News1 min ago
What Now Of Mr Cameron's Assurances?
In December sp1814 posed a question on gay marriage:
http://
Essentially I argued that the Mr Cameron’s assurance that the C of E would be “protected” (or even prevented) from having to conduct gay marriage services would be undermined by Human Rights legislation. My argument was summarily dismissed.
Today we find this in the Daily Mail:
http://
Headline: “CofE 'will be sued over gay marriage': Human rights law 'undermines' Cameron plans”
“…the document argues that the exemption granted to the Church of England by the Coalition Bill to prevent it having to conduct gay marriages is ‘eminently challenge-able’ in the European Court of Human Rights…”
Today there were two decisions by the ECHR that effectively put paid to individuals and organisations adopting practices that put their religious beliefs before equality:
http://
Does anybody still think Mr Cameron’s assurances hold water?
http://
Essentially I argued that the Mr Cameron’s assurance that the C of E would be “protected” (or even prevented) from having to conduct gay marriage services would be undermined by Human Rights legislation. My argument was summarily dismissed.
Today we find this in the Daily Mail:
http://
Headline: “CofE 'will be sued over gay marriage': Human rights law 'undermines' Cameron plans”
“…the document argues that the exemption granted to the Church of England by the Coalition Bill to prevent it having to conduct gay marriages is ‘eminently challenge-able’ in the European Court of Human Rights…”
Today there were two decisions by the ECHR that effectively put paid to individuals and organisations adopting practices that put their religious beliefs before equality:
http://
Does anybody still think Mr Cameron’s assurances hold water?
Answers
As J said above, the C of E does "have a say in the running of the state", given that the bishops in it have seats in the Lords. However, that church is '
08:10 Wed 16th Jan 2013
Apart from this letter from a human rights lawyer, what other evidence is there that the four point CofE exclusion will fail?
Should same-sex civil marriage be shelved simply because of the fear of a legal challenge to the Anglican Church?
Furthermore, who is to say that the legal challenge would succeed?
And here's the final and key question - even if it were to succeed, how many gay couples would queue up to spend the most important day of their lives where they are absolutely not wanted?
It doesn't make any sense.
Should same-sex civil marriage be shelved simply because of the fear of a legal challenge to the Anglican Church?
Furthermore, who is to say that the legal challenge would succeed?
And here's the final and key question - even if it were to succeed, how many gay couples would queue up to spend the most important day of their lives where they are absolutely not wanted?
It doesn't make any sense.
Once again it seems that the French don't take things lying down.
http://
http://
Thanks for all your answers.
The aspect of this that troubles me is not so much the issue itself. I have my views on gay marriage but they are not important here. What concerns me is that once again we have the Prime Minister making promises and giving assurances to allay fears on a contentious issue when he knows there is a very good chance that those promises will be ruled illegal.
Despite Mr O’Neil’s obvious vested interest there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the matter will be challenged. There are already reports of gay couples preparing to do so. The fact that they are seeking to be wed by an organisation that clearly does not want them is of little concern to them. The principle at stake is far more important to them than the small matter of being married in a place where they may be unwelcome. Similarly I have little doubt that any challenge will be successful. Yesterday’s rulings in the cases of Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane demonstrate that equal rights trump the right to religious expression.
Anybody who believes Mr Cameron’s promises on this matter will be sorely disappointed.
The aspect of this that troubles me is not so much the issue itself. I have my views on gay marriage but they are not important here. What concerns me is that once again we have the Prime Minister making promises and giving assurances to allay fears on a contentious issue when he knows there is a very good chance that those promises will be ruled illegal.
Despite Mr O’Neil’s obvious vested interest there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the matter will be challenged. There are already reports of gay couples preparing to do so. The fact that they are seeking to be wed by an organisation that clearly does not want them is of little concern to them. The principle at stake is far more important to them than the small matter of being married in a place where they may be unwelcome. Similarly I have little doubt that any challenge will be successful. Yesterday’s rulings in the cases of Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane demonstrate that equal rights trump the right to religious expression.
Anybody who believes Mr Cameron’s promises on this matter will be sorely disappointed.
Before Christmas, sp, there was a report of a “very wealthy” (but unnamed) male couple preparing their case. Cannot find it, but if I do I’ll post it. In any case you can rest assured that a couple somewhere are doing the same even as we speak.
