Letter: Stand firm on same-sex marriage reform
Members of Shrewsbury Unitarian Church support the Government proposals to change marriage laws to enable same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage.
Members of Shrewsbury Unitarian Church support the Government proposals to change marriage laws to enable same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage.
We also urge that any legislation allows same-sex couples access to religious marriage in places of worship.
The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches has joined Quakers in Britain, and liberal Judaism in urging the prime minister to stand firm on his commitment to change marriage laws.
This is about religious liberty as well as equality for us. The love and respect of same-sex couples and the commitment undertaken is the same as for opposite sex couples, and they should have the same opportunity for religious marriage.
We would like to be able to offer same-sex marriages in our church. We do not expect Parliament to force others, who may disagree with us, to marry same-sex couples if they do not wish.
We support change in marriage law that means same-sex couples can enter into civil and religious marriage and that places of worship are free to conduct same-sex marriages if they wish to.
Joan Hughes, Chairman
Alison Patrick,
Committee member
On behalf of Shrewsbury
Unitarian Church
Comments for: "Letter: Stand firm on same-sex marriage reform"
Benbow Tom
I support this letter and hope that common sense prevails. There can be no moral or legal objections to what should be a freedom for two people of the same sex to enjoy the same civil rights as other couples. This is the 21st Century after all - not the 1st Century.
Nistagmus
"This is the 21st Century after all – not the 1st Century."
Funnily enough by the 4th Century, Adelphopoiesis was being practised in some Christian churches.
Ken Adams
I had to look it up but the translation of the term Adelphopoiesis is apparently, disputed John Boswell chose to interpret the Latin in such a way that indicated marriage by reliance on a physical relationship. Others argue Boswell was wrong to make such assumptions and his premiss is based on misinterpretation of the texts.
The Greek Church say the rites for adelphopoiesis explicitly highlight the spiritual nature of the union over a physical one the ceremony is purely spiritual indicating brotherhood.
Nistagmus
Yes, but the principle of the church recognising a same-sex relationship (whether sexual or not) has precedent.
Ken Adams
Not homosexuality in the context of marriage, to rely on the interpretation of a homosexual historian that the ceremony Adelphopoiesis meant homosexual marriage when the church itself denies this is stretching it a bit far.
Nistagmus
You acknowledge that two men have been spiritually linked in a church ceremony previously. Ergo, we agree that the church has bonded spiritually linked people irrespective of gender previously...all we're discussing now is what to call it in 2012. Unless of course you think marriage is all about, you know, doing 'it'.
Ken Adams
But homosexual marriage is not the same as “spiritually” linking two people of the same sex, the difference is in the description; the couple are sexually attracted to each other, it is not strictly a spiritual relationship more akin to one of brotherhood or family adpotion.
We are not discussing what to call a homosexual partnership but redefining the concept of marriage.
I think your argument that the church has previously recognised homosexual marriage is not proven because it is based on the interpretation of one homosexual historian and disputed by many others including the Church.
If however Boswell is right about the ceremony of adelphopoiesis then it still characterizes the difference between a marriage between a man and a woman and a homosexual relationship, so the introduction of adelphopoiesis into a debate about redefining marriage to include homosexuals is pointless. You are using a word used to separate and define the two ceremonies to argue for the opposite.
TelfordRon
Dear Benbow TOM everything you write is correct.
I notice that you particulary state everyone is entitled to have the same CIVIL Rights. i agree, however marriage in a churh is not a civil right, it is an exchange of vows before God to hold the sanctity of marriage as paramount between two people of the opposite sex.
Nik Dadson
Good letter. As a straight person of faith, I warmly welcome this move and hope that the Government doesn't weaken. Treating gay couples unequally is the thin end of the wedge. This is a positive stand for equal rights. Please take time to say yes to equal marriage before midnight tonight https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/v.asp?i=48356xhlqw
Ken Adams
The state has already equalised homosexual rights by the introduction of the legal partnership agreements - in my view rightly so - therefore unless you are going to force churches to marry homosexuals this is not a question of EQUALITY, unless homosexuals want equality before god, if that is the case then probably that is beyond the compass of government.
As there is nothing that homosexuals gain from a marriage ceremony they do not have already from the civil ceremony what then is the point of a marriage ceremony.
The next logical step must be to force churches to marry homosexuals, what then of the religious rights of the followers of those churches or do only the rights of a select few have any relevance. We have already seen the arguments that people in the service industries must put aside their religious convictions now even churches will be forced to put aside theirs.
Not only do we it seems have a system of rights but a hierarchy of rights.
Katherine de Gama
In law civil partnerships and marriage differ.
Ken Adams
Only in the name the effects are the same.
Suey Dewhurst
I wholly support this letter, we are ALL ONE one no matter what age, colour, creed, sexual orientation, financial circumstances and it is when we UNITE we blossom and make progress in the world we live in.
rob
Stand firm, oh give me a break!
Freya
Anyone who objects to gay marriage spends way too much time obsessing about what other people do in bed, if you ask me!
One argument is that it devalues heterosexual marriage - how exactly? I got married in a registry office as I am an atheist - does this not threaten marriage, as I didn't promise god anything?
What about unhappy marriages? Do they not threaten Chrisitan marriage?
There are infinite variations in types of marriage, and it's nobodies business but the couple's - and I say this as a straight woman, very happily married for 20 years this month. What kind of heartless miserablist would not want as much joy in the world as possible??
JOHN JONES
Freya; "Anyone who objects to gay marriage" "I DO",Its something that is not normal, if it was normal, then I'm afraid that all of us on these pages would not be here. A simple fact of life.
eva land
Freya you cannot argue with the god squad.
I am in the same situation as you except I have been married a few years more.
I never take that for granted as nobody knows the future but I consider my own marriage/relationship incredibly special.
I find it hard to understand why apparently sane people feel they need to believe in an after life or in some all powerful power.
It seems particularly sad to me that homosexual people who already have, most likely had discrimination to deal with, bother to choose to believe all this religious twaddle.
My own experience of church followers however leads me to conclude that it gives them something to use up the time they have in their brief existence in this world whilst the rest of us (wars permitting)can just get on with living fully the life we know we have, for as long as we can.
We don't need to be told by so called representatives of religion what behaviour is right and what is wrong or to have any principles.
Jim
Give it a rest Eva, we're not all like that and using phrases like "God squad" just rubs people up the wrong way. If you want a society where we are all equal this isn't the way to go about it.
eva land
I have a friend who is gay and considers herself a christian. It is the christian aspect I struggle with but as you say not all gays are relgious and I agree you that as a gay person, you are entitled to your own choice in the matter of belief.
The problem is that this article intimates that a christian marriage is more meaningful so people like me and Freya have to object to such a false claim.
Stokey
The thing that I find confusing is the banding about of the term homophobic if there is anything that anyone disagrees with the homosexual/gay view of things.
A recent interview on Radio Shropshire heard two gay men who are in a civil partnership accusing anyone for whatever reason was against the full marriage mallarkey for gays to be homophobic.
I always thought that a phobia involved an irrational fear of something, not just the fact you don't agree.
One of my friends is wholeheartedly against gays marrying, so based on the simple formula, he must be homphobic despite him being gay too.