gaycouple

Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding

Posted by Faith Braverman • 18 Mar 2014

 The Antithesis of Freedom is Forced Association

DANBURY, U.K.–A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated, “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

Follow TLR on Google+

Both attend St. John the Baptist church, a branch of the Church of England, and have been in a civil partnership since 2006.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

This reaffirms statements that Drewitt-Barlow made earlier this month, stating going to court was, “the only way forward.”


“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us. It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. While same-sex marriage is now legal in the U.K. after a bill cleared Parliament earlier this year, the legislation still protects the right of churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, specifically the Church of England.

Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

Follow Faith on Twitter
The Libertarian Republic is giving away a replica of George Washington’s flintlock pistol. Click here to learn more and enter your email for a chance to win a model of our first president’s beautifully engraved firearm. Or simply enter your information below and you’ll be registered!



  • s. zorin

    This is comical, which one of them is Drewitt-Barlow ?

  • Brad B

    The church is filled with weirdness. Look that church has two gays in it that want to get married. Strange beings these churches are.

  • Brad B

    Thou shall not breach your tax exempt status.

  • Alfred Hussein Neuman

    Well, bend over and take it like a man.

  • Jim Crapanzano

    I was raised Catholic, however, I grew out of it. Moreover, I am not a Christian. I am not a Christian because I do not agree with the tenets of the religion. If I do not believe in the rules of a religion, and refuse to live by those rules, then how can I say that I am a believer? How can these people claim that they are parishioners, when they are such hypocrites? The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the God, whom Christians say they worship. The biggest reason I abandoned Christianity as a true faith is because all are apostate from the Word they claim to believe in. They will say that they believe in the Bible, that every word is the Word of God, but reserve the right to discount any parts they disagree with. And look at these church’s, that are apostate to begin with, becoming even more apostate by accepting modern fashion that is clearly forbidden by their God! It seems that even the one thing that all the varying branches of Christianity do agree on, is that those who live in sin, will spend eternity in Hell, is now what? just a maybe? I laugh at your silly religion! Finally, if you are wondering if the third Religion that follows the Evil and Insane God of the Desert, Islam, is growing, as Christianity shrinks, maybe it’s because people find more comfort in a religion that doesn’t change with the times or allow the people to choose which bits they will accept, as though it was a Chinese menu. For instance, the Bible forbids female preachers, just as it forbids homosexuality, yet modern churches say well, we’ll bend the rules for women, but not them queers, then a few years pass, and voices yell louder, and some say, what the hell, let ‘em in! Why? Because of the single most important tenet of religion–the Tithe!

  • 51franco

    This is senseless and a bit selfish. Since their rich,why don’t they
    fly to Washington D.C. and be married at National Cathedral
    They perform ceremonies for gay couples there and its Episcopal.
    No need to ruffle the Archbishop of Canterbury’s feathers.

  • Rick Zimmerman

    I hate to bring this up, but there is no “codified marriage ceremony” anywhere in the scriptures. The state has the right regulate anything it wants to, and we, as Christians, are obliged to adhere to it (Rom 13). In the case of men marrying men then, the Church should not be influenced by the state in performing such a marriage ceremony because there is no such thing as a “Christian Marriage Ceremony” anyway. They should simply make the plain statement, as scripture does, that if you have sexual relations with a person you are joined to that person in the sight of God, and simply state that they don’t do secular marriages at all. Problem solved. Transfer the responsibility for state sanctioned marriage back to the state where it belongs. Marriage, as it is defined by the state, is a legal, state institution, not a Christian one. This whole issue is as much a problem with biblical doctrine as it is with individual rights. If the state sanctions marriage, it can define who can and can’t marry. But if it does, it must take the responsibility for that itself, and stop dragging the Church into it.

  • Mike Amerine

    It shouldn’t require a law to protect the rights of a church to not perform an action. What kind of insanity is this? You feel it is unfair that you can’t force someone to take actions you’d like them to perform!?! Some of these comments are disturbing . . . not only should the church NOT be forced to do ANYTHING, there shouldn’t have to be a law to protect that basic human right.

  • tyrone321

    I’m debating my sister who thinks where same sex marriage is legal churches can not turn you always because they can be sued! I said churches can turn anyone always for any damn reason…………..and will not face discrimination charges!

  • TruthInChrist

    Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

  • Evelyn Johnson

    Great quote – “Forced association is the antithesis of freedom”. Go find someone else who agrees with you.

  • ttpog

    So much for the ‘slippery slope fallacy’ same-sex deviants always say will never happen. We always said it would come to this, that they would attempt to force churches to perform their supposed ‘wedding’ ceremonies. It is certainly a slippery slope, one that will slip to the deepest depths of the attempted decriminalization of pedophilia as well. So much for their tolerance. They are the most intolerant and bigoted group of fascists in existence today.

  • Spartacus

    They’re in the UK where the Muslim population is exploding (pardon the pun), why not just hold the wedding in a mosque?

    • Mike Amerine

      LOL – go hold your gay marriage in a mosque . . . !!! Go to the people that won’t only turn you away politely but who are aggressively opposed to your lifestyle – classic!

  • Linda Trimpey

    The First Amendment prohibits our federal government from establishing a state (national) religion. But, it does not prohibit the free exercise of religion which includes religion influencing government. Of course, the foundational religion of our country is Christianity. Here’s a short list of religion (Christianity) influencing government – 1. church services were held in the Capitol until 1868; church services were held in other federal buildings like the Supreme Court building, Treasury building, etc.; 2. “In God We Trust” is our national motto (became law in 1956) thus appears on our currency, etc.; 3. our national anthem proclaims praise to God and our trust in Him; and 4. our national pledge of allegiance proclaims “one nation under God”.

    • Mike Amerine

      …and the First Amendment is completely unrelated to this story.

  • Grendel007

    It’s “their church” yet they are suing “Christians” to get “what they want”? Interesting. And the Christians will, of course, acquiesce. Because it is better to follow the wants of man than the laws of God. Did we really not pay attention to what the Bible says? Do we not understand real what you sew? Or that the world is corrupt and broken? These people believe it is their RIGHT to be able to use a building in any manner they want

  • Jamal Rakilm B

    This makes no sense. They want to get married in a church? ? They CLEARLY have no obedience of God’s law but they want to break his commandment in his house? This is obviously not about rights this an ego trip.

  • FMAWG

    The Gaystapo will forcifully shove their agenda down our throats. Isnt that rape?

  • Kay Mann

    ROMANS Chapter One.
    Romans Chapter 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

    24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

  • Kay Mann

    sadly, we’re going to see this same abomination happen here in the USA thanks to the antichrist liberals holding so many political offices. the bible speaks of a great falling away, and i believe what will happen is that our politicians, starting with the antichrist in the oval office, will give them minority status, at which point they will try to force their way into jobs in Christian churches, and if they are not hired, whether they’re qualified or not, it will open the door to headline grabbing lawsuits. then the churches being sued will have to decide whether they will follow the bible and risk paying out large sums towards the lawsuits, close their doors as a church, or give in to satan and go against their beliefs and what the bible says is allowed. the whole world is under the sway of the wicked one… and he has a strangle hold on this country starting at the top. but take heart Christians, for our redemption draws near, and at any moment now we could be a part of the greatest rescue mission ever undertaken when Jesus returns to take His bride away in the rapture of the church before God pours out His wrath on the sons of disobedience.

  • George

    The intent of the founding fathers was for the Federal government to
    keep its nose out of the church. The barrier was designed to keep the
    power of the Federal government from intimidating or regulating the
    church. There were state churches existing at the time, you either
    belonged to the state church or you were on your own. The barrier was
    not from the states, but from the Federal government. A Supreme Court
    decision turned this on its head, 180 degrees from the original intent

    • Kay Mann

      amen george.

  • charlie

    it is not going to matter. its the church of england, which is not a real Christian church . As he said they have been SUPPORTIVE of them. A real Christian church would not be supportive of their lifestyle in any way and would make sure they understand why.

  • proxicon

    Gay people keep shoving this down our throats and the “tolerance” will end. There will be repercussions. You can’t keep pushing without any compromises and expect good things

  • proxicon

    “I am still not getting what I want.”

    The truth will set you free. To heck with what anyone else wants or perceives as right. My view is the only correct one and I will sue, throw fits, and fight everyone to make sure they see it my way or not at all. Sounds alot like our president.

  • Mrcw Patrick

    Bullying is what it boils down to.I don’t mind that there gay but when you start forcing people to do what you want it is just plain bullying.

  • Mrcw Patrick

    Bullying is what it boils down to.I don’t mind that there gay but when you start forcing people to do what you want it is just plain bullying.

  • dcook

    Love that last line “I’m still not getting what I want.” Isn’t that what we are on this earth for, to just “Get what we want?” And if I don’t get what I want, I can whine and sue for it. Spoiled rich brats!!

  • Jake Wright

    You do not deserve rights if you can’t respect the rights of others. The idea that churches would, sooner or later, be persecuted for following their biblical beliefs is the only reason I oppose gay marriage. The only cure is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether.

  • jdog777

    Marriage and legal rights have never been enough. Their war is against God Himself.

  • batmanroxus

    I’m sure they had to look far and wide to find someone they could sue… for attention. I don’t give a damn about your preference but causing trouble sucks in any case.

  • Stargazer32

    and now we know for sure that gays do suck big time

  • Snap N McGarrett

    Homofascism. Right on schedule.

  • Norm Koch

    This is stupid. Go To a church that performs gay weddings. This is like suing a Chevrolet dealership for not selling Fords. This has nothing to do with gay rights, or religious freedom.

  • Rumpel Tumskin

    If it was a mosque saying no to having a gay marriage inside it, that would be the end of it. But because it is a christian church, they will be sued and liberal judges will force them to do it against their will.

  • Ezra Pound

    If only there was a nation with the strength, morality and bravery to ban homosexual propaganda….oh wait, there is: RUSSIA! “Westerners” (those subject to Zionist rule) have become a weak, pathetic people deserving of God’s wrath.

  • James Synkgar

    i like his phrasing ” we are forced to sue the church”

    riiiight

  • mattlaffs

    Are they really Christians with faith in the good book? Do they not realise marriage is a holy link between man and wife, if they don’t then why should they want to have a Christian ceremony, as they are riding roughshod over bible teachings, and meanings for their own selfish ends. Why would anyone want to force an establishment to do business with them by suing them? This really shouldn’t stand!

  • ShellyB

    They should practice some of that tolerance of which they preach. I’m so sick of this. Go to another church. Liberals pretend to be supporters of “choice”…theyir choice. Such self centered jerks.

  • Layla Godey

    Church of England, in the UK. Is it state run or private?

    • WilmRoget

      State run.

  • Jeff Jarrett

    the outcome of the suit will determine if we are slaves to the state or free people. Forcing a church or any person to do something they would not do or accept under normal circumstances is a act of facism. The reality is that the gay agenda and people in that choice group do not accept themselves and are clamoring for evidence of validation and acceptance. No law or act of man will ever change the nature of God nor his perspective / stance on sin.

  • Joel Swanstrom

    “It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us.” – Drewitt-Barlow

    ahem.

    “So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!” – I Corinthians 6

    Someone is not reading their Bible, but we knew that already.

  • brian bark

    You people are garbage. It’s a wedding supposed to be about pledging love and devotion to each other? Not for the militant gays it isn’t. It’s about obscene parades and crap like this. You people give decent gays a bad name.

  • BajaDreamer

    OK, you both have admitted that it isn’t even about getting married at that specific church, you just wanted to make a point. Well you’ve made it.
    Now bugger off since you’re going to anyway.

  • Trevor

    This is pathetic, disgusting, horrible, awful; there are not enough adjectives to describe how bad this situation is. It is sad that freedom of religion does not exist in the UK. I have never been more happy to live in the USA than when seeing this. This is tyranny, period. The church has sincerely held beliefs based on thousands of years of teaching, and they should be FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT to alter those beliefs? You do not have the right to get married somewhere just because you want to. These two pieces of human garbage are the worst form of life. Thought control is and always will be evil. That’s right, evil. Plain and simple.

