Hmmm...forcing churches to perform gay marriages...couldn't happen...er.....

[billc]

And so it starts...overseas...and soon here...suing traditional churches for not performing gay weddings...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/08/0...-england-to-force-it-to-perform-gay-weddings/

Coming soon to an American court room near you.

Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings.


He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”.
A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.
Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.
“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”
He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.
​

Hmmm...couldn't they just go to a church that supports gay marriage and get married there...? Of course not. It isn't enough that they have the same ability as everyone else to get married...everyone else had better agree with it...or else...

That is something I didn't understand with the Boy Scout issue...why not stop bothering a group that didn't accept you as you are...and start your own scouting organization...same principal...it isn't enough that you could start your very own group...those other groups that didn't except you had better change their minds...or else...

 

[K-man]

I'm not sure what is happening to me. I think I'll have to lie down because I must be unwell.

OK, I'll spit it out ... Bill, I agree with you!

OMG, I really feel strange. :uhoh:

 

[oftheherd1]

I am not sure how UK law looks at this. but

Last year the Church of England warned that the Government’s plans to redefine marriage could trigger legal problems and end the 500-year link between church and state.

says a lot. In the USA we tend to forget the reasons for the founding of the Church of England, and its offshoots. And that in its day, control of the church by the state, or more usually, control of the state by the church (Catholic then), was common and excepted.

In the US, at least at the federal government level, this never existed, and was prohibited by the 1st Amendment. In the US, the 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from telling any religious group how to practice its religious affairs. Even so, some churches are considering redefining their founding/legal documents for existence, to show they will only perform marriage between a man and a woman. That to prevent being forced to perform gay marriages in those jurisdictions where they are legal or may become legal.

Accepted religious churches should have no trouble defending that even if challenged. Churches that for whatever reasons, become active in politics, or engage in other practices that may or do remove their protections, may not be able to fight court challenges should they come.

 

[arnisador]

Agreed--the interrelationship between the church and state there is much, much greater. It's different.