Millionaire Gay Couple is Suing to Force a Church to Hold Their Wedding

[bonnie]

Millionaire Gay Couple is Suing to Force a Church to Hold Their Wedding

The Antithesis of Freedom is Forced Association

DANBURY, U.K.–A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated, “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

Both attend St. John the Baptist church, a branch of the Church of England, and have been in a civil partnership since 2006.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

This reaffirms statements that Drewitt-Barlow made earlier this month, stating going to court was, “the only way forward.”

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us. It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works. I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. While same-sex marriage is now legal in the U.K. after a bill cleared Parliament earlier this year, the legislation still protects the right of churches to opt out of performing gay weddings, specifically the Church of England.

Drewitt-Barlow is not pleased with the law, and said, “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

Read more at TLR: Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding | The Libertarian Republic http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millio.../#ixzz2wMtAAoZM

[Gregory Matthews]

Remember:

This is happening in the United Kingdom. It is not happening in the United States.

It is happening in a country that has an official State Church.

That may give the couple some legal grounds to sue as the State has some authority over the official church in religious matters.

The United States does not have authority over its churches in religious matters.

Further, the 1st Amendment provides us with some protections.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

“As much as people are saying this [the law allowing same-sex marriage, but with the proviso that a church may opt out of performing the wedding] is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

kinda sounds like a spoiled brat..

[Gail]

What is wrong with allowing churches to have their own standards?

[Gregory Matthews]

In a country that has a State Church, that denomination has rights that other denominations do not have. In exchange for those rights, that denomination gives up certain power to the State.

This is clear in the United Kingdom. As I understand it, the State has certain powers of appointment in the State Church.

[bonnie]

Remember:

This is happening in the United Kingdom. It is not happening in the United States.

It is happening in a country that has an official State Church.

That may give the couple some legal grounds to sue as the State has some authority over the official church in religious matters.

The United States does not have authority over its churches in religious matters.

Further, the 1st Amendment provides us with some protections.

I am aware of where this is happening

How long before we see the same here. The easy acceptance of many,SDA's included that "gay marriage" is a right makes it hypocritical to deny someone that right.

[bonnie]

What is wrong with allowing churches to have their own standards?

If a denomination decides to perform "gay marriage" voluntarily

that is their right.

Do you think gay activists are going to accept being denied by some and go elsewhere? Rather doubtful.

The lesbian couple had numerous other choices for their wedding cake and chose to sue.

This is about force.

[phkrause]

Quote:

“As much as people are saying this [the law allowing same-sex marriage, but with the proviso that a church may opt out of performing the wedding] is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

kinda sounds like a spoiled brat..

I agree

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Do you think gay activists are going to accept being denied by some and go elsewhere? Rather doubtful.

I can only speak for the United States: The right of denominations to refuse sacramental services, such as marriage, is so deeply embedded in the Constitution and law it cannot be imagined that it would be abridged.

This certainly could be different in countries with different Constitutions and where a State Church exists.

Quote:

If a denomination decides to perform "gay marriage" voluntarily that is their right.

That depends. Maybe?

Do you mean a legal marriage that is recognized under civil law? If so, it should be noted that in some countries, denominations do not have a right to perform any marriage as all marriage is considered to be a civil function that is restricted to civil authorities.

IF you mean a marriage recognized under civil law, it should be noted that such marriages will only be recognized if they comply with civil law and all countries who allow such prohibit certain marriages. E.G. They may prohibit a marriage between a biological brother and sister.

If you mean a marriage that is not recognized under civil law, and performed by a denomination, yes, in the U.S. that could be considered a right. As to other countries, I cannot speak to that.

[bonnie]

“As much as people are saying this [the law allowing same-sex marriage, but with the proviso that a church may opt out of performing the wedding] is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

kinda sounds like a spoiled brat..

I agree

[bonnie]

I can only speak for the United States: The right of denominations to refuse sacramental services, such as marriage, is so deeply embedded in the Constitution and law it cannot be imagined that it would be abridged.

This certainly could be different in countries with different Constitutions and where a State Church exists.

For a time.

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K. you say "for a time."

What do you think it would take for this to change in the United States?

A simple change in the law would not effect such a change.

Why? Because the protection is embedded in the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. That is why.

IOW, to effect such a change would take a change to the U.S. Constitution.

How likely to happen? I Do not think so.

[bonnie]

O.K. you say "for a time."

What do you think it would take for this to change in the United States?

A simple change in the law would not effect such a change.

Why? Because the protection is embedded in the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution. That is why.

