“Mr Reevell warned that it would be hard to maintain a legal opt-out for religious organisations if equal marriage arrives on the statute book.”
Why? Churches are allowed to ignore gender equality laws; they’re allowed to refuse to marry divorcees; they’re allowed to refuse to marry people of other faiths – yet suddenly they’ll be forced to marry gay people?
Odd isn’t it why nobody ever raises those very points? You’d think someone like George Osborne or better yet, David Cameron would spell it out for them once and for all. There hasn’t been one case of a heterosexual divorced person bringing a lawsuit againt any church refusing to conduct a religious marriage ceremony. This is a worn out red herring to thwart equal marriage, but it’s not going to make any difference. Even if Jesus Christ appeared before them and told them himself, they’d still remain unconvinced. Their brains, such as they are, are incapable of logical, rational reasoning, the size of a pea in a very thick skull. Proof that devolution exists and primarily a Tory problem it seems. They’re really not too bright are they and to think they were ever elected. Let’s hope this idiot loses his seat in the next election.
Because the extremist bigots need protection from evil, demonic gay people who are only demanding marriage because they want to destroy the church and society don’t you know, exactly like what has happened in Canada and all the other countries that were entirely destroyed and disappeared when they introduced marriage equality.
Does anyone know of one instance where churches or any religious groupings were *forced* to marry anyone against their wishes?
That’s the point, there isn’t any!
There is a blindingly simple answer: remove the right of religious institutions (all of them) to hold weddings.
Won’t happen, of course. Bloody week should, though.
I agree, use the French approach. It could happen if there was a national sentiment for it. The right wing religious nutters are demanding a public referendum on equal marriage. I don’t think they’d be too happy about one for getting rid of religious marriages let alone disestablishment which I’m all for. Churches should not be dictating to government what it can and cannot do, rather it should be the other way around. Nobody should be above the law or exempt from it and the sooner they learned we are not a theocracy, the better.
It’s about time that MPs began a discussion firstly for disestablishment, then move on to the abolition of religious marriages, just solemnisation after the civil ceremony for those who need it. It would be a different issue if they stayed out of the equal marriage debate which really is none of their concern, but they don’t. They’re getting too far above their station if you ask me.
After hearing the religionists’ hateful comments about gay marriage over the last year and a half, I’m inclined to think that no gay person in their right mind would ever consider getting married in a church, quite frankly.
Except that the Quakers , unitarians and quite a few other religious organisations are very supportive and why shouldn’t they be allowed to conduct SSMs?
I agree with you with regards to the catholic church and the CofE but eve some of them aren’t all against SSM. Looking at that synod vote on women bishops it seems like a small minoirty can stop everyone else in the church doing what they want.
Selfish bastards it’ all about an opt out for the religious where is the talk of love and that it’s a good thing to do. There are other pieces of legislation proposed in the last few weeks and I haven’t heard one person say that the economy is more important etc. The more important argument just comes out of the woodwork to cover bigotry and prejudice
I’m amazed by the intellectual contortions this Simon Reevell is engaging in in order to justify a homophobic position. He’s seeking to disguise his homophobia by suggesting that granting Marriage Equality will cause hideous and frightful problems within the law.
But really it’s just yet another manifestation of “Doom! Doom! Let queers marry and the sky’s gonna fall in!”
Idiots like him are fast running out of ideas. This is a last desperate rant, an exercise in futility. He’s playing to his bigoted constituent base who are primarily conservatives. None of them can produce one shred of evidence of any “hideos and frightful problems within the law”. Did any such thing happen when civil marriage was invented by the state for those heteros who are divorced? Of course not. The CoE wasn’t forced to recognise those marriages and it wasn’t forced to conduct a religious ceremony for a divorced person. There isn’t any law on the books forcing them to reverse their position nor will there be for equal marriage. They know they’re not going to be forced to do anything but they continue to fuel the myth to foment intolerance and thwart any attempts to bring in equal marriage. It’s not working for them and it won’t. They really are quite stupid and woefully ignorant of the facts. They’re an embarrassment to themselves and to their party.
It’s almost always a bloody Tory isn’t it?
Doesn’t this moron realise that the “church” already bans divorced heterosexuals from a religious marriage and the law doesn’t force any church not to. I don’t recall any hetero divorced person bringing a lawsuit against a church for refusing to marry him or her, so why would they think gays would be different?
It’s clear what this is all about. Pandering to religious bigots of which he is one no doubt. What on earth has civil marriage have to do with churches is beyond me.
