Gay friend is getting married

[RolandThompsonGunner]

This is a guy who the OP describes as having “drifted apart” from them and who also sounds like he’s a big bully, not an actual friend. An “oldest friend” should be understanding. Otherwise, it’s time to let them go.

I agree with that evaluating whether he wants to be friends with this person is probably in order. But I’m just skeptical that if he just says “busy, sorry.” that’s going to be the end of it. It depends on how close they still are or aren’t. Admittedly, I may have misinterpreted “oldest” as “best.”

I’m not that close with my oldest friend anymore.
I could turn down an invitation from her without eliciting a whole lot of astonishment.
And besides, invitations aren’t commands.
Nobody should let others pull their strings.

As I said, I may have overestimated how close they still are, but if my oldest/best friend was getting married and I said “can’t make it, sorry.” I think he would have been pretty hurt and said “you can’t reschedule whatever else you’re doing?”

It’s an invitation to a wedding, not a barbecue. Not saying OP shouldn’t decline, but he should do so knowing there are probably going to be follow up questions if he just says he’s busy. Simply stonewalling is probably going to be perceived as a snub. But again, maybe it’s best to let the “friendship” go anyway.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

But yeah, OP: this guy just sounds like a bully and maybe you’re better off without this friendship.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

It also sounds like this friend is the vengeful type who will make trouble for the OP if they don’t get their own way.

An enormous red flag

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

This friend knows everything about me, and, has the potential to make my life extremely difficult, if not ruin it completely, especially if this gets nasty

Not being a Catholic, my opinion on whether you should attend the event is probably not very useful to you. What I would say, however, is that this person does not sound like much of a friend. It sounds like he has information about you that you wouldn’t like to be made public (as is often the case between good friends) and that he would happily completely ruin your life if you don’t do as he wishes. That’s not a friend; that’s a blackmailer.

I would just mention, as I am also from the UK, that the Catholic bishops here actually approve of same-sex civil partnerships. What they do not approve of are same-sex marriages. If your friend has a civil partnership, rather than a marriage, I don’t believe there’s any reason not to go on religious grounds.

 

[MNathaniel]

given his head-strong nature, could very well try and do something to “get his own back”, and no, this isn’t me over-thinking things.

I’m sorry to hear about your difficult situation, Arimor.

I don’t doubt that you have reasons for the concerns you’re expressing. These days, we’re sadly not lacking for public examples of people lashing out at those they frame as having ‘hurt’ them.

At the end of the day, I’d personally concur with the conclusion you’ve expressed so far. That non-attendance, and a (kind, patient) difficult conversation if necessary, is the route forward. And then what will happen will happen; that’s in God’s hands. Offer it up and keep walking with Jesus, each step. Keep praying. Keep loving.

 

[cjsm93]

Why must you give an explanation? You do not need to explain or defend your reasons for not attending. People decline wedding invitations all the time, and when they do, a simple “no” should suffice.

If it’s feasible, maybe even plan a day away around the time of the wedding, and give them an, “Oh, I am sorry but I will be out of town on that date.”

 

[Irishmom2]

Yes, if pressed for an answer, “ sorry, got a family thing I can’t get out of.” And not to lie, have something planned. No need for great detail. Just spend time with family that day and don’t overthink it.

 

[Arimor]

Thank you for all your comments and advice, it’s very much appreciated.

God Bless.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

that the Catholic bishops here actually approve of same-sex civil partnerships.

Sources please. And is this individual bishops, or some sort of UK Catholic bishops’ council?
I didn’t think you were Catholic, so where did you get this info?

It’s also not very helpful to a person like the OP living a chaste life to tell him that his own bishops are fine with what he is trying to avoid. Also, presumably civil partnerships encourage unchaste behavior against Church teaching, so a bishop “supporting” them would be rather sinful.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I didn’t think you were Catholic, so where did you get this info?

One does not have to be a Catholic to read what is in the news. I have followed the introduction of civil partnerships and same-sex marriage in England and Wales with interest.

And is this individual bishops, or some sort of UK Catholic bishops’ council?

I think the issue has mostly been addressed by Cardinal Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster and president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ponds-to-critics-of-his-civil-unions-approach

“We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship (and) a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision.”

…

“Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation in England use a civil partnership to bring stability to a relationship,” the archbishop said, qualifying that while “equality is very important and there should be no unjust discrimination,” that “commitment plus equality do not equal marriage.”

Archbishop Nichols said the key distinction between civil partnerships and marriage is that the former does not “in law contain a required element of sexual relationships.”

“Same-sex partnerships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does,” he explained. “And that’s the distinction that I think it’s important for us to understand, that marriage is built on the sexual partnership between a man and a woman which is open to children to their nurture and education.”

So while the bishops of England and Wales “respect the existence of same-sex partnerships in law,” he said, “the point we are at now is to say that they are not the same as marriage.”