  • alnga

    When pure filth wants to be associated with a Holy God, I call it an opportunity to preach the word of God directly and fearlessly. They want a Church wedding lets give them the most spectacular, uplifting and God Called message that is possible then perhaps some of these folks will seek His face and Repent..

  • Moriah D’Amico

    Here’s the thing. I don’t get what I want either. It’s called life.

  • Vernon Cunningham

    The church should not be subject to the state in this case. I am not sure about english law, but that seems reasonable.

  • Nanaof3kids

    The bible is very clear. Homosexuality is sin. Incest is a sin. Would you expect the church, any church to perform a ceremony for a father to marry his daughter or a brother to marry his sister? Why do we have accept homosexuality if we don’t accept other sexual or deviate behavior? If you want to pretend you are married and the state wants you to get married let them perform the ceremony. Just because you attend a church doesn’t mean that you can force them to comply to your wishes and demand that they are a party to your sinful lifestyle. You are very selfish and inconsiderate to your church and pastor.

  • mikemesserli

    Jfriley, I thought exactly the same thing. So it’s not about right and wrong, but about what the person wants. Sad days, aren’t they?

  • Aep

    I am strongly opposed to legislation similar to that which they were attempting to pass in Arizona because it is too general and opens up too many opportunities for arbitrary discrimination. That said, I also believe that free exercise of religion needs to be protected in specific circumstances. Holding weddings in churches that have beliefs contrary to same-sex relationships is crossing a line into forcing people to violate their conscience. It is similar in my mind to forcing doctors to perform abortions when they are morally opposed to it. I have a hard time understanding where this couple is coming from. We need to learn to coexist and this type of action does not encourage that. I wish the article more fully expounded their view point.

  • Chantrelle Castro Black

    “I am not getting what I want”…?! TOUGH, BUDDY! SUCK IT UP AND FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT. You want equal rights and yet you are forcing to take away the rights of others. That is double-standard and LAME.

  • OutWest Landowner

    Speaking of marriage and divorce, another poster asked if you could have 50 wives using the logic of the Gay Activists.
    If you take the reasoning of the Gay Activists to its logical extreme – yes.
    Their position is that the only duty of the state is to record the marriage of consenting adults. They contend the state has no right to determine the gender of who can marry.
    If the state can’t determine gender, then what right does it have to determine number, or relationship? Who “judges” what number of consenting adults, or their relationship, is the “proper” number or relationship, and on what basis can it be justified?.
    “Judge not” and all that Gay Activist tripe.
    In short, the state cannot set the definition of marriage beyond that of consenting adults. The state’s responsibility after that is to record the marriage.
    (As for divorce, the Gay Activists hold that the state’s only responsibility is to set up rules for the division of jointly owned property, the subsidizing of the former spouses- alimony, educational expense and so on, the welfare of any children that result from that marriage – and of course, to record the divorce.)
    If you accept that premise, then the state, as a mere recording entity, can’t determine the number, or the relationship, of the consenting adults who want to marry each other.
    Therefore, the prohibition of incestuous marriage is eliminated, as is the prohibition of polyamorous relationships of more than 2 people.
    I expect polyamorous unions from Utah will be next up using the Gay “logic.”
    Then will come the incestuous marriage challenges.
    Bring this all up to Gay Activists, and of course, to shut down the discussion, they scream “homophobe!!”
    Regardless, it is their sequential reasoning, and that is where it ends up. They just can’t admit the depravity of their thinking; it’s a very inconvenient truth.

  • mreichard7

    Two disgusting egotists. They might ATTEND the church, but obviously do not read the rule book (Bible), by which (most) churches abide.
    God have mercy on their souls for causing this issue.

  • wgailb

    How long will we mock GOD???

  • Amy Hisaoka

    They sound very self centered to me. “its all about me, me, me!!”

  • Charles David Edinger

    It is interesting that libertarians like myself, who view same-sex unions as entirely within the realm of individual freedom are now coming to recognize the fascist nature of the radical homosexuality movement for what it is!!! These people are not interested in being free to do as they please with their own persons and property, but rather want to force others to accept their free choices even when those violate the other citizens’ religious of personal beliefs. This forced coercion of others by the homosexual rights movement must be completely rejected by any clear thinking libertarian, since we are about the freedom of everyone to live and do as they choose. This lawsuit is intended to force the couple’s choices upon others, which is the essence of government coercion. Charles David Edinger

  • fightingpillow

    “I am still not getting what I want.” Tough. Yes, you are being discriminated against. The idea that discrimination is inherently unlawful is silly. A private entity should have the right to refuse to do whatever, whether for religious reasons or just plain old personal preference. They really shouldn’t even have to give a reason for their actions. Buy the building and do what you want with it.

  • willaim

    the local church support them they say shows why the church of england is a dead church with less than .01% of the population going there except for weddings and funerals.

  • ronrobj

    From many thousands of miles away – I seem to remember the only way that the legislation got passed was by the promise that “The Church” would not be compelled to perform these marriages.
    Imagine how the vote would have gone if Cameron had said “Of course the Churches will have to conform to the new laws!”
    Gays wouldn’t be even in the hunt to get married today.
    Stop this nonsense about suing their Church. (That in itself is against the Scriptures – 1 Cor.6)

  • ugo2020

    why must the gays force themselves on those who find them repulsive?
    i for one don’t have any animosity towards gays other than they should learn to leave well enough alone and behave like every other group of people who know they are welcome and stay away

  • Michael Cornish

    The so called church is part to blame. They should have asked these guys to repent or leave a long time ago. Beside that – how can you be part of an organisation and sue them at the same time. The most extreme case of selfishness I have read about in a long time.

  • Nathair /|

    There are plenty of gay people who oppose this. Remember the problem here is not gay people or Christians or anything but statism.

  • Mark Sutton

    The Gov’t. meaning of marriage is a legal union between 2 people. And nowadays, it can be any 2 people. It’s much like a merger in the business world. You are essentially signing a contract facilitating the sharing of assets and responsibilities between 2 people. Congratulations, you are now incorporated. ….. Now, the Church has a different view of marriage. It is a sacred joining of a Man and a Woman in the Presence of God. It is a life long promise and a union of souls. When consummated, the Man and Woman become One before God. This allows people to create more people and raise them correctly with the guidance of an adult male and an adult female who are getting their guidance from the word of God and their own life experience. The children raised by 2 bi-gender parents generally have a better chance of having a healthy and balanced outlook on life and will know how to properly interact with both genders. Even without children, marriage is not an easy thing to do. It is challenging because women and men are very different from one another. We learn every day about the opposite gender and do our best to treat each other with love, respect and kindness. Marriage is a HUGE undertaking, that’s why many people wed in a church, so God is a facilitating part of this Union. The Church sees no meaning in a homo-gender union. It serves no purpose. There is no opposite sex to learn about, there will be no procreation, therefore no fruit. Even a childless heterosexual coupling bears fruit, the product of spiritual growth. We live with the opposite gender, and begin to learn about the other half of the population. We gain insight and balance………………..Some gay people whining because a Church refuses to marry them is akin to a white guy like me complaining that a black social club wont let me join. Advice to gays: be happy with your perfectly legal City Hall wedding. You are now Mr. and Mr. Jones. Go file your taxes together and maybe raise some confused, adopted straight children. If you don’t like it, start your own gay church……….If you need to FORCE a church to wed you, it will not be real. Your quest is pointless, disruptive and foolish. You are dismissed.

  • bheatcc

    Why do they attend church? Its clear they’re not Christians. They should go to some humanist/secularist/atheist organization for their perverted ceremony. God, the Bible, the apostles, Christian tradition – the whole Christian religion – condemns homosexuality. It begs the question, why are they trying to get married in a Christian church? Is it not obvious?… they’re trying to force the church to compromise on their beliefs.

    • Mark Sutton

      truth

  • Kellie Holder Gutierrez

    proof Jesus does not dwell in either one of them.

  • ted

    Animal sacrifices next?

  • BigD

    This is where it starts! Forcing churches to doing something that is against what they believe in! Even though it’s not law yet it will happen at some point! I’m betting it will be coming to the states at some point! Just like the government tried to force the morning after pill on Christian organizations. Even though it didn’t pass it will go up again to challenge! Then forcing private businesses to be open to making things despite it being against their beliefs! If people are going to use the separation of church and state it’s gotta go both ways! Te government needs to bud out

  • Eagle 77

    This is the reason I oppose gay ‘marriage.’ THese fellows are demanding approval and creating a right where none exists. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman to form a family in which to conceive and rear children, something a gay couple is biologically incapable of doing.

  • JTROX

    Selfish people. They are like small children, throwing a tantrum, to try and get their way.

  • jeff4justice

    1) What’s the source of this story?

    2) Mess with gay people enough then don’t be surprised when they retaliate when they get some power.

    • gabriel314

      I agree. Leave them alone/ignore them both. Ignore the bible-thumping freaks who want to meddle in gay people’s lives. Shoot both sides down.

      • jeff4justice

        Yeah, it was a matter of time before a gay couple pulled this. No big deal as it’s unlikely they’ll win. As far as we know they could be funded by anti-gay forces to stoke anti-LGBT laws. On the other hand they could just want to mess with the homophobes.

  • Joe Smith

    I don’t know about the UK, but in the US, your gay rights don’t trump someone else’s First Amendment religious rights.
    Go somewhere else and get gay-married.

  • rocco71

    Scum bags. Both of them.

  • Uncle Siam

    Sorry folks, Religious institutions much like private clubs are exempt from Public Accommodation status. Add to that homosexuality is not mentioned in the Civil Rights Act or the Disability Act.

    • luke orem

      This is the UK, but you’re right in theory.

  • Kathy Cleek

    Poor wealthy babies! Not getting what they want? Really? Then have it somewhere else. Not getting this whole thing about “forcing” the church to compromise on their beliefs and faith just because they are wealthy, and wealthy enough to take them to court over not getting their way! Do they honestly thing that everyone else should cow to their wishes and be OK with and accepting of their lifestyle? They need to start living in the real world. Not everyone’s lifestyle is the same nor is it accepted by everyone. No one has the right to force their lifestyle on another. Especially on a church. It violates our very freedom of religion.

  • hptsscott

    it is never enough with these deviants, they begged for understanding, then pushed for tolerance, then demanded acceptance and now they want to take down the norm so they can insert their own twisted idea of morality. Makes me sick!

    • gabriel314

      What empowered them and gave them a voice was what alleged heterosexuals kept doing to them. If they’d minded their own business, there would be no basis for them to be lisping from the rooftops about oppression and violence towards them.

  • Charles Little

    Haha marriage predates Adam and Eve? I think not soddomites. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Atheism is hubris. Good luck with all that. Who cares what the brits do? Be gay and marry and ruin your country placating these fairy loons. I recall all those Kings that married Kings in your esteemed history. ..oh wait…no….God (pray you) save the “queens”

    • luke orem

      What was every human born and dead before the advent of Christianity? Hubrisapiens?

      • Charles Little

        Christianity is simply a branch of the Jewish faith. We believe Jesus was the Messiah the Jewish faith foretold. Pascal’s Wager aside, Homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting, and gay marriage is as ridiculous as children playing house.

        • Harry Manlyballs

          HA HA HA!!! Heresy much??? You are no Christian. You subscribe to Scofield Darbyism and the Social Gospel. You are a Neocon egalitarian socilaist! You are a Judaizer the likes of which Saint John Chrysostom warned all true Christians about. You hold heretical Messianic Jeewish beliefs. The secular state of Israel is NOT the Israel of the Bible and only a self deluded brainwashed ignoramuss could argue it is.

