|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
United States41957 Posts
There are plans (in the sense that it will happen, not just sensationalist news) for the British parliament to introduce gay marriage in the UK before 2015. It is receiving cross party support with the Conservative (centre right)/Lib Dem (socially liberal) coalition government pushing the bill and the Labour opposition (centre left economically) also backing it. Principle opposition is likely to be from backbench Conservative MPs but the party leadership in the UK is way more able to make MPs vote their way than in the US for example.
What we currently have
Same sex couples can currently get civil partnerships which give them the same legal protections and entitlements as married couples, protected under anti discrimination laws. These are effectively marriages but as they are opposed by most Christian and Muslim groups they have a different names and Catholic/Anglican churches/ministers don't let them happen.
What will change
Civil partnerships will remain (heterosexual couples could get them too, it's just a secular marriage) but the option of a marriage and calling it a marriage will be open to homosexual couples. In practice very little will change because they already call themselves married because they pretty much are in every sense that counts, it'll just be one less distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children growing up may grow up to be less homophobic but to be honest it's largely a formality. A formality that is long overdue but still, simply tidying up after the introduction of civil partnerships did most of the work.
What will stay the same and what will get worse (for gays), also known as "the issue"
To counter the religious freedom argument against gay marriage the freedom for religions to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their beliefs is being enshrined in this law. Any religious group has until the law is finalised to put themselves forwards to be named in the law as being not required to perform gay marriages and exempted from any discrimination suit that may result from the refusual to perform gay marriages. It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally. The same protection applies to church property, a Catholic church will not be forced to allow a gay marriage to happen on their premises, nor will one be legal.
We have a fascist party in the UK called the BNP who used to have a no blacks policy on their membership because they want Britain to be purely white because they're a bunch of racists. They got hit by anti discrimination legislation and now can't refuse membership to black people on the basis of their skin colour, despite being an independent organisation. There is a clear legal and social precedent that private groups do not have the right to discriminate. The proposed new law runs directly counter to that and grants new exemptions to religious groups wanting to discriminate against homosexual couples who wish to get married and actually legally enforces discrimination, making not discriminating while an official of the named groups a crime. It's a step back in terms of civil rights and a secular society.
Talking points
Does this go far enough in giving gays the right to marry? Will it lead to an entrenchment of religious opposition to homosexuality where previously there was a slow retreat towards accepting equal rights?
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual?
If religions have the right to discriminate privately on the grounds of sexual orientation why should other groups not also have similar rights?
Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far?
Is it an acceptable price to pay for homosexual couples to call themselves married and be technically correct?
Not talking points
This law is bad because it lets gays marry.
This law is bad because God doesn't exist.
Related reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924
If any gays, particularly British gays, would like to weigh in their input would be particularly appreciated.
|
United States41957 Posts
My view is that this is an entrenchment of religious discrimination against homosexual couples. It is no longer possible for the church to stop homosexual marriage from being allowed, they simply have too little sway in social policy these days. However this is not a defeat for the church, although this law will allow gays to marry it also enshrines the right for religious groups to discriminate against gays. Rather than wait for social progress to allow an evolution of religious beliefs to the point that their congregation no longer oppose gay marriage they have turned it into a fight over religious freedoms and this law will institute not only protections for discrimination but a legal requirement for all officials of the religions named in the bill to discriminate. It should be opposed, better to wait a few years for the corpse to stop kicking than let rigor mortis set in in the position its currently in. Discrimination is discrimination, divinely inspired or not.
Furthermore as a secularist it frustrates me that religious groups get a special permission to discriminate. No matter how strongly held your convictions are or how much personal subjective experience you have justifying it it is illegal for a private secular group to have a discriminatory policy towards members of the public. You could believe gays are destroying society, have had only negative experiences with gay people and have a recurring dream in which a thundering voice tells you not to interact with gays but unless you believe that voice is God then you can't refuse people things on the grounds of their sexual preference. If private bodies are allowed to discriminate then all of them should be able to on whatever grounds, I wouldn't advocate that but religious privilege in this regard frustrates me as they have no monopoly on strongly held convictions.
Also relevant is the meshing of religion with the legislative in a way that would make a large portion of the American population wet in the loins. I'll edit in an explanation of that stuff in a few minutes after I've eaten but basically our system is evolved from one that included "divine right of kings", there's a reason why the separation of church and state was a big thing in the US, there is a lot of that stuff still lurking in the system like an appendix, useless until it fucks you over.
