The church does not own marriage.

[Gob]

Lynne Featherstone tells Church 'don't polarise gay marriage debate'


The Church does not have the exclusive right to define who should be allowed to get married, the equalities minister warns, as she suggests that religious groups have polarised the debate on gay marriage.

Lynne Featherstone directly challenges the role of the Church in the debate over homosexual weddings, saying it does not “own” marriage.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Miss Featherstone says the Government has a right to change the definition of marriage and pledges to challenge those who “want to leave tradition alone”.

Citing the words of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who is a prominent opponent of the Coalition’s plans to allow same-sex couples to marry, she insists that how marriage is defined is up to “the people”.

In a direct address to the Christian opponents of the proposed changes, she says: “We understand how strongly some religious groups feel about the issue, which is why we are listening and we want to work with them.

“But there is a range of other views we need to listen to as well. I want to urge people not to polarise this debate. This is not a battle between gay rights and religious beliefs. This is about the underlying principles of family, society and personal freedoms.”

In her article, the Liberal Democrat minister insists the Coalition has a duty to push ahead with the changes. “The fierce debate over the past few weeks has shown people feel very strongly about marriage,” she says. “Some believe the Government has no right to change it at all; they want to leave tradition alone. I want to challenge that view — it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better.”

She warned that the Government would not back down on the plans, which she said would extend equal rights to gay and lesbian couples.

“[Marriage] is owned by neither the state nor the Church, as the former Archbishop Lord Carey rightly said. So it is owned by the people,” she said.

Critics of same-sex marriages, led by a coalition of Christian leaders, accused Miss Featherstone of “bulldozing ahead” with the plans without a democratic vote.

David Cameron has given his backing to extending the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, a change he hopes will be a central achievement of his premiership.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... ebate.html

[Scooter]

This appears to be one of those "only Nixon could have gone to China" moments. A Labour government that attempted to legalize same-sex marriage would have never seen the end of it. A Conservative-led government can do it and not lose anything, for who are detractors going to turn to in the alternative?

I give credit to Mr. Cameron if he sees it through, but it's less an act of bravery for him than it would have been for a Labour PM.

[dgs49]

The solution would be to revoke the ability of the Clergy to create legal marriages - make it the exclusive province of the civil authorities.

Then people would be forced to confront the fact that marriage in the eyes of (their) God is separate and distinct from marriage in the eyes of the State, and the Church should have no say in civil marriage - just as the state should have no say in Church marriages.

[Scooter]

That's how it works in most of Europe and South America - you have to go through a civil ceremony to be legally married, and then you go have a church wedding if you want one. Such a setup would also eliminate the religious discrimination that no one ever talks about - those ministers of religion whose faiths do recognize same-sex marriage and would like to perform them, but cannot because their licences from the state to perform marriages prohibit them to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone who cannot be legally married.

[rubato]

This appears to be one of those "only Nixon could have gone to China" moments. A Labour government that attempted to legalize same-sex marriage would have never seen the end of it. A Conservative-led government can do it and not lose anything, for who are detractors going to turn to in the alternative?

I give credit to Mr. Cameron if he sees it through, but it's less an act of bravery for him than it would have been for a Labour PM.

It is more an act of desperation for a government which has failed miserably on all economic fronts. Anything to draw attention away from the fact that they've done all the wrong things and GDP collapsed and has not recovered; unlike Sweden and the US who both used stimulus rather than austerity.

But I'll take a win for justice no matter what the motivations.

yrs,
rubato