      • Charles Little

        I wrote a reply. It was censored. I love that because it means I owned liberalism. Surely you realize that Christianity is an Abrahamic religion? That Jesus was a Jew? That our religion started with Adam and Eve? The first marriage. Man and WOMAN. Regardless if you are a hubristic atheist, homosexuality is unnatural. It cannot duplicate! Yet even foregoing that as irrelevant, its simply silly for two men to play house. Be gay. Be gay all day. But gay is different. Innovate some sort of clever alternative. Love is love, right? Oh….but it isnt about love. Its about that allmighty dollar. Seems you may have found your true god after all.

        • Harry Manlyballs

          Christians are supposed to follow the dictates of Christ, the New Testament. Jews follow the Old Testament that Christ fulfilled on the cross. Most so-called Christians however are Judeo-Christians meaning they follow Noahide laws and disregard Christ. Although they still do invoke His name, it is really blasphemy and He does not hear them.

          Prosperity is the blessing of the Old Testament, adversity is the blessing of the New. ~ Sir Francis Bacon

      • Charles Little

        If anything is hubristic, its humans as foolish as you thinking there is nothing greater.

  • Charles Little

    No…no….its far more likely the entire world just popped outta nowhere. Overpopulation. Plain and simple. Not only is it disgusting, its selfish. Go start your own homo church with your millions. Have gay gods.

  • Alex858

    Any group, business, organization, person ANYONE can reject a persons business for whatever reason they please… Atleast thats what the founders intended but noooooo now we have to be PC folks.

  • GodGunsGutsGlory

    The only ceremony held for these vile reprobate perverts is a good ol’ STONING!

  • GodGunsGutsGlory

    “A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding…”

    Their church?

    If that was a bible believing church the pastor would have THROWN OUR these vile fornicators as soon as he found out there were queers!

    One of the modern lies today is to invite in the lost into the churches.
    NO!!!! The true churches are the congregation of believers!
    And anyone to be living in drunkardness, a railing accuser, or a fornicator (even believers who do those things) ARE TO BE CAST OUT!!!

    1 Corinthians 5 KJV

    11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

    12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

    13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

    • Mike Ross

      Shouldn’t it be the choice of the church? Shouldn’t the pastor be allowed to decide who to welcome and who to throw out?

      • pastor in training

        No its not, this church is not independent they have to follow their church they are affiliated with. If they want to do their own thing then leave their affiliation.

        • Mike Ross

          Ok, let me rephrase that; should the CHURCH, as a body, be free to decide who is welcome and who to exclude?

          Should the church as a body be free to decide whether same-sex marriages are welcome, or an abomination?

  • R David Adams

    Worlds smallest Violin…. there are a lot of things I never got, who do I sue?

  • ben_b

    Why would you want to get married in a place that doesn’t want to marry you? It’s like a black guy suing to get into the KKK.

  • pleathers

    “Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

    Classic and expected. Its alllllll about them.
    CALL THE WAMBULANCE!!!!!

    I hope they are denied.

  • American-By-Choice

    Ain’t that the way it always is for Leftists? To exercise their rights, SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO GIVE SOMETHING UP!

    ( See… that’s how we know it’s E V I L . . . )

  • LeighLeigh

    They don’t have a constitution that protects religious freedom, as the Queen who is the political leader AND religious leader of a state sponsored religion, can be required to force Christians to do the State’s bidding……In America the Church can not be compeled to do the state’s bidding as the Constitution limits what our government can force the individual to do…..A Socialist Democracy sucks monkey balls for the individual who has the right to say that they will not be FORCED into association.

  • http://www.butnowyouknow.net/ Kaz Vorpal

    There is nothing libertarian about these dirtbags trying to violate that church’s natural right to choose who to serve.

    Maybe the Westboro Baptist Church should sue to have a ceremony in that couple’s bedroom, too.

    • Mike Ross

      Read my other comments; the reason this is in court is because of a peculiarity of English law. The same-sex marriage law their allows each church and faith to chose to perform, or not perform, same-sex marriage – except for the church these guys belong to, the Church of England. THAT church is specifically named in the law, and specifically FORBIDDEN from performing any same-sex-marriages, **even if the church wants to do so**.

      I’m a right-leaning libertarian and THAT is why these guys are RIGHT to take this to court: because the government won’t let their church, and ONLY their church, choose who to serve.

      It’s very obvious from the comments here that virtually no Americans know about this special law in the UK, or what the case is actually about.

    • Thevelvetkitten

      I have visual..that made me laugh. Can you imagine..lol

  • Mike Ross

    England has the antithesis of a first amendment; it has an official state religion, and an official established church with a privileged legal position. When they passed the same-sex marriage law, they (correctly) made it a matter for each faith and church; they are free to chose to perform same-sex marriages or not. EXCEPT for the official church – the Church of England. They are specifically named in the law, and specifically FORBIDDEN from performing same-sex marriages, even if they WANT to! Very very bizarre.

    So these guys are essentially suing the government for passing a law forbidding their particular church from performing the ceremony That’s what this is really all about; overturning the special prohibition against the Church of England in same-sex marriage law.

    • Ron Stone

      Just my two cents:
      You are correct about the status of the Church of England (which in the US goes by the name the Episcopal Church) as the official church of state. It was FROM this body that early settlers of the American colonies were fleeing. The UK has improved their stance, as now other churches are *allowed*, but only one is “The Church”.

      My prediction on this lawsuit:
      Until the day a seated monarch of the House of Windsor holds a different view of same gender unions, this lawsuit will fail. Period. You see, unlike the US, where laws are voted upon and pass through our legal process; while the UK does have a parliamentary government, in the end, the Head of State (Queen Elisabeth now, and most likely Charles next) can simply state that its not happening.

  • Forrest Carlton Lackey

    Gays and Liberals aren’t really that good at uniting people.
    Actually, their plan of making people more tolerant? Stupid as hell, it’s gonna back fire.
    IF they’re suing every person who looks at em’ funny they’re gonna have a lot of resentment built up-mostly by people who never hated them for being gay, but learned to hate them for being whiney, intolerant of other’s beliefs, and incredibly sue happy.
    Keep acting this way. Somebody’s gonna snap.
    Maybe that’s what they want. Government is just looking for an excuse to suppress the people. They’re throwing all kinds of shit at us from the left and right to see if somebody gets upset. Those rounds and how militarized police have been responding to riots and conducting no knocks over the most trivial of things, often without a warrant? Yeah, give em’ an excuse.

  • ML NJ

    “Force” is such a nice word.

    It should be used against them.

  • Hal Briggs

    LGBTP is forcing their agenda onto the world around them. You can bet the farm that this will show up in US courts. If the social liberals (regardless of party) get their way, it will be law.

  • jaynice

    Rent them the building, let them bring in their own officiator and let them have their srvice. They can’t force the church’s people to attend.

    • pleathers

      Absolutely NOT

      It is the CHURCH’S building and they get to decide who gets married there. Besides, they don’t want the building they want approval

  • Glenn Koons

    So called Christians being blasted by PC events and you know that they will bow to these two characters. Oh well, in eternity, we will all have to face Jesus on many moral issues. Even the Pope, all churches and homosexuals who may not have read what Jesus really did say about unrepentant sin.

  • Diana Simmons

    The Queen of England might be the Head of the Church of England, but not even she can change or impose Doctrine in any church. So put on your little “veil” and your sateen shoes and get married in the circus! since what you want is “lavish” not RELIGIOUS recognition, and there is no government or court or church (and I’m not talking about a religious sect), that CAN or WILL change the teachings of the Bible.

  • Cathy Thebeloved

    This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded , lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness , but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Timothy 3:1-5

  • John Yowan

    FYI the Church of England is an official government established church that receives £42 million a year of taxpayer money each year, and is given special privileges by the government.

    Maybe government should not be involved with religion and let the churches be free to make their own decisions

    • Jason Ayers

      Where are you getting the £42 million figure from?

  • KevinJ

    Can anyone enlighten me as to what the official line is in the UK? There’s a lot of bullshit flying around in here. But do they have anything similar to our Constitutional provisions for freedom of religion? I really have no idea.

  • Joel Stoner

    No one has the right to another’s services.

    • John Yowan

      What about a government established service like this government-established church?

  • WildBill0283

    I was going to make a gay joke, butt fuk it.

  • DaCoachK

    Does anyone remember when these people simply said, “Leave us alone.” Now, they won’t leave the normal people alone. Listen, there are some people and institutions who don’t want to be around queers EVER, and a church is first on this list. Go get your pretend marriage elsewhere.

    • pleathers

      If you used the term ‘religious’ instead of ‘normal’ you would be correct.

      Don’t you know gay is the new normal?

  • Snap N McGarrett

    The state has no standing in a church issue, thus has no authority in who can or can’t be married. Period. As a matter of fact, the case should not even be allowed to be heard in court. Separation of church and state means just that and the state and their courts need to ‘BUTT OUT’. Erm….Sorry for the gay pun. Well… No, I’m not sorry.

  • allee

    When I see all the nasty remarks about “gays” here.. I wonder if you forget alot of gay people are libertarian.. And those of us gay libertarians do not think that this is ok.. I must say, your kind of chasing them out of supporting your cause, seems a bit counter productive.. Just saying..

    • Trevor HappyFeet Martin

      It is one thing for the state to legally recognize unions between same-sex couples and extend to them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage status. It is something else entirely to force churches to betray their religious beliefs.

      • KevinJ

        There shouldn’t be any “benefits and responsibilities of marriage status” if you get right down to it.

  • Randall Williams

    two septic tanks joined together .

    • Mike Ross

      They’re not American, they’re British!!

      (or are you possibly unaware that this is English rhyming slang: ‘septic tank’ = yank… or ‘seppo’ for short. “He’s a seppo” = “He’s a septic tank” = “He’s a yank” = “He’s American”)

      • Nathair /|

        Specifically London Cockney slang.

  • Mike H1776

    I will pray for their souls just to let God know what they are doing which I am sure he knows but maybe he will change them from their ways or maybe it will provoke his wrath and there will be no need for the lawsuit any longer.

  • jack_foobar

    Yep. Everyone saw this homo-fascism coming. I don’t know why they aren’t suing the Pope for not taking it in the butt before supper. But I’m sure they will soon.

  • Not Jesus

    Oh cry it up. “I’m not getting what I want”. Well aren’t you the spoiled little child. I realize that this isn’t happening (this time) in the USA so they don’t have the same “freedoms” that we do here. BUT, I am sick of this attitude, “Mommy they aren’t letting me do whatever I want, so I’m going to sue them”. Really. Really.

    Any one that is Gay and attends church and calls themselves a Christian, clearly hasn’t read the book in the back of the pew. Also, while we are at it, anyone who says “Well Jesus would have accepted them, he ate with sinners, he didn’t cast the first stone.” Nope he didn’t BUT he also said “GO SIN NO MORE” How people miss this part is beyond me.

    Back to the article/lawsuit. I am pretty darn sure that somewhere in the UK is a lovely, beautiful old church, that is no longer an active church that is available to rent for a beautiful wedding.

    This idea that everyone MUST agree and accept YOUR specific beliefs even if they go against MY beliefs is fundamentally wrong.

    This is what happens when you start giving out participation trophy’s, stop keeping score, stop spanking kids and be their friend rather than their parent.

  • lynchu

    Hope the Church wins.

  • nimblenoggin

    As members, they might have a case, but as mere attenders, I would think no rights are conferred. In fact, there are no rights in a New Testament church that I’m aware of. They teach attitudes and keep only two ordinances: baptism and communion. I don’t believe the church is biblically required, although perhaps licensed by the state, to conduct weddings or funerals. Then again, the Church of England seems fairly inept at biblical exposition from what I can see, so how would the average congregant even know the difference?

    • Mike Ross

      No, you HAVE to understand English law. Every church in England is now free to perform, or refuse to perform, same-sex marriages, according to their own beliefs – except for the official state church, the Church of England. They are specifically named in the law, and are FORBIDDEN from performing a same-sex marriage, even if they WANT to.

