Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
So Catholic priests cannot legallyrefuse to marry non-Catholics
But they can refuse to administer the rites, no? I mean, a priest could always marry you in his office, in the presence of witnesses. I'd be more interested in whether they can be compelled to say nice things about you and how you are about the renew the sacred institution of marriage in front of your friends and family in the traditional manner.
-
Well, I liked getting married despite accepting the institution as an Original Gangsta Misogynist Tool of the Patriarchy, so you never know.
Ditto and I believe so too did my wife. The comment that marriage as an institution is steeped in mysogyny and homophobia may well be true of the historical institution, but it isn't a feature of mine or all others (or are you saying that if gay people can't marry, that is homophobia... that's something I'd not thought of). That said, my marriage was so distinctly un-churchy it was practically a CU (though it predated their existence).
I've only been following this discussion rather than actively participating in it so perhaps I'm not saying anything new, however my sense is that the institution of marriage has changed and should continue to.
-
But. If a church wants to be an employer, or run adoption agencies, or run hospitals, they MUST comply with all state laws in that area, including human rights law.
...which includes an exemption in relation to employment matters for religion in relation to priests. Which is fair enough.
(OTOH, the same clause allows any private school - not just the religious ones - to discriminate in employmentonthe basis of religion. Something else to get rid of...)
-
marriage celebrants are performing a public function
Indeed. I should perhaps clarify by saying I think registered marriage celebrants, regardless of their religion, should NOT be allowed to discriminate. They're a service provider. But if priests/ministers want to not be legal marriage celebrants, but simply perform a purely religious ceremony, they can knock themselves out being picky. They want to perform a legal service, they have to do it legally.
One of the few deeply shitty things about the CU legislation was that a marriage celebrant needs a separate licence to be a civil union celebrant - they're different things. They have pay twice, file paperwork twice. This is patently fricking ridiculous, but in there for a fairly obvious reason.
-
But they can refuse to administer the rites, no?
They're not a public function. The public function - the legal part of marriage, as opposed to whatever fluff and quack people choose to wrap around it - is watching the parties say the words ("I AB, take you CD, to be my legal wife or husband") and signing the piece of paper. And that would be all they were legally obliged to do if anyone ever bothered to challenge it.
The availability of alternatives, the desire for a nice ceremony, and general sanity means that no-one has bothered AFAIK. And our society is probably better for it.
-
Hm. If you're a bigot, can you still hang a sign in a shop window saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' without legal repercussions?
I don't know, for IANAL.
Actually, I agree with I/S about the market. I wasn't thinking about the restaurant example as being a case of the trader supplying their usual goods or services. That may be my mistake.
-
I AB, take you CD
I'm pretty sure it's not legal to marry a CD, even if you are an All Black.
-
One of the few deeply shitty things about the CU legislation was that a marriage celebrant needs a separate licence to be a civil union celebrant - they're different things. They have pay twice, file paperwork twice. This is patently fricking ridiculous, but in there for a fairly obvious reason.
For those who don't find it obvious, the reason is that all priests of specified religious bodies are autmoatically celebrants unless they don't want to be. Part historical baggage, part handy timesaver, it'll become less important as they die off.
-
The comment that marriage as an institution is steeped in mysogyny and homophobia may well be true of the historical institution, but it isn't a feature of mine or all others (or are you saying that if gay people can't marry, that is homophobia... that's something I'd not thought of).
Yes, I was referring purely to the historical dimension in terms of the misoginy. It is demonstrably homophobic to this day in countries that don't have marriage equality and in religions that don't accept them even in those countries. Even so, I think the history is worth bearing in mind since we've been talking about marriage as an institution, and besides civil unions offer a choice: pressing reset and getting on with a new tradition untainted by old discrimination, or reclaiming the old tradition like you and your wife and many others have done. It should be a choice open to all, I've never questioned that.
In terms of the semantics and somebody Emma said upthread, we have friends who invited us to their wedding, who refer to each other as husband and wife, and we discovered by chance a couple of years later that the paper they were actually signing was for a civil union. The option to reclaim the name is still open, except when you go to fill out certain forms I suppose.
-
Shit. I have cake to bake.
-
Something emma said, not somebody. duh.
-
Idiot:
Yes, I had read the amendment. Religious organisations should be able to follow their faith. I thought the amendment was acceptable. All of it was relating to solemnising a marriage except for this part "the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals".
I wonder if they meant religious counceling, religious programs, religious courses, religious retreats or religious housing though. There are groups who live together as married couples, as well as with monks and nuns. The Beatitides for example.
Specifically religious housing would be very different to just housing in general offered to everyone.
-
I'm having serious congnitive dissonance made bearable only by Dannelle's post earlier. My take on this thread, or part thereof, is that so long as marriage remains principally a modern variant on a religious-based ceremony and excludes gay people it is homophobic. I can't disagree with that. And so the next part is what to do which is where I come a little unstuck. I'd rather not invalidate marriages to modernise marriage which means amending the Marriage Act right? Amending it to allow same-sex marriages. If that were done, marriages could be performed either by churchy folk (with or without homophobia) and celebrants?
Incidentally, I part-officiated at a family member's marriage. The groom worked out what the celebrant had to do, very limited, and asked that I do all the other bits.
