From Pink News:
The Conservative MP [Jacob Rees-Mogg] for North-East Somerset has said that he will choose to be "whipped" by the Catholic Church rather than by his party.
The mind boggles.
In today's Metro he was reported as saying:
"I believe it is the right of the churches to define marriage, not the right of the state, so I shall vote in accordance with the Roman Catholic whip"
Righty-ho. But that doesn't answer the question "Who decides what is a 'church' and what isn't?" The answer must be either a) the members of the church or b) the 'state'.
As an aside, after 1945 there were a lot of so-called "uncle marriages" in Austria and Catholic areas of Germany. This was because war widows were set to lose their war widows' pensions if they remarried, so what a lot of couples did was to have the big wedding in the local Catholic church (to make the relationship socially acceptable) but never register this at the official register office. So in the eyes of the 'state' these war widows were not actually married and could continue to draw their war widows' pensions.
The expression "uncle marriage" arose because the widows' children were encouraged to refer to their step-father (?) as their "uncle", just so that there would be no nasty mix-ups with the authorities. But the point of the example is that there is quite clearly a difference between "being married" from the point of view of the Church and "being married" from the point of view of the 'state'. A couple can be one or the other or both as it sees fit. And presumably there are bizarre situations where one parner is considered to be married and the other isn't. And what about polygamists who come to the UK - do the second and third wives actually count as "wives"?
As per usual for religious fanatics, Rees-Mogg wants the best of both worlds (like Islamists complaining about the UK government abusing their human rights).
The centenarian bug
54 minutes ago
10 comments:
He seems very confused.
The Catholic church have NEVER defined marriage in this country.
There was no law about marriage until 1753, which stated that you could get married, but the CofE had a monopoly. Then in 1836, Catholics could get married in their churches. But it was all defined by the CofE and the state.
The real problem for the churches is this: They don't want to marry gays, but they'd like to continue to officiate a state proceeding. And if gays can have that state proceeding, a provider may be subject to equality laws (forget the politicians, the courts will push this).
The simple answer would be to disconnect legal marriage from churches. You want to be married in the sight of God? Fine. But you'll also be going to the registry office to sign a book.
I suspect that churches rather like aetheists turning up in summer and paying lots of money to book pretty churches, but that if they also have to go to a registry office, well, they might decide not to bother with the church bit.
TS, yes, agreed with all that except the last bit.
AFAIAA, nobody needs to go to church, Register Office is sufficient, but even if you get married in church, you still have to go to the Register Office to make it 'legal' (see aslo: Uncle Marriage).
In the UK, you can marry in church without going to the registry office. The paperwork is done there, by the vicar. Probably made sense in the days of horses and carts, but in the 21st century, a bit daft.
My point is not that people have to go to church, it's that if you've got to go to the registry office to make it official, will people then bother going to church?
TS, quite right but only Church of England. Part of its "established" status. I agree - the solution to this whole gay marriage thing is to separate legal marriage fron religious.
Another good reason for disestablishing the C of E. If they were disestablished, they could do what they damn well liked about homosexuals.
BTW, I think the Catholic church doesn't recognise state marriages, or, indeed, any marriages apart from its own. Also AFAIK, you have to go to a registry office to make a marriage in a Catholic church legal anyway.
Can't stand this geezer Jacob Rees Mogg's sub Evelyn Waugh amusing reactionary catholic shtick.He does n't appear to have clocked that Waugh was a first-rate novelist who was genuinely satirical and quite capable of sending himself up.
TS, but you ONLY have to go to a Register Office to make it "official". Fact.
AC, exactly. Everybody is entitled to his own personal view on whether two other people count as "married" or not.
B, that is also my understanding.
DBC, and JMR is a second-generation Tory MP Home-Owner-Ist from Hell.
Mark,
You miss my point. Right now, you can either go and do the registry office or you can do the church. If people had to do the registry office, with church as optional, would they do it as much?
The CofE and its cheerleaders like Cranmer can moan about religious freedom, but what they mostly object to is the reduction of the church's influence on the state. They've just been so used to its interference, they see it as normal.
Bayard,
Looking at the 1836 act, I think that catholic churches can register the marriage. In fact, it's quite non-specific about religions, so if you want to register your Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster cathedral as a place of marriage, you can.
TS, I'm not missing your point, this is a simple argument of fact and one of us (quite possibly me, but it could be you) has made a wrong assumption.
I always assumed that if you get married in "church" (any church) that you have to go to Register Office as well.
Having googled around a bit, it seems if neither party is a divorcee AND they get married in a CofE church, they don't need to bother going to the Register Office separately.
Question is, are the non-state religions allowed to do this? And if so, why? Who gives them the right to act as quasi-government officials>?
Oh, I see, that would be the very government they hate.
Post a Comment