      An American analogy would help; it’s as if NY or MA passed a law saying every church can perform same-sex marriage if they want to, except for Baptists; it’s a crime for a Baptist to perform a same-sex marriage. Would ANYONE think that was right, moral, legal or constitutional? THAT is why these guys are RIGHT to take this to court.

      • Nathair /|

        Is the Baptist church an arm of the State of NY or the State of MA, the way the C of E is in England? Is the Head of State in those states the head of the Baptist church the way the Queen is of the C of E?

      • nimblenoggin

        Thanks for that explanation, Mike. If they succeed, perhaps England will disrobe the church altogether like they did in S. Africa. Then we’d see who is Christian by faith rather than law, am I right?

  • Mardorang

    The precedent has already been set by Obamacare. We can be forced into commerce. This is okay with the tyrannous majority.

    • athynz1

      This whole thing is taking place in the UK – no Obamacare there although IIRC correctly they do have socialized medical care.

  • Todd’s Opinion

    And this is what the gay lobby keeps telling us won’t happen here in the US. But it it will. Its the logical progression.

  • Markrod420

    “I am still not getting what I want”… Yes well if you werent a millionaire then that wouldnt be so weird as 99% of us dont get what we want all fucking day. You have every right to be with your homosexual partner. And the church has every right not to marry the two of you. The fact that you cant see that you are the one infringing on peoples rights means you are an ignorant selfish piece of shit. You arent being discriminated against. You are being fucking difficult. Churches do not approve of your lifestyle. No govt should force that change as they have a right to their beliefs. Incredibly selfish and small minded people these two are.

    • Mike Ross

      No, you HAVE to understand English law. Every church in England is now free to perform, or refuse to perform, same-sex marriages, according to their own beliefs – except for the official state church, the Church of England. They are specifically named in the law, and are FORBIDDEN from performing a same-sex marriage, even if they WANT to.

      An American analogy would help; it’s as if NY or MA passed a law saying every church can perform same-sex marriage if they want to, except for Baptists; it’s a crime for a Baptist to perform a same-sex marriage. Would ANYONE think that was right, moral, legal or constitutional? These guys want to get married in their church – the Church of England – THAT is why these guys are RIGHT to take this to court.

  • Thevelvetkitten

    He obviously hasn’t learned much sitting in the pew of that Church.

  • allee

    As a gay person myself I find this to be awful! We as gay people should understand what it feels like to have our rights violated.. We feel our rights are violated when we are not allowed to get married, these folks in the UK are allowed to get married, there is no violation of rights on the gays.. But now for the gays to use force on a church to perform the service? Well your violating the rights of the church (private property, property owner has the rights) as well as religious freedom.. When will people ever learn? I think you boys suck!

    • Bridget Bludau-Wanninger

      “It is not enough for these people to condone same sex marriage in the eyes of the law they then want to force God the Father to give them His blessing. He could never do this because it is a grave sin in His eyes.” – Jesus the Christ. Read more at http://www.thewarningsecondcom

      • allee

        I believe I clearly stated I don’t believe in the use of force..

      • allee

        Your entitled to your views.. As I am mine.. But no one is entitled to use force..

        • Bridget Bludau-Wanninger

          I didn’t post MY views or thoughts. Check my source.

    • Bridget Bludau-Wanninger

      “But, what does man do in today’s world to repay Me for this extraordinary Gift? They try to justify sin in My Eyes. They present offensive sins before Me and plead with Me to accept lies and untruths. Worse still, they want to adapt My Holy Sacraments in various ways to suit their needs and then present Me with an abomination. Marriage is not acceptable before My Altar if it is between two people of the same sex. Yet, they do this and insult Me. They beg Me to accept sin, by justifying offenses against the Commandments of My Father. They try to convince themselves that this is acceptable, before God, when this could never be. All the Laws of God are made in Heaven. Sin is a sin, in the Eyes of God, and can never be justified by human interpretation.” Jesus the Christ Read more at http://www.thewarningsecondcom

      • allee

        Did you have pre-marital sex? Is that a sin? And I bet your wife still wore white too didn’t she?

      • allee

        He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

  • Ellen McElvenney Vaughan

    Thank God the United States has laws to protect religious freedoms

    • AKAOswald

      if you think this isn’t on the way to the USA you are mistaken.

      • Jill

        That was likely meant to be ironic.

  • Freedomride Ky

    i dont understand these people,how can they be gay and christians,we no god damed what they do-we now its a sin,yet they attend a baptist church,why,cant they wait for god to kill them,or are they there to put it in everyones face,theres churches out there that will marry these things,why force a church who dont believe in it,this is getting out of control.man i want my life back.

  • SirDanMur

    “I am still not getting what I want” < that last line sums it all up.

    Overlook what the Bible says about homosexuals, what does it say about Christians taking Christians to court?

  • David

    When homosexuals and a complicit state can dictate the conscience of the Church and it’s parishioners toward God there is absolutely nothing left to lose … you’ve hit the lowest point. Now the Church, and faithful believers in general, have to make a decision. Do we follow divine Scripture, or do we roll over and submit to perversity?

  • Don’t be a Dick Morris

    If you are hell bent on making people hate you, they will.

  • Sara Joy Standridge

    Wow, this is just ridiculous! “I am not getting what I want” does, indeed, say it all. Find another church that is willing to perform the ceremony, for Pete’s sake! Guess what? My husband grew up Catholic and I grew up Protestant. If he had wanted the Catholic wedding, I would have had to convert, which I sure as heck would not do. So we would have been turned away by any Catholic church to perform our wedding. They have that right!! Groiejklfjskjobuoeijf….*sigh* I’m losing hope in humanity :-(

  • William

    It’s been established in court precedent that the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment protects the right of a church in the practice of religious ceremony. They cannot force a church to perform their wedding, though it should work the other way and churches should not be forbidden to perform a gay wedding either. It seems some people who claim to support the constitution actually only do so when it suits them. The 1st amendment free-exercise clause and the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause are being violated when any marriage between consenting adults is barred by law.

    • beechumcpa

      Well, this is in the UK, so the US Constitution doesn’t apply…

      • William

        Oh, you’re right, how did I miss that part. My mistake.

      • leemo

        However, the issue here in the US is the constant battle to try and define gay marriage as a civil right. Once you do that the church is in violation of one’s civil rights by not marrying a couple.

        • beechumcpa

          And there are those also trying to make housing, and health care, for example, a right. Once it is a “right” by a government, it can also be taken away by that same government. I’ll keep my God-given rights, thank you.

        • allee

          In America rights derive from property, the property owner always has the rights.. There for if a church chooses not to marry a gay couple or not allow them to attend service it is there right to do that, and the gay couple has to find a church that is willing to perform the service or allow them to attend..

  • Mitch

    I’m gay, engaged, and I hope these assholes lose.

    • Mike Ross

      No, you HAVE to understand English law. Every church in England is now free to perform, or refuse to perform, same-sex marriages, according to their own beliefs – EXCEPT for the official state church, the Church of England. They are specifically named in the law, and are FORBIDDEN from performing a same-sex marriage, even if they WANT to.

      An American analogy would help; it’s as if NY or MA passed a law saying every church can perform same-sex marriage if they want to, except for Baptists; it’s a crime for a Baptist to perform a same-sex marriage. Would ANYONE think that was right, moral, legal or constitutional? THAT is why these guys are RIGHT to take this to court.

      • Thevelvetkitten

        Just because you can. doesn’t mean you should. Pick one of a hundred other churches then. Rent a castle and be lavish..many ways to go about this that would be a much better way..but I guess taking the moral high ground is a lost art now a days in the me-me-me world of some. Now I think about it , Maybe they should rent a mosque..?

        • Mike Ross

          They ARE taking the high ground; they’re taking on an immoral law where the government are trying to say that their church, and ONLY their church, is forbidden to choose who they are and aren’t allowed to marry.

          If the government passed a law saying your church and ONLY your church, wasn’t allowed to marry YOU, even if the church wanted to, would YOU meekly accept that and go to a different church? The hell you would… you and everyone else would kick up a thousand kinds of stink!

          • Thevelvetkitten

            Yes. I would. I would respect their beliefs. See that is their house….wouldn’t you want the same respect in yours? Many religions require conversion to that faith to marry a couple from different beliefs. I am far from meekly but my mom also taught me about picking and choosing your battles..she also taught me not pick fights and be a bully.

            • Mike Ross

              No, the church WANT to marry you. They would love to marry you. But the government passed a discriminatory law saying that every other church is allowed to marry you, IF they want to, but YOUR church is forbidden from marrying you.

              NOW do you get why this law is so bad, and deserves to be fought in court? That’s the situation here.

              • Thevelvetkitten

                Why even go to church if you don’t believe in their beliefs?
                Does this law apply to mosques as well?
                Look,there is a club in a southern town I live in..very small town. It is called the BLUE club. There is a sign. No Whites allowed. I kid you not. Does anyone care,NO. Should I sue them for equal access ? Sure,I could but why would I even want to go where I am not wanted to begin with ? There are a thousand other clubs who would love my business…so I practice freewill and go there. As far as I am concerned they shouldn’t even be asking a church to preform the ceremony it contradicts everything the churches believe in. Should the church be forced to marry satanist or people of islamic faiths? Jews? Even though their beliefs differ? Go ahead open that Pandora’s box and you will be forced on issues you don’t want to.

                • Mike Ross

                  I’m not sure why you don’t get this. Sorry for shouting but…

                  IT’S ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT NOT THE CHURCH.

                  IT’S NOT ABOUT ANY CHURCH BEING FORCED TO MARRY ANYONE!

                  IT’S ABOUT ONE CHURCH BEING SINGLED OUT AND FORBIDDEN, BY LAW, FROM MARRYING SAME SEX COUPLES EVEN IF THEY WANT TO!

                  It’s exactly as if the government passed a law making it illegal for the ‘BLUE club’ to admit whites, even if the club decide they want to do that!

                  NOW do you get it???? That’s ALL it’s about; a bad discriminatory law denying a church the RIGHT to chose its own beliefs and practices.

                  • Thevelvetkitten

                    I ask you again..did this law apply to Mosques and Jewish establishments?

                    • Mike Ross

                      Sorry, I missed the question.

                      The law in England says any religion can offer same sex marriages if they want to. It also says no religious establishment can be FORCED to offer same sex marriages.

                      The exception is one Christian denomination – the Church of England. What I think is called the Episcopal Church in the USA? That same law makes it ILLEGAL for that church, and only that church, to offer same sex marriages, even if they WANT to.

                      If a Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic priest or pastor wants to marry a same-sex couple, they can. Same for a Rabbi or Imam or Hindu priest or anyone else. They never have to, they can’t be forced to, but it they want to, they can.

                      They might get in trouble with their bosses in the church, if they don’t approve, but they can perform the marriage.

                      But if a Church of England priest wants to marry a same-sex couple, they can’t. It’s illegal. It’s forbidden by law. It’s a crime.

                      NOW do you get it? :-)

                    • Jason Ayers

                      The reason for that is to make it harder for people to do what this rich gay couple are doing. You can’t accuse the C of E of denying them their rights if the C of E is forbidden to perform same sex marriages.

                  • Thevelvetkitten

                    ““We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

                    From the article above. See the word SOME..that equates to more than one. So I am taking the article at face value..if that is wrong then I suggest you take it up with the author of it. My argument isn’t wrong based on what is being reported. If it is just ONE church and not SOME then you may have a valid point. It also reads as if they are giving each head over the church the right to freely determine that,

                    • Mike Ross

                      Yes that’s badly phrased. The case is actually because of the special ban on the Church of England, and the article does a terrible job of making that clear. Trust me, I’m a Brit by birth :)

            • Mike Ross

              In summary, if you think it’s RIGHT that the government should be able to pass laws saying who YOUR church and ONLY your church can and can’t marry, if you think people should accept that, if you think people should ‘respect the beliefs’ of the government when it comes to a law like that… well, perhaps the Libertarian Republic isn’t exactly the website for you :-)

              • Thevelvetkitten

                Whatever. See,maybe you dictating what is wrong or right for me says more about you.and who should define them as a libertarian or not. You don’t get to decide that,now do you? I disagree with you and I think there is a thing called balance and character that should come in to play as well.

