How would you force a church to marry LGBT people though? And how would you square that with giving people freedom of religion?
Freedom of religion isn't an absolute right -- it surely can't override certain other laws. For instance religions which allow polygamous marriage can't have such marriages legally recognised in NZ. AFAIK.
However it's one thing to say you can't do things that are prohibited by law, and another to say that you must do things allowed in law.
Churches seem to get away with gender-based job discrimination, so I'm guessing they won't be forced to solemnise marriages they don't want to. But I think the legalisation of gay marriage will put more pressure on them for change.
Whole new meaning to shotgun wedding.
Come to think of it, more like a stungun wedding, tazer if you will.
However it’s one thing to say you can’t do things that are prohibited by law, and another to say that you must do things allowed in law
Its one thing to lobby parliament to change laws, another thing entirely convincing the Pope to allow gay marriage.
Its not a question of right or wrong, its a question of power and who has it.
Can I just say that I’m impressed that a discussion that could have gone throughly off the rails has not done so?
I’d like to second that. I find this thread fascinating even though I don’t have the time to engage. I’d like to congratulate everyone for arguing in (no pun intended) good faith.
I identify myself as an agnostic, but I’ve recently begun a relationship with a very devout Christian and it’s been very enlightening to me that that we can find much common ground for discussion on issues of faith, as distinct from dogma (hello Richard Dawkins, can you hear me…? Ah, that’s a no, I take it).
I identify myself as an agnostic, but I’ve recently begun a relationship with a very devout Christian
Always wondered how that would go. Good on you.
more like a stungun wedding, tazer if you will
Not only the bride was stunning ;-)
It's going - deliberately - slowly and carefully. And delightfully. There's none of this "I will politely overlook the fact that you believe in a sky-fairy and his zombie son", instead it's more of, "So an infinite being, who can not be less than infinite is relatable generally via providence and immediately at a human scale by the incarnation...alright, Einstein talked about the immanence of divinity in the orderliness, indeed the beauty of the universe in that order, and Blake wrote about heaven in a wild flower... OK, I can work with that."
Whether it's willingness to accept a "metaphor" or "tolerance" of an alternative way of expressing one's existential relationship with the cosmos is uncertain, but the process of negotiation is fruitful and that's what I'm glad to see that here - but that's what I love about PA, the ability to discuss matters civilly without retreating into tribalism.
Again, I'm pleased that people have stuck to the topic of understanding what it is is that makes a marriage, despite disagreements at levels that seem to be quite fundamental while in fact intentions are much closer.
Fair enough, Craig, I wasn’t sure who you were talking about
That was all on my lack of clarity not a reading comprehension fail on your part. No harm, no foul.
... there is little prospect of any NZ court compelling Catholic clergy to solemnise marriages that are contrary to Catholic belief, because of s29 of the Marriage Act and the religious freedom parts of the BORA, Re Same Sex Marriage is quite convincing, in my opinion.
It's s29 of the Marriage Act that's the key. The BORA's religious freedom parts that I noticed (s13 and 15) wouldn't make much difference in themselves, I don't think. In as much as solemnising a marriage is a civil function then - were it not for s29 of the MA - a duly appointed civil agent would have to perform that function without discrimination.
Hmm the thing is, the Canadian Supreme Court found in Re Same Sex Marriage that the Canadian Charter (their BORA analogue) would stop the government compelling clergy to perform civil or religious marriage contrary to their beliefs, without relying on an s29 equivalent. (One way to look at it might be to say they found an s29 equivalent was required, kinda sorta.)
Now obviously that's not a NZ case, & so you need to be careful.
An interesting angle that may likely develop is that a Catholic Priest (or for that matter other Minster of Christian religion) may interpret the Gospels (his personal faith) in away that will not allow him in good conscience to discriminate against administering the sacrament of marriage to a same sex couple. The heat would really go on in that situation.
I would say that it is likely the Catholic Church would be centuries away from widely administering the sacrament of marriage to same sex couples.
The basis of Christian teachings on marriage are based on the teachings of Paul the Apostle, he opens his teachings on marriage (Corinthians 7 (New International Version)) with “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
Should the churches based in the Christian faith follow Paul the Apostles’ opening ideal on marriage, the abstinence of sexual relations, it would solve the problem - in that heterosexual couples would stop having children. This would in turn stop gay people from being born and wanting an equal right. . Of course the species would end but at least it would be a theologically sound ending.
In essence theology is just making stuff up to suit ones purpose which is one reason why anything assigned a theological basis, say marriage, is complete chaos.
Surely if/when the bill gets passed, same-sex couples can get married but not necessarily in the church of their choice. I can't see the problem but that may be because I am not religious and didn't get married in a church.
If you can't get married in the church of your choice it doesn't matter - you can still get married. Why the churches are weighing in so heavily into the debate is beyond me.
I can't see why couples would want to get married in a church where they are not welcome to do so, so the issue of coercion of clergy seems a poisson rouge to me.
I think the whole thing is a red herring myself, poisson rouge if you will. We really should be looking at more important things like asset sales or the threat to education by allowing non qualified teachers to teach creation to impressionable minds.
Nah.... I can walk, talk, and chew gum.
