Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Campaigners petition for religious buildings to be allowed to hold civil partnerships

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simon Murphy 10 Jun 2009, 7:03pm

    I agree that religious buildings should be allowed to hold CP ceremonies so long as they are not forced to. If they want to do so then fine. But if they are obliged to then it will cause a huge backlash. Absurd as I find their beliefs I have no wish to force buildings owned by private organisations like churches to perform CP ceremonies.

  2. Simon Murphy,

    What about religious buildings which are in receipt of public money – Canterbury Cathedral for example. Should the C. of E., the Church Canons who run that building, be forced to provide Civil Partnership Ceremonies therein? Or is that particular building just too important a part of our past to be made an example of in this current politically correct (stupid) climate? How say you?

    This particular question has many ramifications, I think – and many points of principle are also at stake.

  3. I agree with the bishop quoted in the story. Why does a building need to be licensed before it can host a civil partnership (or marriage). Surely the only thing that matters is that the registrar is licensed. People should be able to marry in any building they choose.

  4. Tiglathpileser 11 Jun 2009, 7:51am

    You hate God, you hate his bible, you hate his people and yet you want the right to get married in his church.

    A bit hypocritical don’t you think?

  5. I don’t get this.

    Why would you want to get married in an institution belonging to a religion that teaches gays are inferior and going to hell???

    Why would you want a to be part of them?

    NEWSFLASH: The majority of these religious people want nothing to do with us, so leave their churches alone…….but most of all, fuck ‘em anyway! They don’t like us, so fuck ‘em!

  6. Actually, there’s plenty of religious folk the couldn’t give a damn either way who someone sleeps with. My grandmother is clergy, and as long as I’m happy she dosn’t cair which way I swing.

    There are a good number of religious folk who want the religous freedom to practice equality, or even who are themselves gay. Just because one person ‘hates’ religion (and I’ll be the first to admit I’m not keen on orginised religion), dosn’t mean everyone elce dose, and it dosn’t entitle anyone to begrudge another their rights.

    As for whether religious buildings are obligated to perform the: I think if they’re making a profet from performing civil marrages, they should be bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as every other business. If they take mony for performing civil marrages and have charitable status, they should be bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as every other charity. If they’re in recipt of taxpayers money in order to perform a public survice, they should perform that survice for ALL taxpayers. If not, however, they can do whatever the heck the please. After all, so many churches are the first in line to object to minory groups getting special rights ;)

  7. Brian Burton 11 Jun 2009, 10:26am

    My Partner and I are Gay Christians. I did not want my Civil Partnership (Which took place at my local Regestry Office) to enter any Religious building. We had our Church Minister call at our Bungalow and in the comfort of our home, we held a Chistian Blessing Service. The point is; to be a Chistian dos’nt mean you have to even attend Church!

  8. I trust Mosques will be included?

  9. Lezabella (5):

    I haven’t always agree with you, but this time – I couldn’t have put it better myself.

    When the Abrahamic religions are ready to delete a few homophobic passages from their scriptures (editing the books is nothing new), don’t talk to me about gay-loving christians or whatever.
    It’s posturing, pure and simple. Ditto your last line.

  10. To be fair, a lot of Christians are not homophobic and don’t adhere to the Bible. Quakers and Unitarians, for example, take a very different line from the Catholic church or the (mainstream) CofE. My partner and I are Quaker and had a Quaker ceremony in the meeting we’ve attended for eight years which was as close to the usual wedding ceremony as we could make it, and there was a lot of anger from our (straight!) meeting that we were not able to be married in the same way as everyone else. Both the Quakers are the Unitarians are gearing up to campaign for legal change on marriage. Yes, the left-leaning churches are exceptions to the general rule, but don’t assume all Christians are Bible-bashing bigots…

  11. This is a really important principle of equality at stake and it is really important that people support this. Please sign the petition. At the moment we do not have equality because religious straight people can get married in a church and religious gay people can’t. There are plenty of gay-friendly churches. Not all religious institutions are homphobic and not all gay people are atheists.

  12. All bibles contain homophobic passages. If they were in our Constitution, we would have them removed. There’s no way around it. You’re deluding yourselves if you think otherwise. Folowing the golden rule is the bottom line for me. Period.

