PDA

View Full Version : Gay Couple to Sue Church of England to Force It to Perform Gay Weddings



Odysseus
08-02-2013, 12:06 PM
Gay Couple to Sue Church of England to Force It to Perform Gay Weddings (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/01/gay-couple-to-sue-church-of-england-to-force-it-to-perform-gay-weddings/)http://cdn.pjmedia.com/wp-content/author_photos/bryan-2014533714.jpg
by
Bryan Preston
Bio (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/author/bryan/)

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/01/gay-couple-to-sue-church-of-england-to-force-it-to-perform-gay-weddings/


August 1, 2013 - 7:25 pm



Coming soon to an American court room near you (http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/).


Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings.

He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”.

A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.

Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “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 recognise 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.”
Notice the phrase that he uses — “I am still not getting what I want.”
So I’ll force the whole world to bend to my will. In the name of tolerance.

The only things standing in his way are tradition and faith, and our culture doesn’t have any respect for either anymore.


Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

At least he's up front about it being all about him.

Novaheart
08-02-2013, 01:44 PM
The Church Of England is the national church and its bishop sit in the House Of Lords. The Queen is head of the church and defender of the faith. As such, the Church of England is a government operation and should not discriminate.

In America, we have no national church. The Bishops of The Episcopal Church do not sit in the Senate and the President is not head of the church.

Odysseus
08-02-2013, 02:33 PM
The Church Of England is the national church and its bishop sit in the House Of Lords. The Queen is head of the church and defender of the faith. As such, the Church of England is a government operation and should not discriminate.

In America, we have no national church. The Bishops of The Episcopal Church do not sit in the Senate and the President is not head of the church.

Does Parliament have the authority to rewrite Christian doctrine for the Church of England? Perhaps the King James Bible should be updated to expunge the offending parts of Leviticus. They can call it the Queen Elizabeth Bible, although I doubt that she'd approve of the bowdlerization.

Novaheart
08-02-2013, 03:20 PM
Does Parliament have the authority to rewrite Christian doctrine for the Church of England? Perhaps the King James Bible should be updated to expunge the offending parts of Leviticus. They can call it the Queen Elizabeth Bible, although I doubt that she'd approve of the bowdlerization.

Somebody made it up the first time, I see no reason why someone else can't change it.

Odysseus
08-02-2013, 03:27 PM
Somebody made it up the first time, I see no reason why someone else can't change it.

But since the sovereign is the head of the church, does Parliament have the authority to do it, or does it matter, so long as you get what you want, like the tool in the OP?

Novaheart
08-02-2013, 03:52 PM
But since the sovereign is the head of the church, does Parliament have the authority to do it, or does it matter, so long as you get what you want, like the tool in the OP?

found this:

The following explanatory note may be helpful in the context of yesterday's Government statement and subsequent press coverage.

In her statement to the House of Commons on 11th December on the Government's proposals for Equal Marriage, the Secretary of State said:

"because the Church of England and Wales have explicitly stated that they do not wish to conduct same-sex marriages the legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples. Mr Speaker, this provision recognises and protects the unique and Established nature of these churches. The church's canon law will also continue to ban the marriage of same-sex couples. Therefore, even if these institutions wanted to conduct same sex marriage, it would require a change to primary legislation at a later date and a change to canon law. Additional protection that cannot be breached."

Press and political commentary on this has given rise to the impression that extra safeguards have been put in place for the Church of England, which give legal protection above and beyond that for other denominations and faiths. Some have said that this amounts to Government deciding to give preferential treatment to the Church of England on the question of legal protection for religious organisations not wishing to perform same-sex marriages. Others have questioned why the Government should explicitly write in to primary legislation that it would be "illegal" for the Church of England to perform same sex marriages when it will not be so for other denominations and faiths, taking this to mean that it places additional legislative barriers in the way of the Church of England in the unlikely event that it should wish to change its current position.

Such questions are understandable, but are based on a misunderstanding of the Church of England's established status and its relationship with Parliament on matters relating to Canon Law.



This is not a question of the Government and Parliament imposing a prohibition or "ban" on what the Church of England can do. It is instead the Government responding to the Church's wish to see the status quo for the Church of England preserved and accepting, as for other churches and faiths (though the legal framework is different for them), that it is not for the Government and Parliament to determine matters of doctrine.

