the story of creation not that I blame him on the part where God 'rests'.

The bottom line that one should take home is in a secular society which reflects the views of a very vocal minority and is very allowing anything and emphasis on thing can get married, but the state if it has indeed separated church has absolutely no jurisdiction over what goes on there save to dispense with the name calling, 'ignorant, backwards, unprogressive, low smarts, poor socio-economic, bigoted, fundi' well you know the drill!