  • Beth DeRoos

    And this is one reason those with serious religious beliefs do not trust gays/lesbians who want to marry, even thought many religious folks have no issue with same sex marriage.
    Its the fact that a religion who has firm beliefs on marriage should be forced to toss these long held beliefs aside for someone who disagrees with the religions teachings.
    Should any Christian denomination, branch of Judaism, or Islam be forced to do something that their teachings say is wrong?

  • beechumcpa

    This has gone so far beyond tolerance. Now they demand celebration. This was so easy to anticipate, yet some refuse to see the tyranny of it.

  • beechumcpa

    Because it’s all about what HE wants, isn’t it? What a childish person. I don’t believe he has the maturity to be married.

  • Thevelvetkitten

    This is getting old and I actually support their right to same legal protections as other couples…but to force a church to recognize your beliefs when it is their personal belief (and the right as is yours to make choices) is not only wrong it is the finest example of contrived bs I have ever read. You can have big and lavish without being a certified douche about it.

  • Jim Britt

    Gays have the same right to marry the opposite gender (normal) as normal people and choose not to use that right.

    • derpleton

      There just isn’t any way around it… You are a fucking retard.

  • Jim Britt

    These AIDS loving deviants need to find a good shrink and treat their mental illness.

    What’s next, forcing churches to marry a brother and sister or a 30 yr old to a 7 yr old?? where does the madness stop?

    • athynz1

      And here we go with the whole “gays are the gateway to bestiality, child marriages, incestuous relations, trios, etc” fallacy. Yes I say it is a fallacy. Gay marriage is NOT some sort of gateway. I see it this way – if 2 consenting unrelated by blood adults want to marry that’s great. If their beliefs go against the religion of the place they want to marry in then they need to find another place to do so. And again let me stress the “2 consenting non blood related adults” part as that is quite relevant and completely torpedoes your whole gateway theory.

      • beechumcpa

        It’s the totally foreseeable incrementalism. First it was “we just want you to be tolerant of our chosen lifestyle”. Then it was “we just want you to accept our chosen lifestyle”. Now it’s come to “we demand that you celebrate our chosen lifestyle, and serve us as we wish”. What’s next????

        • athynz1

          Really? So we go from gay marriages being accepted to bestiality, incest, group marriages, and child relations being accepted? How? Please explain how this process would occur.

      • GetReal

        OH PLEASE — Enlighten us with your vast wisdom as to why this is a fallacy. And please DO NOT use any of the same TYPES of arguments or rationale that the pro-gay marriage advocates used. Just because you say a fallacy does not make it so.

        • athynz1

          Indeed my saying it does not make it so – to assume such would be the height of arrogance. It is, however, a fallacy. Just as the argument that pot is a gateway drug to harder substances is also a fallacy. Tell ya what sport – as you are obviously very well informed why not do me a favor and list some of the arguments that I should not use. That way I don’t repeat those same arguments. Thanks oh wise one.

    • allee

      LOL!! AHAHAHA You call them Aids Loving.. Make sure you use it now why you can.. Because us Lesbians, are the smallest section of the population to contract aids, there for I call you the aids loving deviant!

    • AKAOswald

      What about three guys getting a polygamous marriage?

  • nexus974

    The world doesn’t revolve around you and what you want.

  • realityexposer

    If the gays keep harassing and threatening and sueing everything and everyone, there will be a backlash. Gays came so far in acceptance all over the globe, but that is not enough. We get it you’re gay, that’s fine. All the gays are doing is going to create a backlash which will be worse than any bigotry they previously experienced.

    • Forrest Carlton Lackey

      THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. Well said. That is WELL said.

      I KNOW I’m not the only person who thought that for a while gays we’re getting treated so much better than 20 or 50 years ago. I know I’m not the only one who saw that even the most religious and conservative of people, as a rule of thumb, tended to be decent to gay people in the last umpteen years (there’s always going to be jerks, who hate you for whatever reason).
      And now these people who have actually made progress are kind of getting spoiled, and acting so whiney, so outrageous, so subversive and so disrespectful it’s very hard to put up with them. They’ll crusade against you for being intolerant when really that’s just human nature. And it’s like they don’t hold themselves accountable for what they say, but will sue for what you say.

  • Sam Cole

    oh sodomites: Jude1:7 kjv REPENT AMERICA REPENT UK

  • Larry Bishop

    it will happen in America soon. How is forcing someone to accept them not the same as someone forcing them to not be gay? They are pushing the same principal they appose. Oppression.

    • allee

      I’m a lesbian and I happen to agree with Larry! I tell the gay community this all the time.. I appreciate you being able to state this without being derogatory to gays.. :-)

    • Adrian Joshua Elder

      This will not happen in America. Our Constitution is clear in a separation of Church and State. The UK has no such provision. It is the Church of England. The Queen is it’s head. The Archbishop is selected and appointed by the Queen.

      I am sorry but you are incorrect.

      • An Informed Citizen

        You should refer to my other post, as you do not know much about the actual Bill of Rights wording and usage in history.

  • jfriley

    Drewitt-Barlow: “… I am not getting what I want.” That says it all right there, doesn’t it?

    • HKfCA

      They are legally obligated to pay for the damm church, shouldn’t they get what they want?

      • jfriley

        I pay taxes but don’t get anything I want from the government or society.

        • Adrian Joshua Elder

          You also probably don’t have a state run Church paid for by your taxes.

          • jfriley

            Doesn’t matter. Even strictly governmental bureaucracies have rules that exclude certain services to non-qualifying individuals. Its like the US Social Security Administration rejecting the request of a 20 year old for social security payments because they are not old enough yet.

            • OneAmericanAmongMany

              And what happens when an individual attempts to “sue” that same government bureaucracy if they believe they were unjustly denied services, such as a 20 year old with a disability attempting to get SSI? Lots of stonewalling, shifting of responsibility and headaches engineered to wear the person down so that he / she gives up.

              • jfriley

                Well, not exactly. If you “sue” them, then a Court is the authority and plaintiff has subpoena rights backed up with the penalty of contempt of court charges.

                But that’s not really the point. The point is that just because an agency is ‘government’ or ‘govt funded’ that doesn’t mean that ALL people are entitled to receive that particular agencies particularized services. For instance, a non-veteran is not entitled to govt benefits intended singularly for veterans (like use of the VA Hospital, etc) and a 35 year old high school drop out is not entitled to re-enroll in a regular high school hosting teenage students. Yet both the non-veteran and the over-age student both have a duty to pay taxes that support services they are not entitled to use.

          • Evelyn Atwood

            I think you’d be hard pressed to find a state run church, paid for with our taxes, anywhere in the United States.

            • Uncle Siam

              Ah the founding fathers and their wisdom regarding the Separation of Church and State. :)

              • Scarbender307

                Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention separation of Church and State. It only mentions separation of powers. IMO

                • Uncle Siam

                  “The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion”

                  “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
                  ― Thomas Jefferson

                  I guess it isn’t stated in those exact words. But I’m sure after review that you can see how the founding fathers were for Separation of Church and State.

                  • George

                    The intent of the founding fathers was for the Federal government to keep its nose out of the church. The barrier was designed to keep the power of the Federal government from intimidating or regulating the church. There were state churches existing at the time, you either belonged to the state church or you were on your own. The barrier was not from the states, but from the Federal government. A Supreme Court decision turned this on its head, 180 degrees from the original intent.

                  • brucefl56

                    There is a big difference between “separation” and establishment.

                • Vernon Cunningham

                  freedom of religion precludes governance by the state over a church and of the church over the government. So they are separated by that.

                • Trevor

                  If the government can’t establish a religion, then it can’t take any actions that have a purely religious basis. Therefore, the separation of church and state is heavily implied, even if it is not explicitly stated.

                • OneAmericanAmongMany

                  The First Amendment was written specifically to avoid the incestuous relationship between church and state that was and is still alive in Great Britain. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion OR impeding the free exercise thereof.

              • Nanaof3kids

                Read the Constitution. It does not say separation of church and state.

                • Uncle Siam

                  I’m not sure why you are so fervent in denying it. The concept of Separation of Church and State within the Constitution is solid.

                  Do a search “Founding Fathers, Christian Nation 20 quotes”. And you will see they purposely made sure the Church was out of government.

                  • Mike Perico

                    You are aware that many of the original States had a State religion, right? You don’t know what you are talking about. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from creating a national religion. That is it. Everyone else, given the 10th amendment is up to the states and local communities, thereby making your assertion FALSE. It would then be up to the State constitution to see if a State established religion is allowed. If it is not in there, the State of X could say that religion y is the state religion. That will probably never happen, but it would be legal. You have a very poor understanding of what the U.S. Constitution is, which is a limit of Federal Powers and guidelines of the setup of the three branches of government.

                  • George

                    It was not the church out of government, it was the Federal government out of the church. Many of the earliest colonists had been persecuted by the Church of England. They fled England to be free. They wanted restrictions on the Federal governments power toward the church, thus the barrier preventing coercion by the Federal government.

                • Trevor

                  Freedom of religion is impossible, by definition, without separation of church and state. Therefore, it does say it, implicitly, not explicitly; both are equally valid.

              • Kara

                too bad marriage certificates violate that idea lol

            • Trevor

              This is in the UK, which has a state-run church.

            • charlie

              true but you will find most of them operate under a government authority- corporation, 501)C3) etc, which gives the state AUTHORITY OVER THEM (so they can be tax free, which is unscriptural)instead of being under the authority of Christ .

              Luke 20:25 And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

            • Keri Brewster

              Evelyn – You might want to look at IRS Publication 1828, which outlines (from the IRS, aka the government agency who collects taxes) what a church can and cannot do. It give specific instructions to pastors regarding how they can and cannot mention political activities, both from the pulpit and in their private lives. If you read through that and still determine that, at the very least, we are heading towards state-run churches, I will be very surprised.

              • Evelyn Atwood

                Your comment is confusing Keri. I don’t believe I said that we were heading towards state-run churches, so there was no prior determination of that on my part. Although, I must say, if we continue on the present course, there’s no doubt that the government will attempt to run churches and everyone in attendance.I stated that one would be hard pressed to find a state-run church, paid for with tax dollars.

          • Markrod420

            The state shouldn’t run churches would be my response. But that’s just my opinion because religion is emotion and spiritually based whereas politics are SUPPOSED to be logically based. The two concepts SHOULD be like oil and water.

          • Mick

            Cite your source that the Church of England is tax-payer funded please.

            • Patrick McCoy

              Seriously? Where have you been? Does king Henry VIII ring a bell? The church of England is the official state religion of England, and a priest in the church is a Government job.

              • Mick

                Seriously. I know this may be a bit perplexing for you to follow a clear line of logic…but cite your source that it’s taxpayer funded. That shouldn’t be so hard to prove if it’s true. An established church does not make it supported by government tax dollars, idiot.

                • rocco71

                  No moron. ESTABLISHED CHURCH by definition MEANS public church. Public means tax-payer funded. Go back and finish high school please, and leave this discussion to the grown-ups, okay?

                  • delahaya

                    And you still haven’t provided proof.

                    • Mick

                      Thank you. You’d think this wouldn’t be such a hard question, right? They assert is government funded church…you ask them to cite a source for that information, and all they have is insults. Sounds like a typical liberal to me.

                  • Mick

                    No moron, it doesn’t. If you possessed cognitive skills above a 5 year old, you would have already learned better, as it’s very clear on the church’s own website, thus, you’re fukin retard.

                  • Nicholas Paladini

                    established Means Established, Not Public…

                  • Todd G

                    People aren’t as stupid as some people are rude, brash, and just plane azz holes Rocco! And you take the cake. You might want to work on your attitude, or maybe not. Perhaps you just like being a dick.

                • Liam Phoenix

                  My understanding is that the Church of England is funded by a commission set up to manage property holdings of the church itself.

