I think the parameters are defined and were defined with the passing of the civil partnerships act 2004 In its simplist form form a legal viewpoint there is no difference in a civil partnership and a marriage. The only issue is the words used. ALL marriages/partnerships are state sanctioned, priests/imams/rabbi's are licenced to carry out the ceremonies by the state Where th eproblem arises is that although Governments are not legally obliged to sanction gay marriages, however once they do then they have to apply it to all citizens equally making civil and religious marriage one and the same thing in law.
? Hitchin has got pubs much older than that in which Kings and Queens have stayed and civil war troops were barracked but never mind the history - what kind of twat needs to pretend to be Oirish and "enjoy a Guiness and the craic" to have fun in a pub in England?
I wasn't speaking specifically with reference to gay Unions, I meant various other parts of the celebration of the eucharist. I have a mate who isn't remotely troubled by this but I think she is a rarity. As for a legal challenge, I think that is unlikely to be successful in any case. Toby was incorrect in saying that the Church is not exempt from the law. There are a whole host of areas where Religious institutions are exempt (even from investigation in certain circumstances) including application of its own doctrine. I am sure there is a common ground in there somewhere.
I am sure London has much older pubs too, I just thought I'd fire in a bit of knowledge that I had in my head.... I wasted it. I have other bits of local knowledge that are equally uninteresting. In answer to your question, I don't know. There are plenty of genuine Irish pubs in the area. There was even another O'Neills 200 yards away as I recall. But the church did have the added novelty factor of being a church.
Not sure that is true, based on cases already having set precedent in the ECHR. I know its true for the USA they basically have the 1st amendment which allows exemptions. We dont have that and its the struggle to find an exemption which lead to the phrasing 'civil partnership' back in early 2000 instead of marriage. There has been the case of the 2 french lesbians which set the presedent that there is no human rights violation if a country doesnt sanction gay marriage but once it does all citizens have to be treated the same Also was the 2010 case of the registrar who didnt want to conduct a gay ceremony, Islington it was. court ruled that her orthodox christian view of marriage “was not a core part of her religion”.
I have no problem with that. In her capacity as a registrar marriage as a sacrament is not central to her fulfilling that function. I was (and have been) speaking exclusively about administering the sacrament within a religious setting.
should have been clearer, sorry. Although that was not in a religious setting, legally the precedent has been set that the orthodox christian view of marriage is not a core part of christian belief so a religious institution carrying out hetrosexual marriages has no legal grounds to say no a homosexual one
The legal grounds would be primacy of canon law. I am fairly sure this would withstand any legal challenge.