Section 29 of the Marriage Act doesn't force celebrants to carry out marriages, and the NZ BORA doesn't apply to anything else - the BORA only applies to state institutions, which the church isn't, or private individuals carrying out state functions - which applies to celebrants, but only in relation to marrying people, which section 29 lets them out of.
Unless any of this changes in the future, there's no problem with clergy being forced to marry the gays that I can see.
Grrls can do anythink. :)
the BORA only applies to state institutions, which the church isn’t
Tangential question: What about the Anglican Church? It is a member of the communion whose head also happens to be our head of state. And Christian (my impression is specifically Anglican) prayers, hymns and other rites and rituals have formed a part of many state ceremonies over the years, apparently still do. Where's a constitutional lawyer when you need one... We've still got a bit of cleaning up to do before we have a fully secular state.
We've still got a bit of cleaning up to do before we have a fully secular state.
so true. one form of prayer in civic functions is nuts
Could you give examples? And if so, are there examples were there was a purely civil marriage institution?
Religion was not involved. Tribal & familial negotiation certainly were.It became involved when a high-born child was born (and frequently with lower ranks who were experts.)
For lower ranked people, simply sleeping together was acknowledgement of intention to live together(if that was also their intention) - and the children resulting, were entirely'legitimate' (i.e. part of whakapapa.)
We’ve still got a bit of cleaning up to do before we have a fully secular state.
Yeah. National anthem, for starters...
there’s no problem with clergy being forced to marry the gays that I can see.
And what of the gay ninjas, creeping up unseen...?
Sorry, as you were.
We really should be looking at more important things
Steve: OK, I totally get that marriage equality is no biggie to you - it's not to many people who are passionate about things that make me go "meh". That's cool, and since we don't live in the Borg Collective we all better get used to it. But please get that being treated like a second class citizen in my own country and being told to STFU and be thankful that after seventeen years the best treatment the central relationship in my life can get from the state is "separate but (un)equal" is a pretty big one to me.
Sorry Craig, I didn't see you there.
I understand this issue is a biggie for quite a few people but I also can see the timing of such an emotive piece of legislation muddying the waters to the advantage of those greedy fuckers who have just popped in to steal our shit and then bugger off to Hawaii.
We should be "once bitten twice shy" on this sort of rout but, once again, we are being told that greed is good and the villains are the heroes.
I see Allan Gibbs is gloating about his "Life of serious fun"
As for marriage, been there done that, twice, now I am just happy to have a life partner and bugger the law.
btw. Anyone that treats you as second class has no class at all.
I see Allan Gibbs is gloating about his "Life of serious fun"
More "Selective Amnesia" than "Serious Fun", methinks.
Gibbs is calling the kettle black when he accuses Helen Clark - irrespective of what one thinks of her - of 'rewriting history', when he completely glosses over Telecom's Ma Bell-ism among other things.
Not surprisingly, there is no mention of Clear Communications' bitter court battles with Telecom over interconnection agreements. Nor the Herald story in 2007 when ex-wife Jenny Gibbs found she couldn't get broadband to her mansion-cum-art gallery on Auckland's exclusive Paritai Drive. Nor that Telecom largely maintained its monoply status throughout the 90s. Goldsmith claims the company lost a lot of value in recent years for a host of reasons - "not the least of which was government intervention in the third term of Helen Clark's Labour government." No mention that shareholder value had been transferred to consumers' benefit. Or that competition had begun to operate as it should in a properly functioning free market.
Serious Fun's half-hearted rebuttal of Gaynor's criticisms is surprising - the book's only chink in its laissez faire ideological armour. But beneath the libertarian propaganda there is a more honest appraisal of recent history - how Gibbs' time at Forestry Corporation gave him an insider's view of state-owned enterprises, of how to unlock their hidden value and realise the super profits that "only occurred at times of discontinuity."
Gibbs spotted his opportunity early in 1990 when he did his hallmark one-page analysis of what Telecom might be worth. "It was a lovely, fat company, with huge margins and a lazy balance sheet. It was obvious if you could keep the margins it would be a fantastic business." Like an alpha predator, he went for the throat.
I understand this issue is a biggie for quite a few people but I also can see the timing of such an emotive piece of legislation muddying the waters to the advantage of those greedy fuckers
Sorry, but I’m definitely with Craig on this one. I’m sure that you don’t oppose marriage equality, but is the questioning of “priority” really relevant? Yes, some things take “priority” and may be “more important” – but my quote marks are there to suggest that maybe priorities differ for some people, especially when the civil rights one personally needs are apparently safe and secure and other people’s are “nice to have” (OK, I’m overdoing it with the ” “""""” ” ’s).
However, history does not move down a checklist in an orderly fashion. Instead, it deals with problems when the opportunity arises. The opportunity for marriage equality is now.
I’m definitely not accusing you of this at all, but I do note that paleoleftists like Chris Trotter do definitely use the “X must be solved first and Y will be automatically be rendered irrelevant come the revolution, so in the meantime, get in line behind me.” In Trotter’s case, it is almost certainly motivated by a desire to preserve his privileges as he views rights as a zero-sum game. Don’t fall into that trap.