As explained in the Church of England's submission to the Government's consultation in June 2012 (here: http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt ), the Canons of the Church of England define marriage, in accordance with Christ's teaching and the doctrine of the Church, as being between a man and a woman. Because the Canon Law of the Church of England is also part of the public law of the land and cannot be in conflict with statute law, it is important that any legislation for same-sex marriage makes it clear that it does not apply to marriage according to the rites of the Church of England. The legislative drafting of what is needed for the Church of England is necessarily unique because of that; and because Church of England clergy normally have a legal duty to marry people by virtue of their office. The Government, in accepting that the legal effect of the Canons of the Church of England need to be preserved (in line with its assertions about protection of religious liberty), have committed to drafting legislation on same sex marriage accordingly.

The effect of what the Government has proposed is to leave decisions about the doctrine and practice of the Church of England with the Church of England. Any change to the Church of England's doctrine and practice of marriage would require legislation by the Church's General Synod. In addition to an Amending Canon that redefined the nature of marriage such a legislative package would also involve the General Synod passing a Measure (the General Synod's equivalent of an Act of Parliament) that altered both the statute law concerning marriage according to the rites Church of England and the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.

All Synod Measures require parliamentary consent. The usual process of parliamentary scrutiny for legislation submitted by the Church is that it goes first to the Ecclesiastical Committee and then has a single debate in each House before the Measure goes for Royal Assent. As the General Synod's devolved legislative powers includes the ability to amend Westminster legislation it would not require separate, additional legislation on the part of Parliament to enact any change to the Church's practice on marriage. Talk of additional 'barriers to opt-in' for the Church of England following the Secretary of State's announcement is therefore misplaced.

For Parliament to give the Church of England an opt-in to conduct same sex marriages that it hasn't sought would be unnecessary, of doubtful constitutional propriety and introduce wholly avoidable confusion.

In addition, as the Bishop of Leicester said in the House of Lords on 11th December in response to the Government statement "our concern here is not primarily for religious conscience or the protection of the Church of England's position, but rather a more fundamental concern for stable communities". The arguments set out in the Church of England's submission in June to the Government's consultation (here: http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt) spell out those concerns in detail.

Odysseus
08-02-2013, 09:27 PM
found this:

The following explanatory note may be helpful in the context of yesterday's Government statement and subsequent press coverage.

In her statement to the House of Commons on 11th December on the Government's proposals for Equal Marriage, the Secretary of State said:

"because the Church of England and Wales have explicitly stated that they do not wish to conduct same-sex marriages the legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples. Mr Speaker, this provision recognises and protects the unique and Established nature of these churches. The church's canon law will also continue to ban the marriage of same-sex couples. Therefore, even if these institutions wanted to conduct same sex marriage, it would require a change to primary legislation at a later date and a change to canon law. Additional protection that cannot be breached."

Press and political commentary on this has given rise to the impression that extra safeguards have been put in place for the Church of England, which give legal protection above and beyond that for other denominations and faiths. Some have said that this amounts to Government deciding to give preferential treatment to the Church of England on the question of legal protection for religious organisations not wishing to perform same-sex marriages. Others have questioned why the Government should explicitly write in to primary legislation that it would be "illegal" for the Church of England to perform same sex marriages when it will not be so for other denominations and faiths, taking this to mean that it places additional legislative barriers in the way of the Church of England in the unlikely event that it should wish to change its current position.

Such questions are understandable, but are based on a misunderstanding of the Church of England's established status and its relationship with Parliament on matters relating to Canon Law.



This is not a question of the Government and Parliament imposing a prohibition or "ban" on what the Church of England can do. It is instead the Government responding to the Church's wish to see the status quo for the Church of England preserved and accepting, as for other churches and faiths (though the legal framework is different for them), that it is not for the Government and Parliament to determine matters of doctrine.

As explained in the Church of England's submission to the Government's consultation in June 2012 (here: http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt ), the Canons of the Church of England define marriage, in accordance with Christ's teaching and the doctrine of the Church, as being between a man and a woman. Because the Canon Law of the Church of England is also part of the public law of the land and cannot be in conflict with statute law, it is important that any legislation for same-sex marriage makes it clear that it does not apply to marriage according to the rites of the Church of England. The legislative drafting of what is needed for the Church of England is necessarily unique because of that; and because Church of England clergy normally have a legal duty to marry people by virtue of their office. The Government, in accepting that the legal effect of the Canons of the Church of England need to be preserved (in line with its assertions about protection of religious liberty), have committed to drafting legislation on same sex marriage accordingly.

The effect of what the Government has proposed is to leave decisions about the doctrine and practice of the Church of England with the Church of England. Any change to the Church of England's doctrine and practice of marriage would require legislation by the Church's General Synod. In addition to an Amending Canon that redefined the nature of marriage such a legislative package would also involve the General Synod passing a Measure (the General Synod's equivalent of an Act of Parliament) that altered both the statute law concerning marriage according to the rites Church of England and the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.