It’s also not very helpful to a person like the OP living a chaste life to tell him that his own bishops are fine with what he is trying to avoid.

What the OP is trying to avoid is engaging in homosexual acts. As the archbishop says, the law makes no presumption that civil partners are involved in a sexual relationship. A civil partnership is not a marriage. Thus the Church of England, which also rejects same-sex marriage, permits civil partnerships, including for clergy, on the grounds that a civil partnership is not a sexual relationship. As you are probably aware, civil partnerships are not restricted to same-sex couples. An opposite-sex couple in a civil partnership is also not considered to be married, and, if their religion does not permit sex between unmarried couples, they should not be having sex either.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yes

I have several gay relatives who did not invite any of the more devout Christians in the family to avoid them being put on the spot.

Saves the relationship.

We agree to disagree on their choices but we are still civil to each other.

 

[MNathaniel]

the law makes no presumption that civil partners are involved in a sexual relationship. A civil partnership is not a marriage. Thus the Church of England, which also rejects same-sex marriage, permits civil partnerships, including for clergy, on the grounds that a civil partnership is not a sexual relationship. As you are probably aware, civil partnerships are not restricted to same-sex couples. An opposite-sex couple in a civil partnership is also not considered to be married, and, if their religion does not permit sex between unmarried couples, they should not be having sex either.

I’m genuinely curious, friend.

Out of interest.

Do you believe people enter such “civil partnerships” intended to not (perhaps Biblical language is simplest here) lay with one another?

Really?

You think civil partnerships are just codified celibate roommate agreements? No presumption of sexual interaction implicit?

… do you consider nuns to be in group “civil partnerships”?

Also, where I live, if a romantic couple cohabitate long enough, the government declares them “married’ even if the couple have no ceremony. It’s called common law marriage. It’s funny because people sometimes accidentally find out the government considers them married when they had no such intention.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

OP, if this person is truly a friend, why would they want to make your life difficult or ruin it?

I have found that it is very common, among those who wish to deviate from Catholic and Christian morality, to seek the approval of others who embrace that morality, so that they can feel good about themselves, ratify their desired course of action, and imagine that “it’s okay, because I got my friend to agree it’s okay, and look, he’s Catholic”. It’s as though if they get enough of a “following”, this acts as a salve on their conscience.

I think there are a lot of people who know that traditional Catholic and Christian morality are right, but just want to find every argument they can, every advocate from whom they can gain sympathy, to allow them to go against that morality with a “clear conscience”.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

There certainly are examples of people entering civil partnerships with the intention of observing chastity. The most obvious examples would be Church of England clergy, who are permitted to enter civil partnerships, but are also required to abstain from sexual relations, often advertising quite publicly the fact that they are not having sex. I am sure that there are people who have entered civil partnerships for purely practical reasons. For example, friends or cousins who live together and want to benefit from rules about inheritance or acting as a next of kin.

 

[MNathaniel]

There certainly are examples of people entering civil partnerships with the intention of observing chastity. The most obvious examples would be Church of England clergy, who are permitted to enter civil partnerships, but are also required to abstain from sexual relations, often advertising quite publicly the fact that they are not having sex. I am sure that there are people who have entered civil partnerships for purely practical reasons. For example, friends or cousins who live together and want to benefit from rules about inheritance or acting as a next of kin.

This is all fascinating news to me. I’ve never heard of anything like this.

But then again, I’m not Anglican. And I don’t live in the UK.

But wow. You’re saying that really, this is a British thing? Cousins are entering “civil partnerships” with each other to benefit from British inheritance laws?

And again, circling back to the point… Given your knowledge of Catholic teaching about chastity, do you really not see why (perhaps one Archbishop aside) there’s such a huge caution against celibates living in close quarters with someone they’re sexually attracted to?

Because even nuns and monks who vow celibacy, go out of their way to live in separate monasteries and not sleep in cells next door to people they’re sexually attracted to. They don’t live in co-ed monasteries and alternate the cell doors: man-woman-man-woman-man-woman. Much less put a man and a woman in one cell together. We’re all human, we all experience temptation. When we really want to avoid a sin, we avoid the near occasion of sin, too.

Regardless of whether we’re attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex, if our intention is to live chastely, why would we choose to live in whatever circumstance puts us in a near occasion to sin? Shouldn’t we go out of our way to form our economically advantageous (if that’s what it’s all about) “civil partnerships” specifically with people we’re not sexually attracted to? Like nuns and monks do?

(E.g. I’m a single woman. For no economic incentive do I think it’s a reasonable idea for me to cohabitate with a man with whom I share reciprocated romantic attraction, if marital relations (within marriage) are off the table. I don’t see why I should consider people who experience SSA less worth protecting and preserving than me. We all have human hearts and eternal souls worth protecting and preserving.)

 

[Rau]

This friend knows everything about me, and, has the potential to make my life extremely difficult, if not ruin it completely, especially if this gets nasty; he’s always been very much “it’s my way or the highway”, type of character.

