Reader comments · Civil partnerships in religious premises “by the end of the year” · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Civil partnerships in religious premises “by the end of the year”

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why will civil marriages in a registry office not be legal by the end of the year.

    This news is worth half a cheer.

    What is needed is full recognition of same sex civil marriage (and stick a clause in to allow them be performed in cult buildings if they wish to offer them).

    Civil parterships remain discriminatory contracts for 2nd class citizens. And they remain entirely inappropriate for a country which pretends that the LGBT population is legal.

    1. de Villiers 2 Nov 2011, 11:45am

      Your continuing childish insistence to refer to established religions as “cults” in lordly chants demonstrates your ongoing bigotry, lack of manners and total lack of knowledge of any serious theology.

      1. Christine Beckett 2 Nov 2011, 12:03pm

        “serious theology”

        Contradiction in terms, surely?

        How can one have a serious debate about the “realities” of fantasies?

        1. de Villiers 2 Nov 2011, 12:08pm

          That is a really childish comment on a part with David’s. It is a real arrogance that we as gay people decry the way that heterosexual people make uninformed comments about us but then ourselves make similarly uninformed comments about complicated subjects such as the nature of divinity and existence.

          Your comment about “fantasies” shows no understanding or realisation of any of the higher criticism, historical conceptions of the divine or serious philosophical discussion as to the nature of existence and otherness.

          1. The christian, muslim or jewish faiths are no more valid than scientology.

            They are belief systems designed for desert dwelling, illiterate peasants who lived thousands of years ago.

            They are not based on any fact or science.

            Ergo they are cults.

          2. I believe that everybody deserves protection from discrimination based on their gender, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical ability.

            religious belief is a freely chosen lifestyle choice. It is not immutable, therefore does not deserve any respect or deference.

            The catholic church is a cult. It is not insulting to state that, It discriminates against nobody.

          3. the difference between cult and religion is actualy 1 of perception, example christianity would consider all none christians (or christians not of their sect) to be part of cults as a cult is only refered to as beliefs or religious practices are considered strange or abnormal, beyond that identical to religion but perhaps its just semantics heh

          4. @dAVID

            You may feel religious belief requires no protection in law, thats not the view of English law …

            So, whilst you are entitled to put forward suggestions that ignore religious beliefs the government must comply with legislative requirements of consultations etc and be seen to be equal to all strands that the equality act and associated legislation gave protection to …

        2. Serious theology? I had the same incredulous thought. Too funny.

      2. I agree – it strikes me as the same sort of infantile as is used in the playground when people are called “gay” not referring to sexuality but something negative. The repeated use of the word “cult” must be for effect, and continues to be used despite a number of people challenging the vitriol behind it.
        We as LGBT people seeking equality have enough to contend with, without being accused of reverse bigotry.

        1. The older religions have no more validity than scientology.

          Scientology is correctly deemed a cult.

          Therefore the other book based sects can also be regarded as cults.

          It’s not vitriolic or infantile. It insults nobody. And it is entirely accurate.

          1. You may not intend it to be insulting, but many perceive it as insulting …

            I refer to the current debate on section 5 of the public order act where the word “insulting” is deemed very subjective and a matter of perception …

            Whilst someone may not perceive what they are saying as problematic in terms of insulting them, others may see a different perspective and see certain language as highly offensive. In the case of the public order act (section 5), the police have a power of arrest after someone has been warned about their conduct. If they then continue to use such language they may well be arrested or issued with a fixed penalty etc etc.

            Whilst I am not trying to suggest that language on these threads should lead to police investigations – the comparison is that you have been told by various people that the use of the word “cult” is seen as offensive in the manner you use it. If you are a decent person, you would recognize this and moderate your language.

          2. You’re wrong though, it DOES insult people.

            People who follow a religion are insulted when you deem them a cult; this is no different between Scientology and the older religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity etc.

            While you do have a right to hold your own opinion, you must also hold respect and civility when making comments on others. As has been said already, a minority group seeking equality should not disrepsect other minority groups, as this devalues their argument.

            While they may not have the best stance on homosexuality, I deem it appropriate to note that we should uphold a select few of the Christian principles not in the name of Christianity, but in the name of being better people and being recognized as such.

            I therefore would reccommend you stopped using the word “cult” when referring to religions. Stooping to their level makes us no better than them.

          3. @Mark

            Absolutely, it demeans our fight if we disrespect other minorities whils we expect respect for ourselves …

        2. I’m intrigued but also slightly amused at the red ratings for the comments which are challenging the use of the term cults for being offensive. We demand equality and to be treated with respect yet clearly some believe it is fine to ridicule and insult people of faith as being in a cult.

