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

It's the next step obviously,
First it's normalisation, then accusations of discrimination, then maybe even threats of imprisonment for not complying.

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

From the book, they thought they were free.

I vividly recall the queen's speech hinting at the transition from bonding through faith in God to. On ding by sporting events lol, another inconsequential step, but an obvious step in throwing off the shackles placed on the wh0re by the scriptures and achieving license to practise her vices. When is she gonna make an opt-in for marrying pigs in churches and mosques?
I mean, according to their logic, if God created people with the inclination to back shaft pigs, He would surely not prevent them from uniting in the sacred marriage bond.
 
Last edited:
Salaam

Speaking of potential court cases.

First couple consider legal challenge to Church’s gay marriage opt-out

A millionaire couple who made history as Britain’s first gay surrogate parents are planning a legal challenge against the Church of England’s refusal to conduct same-sex weddings.


Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 44, said he and his partner Tony, 49, believe the “only way forward” for them may be to challenge the Church in court for denying them the right to marry.

The couple, who have been in a civil partnership for seven years and have five children through surrogacy, describe themselves as practising Christians who regularly attend their local parish in Danbury, Essex. Mr Drewitt-Barlow said that while he welcomed the passing of legislation for same-sex marriage, provisions exempting churches from performing the weddings meant they still felt discriminated against.

He told the Essex Chronicle: “It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”

The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, which received royal assent last month, contains a so-called “quadruple lock” of legal provisions designed to protect churches which chose not to conduct same–sex weddings from being sued.

But the Coalition For Marriage, which led opposition to the Act, said Mr Drewitt-Barlow’s comments show that churches are bound to face litigation.

Despite government reassurances, opponents believe that even if a legal challenge under the Equalities Act were to fail in British courts, it could potentially succeed at the European Court of Human Rights. Although some religious groups including Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism say they will opt-in to conducting same-sex weddings when the Act comes into force next year, the largest denominations including the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church have made clear they will not.

Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: "It is like someone giving me a sweetie with the wrapper on and telling me to suck it

"I am a Christian – a practising Christian – my children have all been brought up as Christians and are part of the local parish church in Danbury.

"I want to go into my church and marry my husband … The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.”

Colin Hart, campaign director for the Coalition for Marriage said: “The ink is not even dry on the Bill and churches are already facing litigation.

“We warned Mr Cameron this would happen, we told him he was making promises that he couldn’t possibly keep.

“He didn’t listen, he didn’t care, he’s the one who has created this mess - Mr Cameron's chickens are coming home to roost.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10219802/First-couple-consider-legal-challenge-to-Churchs-gay-marriage-opt-out.html

Speech on the consequences of redefining marriage

 
Two things.....

1. Quakers are cool with gay marriage? Didn't expect that.

2. This goes way to far and underlines the lack of separation of church and state in the UK. Churches should not be told who they must do marriages for, just as they should not be allowed to dictate who can be married by the state or by other religions. I would encourage the separation of marriage (spiritual) and civil union (legal rights attached) and have the religions have exclusive domain over the one and the state have exclusive domain over the other.
 
Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

2. This goes way to far and underlines the lack of separation of church and state in the UK. Churches should not be told who they must do marriages for, just as they should not be allowed to dictate who can be married by the state or by other religions. I would encourage the separation of marriage (spiritual) and civil union (legal rights attached) and have the religions have exclusive domain over the one and the state have exclusive domain over the other.

Sadly I am divorced and remarried in a registry office, I do not feel I have the right before God, to demand that I should have been allowed to remarry in a Catholic Church, but I do feel accepted in the church, despite my failings.

In the same way, I feel that gay couples should feel welcomed in the church, but they do not have the right before God to demand a church wedding, otherwise the church is not following the teachings of God.

The watering down of marriage laws, including divorce, seem to accept all kinds of relationships as being equal, we now have a huge number of people dependant on social services and the benefit system.

I do believe a loving relationship between one man and one woman for life; is the best and greatest way for children, parents all their relations, the community and the country.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
 
Greetings and peace be with you Junon; thanks for sharing,

The video was very powerful, marriage is mentioned about three thousand times in English law, husband is mentioned about a thousand times, wife about nine hundred times, husband and wife together about three hundred and fifty times. Any attempt to change these laws will be a minefield, many other good points.

Speech on the consequences of redefining marriage

[/QUOTE]

Blessings

Eric
 
Any attempt to change these laws will be a minefield, many other good points.

I can't see why; all that has happened is that, legally, the 'husband' and 'wife' can now be of either sex. All that requires is a change of personal pronouns. In the very few occasions where there might be conflict (such as who gets maternity and who gets paternity leave, perhaps?) necessary changes only involve a little common sense and another grammar change. Beyond that, the sexes are supposed to be equal according to the law, anyway.
 
Greetings and peace be with you Trumble; nice to see you around,

Beyond that, the sexes are supposed to be equal according to the law, anyway

The law is not able to make two men conceive a baby, so the law cannot make them equal.

In the spirit of searching for God in marriage

Eric
 
The most the law ever does is state conditions where two people should not conceive a child; nowhere (mercifully) does it require that they should - whether they are a married couple or not. Whether those people are biologically incapable of doing so is therefore irrelevant in law regardless of them being same-sex or a conventional couple where one or other is infertile.