Any you call him “friend”? Perhaps you need to choose them more carefully in future.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m genuinely curious, friend.

Out of interest.

Do you believe people enter such “civil partnerships” intended to not (perhaps Biblical language is simplest here) lay with one another?

Really?

You think civil partnerships are just codified celibate roommate agreements? No presumption of sexual interaction implicit?

Yeah, it’s a little naive to think your average “civil partnership” generally refers to a sexless union.

It’s true that civil partnerships pose less of a problem for the Catholic church in that no one is going to be turning to a church to solemnize their civil partnership. So there is less chance that the Catholic church would be forced against their will to perform the union or recognize the union. In that sense, a bishop could view the civil partnership as “Lesser of the two evils”.

However, bishops aren’t stupid and all of them realize, as do all of us lay people, that the average “civil partnership” will include sex that the Church deems wrong and sinful when there is no marriage that the Church can recognize.

In any event, there seem to be quite a few news articles online indicating that this Cardinal Nichols is a bit of an ardent supporter of a gay Catholic group that counts among its leaders some Catholic priest who quit to have a gay relationship. Indeed, I would say Cardinal Nichols out-Father Martins Father Martin. His support for gay civil unions or gay anything else are not shared by quite a few other Cardinals and bishops of the Church, including outside UK, and he seems to be skating on the hairy edge of Church teaching.

 

[MNathaniel]

Any you call him “friend”? Perhaps you need to choose them more carefully in future.

He mentioned he’s his oldest friend.

To me that suggests perhaps from childhood.

I imagine most of us have friends from childhood who we didn’t exactly ‘choose’ in the same sense that an adult ‘chooses’ a friend. Childhood friendships are often circumstantial: attend the same school or club, gravitate towards one another by compatible temperament. You end up ‘friends’ in a very organic way. And those organic bonds aren’t nothing. It’s hard to totally detach, even after years of distance, unless there’s a dramatic bridge burning moment (which I presume none of us are keen to initiate).

Edit: I’d like to add, in many cases it’s even undesirable to detach. God puts relationships in our lives for a reason. If the other person chooses to walk away that’s one thing. Personally, I’m disinclined to break a relationship with others when God hasn’t broken His relationship with me. God doesn’t walk away from me, I don’t walk away from others. Although my way of interacting with people may change as I grow closer to God, and I can’t control whether other people break their relationship with me as part of rejecting their own relationship with God. I leave that to them though. I cling to God, and invite them along. They get to make the choice of either saying yes, no, or hemming and hawing. And even if they hem and haw, I personally choose to treat that as not yet ‘no’, and continue to accompany them where they are, because God is gracious enough to extend that prolonged invitation to me and to accompany me where I am.

/ramble

 

[Rau]

A civil partnership is not a marriage. Thus the Church of England, which also rejects same-sex marriage, permits civil partnerships, including for clergy, on the grounds that a civil partnership is not a sexual relationship. As you are probably aware, civil partnerships are not restricted to same-sex couples. An opposite-sex couple in a civil partnership is also not considered to be married, and, if their religion does not permit sex between unmarried couples, they should not be having sex either.

I assume there are no romantic assumptions at all? No romantic symbolism at all? No Family celebrations Etc. Is it like a commercial contract?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I assume there are no romantic assumptions at all? No romantic symbolism at all? No Family celebrations Etc. Is it like a commercial contract?

Civil partnerships in UK were started as a way for same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal benefits of marriage. It’s pretty obvious they were for “couples” relationships. Some US states allowed this for gay people too prior to gay marriage becoming accepted.

Civil Partnership Act 2004 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Only later were they opened up in UK to opposite-sex couples as well.

Like I said, it’s glaringly obvious to the most casual observer that most of these relationships aren’t going to be between platonic friends, even though some platonic friends might take advantage of the law.

A law firm website notes that for civil partnerships, “Unlike marriage, no physical consummation of the relationship is necessary for the registered partnership to be legal and binding.” However, it’s my understanding that in the UK, the same-sex marriage laws (passed in 2013) do NOT require same-sex couples to consummate for their marriage to be legal and binding. Only heterosexual couples in England and Wales have to consummate, or else the marriage can be legally annulled.

Also, in the USA, where marriage is handled on a state-by-state basis, very few states have a legal consummation requirement (and other countries like Australia don’t have one at all) so this business about civil partnerships not requiring consummation is a bizarre quirk of the UK legal system and, for gay people seeking to either marry or partner, is a non-issue there.

I’ve derailed the OP’s thread enough, but Emily, my impression is you left out a huge amount of context in just blithely telling the OP that, on the basis of one overly gay-friendly cardinal and some perhaps overly gay-friendly bishops in his wake, gay civil partnerships are just fine because they can provide for some kind of sexless relationship between gays and aren’t called “marriage”.