          Yet if you go to say a Daily Mail article about LGB people the comments which try to promote or challenge equality over there are also red marked quite heavily. What’s the difference?

          1. @Kris

            I also find it bemusing that the posters on here can not see the double standards of condoning using offensive language against religious individuals or organisations, whilst condemning the use of inflammatory or offensive language against LGBT people etc.

            Personally, I think if our aims for equality are to have any integrity then we need to ensure we do not become prejudiced against other minority groups.

            A bigot is a bigot, whether they are religious and condemning gay people, a white person condemning Asians or a gay person supporting treating people prejudicially because of their faith …

    2. Changing the CP legislation requires only a statutory instrument signed by a minister – whereas introducing equal marriage (civil or otherwise) requires brand new legislation …

      Hence the difference in speed of establishing both

      1. So long as this irrelevant updating of CP legislation does nott delay marriage equality by 1 day, I have no problem with it.

        in this Tory led government I suspect they are using it as a delaying tactic.

        i want a proper timeline (with dates), when the LGBT population will be treated equally by the law.

        1. Given that all is required is the signing of a statutory instrument and the publishing of that – it is work that arguably only requires a few minutes … so given the timetable the government have announced – this would have no impact on the passage of government policy and legislation on equalising marriage.

    3. Why is it so many Christians post on Christian news and not on gay news stories here on Pinknews? Are these Christians posting to make them look good when the Christians look bad in the news?

    4. On same topic, I think this article and perhaps more especially the comments following it are worth reading.
      The Psychology Behind Cults/Religion

  2. David, indeed. If CPs are so equal, why aren’t they being introduced in other countries. So far, only two have them and the Irish version isn’t even identical to the British model. The fact that 10 countries and Denmark in March 2012, Mexico City, Washington DC and six states in America have legalised same-sex marriage is proof just how unequal they are and have NO significance or import to society at large. ; By all means keep them but we must and should have the freedom to access civil marriage if we are to be regarded as a full equality zone in the EU which we are not as of yet.

    1. They are introduced in other countries (maybe not in name, but effectively the same) eg New Zealand …

      Whimpering about religious CPs when the government has said same sex marriage will be introduced (not may, not we will debate it, not we would like to, but a concrete WILL) by 2015 is pointless.

      1. I see no reaon for the delay until 2015.

        There is no valid objection to a segment of society (the LGBT population) being treated as 2nd class citizens under the law.

        The fact that marriage equality has been scheduled until the very end of the coalition’s lifetime indicates to me that there is a very high probability that it will not be legislated for by this government.

        I am sick of being thrown worthless scraps.

        I am not a 2nd class citizen, and as a tax-paying citizen it disgusts me to see the government having consultations wiith bigotted organisations as to whether I deserve legal equality, while at the same time they are wasting time on allowing tiny, minor little cults to perform CIVIL partnerships in religious buildings.

        1. @dAVID

          So complain to the government about their timetable and tell them which legislation (not statutory instrument as they only take minutes) they should defer to bring this forward …

          Don’t try and use strawman arguments about the actual legislation.

          The government are going to give us equal civil marriage … there may or may not be a religious component permitted (for those who wish it) … but your complaint is nothing to do with the religious element (as you yourself have said you couldnt care a less if those who want religious marriage are able to or not) …. its to do with the timing of equal civil marriage …

          So complain about the timeline not the other issues

          1. Equality by 2015?

            The last possible date of the current coaltion government?

            Convenient I suspect. I predict that unless they get their finger out, that marriage equality will not happen by 2015.

            I want a valid reason why civil marriage equality cannot be enacted in law by the end of 2012? It’s not difficult, as it merely required marriage legislation to be made gender neutral.


          2. The coalition did not say it would happen in 2015 or at the end of the the term of office …

            They said by-2015. That could mean after the consultation – late 2012.

          3. Lets keep the pressure on the coalition to make sure they deliver what they have promised and lets not get diverted by side issues

  3. Christine Beckett 2 Nov 2011, 12:01pm

    Nice…. :-)

  4. Spanner1960 2 Nov 2011, 12:19pm

    Who needs churches anyway?
    This is a cop-out.
    We want same sex marriage, not this CP bollocks. If churches wish to offer the ceremony, that is entirely up to them.

    1. No, Spanner, it is not up to the churches. They want to perform marriage ceremonies, but the government gives no legal recognition to them, unlike the marriages these churches perform for their heterosexual congregation members. So, no, it is not up to the churches, they are prevented from providing the equality that they want to provide.

