New rights for civil partners

CHANGES have been made to a number of laws to ensure that civil partners have the same rights as married couples.

The law has been changed for civil partners
The law has been changed for civil partners

This week the States approved amendments to laws such as the Control of Housing and Work Law, which is due to come into force later this year, the gambling law, the gender recognition law, the long-term care law and the law relating to Jersey trusts.

Outlining the amendments to the House, Senator Bailhache said that the law that allowed gay couples to enter into civil partnerships in Jersey had been in place since last year but some legal changes had been delayed.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "New rights for civil partners"

I Pasdenom

Still none the wiser as to why this process has taken so long.

Why couldn't they just introduce a new law that over-ruled all previous laws and gave equality to both sexes?

Job done.(and better)

James Wiley

Better yet to not have any silly rules about who you can leave your money to whatsoever.

It's your money you should be able to do what you like with it.

But in this case I believe there were 51 laws which needed to be amended, that is at least three years of States sittings.


You can leave your money to who you like; it's called a will.


No you can't. Offspring will get 1/3rd of your moveable estate whether you like it or not.


No, that's unacceptable. You should get to know public opinion first!

Grumpy Old Woman

Unfortunately most of the public haven't the balls to air their true opinion.


As a member of the public, you're wrong.

Sarah Savage

Civil partnerships will never have the same rights as marriage. Allowing same sex couples is the only way to have equal rights. Pensions are one, also civil partnerships are not recognised in other countries.

If a trans person wishes to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate they must divorce their spouse and reapply for a CP. Opposite sex couples cannot have a CP so someone applying for a job would have to 'out' themselves, which is wrong.

Equal marriage is the only solution.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

No it isn't.

James Wiley

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, how is it possible for homosexuals to be married? That would be counter to God's laws.

God gave us all free will - it is immoral for one human to try to take away from another what God has given freely, although there are many who are ever ready to do so. Everyone's actions will be judged by God in the end. It is not our place to seek to act as God.

So as far as man made laws on inheritance and joint ownership etc. are concerned everyone should have the same legal rights.

But Man cannot overrule God or God's laws. To deny the ultimate authority of God is to deny the right of the Queen to be the Queen and therefore all government in her name (including the States of Jersey) is likewise therefore invalidated.

I firmly believe that all will receive God's justice in the end but we must be free to make whatever choices we wish, even if they are the wrong ones.

Hungry Man

" it is immoral for one human to try to take away from another what God has given freely..." - Murdering and torturing in the name of Jesus I consider is totally inhuman and unacceptable.

My free opinion.

James Wiley

Yes but were the people who murdered and tortured in the name of Jesus any different to those who would now try to murder and torture in the name of democracy and human rights?

They were just immoral people, we still have plenty of them around. Luckily God only judges you on what you do.


Hate to burst your holy bubble, James, but modern marriage rarely has anything to do with God.

In fact, if you get married at the Registrar's Office, God has nothing to do with it whatsoever.


I think they're talking about marriage enshrined in law, not fairy dust.

Sarah Savage

Luckily we live in a secular society where religion doesn't interfere with laws. I don't believe in god but I respect your right to, why can't you respect my right to marry someone of the same sex as me? Religion doesn't own marriage...

If you don't agree with gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

Real Truthseeker

Marriage was aroudn well before the Church ever recognised it. In fact marriage was originally only for the wealthy and royalty. The purpose of it was to safeguard assets was the original reason.

So, there is nothing stopping it from happening. In Australia it is expected to be passed later this year, and in New Zealand in early 2014. Some States in the USA already allow it - and you think they are backward!

The religous nutters on here being so discriminatory are far worse!

Bring on marriage to all. Dont' know why so many relgious people are so bothered - it doesn't affect them in the slightest. It isn't liek it will chaneg their life, and so why should yoru perspective affect a gay persons life?

It shouldn't.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

"Bring on marriage to all": do you have a good argument as to why people may not marry their siblings? (in either mixed sex or same-sex marriage). If, as you say, religion doesn't come into it, then there can be no real objection. And while you are at it, would you be against marriage between humans and animals? After all, if they're not hurting anyone what could possibly be wrong with it?

Real Truthseeker

How on earth do you bring siblings into it? Very Jersey to want that. Firstly there is a medical reason siblings shouldn't have sex. And your stupid comment about animals!!! Really??? We are talking about live if consenting adults, animals don't consent. Perfect example of people who need a licence to be able to vote!


RT: How on earth do you bring siblings into it? Very New Zealand to want that. Firstly there is a medical reason siblings shouldn’t have sex. And your stupid comment about sheep!!! Really??? We are talking about live if consenting adults, sheep don’t consent. Perfect example of people who need a licence to be able to vote!

David Rotherham

So, would you also outlaw marriage for mixed couples past child-bearing age? That seems harsh, but if you allow it, then the objection to gay marriage must fall.

Favourites in the classroom

No, because "mixed couples" (odd expression that) have rights too, Dave.

James Wiley


I follow you, I think everyone should be allowed to get civil partnered and only those who want to have a religious element to it should get married.

If you are not religious or do not believe in God then why would you want anything more than the legal rights that a civil partnership brings?

If you do not want to make a vow to God, then why would you get married?

Separate the earthly legal rubbish, from the true spiritual meaning of marriage and let each religion choose what they define marriage to be.

But I very much doubt that the Catholic Church will ever allow gay marriage.


James... dear James

I think you may find that David was mocking you. Your assertion that marriage is for procreation purposes is ridiculous.

By saying this you're saying that a heterosexual couple who are past child-bearing age should not be allowed to marry. That's quite a statement.

Love is love, regardless of gender, and marriage must be available to all those who are in love.

The church does not have the monopoly on marriage. Look at the UK, hundreds of marriages are held each week for couples who don't want a religious element... and this includes people who have had a religious ceremony in their own faith - such as Hindu - but have to have an official marriage to make things official in the eyes of the State.

Notwithstanding the above, heterosexual couples can't have a civil partnership as is available to homosexual couples... so they only have the choice of either religious or non-religious marriage.

It shouldn't matter if you're straight, gay, black, white, Hindu, Christian or atheist - everyone should have the right to a marriage.

James Wiley

Yes Andy, and everyone should have the right to bear children...

That would not mean that men could, does it?

Still I will fight the oppressor for your right to bear children, brother, err sister, sorry.

Human Blights

I would agree with the opinion regarding one person mocking another.

It seems to be invariably the case that those who put forward human rights tend to adopt a mocking, high-handed and altogether intolerant attitude to those who do not share their divine, socialist views.

The reason for this is that the advocates of human rights piously follow their own religion and practice their own particular brand of bigotry towards the non-believers. They have found their own visiona nd must preach it to all lesser mortals.

Truly, it is the new religion and the "holier than thous" who stand as these puritanical neo-missionaries are somewhat more zealous and dictatorial than any other religious despots that they may seek to denigrate.

David Rotherham

Andy got my point, but it was made in earnest, not mockery. James has a valid point; there should not really be any functional difference between a secular marriage and a civil partnership, but I think that is the whole purpose of this debate. The trouble is when the Churches start claiming marriage as their own exclusive product.

I am a Humanist who wed in the Registry Office. I consider myself married, not partnered. The same goes for my elder sister-in-law. My other sister-in-law had a Humanist wedding in England and I consider her married, not partnered, too. If James thinks marriage is between the couple and God, he is mistaken. it has always been between the couple and the state, even if a priest is involved sometimes, too.


Everyone should have the right to bear children, James? Errrrr, that's a biological impossibility. Did you not get the memo? Only women can bear children.

It's not, however, impossible for everyone to become married to the person they want to become married to.

As for the rest of your witterings, they make no sense at all.


As an humanist, perhaps the best place to start would be in your day-to-day dealings with people.

I find from experience that most people who preach human rights are fine on the theory, but fail somewhat when it comes to the practice; they are often the most unpleasant, uncharitable, intolerant and bigoted people to encounter, which makes their position something of a paradox, really.

Of course, the real issue is whether those who preach human rights do so because they care about others, or whether they want to build some kind of sanctimonious power base, perhaps with a view to gaining a seat on a "worthy" commission or some other panel.

I can usually tell which is which within a minute or so of meeting a disciple of this exciting yet nonetheless pernicious new religion.


Who's God?

Doesn't exist.

The laws I abide to are the Gov'ts.

Prove God exists or existed.

James Wiley

I'm number two to God, so is every other human. We are all created equal.

However if you choose to accept the tyranny of Man, then you are no longer my equal, but my inferior.

I'm happy being number two to God, thanks.


"We are all created equal."

Except for the Gays, who are not equal in Gods eyes.


adder st helier

adam and eve not adam and adam

Grumpy Old Woman

Absolutely right.


If you're going to say things like this, get it correct. It's...

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Love is love, regardless of gender. Fact. Now get over it, already.


It's "Adam and Steve"


No, it's Eve and Steve.


Yes, I'm in there!


Whatever, just don't expect the Christian God to bless that union which is usually next on the LGBT agenda, pressuring Christians into turning against God's word.