-
Incidentally, I part-officiated at a family member's marriage. The groom worked out what the celebrant had to do, very limited, and asked that I do all the other bits.
I believe Tess herself did something very similar at a friend's (non-religious) marriage. It's a neat idea.
-
registered marriage celebrants, regardless of their religion, should NOT be allowed to discriminate. They're a service provider. But if priests/ministers want to not be legal marriage celebrants, but simply perform a purely religious ceremony, they can knock themselves out being picky.
Just for clarity: whenever I've been talking about not forcing churches to marry people, it is the latter religious ceremony sense I had in mind. In terms of providing a legal function on behalf of the state, they should not be allowed to discriminate.
-
...that proposal has some merit, but there would be implementation difficulties in achieving majority support... .
Sure. I wasn't arguing it would be very practical, just that Tess's position had merit as far as I could see, and was similar to if not the same as TracyMac's.
...leaving marriage having a legal basis is more realistic
Then I still say we should push for the right of same sex couples to marry, then. And I think this will eventually happen.
Emma's post on the more advanced evolution of language in Britain around essentially the same laws points the way things may go in NZ soonish.
I agree with this I think. You're saying that eventually CUs will be seen effectively as a kind of marriage? So much so that most people will not really make a distinction in most discourse?
-
I really dont see a problem with individual churches being able to refuse to marry people that are legally entitled to be married....its been happening that way all along. Many churches already will not marry you if you are not a member of the congregation or at least belong to their branch of their faith.
Catholics dont get married at Presbyterian churches, Hindu's dont get married at the Catholic church, and non-beleivers (like myself) are free to get a celebrant or some churches will take our coin for a service, and others dont...
If same sex couples are allowed to get married (and I hope they can), I dont really see a problem with any particular church choosing not to perform it?
-
So I'm coming around to yes, let's have gay marriage in the churches, by golly.
I'm coming around to not having churches at all, frankly. My thoughts aren't quite as extreme as Diderot's (who said something along the lines of "Humankind will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"), but sometimes they're not far off.
I'm pretty sure it's not legal to marry a CD, even if you are an All Black.
And what if you're AC/DC?
-
Catholics dont get married at Presbyterian churches
Must... pick... nit...
Yeah, they do, if they want to marry people who aren't Catholics. When my Presbyterian cousin wanted to marry her Catholic fiance, his church refused to do the ceremony. Her church had no problems with it. Things got even messier after they had kids.
My mother had the same problem back in the fifties. The compromise reached there was that she and her Catholic husband were married by a Catholic priest, at a private home. Her Presbyterian family had refused to turn up anyway.
The same-sex issue is in a way actually easier because at least it affects both partners equally.
-
I wonder if they meant religious counceling, religious programs, religious courses, religious retreats or religious housing though. There are groups who live together as married couples, as well as with monks and nuns. The Beatitides for example.
Indeed there are. But that's not the provision of a good or service, and you know it.
-
I believe Tess herself did something very similar at a friend's (non-religious) marriage. It's a neat idea.
I did indeed :)
I also agree with Emma re: Catholic's marrying in Presbyterian churches. My Catholic grandfather (the one who tied up the nun and locked her in a cupboard) married my Presbyterian grandmother in a Presbyterian church. The family were NOT amused.
At a family reunion two years ago, it was still a topic of conversation :)
-
I'd rather not invalidate marriages to modernise marriage which means amending the Marriage Act right?
Same-sex marriage does not in any way invalidate existing marriages. See the original post which spawned this thread.
Amending it to allow same-sex marriages. If that were done, marriages could be performed either by churchy folk (with or without homophobia) and celebrants?
Exactly as happens now for opposite-sex couples.
-
Same-sex marriage does not in any way invalidate existing marriages. See the original post which spawned this thread.
I wasn't being clear, I meant in relation to abolishing the institution of marriage and having only CUs. I'd rather amend the institution of marriage.
-
Hm. If you're a bigot, can you still hang a sign in a shop window saying 'no blacks, no dogs, no Irish' without legal repercussions?
I don't know, for IANAL.
By the way, I wasn’t originally talking about the law as such. But no, you can’t refuse service for those reasons in NZ. It happened recently though.
-
Indeed there are. But that's not the provision of a good or service, and you know it.
I'm not a legal expert, or even a legal dabbler, so I don't know how to draft a law. But I do know what I think is fair.
No religious organisation should have to change the tenants of their faith. So no clergy or organisation should be forced into offering religious goods or services if it is against their faith.
OTOH if they are offering a public service, say a food bank, or housing, it should be fairly and squarely open to all. However there are some exceptions to this... and I know you will all disagree with me on this... But it is still what I believe.
Religious adoption agencies should not be forced to place children with same sex couples - why? Because they truely believe it to be harmful for the child and because there are other adoption agencies, eg. State ones.
And, private hospitals should not be forced into providing contraceptives and abortions.
The thing that ties these two things together is that the by not allowing the conscience opt out, you are forcing an organisation to do something actively harmful (in their eyes).
So for example, a Jehovah Witness hospital should not be forced to provide blood transfusions. Likewise no one should be forced to use a JW hospital. Or a hospital could refuse to circumsise baby boys, those wishing for that would have to go elsewhere.
I don't think people should be made to do something they view as wrong. People should not be coerced in this way.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.