      1. Spanner1960 2 Nov 2011, 2:48pm

        Yes, I see your distinction, but I would point out that the churches that would want to perform these ceremonies are very much in the minority. This whole thing is just about pandering to a small minority. Most LGBT people simply want to be married in the eyes of the law in an identical fashion to straight couples. Whether or not this is carried out in a church is really just icing on the cake.

        1. @Spanner1960

          The thing about human rights is that you don’t apply them to the standards of the majority – you ensure they protect all (including the minority)

          1. Spanner1960 3 Nov 2011, 7:45am

            There is no “one size fits all” law.
            However one legislates you are always going to get some that fall between two stools. The law is designed to protect the majority of the people, which is not necessarily the same as what the majority of people want.

          2. @Spanner1960

            One of the purposes of equality legislation is to ensure that individual rights are not denied by being part of a minority group

          3. One of the purposes of equality legislation is to try and ensure that individual rights are not compromised by being part of a minority grouping.

  5. It’s a step towards equality but it doesn’t provide equality. It’s slightly daft because religious gay couples don’t want civil partnerships- they want their marriages to have legal recognition. Now the governments in England and Wales plan to allow same sex marriage with the exception of religious marriages (not giving equality) while the Scottish government plans to provide full marriage equality. So religious gay couples will have to flock up to Gretna Green to marry!

  6. Cupid Stunt 2 Nov 2011, 12:30pm

    It’s a welcome improvement. Let’s take a moment to appreciate what’s in the glass before moaning about the empty half.

  7. “While the Unitarian Church and the Quakers as well as Liberal and Reform Judaism said they would hold ceremonies for gay couples, the Catholic Church and Church of England said they would not.”

    So a couple of tiny little cults will benefit from this. Meanwhile the 2 big cults (along with the muslim cult) which account for the vast majority of believers are not remotely affected.

    Do not be fooled.

    This ‘development’ is very, very minor.

    Most religious cults will remain poisonously bigotted.

    All religious cults remain anti-democratic.

    1. Would be good if you recognised some developments as progressive and accepting rather than ridicule one church because of the bigotry of another … otherwise you seem to lack the scientific ability to analyse difference

      1. But I regard all religious belief as ridiculous, unscientific, fictional. Therefore whether a religion is ‘accepting’ of gay people is entirely irrelevant. (and to be honest religious belief requires subjugating yourself to a fictitious higher power therefore no-one who is religious is really allowed any freedome as they are expected to obey the rules of their silly cults/)

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 2 Nov 2011, 3:37pm

          Oh the delicious can of worms this has opened.

          I can just see Ann Widdicombe frothing at the mouth as she pens more bile condemning this action.

          Give it time and all of the bigots will come crawling out of the woodwork.

          1. Yeah all the religious anti gay bigots will come out and froth and scream

            All the anti religious bigots (both gay and straight) will also come out and froth and scream

            Neither of them have balanced views or are acceptable in a liberal and democratic society

        2. Dr Robin Guthrie 2 Nov 2011, 4:27pm

          It would appear that no one is allowed an opnion either way unless it is acceptable to Stu.

          1. You interpret what I say that way if you wish, Dr Guthrie … that is not what I am saying, and you know you are twisting what I am saying in forming that opinion … but you are entitled to it …

            What I am saying is that equality is not achieved by treating other people with inequality

        3. Thats cheap rhetoric …

          If you believe in equality, then you must endorse the UN declaration of universal human rights …

          Unless you want to pick and choose them?

          One of those is the freedom to have (or not have) religion …

          Your commentary that all religion is ridiculous, unscientific and fictional – may be views that many share (and I personally share but without such vehemence or hostility that seems to emanate from your posts). Nonetheless, repeatedly using the same vitriolic language is not only damaging the integrity of the fight for LGBT equality, it also paradoxically can be compared to an extremist Christian who may describe a gay man as unnatural, perverted and evil. I would vehemently condemn the Christian who made such comments, but I also condemn those who restrict freedom to have religion or democratic comment.

          1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 2 Nov 2011, 6:42pm

            Vitriolic language! Where?! A tad excessive, doncha think?! Cheap rhetoric indeed! Pot. Kettle. Black. Defending both sides of the same argument is quite a position to take… Perhaps you find yourself arguing with yourself a lot these days? Maybe the devil’s got hold of you and you need an exorcism! Anyone can take exception to anything but it makes for VERY boring reading. Please don’t defend the religious, if the Holy God of Israel is so mighty he’ll do that for you!

