Following legislation that permits same-sex “marriage” in the U.K. yet prohibits the Church of England from performing the ceremony, two men are planning to sue to be able to marry in their church.
“We are happy for gay marriage to be recognized ”” in that sense, it is a big step. But it is actually a small step because it is something we still cannot actually do,” Barrie Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle Aug. 1.
“We need to convince the church that it is the right thing for our community for them to recognize as practicing Christians.”
This has been getting a lot of attention on the web and in the news, most of which is undeserved. Several points.
* Britain has nothing comparable to our First Amendment, so people screaming “we are next” are delusional.
* While they lack anything as strong as our First Amendment, British and EU law does clearly protect religious conscience. Not even the most wacky court (and they have more than a few) in Europe is going to order churches to start marrying gays.
* They (the complainants) know this. This is a stunt with two objectives, first to get some free publicity and secondly to get social conservatives to all start barking at the moon.
On which note… mission accomplished.
I am not sure I agree with your perspective. If Congress can require those relogiously opposed including Roman Catholic entities to provide abortion services, morning after pills and birth control, it is only a very small step to require marriages. The unthinkable of only a few years ago is suddenly quite thinkable in the last 5 years. It is quite clear the executive branch and the Supreme Court are totally corrupt. Congress is beyond corrupt. When we become a government of men rather than laws, we are on a slippery slope if not downright death spiral.
Congress is not requiring Catholic Churches to perform abortions or distribute contraception. Their charitable organizations to a certain degree are being forced on the issue of contraception though not abortion. And that is highly controversial and I think unlikely to survive when it reaches the SCOTUS. Numerous lower courts have already struck down parts of the mandate on religious liberty grounds.
But what you are suggesting is that Congress will order Rome to change its doctrine. That’s too laughable to take seriously.
#3–Interesting comment. I suspect we will just have to agree to disagree and see who is right in the end. BTW–good luck to you if it happens to be me.
Honestly I just am passed the point of screaming about the destruction of marriage by gays. The truth is that we Heterosexuals pretty much demolished it all by ourselves. Shacking up, the complete removal of any stigma attached to bastardy, unrestricted use of contraception, and the acceptance of no fault divorce pretty did it in long before any gays decided to wander about the ruins.
Congress doesn’t have to order Rome to change our doctrine. They only need to force Catholics to pay for abortions and contraception, which they are trying to do.
I think you missed the main point of my comments. They do need to change your doctrine if they are going to force you to marry homosexuals.
True. I was responding to your very specific statement that they were not requiring us to perform abortions or distribute contraceptives. At that point, however, we are morally compromised. Tax exemptions will be gone, which is not wholly a bad thing. At some point, the ministries to the poor will be impacted. We have already seen government contacts for overseas relief work denied because we won’t include “reproductive health services” in our package of services. Catholic schools will have to teach that gay marriage and abortion are fundamental rights and moral goods. Catholic hospitals will be denied funding unless they commit abortions. Employment law will be applied to Catholic entities to eliminate “discrimination”.
So no, they won’t force us to change our doctrine. They will simply marginalize us demonize us, and, if we don’t comply, shut us down.