Hey... they could hold these in a Roman Catholic church or an Anglican cathedral*.
The bloke in charge of the ceremony can join in the fun by wearing a dress himself.
* Or indeed in a mosque, where the bloke in charge seems to wear a trouser/dress combo.
Trying to plant the same tree
1 hour ago
10 comments:
Coming soon to a mosque near you.
Or maybe not...
Anon, that's a fair point, I have updated the post.
Actually MW, pedant that you are, in respect of male gays is 'go ahead' strictly correct? Would not 'come behind' be more PC?
WFW, I was thinking that a bloke in a dress might be a reassuring sight to lesbian women getting married as well (and they probably do it a different way round?).
The overwhelming reaction to this seems to be that the Church of England and Catholics will roll over and that the most amusing reaction will come when the Moslems are forced to address this issue, and the Stricter Jews.
Anyone know what Sikhs have to say about the man-wifey thing?
Us Odinists say NO, we are pretty old fashioned when it comes to that kind of thing.
You're jumping the gun a bit there, B. From the article "There are no plans to compel religious organisations to hold ceremonies and the Church of England has said it would not allow its churches to be used."
AFAICR, there is a ban on civil (heterosexual) marriages being held in religious buildings, too (or any building that was once a religious building or has stained glass). I wonder if they have lifted that as well.
Banned & Gordo, I refer you to Bayar's comment.
In any event, john b has actually bothered to read the legislation and has summarised over at Tim Worstall's.
JB, interesting. Did you cop off with the bridesmaid who most resembled Natalie Portman or just reawaken a family feud with an incendiary best man's speech?
I did allude to the time the groom's grandmother got him blind drunk on gin at age 3 to shut him up, which annoyed the groom's mum somewhat (luckily, grandma was deaf). Managed to avoid physical violence, though.
Post a Comment