civil partnerships.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#1
Praviously in the UK civil partnerships could only take place in registry offices or secular venues. However, an ammendment to this act has been added by the House of Lords, lifting the ban on same sex marriages taking part in religious venues.

They have said no institution will be forced to carry this out. but here is where the problem lies. since it is law that same sex partners can get married in a religious venue, if a pastor/minister refuses he then could be taken to court under the Equality bill or Human rights Acts (EU).

not good news at all.

Just wondering have any of your countries got similar laws and has any pastor etc been taking to court over it?
 

grace

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2006
1,064
11
0
51
#2
WOW! That is something else. *shakes head*

I have never heard of anything like that happening here in the US.

To be honest, any solid, bible based church that follows scripture and would meet with any type of couple wanting to get married (heterosexual or otherwise), if the pastor should not feel they should marry and that he would not feel comfortable uniting them...I feel he has that right. I believe a pastor can hold responsibililty for uniting those two persons. (it states in James that to whom much is given much is required...speaking of church and christian leadership)
 
K

karuna

Guest
#3
They have said no institution will be forced to carry this out. but here is where the problem lies. since it is law that same sex partners can get married in a religious venue, if a pastor/minister refuses he then could be taken to court under the Equality bill or Human rights Acts (EU).
Yes, it's true that they can be taken to court - you can take anybody to court for anything - but it will be thrown out almost instantly.

A minister can refuse to facilitate a religious ceremony for any reason. When people say no institution will be forced to carry this out, this is what they mean and they are correct.

This means, people can now have their ceremonies in religious venues. It doesn't mean they suddenly have the right to have it in your religious venue.
 
M

Matthew

Guest
#4
Praviously in the UK civil partnerships could only take place in registry offices or secular venues. However, an ammendment to this act has been added by the House of Lords, lifting the ban on same sex marriages taking part in religious venues.

They have said no institution will be forced to carry this out. but here is where the problem lies. since it is law that same sex partners can get married in a religious venue, if a pastor/minister refuses he then could be taken to court under the Equality bill or Human rights Acts (EU).
This is often the problem with EU law, the laws do not always compliment those of member states but rather conflict with them, a minister can say no and be fully within the law and making his choice freely, but he can make that choice only if he is prepared to take his case to the European authorities whose laws basically override those of the UK, it isn't good at all.

Personally I find it odd that any person going into a civil partnership would want to do so in a religious institution that does not condone the union, it doesn't really make any sense.

Should just get rid of the Lords altogether.
 
K

karuna

Guest
#5
To put it another way - let's say we repeal a ban on marijuana. This doesn't suddenly mean you must give me your joint. That would require extra laws which, for obvious reasons, would never get passed.
 
Feb 3, 2010
1,238
3
0
#6
Yes, it's true that they can be taken to court - you can take anybody to court for anything - but it will be thrown out almost instantly.

A minister can refuse to facilitate a religious ceremony for any reason. When people say no institution will be forced to carry this out, this is what they mean and they are correct.

This means, people can now have their ceremonies in religious venues. It doesn't mean they suddenly have the right to have it in your religious venue.
You are so right - thank you for this post.

There is no reason civil unions should be banned in the US. They do not threaten marriage and people should not be bound by rules of an institution they do not believe in, especially when it doesn't even accept them.
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#7
Yes, it's true that they can be taken to court - you can take anybody to court for anything - but it will be thrown out almost instantly.

A minister can refuse to facilitate a religious ceremony for any reason. When people say no institution will be forced to carry this out, this is what they mean and they are correct.

This means, people can now have their ceremonies in religious venues. It doesn't mean they suddenly have the right to have it in your religious venue.

I know what you are saying, but when it comes to Human rights act etc which are EU law. the laws work totally different her.

They won't be taking to court under the civil partnership law, it will be under thee presiding EU law on Equality and Human rights.

I am a union rep and EWC rep (European Works Council) for the Union I represent within my own work place and as EC Rep for the UK, within my own company. lets say there is a law in the UK, I will use an example Health and safety (UK Law) some of the UK laws still stand yet if you take your company to court to make sure you get the higher chance of winning you will take them under the 'working time directive' this EU law.