Your Christian views sicken me

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

That's a bit worrying; do you recoil in horror if someone holds a cross toward your face?

La Moye Squirrel

My response to that is 'What is it like to be the other person? To walk in their shoes? To feel their feelings? To be in their head? Another story, methinks!


Actually Louise I think you’ll find that western society is slowly but surely reversing the repression put upon it by Christians for the last thousand years.

Unfortunately for you I agree it will feel like you are being repressed but you need to look a bit further into history then your own lifetime to see the bigger picture and to see who’s really been the repressor.

Guevera's witnesses

But the new religion is political correctness, which is much more zealous and socially damaging than any other religion- we see the "liberal" missionaries everywhere we look with their disapproval of opinions that don't coincide with their own.


Moaning about political correctness seems to be the conservative right's default and desperate attempt to derail those who seek a fair secular society. Laws or decisions based on reason harm no one. I challenge you to give me an example when they have.


Rather than direct your challenge to me, why not challenge yourself to open your eyes, look around you and educate yourself instead of moaning?


I’ll take your evasive response as an admission that you can’t give me an example.

Silent Witness

Not at all. You have to be happy with your own arguments rather than seeking intellectual support from others. You may make of that what you will. Can you think of an example?


An example of what exactly?

Guever's witnesses

I don't know. You raised the issue of citing an example so I assumed that you might have some idea what you are talking about.


You're right I did and my request for you to provide an example of a clear cut case of when decisions or laws based on reason have harmed someone was met with some nebulous nonsense of yours.

Guevera's witnesses

So, do you have an example then?

James Wiley

Joker, you must be joking, you cannot think of one example of a law based on reason that has harmed anyone?

Every single law that is passed harms not only someone but the majority.

Every single law costs all taxpayers money to operate, and that is just the start of the harm.


I suppose one answer is that an example of a "law based on reason" causing hardship is less easy to find than one where a given law is not based on reason.

In the former, bad cases do sometimes occur, for example, a defective planning appeal or a conviction where a jury fails to acquit in the absence of compelling absence.

Law which are not based on reason, but rather upon whim or leftist social trends, however, frequently cause great social and personal harm.

A good example of this would be so-called anti-discrimination laws which destroy indigenous culture and which cause division and difficulty for ordinary people. Similarly, laws which deal with the modern concept of "sexual orientation" are inclined to bulldoze the religious or moral idealogy of decent people.

The more extreme manifestation of the above is where someone is incarcerated for speaking out in a supposedly free country. This was seen in the UK last year and is surely a very good example of how a certain type of law creates a most dangerous and harmful state of affairs.

Oddly, those who speak out against their host country, usually from a muslim perspective, are rarely proceeded against, which shows how perverse and poorly applied is the law.


I`m not sure about gay marriage! It will inevitably lead to gay divorce and that will be really nasty!


:-D That made me laugh. Dissolutions of these partnerships were quite high in the first few years (as you would expect) but are starting to settle now.

I suspect there will be some that want to separate but stubbornly hang on in there as they want the stats for same-sex relationships to appear better than those for opposite-sex relationships, but over time we will see the same stats across both types.

Cecil and Bert

It made me laugh as well. In fact, the whole thing does! :)

Siobhan Gallichan

Agree totally with Sarah. As usual Jersey is several years behind the rest of civilised society.

James Wiley

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but nothing but a rose can be a rose, no matter how many fascist governments try to say otherwise.

Marriage is a sacrament which is between one man and one woman. You can call something else a marriage, but that does not make it a marriage.


What if you clone a rose, is it still a rose?


Lol Joker - no cloning is against God's law as well (apparently).

James FYI - the fascists weren't crazy about homosexuality, so maybe some factually accurate bigoted ranting next time? Or are these pro-gay rights neo-fascists you're on about?

James Wiley

Fascism is the system of government whereby authority rests with the military industrial complex. The number one fascist nation in the world today is the United States of America. Obama publicly supports gay marriage, I don't know his personal views on the issue.

Telling me I should accept that black is white, or that homosexuals can be married, is an authoritarian fascistic act of tyranny particularly if it is done so with threat of menace.

They are both patently absurd statements.

I think I have a solution though, let's have gay marriage but lets also call marriage something else... perhaps divine union?

I'm not so possessive of the word marriage, divine union sounds more romantic anyway.



if the government were forcing you to marry another man then you would be correct in calling it fascist. But the government is not forcing you is it. Gay marriage will have absolutely no impact on your life. It will however impact on many gay people by giving them the right to share what heterosexual couples have enjoyed for millennia.


Those opposing gay marriage (or as I call it 'marriage' - the church doesn't have the monopoly on that word)/civil partnerships should blame straight people... they're the ones who keep having gay babies.


So, for true equality, can we now allow heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships so they can also have these rights?

Silly though it is, there are those that view marriage in a negative way and it is so ingrained into their being that they will not get married, ever. It's difficult to say it's their fault when the fault most likely lies with the society they grew up in.

Why should they be denied these rights?


"So, for true equality, can we now allow heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships so they can also have these rights?"

What are you talking about? Hetrosexual couples have always had those rights.


No, they don't have the right to enter into a civil partnership short of marriage like the others do.


Enlighten me jester as to how the two differ in law in terms of the right's given to civil partnerships and civil weddings?


No idea how they differ in law- you can tell us that one.

All I know is that hetero couples don’t have the right to enter into a civil partnership short of marriage like the others do, as is written above.


Why make the point then?


Because the point was that normal couples don’t have the right to enter into a civil partnership short of marriage like the others do.

We seem to have come full circle.



Your guess is as good as mine, but clearly marriage and civil partnerships DO differ, otherwise why are so many homosexuals still fighting for the right to get 'married' and tying up the time of politicians when there are (quite literally) people dying due to poverty, crime etc. and other matters that politicians should be spending their time fixing?

If marriage is to be allowed for homosexuals then it has to follow that civil partnerships are allowed for heterosexuals. Unless of course it's really the case that homosexuals want favourable inequality.


But why would hetro couples want the right of a civil partnership if they already have those rights in marriage? Giving hetro couples civil partnerships does not give them something they don’t already have access to in law.


A debate as to why normal couples might want civil partnerships is all very well, but it does not address the discrimination which will ensue if gay couple acquire the right to marry and non-gay couple continue to be denied the right to enter into a civil partnership.

It is quite wrong to say "Giving hetro couples civil partnerships does not give them something they don’t already have access to in law.". They don't presently have that right, hence the point of the messages which you don't seem to comprehend.


@Joker, and giving homosexual couples marriage doesn't give them anything they don't already have in law. So your point is?



Simple: because despite wat jester says hetro couples already have access to both civil weddings and marriage weddings. Gay couples only have access to civil weddings. The notion of such is discriminatory.


But the point "wat" I was trying to make is that normal couples don't have access to civil partnerships, hence we see a discrimination in that respect.


They're the same thing jester just different in name. Making a point on the spelling when you understood the sentence just shows you really have no case to argue.


No idea how the typo occurre- you can tell us that one.

All I know is that hetero couples don’t have the right to enter into a civil partnership short of marriage like the others do, as is written above.


If marriage and civil partnership "are the same thing, just different in name", then one has to ask why they are making all the fuss?


Everyone is entitled to their opinion or their point of view, whether influenced by personal feelings, political or religious views.

That being said, I do believe that in a civilized democratic society (such as we claim to be) that important matters such as the above, the only opinions that should matter and be heard by the ruling government, are the people who's lives will be directly influenced and effected by a change or addition to the law, in other words, the gay community.

Any person living in our 'privileged' society with all its freedoms and choices to live life however a person chooses to, within the confines of the law, MUST also accept that everyone else, regardless of sex, color or sexual orientation, that live under the same government, should have the same freedoms and choices as you enjoy. Freedom of speech and opinion does not give you the right to use it to deny or suppress another person(s) basic rights and freedoms that you yourself live under.

You are free to have your own personal reasons and opinions against the above matter (usually fear/homophobic), be free to be motivated by prejudice (which never needs a reason!) or free to have your own religious believes (believing that God's will/word is against another person's freedom/choice or liberty is not God's word/will at all but simply your interpretation of the words that were written in a book by someone a long time ago), no matter what the reasons are for you personally to be against or denying someone else the same rights/freedoms/choices as you have is fundamentally wrong! If you cannot recognize or agree with that simple fact, then your let us all hope you are and will always be in the minority.

As for myself, I am not gay nor am I a supporter of the 'gay movement'. I simply see them as ordinary people, living their lives by their choice under the same freedoms and laws I live under. They should be bound by the same freedoms,laws and responsibilities as myself, no more, no less.

Live and let live I say, as the best thing you can do in your life is be of some use.

My 2 cents.


Extremely well put! Your two cents is worth an immeasurable amount to those who are not given the same freedoms as others throughout the world.

Mee too

I am sure that a person suffering under such a regime will be able to print out your comment of immeasurable value and hold it under the noses of the despots, who will doubtless desist immediately and become woolly liberals.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

"everyone else, regardless of sex, color or sexual orientation, that live under the same government, should have the same freedoms and choices as you enjoy": so you would have no objection to a change in the law to enable siblings to marry one another, in either mixed-sex or same-sex situations?