                  It also seems that there are tax credits for donations.

                  Of course I live in the US and have no connection with the church so I’m not speaking with authority, but somehow I doubt the guy who brought up State Religion is either.

                • Trevor

                  “An established church does not make it supported by government tax dollars, idiot.” Ahh, the irony. One of the definitions of established church is that it is supported by government tax dollars. And you called someone else an idiot! Hilarious.

                  • Mick

                    Yes, I did, and I’ll reserve the term fucktard for you. It’s a combination of f-ing and retard. Cite your source for that definition, and further, cite your source that government directly funds this church through public money. None of you nitwits can do that, can you? You keep professing this definition of established church, sounding like a broken record. “Established church” may simply mean the officially recognized. This is not evidence of being state funded. Are you all really so stupid that you can’t understand what simple thing was asked of you? Of course, liberals cannot. They don’t operate within any remotely reasonable and cogent frame of thought. Either provide proof, or STFU.

                  • paul_taylor

                    No it isn’t. Germany does NOT have an established Church, but churches ARE funded by taxes! In the UK Church income comes from the Church’s land holdings, and from donations on the plate, and from fees from tourists, film-makers etc. The Bishops (not the Ministers and Priests) are officially appointed by the Queen on the advice of the PM, but the candidates are submitted by the Church Authorities (the Synod) so really the PM gets to choose between only a couple of candidates. However the Government does not financially support the Church – hence no tax payer funds are involved.

              • paul_taylor

                You have no idea what you’re talking about.

            • rocco71

              You’d be wise to know what the hell you’re talking about before asking questions so stupid they stand as proof of your idiocy…

              • Mick

                You’d be wise to take your own medicine because you’re about to get your ass handed to you, ‘tard. The only idiocy being exemplified here is by you and those like you, too liberal to have any useful brains rattling around in there. The question remains. A very simply question…that you establish proof of the assertions that this church is funded with government money? If not…then you have no inherent right to their services as churches reserve the right to accept and exclude as they see fit. If they aren’t receiving government funds as part of the UK budget, then this NECESSARILY invalidates the assertion I responded to, which alleged these gays had a right to anything, and we under the burden as taxpayers to support the Church of England. This is a LIE and you are a fukin NITWIT.

                • ugo2020

                  thanks for straightening this idiot out – tax payer funded is just nonsense

                  • Jason Ayers

                    The C of E’s website lists all of the sources of income. This is one of them:

                    “Grants (perhaps from the local council towards the upkeep of of the churchyard) and income from special trust funds.”
                    Wouldn’t that be proof that some of their funding does in fact come from the taxpayer? So wouldn’t that mean that Mick is wrong and didn’t do his research properly?

                    • Mick

                      No, it wouldn’t. It would mean you lack understanding and haven’t met a burden of proof, as I responded to this identical post of yours below.

              • Todd G

                You sir are a moron.

          • paul_taylor

            The CofE is NOT funded by taxes.

          • Diana Baskin

            So if a person sits in a church building every week and knows that they
            are against sin and they continue to attend should they be able to
            change the church rules just because they go there every week?

      • Todd G

        Since there is a seperation of the State from the Church, I don’t see how this can even get past the door of the court. They can’t make a single law that challenges the free worship of people. Not only that, that congregation is a private community. Which doesn’t receive any money from State or the Fed becasue there is a seperation of the two.

        • Patrick McCoy

          This is in the UK. ENGLAND! There is no separation of church and state, it’s called the church of England because it is the BLOODY CHURCH OF ENGLAND

        • rocco71

          Can you people even READ?!!! This is in the UK where there IS, AND HAD BEEN FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, a STATE F-ING CHURCH!!! My god people are stupid!

          • Mick

            Again, an established church, but not one funded by the state…therefore, gays, or anyone else for that matter, are not ENTITLED to ANYTHING. If you aren’t funding it as a taxpayer, then you have no RIGHTS to their services. You UK liberals are so fukin dense you can’t and won’t answer a simple question and provide documentation of your previous claims that the church is funded by government. The church’s own website clearly states they are NOT funded by UK government dollars, thus, it is YOU who are stupid. You make claims for which you have no basis in fact.

          • Renaldo Jones

            THAT IS NOT FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS.

            • marigolds6

              You mean other than the state granted right to property, creating an enormous and tax free grant of real estate, the primary and most fundamental source of income of the Church of England (and, incidentally, use of that property granted to the church by the state is the central issue here?)

              • Mick

                You mean property that many of these buildings have sat on for centuries? Cite any current references that public properties were taken by government for church use in the remotely recent past. Allowing them to STAY is not evidence of government funding. Allowing them to pay LESS taxes or NONE on their property IS NOT government funding, you absolute RETARD.

                Tax breaks to charitable organizations ARE NOT government funding. I know liberals like to mix facts up and twist things, but getting to keep a million dollars more of what you take in from charitable donations DOES NOT then create government funding of a million dollars just because they didn’t take it.

                You nitwits want to call a LACK of government seizure to be evidence of FUNDING! That’s absurd! You will take what is by it’s very nature government FORCE and then declare any lack thereof on the part of government to be evidence of BENEVOLENCE and EXPENDITURE! LMFAO You English are a bunch of boot-licking pussies!

      • Mick

        Are you sure about that? A quick websearch reveals that the Church of England receives NO government funding. If that’s the case, then yes, they can refuse to marry a gay couple.

        • Patrick McCoy

          Did you just completely miss the fact this story is in England? This is the worst case of ethnocentrism I have ever seen! Read some history fools!

          • Mick

            No moron. I missed nothing. The principle is the same, as so is the question. I got the sense immediately that you were dense, but it’s worse than I thought. Cite a source showing the church is state funded. If not, then what they do is none of your fukin business, and they can exclude as they see fit.

            • Jason Ayers

              “Grants (perhaps from the local council towards the upkeep of of the churchyard) and income from special trust funds.”

              That was taken from the C of E’s website. It looks like you are wrong Mick. Are you going to humbly apologise now for being wrong and calling people who know better “tards”?

              • Mick

                #1. A grant is not a recurring budgetary item, even if it came from GOVERNMENT funds. If an old local church is declared a historical site and they receive money for upkeep from the state (this DOES happen) this does not make them a government funded church EITHER. If it did, then we’d have leftist in the US suing about these old historic churches receiving preservation grants from local community preservation funds as being a violation of church and state.
                #2. Grants don’t necessarily come from government. They also come from private entities. This is not proof they are government funded. I would ask you show evidence that the “local council” actually means government. My local girl scouts have a “local council”.
                #3. “Special trust funds” is not evidence of government funding either. That can mean anything, and usually a trust fund is related to a private source. Do you have something which CLEARLY spells out government expenditure toward supporting this church?

                I am finding a lot of evidence that even when the church needs repairs to it’s buildings, they have been paying TAXES in the form of a VAT to the UK government, and they then need to seek back credits on that. Seems to me the church is actually PAYING taxes, not receiving them.

                If you can show some clear evidence that the UK government directly funds the church, not simply in giving tax credits as is done for any charity so they can pay LESS taxes, but actually show clearly that the clergy salary, accommodations, electric bill or any number of other operational costs are paid for by the PUBLIC monies, then you would have a case that any old citizen is entitled to their services. If not, then you AREN’T. I remain unconvinced you have such a right, because I see no evidence the church is FUNDED by public money. Tax breaks and community historical preservation grants and VAT credits ARE NOT evidence of government funding.

          • Renaldo Jones

            It’s pretty sad that Americans know more about your country than you. Mick is right. The Church of England is NOT supported by taxpayers and has not been for centuries.

      • marshwill

        No, they should not! We have not yet reached the point that only gays feelings matter. Other people are entitled to opinions and feelings as well.

      • Vernon Cunningham

        nope. Not the same.

      • Trevor

        No.

      • paul_taylor

        No they aren’t. The Church of England is subject to the state, and the official state religion, but it is NOT funded by taxes.

    • Shannon Harkness

      So for this couple it’s not about gay marriage.. it’s about bringing down the church.

      • jfriley

        From a great article I read in The American Spectator re: the Arizona bill from a couple weeks ago – “Why
        would a gay couple want, say, a Christian opposed to gay marriage to photograph their wedding or prepare their cake? It hardly seems the best way to ensure a satisfactory job. One suspects that it is an exercise in humiliation, an attempt to force those with unfashionable scruples to affirm what they reject. It is, in short, a calculated effort at intolerance.”

        • Brad B

          Because it’s a public accommodation. It’s different than a private club. It’s a private business open to the public.

      • mikemesserli

        Shannon, as a pastor in the US I expect it here soon.

        • Tigerclaw1

          Fight it with every breath in your body. You have the support of tens of millions of Americans, maybe hundreds of millions.

          • Brad B

            It’s not in the Deliverance United States and it’s their own church.

            • Tigerclaw1

              I never said it was on your mom’s farm, and they don’t own the church.

        • charlie

          as it should to all churches with a 501 (C3) exemption and hireling “pastor”

          • popscull

            As it should be that all non-profit LGBT activist groups should pass out anti homosexual christian lit in their offices. the sword cuts both ways.

            • Brad B

              You can do that if you wish. There is no law, against joining a group you oppose.

          • Brad B

            All must follow tje power of the tax exemption status. :P

        • Brad B

          Are you collecting tax exempt status?

      • alnga

        the very gates of hell can not bring down the church of Jesus Christ, not now not ever.

        • Jan Gibson

          Amen!

        • JacksonPearson

          Amen from me too.
          Life on mother earth is very short and temporary, eternity is forever. In the end, Jesus Christ’s church will remain standing, while all of these atheists that have tried to destroy it, will be in hell.

        • Brad B

          But the church can bring down the church all by itself.

      • Kara

        its about self-absorbed people not respecting other people. they don’t own the church they have no claim other than they want this and the people who actually run and own the church refuse. I wanted to get married at a church on a private college, but they only allow alumni or current students to use the facility of which we are neither. So we got married elsewhere.

        • Brad B

          Take one credit. :)

          • Kara

            Where were u 4 yrs ago! Na it would have cost as much as the wedding lol

    • Eli Hernandez

      Amen. It is a total contradiction of the Spirit and Mind of Christ. I can understand if they worked within the Church itself to get the Church to reform its views in this matter, although there is no Biblical basis for same sex marriage, but to take this contention to a secular civil court to set this precedent that violates the very free willed right to worship that God himself gave us as a species since Adam and Eve is right out blasphemous and should get them expelled from the Church of England for which there is more than enough Biblical Basis to do so.
      It is church. Your Faith. A completely free willed non-coerced relationship between God, Yourself, and Your Neighbor. True that The Gospels do not Condemn Homosexuality and True that their is room from an interpretation perspective to allow for homosexuals to keep their sexual identity as long as they are no committing Fornication, as in Sex Before Marriage or Lawful Monogamy, or as in Prostitution, etc or idolatry, or blood sacrifices, but their is no allowance for Marriage in a Christian Church made in the Bible and this type of dispute is one that should be brought solely before Church Leadership and worked out within the Church and not before a political and secular court. It is a real shame and these two are in need of repentance before God for pursuing this.

      • Nanaof3kids

        You better read your bible again.. 1Corinthians 6:9 says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. There is no gray area in the scripture. Jesus says you are for Me or against Me. If you are not gathering you are scattering. Pretty plain and easy to understand.

        • Tammy Tatem Smith

          It also says drunks, prostitutes, and adulterers will not make it… there are a lot of folks in denial about their own sin….. I don’t disagree with your statement, just don’t want to single out one sinner.

          • http://cardsbylori.WordPress.com/ Lori Servies

            You are correct! Drunks, prostitutes, adulterers and many others such as liars and fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God. They are in denial right along with the homosexuals! One cannot live in open, ongoing, unrepentant sin, regardless of the sin, and have a right relationship with Jesus Christ.. Therefore, no relationship with Christ by coming under the Covenant of His Blood, no inheritance of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more!”