It is not simply black and white, and it will not necessarily be thrown out of court. when the Government says no one will be forced, they are talking specifically about the UK Law and this is not in black and white on politicians verbal say so. they are not However saying that you can override someones right under both European union laws as in 'human rights and the Equality Bill.

You are correct someone can refuse. yet when it goes to court they will not go to court under the civil partnership law, it will be Equality and Human right issue which can lead to the European high commission.

I don't think I pointed out the legal issue correctly for you. the law in the UK and ultimately in the EU work totally different than in the sates.

Of course maybe you where talking about the US? not sure.
 
Last edited:

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#8
This is often the problem with EU law, the laws do not always compliment those of member states but rather conflict with them, a minister can say no and be fully within the law and making his choice freely, but he can make that choice only if he is prepared to take his case to the European authorities whose laws basically override those of the UK, it isn't good at all.

Personally I find it odd that any person going into a civil partnership would want to do so in a religious institution that does not condone the union, it doesn't really make any sense.

Should just get rid of the Lords altogether.

Well lets put it this way.

In Austria,(either that or new zealand) a minister was taking to court by 2 muslims who attended one of his meetings.. basically he insulted them with his message. and guess what, who won the case. it was'nt the minister.

That should make you think how far people will go to make a point.
 
Mar 14, 2010
241
1
0
#9
hi phill interesting thread ....alan
 
M

Matthew

Guest
#10
Well lets put it this way.

In Austria,(either that or new zealand) a minister was taking to court by 2 muslims who attended one of his meetings.. basically he insulted them with his message. and guess what, who won the case. it was'nt the minister.

That should make you think how far people will go to make a point.
Well the law being abused to serve spite alone is a long standing problem. :(
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#11
it certainly is, but it really is starting to cause problems for churches, well bible believing churchs, as any church who allows this or gives the blessing of same sex marriage really don't believe their bibles. and I would go as far to say calling God a liar.

Have them in secular settings as they have been doing that's fine.
 
K

karuna

Guest
#12
Which churches is it causing problems for currently?
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#13
it only went through the House of Lords this Month, probably take effect in a few months. and has been passed. I got it sent through on a HUMAN RIGHTs Circualr to reps.

There is no legal document saying that it will not be forced, it was only verbal.. which means diddly squat.. ie, not worth the breath the politician took to say it. EU law overides member states internal law.
 
Last edited:

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#14
and if the a church is asked, and if they believe God's word they will hopefully refuse.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#15
This is why churches and ministers need to begin to have official policies set in advance. Neither a minister nor a church is required by either law or scripture to do or have weddings. I know of ministers who will not officiate the marriage of those who have been previously divorced or because of other issues with the couple.

If a church sets the standard of those who are members and then only allows members to be married in their sanctuary, it could help alleviate future issues.
 
May 21, 2009
3,955
25
0
#16
Just heard of another gay person being put in charge of a church.
 
Feb 3, 2010
1,238
3
0
#17
Just heard of another gay person being put in charge of a church.
Was it a Church that you consider to be Christian?

It is funny, many people who would never mention the Anglican Church and Christian in the same sentence, suddenly act as if Satan, himself is attacking a Christian Church when a gay person is put in charge. Since when do fundamentalists care about any mainline church?
 
K

karuna

Guest
#18
Moreover, it's not clear what that has to do with religious venues being forced by law to host civil partnerships.
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#19
It is sad that those who live in continual sin become leaders of the body of Christ, it doesn't really matter what denomination.

Continual sin probably is not the best way to describe it as many Christians have problems overcoming things like addictions etc, but rather what I mean is a complete disregard for the authority of God's word, and to live in this sin as if it isn't a sin, I am talking about the leadership of the church. but they are the ones who will have to answer to God for their actions.

And the whole issue of gay ministers is not just about the sin, its about the authority of God's word. do we now just pick and choose the parts of Scripture to fit the cultural norm.

Phil
 
Mar 9, 2010
54
0
0
#20
Why should religious and civil ceremonies even be under the same laws? It's interesting how many people seem to think that a religious institution should have some innate right to make their marriage legal... and just as amusing that people think a piece of paper from the government makes them just as married as if their minister performed it.