The future

What we need is to turn an unused building into an atheist church where we can have atheist [or non religious] weddings and we need to end the churches monopoly on weddings and marriage. So many non believers have to pretend to have some belief just to get a wedding in a pretty building.

Then we can have equality in every way for same sex, trans, straight, attests and believers. It is not right to have the church as a gateway to human equality. Hell is reserved for people who eat beef or eat pork depending on what religion you follow and we must never allow religion to dictate our freedoms lest we become a sharia state.

Del Boy

"atheist church where we can have atheist [or non religious] weddings"

Rodney. It's called the registry office you plonker


:-D Another good quip.

You can also get married in the castles. Churches don't have a monopoly, they just offer these services, they're not stopping anyone from doing so.

And what if people don't want to get married in an 'atheist' ceremony? Not all non-religious people are atheist, many can't stand the current brand of atheists.

James B

Lets enjoy the life.



Well put Soya, intelligently and courteously put.

To James Wiley

You are seriously living in the dark ages when religion was its strongest as science was in its infancy. If a same sex couple want to get married it has NOTHING to do with the religious cattle - if you can honestly disagree with my statement that religion ALL religon is one of the most destructive forces on this planet then you are deluded. I bet you were disappointed when the Mayan calendar prophecy did not happen last year

Become an atheist you'll really see the truth then

James Wiley

I am not the one seeking to re-define something as something else.

I have absolutely no problem with you wanting to be civil partnered what you do with your life is up to you, you make your own choices and enjoy or suffer the consequences of those choices.

But you cannot be married because marriage is between a man and a woman - even if a government says it is something else, it is not.

Why not just accept that you are different, why try to pretend you are like the majority?

Are you ashamed of being gay?


Curious, Most people would say that marriage is between two people who love each other, not specifically between a "man" and a "woman"....

As in the natural world, if it looks like a Rose and smells like a Rose, it is probably an insect or parasitic plant imitating a Rose.

So, it comes down to how you define "man" or "woman"?

What appears to be a simple question is incredibly hard.

For example, if you say a "man" has "male genitalia ", then what about people with genetically female characteristics (two X chromosomes) that were exposed to higher levels of Testosterone in early embryonic development? These "Women" will develop with Male body characteristics and will be born with male genitalia. Unless they have a test, they are unlikely to know anything is different.

So, Are they women, or Men? Who can they marry?

This is just one example of many different ways that "Man" and "Woman" are not clear cut terms. Gender is not as clear cut in Biology as you assume, and should you wish to look further into the subject, you will see how clouded it is, and that the general terms "male" and "Female" are biologically on a scale and are not two different extremes.

So, if you have a clear definition of what a “Man” or a “Woman” is, and can clarify any examples I provide you (such as a hermaphrodite), then you have a reasonable argument. If you cannot clearly define these two simple terms, then your argument is flawed and perhaps you should look at it again.

Sarah Savage

James, you seem to be stuck in ancient history, the modern world is evolving beyond overbearing religious influence and, I'm afraid, you'll have to evolve with it or risk becoming irrelevant.

Marriage is no longer a tool of ownership, dominance or obedience. Similar to when it evolved from a means of keeping wealth and property within a blood line.

Why not just accept that your views are outdated, why try to pretend you speak for the majority?


Marriage is no longer a tool of anything, which is why one wonders why such a fuss is made about it and the civil partnership buffoonery.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

In real atheism there can be no such thing as "Truth", so you are talking complete and utter tosh...


In real atheism there can be Truth. Atheists can still believe in an afterlife should they wish, as long as there are no gods.

After all, members of the fourth largest religion in the world are Atheists. (Buddhism)

Redlight cyclist

If they are Buddhists then they cannot, by definition, be atheists.


Ok... Are you intentionally being clueless?

Do you actually know what "Atheist" means? No, otherwise you would not have posted that comment.

Cycle Upnoentry

If they are Buddhists then they cannot, by definition, be placed as atheists.

Tibet cyclist pavement

No. I think that you are being clueless, Thirty, in the nicest possible way. Here is why.

Atheisim: a disbelief in the existence of deity.

What does this mean? It means, in simple terms, a belief in a god.

Now,onto Buddhists.

Buddhists believe in higher beings, or deities, which they know as "Devas". Notwithstanding this, they do not worship these "Devas", but they nonetheless acknowledge their elevated status. Buddhism is a wonderful, peaceful religion.

So, putting this into context, we see that Buddhism is a religion which recognises a deity. As such, it is not correct to equate it with a state of atheism.

Atheism is, in effect, a wholly secular state of affairs which neither believes in, nor pays homage to, any ethereal or unseen entity. Atheism is a refusal to recognise any from of deification.

I hope that this helps, old friend! :)


Thank you Tibet, You have explained yourself quite clearly.

I disagree that Buddhists believe in deities. Higher beings? yes, but not Gods. After all, the aim is enlightenment, and would that not make yourself a higher being.

Of course, like any religion, different people, groups or regions will have variations in the central belief, so some individuals may believe in a God.

To quote the Dalai Lama "From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion"

I do agree that the Theravada school of Buddhism does reference to Gods, but they are more like nature spirits or helpful fairies of Germanic folklore than the all powerful entity of other religions. "Gods" is a more generic term than Household gods or simply spirits.

Unfortunately, many people get confused over Atheism, that it means that you do not believe in any thing "Spiritual", clearly we both understand that this is not the case.

Many “psychic phenomenon” investigators, or “ghost” hunters (Depending how they like to be called) are Atheist, but they do what they do because they believe that there may be ethereal or unseen entities.

The point being that Buddhism *is* recognised as a form of Atheism as it does not involve belief in a God, especally one that has influence over human destiny.

One wonders though, why the very strange user name?

Tibet throughredlights

Well, it is a matter of opinion, I guess, Thirty. I would not regard a Buddhist as an atheist, but others (including you it seems) might well do so I suppose.

It is always interesting to see how different people see things in different ways.

The unusual chosen name is a self-indulgence and no more than that.

Best wishes mon vie! :)

Del Boy

James Wiley

"when religion was its strongest as science was in its infancy. "

Science was never "in its infancy" it is what it is and always has been.

Man's understanding of science has simply evolved.


Actually PEOPLE are the most destructive force on this planet, so you really are deluded.

Try and think of a travesty that hasn't involved humans? And let's be honest and admit that most of them aren't religous either, they just claim a religion to use as a cover. Money, land, power,... typical human desires and typically NOT religious desires!

But hey, if you insist on believing that people are what they say they are then yes, you truly are deluded. People lie.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Actually, in the real Dark Ages, Christianity, in Britain, was only preserved in small, isolated monasteries by Celtic monks. The rest of the country was embroiled in the paganism and general barbarism of the invading Saxons and Vikings...

Real Truthseeker

A religious nutter knocked on my door the other day, and usually I tell them what I think straight away, but this time I asked them how many gods they believed in. They said there is only one true god.

Since there are about 4,000 gods which are worshipped in the world, there isn't much difference between this person and I which I clearly pointed out.

They don't believe in 3,999 of them, and me it's 4,000.


I would agree with your observation that there isn't much difference between yourself and a "religious nutter", if some of your posts are anything to go by.

I am sure that you have had a long and fruitful chat over a cup of sour tea and slice of bitter cake.

Non believef

Whats with all this gods will? He dont exist. Get over it. We are all humans who have evolved from apes. We are all different colours creeds etc. Some are straight some are gay. Thats the way the chromosones crumble. There isnt a superior being who created us. Or are you afraid you have beleived in something for so long you look foolish when you realise its just a fairg story.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

"He don't exist"; can you categorically prove that God doesn't exist, in clear and logical English?

Please don't say "because we evolved from apes"; that may simply be the way that God 'programmed' the Universe to develop (i.e. it is not a 'proof' in the non-existence of God.

I eagerly await your proof; good luck!

Parktown Prawn


There is more "proof" to suggest there is no God than there is to suggest there IS one.

Please go ahead and "prove" that he does exist.....

I eagerly await your proof; good luck!

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Parktown Prawn: I never said that I could prove God's existence; come to think of it, I never even claimed that God exists. I simply challenged "NonBelievf"'s categorical claim that God DOES NOT exist, and invited him to prove the claim. The onus is on him, not me.

When you say that there is more "proof" on the side of God's non-existence, what you really mean is "evidence". Evidence does not "prove" anything; it merely allows you to build a case one way or another. If you really did mean "proof", can you give me just one "proof" that God does not exist, that is not simply "evidence", and I'll try to counter it...

Good luck!

Parktown Prawn


I merely used the word "proof" in line with your own post which is why I used quotation marks.

Did you really waste all your time rambling on in your response to ascertain why I used this word when it was obvious what we were talking about?

I only have to give one "proof" against the existence of God because nobody can offer at least 1 "proof" to the contrary. However, I will just give 2 easy ones for small measure....

1) There are no "Pearly Gates", the gateway to heaven, above the clouds. I've flown in many aeroplanes and have never seen them....or God's angels. Also, they have never been captured on any satellite photos.

