Not the same thing, she isn't a church official. This is the UK equivilent of a city hall wedding (which I vaguely understand to be more common there?). She works for the government, these unions are legal under that government. [Edited to add: I managed to miss that you said 'over there' and not 'over here,' so I want to specify that the preceeding paragraph is rheortical, although I wrote it to be either rhetorical or informational. I suppose I should re-write it, but it just seems easier to explain]

It looks like they had no plan to deal with this at all. I'm inclined toward 'do the job or find another one' but I might accept a policy to just allow her not to have to perform those ceremonies, as long as they happened and people didn't have to wait around extra time. I know they said other people always performed them, but it's not at all clear whether this was formal or ad-hoc. Did couples cool their heels in the offices while some low level clerical person ran around looking for an available registrar? Hassling her about it was also fairly pointless, either she should have been told straight-up that she doen't get to pick and choose or she should have been accomodated, not this in-between stuff. 'Threatening her with the sack' is one thing, 'bullying' is another.

Basically, I'm inclined to say don't be a registrar if you're not comfortable with the functions required, but I suppose she probably had this job before the civil partnerships were legal (maybe anyone in the same situation should be offered a different civil service job at the same level, salary, etc., not having to relocate and whatnot? if that's possible). I'm not utterly without sympathy to the religious freedom argument, but when you break it down, it still seems that the religious argument involves not being comfortable with other people being allowed to do things, whereas when you argue for the right to be married, you're arguing for the right not to be personally constrained by other people's religious beliefs.

__________________
We are sorry, the mind you have reached is not a working mind.
Please hang up and die again.
Please hang up,
And die again.

Me too. I clicked on this hoping it was about a real cow who was homophobic.

If I were gay I wouldn't want someone who didn't agree with my marriage performing my ceremony anyway, in fact I'd probably specifically ask to NOT have her performing my ceremony. Honestly, she sort of was doing people a favor by quietly stepping aside. It's too bad that people like Fred Phelps don't follow her example.

me too! i want the moo cow story.

__________________
you pretend you're high
pretend you're bored
pretend you're anything
just to be adored

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Just because the Church allows gay marriage, you can't force the vicar to perform the ceremony.

__________________

iawtp. completely. all the way to the part about the thread being about gay-bashing cattle. which i think we all agreed is the bigger crime here.

it's not an imposition on anyone's rights to not marry someone. it is, however, an imposition to somebody's faith to DEMAND TO BE MARRIED!!! by someone who's faith denounces that. if it's such a big fkn deal then don't be christian & get married in the courts just like all the other gayz.

edit; wait, is it officially okay for gay marriage in the church? like, the non-catholic/christian church? coz i'm pretty sure the catholics would've burned the pope at the stake by now if that was the case.

__________________
hollywood would be jealous.

just legal civil unions, I'm sure.


OSap- you had me think about something else too. And I agree. I'd think having someone so against your wedding, for ANY reason, preform it, is like surely a bad omen or bad luck, right. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life and all. What a downer to think the person giving the rites thinks you're going to hell for it. I'd rather have a joyous person that's more concerned with making sure they've helped create a memory.

__________________
getting tired of the collective orgasm at the public declaration of the word "change"

Dr. Nathanson

I think she shouldn't have to perform the marriages if she doesn't want to. Everyone should be allowed to believe what they believe. Sometimes I feel that in our quest for equal rights we forget to allow everyone else their own. or something like that.

I think she's wrong, but I think she's allowed to follow her beliefs. The gay people wanting marriage/civil union/whatever are following their belief that they have a right to wed, and I support them, but I certainly don't support forcing people to conduct civil unions against their will.

Gay people have been forced to do things, or denied things, against their wills for a very long time, sure, but this isn't a game of one-upmanship.

__________________
Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.

I escaped somehow. Let's go

actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter

this ruling is ridculous, illogical and i can't believe people are applauding it. the case has actually enraged me a little bit.

first off, it's wrong because these are CIVIL ceremonies, not religious. (incidentally, if she was so concerned about her stupid "faith", why is she even performing any weddings at all that aren't in front of ~the Lord~? i'm pretty sure her flock or w/e would not be OK with that)

it would be interesting if she performs weddings of those who have been divorced before. i'm guessing she doesn't consider that as sinful. or judaism/islam etc. hypocrite.

thirdly, her claims of being "bullied and threatened" to anybody who has been following the case are creepy, gross and must be taken with a fistful of salt. the article portrays her sympathetically because, well, it's the daily telegraph. like a shrill cunt, she's actually shouted about gay rights being "a menace" which "tramples on religious freedom". well ok then. just the regular old repulsive christian persecution complex.



finally, it's actually ILLEGAL to deny goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation in this country now. i really, really don't know why this verdict passed. it is literally placing religious belief above the law. not so long ago, christianity was used as a device to promote racism - would all those in this thread who are so precious about christians' ~beliefs~, allow a christian registrar, funded by taxpayers (gay taxpayers included), to carry on officiating these weddings if they refused to see black people because they think their god punishes blacks by way of the curse of cain? i mean really now.

this is about the courts cory lol.

why should anybody's "faith" be a consideration in anything? especially above anybody else's rights. i have a real problem about being so deferential to someone's view of the world. we're free to criticise peoples political views, for example, so why not their religion? they're both ways to look at the world. the godtards choose to believe in this crap. and if their beliefs are so fragile that they can't ever be challanged, then, well, that's just a lil sad :d

THANK U!! Someone who gets it... i couldnt ever put it better than that

why thank U to you too, ash. i'm sure you could have.

i get myself all confused when typing up an argument and it always sounds kinda wrong as seen in the Obama thread apparently.. soooo glad u wrote that piece!

It is legal in the UK to have an abortion- its a woman's right to chose to have one. And yet it is also totally legal for a doctor to opt out of performing one because it goes against their beliefs. If you believe this woman was acting against the law, you should also be vociferously campaigning for all doctors to be forced to perform abortions...

Basically, I'd love it if we could all join hands and get along, but this isn't the way to go about it. It seems counterproductive. Tit for tat with the religious bogeyman? Pfft.

__________________
Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.

I escaped somehow. Let's go

actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter

She won on religious grounds when in fact civil partnerships arent religious affairs ... like Diablo said they are meant to be CIVIL.. nothing to do with religion.
I dread her and millions of other peoples vision of what God is... a God that wants people to discriminate and hate is defo not a God i want

I find it ironic that a lot of people in this thread expect her to accept our views under the name of tolerance, but you aren't willing to accept her views. I don't agree with her views in any way, but I do agree with her having the right to have views. Consider the following:

-handling pork products
-handling beef products
-performing an abortion
-selling contraceptives

These are all non-religious acts, and yet people can legally opt out of them because their faith states these acts are taboo. I personally don't consider any of them taboo, but it doesn't mean no one else does.

Consider it this way. You have a job you absolutely love. Then one day, the job changes slightly and from then on you have to spend 5% of your worki