Legislation for gay marriage

[Dave *]

It was only fairly recently (last 20 years I think) that you could re-marry in a church. Hopefully someone can back me up as am sure that's the case.

A quick google shows it to be a lot more recent than that for C of E, it seems the blanket ban was lifted in the C of E in 2002

http://www.yourchurchwedding.org/faqs/im-divorced-can-i-still-get-married-in-church.aspx

I’m divorced. Can I still get married in church?

There may be a way forward for you to be married again in church. The Church of England agreed in 2002 that divorced people could remarry in church under certain circumstances. We believe that marriage is for life, but also recognise that sadly, some marriages do fail.

Speak to your Vicar about your situation. He or she will want to talk to you frankly about your past and your hopes for the future and will let you know whether they can remarry you. Even if it is not possible to do your wedding, they may offer you a service of prayer and dedication after a civil ceremony.

The Catholic Church still prohibits it.

http://www.catholicmarriagecentre.org.uk/marriagefaq.php#f

Q. My fiancé and I are both Catholic, and we would like to get married in a Catholic church, however, I am a divorcee. Is it still possible for us to marry in a Catholic church in the UK?

A. If your first marriage was valid, and marriage is said to ‘have the favour of law’ that is, it is assumed valid until it is legally proved otherwise, then you are not free to marry again.

I quote from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church No.349:

'The Church, since she is faithful to her Lord, cannot recognise the union of people who are civilly divorced and remarried. "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her: and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).

 

[big soft moose]

The thing that worries me over this is other people's rights (not the gay couple getting wed themselves), particularly in 2 areas - firstly, the photographer's rights - putting it politely, I would not be at all comfortable shooting a gay wedding - I'm of the generation that is utterly revolted by blokes snogging (etc), so I could not in all conscience do a good job of photographing their big day - sod's law I'd get "the awkward couple" who'd phone to see if I was free, I'd innocently say I was - under the equality laws as are extant I could see them clobbering me with the full force of the laws if I were to be honest and say "it's outside my comfort zone" - as it stands I'd have to tell porkies, why should I have to? - What about my rights?

you don't have a "right" to discriminate on sexual preference, anymore than you do on race, disability etc. If you don't want to be asked to cover 'mariage' in all its forms perhaps wedding photography isnt the right feild for you.

Then there's the (probably more contentious) matter of children's rights - if we are to have gay marriages, then there will be those who decide they have the "right" to have children - which means adoption or to my mind heinous practice of surrogacy, whereby the poor infant is wrenched from it's mother shortly after birth, to be brought up by a gay couple on formula milk, bereft of it's birth mother..... I'm at the very least "uneasy" about such practices, and am of the view that as far as possible kids need their natural mums and dads to bring them up..........

There is no evidence at all that children of homosexual couple grow up maladjusted or in anyway less well adjusted than those of hetereosexual couples. What kids need above all is parents who love them , and care for them. The gender and sexual preference of those parents is irrelevant.

And the surrogacy thing is a red herring as the vast majority of surrogacy arrangements are for hetereosexual couples who for whatever reason are unable to concieve naturally

 

[pepi1967]

you don't have a "right" to discriminate on sexual preference, anymore than you do on race, disability etc. If you don't want to be asked to cover 'mariage' in all its forms perhaps wedding photography isnt the right feild for you.



There is no evidence at all that children of homosexual couple grow up maladjusted or in anyway less well adjusted than those of hetereosexual couples. What kids need above all is parents who love them , and care for them. The gender and sexual preference of those parents is irrelevant.

And the surrogacy thing is a red herring as the vast majority of surrogacy arrangements are for hetereosexual couples who for whatever reason are unable to concieve naturally

TOTALY agree well said.

 

[joescrivens]

- sod's law I'd get "the awkward couple" who'd phone to see if I was free, I'd innocently say I was - under the equality laws as are extant I could see them clobbering me with the full force of the laws if I were to be honest and say "it's outside my comfort zone" - as it stands I'd have to tell porkies, why should I have to? - What about my rights?

Do you feel like you should be able to reject a couple because they were black too?

I would hope not, and therefore, what's the difference?

