to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Its not my own marriage that concerns me. What concerns me is how this new legislation i will be played out with regard to any religious understanding of what marriage is.

I am not condoning or condemning or preventing anyone from making their committment legal and sharing those legal contractual rights ( its civil law and was an addition to the religious law of Cannon law which is essentially recognition of a form of relationship which is seen as ideal).

The problem will come ( and it will because there are those wanting to push this) when a same sex couple demand marriage in a church. It will be a C of E church because there and only there the state registration and religious service are joined. As things stand ( even with new legislation) a Vicar should be able to refuse but this can ( and will unfortunately) be challenged by those who want the law extended to make the church adhere to their requirements.

In effect at that point the views of those who have no concern for the beliefs of religion will be forced onto those who do have such beliefs in the interests of " equality"

If these people were to leave the church alone and just conduct their marriages in civil areans , no issue. Its the fact they will not do that which concerns me.

As Bags said he/ she doesnt care about the religious beliefs of others but apprantly if his/her posts are any evidence , that poster would impose his/ her views on the church even though he /she doesnt care.

But I do care, and at the end of the day it is my belief and my church adherence you impose on.

What is actiually going on here is an attempt to impose the views and practices of civil law on Church law.

I cannot see why civil marriage or partnership is not enough and why they have to come changing the Churches concept of marriage. I and those like me am not trying to change yours.

What consenting adults do in private is nobody else's business.

Some of us don't care about church laws. They are not relevant unless you're member of the church (whichever church)

So why are you trying to impose your change in the definition of marriage on the church then?

I'm only advising.

Have you anything relevent to add to this actual debate greatnan?

maries and jO8 - are your latest comment relevant to the debate? I can't see it myself I have to say?

Maries - could you explain in what sense my contributions have not been relevant?

Maries You are still married in your loving relationship and not indulging in anal sex (which was only illegal for two men, not for a man and a woman in the UK). Nothing has changed in your marriage. And just for the record, without going into details, not all gay men have penetrative sex in these days of AIDS awareness

Whatever their sexual activities ( or none for that matter) they do not consitute that which would be defined as marriage in Church Law. Thats the point. In order for them to be married as per the definition, the definition of marriage has to change. It is that I am not happy about. In fact I would go further. I damn well object to it.

It has been said we have enough Bishops in the upper house ( plus others ) to shove this bill back to parliament for proper amendment. I hope its true.
I suspect many may agree quietly but are afraid to say. I know I am wary in real life. I have been asked to write a Church article on it and I have been batting thoughts around for a while now as a result. These are just the Sunday musings from that. I will tighten it up when I get to write the real thing.

I'd be very much in favour of separating the civil and Church service. Where I live (Switzerland) - every couple has to be married in a Registry office - and then add a Church service if they wish. Usually the registry office short ceremony and signing of the register takes place on the Friday afternoon, followed by a Church service on the Saturday for those who wish.

It really is time we have separate Church and State in the UK - it makes no sense anymore to be joined at the hip - when such a minority is CofE. Even Charles agrees- which is probably why his mother won't abdicate in his favour.

Greatnan, they do not address the original topic. They seem to be aimed at making person comments to me or off topic comments about privacy and sex. Might I remind you we are discussing the issue of the change in law allowing same sex marriage, consensual relationships and not whether or not you like my disagreeing with another poster.

Ignore it then granjura. Simple.

when such a minority is CofE. Even Charles agrees- which is probably why his mother won't abdicate in his favour

Off topic. I would be concerned about my first born son if I were the queen too. However , it is not true ( another of those polls which dont say what they actually are claimed to say) that the C of E are a minority. When put to the crunch far more people come out for the Church than against it.

Maries Threads do go off topic on Gransnet. You do seem to be getting rather heated about this thread – not just expressing passionately held views, which is fine, but heated about other posters, which is not.

The civil change in the law imposing itself on the CofE only happens because that church is enshrined in our law as the established church of the state. If that were to end (i.e. disestablishment) then the whole problem would be solved. Gay marriage would be legal, and any church or vicar could accept or reject that in relation to their particular church.

Maries says: "What is actually going on here is an attempt to impose the views and practices of civil law on Church law."

But this works both ways - do not forget that church views and practices are imposed on our civil law via the bishops of the CofE having the right to sit in our legislature and alter/veto laws which affect us all whatever our beliefs or religious affiliation.