2) Beneath us is the Earth's crust, mantle then the core.....there is no hell.

Quid pro quo Mjd....


Untrue, clearly you have a very limited interpretation of a 'God'. We don't all believe in a little old man sitting in a chair in the sky :-D

Parktown Prawn

riiiggghhhttttt........if you say so.


That is easy, Mjolnir,

God does not exist.

There is a total lack of evidence to the existence of this.

Ergo, God does not exist.

Now, If you disagree, provide evidence that God does exist. If you have nothing to back up your claim that God exists, then it is not even a theory, it is just a made up imaginary concept.

It is just the same as if I said the invisible flying spaghetti monster is real, and you have to provide evidence that it is not.

James Wiley

In my own life I have found sufficient evidence to believe that there is something beyond my understanding which is governing everything.

I could not begin to define what that something is, but it is enough to know that there is something.

I am content to know that it is beyond my knowledge and I will draw on the thousands of generations of ancestors whose collected wisdom has been passed down through religion.

I know that human perception is limited, that human knowledge is frail and that much of what fifty years ago was thought to be the way forward turned out to be a complete disaster (the Welfare State is a good example).

I know that my fellow man will with the best of intentions make the worst of errors.

If you have not found any evidence of something more than yourself, it is because you have chosen not to look.

Parktown Prawn

James Wiley have NO "proof"!!

.....just ramblings of a weak mind.

"In my own life I have found sufficient evidence to believe that there is something beyond my understanding which is governing everything."

We all know that....but it is not a "god" is the illuminati ;-)

"I am content to know that it is beyond my knowledge and I will draw on the thousands of generations of ancestors whose collected wisdom has been passed down through religion."

The same generations of ancestors whoi thought the sky would fall on their heads or the earth was flat....

You are right certainly is beyond your knowledge!

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

It's not so easy, Thirtysomehing.

Evidence, or lack thereof, is not "proof"; it merely helps you to build a case one way or another.

For example, suppose a computer programmer could build a complex system, using technologies such as "Artificial Intelligence" and 3D Graphics etc., to build a virtual community that was, in effect, 'self-aware' and capable of learning. The characters in this virtual community might start arguing about whether the computer programmer actually existed or not. They might come to the conclusion that there is no real 'scientific' evidence that he or she ever existed, therefore there was no computer programmer. Obviously, as you can see, they would be completely wrong.

Now, if you read my original post, I did not make any claim about whether God does or does not exist; I merely challenged NonBelievf's categorical assertion that God DOES NOT exist.

As for the 'Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster', I don't know if it exists or not. However, it's easy to prove that it is not God. Spaghetti was invented by humans, therefore it could not have initiated the "Big Bang" and brought time, matter and energy into existence. That's easy...

Parktown Prawn


You say..

"As for the ‘Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster’, I don’t know if it exists or not. However, it’s easy to prove that it is not God. Spaghetti was invented by humans"

....but so too was God....invented by humans that is.


James, As Parktown Prawn points out, by limiting your understanding of things does not provide evidence of a God. After all, you have stated here that you do not understand weather or how to predict its movements, but that is not proof of God. After all, other people understand.

I do not profess to know everything, but I do not believe for a moment that the things I don’t know is down to God, I look for answers to my questions, I want to further my understanding.

If you want to continue the "thousands of generations of ancestors whose collected wisdom" has resulted in nothing, then go ahead, refuse to be enlightened. After all, it is these same ancestors that worshiped the sun because they were afraid it wouldn’t appear the following day.

If you do not look for answers to your questions, you will remain in the dark, believing in the impossible.

Science and religion are two sides of the same coin.

Science expects you to use your head for the answers

Religion demands that you believe in fancy tales.



Unless you *can* build a case, there can be no case. Without some evidence, you cannot build the case in the first place..

You asked if I can prove he does not exist, I have.

The burden of proof of existence is not mine. The lack of proof of existence is my case. I have provided the evidence that God does not exist. Anyone wishing to disprove my case has to provide evidence that God does exist.

The Opposite cannot happen, If someone had evidence that God does exist, I could not then claim God did not as the evidence had been provided. I can only try to prove that the evidence is flawed.

The human invention "Spaghetti" was named so, for its uncanny resemblance to the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Except of course, that it is not invisible.


MdJ, I have a Spiderman comic, ergo, Spiderman must exist, too.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

He does!

Marble Comics

The analogy fails because spiderman does not go back thousands of years, does not form the basis of leraned study and does not constitute the background of legal rules and mores.


I think you will find that Spiderman has experienced time travel, The latest of which was in The Amazing Spider-Man 679. So he could have gone back thousands of years.

Is not the phrase "With great power comes great responsibility" spoken to Spider-man in the film by Uncle Ben simply a summary of all governments and kingdoms since time began? And in itself a concept for good law and government.

As for learned study....

Real Truthseeker

Nor does god Marble. As was also invented by the State to control individuals.

Marble Comics

Quite so, RT. But your failure to spot the difference between the one and the other shows that your thought process is not at a particularly advanced stage of development.

Real Truthseeker

Mojliner, we do not gave to prove god doesn't exist. The evidence of proof starts with having proof he does. You can't prove something doesn't exist when there is no evidence that god does exist. This is the whole fallacy about a belief in god.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Real Truthseeker: What do you mean WE 'do not have to prove God doesn't exist'? Are you arguing by committee?

This argument started with 'Non Believf's categorical assertion that God DOES NOT exist. I never made one single assertion as to whether God does, or does not, exist; I merely challenged Non Believf's categorical assertion because i don't believe that it is possible to prove it one way or the other (scientifically speaking).

However, just because it is not possible to prove, or disprove, something using the partial knowledge of ultimate reality, that we call science, does not prove that it doesn't exist; so I disagree with the idea that belief in God is a "fallacy"...

James Wiley

With my undergraduate degree in physics, chemistry and micro-electronic engineering it is quite apparent that something caused the precise conditions for matter to appear spontaneously in a vacuum.

Something then caused a violent explosion at the centre of that matter which spread the matter into what we today call the universe.

Something caused the precise conditions required for humans to evolve - two planets colliding in orbit at precisely the right distance from the sun to create not only increase the mass of the Earth to the required level but also to start the earth's rotation and at the precise angle of incidence to the sun.

And on and on and on

Now whether you choose to call that something God or not, is entirely up to you. The greater our understanding of the world we live in becomes, the clearer it becomes that there is a God.

To expect 'proof' of something that our limited human intellect simply cannot comprehend in its entirety is a ridiculous assertion.

You may already have seen one small part of that something, but like photos taken in extreme magnification you simply cannot tell what it is you are looking at until you pull back and appreciate the object in its entirety.

Like I said there is more than enough proof for me to know that there is something, and I also know that I cannot hope to comprehend what that something is.


Well said, but you're talking to small brains who can only see a 'God' in terms of how it has been defined by religions! Actually, that's a disservice to religions, it is non-religious people that tend to define a God in very limited terms.

Real Truthseeker

If you say something exists, you have to prove it. It is no different for me to say that I believe in unicorns, therefore they must exist until you can prove they do not.

How do you know Jesus wasn't himself gay? There was no record of him being with a woman, and given the times, any contact with a man would have been overlooked. Further, there is no criticism of homosexuality in the New Testament (quite interestingly too I might add!).

They key issue with the existence of a god came from the unification of archaic interpretations of nature (ie: if it rains, we must have a god of rain) and so forth, that was no able to explain.

James: If your's is a christian god - and you believe in the Bible, then there was no Big Bang and Adam and Eve started humanity. So your claptrap about particle theory is about as existential as "unicorn theory". The fact is very simple, and many (all) christians fail to realise, if they believe in a Christian god, they must believe in the Bible, and all it says. You cannot believe in the Big Bang and also a Christian god (lower case intended, due to there being so many different one;s to subscribe too).

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

RT: Why do you say that you can't believe in both the Big Bang and the Christian God? Christianity has always maintained that the universe was created out of nothing (i.e. it had a definite beginning) even when "science" believed in the "Steady State Theory" (i.e. that the Universe has always existed, and didn't have an actual beginning). The Big Bang theory is much closer to the biblical version than the older steady-state theory. It seems that science is gradually catching up with the ancient book...

James Wiley

Well I don't want to go into my personal spiritual beliefs - suffice it to say that I have read most of the holy books from the mahabharrat to the quran and there is much that I would ascribe to (especially in Islam). The major problem with islam is not the quran but the hadiths which are interpretations of the verses made by scholars.

The problem is thus not with the message but when human organisations spring up and warp the message of the books to their own ends. The problem is not in the message but in the flawed human application of that message.

However that exact same problem exists in all structures of 'power' religious, government etc. Power inevitably corrupts.

Wherever one persons allows another to take responsibility away from them there will occur an inevitable abuse - whether by blindly trusting the government with our money, to look after you when you are old, or by placing blind faith in an organised religion.

Fundamentally I do not understand homosexuality, nor will I ever it is an alien thought process to me.

I am told by my gay friends that they are simply attracted to men in the same way I am attracted to women, not that they can know that for sure.

