Irish Bishops vow to 'boycott' weddings over gay marriage

[Publisher]

Nothing will ever prevent the church from performing weddings only to those whom they choose to do so.

In those states that same sex marriage is not yet law, Friend’s Meetings have been celebrating weddings of same sex couples for decades…all without a civil marriage license…but the couple is still married under the care of the various meetings which embrace same sex marriage. Those couples are no less married according to the respective meetings than their opposite sex members.

The same form is used…the same words spoken…the same certificate of marriage signed by all who witness the marriage…the same process of “clearness” and “counsel” it required…all without a “civil marriage” license.

For those religious groups who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies…IF…IF the state decides to revoke these religious groups as civil servants of civil marriage…NOTHING…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will prevent those faith traditions in perfoming their respective religous ceremonies binding the couple in holy matrimony according to their respective beliefs.

However, if the performance of civil marriage is removed from religious institutions…which I seriously doubt it will…that religious body will STILL have the right to perform…or not perform…the ceremony they choose to.

 

[Mariem2]

If this happens, the Irish government will have to employ registrars to perform the civil ceremonies and provide venues for those ceremonies. Better for the Church but a headache for the government. If homosexual marriage were to become law, it would be inevitable that the Church and government would be in dispute because listening to a lot of homosexuals seeking “equal marriage”, their ultimate goal is to have the Church perform the ceremony, which will never happen.

The Church in Ireland is no stranger to being forced to administer the Sacraments in secret. They managed in the past and will manage in the future.

 

[tafan]

…
For those religious groups who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies…IF…IF the state decides to revoke these religious groups as civil servants of civil marriage…NOTHING…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will prevent those faith traditions in perfoming their respective religous ceremonies binding the couple in holy matrimony according to their respective beliefs.

However, if the performance of civil marriage is removed from religious institutions…which I seriously doubt it will…that religious body will STILL have the right to perform…or not perform…the ceremony they choose to.

I am skeptical of your assurance. I offer the following for your consideration as to the modern state’s attempts to control religious issues:

lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-homeschooling-families-cant-teach-homosexuality-a-sin-in-class-sa/

wayoflife.org/index_files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

An excerpt from the latter:

In 2005 a British Columbia KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

I am fairly certain, it is only a matter of time before priests are told who the must “marry” even in a religious ceremony; it will be considered a hate crime to refuse them based on sexual orientation.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Nothing will ever prevent the church from performing weddings only to those whom they choose to do so.

In those states that same sex marriage is not yet law, Friend’s Meetings have been celebrating weddings of same sex couples for decades…all without a civil marriage license…but the couple is still married under the care of the various meetings which embrace same sex marriage. Those couples are no less married according to the respective meetings than their opposite sex members.

The same form is used…the same words spoken…the same certificate of marriage signed by all who witness the marriage…the same process of “clearness” and “counsel” it required…all without a “civil marriage” license.

For those religious groups who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies…IF…IF the state decides to revoke these religious groups as civil servants of civil marriage…NOTHING…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will prevent those faith traditions in perfoming their respective religous ceremonies binding the couple in holy matrimony according to their respective beliefs.

However, if the performance of civil marriage is removed from religious institutions…which I seriously doubt it will…that religious body will STILL have the right to perform…or not perform…the ceremony they choose to.

Church of Denmark has been forced to conduct gay marriages, so will the Church of England soon be forced? Culture Secretary Maria Miller says no, but if the Church of Denmark can be forced too then so can other Churches. Religious liberty and gay marriage are not compatible

 

[jay29]

Church of Denmark has been forced to conduct gay marriages, so will the Church of England soon be forced? Culture Secretary Maria Miller says no, but if the Church of Denmark can be forced too then so can other Churches. Religious liberty and gay marriage are not compatible

Militant homosexuals and their evil agenda have caused so much harm in society.

 

[thomasf]

I think separating the church from civil marriage is a good idea. Then they remove themselves another step from being forced to perform civil ceremonies for gays. If what the church does is not a civil ceremony the government will have a harder time forcing the church to marry gays.

 

[rossum]

Church of Denmark has been forced to conduct gay marriages, so will the Church of England soon be forced? Culture Secretary Maria Miller says no, but if the Church of Denmark can be forced too then so can other Churches.

