Traditionalist bishops and peers fear that vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they turn down requests to hold civil partnerships on religious premises.
Their concerns have been raised following a landmark vote by peers that will allow the ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in places of worship for the first time.
It is also feared that the changes would blur the line further between marriage – which churches say must be between a man and a woman – and civil partnerships.
Ummm, unless I’m wrong here, aren’t civil ceremonies still required in the UK? If so, aren’t they good enough for GLBT couples?
No clergyman should be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples if doing so would violate his religious vows or trouble his conscience.
With good reason – remember the NM photographer who had to pay $6,000 for refusing to photograph a “gay” wedding?
http://volokh.com/posts/1208281708.shtml
Or the lawsuit against the eHarmony?
I guarantee some of you pastors will be sued for refusing to celebrate “gay” weddings.
It’s a frequently heard argument but if clergy could be sued for not performing marriage ceremonies that violate conscience, surely Roman Catholics would be in court being sued by divorced couples seeking to be married by them against their conscience — and Jewish rabbis would be in court being sued by interfaith couples seeking to be married by them against their conscience.
There’s a distinct and critical difference between folks in the for-profit world opting to discriminate against and the protection clergy have — at least in this country.
I am perfectly aware that we have neither “Gay Marriage”, nor “Civil Unions”, but………. I wonder what would happen IF a same-sex couple, called upon a conservative Rector, was turned down, then appealed to the Bishop, and was turned down.. under those new ‘resolutions” wouldn’t there be grounds for some kinds of charges to be filed? I realize that is highly unlikely (or perhaps not), but in the case of our Presiding having her henchmen/women all at her beck and call, and their activities well beyond the bounds of canon law, but it sure seems a danger to me…………
Grandmother in SC
The article misses the point. England is a post Christian society and we are half a step behind. It makes no sense for the state religion to be Christianity if the people and most of the government are not. It is not simply an issue of gay weddings. Why should the state religion be Christian? On second thought, what is the point of a state religion?
Wouldn’t it be stupid if Anglican clergy retain the right to refuse straight marriages but gay “marriages” are mandatory?
Susan Russell – the privately-owned United Methodist church camp that was sued for refusing to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony in one of its worship facilities was certainly not-for-profit so that doesn’t fly. And yes, I believe that clergy will end up being sued, they already are.