But I am certain that there is a purpose in the greater order of things or would not exist.

One is not better than the other, but they are different.

We humans love to categorise and define things in infinitesimal detail there are birds, then there are finches and then there are 70 or so different species of finches.

There is a patent difference between a hetero-sexual and homo-sexual relationship and I do not see any problem with recognising the obvious.

I do not go out of my way to offend people, I am not reticent to offer my opinion.

If people get offended by what I say then the problem is with them, not me.

Ask yourself why you are offended because there is a spiritual lesson to be learnt there.

Many of the comments on here suggest to me that many homosexuals are seeking validation from others, you should not need that. You answer to God for your actions alone and no one else's opinion matters.

You are the way God made you, so why are you trying to be like everyone else, to be different to His vision for you?

But I still want marriage to remain what it has been for the past thousand years, a union between man and woman.


Your talking about Adam and Eve is way behind the times RT. Christians do actually understand that the Bible was written according to the understanding people had at that time. And of course, back then, the understanding of the universe was limited. As usual you assume to know what Christians believe when clearly you have no idea at all!

Yes, you can easily believe in the Big Bang and a Christian God :-D

@James, you make some fantastic points. I don't understand homosexuality either, but why would I be able to, it's human nature that we cannot understand that which we don't feel ourselves. We can accept it, but accepting it and understanding it are two very different things. Similarly (albeit very trivial) I cannot understand someone enjoying anchovies, because it's not the way I was made.


Interesting comment Si.

So you are saying that the Bible should not be taken literally because it was written in a time when our understanding was limited? If that is the case for the beginnings of the universe then it stands to reason it should also be the case for its attitudes towards marriage. Do you (or James) not agree?

RT makes a good point because you cannot cherry pick parts of the Bible; you choose to believe it to be correct in its entirety or you don’t because the moment you undermine a section of it you bring into question any part of the book and in this case its preaching on marriage.

The other interesting point your comment suggests is that scripture should amended with the times. If you are adapting your beliefs in line with the latest scientific theory or social acceptability then what is the point of the Bible in the first place if it is led and does not lead?

Real Truthseeker

Good point Joker. Si fails to understand that their point proves exactly the problem.

People at the time were unable to explain events like we do now. They would attribute 'god' to a hurricane.

Now we understand events, therefore as Nietzsche puts it: "God is dead".

The Bible is either taken as a whole or not. It is not able to be cherry picked.


Joker, you've intentionally chosen to take a comment out of context and apply it to the whole Bible. That's your choice. I was specifically mentioning Adam and Eve and how that was written from the eyes of people with no scientific knowledge. It doesn't mean that what is written actually changes, just that we don't apply what we know today to it (i.e. a 'day' isn't a day as we understand it today). It also, of course, means understanding that the languages in which it was written had words that don't exist in our language. That doesn't, of course, nullify the gist of what is being imparted to the reader. But that's clearly what you want to believe it to mean.

You can't compare the beginnings of the universe to marriage, quite obviously you can't. Marriage is a social construct, it is 'people-made' as it were.

Nor have I suggested that Scripture should be amended with the times. I'm advocating that you read it with an understanding of the times in which it was written, THAT won't change, those times cannot be altered now that they are past. People choose to read it as though it is solely a religious document so everything in it is too do with Judaism or Christianity, but clearly it reflects the social values of that time, not just the religious ones. It is very sad that some anti-religious people cannot see that, as an agnostic it makes perfect common sense to me that all historic texts are best understood if you have knowledge of society in the period of time they cover or even of the author.

James Wiley

No, that is not true at all RT. They theorised that the Higgs-Bosun Particle existed and then conducted experiments to prove the hypothesis.

It is therefore entirely possible on the face of what evidence is available to theorise the existence of 'God' however it is not yet in our power to conduct conclusive experiments to prove one way or the other whether God exists.

Until that time, my hypothesis remains that God exists, based on the evidence available to me.

In my case I decide what God is to me, I am an adult, I can think for myself.

Children on the other hand need to be given guidance and/or instruction until such time they learn to think and do for themselves.

Just like GCSE Chemistry you are taught many over simplifications, but you learn how to learn so you can go on to study in greater detail and eventually conduct original research.

Did I declare at A Level 'What do you mean electrons are not particles, I have been deceived, I do not believe in Chemistry any more'?

How you relate (or not) to God is simply a sign of your relative level of spiritual enlightenment.

At the moment you seem to be hung up on how other people (some of whom have been dead a long time) relate(d) to God.

The point is that once you have grasped the flawed nature of the over-simplified concepts (as you have) you are then supposed to go on and learn in more depth until you complete original research.

The souls that have attained perfection and transcended are not around to teach you how to follow, so you will have to work it out for yourself.

Maybe not in this life, maybe not in the next, but hopefully eventually.

Jesus and Mohammed are both pretty insightful sources of spiritual inspiration I find.



That’s where we disagree. I don’t think it’s possible to take anything from the Bible out of context; in for a penny in for a pound. Every time a follower decides to pick and choose parts of the Bible the religion fragments into a new one. Which one of the almost infinite versions is correct I ask you? The one that believes in Adam and Eve, or the modernised version where Adam and Eve is nonsense but the bit about gay marriage is right?

“You can’t compare the beginnings of the universe to marriage”

I’ll agree the two are different phenomena but that’s not the point. The point is they are both opinions, or “gists” as you put it, of the Bible. One is an opinion as to how the universe began the other an opinion about how marriage is constructed. When they were written they were both equally specific and to be taken at equal value by the reader. The opinion of Adam and Even has been discredited. So that leaves the question whether the opinion on marriage should also be discredited?

“Marriage is a social construct, it is ‘people-made’ as it were.”

And as if to prove my point above. Your statement contradicts with James’ opinion who says “Marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, how is it possible for homosexuals to be married? That would be counter to God’s laws.”

I ask then is it God’s law or ‘people made’? Again to avoid confusion your answer may want to stick to the script. That may sound facetious but proves my original point about discretion undermining the Bible and maybe its attitude toward marriage.

“…but clearly it reflects the social values of that time, not just the religious ones. It is very sad that some anti-religious people cannot see that”

I won’t go into the blatant hijacking of social morals by the Church to call them their own, that’s for another day. More relevant is that it would be even more sad is if we did not question these opinions, because if we didn’t we’d still be burning heretics at the stake. Admittedly allowing gays to marry is a little less contentious but the point is the same.



As I've posted on another thread, what YOU claim to be people taking the Bible out of context or picking and choosing what they follow isn't actually that.

There is the old covenant and the new covenant. If you don't understand that then it's no wonder you think people are picking and choosing what to believe. But they aren't, it is just that you don't know enough about the Bible to realise that.

Also, a lot of time passed between the writing of the various verses you are trying to compare :-D

And then of course there are commands (which are obvious) and there are what are clearly history stories written at a time when little was known about the universe.

I think maybe you need to head back to school, because failure to understand that shows you to have little intelligence.


“As I’ve posted on another thread, what YOU claim to be people taking the Bible out of context or picking and choosing what they follow isn’t actually that.”

Oh forgive me. I wasn’t aware that absolutely none of the Bible, or the Koran for that matter, teachings were under dispute (aka cherry picking) from their own theists? That’s why all followers agree on the allowance of women priests for example, no one is in a fit about that at all are they. By the way you might want to read your earlier threads again; I didn’t say PEOPLE were taking the Bible out of context, you said I was taking it out of context. If you don’t understand the difference I suggest you head back to school with me and I’ll see you in comprehension class!

“Also, a lot of time passed between the writing of the various verses you are trying to compare ”

Agreed. So my point was; how much time need pass before the opinion of gay marriage in the Bible is no longer considered relevant? In fact how much time need pass before all of it is considered irrelevant apart from the nebulous statements like some of the Commandments about not murdering which was stolen from inherent human morals anyway?

I’d say those that question the originality and legitimacy of Bible are the ones showing intelligence. They are the people who we need to thank for people no longer being stoned for adultery etc

Real Truthseeker


Alan B

Soya - most eloquently and fairly put.

For those of a religious nature, such as James Wiley, perhaps 'love thy neighbour' should be your underlying theme, rather than words of damnation.

This is one story of how the wielding of religious judgement does effect your fellow humans -

For those those referring to a religious book, remember you are being highly selective in the items you choose to use in modern society... there are many stories and values from the book that speak of questionable morals......selling your daughter or giving her to a man, etc, etc... too many to add here.

As said before me, marriage predates religion... what is being asked for is equality in society for a significant minority - just as society now accepts gender and racial equality. Will gay marriage really have a negative impact on society or you as a religious individual? There is no founded evidence to prove that there will be - in fact the evidence is completely the opposite.

Remember the facts....1 in 10 people are gay...yes, even in Jersey and 'marriage' predates religious marriage. The governments job is to take the moral high ground for all its citizens.

And for the true Jersey folk, think how much revenue will be generated by gay marriage events....the return of investment will be significant.

James Wiley

The government is not, never has been and never will be the 'moral guardian', each person is responsible for their own moral standards.