  13. Gino Meriano 11 Jun 2009, 3:25pm

    If Im right in the thinking of this, its the legal signing only that needs to change and be allowed in a religious building because ceremonies already take place and have done for years pre and post Civil Partnerships in churches around the UK including the MCC Church – so the fight is to get the legal signing part ONLY into religious buildings, if thats the case then the arguement comes back to why not open Civil Partnerships to all as well – something alot of gay rights campaigners have been fighting for for many years now

  14. Monkeychops 11 Jun 2009, 3:53pm

    Here is fine example of where we see how people can be so sentimental and romantic – they want to blushing brides and grooms in a beautiful stone-built building and do what generations before them did. The photos will be beautiful. Hmmm….misses the point. Personally, I’d rather hire a registrar and then have it at a country manor or at least somewhere where everyone was welcome. We’ve got the right to get hitched and Christians have had to give into that despite their beliefs. Notwithstanding the fact I am anti-organised religion, I think we can compromise by letting them have the churches if they want. Though, arguably, most of these were built with public money from tithes to the church a few centuries ago. So, maybe we should claim them as public buildings anyway?

    To me, a gay christian or a gay muslim are oxymorons. But then religious interpretation of books is pretty mallable, so I’m sure if people think they know what God is and what he/she wants, then they’ll do it anyway.

    PS Lezabella – what a rant, you almost sound like me :) With you all the way though…..

  15. Bishop Ioan 11 Jun 2009, 3:57pm

    Tiglathpilese, there are millions of believing LGBTQ people. Why do you think that just because they struggle against bigotry and oppression, that they are against God or the Church. I am a Christopagan myself, but my spouse and I chose a neutral venue for our weddding.

    I think that if the particular church wishes to do civil partnerships/Holy Unions for their members, then what is the problem? Like Simon, I don’t think it should be forced, but I don’t see a problem if they would like to provide this service. For those places which make a profit off marriage, yes, I think same-sex ceremonies should be done there. Simply have clergy who are willing to do the ceremony perform them.

  16. Thanks Jean-Paul and Monkeychops! :)

    It just seems to me that we (as the gay community) are trying to enforce our way of life on them when we know the majority of them don’t approve…….the very same thing that we accuse them of doing to us!

    It’s ridiculous! Leave their churches alone, they want nothing to do with us and as far as I’m concerned they can fuck off aswell!

  17. Touché !

  18. I go right with the majority here. Everyone moans about the whole gay marriage/partnership thing, and now they want to force this on religious institutions. Talk about waving a red rag at a bull.

    I sometimes think gay people just want to kick up a fuss not because they actually WANT whatever it is, but more the fact they can’t have it. I’m waiting for some dickhead gay men to start shouting about “If straight women can get pregnant, then we should be entitled to as well!”

  19. Vicki Morley 14 Jun 2009, 11:53am

    Tiglathpileser — I love God, I love his Bible and I love his people and yet, at present, I can’t get married in a church. Also a bit hypocritical don’t you think?

    Lezabella – Christianity is my faith, and even though I’m gay I don’t want to abandon that, and I think that is the same situation for many LGBT religious followers. Of course there are hostilities when it comes to LGBT members and the church, but there are also those in the church who support and accept all sexualities, and the crux of the matter is – this isn’t about the institution, or the people of the Church. It is about gay couples and their God, and their right to get married in the house of God.
    Screw the church of England, I’m just concerned with God.

    As for the point about wanting what we can’t have… I couldn’t want to get married in a church any more. I would love the opportunity to enter into a lifelong commitment and not feel estranged from my own faith by being barred from Churches.
    And I hardly think it is imposing gay marriage upon faiths just by giving them the right to perform civil unions. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to.

  20. Tiglathpileser 15 Jun 2009, 1:59am

    [When the Abrahamic religions are ready to delete a few homophobic passages from their scriptures (editing the books is nothing new), don’t talk to me about gay-loving christians or whatever.]

    And shall we remove those passages that talk about murder, or fornication, or aultery, or abortion, or child molestation, or stealing, or covetesness so that these people can feel compfortable about themselves whilst they commit their crimes?

  21. Tiglathpileser 15 Jun 2009, 2:02am

    [All bibles contain homophobic passages]

    Not one of them are as God is not afraid of homosexuals. In fact, God is not afraid of anything or anyone.

  22. Tiglathpileser 15 Jun 2009, 2:03am

    [Tiglathpilese, there are millions of believing LGBTQ people.]

    Evidence please!!

  23. Tiglathpileser 15 Jun 2009, 2:05am

    [It just seems to me that we (as the gay community) are trying to enforce our way of life on them when we know the majority of them don’t approve…….the very same thing that we accuse them of doing to us!]

    At last, someone is waking up to reality!!

  24. Tiglathpileser 15 Jun 2009, 2:06am

    [I sometimes think gay people just want to kick up a fuss not because they actually WANT whatever it is, but more the fact they can’t have it. I’m waiting for some dickhead gay men to start shouting about “If straight women can get pregnant, then we should be entitled to as well]

    Someone else waking up to reality.

