Deputy Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg wants the Government’s gay marriage plans to go much further by allowing gay weddings in churches.
He has been accused of shifting the goal posts and playing politics with marriage to curry favor with homosexual groups.
Mr. Clegg’s comments show that religious groups cannot rely upon Government assurances on the issue.
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg has hoisted a gay pride rainbow flag over Whitehall in the run up to a London gay pride event this weekend.
Under current Government plans for gay marriage, same-sex weddings could only take place in civic, not religious, settings.
But Nick Clegg wants the plans to go further. He said: “I think that in exactly the same way that we shouldn’t force any church to conduct gay marriage, we shouldn’t stop any church that wants to conduct gay marriage.
24 Comments
Why deny gay Christian couples who want to get married in the sight of God surrounded by loving friends, family, neighbours and co-workers? If a church supports s-s marriage and performs ceremonies why discriminate again their religious freedoms?
Why not allow them to perform polygamous or bigamous unions, then, if that's what a church supports? Why discriminate against their religious freedoms?
Everyone needs to be reminded that the deconstruction of marriage, family and religion is an incremental process. Citizens would revolt against the government if it tried to reach the end goal all at once. So it must proceed one step at a time.
It's called "nudging," and it's based on the book written by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein called "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness."
Sunstein is the current Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Thaler, meanwhile, served as an adviser to David Cameron, who now has a group called "the nudge unit" working for him. The ideas espoused in the book are certainly being embraced by Obama and Cameron.
These leaders (Obama and Cameron) have big plans for us.
I cant believe that you all would tell churches that support marriage quality in a country that has, or soo will have, marriage equality, that cannot perform those ceramonies in their churches. That is a threat to religious freedom for those of you who cannot recognize it when it truly exists, but see it everywhere it doesn't. I know the UK has some sort of official church, so maybe there is some misinterpretation going on here, but, oh, No 2, your stupid argument fails no matter.
There is not one church nor one legal jurisdiction in the world that permits those unions. Churches are agents of the state when performing marriages and must follow laws. That statement is so sad and so ill informed and totally without merit as a legal argument.
That's another old and very tired "slippery slope" argument made by desperate NOMers who are so consumed with hate against gay people they will even resort to posting "Woman Marries Her Neighborhood" and actually believe it.
England has an official State Church and the head of said Church is the Queen of England whose eldest Grandsons wedding vows included acknowledgement by the Church of England that Marriage is consecrated by God to be the union of one man and one woman.
How much more proof do you need that these miscreants are seeking to legislate the absolution of their sins?
In other words, guys, in your world, equality revolves exclusively around homosexuals and all laws and rights are focused on their wants and desires - while everyone else is on their own.
So much for inclusiveness.
And for the record Shane/John there are many jurisdictions that recognize polygamy around the world.
In Africa, the nations of Mayotte, Burkina Faso, Gabon, and Nigeria.
In Asia: Maldives, Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Iran, and Pakistan.
Polygamy is generally legal within Australia, when the marriage is based around common-law (de facto) marriage, or religious/cultural marriage.
And the UK grants welfare benefits to polygamous marriages from foriegn countries.
Can anyone please tell me why such unions don't deserve equal treatment with man/woman marriages under the law?
@SonofAdam, I have nothing personally against polygamous unions, provided everyone is able to consent (in many polygamous sects, women are often forced into the marriages). However, I believe that legal matters such as custody of children and taxes would become very complicated, so it makes more sense to stick to 2 people.
You should Katie. Polygamy degrades the status of women to material objects and promotes pedophilia. Everytime the Feds in this country bust a polygamous cult, we always hear stores about men in ther 40s marrying multiple girls in their early teen, or even younger.
Also, legal matters such as taxes and the custody of children have already become complicated with SS"M". Since gay couples cannot procreate, thier obtaining children always involve at least a third party. California is considering allowing a child to have more than two legal parents because of this.
So it makes more sense to stick to defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
@Katie
The very-gay friendly Democrats in the California legislature are pushing for the recognition of three (or more) parents. A child in a gay household has a biological parent outside of the same sex couple, so we are into three "parents" that way already with gay unions. Yes, legal matters can become very complicated.
SoA,
If ignorance and hate was taken out of your and NOM's equations, all of this would end today.
Oh and SoA,
Polygamist cults? Are you saying that Mormonism is a cult? What about religious freedom and polygamy?
"If ignorance and hate was taken out of your and NOM's equations, all of this would end today."
Speak for yourself, eliasasm.
"What about religious freedom and polygamy?"
You tell me, eliasasm.
I love the way you dodge questions, SoA. You've got quite a talent for it. Have you been practicing?
Gay identity politics knows no bounds. Tolerance isn't the ends, nor the means.
So sad that the posting is about England (not the USA) and their decision to respect religious practices by allowing their churches who support s-s marriage to perform ceremonies and those who don't will not have to. And British citizens can also elect to have civil ceremony in the Registrar's office. Where's the harm?
Why does this very Christian and civil option in another country represent a clear and present danger to Americans?
Shane
From the article:
"But there are legal concerns that once some churches are allowed to perform gay weddings, other churches could be at greater risk of hostile litigation if they refuse."
There's the harm.
Yes...if you believe that AM...you also believe that governments can force Roman Catholic churches to marry legally divorced people or Christians and non Christians.
Churches only conduct rites that are in accordance with their beliefs. Temples, mosques and churches have been doing that for centuries. Do you think for a moment that a s-s couple would want to conduct a precious marriage in a church that reviles and condemns them?
I am sorry but that argument does not stand up in England
Correct, AM. It's a fact that decay of marriage and family happen one step at a time. The next step will be, of course, requiring every church to perform pseudo-marriages.
Remember that lie from the homosexuals?
The one where they said that SSM would have no impact on churches and freedom of religion.
John Noe,
Sorry, no such statement. It obviously has an impact. Many are falling all over themselves to see who can sink to the newest low.
I am inclined to advocate for revoking the real estate tax exemption on these churches just to make them think twice. It's for their own good. They are very close to making self defense measures necessary. Some would even use their vote to elect civil authorities to execute (murder) gays. How can you consent to that? Just decide to be a martyer for some bigots notion of religious freedom? Sorry folks, until you find the gay gene and manage to abort us out of existence, you are going to find that are limits to your agenda.
To all of my fellow NOM supporters. The lying sodomites have done it again. Post #22 is not my post but it is some troll who used my name in the post.
Those who have read my previous posts know that post #22 is in no way my post.
By the way there is no gay gene, as homosexuals freely and 100%ly chose their sexual behavior.
Wow, this troll is responding directly to the real John Noe under his own name. Usually they just post under the person's name; now they're responding to a certain person under the person's name.
Weirdos.