I don't know if Obama is taking his lead from the European Court of Human Rights or if his words were triggered by something else. Eiether way, I don't know why he shifted his position, or the significance of that shift.
Pointless having a pot for of cash for campaigning if you have alienated a large portion of the electorate. Whatever else about it, it has sparked a debate. No bad thing.
Like Rebel, I struggle to see the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage. If we're saying it's to be able to get married in a religious ceremony then most faiths would disagree with gay marriage on the basis that the main purpose of marriage is a union for procreation. However, I 100% agree with Mick here - it's none of anyone's business - and for goodness' sake there's enough unhappiness in the world as it is so why not let people actually enjoy their fun if it's not hurting us.
Let us suppose you are gay and you also have strong religious convictions - then do you have the right to demand your religious affiliation to recognise, support and celebrate your same-sex union, then to argue it so on the grounds that it is an act of illegal discrimination not to do so. It is a fair argument that the religious institutions have so far managed to side-step by stating that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual union for the purpose of procreation. This is not so much a political attack on the institutions of religion, more the individual seeking the right to pursue their faith and have 'who they are' fully acknowledged by the institutions they affiliate.
The challenge would be against Canon law and not civil law. A civil challenge would hold no jurisdiction over Canon law. Nothing to do with side stepping the issue at all.
I feel that if a couple of dudes want to be gay, then thats their choice, but i do object to it being forced down our throats all the time.
Yes, I hadn't considered it that way, but you're right -though are they not trying to make out that their stance is above civil law? Is God's law beyond reproach? There are certainly many churchy folk who would claim it so. There are also numerous biblical references that utterly and unequivocally condemn the sex act between people of the same gender. As for the church side-stepping the issue, their argument has been "that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual union for the purpose of procreation" -and part of an ancient institution endorsed by them for that purpose and not an act of discrimination as the marriage ceremony does not make any provision for same sex marriages, thus avoiding such a charge. I would ague they are conveniently using this to sidestep the issue of gender discrimination.
I do see what you are saying and despite what people may think, I am not a religious zealot or anything approaching that. To draw a (ridiculous) parallel. I have resigned myself to never being able to win Miss World. There are at least a couple of criteria I don't fit in order to meet that. With receiving any sacrament, you need to meet certain criteria to be able to receive it. The application of them has changed over time. Extreme Unction/Last rites/Sacrament of the sick are all one and the same thing but applied differently. I just know that Canon law governing marriage is not open to such a liberal (in both senses of the word) interpretation. Personally I don't see how the sacrament of marriage could be administered to a gay couple (As distinct from allowing a gay couple to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that a married couple). As you suggest, I imagine the number of people seeking such a union is probably very minimal. I don't see any reason not to bless a couple before God (if that is what they want) other than the point you originally made which is bigotry and intolerance. Sadly, I think Catholicism is years away from that. There are denominations that cater for gay and lesbian couples. More power to them. If there is a significant number of people that want that, then good luck to them. I have a friend who will go to a denomination of Church every week. The slight doctrinal anomalies don't really trouble her. For folk that have faith maybe she is ahead of the game. I recognise that to those that don't, we are all crackpot mentals regardless of where and how we do our praying.
In English and Welsh law and Narnian law and Irish law (I can't speak for any others but I believe it to be the same or similar in a number of countries) provisions are made in civil law for dealing with Religious institutions. It extends investigatory powers and power to take rectifying actions to that institution effectively preclude government involvement. The net effect is that they aren't placing themselves above the law of the land, rather that the law of the land recognises the capability of that institution to govern its own affairs. When that fails, you get the abuse scandals that we have seen.....maybe that is a story for another day. Islam (as I understand it) places a compulsion on its exponents to abide by the law of the land, so that gets round that.
The parallel is about as valid as Tina saying she cannot enter Crufts because she does not meet the criteria ... - oh hang on, not sure I've thought that one through.
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 (c 33) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Bill for this Act was introduced by the Labour government and supported by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition
It didn't come into force until December 2005 and some confusion over it led to delays even then, so it wasn't really applicable until 2006.