  25. Tiglathpileser 15 Jun 2009, 2:10am

    [Tiglathpileser — I love God, I love his Bible and I love his people and yet, at present, I can’t get married in a church. Also a bit hypocritical don’t you think?]

    I assume that you are writing as a lesbian. You say you love the Bible. In the bible Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments.His commandments are in the bible. There are 770 verses that recognises only one form of marriage. Between a man and a woman. If you love the bible why are you disobeying what it says?

  26. Tiglathpileser: “And shall we remove those passages that talk about murder, or fornication, or adultery, or abortion, or child molestation, or stealing, or covetousness so that these people can feel comfortable about themselves whilst they commit their crimes?”

    I guess you must follow if rule and demand made in the Bible? (particularly all those mentioned alongside homosexuality in Leviticus)

    Here’s a few to get you started, (just in case you have’nt read ALL your Bible):

    “For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)

    “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)

    “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.”

    “Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.”

    God commanded his people to kill Passover lambs each year (Exodus 12:1-8, 24-27). He claimed ownership of every first-born male, both human and animal (Exodus 13:1-2). The animals were to be given to the Lord, and payment given for every first-born son.

    God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, and all his children were to be circumcised. (Genesis 17:11; Leviticus 12:2-3)

    And there’s plenty more crap where that came from…

  27. upandathem 18 Jun 2009, 7:43am

    [Here’s a few to get you started, (just in case you have’nt read ALL your Bible):]

    By the looks of things you haven’t read all of the bible just Leviticus, which by the way is one of the five books of the Torah which were written to Jews. I am surprised being such an authority on the bible you didn’t know that.

    Apart from the fact that every Tom, Dick and homosexual quotes Leviticus as though we are going to be impressed with their biblical knowledge and we are going to cringe and crawl into a hole because it is there.

    Fortunately we do read the whole bible so we are not at all phased when you quote the bits that suit your agenda as it shows us that you are quote-mining to make you feel superior.

  28. Brian Burton 19 Jun 2009, 9:40pm

    RobN, upandathem, Tiglathpileser,

    YOU SUDO-INTELLECTUALS ARE A PAIN! WHY DO’NT YOU PUT AN EGG IN YOUR SHOES’ AND BEAT IT!?

  29. Tiglathpileser 20 Jun 2009, 7:52am

    [YOU SUDO-INTELLECTUALS ARE A PAIN! WHY DO’NT YOU PUT AN EGG IN YOUR SHOES’ AND BEAT IT!?]

    First of all Brian my dear pumpkin seed, the word is “pseudo”, not sudo.

    Second my dear pumpkin seed, we are not trying to be intellectual as the bible says that the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. Therefore it is unnecessary for us to be “intellectual” or otherwise because we don’t rely on what we know we draw on the wisdom of God who just happens to know a lot more than you do.

    Third, it is quite unnecessary to put eggs in our shoes as we have bowls available any time of the day or night to beat them in. I particularly enjoy doing that when I want to make scrambled egg for lunch. I add a bit of bacon, onion and cheese to give it flavour.

    Fourth, when one descends into name calling, invective and shouting it clearly indicates a person who has a short temper, an anger management problem and nothing intellectual to say.

  30. Tiglathpilesar – your god doesn’t condemn gays – “homosexual” was coined in 1868 I think plus your redefining homophobia doesn’t make you right
    there’s many gay, lesbian and bisexual christians

  31. Tiglathpileser 5 Jul 2009, 6:19am

    CHESTER – Tiglathpilesar – your god doesn’t condemn gays – “homosexual” was coined in 1868 I think plus your redefining homophobia doesn’t make you right there’s many gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians

    You are quite right Chester. You condemn yourself by believing the lies of the devil that it is OK to be homosexual and be a disciple of Jesus. The fact that the bible only has one position that of marriage between a man and a woman and sexual relations in that context means that you do not accept what God has revealed to be the norm.

    In Romans it makes it quite clear that the church accepted homosexuals but not to continue being homosexuals as Paul says “such were some of you” which means that they no longer are homosexual.

    Whilst I realise that the reason why you became homosexual was caused by forces out of your control, whether you continue in it is your choice. There are enough testimonies that show one need not be a homosexual and that there is deliverance through the shed blood of Jesus, as there is for all sin and all sinners.

    Obviously if you are determined to continue in your sin, there is not much that God can do for you and the scripture is quite clear when it says that homosexuals amongst others will not inherit the kingdom of God. As God cannot lie, this is a fact that you cannot circumvent much as I am sure that you would like to.

    As far as redefining the word “homophobia” that is quite clearly what the gaystapo do as they insist that it means someone who disagrees with you. The dictionary makes it quite clear that it is having a fear of homosexuals and that is the definition that I use because it is true. I have no fear of homosexuals at all so I am not homophobic.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all