 

[TriggerHappy]

The thing that worries me over this is other people's rights (not the gay couple getting wed themselves), particularly in 2 areas - firstly, the photographer's rights - putting it politely, I would not be at all comfortable shooting a gay wedding - I'm of the generation that is utterly revolted by blokes snogging (etc), so I could not in all conscience do a good job of photographing their big day

That's precisely the type of archaic and discriminatory attitude that I cannot abide. What is it about seeing two guys kiss that makes you feel disgusted, but yet you're completely comfortable photographing a man and a woman doing the same? What about two women kissing, is that a no no too or is that different?

- sod's law I'd get "the awkward couple" who'd phone to see if I was free, I'd innocently say I was - under the equality laws as are extant I could see them clobbering me with the full force of the laws if I were to be honest and say "it's outside my comfort zone" - as it stands I'd have to tell porkies, why should I have to? - What about my rights?

You don't have any right to discriminate based on race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

Then there's the (probably more contentious) matter of children's rights - if we are to have gay marriages, then there will be those who decide they have the "right" to have children - which means adoption or to my mind heinous practice of surrogacy, whereby the poor infant is wrenched from it's mother shortly after birth, to be brought up by a gay couple on formula milk, bereft of it's birth mother..... I'm at the very least "uneasy" about such practices, and am of the view that as far as possible kids need their natural mums and dads to bring them up..........

I'm not even going to touch on this here.

 

[cambsno]

you don't have a "right" to discriminate on sexual preference, anymore than you do on race, disability etc. If you don't want to be asked to cover 'mariage' in all its forms perhaps wedding photography isnt the right feild for you.

Disagree. If I got asked to do an Asian wedding I would turn it down as my understanding is they are quite a bit different to a traditional wedding. I believe there are people on here who specialise in this.

I know that I could not have shot kids for money before having them. I needed that understanding to be comfortable working with them. If you are uncomfortable with something you will probably not do very well at it.

Funnily enough I had an enquiry today for a special needs session from a support worker. She specifically asked if I would be happy to work with them.

 

[London Headshots]

It was only fairly recently (last 20 years I think) that you could re-marry in a church. Hopefully someone can back me up as am sure that's the case. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong then of course it's a moral issue. My nan for example 20 years ago was not happy about me 'living in sin'. I am sure that if she was still alive she would be against this as she was of that generation and quite religious. I would never say she was a bigot though and although these discussions never came up, while she would have no problem with what people got up to at home, i don't think she would be supporting this.

Live and let live I say. There are protections for churches morally opposed so I would say everyone should be happy. I am not religious in the slightest, however I do believe in religious tolerance as well as the various equalities we have and sometimes they will contradict each other.

Believing something is wrong doesn't automatically make it a moral issue. That's like saying that cornflakes become a moral issue if enough people speak up about how soggy they go in milk.

Two guys want to sign the same piece of paper as a man and a woman would. There's no ethical dilemma in that. If you invent a piece of paper that one human is allowed to sign, then ALL humans should have the same basic right to sign.

 

[viv1969]

Then there's the (probably more contentious) matter of children's rights - if we are to have gay marriages, then there will be those who decide they have the "right" to have children - which means adoption or to my mind heinous practice of surrogacy, whereby the poor infant is wrenched from it's mother shortly after birth, to be brought up by a gay couple on formula milk, bereft of it's birth mother..... I'm at the very least "uneasy" about such practices, and am of the view that as far as possible kids need their natural mums and dads to bring them up..........

There are times....rare times, when I quite simply cannot believe what I am reading, and sad to say this is one of those times.

So babies born via surrogate are "wrenched from thier mothr"? Really? And just how many times have you wintnessed this happening? 1? 10? More? I'm betting NONE. Surrogacy is an arrangement entered into willingly by the birth mother in the full knowledge that at the end of the pregnancy, the child they are carrying will become the child of parents who want it desperately, and who, probably, can have a child no other way. Up to now I haven't mentioned whether those parents may be a same sex couple, but.......

.........Are you freaking kidding me??? Do you have any clue how many children being raised by thier "natural" parents are beaten...neglected...abused in one way or another; or are simply physically raised but ignored by those same parents (which can be far worse than a physical abuse). Do you have the slightest idea how many children are raised happily with just thier mother, or just thier father and how well rounded and fulfilled those children can be? When parents love a child the way they SHOULD be loved....unconditionally...I personally don't care if it's by two fathers, two mothers, or by one of each. What really scares me that there are children being raised by people so narrow minded and discriminatory that they have no right breeding in the first place.