You do seem to be getting rather heated about this thread – not just expressing passionately held views, which is fine, but heated about other posters, which is not

Then your impression is quite wrong. Going off topic, I would be interested to know how you identify the difference between "heated" and " expressing passionately held views" in this context?

I have not given any emoticons and you cannot know the intonation of my voice or my facial expression. So on what?

By the way I havent even raised a pulse beat on this thus far. Its just the way I write I suppose but I would nonetheless be interested to know what it is you have decided makes this heated and not passionate.

The civil change in the law imposing itself on the CofE only happens because that church is enshrined in our law as the established church of the state. If that were to end (i.e. disestablishment) then the whole problem would be solved. Gay marriage would be legal, and any church or vicar could accept or reject that in relation to their particular church

I am not at all sure that would be the case. I suspect it far more likely the situation would be the same. A previous poster mentioned the experience in Denmark and I think we would be mirroring that.

Even if a Vicar were not a registrar the situation would still be open to challenge in the EU courts and the church would lose ( its already been said , despite the assurances of David Cameron himself saying no one will make that challenge - and he cannot say that anyway, as any induivdual can, and I know one organisation loking for an way to do so already) and so the civil definition of marriage would still be imposed .

We're allowed to go off topic, Maries. Happens all the time. But the original post was quite emotional and you'll have seen that strong views have been expressed. If you really 'haven't raised a pulse beat' that isn't how it comes across. And most of us try not to criticise other posters, including the relevance or otherwise of their contributions.

By the way, I wasn't describing the experience in Denmark but a discussion about the implications of changing the law. The Danish pastor who was speaking said over 80% of Danes describe themselves as members of the Danish Lutheran Church and pay taxes towards it.

Maries I do wonder what would happen to statistics re CofE in the UK if, like here, being a member of said Church would incur a compulsory fairly hefty Church tax? Here people who would happily say they are Christian, in a cultural almost secular way- left in droves when said Church tax was made optional.

I actually totally agree with you that if gay couples want to marry - it is a secular matter, in a registry office- and that no Church, nor Vicar/Priest should have to marry them in Church. However, the problem comes when a Church, in this case CofE, is THE official Church, with all the privileges it entails - and therefore should abide by State Law. So a separation of State and Church, as in France or my own country, Switzerland, makes sense in the 21st C.

Lilygran. I value what you say but I do not see why one poster particularly found it necessary to chastise me for disagreeing with another completley different poster.

Funnily enough the poster I was in disagreement with didnt seem to deem it worth comment.

What it amounted to was an attack on me for daring to take on a hallowed poster from this forum.

We surely all have the right to say what we think here? Or is it you can only be passionate if you are one poster and a poster such as myself has to be defferent to that?

If that is the case , then I will tug me forelock and clear off. Just let me know.

You are so welcome to being passionate Maries- I respect that. But you also need to see that others are passionate in the 'opposite way' and not see their 'passion' as an attack. Goes both ways, does it not?

Maries, please let me assure you that there are no privileged posters on Gransnet - we all have the same right to express our views and we are all bound by the same rules of forum etiquette.

I think that a separation of church and state would be a good way forward too, jura.

maries, I'm not trying to impose anything; I just agree with the argument (and the majority view in the House of Commons) that gay people should be allowed to get married. And I hope the law will be changed to allow it. The church has a problem with such a change of law apparently.

Maries What you have to say is interesting and thought-provoking and clearly intensely felt. To make comments about "hallowed posters" is neither interesting nor thought-provoking; it is certainly discourteous and is actually offensive to all Gransnetters, suggesting that we are a bunch of mindless, easily led sheep.

I think counting oneself as C of E has become a sort of tick-box exercise in many ways. Huge numbers of people are not church goers and probably give little or no thought to religion, but when asked, shrug and say C of E as the default position. At one time – although it may be different now – the C of E box was more or less automatically ticked by whoever was filling in the admission form in hospitals. Both my mother and I – baptised Catholics – have been classed as C of E on a number of occasions when in hospital. In other words, I think we have to be careful when bandying numbers and statistics around.

Disestablish the CofE as soon as we can! Its role in the state is anachronistic. It is absolutely ridiculous that one Christian sect has such a privileged position.

BTW - do Christian gay people have no right to consideration?