LGBT rights discussion

[Nooska]

No, not really. It is a religious institution. We have "the peoples church" in denmark, which also has the Queen at its head and is controlled by the church ministyr - that doesn't make it a "state institution" in any respect with anti discrimination etc in its practises. Subjecting any religious body, whether independant or state sponsored, to comply with laws dictating how its practises should go would be in conflict with both the ECHR article 9, and UN DHR article 18.

ARTICLE 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and
in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship,
teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 18.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[Klaudandus]

Why would it matter if its banned within the church of england? Cuz afaik, same-sex couples here in the us, just want to get married at the civil level.

[KysenMurrin]

Well all right then, I guess I heard wrong.

That makes this less understandable, though. If it's an opt-in situation for every other church, why should CofE have it enshrined in law?


Klaud - there are Anglican homosexuals who also want to get married.

[Nooska]

yeah, same sex couples have ad civil unions in a large part of europe for a long time - they want the next level now (well the religious ones do I guess)

[Klaudandus]

as bad as it sounds, shouldnt it be up to the churches to decide whether they want to marry someone or not?

I think otherwise, it just opens a can of worms -- the church would be, well, if you are forcing us to marry someone against our beliefs, then we should also force our beliefs on something you don't agree (ie, euthanasia, abortion, et al)

not familiar with the UK system, but I'm saying this based on what goes here in the US (not that it stops the american churches from trying to impose their views on the general population)...

[Nooska]

^aye exactly, the discussion above was about it still being unlawful in the UK because if it wasn't the CoE would be forced to wed same sex couples (which they wouldn't was the result).

If you are religious you believe in something divine (trying to put it siply, so bear with me) - if that divine says "you cannot marry" it shouldn't come as a surprise to you taht believe in that divine that you should not be married.

Now intepretation of religious texts is best left to religious institutions themselves, and out of the hands of lawmakers. Lawmakers have a responsibility to make an effort to ensure that laws do not infringe on the rights of the religious institutions.

Article 9, section 2 of the ECHR is particularly interesting there, in that it becomes a human rights violation if lawmakes impose restrictions on the practices of a religious instituion unless it can be demonstrated that they are necessary in a democratic society - so in essence, if I were to gather a group of likeminded individuals in a religious institution, where same sex marriage was endorsed, it would be a human righst violation to restrict our right to perform such marriages.

The DHR is not nearly as clear about it, but is also designed to span more than the primarily christian based countries of europe - still, it says that you have a human right in practise and observance, so the same case could be made - I don't know if the US is actually a signatroy to the DHR (it honestly wouldn't suprise me if they weren't, looking at the way the equal protection for people with disabilities convention was handled), but if they are, a human righst argument could be made against DoMA - all it take sis finding 1 religious institution that endorses same sex marriage based on a non-silly interpretation of religious dogma for said religion.

[Ironshield]

I must say the whole CofE (and Church of Wales btw, but it gets a bit of a mouthful, so just excuse my omission henceforth) exclusion seems bizarre to me. I can only imagine it has something to do with the whole established church, inclusion in the government thing. There are other rules that apply differently for CofE and everyone else, notably foreign marriages. I needed to get forms signed by the home office etc... to get married in a Catholic church (I wasnt naturalized at the time) but if we had been so inclined we could have done it in a CofE church with no red tape.

I just find it weird that it seems the argument for excluding CofE seems to be something to do with Europe and human rights, but I would have thought that since they have allowed other groups to do it, you'd have MORE recourse to claim a Human rights violation for the exclusion.

[Fridmarr]

Article 9, section 2 of the ECHR is particularly interesting there, in that it becomes a human rights violation if lawmakes impose restrictions on the practices of a religious instituion unless it can be demonstrated that they are necessary in a democratic society - so in essence, if I were to gather a group of likeminded individuals in a religious institution, where same sex marriage was endorsed, it would be a human righst violation to restrict our right to perform such marriages.

Yes, it would be a human rights violation, but I don't think that means what you are implying. I'm pretty sure the government would not stop you from doing that, however, that does not mean that the government must recognize those marriages legally. That is an entirely different issue.

Churches in states that don't allow gay marriage here, still marry gay people. The government can not stop that without violating the constitution. However, that marriage only has any meaning within the context of that church, it has no legal standing. Just because the government can't restrict your religious actions (unless necessary to preserve a democratic society), doesn't make your actions law.

[Nooska]

^thats true, though it would make an interesting case. What you are saying (and being correct about) is that the government can just let you perfor the marriages, iwthout any civil standing to follow.

That the CoE can perform marriages without red tape isn't so different from many other couontries. In several countries recognized religious entities can perform both the religious and the secular/civil union at the same time - in dnemark fonr instants, the "peoples church", the catholic church, the mosaic beleif society (jewish church), the primary asatru association as well as several islamic mosques can perform a civil wedding at the same time as the religious ritual (ie, one go). I know some countries have this completely seperated, but that doesn't make the church a "part of the state" they have just been given permission to perform certain works that the state would usually do.

Now on that, the danish peoples church is the sole registrar of births and names - that riles some feathers (having to register your children with the church, despite ones own religious beliefs)

[Klaudandus]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... full.story

*facedesk*

Just don't come back and complain you're making less money now in this economy... of course, he's gonna blame obama rather than his own bigotry backfiring...

[Koatanga]

To anyone still against gay marriage: Have you considered the possibility of "Gay Divorce Court"?

Ok, I know that joke is not very respectful to the LGBT community, but I got a chuckle from it and I am extremely supportive of LGBT rights, so I hope you don't find it too offensive.

[Klaudandus]

Oh Chris Kluwe, you're so awesome!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... hris-kluwe

[Skye1013]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 1554.story

Boy Scouts of America is considering ending a longstanding national ban on gay youth and adult members and leaving policies on sexual orientation to its local organizations

While not a perfect solution, at least it's a start.

[Koatanga]

I'm sympathetic to the Boy Scouts. While they may want to do the right thing, they are going to get a lot of grief from homophobes who will use their children to advance their agenda.

They won't care if their boy is a couple of badges away from Eagle scout if a gay kid joins the troup. They'll have images of gang rapes out in the woods and yank their kid out so fast heads will spin. Even worse if it's an adult member.

Eventually there will be some kind of incident involving a gay person, either as perpetrator, victim, or frame-job, and it'll make headlines all over.

At the same time, they are being hammered for their stance on gay members.

They have no possibility of winning this either way.

[Nooska]

Why is it that these homophobic people get away with equating "being gay" to "jumping anything that moves"? Yes, there are gay abusers/molesters out there - but the 2 are not related - by that count, with the amount of heterosexual abusers/molesters out there, they should want gay scoutleaders all around *sigh*.

Okay, as I said somewhere else, a phobia is by definition not rational - but still..