 

[big soft moose]

Disagree. If I got asked to do an Asian wedding I would turn it down as my understanding is they are quite a bit different to a traditional wedding. I believe there are people on here who specialise in this.
.

Thing is " I don't have the experience to cover... " is a totally different argument from " the sight of two men kissing nauseates and disgusts me..."

I'd turn down a hetero couple who wanted reportage style coverage, because I don't do that, have no experience of it, and couldnt provide an adequate service - but I'd let the couple tell me about their requirements first then make an informed decision.

I'd also turn down a traditional jewish wedding , not because i'm in anyway antisemitic, but because I shot one as second camera and it was absolute carnage, and ive no wish to experience that as main shooter

In the case of a LGBT wedding it would depend on what they wanted - exactly as it would for a hetero couple. If they wanted something outside of my experience or capability I would tell them that, and recomend someone more suited to their needs

a tog isnt obliged to take on any particular client, and its fine to reject an individual simply because you don't think you are going to gel , just as a pub landlord can bar any specific person without needing to give a reason

However what isnt fine is having a blanket policy , so just as a pub landlord cant have a sign saying "no blacks, no irish, no gays " , a wedding photographer can't have a blanket policy that they'll only shoot straight weddings

 

[norters]

I don't know. They'll be wanting to buy houses next. The swines!

Some horrible attitudes in this thread.

I for one am looking forward to my friends wedding.

 

[pepi1967]

I never though that love could see colour creed age or gender. Love is hard enough to find as it is I don't think anyone has the right to frown upon anyone who finds it.

 

[viv1969]

Thing is " I don't have the experience to cover... " is a totally different argument from " the sight of two men kissing nauseates and disgusts me..."

I'd turn down a hetero couple who wanted reportage style coverage, because I don't do that, have no experience of it, and couldnt provide an adequate service - but I'd let the couple tell me about their requirements first then make an informed decision.

I'd also turn down a traditional jewish wedding , not because i'm in anyway antisemitic, but because I shot one as second camera and it was absolute carnage, and ive no wish to experience that as main shooter

In the case of a LGBT wedding it would depend on what they wanted - exactly as it would for a hetero couple. If they wanted something outside of my experience or capability I would tell them that, and recomend someone more suited to their needs

a tog isnt obliged to take on any particular client, and its fine to reject an individual simply because you don't think you are going to gel , just as a pub landlord can bar any specific person without needing to give a reason

However what isnt fine is having a blanket policy , so just as a pub landlord cant have a sign saying "no blacks, no irish, no gays " , a wedding photographer can't have a blanket policy that they'll only shoot straight weddings

Never thought I would, but totally agree.

 

[Fla5h]

Without getting into the equality debate, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Anyone shooting weddings can see that this could lead to a much larger gay wedding market. Who possibly wouldn't want that?

It takes less than a minute to do.

www.c4em.org.uk

If it all helps to kick start the economy why not ;-)

Is it 10k for the average marriage thses days?, not just photographers but will keep a few small business above water

 

[Steve Smith]

Why would a same sex couple want to insist on their rights to be married in a church, if it was specifically not allowed?

Again, this is nothing to do with being married in church - just being married.


Steve.

 

[tiler65]

Mainly, I still think it is the churches trying to protect their status and have a stranglehold over moral values. This is not a bad thing. All churches need to do is realise that some folk do not want to be part of that moral. How old are morals anyhoo?

Is it only Christianity that is against same sex marriage?... What is the stance for other religions ....Sikh, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindi etc? Then what is the moral stance for groups of indigenous folk.....can't spell their names......

Traditional marriage may well be changing but can all the other groups around the world be wrong about it?

My view is I am not bothered by it so I am just wanting to know about the rest of the world.

 

[big soft moose]

islam and judeaism are against - not really suprising because like christians they are "people of the book" ie they consider the bible to be a religious text. I don't know about the others

However a freind of mine who is wiccan and gay had a traditional handfasting without a problem.

 

[tiler65]

islam and judeaism are against - not really suprising because like christians they are "people of the book" ie they consider the bible to be a religious text. I don't know about the others

However a freind of mine who is wiccan and gay had a traditional handfasting without a problem.

So Wicca is a religion?

I can just about cope with Tom Cruise's lot but Wiccans......jeesh!