A couple that cannot have children have the same legal status as a couple that choose not to have children. What possible legal reason could there be to distinguish between them?

For the record, I certainly agree that this involves a legal redefinition of marriage. I just don't have any problem with that, a legal marriage only takes three signatures to come into being and often little more to end. A religious marriage involves rather more and although there is obviously overlap I do not regard them as the same thing. It's only labels. I don't find it hard to understand why gay couples might have felt short-changed by being denied the word 'marriage' in favour of alternatives such as 'Civil Partnership'. IMHO, though, distinction will still enter language (but not law) from the other end with common use of the phrase 'religious marriage', or more specifically 'Christian marriage', 'Islamic marriage', etc. And everybody's happy whether religious, humanist, secular, straight or gay.
 
Last edited:
Salaam

Another update

Judge Sir Paul Coleridge quit because of lack of ‘support’ over marriage stance

Sir Paul Coleridge, the High Court judge who set up the Marriage Foundation, discloses he decided to step down from the bench because of opposition to his stance on marriage


A senior High Court judge has disclosed he is stepping down because of opposition from within the judiciary to his support for traditional marriage.

Sir Paul Coleridge, who founded the Marriage Foundation think-tank, was placed under investigation after questioning the Government’s decision to focus on pushing through same-sex marriage legislation rather than tackling a “crisis of family breakdown”.

The prominent family division judge announced last month that he is to retire early from the bench in April next year, saying he wanted to concentrate on his foundation which works to bring down the divorce rate. But he has now disclosed that the lack of “support” he received from the legal profession for his stance on marriage was a crucial factor in that decision.In an interview with The Tablet he said that he could have continued in his role for several more years had it not been for this.

Sir Paul, 64, could still face censure from the Judicial Complaints Investigations Office (JCIO) for his outspoken stance on marriage.

He angered gay rights campaigners and MPs last December when he gave an interview describing same-sex marriage as a “minority issue”.

The remarks triggered fresh complaints to the JCIO which only weeks earlier had warned him to keep a “lower profile” after speaking out about his concerns over the decline of marriage. He told The Tablet that the complaints were central to his decision to stand down.

“I could have struggled on … if I had got more solid support,” he said.

“But after April, I will be freer to be outspoken.”

He also said that “hundreds” of judges were too afraid to voice support for his foundation publicly because they thought it might harm their careers.

In a speech last month Sir Paul acknowledged that his interventions on family values had “upset” the senior judiciary. The JCIO answers to is the body set up to assist the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice handling disciplinary matters involving judges. In an interview with The Times last year Sir Paul said: “So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1 per cent of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown.

“It’s gratifying that marriage in any context is centre stage ... but it [gay marriage] is a minority issue. We need a much more focused position by the Government on the importance of marriage.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10485276/Judge-Sir-Paul-Coleridge-quit-because-of-lack-of-support-over-marriage-stance.html
 
Greetings and peace be with you Junon; thanks for sharing;

It seems gay rights are pushing the boundaries in so many ways, try doing a Google search of 'gay couple sue' and see what comes up

Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.

In fresh comments published by the Chelmsford Weekly News in the U.K. today, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said legal action had started.

“We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples," he said.

“We feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

Earlier this month, Drewitt-Barlow said he and his civil partner, Tony, would go to court to force gay weddings on churches.

He said at the time, “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us.”

He added, “It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.

“As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

A government bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.K. cleared Parliament earlier this year, and the first same-sex weddings are expected in 2014.

The legislation allows churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, and it specifically protects the Church of England.

However, top human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill says protection for the Anglican Church is “eminently challengeable” in court.

A copy of O’Neill’s legal advice was sent to the prime minister in January, but Mr. Cameron nevertheless proceeded with the legislation.

http://www.charismanews.com/world/40685-millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding

In the spirit of praying for the sanctity of marriage,

Eric
 
That is pretty ridiculous to demand a church be forced to perform a ceremony. Looks like a case of people finally getting equal treatment under the law and then testing the limits and trying to get special treatment. Reminds me of affirmative action crapola.
 
I don't know this should be an issue to the church or not (do agree that government should not force private entities to do stuff that they don't want). In the Bible the old testimonies, there are verses that states God don't like same sex acts. However in the new testimony, Jesus told us not to punish other sinners unless yourself is sinless. Also the biggest rules are love God and love your neighbor. In that sense the people of the book might need to leave the Gays alone.

I have not finished the Quran yet, but I have not yet found any reference about Gays in Quran yet (in the Bible it is a tiny section too, easy to miss, one of my church members pointed it out to me when I challenged him to give the specific verse). But I remember saw a youtube video that a Muslim claim Gays are not liked by God, just like the old testimony.
 
On the subject of gay marriage , the world 2nd most populous country india has reinstated ban on gay marriagehttp://www.nation.com.pk/international/12-Dec-2013/india-s-top-court-reinstates-gay-marriage-ban?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online%2F24hours-news+(The+Nation+%3A+Latest+News)
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top