            • Kara

              so why were many drunks, prostitutes, adulterers, lairs ect some of Jesus’s closest followers. Hell most of the bible was written by Paul the chrstian murderer. David was a murderer, Abraham was a liar. Peter was a liar and a coward. Most people in the bible openly committed at least one heinous grieve against God and not just sins before they were saved. Pick almost any book in the bible and it will show we are all sinners so lack of sin isn’t what saves us. There are areas of open rebellion and sin in our lives that we all commit, but are not yet aware of. Its easy to say someone is unrepentant, but we find it easy to se;f deceive and convince ourselves our sin isn’t that bad or isn’t really a sin at all. Hopefully God will talk to these men and others like them and reveal to them their sin and our own areas where we also self deceive.

              • s. zorin

                Yes, what is the point of believing in bumbling God who could not create perfect creatures ?

                • Kara

                  our imperfections and failures aren’t due to god’s shortcoming but our choices. Imagine two people conceiving and birthing a child with no health issues fully whole in every way. If that child turns around and chops off its arm we don’t look at the parents and blame them. it was the child’s choice. we see this all the time. People from nice families who had a pretty good childhood to turn around and do something awful because they chose to. Our failures are ours. My sin is due to my choices, not because i was created broken against my will.

                  • s. zorin

                    So are there consequences for acting against laws of life which God gave us ? What is the fate of those who make choices “to do something awful” ? Like the homosexuals who openly revolt against the natural and moral order ? Does your reminder that “drunks, prostitutes, adulterers etcetera..” were followers of Christ in his time mean that today’s drunks, prostitutes, adulterers, practicing homosexuals..have a licence to do what they want without facing the ultimate consequences ? Why do morally disreputable characters always bring to the debate on sin the fact of Christ communicating and consorting with sinners and the fact of sinners being his followers ? What kind of argument is that ? Are we being told, slyly, that the homosexuals can wallow in sin and still inherit the kingdom of Heaven, that Christ gave them a magic right to have their cake and eat it too ? Where are Christ’s words that his followers are those who DO NOT turn away from sin ?

          • Vivin Viswanathan

            “I don’t disagree with your statement, just don’t want to single out one sinner.”

            I love you

          • Diana Baskin

            True it is very clear. None of them will make it into heaven if they don’t repent. None of them are suing the church to make them do something that is against their beliefs, as far as I know. Most drunks, prostitutes and adulterers know they are sinning and have enough shame to not try to call wrong right.

            • Nanaof3kids

              If your ears are being tickled by satan you are not going to listen to God. They live the life they are living because it is what they want to do. The problem is that they don’t want to repent because they want God to approve of their sin. That is not going to happen. Sinners want to point out that they are not the only ones sinning. It doesn’t matter because we will all pay for our own sin if we don’t truly repent.

              • Brad B

                Sinners point out other sinners as a distraction.

          • Nanaof3kids

            All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God’s grace is sufficient to cover all our sin. But we can’t ask for forgiveness knowing that we are going to continue in the sin. We all sin every day, however we have to try to continually live a sin free life. Christ is the sacrificial lamb the only perfect lamb of God who died for our sin. That doesn’t mean we can live a life of sin and not repent. We will answer to God for our sin. We are told in scripture not to tolerate sin or it is the same as sinning. God doesn’t need a spiritual adviser. He has told us plainly in His word how to live or suffer the consequences of that sin. For the wages of sin is death. Not physical death but spiritual death. We will all live forever somewhere either in heaven or hell the choice is yours. God gave you free will to make your own choices.

          • Brad B

            Oh look a woman talking diwn to a man. If I was Jesus I would have you stoned and eaten by 40 hungry bears. If I was the Jesus everyone talks about.

          • s. zorin

            What about schismatics, those who break the unity of the Body of Christ in order to have their own private “Churches” with their own private interpretations ? Will they not ‘make it’ too ?

        • DanielGV

          You are correct that is exactly what 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 10 states. However, the following verse shows the love that God has and how He expects believers to behave, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” You were a murderer, you were an adulterer, you were a homosexual, you were (insert name of sin here) but you were washed, you were sanctified, etc. Before we condemn all of these people to hell, realize at some point in your life, YOU were once a sinner condemned to hell too. While I do not support homosexual marriage, I do fully support their right to seek out salvation, just as you have. That will be better done, not by shouting, “You’re going to hell!” but by whispering, “God loves you so much that He sent His Son for you, to cover your sins, to sanctify you wholly, to lead you into His arms.” That will bring about the change in the sinner before condemning them will.

          • Diana Baskin

            Jesus didn’t whisper. The Bible says cry loud and spare not. This is the problem with the church and why God is being pushed in the closet while everyone else is coming out bold; we have been whispering for too long. If a person wants to be saved and live for God they don’t care how loud you talk. Hell is in the Bible more times then heaven. The Bible says they will go to Hell so why shouldn’t we.

            • Nanaof3kids

              Thank you Diana. People don’t want to hear the truth about hell. It is real and the Bible tells us wide is the gate to destruction. Have you ever noticed whenever someone dies their loved ones automatically believe that that person went to heaven no matter how they lived their life? That is the worlds view of right and wrong. God is real and He loved us so much He sent His only Son to die for our sin. Yet so many never utter His name in praise. He will allow you to go to hell He gave us all the choice.

            • DanielGV

              I searched the Scripture and the only time I could find Jesus yelling was at those who were self-righteous. I couldn’t find any time that he looked at the sinner, the one in need of salvation, that he yelled at them that they were going to hell. What he did was love them, ate with them, communed with them. Condemn them? No. Look at the woman caught in adultery, what did he say to her, “Straightening up, Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more,'” (John 8:10,11) I don’t think he was yelling at her, whispering possibly, but definitely not yelling. He told her to leave her life of sin, but I don’t think he was yelling at her. What about the woman in Simon’s house. The scripture even states she was a sinner, “And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner,” (Luke 7:37). While the passage is a bit long to put here, the end result was what? He chastised Simon and what did he say to the woman, “Then He said to her, ‘Your sins have been forgiven,'” (Luke 7:48). Again, I don’t think he was yelling at her, I don’t even think at any point that she was there he raised his voice at her. What did he do? He talked with her, on her level, possibly whispering, but not yelling.
              It is not a Christian’s job to condemn people to hell. It is a Christian’s job to pull people out of hell. You’re not going to do that by yelling at people, you do that by loving people.

          • Kara

            Thank you! Its christ who saves, not our works. While the deeper we realize his love the more transformative it is, that in no way means we ever live a life without sin. We stumble and fail and overcome and grown and stumble and repent end this cycle of pain and growth exists our whole lives. There is no condemnation for us under grace so when we do fail we know God is able to forgive, but first our sin has to be revealed to us before we can repent and grown. And yes diana if you look at christ he does shout…. at the Pharisees. He yells at those who are blinded and think they are holy because there in no need to yell at a broken man. He whispered to sinners. He was gentle with them. He loved them. He loved the phrases too, but they needed tough love. They already thought they were perfect and didn’t need a savior. God is in control so we don’t have to be violent and force things on people. Trust Him. I had a majorly gay uncle. He entirely embraced the culture and really felt they accepted and loved him. Often i find thats what many gay people are looking for. Its why being gay is an identity and not just a sex preference. Its a whole culture of being for many people. It wasn’t until my uncle contracted aids that his partner gave him that he realized they loved him because he agreed. They weren’t very loving when they started taking his money before he died. They weren’t loving when they stopped visiting him. They weren’t accepting when he decided to give his money away to a local charity headed by a pastor who was friends with my family and come to visit all the time when we couldn’t be there. It told dying from aids for God to show my uncle he had been using the gay community to fill his need for love and acceptance. It took dying to realize he thought he was a good person who deserved more. But through that he realized he was never good but selfish. And he needed God not people. And it took watching his other family members who disagreed with him but loved him so entirely to see what love and really looks like. There is not need to yell and scream. God changes the heart. We can talk and be compassionate and concerned, but at some point you have to pray and let God be in control. You can’t judge people for where they are because you don’t know what God is doing in them. We can pray. My uncle the flaming gay man his whole life is in heaven. It took unto his death for him to come to acceptance, but he is just as saved as the child who follows god his whole life.

          • Nanaof3kids

            Only if you repent and have a personal relationship with Christ through baptism. Your sin will be covered by His blood. You can’t however continue to live in your sin and be saved. He still loves you even in your sin but the choice is up to you. Scripture tells us that works without faith are dead and faith without works is dead. Just having faith is not enough you have to work for the Lord.

        • Kara

          and roman’s says we all have sinned and are not under the law but under grace. While that is not an excuse for sin because God’s love for us is transformative, but in 1 john and other passages we are told if we claim to be without sin we are liars. Hederosexuality isn’t what saves us, nor is our ability to obey the law and keep it. Paul says the reason we were given the law was to see how miserably we have already failed. We need grace and grace is what saves us. Our relationship with God and accepting his grace is what saves us not our ability to be sinless. Everyone has their areas of sin they struggle with and we will struggle with til we die. Not one particular struggle will keep us from God because He sees Christ’s life and not ours. We just pray he will help them to see its not the best life they were created for. google tim keller, john piper or mark driscoll and homosexuality to see a great response because while it is sin we have to stop acting like our works are what save us. No they just reveal our relationship and areas of understanding with God.

      • charlie

        any “church” that is operating under the authorization of the “state” is obligated to obey the laws of that state. Only the church of the real Jesus Christ, operation under HIS authority has the right to freedom from the opression of the state. ANd the real Church of Jesus Christ is PEOPLE , not a building or a corporation or the group led by a hireling “pastor”.

        • Kay Mann

          preach it charlie.

        • brucefl56

          “Do not forsake the assembling together” It is far more than just “people”

          • charlie

            you clearly do not understand scripture, you have drunk the kool aid of the modern apostate churches. Church has nothing to do with sitting in a building hearing a hireling preach his understanding of scripture. Church is simply THE PEOPLE OF God and anytime two or more are gathered IN HIS NAME, He is there, but He will not enter the unGodly things that are called churches today. the modern church system of men is patterned after the synagogue, that was done away with at the cross. The veil was supernaturally torn in two and God came out of the box in the little room and now is available to us anytime and anyplace . There is NO CLERGY LAITY, all men are equal, no man is above another, those things were all done away with at the cross.
            Check your bible and see what it says about hireling and usurper, which most modern “church of men leaders” are. It does not speak kindly of these arrogant , greedy men that are selling God’s people down the river because they do not preach the truths that are necessary for true and real salvation. They preach to draw a crownd and bring in more money that they do not spend properly because they use their plan and do not get His word for its use

      • Casey McGuire

        “True that The Gospels do not Condemn Homosexuality”…..Lets agree that we should not write or talk about things and post them as fact if we do not 100% know that they are fact. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11…1 Timothy 1:8-10…The book Jude goes into this without question…

        Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
        Jude 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Jud 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
        Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
        Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit

        • Kay Mann

          and do not forget Romans chapter one…
          Romans 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

          24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

          26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

          28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

          • Casey McGuire

            Thank you Kay!

            • Kay Mann

              glad to be there brother. iron sharpens iron.

          • Diana Baskin

            AMEN! Can’t make it any clearer.

      • Jan Gibson

        I will pray that your eyes, heart and mind be open to recieve the truth. You know nothing about the Spirit and Mind of Christ. You have to be in a relationship with Him. I can see that you are no way near there.

    • Shannon_Cahill

      Everyone deserves “what they want” on THEIR wedding day. If a same sex couple can bridezilla it on their wedding day and get everything they want and demand and be pampered by everyone, then hy is it not right for a gay or lesbian couple to get the same.

      • Renaldo Jones

        So you would force a minister to perform a highly religious ceremony against his wishes, simply because it’s “what they want”? Who’s rights are more important, the minister or the people wanting to get married?

      • jfriley

        Who says? “Bridezilla’s” have a right to act the way they do? They don’t and absolutely no one has the right to force others to perform any service for them against their will, even a marriage ceremony. That is called SLAVERY. You see the connection, don’t you?

