Nothing illustrates better the insensitivity to minorities than Mr Cameron’s wish to legalise gay marriage. Dr Williams is critical of the “embarrassment” the Prime Minister has caused the Church. A “very inadequate” consultation overlooked the legal position of the Churches and marriage. By opposing the change, however, the Church attracted accusations of homophobia, and for good reason, he thinks. It has been too ”“ he says “lily mouthed” before correcting himself: “We’ve not exactly been on the forefront of pressing for civic equality for homosexual people, and we were wrong about that.”
To those who fear the constitutional consequences, he says legalising gay marriage would not of itself trigger disestablishment. “We’ve been assured that there will be no pressure on the Church to perform marriages, but of course as things stand, every citizen has the right to be married in Church. That’s alright, so long as the State’s definition of marriage and the Church’s definition are the same. If the State’s definition shifts ”¦ then we have a tangle.”
“We’ve [b]been assured that there will be no pressure on the Church to perform (gay) marriages [/b], but of course as things stand, every citizen has the right to be married in Church. That’s alright, so long as the State’s definition of marriage and the Church’s definition are the same. If the State’s definition shifts … then we have a tangle.â€
Ah, the rose glasses view! What with court cases regarding wearing a crucifix pending the Euro Court about British citizens, I must note that this is particularly deep rose pair of glasses – blindingly so for the ABC.
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a “citizen” of the UK (they are ‘subjects”) is it really true that “every subject has the right to be married in Church?” We know that’s not true because Prince Charles was denied a church wedding (when he married another man’s wife). So, presumably, there ARE actual minimal standards are they do NOT have to be identical to the standards for a civil wedding.
Everyone resident in a parish (whatever their faith) has the right to have their first marriage celebrated in their local parish church. Clergy may decline to permit second marriages to be solemnized in parish churches.
Uh..you don’t even have to be Christian? (Not to say Anglican?) Not even one of you? Like two Muslims could be married there? Can you perform a “Christian” marriage of two non-Christians? What does that even mean?
If that is truly the case (and I’m “gobsmacked” as the Brits say) then how can they possibly complain if they are “forced” to marry two gay people? Or two German Shepherds, for that matter? They’ve already agreed to carry out a mock wedding in which people who do not believe in Jesus Christ are married in his name. Please please correct me on this because I really want to be wrong.
Since 1949 and more specifically 1981 we Brits are citizens. Since then British subjects were born before 1 January 1949 and had a connection with British India or the Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland).
#4 I recall an example where an evangelical vicar agonized about his responsibility to marry a local couple one of whom was Sikh. Some parishes will insist that at least one person be baptized (though I’m not sure of the legalities of this). Others will insist that folks desiring marriage attend church (though I’m fairly sure this is illegal and could be challenged by an appeal to the local Bishop). In general CofE clergy will talk about serving their parish and mission opportunities and so forth.
Historically the context in which CofE marriage legislation was formed assumed a society in which everyone was baptized and everyone was a member of the CofE.