Slightly pedantic correction- âAnd thatâs not to mention its own priestsâ desire to wed their male loversâ should really be âAnd thatâs not to mention its own priestsâ desire to wed lovers of the same sexâ. The CoE allows women priests and so by extension this would allow women to marry each other as well. Funny how even today amongst relatively enlightened people, thereâs a near-subconcious tendency to use male-centric language. : )
My sympathies to the gay couples afflicted.
Even if the C of E is slow to get on board, surely there are Baptists and Methodists and who knows what in England? I know there are some who would be horrified at the thought of being married outside their particular One True Faith, but here in the US (and I imagine UK as well) theyâre a vanishing minority.
May they be touched by his noodly appendages.
Hopefully England will be able to avoid the dire consequences that have been predicted but failed to materialize in every other place that has same-sex marriage.
Not pedantic at all, correction made!
Baptists, methodists etc. are allowed to refuse to marry anyone, and probably will refuse in this case. The C of E is a special case who have to accept to marry anyone, and had an exemption put in the law so they didnât have to do same sex marriage. Unfortunately for them, some vicars (and bishops) are OK with the idea of doing same sex marriages and are unhappy about this.
I wouldnât be surprised if the Religious Society of Friends would do same sex marriages for couples who were turned down everywhere else.
And the country´s still standing? Not undone in a terrible gaypocalypse, values all eroded and the populace dragged into the bowels of hell in a seething mass of gay fornication? I´ll be damned.
Itâs like climate change, itâll only be a small adjustment of half degree or less. Doesnât seem like much now but in 50 years weâll all be drowning in homosexuals as the gay sea levels rise.
Indeed, itâs another step down a slippery slope, first they get basic human rights, then they get to marry, then theyâll you know⌠um⌠itâll lead to things like⌠you knowâŚ
And it wonât end before ⌠er⌠you know⌠stuff⌠So yeah. Itâs just completely wrong.
The Huffington Post article is wrong about weddings having to happen in civil premises.
The fourfold lock doesnât ban religions from marrying same-sex couples but does make it exceedingly difficult. The governing body of the whole denomination has to approve before individual churches can apply.
The Unitarians and Quakers have done this and weddings will take place in some of their buildings this year. I believe the United Reformed (similar to US United Methodist) has also approved as a denomination.
and besides, we should all be focusing on this rather than the erosion of human rights, climate change, banks doling out huge bonuses (again), the annexation of Crimea, death on the roads, death in the skies, Ebola outbreak in the capital of Guinea, the fact that Theresa May remains in government, the obstinate incapacity of David Cameron to lead this country, child neglect, child abuse, the failure of the catholic church to persecute abusive priests, the spread of âŚ
Same-sex marriage is the new fox hunting, for now.
btw - huge props to the people who made this happen. Best news all year.
OK so while youâre doing corrections, can you make it England and Wales?
enter link description here
Today Iâm feeling slightly better about being a brit.
Being a RC Canadien , the first time I heard the âCoEâ expression was the movie âIn The Name Of The Fatherâ. during the prison intake scene, asked religion and Day Lewis replies âCoEâ resulting with prompt formal correction of the proper use of The Queenâs English by the desk flunkly.
Happy join tax returns everyone, and love much.
Congratulations, I guess. [hipster]We Canadians were into SSM before it was cool[/hipster].
If we have to choose (coming from the middle of fox hunting country), Iâll take gay marriage being legal over fox hunting.
Yep - Iâm just astonished that anyone can make a fuss of same-sex marriage in the 21st century - they must be very rooted to some old ways.
Fox hunting seems to come up in the media every time the conservatives want to divert attention from something important. They have a little bag of diversionary headlines, and their favourite editors seem to play along!
For an alternative viewpoint, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10730495/Brian-Sewell-Why-Im-no-convert-to-gay-marriage.html .
