Both the British and Danish gubmints are still getting in a lather about same-sex couples wanting to be ‘married’, often in buildings dedicated to supernatural events.
IMHO the problem arises because Western politicians can’t throw off the mantle of their ancient predecessors for whom entrails (sometimes of animals) had to be read before decisions could be made. In modern parlance the Cabinet has a Holy Insurance Policy issued by the Pascal Wager Company, which invokes forces beyond their understanding whenever a tricky question is posed – like whether a war is just or a marriage allowable.
In fact, while the question of a just war is arrant nonsense, the marriage issue is already solved. Civil partnerships of any persuasion are already legal. End of. If the god-botherers feel the need to bless the couple too, it’s their business, not the gubmint’s, no matter what old Pascal said. The present problem arises because even the church elders can’t agree – not an unusual state of affairs, and the Cabinet is also split.
Let me help them cut the Gordian Knot: simply call the civil partnerships marriages and tell the churches to do whatever they like by way of ritual recognition. As so often they will squabble and become disaffected, all in the name of ….. well, I’m not quite sure.
Boadicea's Chariot 
I really can’t be bothered to get worked up about this.
Is it marriage? Is it nor marriage? Then again, who dictates what marriage is?
If the state issues certificates they have no religious value. Why be upset about that?
If a church wishes to issue certificates that is their affair. The US and UK are teetering on
the brink of bankruptcy and they worry about this? Denmark has a collapsing currency on its southern
flank and it worries about whom Lutheran priests think are marriageable?
Agree with you chris that it is being used as a smokescreen but nevertheless there only can be marriage between one man and one woman. Two homosexuals may have a civil partnership with their ‘rights’ but it cannot be a marriage, they produce no progeny!
janus, I suggest you read the Epistles on the subject. or perhaps just start at Genesis! Should keep you out of mischief for a while.
CO, thanks for your advice but I can’t see what the Epistles have got to do with the central issue of supernatural lore clouding legal issuses.
I presume then that over 50s can’t be married since progeny can’t accrue?
Christopher, hear, hear!
Interesting, Janus.
I have no idea about Denmark or anywhere else, but here in England, the institution of marriage, has been and still is defined and enshrined in Canon Law which is part of English Law. It is essentially as Christina pointed out between one man and one woman with at least a possibility of producing children.
So, if our government wish to change the definition of marriage they would have to do so legally, with royal assent which could be interesting. Canon law is subject to statutory provision which state they must not be contrary to the customs, laws or statutes of the realm.
The Coronation Oath includes the following:
“Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?”
It’s a can of worms!
I’m with Christopher on this. I don’t understand why our government, with all hell threatening to break loose in the eurozone, is worrying about this. The various churches should simply take a stand on whether they want to bless two people of the same sex with one in a prettier frock. A civil partnership should suffice, since marriage, as Christina says, is between one man and one woman. It seems to have been demonstrated that many of these same-sex partnerships do not last, just like ordinary marriages unfortunately. Didn’t Huhne’s mistress have some sort of ceremony with her previous girl-friend? I do object to these so-called “gays” – I can think of other adjectives – thrusting their life styles in my face and making demands.
I’m quite sure that the world has far greater problems to deal with than the question of same-sex unions. However, being a great believer that governments should not concentrate on the ‘big’ picture and ignore or marginalise individuals, I really don’t have a problem with Governments in Denmark, the UK or here dealing with the matter of same-sex unions whilst juggling with the problems of their economies. In fact, I think, it is their job to do so.
Since time immemorial, the term ‘marriage’, whether it be polygamy, polyandry or monogamy, has been defined as a committed union between people of different genders. I don’t have any ‘religious’ objections to the union of two people of the same sex – but I do object, and most strongly, to changing the traditional concept of what marriage means.
I can understand that those same-sex couples who are in a long-term and committed relationship want the same legal rights as those who are in a different-sex relationship – and I really do not see why they should not be given the same ‘next-of-kin’ rights that I have with regard to Bearsy – or he to me. I do have a problem when it comes to adopting children.
The last Government here in Queensland legalised the ‘marriage’ of same-sex couples. The incoming Government was opposed to that law. However, they have come to, what I think, is a fair compromise. The Queensland Government will no longer have state sanctioned ceremonies for same-sex unions, but will allow and recognise the registration of same-sex unions.
It is a thorny issue – and those who object to the extension of the term ‘marriage’ do not always do so because they believe in the mythical fairy in the sky…
Janus, the fact that you do not know why the Epistles are relevant shows a distinct paucity of knowledge by yourself. It appears that you reject the Bible without actually having read very much of it!
St Paul has quite a lot to say on the subject in Ephesians and Galatians which is where the basis of the law originates in what was a Christian country.
Perhaps if you ‘bothered God’ a little more……………..
CO, I say! A Methodist who hasn’t read the Book? Me? My point is that it matters not a jot what the Book says when it comes to the law of the land. It’s Pascal’s Wager. Ooh, we’d better do what the Church says, just in case it’s true what they say.
CO: Paul wasn’t Jesus, nor was he God. I abide by the advice that I should have no Gods before God, treat others with respect (although stupid people do receive my scorn. I’m sure I’ll be forgiven), and not covet what isn’t mine. What people wish to do with themselves and each other, so long as it’s of free-will and no innocent people get hurt, is between them and what they choose to — or not to — believe in.
I agree with Christopher as well. Homosexuals can have a civil ceremony and good luck to them. But any religious ceremony must be down to the religion concerned and not politicians. If the CoE or Catholics decide to marry same sex people then it is up to them.
If the gov force this upon them then I for one want to see the first muslims get wed in a mosque, because under the Koran homosexuals have to be stoned to death; suppose it beats confetti, just throw a few rocks.