 

[big soft moose]

Wicca is the religion practiced by british pagans - similar to , but not exactly the same as druidism - It is not contrary to popular myth anything to do with devil worship. Wiccans worship the old gods such as Bel, Succonos etc

Its a damn sight more valid as a religion than cruise's "made up by Elron Hubbard" brand of thinking

 

[PatrickO]

I was a guest at a lesbian wedding last year. We were all having a jolly time at the reception (good nosh, great wine, lovely speeches, discreet wedding tog etc). Then an older chap sitting next to me, who I didn't know, turns to me and in a stage whisper says:

"I feel so sorry for the parents, their lovely daughter ending up like that."

I almost split my drink (almost) and was totally at a loss for a reply.

 

[big soft moose]

The only appropriate response to that (other than a punch in the teeth) is " I'm gay too by the way"

watch him turn crimson and fumble about before making his excuses and running off

 

[tiler65]

I was a guest at a lesbian wedding last year. We were all having a jolly time at the reception (good nosh, great wine, lovely speeches, discreet wedding tog etc). Then an older chap sitting next to me, who I didn't know, turns to me and in a stage whisper says:

"I feel so sorry for the parents, their lovely daughter ending up like that."

I almost split my drink (almost) and was totally at a loss for a reply.

See I don't see anything wrong with the old gent...it is what he was taught and lead to believe in. It is the future generations that need to be educated - or given a choice which is probably more my point.

 

[London Headshots]

I don't know. They'll be wanting to buy houses next. The swines!

haha quality

 

[ZoneV]

However a freind of mine who is wiccan and gay had a traditional handfasting without a problem.

You can't beat a damn good traditional handfasting! I'm surprised the Wiccans approved though.

 

[cambsno]

Believing something is wrong doesn't automatically make it a moral issue. That's like saying that cornflakes become a moral issue if enough people speak up about how soggy they go in milk.

Two guys want to sign the same piece of paper as a man and a woman would. There's no ethical dilemma in that. If you invent a piece of paper that one human is allowed to sign, then ALL humans should have the same basic right to sign.

Thats the million dollar question - what is a moral issue? Some think its fine to litter, shoplift, while others think its ok to park illegally for a couple of mins or to sleep around. Eating meat or wearing a fur coat is a moral issue to some, but not others.

If you think the idea of two guys together is wrong, then in your eyes it is, even if 99% of the population disagree.

While I am no angel or prude, I do find some of the actions people you see on programmes like Kavos uncovered (or whatever its called) are morally wrong - unprotected sex with many strangers while off their faces... yet its two consenting people having fun which does not affect me. I am sure there is porn on the web i could find which most here would say goes against their morals, or makes them feel repulsed.

 

[tiler65]

islam and judeaism are against - not really suprising because like christians they are "people of the book" ie they consider the bible to be a religious text. I don't know about the others

However a freind of mine who is wiccan and gay had a traditional handfasting without a problem.

Just to wonder about your comment about 'people of the book' - don't most religions follow a code of some description (including wiccans)?

 

[big soft moose]

Just to wonder about your comment about 'people of the book' - don't most religions follow a code of some description (including wiccans)?

Indeed - but the term "people of the book" only refers to those monotheistic religions who consider the old testatment of the bible to be a religious text (ie Jews, Christians, and Islam) in essence they all believe in the one god who created the earth as described in Genesis , but the way in which they believe in Him differs.

this sets them appart from various other religions , most of which are polythesistic and which have different creation stories (or in some cases none at all)

the term comes originally from the qu'ran (in arabic Ahl-Al-Kitab ) where it means people who are not muslims who never the less believe in the god of abram - ie jews, christians, magians, and sabians. They are suposedly granted tolerance and sanctury under sharia law and are not considered to be infidels per se

 

[tiler65]

Indeed - but the term "people of the book" only refers to those monotheistic religions who consider the old testatment of the bible to be a religious text (ie Jews, Christians, and Islam) in essence they all believe in the one god who created the earth as described in Genesis , but the way in which they believe in Him differs.

this sets them appart from various other religions , most of which are ploythesistic and which have different creation stories (or in some cases none at all)

you are evading the question.......what about other religions and cultures that do not allow gay marriage........can all of them be wrong?

