The Official LGBTQ Thread

Lots of political issues going on in the UK at the moment. I wonder how this subject will fare in the midst of this climate.

edit:
Meanwhile, last saturday the first gay marriage took place on Bonaire, which is part of the Netherlands, since 10-10-2010 and has Dutch marriage legislation since end 2012. Sounds easy, but gay marriage is still a very sensitive subject on the Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba and Sint Eustatius). Last December the first gay-wedding took place on Saba.
 
I just hope they're not using it as a distraction issue while other changes are being debated or taking place. They've been accused before bringing up issues which will result in a lot of public debate at a time when potentially unpopular changes are being brought in - like the current benefits changes - and then the issue disappears without reaching a conclusion.
 
Did such a debate take place before in the UK?

I'd like to share these interviews with Boris Dittrich, Advocacy Director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transsexual Rights Program for Human Rights Watch (and a very inspiring person IMO). Last week he moved from NY to Berlin, serving as better base to address anti-gay discrimination in Eastern Europe. Here an interview in Berlin, done 2 months ago:
And here a longer in depth interview, taken last December in Canada:
 
There've been discussions about it with the Church of England, and possibly papers drawn up, but it stalled at that point because of a clash with the church. Reading a few comments on news forums, they think a lot of Conservative voters will be against it too, partly because the Church would either be forced to recognise gay marriage or risk relinquishing some of its legal rights. There's quite a bit of crossover between state and church.
 
That cross-over, how does that exactly work? In the Netherlands you can marry by law, and if you do that, you can also marry in a church.

The former is a legal thing. The latter could be seen as a spiritual thing, or a bigger thing, or whatever, but it does not prevent anyone out here to marry by law.

So, if a certain minister or priest or even a bishop is against gay marriage, that is his opinion but it does not prevent a parliament to change a law.

I am not aware of gay marriage in catholic churches but if a church is not forced to have the same weddings as in municipality buildings, it makes matters less complicated.

edit:
(extra info from wiki): After the Dutch parliament legalized same-sex marriage the Protestant Church in the Netherlands permitted individual congregations to decide whether or not to bless such relationships as a union of love and faith before God, and in practice many churches now conduct such ceremonies.

So, the churches were not forced, they chose themselves what to do.
 
(extra info from wiki): After the Dutch parliament legalized same-sex marriage the Protestant Church in the Netherlands permitted individual congregations to decide whether or not to bless such relationships as a union of love and faith before God, and in practice many churches now conduct such ceremonies.

So, the churches were not forced, they chose themselves what to do.
Click to expand...

That is really the proper way to do it ... and honestly an aspect of this I had not thought of as it is not really an issue in the US as gay marriages are mostly civil ceremonies (though a few churches will perform the ceremony). As much as I believe gay marriage should be allowed, I equally believe religious organizations should not be forced to perform them if it is against their beliefs.
 
There is one something else though:

Religious persons not wanting to perform civil ceremonies with gays because it's against their belief.

This has been a big discussion over the years. There are two possibilities:
A. Let them not do gay ceremonies, only man-wife.
B. Fire them; if it's their job, everybody should do all the ceremonies, gay or not gay.

If I am informed well, it was A for quite some years but now (since a year or so) it's B in the Netherlands. So, if you perform civil wedding ceremonies, you also have to do gay couples, or else you are not suited for the job.

I agree with that since equality is more important than religion.
 
Interesting, this maybe just a US/not US difference ... but as I understand it here (and I am no wedding expert) ... if you have a marriage performed in a civil office, it is a government employee of some type (Justice of the Peace for example) performing the ceremony. In that case, they really should have to do both. If someone wants a religious ceremony they have the ceremony performed in a church by someone from that church (Priest, Minister, Rabbi whatever).

In that context, I do not think a church should be required to perform a ceremony they do not want ... not just gay, but they can refuse on other grounds (not a member of the church, having been divorced, etc). However, government employees should have to perform any ceremony that is permitted by law and those that are not willing to, should be given an opportunity to find another position that does not have them marry anyone.
 
That sounds about right!

Teaching about homosexuality on schools is also an issue. In some religious communities, schools do not want to talk about it, and if they do, they might not tell the truth (scientific truth).

Forcing all schools, no matter what religion, to tell about homosexuality, and doing that right, what do you think about that?

This has been a long discussion as well in my country, and it wasn't until last December, that all schools were obliged to do proper education about LGBT's.

That doesn't mean that everybody on school accepts LGBT's. Unfortunately, when looking at suicide rates under young people, LGBT's are over-represented.
 