What is the evidence you have to suggest that marriage pre-dates religion?

1 in 10 people may or may not be gay, I'm not really that interested in what other people choose to do with their time.

Let them be gay, let them have the same civil rights. Some may call a vow between two women 'a marriage', but that does not make it so, nor will it ever and no government can change the fact of the matter.

Sarah Savage

Is it just me picturing James Wiley as a child putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "lalalalalaaa" loudly in the hope that same sex marriage will magically disappear?

Great fun

Yes, it is just you, I am afraid. I would also imagine that your unwillingness to hear the views of others renders your own fingers somewhat soiled with ear-wax.



James makes many perfectly good points and certainly doesn't give off any vibe of being anti-homosexuality, far from it.

I agree with his comments about validation. If everything is the same in the law then what is the issue about needing 'marriage'? It is just a word after all. And if homosexuals get marriage, thus removing civil partnership altogether (I assume, since there would be no need for it) then you can bet your bottom dollar that in 10 years time there will be homosexuals fighting for the reinstatement of civil partnerships because marriage is 'an outdated institution' :-D

Basically we can't win, whatever we do minority groups always want the opposite.

Also, I am far from convinced that anywhere near 1 in 10 people is homosexual, I only ever hear that stat from homosexuals and it's usually obnoxious ones trying to tell me that because I won't wear their latest 'badge' that I must be a closet gay!

Marriage is a word, it has a definition, if you trace it back it relies on there being people of opposite sex. Who cares? Why should we change the meaning of a very old word for any group of people, minority OR majority? If it is to change naturally then let that happen, don't force it.

The future

The same arguments being used to exclude gay people from the having the ability to marry have been used before.

These same arguments have been used to prevent women from having equality and to enslave other races, to justify ethnic cleansing and oppression.

Sadly it is the uneducated religouse masses who allow themselves to be led into oppressing others human rights and the educated atheists who stand up to protect humanity against them.

Some people think it is right, not only to judge how someone else chooses to live but also to prevent them making vows of love to another human being because they know which is the right god and what he wants.

It is the free thinkers who have to stop these delusional individuals from oppressing the members of our society they would deem to be sinners or of a lower value.

Thank god for the atheists.

Peter Pinker

Quite so. The uneducated masses use relatively unsophisticated means to pour scorn upon human rights.

They lack the undergraduate background which allows the more learned to spot the close resemblance between human rights zeal and jack-booted regimes; they cannot readily discern the striking similarities between "do gooding" socialism (forced upon the unwilling by the human rights trump card) and the less savoury aspects of coercive religious missionary works. They are not able to vocalise the correspondence between social legislation and thought police.

They may well have an insight into future unrest, but they will not be equipped to express the same, far less to deal with the onslaught of their aggressive, self-appointed betters.

That said, the clumsily expressed points of view which these uneducated "religiouse" (sic) masses hold might well contain elements of the above, if only they were allowed to voice their opinion. But, with all of these human rights being held above their heads, it looks likely that those of us who know better will continue to suppress their opinion and to take advantage of their perceived lack of educucation.

The future

It is the secular who use the human rights trump card to stop religions killing each other. The secular protect the rights of religion, in return religion only seeks to force it's beliefs and habits on the secular.

It is right for humans to be able to live any way they choose that does not harm themselves or anyone else. Sharia law, Orthodox Jewish Law and Christian Fundamentalism think they have the right to influence the lives of secular people.

Peter Pinker

On the contrary, they use the human rights trump card to invade other countries, breaching international law and causing countless deaths.

Human rights is the new religion and the missionaries continue to plunder the beliefs and traditions of others in its name.

If the secular seek to protect religion, then they should perhaps vocalise this a little more, instead of expressing intolerance and bigotry, all in the name of the new, secular, religion that is human rights.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Now I've heard it all: atheists are the only people who have been educated and ALL religious believers are the "uneducated masses". LOL are you kidding? You are obviously lacking something in the education department yourself, to make such a crass statement.

BTW it's funny how all "Free Thinkers" have identical opinions on a whole raft of issues; don't you think? I detect an element of brainwashing in there somewhere...

The future

I am off to the Kumbh Mela the biggest gathering of human beings on the planet where 70 million devotees go every 12 years to bathe and wash away their sins.

No brain washing here, no uneducated masses, I imagine the free thinkers who regard this as a habitual religouse fervour are the brainwashed ones. Christianity is not the most popular religion on earth just the one we have locally and no better or worse than the rest.


You also used the word 'All'.


They have equality in the law so there is no issue. It's nothing like inequality for women, women are (in Jersey) still legally lower than men in some areas. Homosexuals have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, ergo no problem.

If what you're arguing is that a minority group should have the right to change the meaning of a word then I would argue that no-one has that right, it isn't a 'human right' to change the meaning of a word, so there is no inequality there.

I suspect strongly that much of this argument for gay marriage is about homosexuals having the right to adopt. In which case frankly I don't give a hoot about the rights of the couple, the rights I care about are that of the child!


But, Si. Has the meaning of the word "Marriage" already been changed a number of times? Why should the meaning now be fixed in accordance to your tastes? Even the meaning of the word "Gay" as changed in the last fifty years from being "happy".

The Romans and Greeks had same sex marriages and they pre-date the Christian bastardisation of the word. Why do you accept that change but refuse to accept either further change or a return to its correct meaning?


And their non-Roman/Greek peers defined marriage as having multiple wives, so marriage itself had no specific definition back then. The root of the word itself also suggests the purpose is to have children so I guess we shouldn't allow couples where there isn't going to be a mother to get married.

The word 'gay' did have another meaning added but, as per my point, that happened naturally, people didn't sit down and introduce laws that said "As of now the word gay has an extra meaning."

My girlfriend and I often refer to each other as husband and wife, but we're not married. Girl/boyfriend sounds a bit childish and partner sounds too business-like. But we're no different to a married couple, we've committed to each other for life. Being secure in your relationship is what matters.


Thirtysomething, it's not as simple as you want to make it. Marriage has a legal definition and that would need to be changed (it's not just about adding an alternative definition into the OED). That's one step, but then you have other laws that involve marriage, things like adultery, annulment, consummation etc. All of those (and I'm sure there will be some I haven't thought of) also specify a man and a woman. They would all have to be changed. That's more work than you think, and all the while homosexuals can enter a civil partnership and have equality under the law with heterosexual couples.

These laws are ones for changing on a 'rainy day', not at a time like now when there are still actual inequalities in Jersey law.


Ella, I don’t believe it is simple, but just because it may be difficult, does it make it right to ignore?

I admit that I wasn’t aware that there were laws for adultery or consummation, but if the law openly discriminates between sexes in annulments or any other law in relation to Marriage then this should be looked at and removed?


Marriage did have a definition back before Christianity, it simply wasn’t defined as how you define it now, but as a contract between two people. There was nothing in it about children at all.

Just as "gay" has changed meaning, why can "marriage" not change meaning - again. Just because the law states it is one thing, it does not meant that it cannot change to say another, after all the law used to say that women could not vote, or Black people either, That changed. Why not marriage?


Nice of thisisjersey to resurrect this bit of nostalgia from 10 years ago.

Wat a minute. What? They're STILL sorting this out?

Why do people care what other get up to? If two people want to get married then let them get on with it.

We should be past this and onto making sure that singles and the not married get equal rights and privileges.

Im a bit "Special"

What about a law being passed for me to marry

"My little Pony"?

Who!could pass up the long flowing blonde hair,big eyes & fluttering eyelashes?

Can you think of anything cuter?

Just think of the saving on the enviroment to.

Off to the shops on my little pony.

Mythology maybe a head of me though.

Just look at those couple of Phillys in the greek Yogurt advert.

So what do you say? In favour? yay or neigh!

Pony trap

It's as normal as what we see here.


How will your pony consent or say "I do"?

Or are you just horsing around?

Man called horse

No, a horse can nod. It consents to eating or to being ridden. I don't see how marriage would be any different.


But would it lead to a stable relationship?


James Wiley,

Well said squire.

Who is man to redefine marriage. Who defined it in the first place? Like it or not marriage was first defined by God in the bible as the union between one man and one woman.

However whether you are a Christian or not the argument against redefining marriage can also be summarised as follows.

Marriage is unique:

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father

No need to redefine:

Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Profound consequences:

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

However there are also other reasons, all perfectly valid.

Just as an aside, 633,528 people have signed up to the coallition for marriage petition (whereby marriage is left alone and not redefined). There is also a coalition for equal marriage petition. This currently has 65,221 people signed up. Now I'm not a politician but shouldn't the politicians agree with the majority in this case. The numbers are overwhelming, marriage does not need to be redefined!

I suspect some people will rant and rave about this post and that is your choice of course.I just wanted to present a reasoned argument.


Real Truthseeker

No Craig - as usual, zealots re-interpret fact. The fact is the States invented marriage for the sole purpose of guarding royal wealth and also that of aristocracy. It was initially illegal for lower class to marry. Further, the church at the time was not involved, and in fact against marriage (like most things, it took them about a hundred years to get on board).

So your comment about god inventing marriage is wrong - the State did.