I make no comment about yesterday’s Human Rights decisions, be they good or bad. I only mentioned them to demonstrate that Mr Cameron’s promises are nothing more than hot air and that the governance of this country can be (and frequently is) undermined by decisions made abroad by foreigners.
A bit off track, maybe, but QM raises the “West Lothian” question:
“They completely overlook the fact that 26 English blokes - with no reciprocal arrangement based on religion - make legal decisions affecting Scottish concerns.”
Scottish concerns they may be, QM, but I am not aware of the Westminster Parliament making rulings on matters which are solely of concern to the Scots (any more than they make decsions which are solely of concern to the Cornish). Westminster decisions either affect all of the UK or (if the matters are covered by devolved powers) only England. That is the where the “West Lothian” question comes in. As far as I am aware there is not a reciprocal “South Croydon“ question.
Until the ridiculous devolution arrangements came into force there was only one Parliament in the UK. The introduction of the three devolved assemblies have led to the “West Lothian” question becoming appropriate. It was first raised by Tam Dalyell in the 1970s when devolution was first mooted. Needless to say it was never addressed and remains a legitimate concern so long as there is not an “English” assembly.
I make no comment about yesterday’s Human Rights decisions, be they good or bad. I only mentioned them to demonstrate that Mr Cameron’s promises are nothing more than hot air and that the governance of this country can be (and frequently is) undermined by decisions made abroad by foreigners.
A bit off track, maybe, but QM raises the “West Lothian” question:
“They completely overlook the fact that 26 English blokes - with no reciprocal arrangement based on religion - make legal decisions affecting Scottish concerns.”
Scottish concerns they may be, QM, but I am not aware of the Westminster Parliament making rulings on matters which are solely of concern to the Scots (any more than they make decsions which are solely of concern to the Cornish). Westminster decisions either affect all of the UK or (if the matters are covered by devolved powers) only England. That is the where the “West Lothian” question comes in. As far as I am aware there is not a reciprocal “South Croydon“ question.
Until the ridiculous devolution arrangements came into force there was only one Parliament in the UK. The introduction of the three devolved assemblies have led to the “West Lothian” question becoming appropriate. It was first raised by Tam Dalyell in the 1970s when devolution was first mooted. Needless to say it was never addressed and remains a legitimate concern so long as there is not an “English” assembly.
NJ
To be perfectly honest, I really don't care whether legal challenges are made to try and strong arm the Anglican Church. The best outcome would be if one were made and it was defeated. Then the Anglicans can go back to concentrating on their ever dwindling flock, and the rest of us can enjoy/complain about equal same sex civil unions (delete as appropriate).
One has to wonder though - Britain is by no means the first country in Europe to introduce this law. Why haven't there been similar challenges to established churches?
It seems to me that this is simply another diversionary tactic by the Anglicans, who have variously claimed that same sex marriages will lead to calls for bestiality to be made legal, the sacking of teachers and bizarrely, the destruction of traditional marriage.
To be perfectly honest, I really don't care whether legal challenges are made to try and strong arm the Anglican Church. The best outcome would be if one were made and it was defeated. Then the Anglicans can go back to concentrating on their ever dwindling flock, and the rest of us can enjoy/complain about equal same sex civil unions (delete as appropriate).
One has to wonder though - Britain is by no means the first country in Europe to introduce this law. Why haven't there been similar challenges to established churches?
It seems to me that this is simply another diversionary tactic by the Anglicans, who have variously claimed that same sex marriages will lead to calls for bestiality to be made legal, the sacking of teachers and bizarrely, the destruction of traditional marriage.
NJ, I am, of course, perfectly well aware that UK legislation affects Scotland, Cornwall, Croydon et all equally. However, the fact remains that neither the Moderator of the Church of Scotland nor anyone else from the hierarchy of that or any other national church within Britain has any say at all in what happens in England.
Naturally, I am not suggesting that they should have any such say, but nor certainly should C of E 'officials' have any say in decisions which DO affect people in Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Naturally, I am not suggesting that they should have any such say, but nor certainly should C of E 'officials' have any say in decisions which DO affect people in Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
The Barmy Army Of Barmy Brexiteers.
News4 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.