Schools are a bit trickier here ... public schools are not really under any one umbrella, so that sort of thing will vary from state to state and even within most states, will vary from district to district. The government has incredibly minimal authority over private schools, which I suppose makes sense, otherwise they would essentially be public schools. Universal treatment of this sort of thing is pretty unlikely in public schools anytime in the near future
 
This is way more complicated than I ever thought, having read more background on the BBC. The Bill wants to ban the C of E from offering same sex marriages, while allowing other churches and state registrars to offer them. This is apparently to protect the C of E from future legal claims. The C of E and the Church in Wales are opposed to religious same-sex marriage. No such opposition in Scotland, but there's less of a church/state relationship anyway.

Interestingly, I would have thought the statutory C of E exclusion from offering same sex marriage might be in direct conflict with EU legislation, just as the immigration changes accounced last week will probably be.

Foro - the Church of England is technically the official church of the state, and the Queen is head of the Church. The C of E also has guaranteed seats in the House of Lords, with decision making (or rather decision blocking/delaying) powers. I believe there are other laws and state traditions tied in with the C of E too. The issue of same-sex marriage could be what finally splits church and state. So that would upset some Conservative supporters, but especially the old Back to Basics type campaigners
 
I am not sure all the hatred of churches is totally justified. I do not belong to one and I think they are on the wrong side of this issue. However, there are large portions of the population that do belong to them and in many cases (at least in the US) churches perform many valuable services that are primarily secular in nature. Also in 20th Century history there have been some incredibly brave church members/priests/etc that have stood up against very oppresive regimes.

I can see being against them on this and other issues, but I am not sure burning them to the ground is correct either.
 
I'd prefer a clear division between church and state, but I certainly wouldn't say I hated churches ;)
A lot of C of E churchgoers and members of other churches in this area do very valuable community work and charity work.
The C of E, as well as the House of Lords, often provides an alternative point of view in the public arena to the Government and the Commons. The Lords, which is also made up of peers of the realm and judiciary (who exercise some autonomy from the Government), has the power to delay legislation which may have been put together hasitily and rushed through the Commons in a knee-jerk reaction to a particular event. Senior clergy have more generally been significant in questioning benefits cuts, wars and other political decisions with a high human cost.

In any case, I don't think the Church is the only sticking point in legalising gay marriage, it looks like there's also widespread oppositition among politicians and voters who have very set views about the institution of marriage.
 
I am not anti-church either. I especially mean that church and state should be separated (and if not: then I find that wrong).
Brigantium said:
The C of E, as well as the House of Lords, often provides an alternative point of view in the public arena to the Government and the Commons. The Lords, which is also made up of peers of the realm and judiciary (who exercise some autonomy from the Government), has the power to delay legislation which may have been put together hasitily and rushed through the Commons in a knee-jerk reaction to a particular event.
Click to expand...
Our Senate has that task, entirely independent from the church.
Brigantium said:
In any case, I don't think the Church is the only sticking point in legalising gay marriage, it looks like there's also widespread oppositition among politicians and voters who have very set views about the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...
Are they religious in most cases?
 
And someone's just confused matters a lot by proposing an amendment for civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples. It might have been better to make this the subject of a completely different bill
 
I'm not sure about that in general, Foro. The very traditional Conservative voters I know aren't religious at all, but have extremely traditional views about marriage, co-habiting, single parenting, and sexual relationships outside of marriage.
The Church is only a small part of the Lords, most members are lifetime peers or heriditary peers.
 
I agree that a clear division is best, the US system might not be perfect, but it is pretty good in this respect. Churches can do what they do with minor government interference (some basic reporting for tax reasons, building permits for work, etc .. nothing that affects their primary mission) and the government while doing religious things (God Bless America at the end of every Presidential speech, In God We Trust on currency, etc) is not entangled in religion. It makes things like gay marriage pretty simple as I described above. Even living in the Bible Belt as I do now, the effects of religion on everyday life is pretty minor.

You described what I had thought the House of Lords to be, which seems to serve a valuable function in slowing things down that seem hastily conceived.

My comment was more directed at some other comments in this thread.
 
Brigantium said:
And someone's just confused matters a lot by proposing an amendment for civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples. It might have been better to make this the subject of a completely different bill
Click to expand...

Honestly, I am not sure that is a bad idea. I am certain there is a decent portion of the population regardless of orientation that would prefer the protections and benefits of marriage without the connotations of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top