The Lutheran Church of Denmark is an established church and so is explicitly controlled by the state. The Catholic Church in Denmark is not affected by the ruling.

The Church of England is (typically) split on the issue. Some vicars will be willing to perform same sex marriages while others will not. The current proposals favour the ‘not’ faction. As you say, that may change in future. If it does then I suspect that the something like the Danish system will be used – the church must provide a celebrant, but any vicar who wishes to withdraw can do so and another will be provided.

Religious liberty and gay marriage are not compatible

Adjustments can be made to accommodate both sides reasonably I think. Religious liberty is not absolute. It has to accommodate other liberties.

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Lutheran Church of Denmark is an established church and so is explicitly controlled by the state. The Catholic Church in Denmark is not affected by the ruling.

The Church of England is (typically) split on the issue. Some vicars will be willing to perform same sex marriages while others will not. The current proposals favour the ‘not’ faction. As you say, that may change in future. If it does then I suspect that the something like the Danish system will be used – the church must provide a celebrant, but any vicar who wishes to withdraw can do so and another will be provided.

Adjustments can be made to accommodate both sides reasonably I think. Religious liberty is not absolute. It has to accommodate other liberties.

rossum

Catholic Church is not affected for now. There are no guarantees that in the future the Catholic Church will not try to be forced to marry homosexuals. Religious liberty is a basic human right and religious liberty can not be compromised

 

[CarolNoel]

I am worried about the whole situation. Our Church is under attack.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I very much doubt if anything like this will happen. The Catholic Church already refuses to marry divorced people. Has any government enforced these measures on the Catholic Church because of that refusal? I am not aware of any.

rossum

Excellent point!
Thanks.

 

[curlycool89]

I agree. Since the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics and the State doesn’t recognize Sacramental marriage, I really don’t understand why they got involved in a State matter anyway. Catholics can just produce their civil marriage certificate for the priest before the Sacramental marriage. No more problems or dramas. Solved.

I’m starting to think that this is the best way to go forward.

If I remember right, it’s already done that way in France. Priests aren’t accredited to “witness” state mariages, so there are 2 ceremonies: one for legal purposes and one to perform the actual marriage (Sacrament of Matrimony).

Frankly speaking, the civil part of the marriage is a vacuous concept anyways. It’s essentially just a special legal contract that has implications on inheritance and power of attorney and taxes and stuff. So far as I understand it, strictly speaking there is nothing that requires a Catholic couple to have a registered civil marriage because the part that makes it a marriage is the Sacrament.

 

[Publisher]

Church of Denmark has been forced to conduct gay marriages, so will the Church of England soon be forced? Culture Secretary Maria Miller says no, but if the Church of Denmark can be forced too then so can other Churches. Religious liberty and gay marriage are not compatible

Isn’t the Church of Denmark a State church? I can see it for sure in state run chruches…but not here…we have no state church…the state can take care of state civil marriages…and if religous people want to have a nice little ceremony to celebrate their marriage and have it declared “sacramental”…great.

Your comparison that “it happens in Denmark” has no equal counterpart in the United States.

 

[Publisher]

Catholic Church is not affected for now. There are no guarantees that in the future the Catholic Church will not try to be forced to marry homosexuals. Religious liberty is a basic human right and religious liberty can not be compromised

Thankfully civil law isn’t written becuase ‘it might happen"…“it could happen”…"one day maybe it might happen.’ Such “mights” and “could be’s” have it’s use in fostering fear of what may never happen…because while “it could happen”…it is a greater probability 'it won’t happen" because of the rule of law in this country…not the “rule of fear”

 

[Monkey1976]

Thankfully civil law isn’t written becuase ‘it might happen"…“it could happen”…"one day maybe it might happen.’ Such “mights” and “could be’s” have it’s use in fostering fear of what may never happen…because while “it could happen”…it is a greater probability 'it won’t happen" because of the rule of law in this country…not the “rule of fear”

Some of the latest things perpetrated by this “Rule of Law”:

• The President can unilaterally order the death of an American citizen on American soil, so long as a drone is used
• Students being suspended for biting a pop-tart into a “gun-like shape”
• Catholic convents will be forced to supply coverage for contraceptives under the HHS mandate, because they don’t meet the Administration’s definition of a “religious institution”
• White House tours suspended and violent offenders released from INS detention centers in an admitted “tactical” move to make the sequester cuts “felt”

What we have in this country isn’t the rule of law. We have an oligarchy.