          2. @Mr Ripleys Arsecrack

            You may interpret me as defending the religious – but you would be wrong

            I am anti religion

            What I do defend is equality and the integrity of LGBT people fighting for equality, and that fight being damaged by reverse bigotry

        4. Dr. R Guthrie 3 Nov 2011, 2:24am

          Word of advise Stu.

          Know thine enemy.

          Clearly by the continuation of “red ticks” your opinion is NOT that of most gay people on this site.

          I agree a minority of the religous are on the side of fairness and equality however there voice
          is lost in the bellow of crap their paymasters crap all over us.

          Clearly, there is a long way to go on both sides.

          Gays, having suffered 2000 years of abuse from these clubs are VERY wary of every utterance from their pious lips
          and this time I have no intention of letting them snatch away the crumbs they throw us.

          They can believe in whatever sh!t they wish to believe in, but they have ZERO right to yet again attempt removal of our rights.

          And in that they can go F themselves in whichever hell they have made up for themselves and you are helping them along by condoning their insanity.

          1. @Dr Guthrie

            Thank you for your words of advice.

            I can see that there are some people on PN who do not agree with me. Fortunately, I am not on here to win a popularity contest, but to engage in debate.

            I am entitled to my views as much as they are to theirs.

            I appreciate (and have been subject to) hostility from Christians towards LGBT people has been around for a long time. That does not mean that its fair game to respond with vitriolic attacks and hostility.

            Bigots are often blind to their own bigotry – particularly psychological research shows when the bigotry is reverse bigotry.

            Of course the Christians can believe whatever they like – as can you or anyone else and no where have I suggested otherwise or that anyone is trying to curtail this – which makes me consider you comments to be even more rhetorical.

            Its risible that LGBT people fighting for equality will resort to oppressive language to another minority group – however, ridiculous the belief system of the others

          2. So long as one does not insult or demean someone based on their sex, age, race, ethnicity, physical ability etc then it is of course perfectly acceptable to insult and belittle someon’e freely chosen, voluntary religious beliefs. Religious belief is not immutable.

            it is a lifestyle choice, and usually it s a poisonously bigotted lifestyle.

            Religion has nothing of value to offer the world and it insults nobody to say so.

          3. Patrick Lyster-Todd 3 Nov 2011, 11:42am

            I have to say that I agree fully with Stu. I am definitely no supporter of organised religion and believe personally that the churches have been responsible over the centuries for more evil and human misery than anything else devised by man. But, as a gay man, I also stand fore-square to support the rights of other people to hold different opinions. Not all religious people are evil and much good has also been perfomed – and continues to – by some.

            So I don’t really find the comments by ‘Dr Robin Guthrie’ (or is that ‘Dr R. Guthrie’ … been signing in and ticking twice lol?! Very democratic!) or dAVID (do you always go around insulting people you don’t know because you disagree with them?) in the least helpful. If you have a point to make, fine – but why descend to use gutter language?

          4. @Patrick Lyster-Todd

            Absolutely. I disagree with the world view of religious people and organisations, but they are entitled to their views – and to be able to expect not to be treated in a demeaning way by others.

            Now I appreciate many gay people (including I suspect many or most PN readers) have been demeaned by either individual religious persons or organisations at one time or another. However, its churlish and wrong to use similar attitudes in reverse.

            Fortunately, most gay people who seek equality respect that others who are from other minority groups should be given the respect that the equalities we seek – otherwise it demeans our quest for equality and fairness.

    2. I am a Reform Jew and i have to say that i am a bit offended that you called my religion a cult. It is not. I would like to make that clear.

      1. @Robbie

        I am an agnostic and I can see that many would be offended by referring to their religious organisation as a cult.

        The fact that people are blind to the offence they can cause by using inflammatory language reminded me of these quotes about bigotry (of any form):

        Einstein once said “The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer”

        Judith Light said “Bigotry or prejudice in any form is more than a problem; it is a deep seated evil within our society”.

        Anna Quindlen said “Look back, to slavery, to suffrage, to integration and one thing is clear. Fashions in bigotry come and go. The right things remain”

        Joseph Addison said “A man must be both stupid and uncharitable who believes there is no virtue or truth but on his own side”

        Simon Ponsite said “What is really happening when atheism gets used as a shield or weapon to disparage or belittle others whose beliefs don’t match up?”

        Makes me see that whatever the motivation …

      2. John Antrobus 2 Nov 2011, 6:35pm

        cult   [kuhlt]
        a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
        an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
        the object of such devotion.
        a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
        Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

        1. I could produce a definition of many expletives that would not offend, but that does not mean that the use of the expletive would not offend others.