 

[Headless Lois]

The thing that worries me over this is other people's rights (not the gay couple getting wed themselves), particularly in 2 areas - firstly, the photographer's rights - putting it politely, I would not be at all comfortable shooting a gay wedding - I'm of the generation that is utterly revolted by blokes snogging (etc), so I could not in all conscience do a good job of photographing their big day - sod's law I'd get "the awkward couple" who'd phone to see if I was free, I'd innocently say I was - under the equality laws as are extant I could see them clobbering me with the full force of the laws if I were to be honest and say "it's outside my comfort zone" - as it stands I'd have to tell porkies, why should I have to? - What about my rights?

Then there's the (probably more contentious) matter of children's rights - if we are to have gay marriages, then there will be those who decide they have the "right" to have children - which means adoption or to my mind heinous practice of surrogacy, whereby the poor infant is wrenched from it's mother shortly after birth, to be brought up by a gay couple on formula milk, bereft of it's birth mother..... I'm at the very least "uneasy" about such practices, and am of the view that as far as possible kids need their natural mums and dads to bring them up..........

I hate to break it to you, since you apparently live in 1954, but gay people can, shockingly already have children. They can adopt. They can have children via surrogacy.
Do try to sleep ok tonight.

Wrenching children from their mother's shortly after birth? You may have confused being gay with the practices of the Magdalene asylums. Easy to do since both are in the news a lot lately.

 

[big soft moose]

I wasnt aware that you'd asked that question - you asked for clarification of the term people of the book :shrug:

in terms of whether they are wrong - I make no judgement on whether they are morrally wrong - each persons moral compass is their own to decide on.

However if the discriminate based on sexual preference while in the UK they are legally wrong under british law.

 

[tiler65]

I wasnt aware that you'd asked that question - you asked for clarification of the term people of the book :shrug:

in terms of whether they are wrong - I make no judgement on whether they are morrally wrong - each persons moral compass is their own to decide on.

However if the discriminate based on sexual preference while in the UK they are legally wrong under british law.

See post 95

 

[fracster]

"I feel so sorry for the parents, their lovely daughter ending up like that."

His opinion and he is entitled to his view.

(other than a punch in the teeth) is " I'm gay too by the way"

Good to see a bit of respect for others opinions and views being observed.

Ps...Perhaps the old guy was Dave Courtneys favourite uncle, you`d sure regret punching him in the teeth if he was.

Onto the subject,can`t see the hassle to be honest and it doesn`t bother me. But I understand other people who are against, not "gay bashing morons" but people who have sensible reasons to be against it.

 

[big soft moose]

Good to see a bit of respect for others opinions and views being observed.
.

but does he have the right to express that view at a gay wedding ? - if he feels like that why did he attend ? , is it 'right' that he should accept their hospitality then express homophobic views at the reception ?

Personally i'd say a response like i suggested give his antiqitated and predjudiced view the respect it deserves

 

[viv1969]

See I don't see anything wrong with the old gent...it is what he was taught and lead to believe in. It is the future generations that need to be educated - or given a choice which is probably more my point.

Yes but surely the old gent knew who's wedding he was attending. If he ws not comfortable with the situation, he should have stayed at home.

 

[tiler65]

but does he have the right to express that view at a gay wedding ? - if he feels like that why did he attend ? , is it 'right' that he should accept their hospitality then express homophobic views at the reception ?

Personally i'd say a response like i suggested give his antiqitated and predjudiced view the respect it deserves

Perhaps the other bride was a moose!

 

[joescrivens]

His opinion and he is entitled to his view.

What about if he'd been at a wedding where a white woman married a black man and he'd said

"What a shame for the parents, ending up like that"

Would that be ok?

If not then what's the difference in your opinion?

 

[tiler65]

What about if he'd been at a wedding where a white woman married a black man and he'd said

"What a shame for the parents, ending up like that"

Would that be ok?

If not then what's the difference in your opinion?

He is still entitled to his opinion.

 

[Davec223]

you are evading the question.......what about other religions and cultures that do not allow gay marriage........can all of them be wrong?

Personally yes I believe they are.

 

[viv1969]

He is still entitled to his opinion.

Yes he is, but his decision to attend said wedding is questionable, at best.

 

[big soft moose]

He is still entitled to his opinion.

entitled to hold it yes

entitled to express it in surroundings where it is almost certain to cause offence, no

if he doesnt approve of the brides orientation so much that he can't keep his mouth shut about it he shouldnt be at the wedding - simples

 

[joescrivens]

He is still entitled to his opinion.

Would you say in that case that people are entitled to be racist, sexist, or anti Semitic?