This has completely brought me to the edge.

[spacial]

This is an issue that is really bothering me. Though I appreciate that others have similar feeling in their own localities. I feel very let down.

The current Tory government in the UK has somewhat surprised many by their liberal stance on a number of issues, not least their support for marriage equality.

The issue has been held up over opposition to marriage of same sex couples in church.

I have listened to some arguments against. Most are frankly rhetorical, it's always been this way sort of thing. The only substantive argument was that, if it were to be permitted in a church, then a priest could marry a same sex couple even though his bishop opposed the idea. The flaws are rather obvious, but it's the best I've heard. Apologies if some absolutely sound argument has been made which I missed.

Now the government has proposed a bill, liberating marriage everywhere, except in the CofE and the CofW.

This is frankly insulting. It is not equality at all. It is permission to exist. Thank you but stick it. I don't want permission I want my rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

The Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, the government has announced.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said.

[Brooke777]

That is frustrating. I hope that someday they change their stance.

[spacial]

The leader of Roman Catholics in England has said in his Xmas speech:

Basically the Prime Minister has said: 'Where there is love and commitment, then that's all you need in a marriage'... But I think that's shallow thinking......'

Now I'm utterly flabbergasted!

[Catherine Sarah]

To be quite honest, I think it shows how Orthodox institution have lost the plot, in recent times. There is nothing new in this concept. As indeed we know the great scientist and philosophers of the Renaissance period, Copernicus, Galileo etc were all excommunicated from the same institutions for supposedly outlandish and immoral thought. How wrong they were.

Fortunately the State has stepped in to put them in their place. Hopefully they'll learn from their mistakes, if they'd be prepared to come down from their lofty pulpits and join the rest of civilisation.

Huggs
Catherine

[JoanneB]

I just cannot get over the hysteria about the word "Marriage". When about 50% or higher of the typical rules and laws a couple face together in life are enshrined using the word married or legally wed, why invent a new law to try to define a new word to  mean the same thing? Which also needs to infere upon this new union all the same rights as a married couple which are covered in hundreds or more rules and laws.

Here in the USA some states have "Civil Union" laws which attempt that. Most times they fall short of their intent to provide all the same legal protections. Yet the haters love to say "They can have Civil Unions. Marriage is defined in the Bible as between 1 man and 1 woman. (Just ignore all those Biblical passages about those guys with many wives). You cannot, must not use that most sacred word for those people"

[spacial]

 

I just cannot get over the hysteria about the word "Marriage". When about 50% or higher of the typical rules and laws a couple face together in life are enshrined using the word married or legally wed, why invent a new law to try to define a new word to  mean the same thing? Which also needs to infere upon this new union all the same rights as a married couple which are covered in hundreds or more rules and laws.

Here in the USA some states have "Civil Union" laws which attempt that. Most times they fall short of their intent to provide all the same legal protections. Yet the haters love to say "They can have Civil Unions. Marriage is defined in the Bible as between 1 man and 1 woman. (Just ignore all those Biblical passages about those guys with many wives). You cannot, must not use that most sacred word for those people"

That isn't actually true. What the Bible says :

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"

Might be picky but it doesn't say marriage, simply two becoming one. However,  the Bible bashers started it.

Personally I have altered my own perspective here. Not too long ago, I also was quite content with civil unions, especially since here in the UK they are, to all extents and purposes, the same.

But I have altered my view because even with the UK civil unions, it is still less. Public perception may seem irrelevant but in reality it is everything. A civil Union is not marriage.

The purpose is marriage equality. That all unions, based upon love, are treated as being equal. That a union of two people who happen to be of the same sex are not less value, less standing. Less worth.

That a union based upon the love that two people have for each other is special.

Here in the UK, it seems more and more are supporting it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll

[suzifrommd]

For me, the irony is that so many of the people opposing same-sex marriage are the same people castigating single parents for raising their kids alone. I.e. "You should be married if you're raising kids. Unless you're gay, in which case we won't let you be married."

Appalling hypocrisy.

[Cindy]

I have a particular link to this. I have been married, legally for 30+ years.  Now I openly live as female and have my gender marker as female on my driving licence, passport (in process), medicare card etc. I am still legally married. I am sterile, I cannot get an erection, I have not had sex for 20 years.

Next year I hope to have SRS, at which point my sex is regarded as female. Although my gender is female at the moment. As soon as my sex is female I have to get divorced. The reason? Same sex marriage is illegal in Australia.

I am going to refuse to do so and I am willing to be a legal test case. If the government of Australia wants to dissolve my marriage then it is up to them to argue what has changed over the last 30 years that renders my marriage invalid in the eyes of the law, whatever gods they recognise and bible bashers.

[Kevin Peña]

Well, I'm assuming that there's a separation of church and state, so the govt. can't force something that goes against the church. Just be glad that you can get married anywhere else.

[spacial]

Well, I'm assuming that there's a separation of church and state, so the govt. can't force something that goes against the church. Just be glad that you can get married anywhere else.

An American custom.

Cindy, I have always admired you. Now I'm beyond impressed. I'd say you have them by the balls but that might be taken as a pun.

I know Australia is in such early days of its democracy. So many issues to sort out yet, so few precedents. I think this is a good issue for you.

I'm wondering if the authorities might just take the approach of 'Blind Eye'? Might be a bit frustrating in the short term, but they might reason that they can easily come back to it when the politics can swing the way they want it to. If you see what I mean?