IOW, to effect such a change would take a change to the U.S. Constitution.

How likely to happen? I Do not think so.

You are right. We are protected by the First Amendment, so far.

How long that will last,no one knows.I do think we are fast approaching the time that will no longer offer US citizens the protection that we currently have.

The constitution has been amended before

[pierrepaul]

As mentioned above, state churches in democratic, secular, pluralistic societies are funny creatures. The Queen is the head of the Church; but as a constitutional monarch, she only acts on the advice of her Prime Minister. Thus during the Tony Blair premiership, we had the curious situation of a Roman Catholic Prime Minister advising Her Majesty on the appointment of the Archbishop of Canturbury.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

You are right. We are protected by the First Amendment, so far.

How long that will last,no one knows.I do think we are fast approaching the time that will no longer offer US citizens the protection that we currently have.

The constitution has been amended before

Personally, I do not believe that we will have much to fear from an amendment to the Constitution. I do no think amending the Constitution is likely to happen.

Further, I do not believe that a requirement for clergy to perform the marriage of homosexuals is likely to be the issue that causes us trouble.

[bonnie]

Personally, I do not believe that we will have much to fear from an amendment to the Constitution. I do no think amending the Constitution is likely to happen.

Further, I do not believe that a requirement for clergy to perform the marriage of homosexuals is likely to be the issue that causes us trouble.

I don't believe I said that clergy being required to perform marriage for homosexuals would be the defining issue that causes us trouble.

Personally I don't believe that the defining issue will suddenly appear without warning.

We are a little like the frog not realizing how hot the water is getting.

Bit by bit the boundaries are being pushed.A few years ago the act of redefining marriage would have been unthinkable. Now even SDA's accept it as fair and equal and a right.

What the defining issue will be and when No one knows. But there are issues that are drastically changing beliefs and opinions.

Many times it was long overdue. However that doesn't mean we have to accept all as "fair and equal"

[lazarus]

. Thus during the Tony Blair premiership, we had the curious situation of a Roman Catholic Prime Minister advising Her Majesty on the appointment of the Archbishop of Canturbury.

Blair did not convert until after he left office.

[Guest]

I'll try to be brief: Bonnie's right. :)

[Gregory Matthews]

Would you suggest that Bonnie is ever wrong? :(

[Gregory Matthews]

The question of Toney Blair converting to the Roman Catholic church is not as simple as it may seem:

1) Blair announced his conversion of the Roman Catholic Church in 2007, after he has left the office of Prime Minister.

2) A Roman Catholic priest has publicly stated that Blair discussed converting in 2004, while still Prime Minster.

3) In the late 1990's a Roman Catholic cleric publicly asked Blair to cease taking Communion at a Roman Catholic Church.

4) Blair's children were raised in the Roman Catholic church.

So, when did Blair convert?

Perhaps he had a conversion of the heart prior to formally becoming a Roman Catholic.

NOTE: For Blair to have formally converted, while Prime Minister, would probably have resulted in his resignation as Prime Minster.

[bonnie]

Would you suggest that Bonnie is ever wrong?

I would be curious to know which event or issue will be the defining issue that will be the one that causes the SDA denomination problems?

Will it come out of the blue,some morning we wake up and there it is,without warning or a "little" conditioning?

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, I think that the Sabbath will be very important.

[bonnie]

Well, I think that the Sabbath will be very important.

I am sure that it will be. Will it come out of the blue without warning? Or will there be a bit by bit erosion of our religious liberty until suddenly given world conditions a Sunday law makes perfect sense.

Ran across a article from Liberty.

Is the "gay marriage" law as harmless as many SDA's make it?

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/a-clash-of-rights A portion of that article

Catholic Charities shuttered its Boston adoption services when legislators refused to enact a conscience clause respecting its rights to refrain from placing children with same-sex couples. Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City opened up its married student housing to same-sex couples after the state’s highest court ruled that its exclusion violated discrimination laws. In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was fined for refusing to provide services to a same-sex couple. And in a case being closely watched by religious groups around the nation, a Methodist camp meeting organization in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, has had a portion of its property tax exemption revoked for refusing to permit a same-sex couple to conduct a commitment service on its grounds.

[lazarus]

So, when did Blair convert?

I have no doubt that Blair was a "Catholic" before he converted. My point was simply that he wasn't officially a catholic until after he left office. I'm sure Blair knew the implications for becoming Catholic before he left office.

[Guest]

Would you suggest that Bonnie is ever wrong?

Sure I would, but not when she's telling the truth. But the conversation seems to have shifted from what I was referring to.

:)