Sigh. Another nasty bigot peddling easy lies and ignorant fears.
As others have noted, let’s adopt the French system to stop all this bleating. Make ALL legal marriages civil, and allow churches and other groups to conduct or refuse private ceremonies as they please.
But that would be another step closer to Anglican Disestablishment, wouldn’t it….?
For what it’s worth: In the US, religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws, on the books since the 60s and 70s, stick out like sore thumbs, and have never been challenged.
Baptists need not hire a Methodist minister, for example, but are also free (in many places) to discriminate when hiring a janitor or landscaper.
This is nonsense, but it remains. If Reevell fears that down the road the religious will be forced to provide marriage services, he need only look at the staying power legalized bigotry has gained elsewhere. He should rest assured.
So, apart from his concern over the position of churches & thinking its not a priority, is Reevel in favour giving lgbt people equality in the form of marriage or not?
It doesn’t require years of legal training to realise that Mr Reevel is talking about just another legal opt out for the Church, added to the many that they already have.
If his argument held water, last weeks Synod vote to continue excluding women from being bishops would have been pointless as the Equality Law would already have forced it through.
Yes, requiring them to observe the law like everyone else would have solved the problem they cannot resolve for themselves and we would now have female bishops and together they could now be concentrating on causing some other divisive mischief.
why do these ignorany morons always think that gay people would want to hold something as important as their marriage ceremony in an institution that didn’t want them there and actively fought against it. do they honestly think that there are couples out there storing up a `take the church to court’ fund with the sole aim of having a relationship blessed and joined in matrimony by some hideous old bigot who hated them and what they stood for???!!!!!
As usual with these white heterosexual conservatives pontificating over whether or not other citizens of this country should be “allowed” by(by them) to get married- he is married himself. Why deny to others what you have availed to yourself? Isn’t that just hypocrisy?
I like how Mr Reevell has concluded that equal marriage legislation “identifies a particular problem so serious that the law must be changed to address it – in this case discrimination against same-sex couples who wish to marry” – and then he concludes that to avoid churches being accused of discrimination, the legislation shouldn’t be introduced!
This is a “nobody look at the gorilla” argument. Quick! Nobody talk about the discrimination, and no-one will know it’s there… brilliant plan!
Mr Reevell, that is a truly terrible argument. Nobody will mistake you for a lawyer.
But thank you for making our case for us.
Like how churches were and still are bound by the equality law to, I dunno… employ women in their top ranks?
Fear-mongering, plain and simple.
Well if we opted out of the ECHR we wouldn’t have that problem, would we you fcking chinless wonder.
Yes, homosexuals, especially British and “American”, are the troublemakers…. Soon normal males will take revenge on them. No doubt about it!
Ever thought that straight people that troll gay websites might also be deemed “abnormal”?
“Revenge” lol, You sound as mature as a school yard bully. Grow up you toss pot.
Meanwhile, the churches have never ever forced anything upon anyone, have they…
Quite! Constantly, daily during the equal marriage debate. They even inflict guilt on clergy who are in a Civil Partnership by refraining from sexual activity. Oppression isn’t the word, it’s way beyond.
Someone needs to demand that Reevell provide the evidence of any hetero divorced person suing a church for refusing to marry him or her.
Yes, because EVERY other country that has brought in marriage equality has had its churches assaulted by LGBT people suing them for the right to be married in a hateful and discriminating environment.
This is SO stupid.
Same sex marriage is totally not being forced on churches, Simon Reevell is claiming what is the complete opposite of reality.
This deliberate misrepresentation of situations appears to be the modus operandi of the anti-equality loonies, any lie or distortion of reality that will serve their obsessive anti-gay agenda.
A new piece of stalking legislation has just come out and I don’t har Revell stating that it doesn’t have much importance to his constituents or thousands commenting in the daily mail, telegraph and other papers that there is more important things for the government to worry about. It just shows that the ,ore important argument is just one to cover prejudice.
His voting record is below average. Ill be surprised if he even turns up to vote. …..now, those expenses….
Sad, desperate and completely pathetic. The argument yet again is poor at best, insulting at worst but this is religion throwing it’s toys out of the pram after all.
It’s not as if any intelligent (gay) person would want to be married by a backwards, conservative bigot, to begin with.
If a preson/couple attends a church which is tolerant to them, they might want to marry there. If they’ve given up on organised religion because of their past experiences with religious people and institutions, they wouldn’t even want to force them to marry them.