          In the same way, the correct definition for a word, and being utilised in a sentence in the context of that definition does not prevent it from being offensive.

          A civilised person when made aware that they were being offensive would moderate their use of the offending word and find an alternative that was less offensive or inoffensive.

          Its disappointing to learn that some people on these threads not only are not willing to moderate their language, but also exercise hypocracy in demanding certain rights but not being prepared for other minority groups to have similar rights.

          That saddens me as it demeans the LGBT equality cause.

      3. … being intolerant towards others who hold different opinions to oneself (bigotry) is never a credible way of conducting oneself nor a manner to encourage society to change.

        1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 2 Nov 2011, 7:06pm

          Erm… Stu, can you prove that the use of the word ‘cult’ here is being intolerant towards others? The comments made are describing the religion, not the religious.

          1. Given that someone being offended is a very subjective matter, for example some gay people find being called “queer” offensive, I personally as a gay man don’t – the value of evidencing that people find the term “cult” offensive is subjective itself.

            However, I have both spoken to a my partners brother (who is a Methodist minister) and he said he would view the term cult to be negative, offensive and patronizing. For clarity, neither myself nor my partner are religious.

            I also researched it on the internet and found this site – which views the use of the word “cult” as oppressive, barrier forming and offensive:


            The organisation seeks to support those who may have seen harmed by authoritarian religious groups.

            This coupled with my own sense that there is the potential to offend someone who is religious by the use of the word “cult” is enough for me to feel certain that many people hide behind the dictionary definitions when their …

          2. … intention is to offend.

            It alarms me that those who claim to seek equality (whether that be for LGBT people or race or whatever) feel it is appropriate to use language that demeans another minority.

            That undermines our seeking real equality.

      4. Spanner1960 3 Nov 2011, 7:46am

        Somebody called me a cult once.
        At least, I think that’s what they said.

      5. Do you belong to a club that believes that an all powerful deity invented the world in 6 days? Despite a complete lack of evidence for it, and plenty of scientific proof as to how we actually got here?

        If your answer is ‘yes’ then you are a member of a cult.

        This is not meant as an insult. It is merely an indisputable statement of fact.

        Why does your religion have more validity than scientology merely because it comes from older works of fiction?

        If this offends you then I suggest you build a bridge, And get over it.

        1. @dAVID

          Whilst I will not argue with your use of definitions – the correct use of a definition does not prevent it being offensive

  8. I’m no fan of religious CPs – second-class status, plus the foolishness of the idea is summed up by the oxymoronic name – but this is excellent news. Hear me out…

    Implementing religious CPs will highlight the absurdity of the UK government’s attempt to exclude religious weddings from marriage equality. The government’s current plan is to allow gays to marry in secular buildings – but if we do it in a gay-friendly church, we can only get a CP and it has to be overseen by a registrar. Absolutely ridiculous!

    Such a scenario will invite legal challenge since it discriminates against faith (same-sex couples with faith will only get a CP, unlike their secular brethren who get marriage) and introduces new discrimination against LGBs (same-sex couples with faith will have to pay the extra charge for a registrar as well as a religious celebrant, unlike their straight co-religionists).

    This silly idea will make good politics.

  9. Stu, I don’t see why there would need to be brand new legislation to enact same-sex civil marriage. All that would be needed is an amendment to the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 defining civil marriage as gender neutral and not compelling religious denominations to recognise or perform them.

    1. @Robert

      That might be a possible solution …

      However, there would be an issue if there have been numerous statutory instruments with regards the legislation (I am not aware if there have or not) that new legislation may be seen as more appropriate

  10. gino meriano 2 Nov 2011, 1:39pm

    Ask the question

    on the 5th Dec will Churchs be allowed to legally sign a same sex couple ?

    or is this the same rule about a ceremony with opt in and out choices for the church that has been in place since 2010

    The message is unclear and there is no news

    March next year the new bill will look to open Civil Marriage and Civil Partnerships to all – now thats worth talking about

    1. You’re either in Scotland now where CPs for all are being consulted upon or you didn’t read LF’s previous statement. The consultation is only on civil marriages for gays, no CP equality and no true equality for gays since religious marriages are not being discussed. This is a step forward and March is a tiny step forward but the bill for gay marriage isn’t being introdcued in March, it’s only the consultation!!!!! As far as I am aware the promise for SS marriage is 2015 which is a long way away.