      • Mick

        This is perhaps THE STUPIDEST statement I’ve read yet on this topic. Spoken like a true featherbrained female. Entitlement mentality, and without any sense of accountability whatsoever.

    • Christopher Michael Moore

      Well, I want a million dollars. Doesn’t mean I go out and find a lame excuse to have the government force somebody to give it to me.

    • 51franco

      Yes, I think this is a rich guy thing more than a gay guy
      thing.

  • UncommonStats™

    Glad to see some rational comments in this thread.

  • Seamus Cameron

    More typical “Look at me, Look at me” antics. Wearing thin.

  • Mr-Butcher

    Coming soon to America.—-

  • athynz1

    While I am in no way opposed to gay marriage this lawsuit is ridiculous. They are trying to get married in a Christian Church which – by religious beliefs – does not support gay marriage. Why? Does the church in the UK not have the right to their beliefs and do they not have the right to reject something against their beliefs on their own property?

    • Dennis Van Patten

      because the church and the state are not separate in the UK , unlike in america.

      • Thevelvetkitten

        So the church can force him to do things against his beliefs then right?

      • derpleton

        Dude, did you step out of a time machine commissioned by Henry the VIII? Things have changed since then.

      • Rick Sander

        you beat me to it!

      • derpleton

        I cant comment on your link So I will comment here, that article in now way supports your assertion that there is no separation between church and state. If you actually read it it pretty clearly indicates they are separate entities.

        Also this line in particular

        Although an established church, the Church of England does not receive any direct government support. Donations comprise its largest source of income, and it also relies heavily on the income from its various historic endowments. As of 2005, the Church of England had estimated total outgoings of around £900 million.[53]

    • Jim Britt

      Marriage was created by GOD and it is ONLY a man and woman

      • derpleton

        Marriage was created by MAN well before he invented your GOD.

        • Jero

          Prove it. Show where marriage was invented prior to religion existing.

          • jose

            Read Genesis!

            • Diana Simmons

              Jim Brit: GOD was not “invented”. If you don’t believe in God, you have no business in this discussion….

              • Lush Rimbaugh

                Anyone and everyone has “business” in this conversation.

            • Jero

              Did you mean to reply to me with that? If so, I have read it quite a few times, why?

      • William

        Then leave it to God and the churches, don’t involve the state or you may end up with what these two guys are trying to do.

      • athynz1

        Actually old boy the institution of marriage predates the Christian religion by thousands of years. Now a Christian Marriage is indeed a union created by God and is only for a man and a woman. But the Christian Marriage is NOT the only marriage.

        • jose

          God designed marriage when He created Adam and Eve the first humans.

          • greenthumb707

            Ridiculous fairytale. I cant believe in this day and age people still hold on to this silly notion that man was just popped into existence smack dap into the middle of a perfect world. Perfect, except for the apples. It is a analogy of mans irreversilble natural instinct to sin in the eyes of a humanly conceived deity. Not the story of the actual creation of life on this earth.

        • DaCoachK

          Two men can only be friends, not spouses.

          • athynz1

            Really? I know several men who are married to each other. There are also several famous men who are married to other men – George Takei and Elton John are 2 examples of this.

            • DaCoachK

              Pretend marriages for the purpose of sodomizing each other. These people are all delusional, and it appears that you are right there with them Tinkerbell.

              • athynz1

                “Tinkerbell”? Is that supposed to be some sort of insult? Such things completely undermine your credibility. For the record I’m straight and have been married to the same woman for the last 22 years now. So what are you calling “pretend marriages for the purpose of sodomizing each other”? Are you referring to religious ceremonies?

                • DaCoachK

                  Nothing gets by you. And sure you’ve been married for 22 years.

                  • athynz1

                    Can you answer the questions or are you simply trolling? And yes I have been married for 22 years – why does that seem like something I’d make up just to impress some random person on the ‘net? So what are pretend marriages? Are you calling anything other than a religious ceremony “pretend”? Why do you beat your dog?

                    • DaCoachK

                      Simply put, any marriage, whether civil or religious, is between a man and a woman. Period. Two men can be fishing buddies, but not spouses. anything else is pretend. Period.

                    • athynz1

                      I’m still stuck on how you consider a male/male marriage to be “pretend”. Does this also apply to a female/female marriage? Honestly it’s plain that you and I disagree with this – for whatever reason you are against gay marriage while I feel they should be legally allowed to take on all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. I’m just curious as to the whole “pretend” part.

                    • DaCoachK

                      Maybe “sham” is the best word. Two men or two women can’t be married. Only in Left-Wing-Kook world is this a marriage. It takes a man and a woman. I still don’t get your position. These people are pretending to be married. These people were so much easier to abide when they said, “Just leave us alone.” Now, they won’t leave the normal people alone. Their behavior is unnatural, abnormal and unhealthy. And it should not be encouraged at all. The APA took this off their list of mental disorders due to politics, not science. Yet, now, everyone is to bow down to the demands of 2% of the population? Go get a biology book and read it. It will tell you all you need to know.

            • chazzzz-ma-tazzz

              yuk…

            • Renaldo Jones

              When did George Takei marry Elton John? Oh my…

              • athynz1

                LOL! Man that would be a “fabulous” wedding, right? I meant that they were married to other men not each other.

            • mreichard7

              “Famous” does not make it right.
              Fame fades.

              • athynz1

                I never said it was wrong or right. The OP said that 2 men can only be friends and I simply pointed out proof to the contrary. Personally I could not care less if 2 men or 2 women marry or sleep together – it does not affect my marriage or my life either way.

    • derpleton

      Yeah this is taking it too far. It is one thing allowing a church to choose whether or not they perform gay marriages. That is freedom. Forcing one way or the other is wrong. What is the real shame is most of the people in our country fall on one side or the other on the “use force” team.

      • Adrian Joshua Elder

        You can’t think like an American. The Church is a part of the state in the UK.

    • Rick Sander

      I would agree with you except that the Church of England is a state sponsored or chartered institution and the UK Head of State, the queen is head of same. If the state is going to favor a church, they have to respect all it’s citizens. If it’s legal for people to get married and the church there is going to enjoy the benefits of preference in the state, then they have to stop discriminating. Of course, the UK could have what the US has, a seperation of church and state. If the US president was also head of say, the Catholic Church in the US, then they’d have a good case for getting married here too

      • derpleton

        The Church is not sponsored by their government that is such an oversimplification it isn’t even funny. The queen’s position is mostly honorary and she has little to do with the dealings of the government. Furthermore the government gives no money to the church.

        • Timothy E Raiford Jr

          If they are so darned rich, let em buy or build their own church, set their rules and all the other f a g s could get married there. Just sorta have a “Gay old time”.

        • Rick Sander

          Hey there. I don’t mean to be a weenie, but officially, the queen is the head of state and the head of the church of england. The archbishop of cantebury, the primate of the church is chosen by a committee chosen in the name of the crown and the prime minister. It’s also not uncommon for the former AofC to be named to the house of lords after their term, as was with Rowan Atkinson. The queen and the royal family is de facto and de jure, the most important representation of the UK and though we can minimize or say it’s ceremonial, the royal family, the government and the church, and the system of recognizing important people through titles is all wrapped up together. She is titled the Supreme Governor and the CofE is designated officiall a State Church. From the BBC AND the offical church of england web sites.

          The Established Church
          The Church of England is the established church, meaning, amongst other things:
          the Monarch is the the Supreme Governor of the church (theologically Jesus is the head),
          the Church performs a number of official functions,
          Church and State are linked

          Just saying. We can’t have it both ways. If the church and state are going to be linked and use each other to gain from the relationship than gay couple should expect not to be excluded.

        • John Yowan

          It receives £42 million a year of taxpayer money

        • greenthumb707

          The Church of England and the Commonwealth of England have the exact same view on abortion. Why not have the same view on marriage?

        • Rick Sander

          I just read on the CofE website that since they are the established church of the UK that anyone can get married in one, regardless for instance if they were baptized into the church or are a different denomination.

      • athynz1

        I stand corrected on the lack of separation of church and state in the UK. I still stand by my comments regarding the forcing of this church to marry the two men. Is there or is there not religious freedom in the UK? If so then the church should be free to say no to performing a ceremony that violates their beliefs in their church. From what I’ve been reading gay marriages are recognized in the UK, right? So why can’t these men go elsewhere to get married?

    • HKfCA

      The church and state are not separate in the UK. If they couple are paying taxes and paying for the church they should get all the benefits.

    • John Yowan

      Government establish church that receives government money and privilege.

    • Adrian Joshua Elder

      The issue is that the Church of England is a part of the state. It is a state run Church. The state has laws against discrimination. These guys pay taxes which goes to the Church. It is not anything similar to how things are done in the US.

      • KevinJ

        ^This

        • An Informed Citizen

          What about all the others who disagree with the church marrying them? There are other people in the state. This is not as simple as you want to make it out to be.

    • Becky Martinovich

      They are doing this, not because they love each other, but because if they win in THIS case, it could later be used to force OTHER churches to marry gays. Their church isn’t following the Bible anyway by accepting their lifestyle, which is against the teachings of the Bible. Thus it is no hardship for their church to marry them…simply trying to set precident.

      • athynz1

        And that is what I have an issue with. Like I said I’m not opposed to gay marriage but I am opposed to a gay – or straight – couple using legal means to force a church to cater to them when it is against their personal beliefs to do so. This is one precedent that I do not want to see set.

    • Mike Ross

      No, you HAVE to understand English law. They’re basically suing the government for passing a law making it illegal for their church, and ONLY their church, to perform same-sex marriages.

      Every church in England is now free to perform, or refuse to perform, same-sex marriages, according to their own beliefs – except for the official state church, the Church of England – there’s no first amendment in the UK, there is an official established church. They are specifically named in the law, and are FORBIDDEN from performing a same-sex marriage, even if they WANT to.

      An American analogy would help; it’s as if NY or MA passed a law saying every church can perform same-sex marriage if they want to, except for Baptists; it’s a crime for a Baptist to perform a same-sex marriage. Would ANYONE think that was right, moral, legal or constitutional? I’m a right-leaning libertarian and THAT is why these guys are RIGHT to take this to court.

      • GavinDrake

        I’m a bit late to this discussion – just reading through the comments now.

        You are quite wrong in what you say the law says about the C of E’s position. Yes, the law states that the C of E cannot perform same-sex marriages; and yes, the C of E (and the Church in Wales) is unique in being singled out for this clause in the Act over and above other Christian churches and religious bodies.

        But this is to protect the C of E and Church in Wales, because it is the common law position that everybody (who has not already been married and whose previous marriage ended in divorce) has the legal right to be married in their parish C of E / CiW church. This clause is designed to prevent any questions about whether or not this common law right would trump the legal protections in the bill for religious organisations.

        The Act goes on to say that the Attorney General has the authority to amend the Act by secondary legislation (a statutory instrument) if the Representative Body of the Church in Wales (its Synod) votes to approve same-sex marriage in CiW churches. The statutory instrument would remove the ban on same-sex marriages in the Church in Wales.

        It doesn’t say this about the Church of England because it doesn’t need to. If the C of E, through its Synod, decided that it wanted to perform same sex marriages, it would need to pass two pieces of legislation: one would be an amending canon to change the canon law (the Act permitting same-sex marriage explicitly stated that it was not changing canon law, which is part of the law of England) which currently defines marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman. It would then need to pass a Measure. A Measure is the name given to primary legislation passed by the C of E General Synod and is part of the law of England. In such a measure, they would includes clauses to amend the Act permitting same-sex marriage.

        The C of E General Synod has the power to amend UK Parliamentary Legislation (subject to Parliamentary Approval and Royal Assent, like all C of E Measures) and so the ability for the C of E to remove such clauses if they wanted to perform same sex marriages did not need to be written into the Act – that power already exists and is used regularly.

TLR Podcasts