Okay, we don't have a separation of church and state in the UK, in fact we have the opposite. We have a state religion, the Church of England, created by Henry VIII because he was tired of the Pope outranking him but thought promoting himself to God would be pushing it. Instead he made his own religion in which he could be Pope as well as King and everyone went along with it because he was a big angry man. Since then the monarch has been the head of the Church of England as well as our head of state. While you may think this doesn't matter so much anymore now we have a constitutional monarchy we still have an awful of left over stuff from those days. 26 bishops from the Church of England sit in our upper legislative house for example, theoretically to advise on spiritual matters but in practice voting on everything, unelected and unaccountable to a population that is increasingly divergent from their beliefs. Likewise an awful lot of our education and other public institutions are a hybrid of church run charities (harking back to when public works were the preserve of the church) and the state which has never declared a secular society and nationalised them all. Religion, such as hymns and prayer service in schools, are unquestioningly accepted and religious groups are openly invited to take part in the legislative process. The lack of a revolution and a new constitution following it has left us bereft of some of the most crucial parts of the enlightenment.
|
It may just be my lack of reading comprehension or lack of understanding british politics, but I don't see the issue. Isn't there a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage in Britain like in Germany? In Germany civil marriage is basically the "real" marriage, while the religious marriage is just a ceremony. There's currently a huge debate within the conservative party in Germany as well concerning gay marriage, but it's only about giving gay couples the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. It doesn't have anything to do with the church.
|
On the one hand, it's pretty much the law that every gay-rights advocate in the States is hoping for, because it allows for legal equality while letting religious individuals be bigots without hurting homosexual individuals.
That said, I think you're right. It allows religious institutions to entrench themselves and continue bigotry that is counter to social progress, and I don't feel like this is a good thing. This would set a precedent that certain groups can discriminate based on ridiculous reasoning just because they are "exempt" groups; obviously, religions would benefit the most. What's to stop them from discriminating against women, or black individuals?
|
United States41957 Posts
|
It seems like a big victory for the religious side in the uk. I don't see any real downside from them in this new law and I don't see any upside for the pro gay rights side.
How is this getting such support from the left when its only a formality victory but a fundamental lasting loss for them? This will probably solve the issue for generations forward and a good framework for how it could work in the US. For me it as always been forcing religious organizations like faith based charities like adoption agencies to recognize gay marriage being the problem with me voting for it.
It is a painful precedent to give a certain faction within your country a special designation to ignore the law but it has been used in the past to allow certain religious organizations exemption from the draft per say.
|
Hm, it seems a bit of a waste. I'm not sure why homosexual individuals would even want to be "married" in the first place. The church/multiple religions are pretty openly against it, and civil unions pretty much provide all that a marriage does, as Zetter said. So, what's the point? If everyone is getting what they want, what's the need for change? Arguing over names and definitions is always silly...
Now, if only Americans had a bit better compromising skills, we would have same-sex unions in every state instead of just a few (the heavily liberal ones?). It really is a shame.
User was warned for the "Americans higher reasoning" bit
|
On December 12 2012 03:41 KwarK wrote:
We have a fascist party in the UK called the BNP who used to have a no blacks policy on their membership because they want Britain to be purely white because they're a bunch of racists. They got hit by anti discrimination legislation and now can't refuse membership to black people on the basis of their skin colour, despite being an independent organisation. There is a clear legal and social precedent that private groups do not have the right to discriminate. The proposed new law runs directly counter to that and grants new exemptions to religious groups wanting to discriminate against homosexual couples who wish to get married and actually legally enforces discrimination, making not discriminating while an official of the named groups a crime. It's a step back in terms of civil rights and a secular society.
Yes, this is more or less how I see things, this sort of legislation effectively legitimizes certain sorts of discrimination, though I am not familiar enough with the general pulse of the British population insofar as eliminating discrimination is concerned. I do think that this speaks to a trend of reactionary cultural expression that has a lot to do with the eurozone crisis and burgeoning immigration.
|
I feel a little ashamed that I haven't thought about this on my own! It's actually brillitant. Yes, from the Brittish point of view it seems basically like a step backward, but in many other places, this would be a leap forward. And I think that this mechanism of "let's give people freedoms, while keeping churces to their business" could be actually useful for some positive agendas in places where religion has strong hold on the politics.
|
This is a good thing. The bible is against homosexual relationships. So it obviously doesn't matter to a gay person if the church does or does not allow weddings on their property. No gay person can be a "christian" if they have ever TRULY read the bible.
If Homosexual couples wish to make their own religion and have a highly edited bible there is no one stopping them. God knows the catholic church is no stranger to editing the bible. Along with most if not all religions. Just edit the bible and make your own religion. Then build your own churches.
I don't know what people want to steal other peoples freedoms and force homosexuals on them. Seriously be happy that they are being allowed equal rights. Equal rights does not mean the ability to force people to do everything your way. A religious person shouldn't have the right to tell you to force you to stop being gay and a gay person shouldn't have the right to force a religious person to accept them. AGREE TO DISAGREE. That's called freedom.
|
This is an odd moral quandary, I'll admit.
I won't deny the fact that I am strongly pro-gay rights; however, I also believe in certain rights that every human possesses or should possess, and this law is pitting two of those rights against each other (equality and freedom of religion, in case anyone's wondering).
The way I see it, marriage has two parts: the secular parts and the ceremonial parts. Gays already had full access to the secular parts, such as tax breaks. The ceremonial parts, on the other hand, were off limits. It was marriage in every practical sense, but the last (and most important to some) parts were off limits.
