This was the expected result. I am on two minds about this issue - mainly because it doesn't address inequality, as addressed here. As others have argued, equal civil rights is of far more importance - and that wasn't delivered by the UK ruling. It falls well short. For example, newly wed same sex couples in the UK do not have the same pension rights as opposite sex couples that have been together for the same length of time - despite the fact that the same sex couple may have been together for the same period. The UK already had civil partnerships legislation, and those arguing for equality strongly argued for the rights of couples registered under the legislation to have the same legal rights as those registered under Marriage. This still hasn't happened in the UK. They might say that same-sex couples that get married have near-identical rights, but what they fail to mention is the rights were never made retrospective. And as far as I know about, the rights weren't carried over to the civil partnerships legislation either.
The other thing I hate hearing is that "priests won't be forced to marry same sex couples". WHAT? If it's a constitutional right - as it is now in the USA - then on what possible grounds would a priest have to refuse to marry same-sex couples? Is the Taxi driver allowed to refuse his service to same-sex couples? Is a doctor allowed to refuse his service to same-sex couples? Is a lawyer allowed to? I don't think anyone's allowed to, once you have anti-discrimination legislation in place. You can refuse service to someone who happens to be in a same-sex relationship for a different, reasonable, reason. for example, the Taxi driver might not allow his service to someone heavily intoxicated.
Donald and Evelyn Knapp in Idaho were told last year by city officials they must perform same-sex ceremonies in their chapel. Both are reported to be ordained ministers, however it should be noted that their business is not a church. They quickly re-branded their business and re-filed as a Christian Corporation, and apparently it seems they can exempt themselves from the anti-discrimination legislation so long as they operate as both religious and non-profit.
I just want to make the point that if Marriage is a constitutional right then I don't think anyone should be allowed to deny that constitutional right to someone on the basis of "faith". That's incompatible with secular values, and it's incompatible with Marriage being a service provided by the State that clearly has value and meaning to the people. Since when do you allow people to perform a government service for you and let those people discriminate when performing the service?
The other thing I hate hearing is that "priests won't be forced to marry same sex couples". WHAT? If it's a constitutional right - as it is now in the USA - then on what possible grounds would a priest have to refuse to marry same-sex couples? Is the Taxi driver allowed to refuse his service to same-sex couples? Is a doctor allowed to refuse his service to same-sex couples? Is a lawyer allowed to? I don't think anyone's allowed to, once you have anti-discrimination legislation in place. You can refuse service to someone who happens to be in a same-sex relationship for a different, reasonable, reason. for example, the Taxi driver might not allow his service to someone heavily intoxicated.
Donald and Evelyn Knapp in Idaho were told last year by city officials they must perform same-sex ceremonies in their chapel. Both are reported to be ordained ministers, however it should be noted that their business is not a church. They quickly re-branded their business and re-filed as a Christian Corporation, and apparently it seems they can exempt themselves from the anti-discrimination legislation so long as they operate as both religious and non-profit.
I just want to make the point that if Marriage is a constitutional right then I don't think anyone should be allowed to deny that constitutional right to someone on the basis of "faith". That's incompatible with secular values, and it's incompatible with Marriage being a service provided by the State that clearly has value and meaning to the people. Since when do you allow people to perform a government service for you and let those people discriminate when performing the service?
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
