Well done, Scotland

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

We had to put it at the top of every piece of work!

Bags I agree with you that civil marriages are none of the Church's business.
But if people want a ceremony conducted in church, according to the sacraments of that church, to be joined in holy matrimony, is it not reasonable to expect the Church, and not politicians, to define what holy matrimony is?
What you are suggesting is rather like entering a soccer team into a British competition and then saying you are going to play Australian Rules, if you will permit the analogy

I see what you mean, jane but I still think Churches have purloined the idea in the first place – taken rules that were already in place and changed them to suit their own agenda. That said, I find it odd that people want a church wedding when their church won't do it how they want it done. But then, there's nowt so queer as folk (pun not intended).

Jane - we are not in disupute here. I agree that the churches can make any rules they like about what happens with their own ceremonies. I loathe their attitude to homosexuals and women, and I can't understand anybody who is not treated like a full human being wanting to be part of such an organisation, but that is their choice.
Like many others, not just atheists, I object to the churches having any say in legislation that affects the general public.

bags and us! Is there an above average number of GNetters who attended convents?

Bags you might not have intended the pun but anyway!

Anno - there is no intention to COMPEL churches to marry anyone if they choose to exclude certain people. After all the C of E and RC varieties have long refused to 'marry' divorcees and lots of churches require that couples are both members or have been baptised. That is fair enough and entirely up to them. However their are other branches of christian churches - notably the Quakers who are willing to conduct same sex marriages according to ther rites but require a change in law to have such marriages given legal status.

ATM Civil Marriages and Partnerships cannot (at the insistance of the churches) include anything with a religious connotation in their ceremonies. This ruling leads to many secular songs and readings being barred because they include words or phrases e.g. angels, blessed, heaven and is a nightmare for registrars, who are faced with declining to include the couple's favourite pieces. How do you decide if the very popular pipe tune 'Highland Cathedral' is permissable or not?

The discrimination is coming from some, not all, of the Churches who are not only denying religious divorcees and same sex couples the opportunity to marry in church but also restricting their freedom to introduce religious elements into civil ceremonies.

This topic has come up before and at the risk of repeating myself, I will just say that if any such law is passed, it won't be long before someone is suing some unfortunate priest/rabbi/ minister for refusing to carry out a religious marriage ceremony against his or her conscience. I'm all in favour of egalitarianism in the matter of civil rights but it seems to me that having a religious ceremony when you get hitched isn't a civil right. If you want a religious knees-up after a legal and secular ceremony, what's to stop you organising your own? And why does that need legislation?