I think that, for a lot of religious leaders at least, accepting gays into, for example, Catholicism (and other religious services they provide, including marriage) is like the KKK accepting blacks. It sucks, but it's part of their religion. As long as gays still receive the secular benefits and can still go to a religious official who agrees with their views for a marriage, I think this specific type of religious discrimination is OK legally, but morally debatable (as morality is subjective).
However, I disagree with how the leaders of a religion can outlaw their priests' ability to provide services. I feel that, at worst, they should be able to excommunicate deviant priests, not take them to court. That part of the law I strongly disagree with.
|
does britain have a "right to marry" type of law/constitutional interpretation/whatever similar to america? we have the loving v. virginia case. the U.S. Sup. Ct. has currently taken up the issue of gay marriage and i am curious how they will rule. i imagine they will punt the issue like they usually do though.
|
Thanks for the write up kwark.
On it surface this is a victory for equal rights for gay couples, yes it is merely a change in the legal name for the partnership but that is what counts here -establishing parity between homosexual and heterosexual couples.
However, at it's heart is a serious issue case of discrimination being enshrined in law. The bill will actually legitimate certain kinds of discrimination and favouritizing certain lines of organisation to do so. How hard is it then going to become to change the minds of members of these organisations when the very law legitimates their prejudice?
To run with your cadaverous metaphor, this bill could potentially raise a zombie from a slowly dying corpse of religious intolerance.
|
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages. In the US they are usually not, well intentioned they often are unable to cover all the laws on the books and so here and there they end up different some states more covered then other but none 100%. Also I can't see how any nation that would identify itself as free from organized religion influence in government and have civil unions. Marriage if it exists on the state books you shouldn't be calling it something else when you marry gay couples it inevitably will carry connotations. So choose one or the other either everyone is married or everyone are under civil unions under the law, separate but equal is never quite equal when it comes to people.
|
United States41957 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:54 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
I think that, for a lot of leaders at least, accepting gays into Catholicism (and other religious services they provide, including marriage) is like the KKK accepting blacks. It sucks, but it's part of their religion. As long as gays still receive the secular benefits and can still go to a religious official who agrees with their views for a marriage, I think this specific type of religious discrimination is OK legally, but morally debatable (as morality is subjective).
I'm not sure I get your point, legally in the UK this law will make it very unlike the KKK accepting blacks as the KKK (or their British equivalent) would have no exemption from discrimination laws.
Would you deal with the hypocrisy of denying racist political groups racial discrimination while allowing homophobic religious groups homophobic discrimination by allowing all private entities to discriminate as they see fit? I wasn't sure but I think that was what you were advocating.
|
On December 12 2012 03:53 Bobgrimly wrote:
This is a good thing. The bible is against homosexual relationships. So it obviously doesn't matter to a gay person if the church does or does not allow weddings on their property. No gay person can be a "christian" if they have ever TRULY read the bible.
If Homosexual couples wish to make their own religion and have a highly edited bible there is no one stopping them. God knows the catholic church is no stranger to editing the bible. Along with most if not all religions. Just edit the bible and make your own religion. Then build your own churches.
I don't know what people want to steal other peoples freedoms and force homosexuals on them. Seriously be happy that they are being allowed equal rights. Equal rights does not mean the ability to force people to do everything your way. A religious person shouldn't have the right to tell you to force you to stop being gay and a gay person shouldn't have the right to force a religious person to accept them. AGREE TO DISAGREE. That's called freedom.
This is utterly wrong, for you've presupposed a standard for literal biblical interpretation that is only a component of a relatively small share of Christian denominations. For example, Episocopalianism, historically aka the Church of England, in the United States does not preach biblical literalism, and gay bishops in states like Mass. are pretty obvious proof of that.
|
United States41957 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:58 semantics wrote:
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages.
They are. If you get into an argument with a pedant then they'll insist that you're not married, you're unioned, but you have all the same legal protections and you're allowed to tick the married box on forms etc. This will let you win the argument with a pedant, but at what price.
|
Not too worried about the discrimination vs. religious freedom bit. It's clear that discrimination is on a continuum and as long as religious doctrine clashes with public opinion (as it does on many issues in most of Europe) there will be discrimination.
But a real problem is having a state religion with doctrine that goes directly against the will of the public. In the long run something has to change. As I don't really see the UK turning back to homophobia, this either means the Church of England changing their stance or declaring their freedom from the state and going their separate ways.
|
On December 12 2012 03:53 Bobgrimly wrote:
This is a good thing. The bible is against homosexual relationships. So it obviously doesn't matter to a gay person if the church does or does not allow weddings on their property. No gay person can be a "christian" if they have ever TRULY read the bible.
That's most definitely not true. It's actually the most important theological debate as of right now and while there are theologians who'd say the same as you, I know a lot of gay christians and usually their congregation doesn't say a lot against it. We even had a gay treasurer in ours.
There are just a few quotes in the bible against gay couples and in my personal opinion they are extremely questionable from a theological point of view.
|
United States41957 Posts
Guys, whether or not God hates fags is not going to be decided by you shitting up my topic. Take it to PMs, it's simply not relevant to whether or not religions have the right to discriminate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