 

[Publisher]

Some of the latest things perpetrated by this “Rule of Law”:

• The President can unilaterally order the death of an American citizen on American soil, so long as a drone is used
• Students being suspended for biting a pop-tart into a “gun-like shape”
• Catholic convents will be forced to supply coverage for contraceptives under the HHS mandate, because they don’t meet the Administration’s definition of a “religious institution”
• White House tours suspended and violent offenders released from INS detention centers in an admitted “tactical” move to make the sequester cuts “felt”

What we have in this country isn’t the rule of law. We have an oligarchy.

But we don’t have laws dealing with “the sky is falling”…maybe we should…but what good would they do…the sky isn’t falling…churches aren’t being forced to marry gay couples…‘might happen’ is a reason to prevent two people who want to be civilly married because some religous person is worried in the far off future their church “might be required”…operative word…“might” not “will” be required to do something “one of these days”.

 

[Monkey1976]

But we don’t have laws dealing with “the sky is falling”…maybe we should…but what good would they do…the sky isn’t falling…churches aren’t being forced to marry gay couples…‘might happen’ is a reason to prevent two people who want to be civilly married because some religous person is worried in the far off future their church “might be required”…operative word…“might” not “will” be required to do something “one of these days”.

All law anticipates behavior. We already have laws in place against human cloning. Not because it was possible at the time, but because it might become possible.

 

[Publisher]

All law anticipates behavior. We already have laws in place against human cloning. Not because it was possible at the time, but because it might become possible.

Laws anticipate behaviors…true…but they tend to be grounded in fact and/or possibility…the “possibility” obviously is not apparant to anyone but some of the religous people who oppose same sex marriage…“might happen”…“could happen”…fear tactics…no substantial evidence to it at all.

 

[crazzeto]

independent.ie/irish-news/bishops-vow-to-boycott-weddings-over-gay-marriage-29162066.html

 

[Lion_IRC]

The Independent wrote :

…The stage has been set for an intense debate ahead of the possibility of a referendum on same-sex marriage.

What a novel approach to law making. A referendum at the private ballot box rather than zeitgeist judicial activism and public opinion polls
and pop culture wars.

There’s a very good reason democratic voting is done in private. It’s because everyone wants to be seen by others as modern and hip and tolerant when they are out in public. But they want the right to hold unpopular ‘‘silent majority’’ opinions in private.

But if SSM was such an obvious vote winner, why did the democratic Australian Parliament vote it down by an overwhelming 98 to 42 in September last year? Why do only 9 states out of 50, in the supposedly united states of America, (ie 18% of State jurisdictions) allow gay marriage while the other 41 States (82%) are prepared to say to their gay constituents…sorry, if you want SSM, you’re gonna need
to run for Congress.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Isn’t the Church of Denmark a State church? I can see it for sure in state run chruches…but not here…we have no state church…the state can take care of state civil marriages…and if religous people want to have a nice little ceremony to celebrate their marriage and have it declared “sacramental”…great.

Your comparison that “it happens in Denmark” has no equal counterpart in the United States.

Gov Christine Gregoire signed a bill last year redefining marriage, and the bill said that religious organisations had to provide, ‘accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage’ for homosexuals. That language was dropped in the final bill that was signed but the fact that that was put in the bill shows the religious liberty encroachment that is coming

In section 2 of the bill it says

A refusal to solemnize any marriage under this section by a regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination does not create a civil claim or cause of action…

Bill does not say anything about any type of legal claim other than civil being used to target clergy who will not solemnize a gay marriage. This bill could allow such people as the Attorney General or Human Rights Commission to sue a priest, imam, rabbi who would not marry a homosexual couple, because their claim is not ‘civil’

In section 7 of the bill, the word ‘unless’ is used twice, which leaves the door wide open for Churches to be sued if they refuse to solemnize a marriage