tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post6904306774034999885..comments2023-08-21T13:38:05.182+01:00Comments on District No.1, St Helier: Civil Partnerships and the campaign for equalityNick Le Cornuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14983215673635966459noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-35062112230237889992011-06-27T03:44:37.358+01:002011-06-27T03:44:37.358+01:00Nick good luck in your election campaign in Number...Nick good luck in your election campaign in Number One. The district has been run by dead wood for far too long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-7094632017599560552011-06-26T10:14:55.346+01:002011-06-26T10:14:55.346+01:00Tom Gruchy says
So New York has signed up to allow...Tom Gruchy says<br />So New York has signed up to allow same gender marriages along with about half a dozen other USA States. Don't know about New Jersey's policy but other places such as Australia are also looking at it.<br />This Island really should learn from the new world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-72247301266058915582011-06-21T10:46:35.634+01:002011-06-21T10:46:35.634+01:00Tom Gruchy says
One of the unexpected issues raise...Tom Gruchy says<br />One of the unexpected issues raised was that people do not always want a "civil partnership" in order to have a sexual relationship. Some people want to regularise non-sexual arrangements which might be about inheritence of propoerty between sisters or other relatives.<br />It is possible too that people with disabilities might want a partnership if they are unable to consumate a sexual relationship - yet some might also want a religious ceremony for reasons of faith There are just so many possible permutations of human need and it is just so silly to restrict this procedure by dogma.<br /><br />The fact that there is no need to force religious institutions to carry out same- gender "marriages" must also be stressed. An enlightened law would simply allow those organisations who want to offer the service, to do do. Permissive not prescriptive.<br />Groups such as the Quakers only "marry" those who are already members of the group - so would not be throwing open their doors to all and sundry. The proposed Jersey rules will actually reduce the Quakers ability to offer an existing service. Hardly fair is it?<br /><br />Are christians so lacking in tolerance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-5933244819511434822011-06-19T23:27:09.071+01:002011-06-19T23:27:09.071+01:00Tony,
The Quakers were represented by Frances Fer...Tony,<br /><br />The Quakers were represented by Frances Ferrris, Clerk of the Jersey Meeting and Cathy Eglington.<br /><br />In due course a transcript of all the hearings will be available on the scrutiny website of Education and Home Affairs.Nick Le Cornuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14983215673635966459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-38626946107028653482011-06-19T23:26:32.404+01:002011-06-19T23:26:32.404+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nick Le Cornuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14983215673635966459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-55551937612412690172011-06-19T23:23:03.836+01:002011-06-19T23:23:03.836+01:00James,
Thank you for the elucidation.
There is c...James,<br /><br />Thank you for the elucidation.<br /><br />There is certainly plenty of intolerance out there and I agree that pragmatism may well be necessary to avoid the legislation being lost.Nick Le Cornuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14983215673635966459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-7216633429113510962011-06-18T21:04:00.733+01:002011-06-18T21:04:00.733+01:00Nick,
The issue under discussion is whether the a...Nick,<br /><br />The issue under discussion is whether the actual act of partnership is conducted on civil premises only or on religious premises. UK law is clear that as a <b>civil</b> partnership, the act of partnership must take place on non-religious premises. That the Quakers then make an open offer for anyone to have the partnership blessed is an entirely separate act. <br /><br /> <br />There is no issue with this, because exactly the same is true of a 'civil' marriage - that is, one carried out by a civil registrar. There is a flat prohibition on any religious music or language within that event. What the participants do after that is their business, and many people go on to have the wedding blessed at a church (historically, because up until decisions by the General Synod in the last decade, many clergy exercised a right to refuse remarriage to divorcees - something I know all about).<br /><br />In fact the Quakers are not the only religious group to contemplate the blessing of same-sex partnerships. The Metropolitan Community Church has always done this since its foundation nearly 40 years ago. (Significantly, 2 of its 12 UK congregations are within 10 miles of a Condor Ferries terminal. All we need is someone to get on the boat over and set one going). More significantly, the governing conference of the Methodist church permits it. Quite what would happen if the local churches said no and a couple appealed to Conference is anyone's guess. <br /><br />I digress. There are churches that will run separate blessings of partnerships. But what Dep Tadier has proposed - allowing religious celebrations of same-sex unions - is a step beyond what UK law has provided. <br /><br />I support the right of same-sex couples to have the same status under law as those who are members of a "different-sex civil partnership" - what you would call a civil marriage. But I am not ready for the rewriting of historic doctrine that the lazy (and inaccurate) term "gay marriage" implies. And I fear that in pushing this on, those who are (in some cases) considerably more bigoted that I will shout louder, and the necessary progress towards civil partnerships will be further delayed.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09194881271051758232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4556145924493162530.post-38713141156104371742011-06-18T19:12:17.302+01:002011-06-18T19:12:17.302+01:00Who was representing the Quakers? I'm glad the...Who was representing the Quakers? I'm glad the local Quakers followed their UK counterparts.TonyTheProfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10486414706261508994noreply@blogger.com