  11. Mike Homfray 2 Nov 2011, 2:24pm

    British law always changes incrementally – its the nature of the beast. And remember that a small minority of US states have gay marriage and it doesn’t have federal status – we are further on than the US and in going down the CP route followed by reform to full marriage, have (rather later than them!) followed the Scandinavian pattern

  12. So I don’t know much about all of this but what I do know is that as CPs exist now can’t we have marriage for all AND CPs for all? I have straight non-religious non-marriage friends who’d love a CP. I don’t want a marriage and I’m gay but I totally get why many do.

  13. “No religious group will be forced to host a civil partnership registration”

    So they can refuse if they wish, straight from the mouth of the Equality Minister, so no suing of churches. This should apply to ALL business, etc, that they are not forced to alow homosexuals in.

    1. Churches can already refuse to marry who they wish – divorcees being an obvious example, and those of other religions another – so there’s no reason why they wouldn’t be able to continue picking and choosing if marriage was opened to LGBT people.

    2. Well if you want a society where businesses can refuse to deal with someone on the basis of their ethnicity, disability, gender, sexual orientation … then maybe the law should be changed in that manner, Matthew

      I personally, prefer to think that the UK is more accepting of difference than you propose, and that your views are a complete anachronism

      1. No the law should not be changed, it has been like it for years and should stay like it.

        1. Well if we follow your logic, then the public order act should also not be changed …

        2. “No the law should not be changed, it has been like it for years and should stay like it.”

          That old boo-hoo line again. You must find chnage very difficult, don’t you? Like a scared child? Did you cry when Civil Partnerships came into force after telling everyone “the law won’t chnage”?

          Stupid man.

      2. No the law should not be changed just to suit homosexuals. The law has been this for 1,0000’s of years and should stay this way. Some may do it, but it will be done for the money and they shall make it known.

        1. No, individual churches and the like already choose whom they marry. You could accuse them of ‘doing it for the money’ but even I’m not that cynical.

          Regarding the law, this is talking about removing the ban on religious places performing CPs, which has only been in place since the CP legislation in 2006 – so hardly ‘thousands of years’.

          The question of same sex marriage – if you’re referring to that – is a separate matter. It is CIVIL same sex marriage that is being looked at and NO religious place will be forced to carry out those marriage or CPs now if they don’t want to any more than they’re forced to marry divorcees.

        2. Oops! I meant 2004 for the actual CP legislation.

  14. gino, the marriage equality consultation excludes access to CPs by straights unfortunately. It’s only about allowing same-sex couples access ot civil marriage, nothing more.

    1. But the consultation is an opportunity to demonstrate to the government that equal religious marriage is an option some people would want (not me personally) but if the Quakers etc wish to petition government on that issue – they are entitled to do so

      1. Make the marriage laws gender neutral and then cults would automatically be allowed to perform religious marriages if they wished.

        1. Tell the government in the consultation then …

          Rambling on about how much you hate religion doesnt achieve that

          1. I not hate religion. Referring to these clubs as ‘cults’ is an accurate description of them.

            What is your problem with referring to them as what they actually are?

          2. My problem, is (as I have already evidenced above) the use of that terminology is offensive to some …

            In the same way it could be “accurate” in terms of definition to call me gay, queer, a poof, buggerer, queen, nancy etc etc – given the definitions of all of these in OED could fit a homosexual male – I would personally find some of those words offensive (not others) even though technically they would describe me as a homosexual male.

      2. The shape of the consultation is being drafted now, LF has already stated that relgious org are shaping it and that those meetings with her office are confidential. I’m not sure what the consultation is all about in March 2012 becuase it seems that confidential meetings are already taking place. There is no opportunity for the public to shape it. The consultation on religious CPs was merely technical, it didn’t allow you to change the govt’s mind and I suspect the marriage equality consultation will be the same. The opportunity is now, if you want relgiious marriages then you need to tell them now.I agree what is the point of the consultation when the decision are being made in confidence with her by LGBT groups and religuious leaders.

  15. And the useless consultation on marriage equality will specifically not consider religious unions… go figure …

    1. Why is the consultation useless, Beberts?

      What specifically about the consultation do you find useless?

      1. The consultation on marriage equality is useless because it is absolutely unnecessary.

        it is undemocratic and bigotted to deny law abiding, taxpaying citizens access to the legal contract of civil marriage simply because they are gay.

        The ‘consultation’ is a delaying tactic.

        There if no valid or reasonable objection to civil marriage equality. All objections to it are bigotted.

        And the promise to have civil marriage equality BY 2015 indicates to me that in the run-up to the next General Election, Callmedave Cameron will be bleating on about how he supports equality but that he simply didn’t have time to enact it.

        Make the marital laws gender neutral, impose a party whip, vote on it and get marriage equality by the end odf 2011.

        This would be possible if the government had the will to do it.

