Moderator: All Things Mods
...and frankly I find it offensive to my religion (totally ignoring the first I'd Really Rather You Didn't), and I don't think we want to be associated with religions that hold views like that.I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This Through You Thick Heads: Woman=Person, Man=Person. Samey-Samey. One is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.
Roy Hunter wrote:We legalised and equalised same-sex marriage, but in the usual political fudge we gave an exemption to religions who disapprove of homosexuality. They do not have to treat same-sex couples the same as mixed-sex, and can refuse to marry them.
In this country it is against the law for an organisation to discriminate on the basis of sexuality or sexual identity. Unless you are a religion, it appears.
Seeing as Pastafarianism is an egalitarian religion, which treats men, women, straights, gays, lesbians, trans, whatever as equal, I would like to ask for an exemption from the religious exemption. I want us to be obliged to treat same-sex couples the same as mixed-sex couples.
I don't want Pastafarianism to be associated with bigoted and homophobic religions.
Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:No comprende...?
daftbeaker wrote:All churches are expected to marry members of their congregation. Certain religious groups object to this and insist on their right to be bigots.
Qwertyuiopasd wrote:daftbeaker wrote:All churches are expected to marry members of their congregation. Certain religious groups object to this and insist on their right to be bigots.
Expected, but not required? Could they deny performing the marriage for a straight couple, for whatever reason (that is, not for no reason)?
Qwertyuiopasd wrote:I agree that an exemption is stupid, but I also feel like it would be redundant. Though I'm sure there's some piece of U.K. legality I don't grasp or am not aware of. My question is I guess of practicality: If same sex marriage is as legal as opposite sex marriage (including in terms of weddings/religious marriage)... why would a couple want to be married by a church that didn't want to marry them? Like, when would that come up? If it doesn't, then it seems the exemption is sort of legally superfluous.
Roy Hunter wrote:First thing: the law on equal marriage currently relates to Scotland, not the UK. England and Wales are a bit behind in that, but they are getting there. Northern Ireland is still in the dark ages.
The Equality Act 2010 is UK-wide, it says that people must be treated equally regardless of their sexuality. Now we are re-defining other laws to make that work in practice. Registration of Marriage is a local authority responsibility, therefore devolved to Scotland, Scots law, Scottish legislation. With me so far?
tl;dr version: Scotland is better than England.daftbeaker wrote:No. But then I never follow precisely what differences in legal wording there are north of Gretna.
daftbeaker wrote: You wouldn't accept going into a government building and being told 'sorry, we can't renew your passport because you're straight, you'll have to go to the other building at the other end of the city', why should you accept the same thing with a marriage certificate?
Qwertyuiopasd wrote:I do know that churches saying "But they'll force us to marry teh gays!" is absurd in America, but I suppose that is what could happen in Scotland without the exemption?
daftbeaker wrote:Personally I can't see a religion getting anywhere if we don't start making arbitrary restrictions and hate figures. I nominate stringy cheese as unclean and people that stand in front of train doors as infidels.