All Synod Measures require parliamentary consent. The usual process of parliamentary scrutiny for legislation submitted by the Church is that it goes first to the Ecclesiastical Committee and then has a single debate in each House before the Measure goes for Royal Assent. As the General Synod's devolved legislative powers includes the ability to amend Westminster legislation it would not require separate, additional legislation on the part of Parliament to enact any change to the Church's practice on marriage. Talk of additional 'barriers to opt-in' for the Church of England following the Secretary of State's announcement is therefore misplaced.

For Parliament to give the Church of England an opt-in to conduct same sex marriages that it hasn't sought would be unnecessary, of doubtful constitutional propriety and introduce wholly avoidable confusion.

In addition, as the Bishop of Leicester said in the House of Lords on 11th December in response to the Government statement "our concern here is not primarily for religious conscience or the protection of the Church of England's position, but rather a more fundamental concern for stable communities". The arguments set out in the Church of England's submission in June to the Government's consultation (here: http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt) spell out those concerns in detail.

You should read the whole article. The point that you made earlier, that since you believe the doctrine of the church to be completely made up, and therefore should be open to further editing, assumes that everyone else believes that you do. You are imposing your contempt for their religious beliefs on them, and giving them the force of law. Consequently, the only right that someone has with regard to gay marriage is the right to acquiesce to the demands of gay activists. That is not a right, but a state of submission.

JB
08-03-2013, 12:53 AM
No one is discriminating against you dude. You want to get married in the church? Marry a girl you fuckstick.

I generally took a pass on this topic but these douchebags need a foot in the ass. Although he'd probably enjoy it. Fuck them. Go blow some dude in a public bathroom you puke.

JB
08-03-2013, 12:53 AM
Somebody made it up the first time, I see no reason why someone else can't change it.No one is born gay, I see no reason why someone can't change that.

RobJohnson
08-03-2013, 05:57 AM
No one is discriminating against you dude. You want to get married in the church? Marry a girl you fuckstick.

I generally took a pass on this topic but these douchebags need a foot in the ass. Although he'd probably enjoy it. Fuck them. Go blow some dude in a public bathroom you puke.



:clap:

txradioguy
08-03-2013, 05:13 PM
No one is discriminating against you dude. You want to get married in the church? Marry a girl you fuckstick.

I generally took a pass on this topic but these douchebags need a foot in the ass. Although he'd probably enjoy it. Fuck them. Go blow some dude in a public bathroom you puke.

QFT

Novaheart
08-03-2013, 05:44 PM
You should read the whole article. The point that you made earlier, that since you believe the doctrine of the church to be completely made up, and therefore should be open to further editing, assumes that everyone else believes that you do. You are imposing your contempt for their religious beliefs on them, and giving them the force of law. Consequently, the only right that someone has with regard to gay marriage is the right to acquiesce to the demands of gay activists. That is not a right, but a state of submission.

A statement of fact does not require agreement. There is nothing special about Jewish mythology or its Christian and Islamic extensions. It is exactly of the same material as any other including Norse, Native American, or Subsaharan African belief systems. Thunder, lightening, fire, water, mountains, and wind.

Wibbins
08-04-2013, 10:42 AM
A statement of fact does not require agreement. There is nothing special about Jewish mythology or its Christian and Islamic extensions. It is exactly of the same material as any other including Norse, Native American, or Subsaharan African belief systems. Thunder, lightening, fire, water, mountains, and wind.

Hahahahahaha, guys we should believe him, he clearly knows something we don't

Rockntractor
08-04-2013, 11:23 AM
Hahahahahaha, guys we should believe him, he clearly knows something we don't

Yes we should listen to him, gays have been given the keys to all understanding in the universe, we've been doing it all wrong.

Odysseus
08-04-2013, 12:32 PM
A statement of fact does not require agreement. There is nothing special about Jewish mythology or its Christian and Islamic extensions. It is exactly of the same material as any other including Norse, Native American, or Subsaharan African belief systems. Thunder, lightening, fire, water, mountains, and wind.

Just because you believe it does not make it a statement of fact, but let's assume, for the moment, that you are correct and all religion is simply mythology. If, as you claim, the religious doctrines are utter fiction, then it does no harm to gays to be denied a ceremony that places the fictitious blessings of a false deity on their hookups. After all, they can still get married in a civil ceremony, which is recognized by the state, and which is really all that should matter to you. Why demand something that you claim is meaningless, unless it is to punish believers for their beliefs? And if that is the case, is it right to use the same state powers that you claim discriminate against gays to discriminate against Christians who are simply trying to keep their churches free of what they consider sinful conduct? Why is there any justification for imposing this on houses of worship other than demonstrating that you have the power to do so, and are willing to bully those who you hold in contempt?