        1. If the consultation was about whether or not to have equali marriage, I would agree with you that it was unnecessary and false …

          However, it is a progressive and honest government that readily consults about how to improve rights. It gives them an adult opportunity to draft legislation in a manner that does not cause problems later, that should have been considered.

          I understand why people are cynical and bitter but lets look at things …

          People on PN said this government would never bring a consultation on equal marriage – it has
          People on PN said this government would never change its policy on international aid to support LGBT rights – it has
          People on PN said Cameron would never be truly honest about seeking LGBT equality – he appears to be
          Why should we doubt them on this, and even if we do – by ridiculing the consultation does not help achieve the aim. Engage with the consultation and be part of the movement that improves equality for all.

        2. So which pieces of government legislation would you dump in the next few months to get equal marriage passed?

          Personally, I feel their legislation on policing and economy, international aid and trade are all pretty important whether you are LGBT or not … Why should this be emergency legislation when there is a clear commitment to equal marriage – we have been patient and campaigned to get a commitment to this for some time. I am prepared to wait a little longer because there are more pressing legislative requirements given the state of the economy etc

  16. Beberts, I think we should concentrate on getting civil marriage equality passed first and foremost. We can address religious participation after the fact as happened with CPs. We do things slowly in the UK, not always right every time, but I’m sure that in time, religious denominations will be allowed to participate in officiating at same-sex marriages. None of the ten countries so far have addressed it although Sweden I believe is mulling it, after legalising same-sex marriage earlier in January 2011.

  17. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 2 Nov 2011, 6:22pm

    Yawn. I cock-a-snoop at them churchy
    -fowk and their misdirected adoration of a skinny white man nailed to a cross and their dull as dishwater testament of stupid stupid stories. I need no religious sacrament or ceremony to add credence to my life (although a big tax break would be nice).

  18. Why would you want to get married in a church?

    1. Why not? It’s there, it’s pretty and makes a good photo for the wedding and who knows you mught actually be religious as well..

      1. Guess depends on the church, photographs wise – I remember the church building next to one of the schools I went to – very ugly 1960s building …

    2. Well, personally, it would not be something I would want to do …

      However, there are gay Christians, gay Jews etc etc

      They as a minority within a minority suffer bigotry from people due to their sexual orientation and their faith

      I would contend they should be able to have the same rights as other gay people – ie be able to marry (when equal marriage is achieved) in a venue they choose ….

      Civil marriage can be at any licensed premises in the UK

      Civil marriage can take place in a church or synagogue (although usually only with the added religious content) – given that those who seek a same sex marriage in a church are likely to be Christians themselves, why should they not have this option?

    3. Why not, we are gay Christians. Where else would a gay Christian couple get married?

      1. In a registry office for the legal bit.

        If you want a religious blessing then that’s entirely your own business.

        1. Spanner1960 3 Nov 2011, 9:20pm

          Why can’t a place of worship be allowed to issue a legally binding contract as well? I see no reason why thy shouldn’t.

    4. People should be allowed marry in a church if they wish. But we should move to a French system whereby ONLY a visit to the registry office offers legal recognition to the marriage.

      Religious groups are not qualiified to officiate at legally binding ceremonies due to the fact that they oppose equality laws.

      1. @dAVID

        Although we disagree on many things, this is something that we agree on almost entirely.

        I agree it would be both a simpler and fairer for all if all marriages were registered as civil marriages.

        I wouldnt restrict the venue to registry offices as many people have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to marry in a different venue eg country house hotel, castle, beach etc etc

        We both accept some feel they would benefit from a religious aspect to their celebration (although neither of us would personally welcome that for ourselves). I would hope there would be some method of either having a separate blessing (whatever terminology they wish to use) or a bolt on ceremony that can accommodate these wishes. In adopting this process it perfectly equalises the playing field for opposite and same sex couples.

        I may be out of date on an issue in your post that I think is slightly inaccurate (but does not really have any significance to the bigger picture). I know some …

        1. … ministers of religion who are currently permitted to conduct both a religious ceremony relating to a marriage and register that marriage have undergone training from local authorities in terms of the processes, legalities and principles of civil marriage. I don’t mention this to disagree with you, more to say that if we are arguing about bringing in the marriage process we both agree to – we need to make sure we reflect the facts in our arguments. I am not clear if all ministers who are able to conduct registrations have to have this training or indeed if it still is a requirement, but certainly some were required 10-15 years ago, so it would be inaccurate to say all were necessarily unqualified.

          That said, I (like you) would definitely, if designing the marriage process and procedures, remove the right to register marriages from relligious organisations. That in itself would not prevent the religious ceremony they may feel they wish to have.

