tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post3635654135160560338..comments2023-09-13T13:47:47.106+01:00Comments on The Changing Attitude Blog: Marriage equality for LGBT people is now firmly on the agenda, including marriage in churchAlexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163737925142519555noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-29023569583136002082010-07-30T14:07:27.032+01:002010-07-30T14:07:27.032+01:00Further to the above: I find, in
http://legal-dir...Further to the above: I find, in <br />http://legal-directory.net/english-law/husband-and-wife.htm<br />this:<br />"Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 grounds for annulment are:<br /><br />-if it has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party;<br />-if it has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent, that is, the party against whom the petition is brought"<br /><br />The absence of sexual relations, therefore, is still a ground for the annulment of a marriage, and in that sense marriage differs from a civil partnership. I can see why the bishops could hold their noses and not try to bar clergy from contracting civil partnerships, where the presence or absence of sexual relations has no bearing on the status of the partnership - but they will not like equal marriage, both because they will feel it undermines Christian teaching about marriage per se, but also because of the underlying assumption that sexual relations are part of what constitutes a marriage, the absence of which makes it voidable in law. And that they would not be prepared to sanction for their clergy.<br /><br />I am inclined to think that a campaign for equal marriage should also be accompanied by one for equal partnerships - though those should be on the same basis as for the present civil partnerships (i.e still governed by the tables of kindred and affinity).Jeremy Pembertonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-62663871554595035112010-07-30T12:16:56.831+01:002010-07-30T12:16:56.831+01:00Thanks for making the point in your comment Colin,...Thanks for making the point in your comment Colin, about the 'missing' groups. I am staying with Rosie from Sibyls, who, as you know, was told the room was too small for her to attend! In the blog piece you mention a series of meetings on this subject, and the DoE has begun to consult Trans organisations, so one would hope that they would undertake a separate trans consultation on this topic which is relevant to many trans couples. The Minister must be very aware of this having been one of the key players in progressing the Gender Recognition Act. I hope to post on this shortly.Christina Beardsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10046362838933510480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-3605829134336512002010-07-29T13:42:30.714+01:002010-07-29T13:42:30.714+01:00Jeremy, Peter Tatchell's argument is strongly ...Jeremy, Peter Tatchell's argument is strongly for total equality, opening civil partnerships to all, which is what conservative Christians wanted. They don't want full equality, of course - gay marriage, let alone in church.<br /><br />I've been contacted today by one of the LGBT faith community leaders not at the meeting asking why other groups weren't represented. What was very, very curious about the meeting was that of the five LGBT leaders present, only two were from faith groups, Changing Attitude and LGCM. <br /><br />Why Stonewall, OutRage! and the Lesbian and Gay Foundation were there talking about civil partnerships in religious buildings, when representatives from the Quakers, Sibyls, Courage and Jewish groups were not present is a mystery.Colin Cowardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030093527945687306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-61116934364903429392010-07-29T10:22:53.073+01:002010-07-29T10:22:53.073+01:00Colin - Is there another point here? As I understa...Colin - Is there another point here? As I understand it, and I am no lawyer and am happy to stand corrected, if a marriage is not consummated then it can be annulled - in other words, sexual relations are part of what constitutes a marriage. Civil partnerships carry no such expectation - and, indeed, we know that many of them are between couples who do not have an active sexual relationship.<br /><br />Is there something to be said for considering opening civil partnerships to heterosexual people at the same time as opening marriage to LGBT people, so that all have the opportunity to have the civil and legal status that most appropriately fits their circumstances?Jeremy Pembertonnoreply@blogger.com