I wont' even begin to go on about how the State invented god for the sole purpose of keeping the working class under control given there were more of them than the wealthy, and to hold back an uprising without arms, utilised god to keep them under control So god was also invented by the State, but will leave that for another day...

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Sorry Craig, do you not know that anyone who disagrees with the views of the authoritarian, politically-correct, Liberal-Left consensus is, by definition, devoid of all reason.

It's off to the re-education camp for you...


Typical. Someone presents fact to a (presumed) theist and they retort by saying the person presenting the fact is unreasonable.

Real Truthseeker


Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Eh? I wasn't saying that I thought he was unreasonable unreasonable; I was saying that the Liberal-Left amongst us would still find him unreasonable simply because he disagrees with them. Irony? Oh never mind...


Oh, sorry! Although can’t see how you came to that conclusion, hence missing the irony. I though RT was informing Craig on the fact of how marriage was invented not whether he agrees or disagrees with liberalism.

Real Truthseeker

Yes joker - you are correct.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

No, Real Truthseeker, Joker was incorrect. He or she completely misinterpreted my comment; and so did you by the sound of it...

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Sorry, Joker: yes, you were correct in what you said about Craig's post. But because he concluded with: "I suspect some people will rant and rave about this post and that is your choice of course.I just wanted to present a reasoned argument." I just wanted to point out to him that his comment, though quite obviously based on reason, will be seen as 'unreasonable' by some people simply because it contradicts the liberal-left consensus. That's the way it works with these kinds of issues...



I would be inclined to agree with your latest comment had Craig not also said this:

“Like it or not marriage was first defined by God in the bible as the union between one man and one woman”

That is a false statement and therefore no basis from which to “present a reasoned argument”.

You may disagree with RT’s style of approach but RT cannot be accused of contradicting the liberal left consensus when Craig’s statement is nonsense.


Craig, the Bible makes it quite clear that people were married by virtue of becoming one with each other physically. It was the state that actually created the need for us to sign a bit of paper.

You are right though that certain branches of Mormons could then seek to change the meaning of the word marriage to suit them... and on it will go, because everyone thinks it's something to do with a 'human right' when clearly it actually isn't at all, it's just a word.


Totally agree with this post. Well said.


Gods or god don't exist, there was a big bang a splitting of matter and universes were born. Universes not just heaven and earth. If it was gods will that we evolved from apes, why does the bible say he created man and the beasts? Most people were not very bright 2000 years ago if Dynamo the magician was around then,he would probably be a god. I believe more in acient aliens than god. Virtually every civilisation going back to 4500 bc believe in people coming from the stars. They were not god. But could explain all the fairy stories regarding the religions around the world. Don't get me wrong. Christianity has some very good moral ways to live your life in peace and harmony. But to say there is a god which allows wars famine poverty and natural destruction to kill his creation without showing himself, well he ain't much of a god to worship is he? He don't exist if he is a he.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

You say God does not exist: do you know this as an absolute certainty?

The Big Bang did not involve a "splitting of matter" because matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang (neither did time nor energy); nothing physical existed...

The only known universe is this one; belief in "other universes" is pure speculation.

It is not known, as an absolute certainty, that we evolved from apes; and, even if we did, why would it be impossible for God to have chosen this way to bring us into being? The bible was never intended to be a scientific handbook.

You say that "most people were not very bright 2000 years ago". Are you sure about that? Considering that the whole of our civilisation is built upon the the ideas and knowledge that were passed down from ancient Greece and Rome (as well as from ancient Judaism), that statement is obviously ludicrous...


Mjolnir, Just for your reference, two scientific errors in your argument.

"The only known universe is this one; belief in “other universes” is pure speculation."

Actually, no. There is a growing portfolio of evidence of other universes, one such example is the background radiation, this would have been uniform unless outside pressure from other universes affected it. The study of this particular field is barely even a decade old, so it is understandable that you was not aware of it, unless your interested in it.

"It is not known, as an absolute certainty, that we evolved from apes"

This is a common error as it is easier to explain this way than the correct way. No one with any understanding in evolution would say that we evolved from apes. We did not, and that is an absolute certainty.

What is known is that we evolved from ape like creatures and share the same ancestors as apes, but apes also evolved from the same creature we did. In fact, humans are still evolving, Both Alcohol tolerance and lactose tolerance genes can be tracked back to originating within Europe before spreading out over the world.


It’s not that people weren’t bright 2000 years ago it’s because they didn’t have access to the vast amounts of information and knowledge we have today. Now that most of the world can access practically all there is to know about all we know, the Bible and other scripture seems outdated in its attempt to explain our existence or why we behave in certain ways.

If scripture stuck to loose philosophy, e.g. be kind to thy neighbour etc, it would have aged well. Because someone thought they’d preach their beliefs on specific matters e.g. gays cannot marry, the whole book is discredited when we now know that people are born gay and if they are born gay then surely God meant it to be that way.

No one can confirm for sure there is no God. However there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is, in the same way there is no evidence for the Loch Ness Monster. Furthermore the scripture relied on to spread his word can be completely discredited by simple logic. Based on the lack of evidence and that the scripture isn’t sound there probably isn’t any point worrying about upsetting God.


And yet the Bible is still incredibly spot on in teaching us about human nature. So it's not outdated at all, there is much to be learnt from it. You just need to understand it (as most Christians do) in the context of when it was written.

People get all uptight saying "the Bible allowed stoning" etc. Do they ever listen to themselves? That was society back then, it wasn't just religion, the Bible simply reflects the society of that time.

Still, if you read the Bible and compare it to people today it shows you clearly how little humans have changed in their nature. The Prodigal Son and all the other stories stand very true in today's society.


As I said in my response to #16 comment above Si, if the Bible simply reflects what is acceptable in society then what is the point of it? It is letting the tail of society wag the dogma (pun intended) rather than teaching society how to act. Perhaps the same should be done for marriage now?

You may think the Bible is incredibly spot on but all it does is observe behaviour, much like a psychologist would do today. The Bible cannot be credited for making humans care for each other, human kindness was hardwired into our evolution long before the Bible was written. Once you remove the credit for these fundamentals you are left with fillers on attitudes and teachings toward marriage and stoning, which apparently can be ignored.


However joker it does point the way. If mankind were more evolved and not so self centred, there would be no need to have lists of to do's and not to do's.


Quick Question, is it ok to be Gay (according to the Bible) and just not marry or...?

handle on reality

i am a gay person in a gay relationship with a straight child. (and i know that will shock some of you as i have had many an argument where people think my child will grow up gay but as someone has already pointed out even straight people have gay children!) My child is the happiest, caring and loving little human i have ever met and i put this down to the fact that they no nothing of discrimination as everything is open and honest in thier life. there is no such thing as racsism, homophobia, or any other kind of hate in my childs world and that is how it should be. those of you against are unfortunatly living in the past and need to keep your sometimes hurtful comments to yourslves. everyone is entitled to thier opinion but there is such a thing as common decency among each other and its about time we all showed each other some respect.


You assume that heterosexual couples raise their children with racism, homophobia etc. What a shocking assumption to make. Maybe your child is just happy because you care for it properly, or it could even be partly genetic, I doubt it has anything to do with your sexuality!


He's either very sheltered or somewhat bigoted- it's difficult to tell which one.


Real Truthseeker and Nonbeliever. Thank you for your responses. If I'm honest I didn't quite see these as sucessful (or at times understandable) counter arguments to the redefinition of marriage but thanks nonetheless.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise, I am more than happy to be categorised as politically incorrect on this basis...


Being politically incorrect is a sign of backbone and character. Spineless people fall in with the safe, "right on" views- free thinkers, leaders and other independent strong characters express their own thoughts without looking over their liberal shoulders.

David Rotherham

I hope Jackie is trolling with her tongue in her cheek. Too much depends on particular context for political incorrectness to be a sign of anything, but it is more associated with oafish louts lacking integrity, than positive qualities, by and large.

Blackboard Dustette

I don't think so. I think that she speaks a lot of sense. It seems that she has hit a nerve, David.


I hope that David is trolling with his tongue in his cheek.

Too much depends on particular context for political correctness to be a sign of anything, but it is more associated with oafish louts lacking integrity, than positive qualities, by and large.


You present an interesting use of the word, "trolling", David.

Your choice of that word shows two things. First of all, you do not agree with my comment.

The second thing which it shows is that you don't think that my commentary should count as an opinion, hence your misuse of the word, "trolling".

My response to your remark is that you should learn to be less intolerant of the rights of others and of their freedom to express an opinion. I had hoped that the type of bigotry which your message conveyed had been consigned to history, but this sadly does not appear to have been the case.

I reiterate my earlier comment and I thank you for your contribution.

The rights gestapo

Well, what you find is that people who like to ram the "rights" message home only do so when the "rights" correspond with what they think that "rights" are.

So, as we see here, the right to be politically incorrect, or even to speak of such heresy, should be suppressed at all costs because the right to do so is not recognised as a "right" by those who like to preach the new religion.

David Rotherham

Some "straw man" attacks on things I didn't and wouldn''t say here. More like own goals than points scored off me, I think.