  19. de Villiers 2 Nov 2011, 10:12pm

    I see that David’s nasty message has now received +22 votes.

    That really is sad and disappointing. Gay people clamour for equal respect. Yet they are happy to be nasty towards others.

    It just goes to show that the freedom that most groups seek is the freedom to oppress and be nasty towards others.

    All in all, very depressing and nasty. Nasty because it belittles others. Nasty because it deliberately seeks to offend. Nasty because it is done in pure spite. It’s worse than nasty. It’s disgusting and it disgusts me.

    1. de Villiers

      I am extremely disappointed at the bigotry from gay people towards others on this thread.

      Its vile. and as bad as the likes of Keith because both they and Keith think their behaviour is completely acceptable …

      1. Dave North 3 Nov 2011, 1:33am

        All hail the new moral arbiters. Stu and de Villiers.

        Get over yourselves.

        1. de Villiers 3 Nov 2011, 7:57am

          Unlike the gay moral arbiters who are happy to engage in vitriol towards the lives and cultures of others. All you have done is reveal your own hypocrisy.

          1. Dave North 3 Nov 2011, 9:36am

            No it does not.

            Where in my statement does it say I agree with their opinions?

            Get over yourself.

        2. @Dave North

          Bigots are often blind to bigotry especially reverse bigotry

          In any case, I am quite happy with my moral stance, and entitled to my view … I have many flaws – but I strive to be fair to all – if you don’t agree with being fair to all, then it speaks much more about you then it does about me

          In any case, I am as entitled to my views as anyone else … and despite what Dr Guthrie has said the red arrows mean nothing to me – I am perfectly happy with the impartiality and fairness of my position, and disappointed those who claim to seek equality have such a brazen prejudiced position …

    2. Being critical of a religious club is not being nasty towards any individual people.

      It is horrifying that you are trying to imbue religious cults with human characteristics.

      That’s how these poisonous cults have always undermined our democracy.

      The catholic cult in Britain deserves no more respect than the British Trainspotters Association.

      1. Absolutely not trying to imbue any religious organisation with any human characteristic

        I feel your risible attitude towards religion equally imbues hostility and bigotry towards those who are religious.

      2. Nonetheless the British Trainspotters Association are not referred to by language that they may perceive as offensive on these forums or elsewhere (to my knowledge)

  20. They’re finally doing something they actually promised to do and on the timetable they previously stated. A good sign?, now let’s hope there is no further delay in the SS marriage consultation and that we get marriage a little bit quicker than they managed to bring in “religious” CPs (when was the law changed, 2 yrs ago?).

    I just wonder who on earth is going to register their secular CP in a church when we’ve been promised gay marriage before 2015. After all the CP is still non religious and there is religious blessing at some time. We can do this at the moment and I think just being able to physically register your CP in the church is no substitue to a proper marriage and for the Quakers and relgious gays this isn’t what they want, they want religious marriages. And for all gay people, equality is wanted and that means having all the legal rights as straights and that has to be religious marriages as well, whether it comes with civil marriages or a little bit later the govt shouldn’t be fooled that civil marriages is the end of the story…

  21. GingerlyColors 3 Nov 2011, 3:24am

    It should be possible to use religious premises for civil partnerships. Unfortunately many vicars may not to conduct such ceremonies. People ordained into the Universal Life Church can apparantly conduct same sex, inter-faith and inter cultural wedding and civil partnership ceremonies on church property belonging to other demoninations.

  22. Katie Kool-eyes 3 Nov 2011, 10:10am

    As nice as this is, and a tip-toe forward. I can’t help but feel that if they gave us Marrages instead of civil partnerships, this would not even be an issue. Let alone, considered a “win”!

    Still, a motion forward IS a motion forward. Let’s hope the next step is 100% marrage x

    1. Tom Nicholls 3 Nov 2011, 4:49pm

      Another small but welcome step forward ;-)

  23. Keith Farrell 4 Nov 2011, 2:33pm

    thats good, but it is stiil apartheit, we are equal not seprate but equal, next they need to get working of theFLR(M) documents and requirements, because that form does not comply with the other changes in the laws

  24. Derek Williams 4 Nov 2011, 3:56pm

    OK it’s only one step, but it’s a step in the right direction.

  25. Jock S. Trap 5 Nov 2011, 3:43pm

    An excellent and most welcome step forward. Through this I hope we can dismiss the churches negative input and proceed to Equal civil marriage.

    1. @Jock S Trap

      Or even welcome the positive support from some churches?

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.