Jackie and Ben must just meet a very different selection of people to me. While the politically correct thing sometimes descends into indefensible silliness, it is at least rooted in respect and goodwill. Deliberate incorrectness can be funny in jest, but it is generally an expression of arrogance and discourtesy. If you hold those up to be values a man should aspire to, then I have no guilt about despising you.


Straw man argument, David? No, not at all. Look up the meaning of the phrase, please.

I posted a comment regarding political correctness and its more sterile antithesis. You posted the following response:

"I hope Jackie is trolling with her tongue in her cheek. Too much depends on particular context for political incorrectness to be a sign of anything, but it is more associated with oafish louts lacking integrity, than positive qualities, by and large."

My second comment addressed your somewhat intolerant response. It was both direct and relevant.

If anything, it is your response which might have been somewhat off the point, with its overtones of intolerance.

Perhaps your awareness of that goes some way to explain your ready misuse of the "straw man" desciption; after all, that is a term which could be attributed to the way in which you responded to my contribution. I would imagine that a slightly broader outlokk and a less intolerant approach to the views of others might be in order.

Thank you for your contributions.


David, you use words like "trolling", "straw man" and most tellingly, you speak of "despising" another.

And all because others express an opinion that you don't agree with.

Can you not see a bit of a paradox between your expressions of hatred and the matter of rights that you seem so keen to promote? Is it not the case that you exemplify the despotic side of the rights industry and the power base that its advocates seek to create?

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Well said Jackie; there is still sanity out there after all...

Straw Men

I should imagine that Jackie and Ben do meet a different cross section of people, David. The people they come across probably live and work in the real world, rather than occupy some sort of (il)liberal oddity of a parallel universe.


Thank you, Monsieur. I salute you.

My comment seems to have raised the indignation of a puritan, so it is good to hear that some, like your kind self, appreciate free thought and the freedom of expression that our forefathers have fought so hard to achieve.

It is most important to stand fast against those who would act as self-appointed, neo-religious censors! :)

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Good for you! I am more than happy to be categorised as "Politically Incorrect" on every one of today's pet issues...


Being politically incorrect is cool, better than following the wet crowd.


Being a politically incorrect is a sign of backbone and character.

Spineless people fall in with the safe, “right on” views- free thinkers, leaders and other independent strong characters express their own thoughts without looking over their liberal shoulders.

Those concerned with "rights" like to stifle this view, because their idea of "rights" only extends to those things with which they agree.


The thing that is quite clear from the responses here and my own life experiences is that those who believe in god (oh dear I didn't capitalise the word, strike me down)are some of the most narrow minded, intolerant, judgmental, condescending people you could ever not wish to meet.

If there is a god I'm sure he/she must be so proud of you all and the work you are doing to spread the word. Haha.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

That's a very judgmental thing to say, coming from such a completely non-judgmental person...


Oh the you ever stop for a breath?

Thankyou for proving my point.

The Thinker

It seems to my mind that it is only a few years ago that some people were up in arms when the Law changed to allow consenting adults of the same gender to engage in sexual activity legally.

As a Society we have moved very rapidly, and it would appear too rapid for some. What is it about sex that has the Church so concerned. Certainly in recent years all that seems to be debated by the Church of England is women clergy, women bishops, gay bishops, same sex marriage and yet the principle doctrine of the Church is treat people equal without fear or favour. If the Church could get over its obsession with sex it would be respected by far more people.

(Oh and did anybody else see the glaring misspelling of marriage on the BBC News last night!)


It's only the 'established' Church, you know the ones the BBC go to for quotes etc. (They can't go to real churches cause they won't get the vitriol that they are so desperate to air). The real churches that people attend out of choice rather than obligation tend not to care what other people do in their private lives.

Do remember though that equal does NOT mean 'the same'. That is a mistake that most of our society make. Having male bishops doesn't mean that to have equality for women there must also be female bishops. It might do, but it's not automatic!

Society really need to start learning what are actually human rights (getting your own way isn't one) and what is actually inequality. Too many of the examples we are given of 'a human right' or 'inequality' are nothing of the sort, they just reflect someone throwing their toys out of the pram cause they aren't getting their own way.

I Pasdenom

I'd really like to see legal marriages to be between consenting adults regardless of gender; I can see no argument against this.

If people want the blessing of their Church surely they can do this, without any need for legal recognition, and therefore I think it would be best for everybody if Churches were not allowed to legally marry people.

Separate all the legal formality and recognition from religion of any flavour.

Then if the religious types have any problem with who may or may not be legally


One person's view of what is right is different from another's. Some may want a right to be married to more than one partner at any one time for example. Are their rights to be denied, or are all to be equal under the law? What about other groups?


I do think if we are going to redefine a word (allegedly in the name of equality) then to be truly equal we do have to redefine it to allow polygamy.

I Pasdenom


"One person’s view of what is right is different from another’s..."

I have never heard any valid argument against equality.

Equality as a starting point, and then people's different views can normally be accommodated.

"...Some may want a right to be married to more than one partner at any one time for example. Are their rights to be denied, or are all to be equal under the law?..."

Equal, I don't think I've ever argued otherwise.

"...What about other groups?"

What other groups? Present them and I bet they can all be accommodated if they accept equality.


I can see the logic in your point, but marriage amongst heterosexuals is still a legal contract (just like civil partnerships) and it makes perfect sense that two birds are killed with one stone if people are religious and want the legal aspect of the ceremony to take place in a church. Nothing that I'm aware of currently prevents civil partnership ceremonies from having a religious blessing within the ceremony.

There is nothing religious about the document that heterosexuals sign when they get married!

I Pasdenom


"...There is nothing religious about the document that heterosexuals sign when they get married!"

I know, which is why I don't think the priest/vicar should preside over it.

I fully understand that they will have the recognized authority to do so traditionally, but unless they accept they can't pick and chose who they marry legally, then they shouldn't have the right to marry anybody.

Full separation of the Churches from the legal side of marriage can only be a good thing if they don't wish to be inclusive.

" makes perfect sense that two birds are killed with one stone..."

I agree it's easier, but maybe if the two things were completely separate people would consider harder whether they really want both, which surely would be better for everyone.


If a couple of gay guys want to throw the gayest, most fabulous wedding of all time, the only way it should offend you is if you weren’t invited

No thanks

I think that I would be more offended if I were invited!


I can't see that somehow... Especially if it were to someone's wedding that you know and love.

No thank you

Quite. You can't see it. But think a little harder and the point might dawn.

Alan B

For those declaring 'the end of the world is nigh' due the coming of gay marriage , you should look to those societies that have this abomination already in and see the detrimental impact it is having there.

These include Canada, Argentina, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, South Africa .... parts of the US, Brazil. Here is my data feed:

.... of these societies and countries are still functioning .... what a surprise!

Please be aware of the facts before jumping to ill founded, prejudiced and bigoted conclusions that are based on a here-say from religious or society leaders.

Gay people don't want special treatment - we just want to be treated equally and get on with our own lives.

Congrats to the England and Wales on voting for equal marriage rights. This is another step forward in ridding society of prejudice. People will look back in a couple of years and wonder what the fuss was about! Will you be one of them?

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

I think there will be problems to come. Not because of the fact of allowing gay people to marry but because the forces of Political Correctness will not rest there. They will most surely mobilise against churches that refuse to participate. Although the government has said that religious groups do not have to perform religious gay marriage services, if they do not wish to, I'm pretty sure that various PC pressure groups will argue that that is blatant 'discrimination' which should be outlawed. The only possible outcome will be an attempt to force Christianity to change it's fundamental doctrines (perhaps not too difficult where the CofE is concerned) or be outlawed. And I'm not saying that it will be gay people who will be pushing in that direction; the forces of Political Correctness are many and varied, and gay rights is only one of their pet issues.

I Pasdenom

Mjolnir de Jersiaise,

"...the forces of Political Correctness will not rest there..."

Would you have used the same argument to fight against civil rights for uppity negros in years gone by, or to prevent the weaker sex being given the vote?

I think you're misunderstanding the issues surrounding and differences between Political Correctness and Human Rights/equality.

"...I’m pretty sure that various PC pressure groups will argue that that is blatant ‘discrimination’ which should be outlawed..."

You may be right, and those PC pressure groups have something of a point; but anybody who does not agree with the Church (of whichever flavour) has the right to join another, or even start their own.

Religion is a personal choice, and shouldn't be pressured into breaking with it's beliefs by the State; of course that's a two-way street, and the Church has to accept it can no longer have any legal authority to grant marriages at all, unless they truly inclusive.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

I Pasdenom: No, I don't really see a comparison with the 'Negros' issue; they were being seriously persecuted and inhumanely suppressed and things really had to change. Since homosexual behaviour was legalised, and then they were given rights to participate in civil partnerships society has pretty much acquiesced and nobody could honestly say that gay people were being seriously persecuted anymore. It's a mystery to me why it should be so important for them to so urgently need the law changed to permit them to 'marry'.

I do see a difference between 'Human Rights' and 'Political Correctness' in that 'Political Correctness' is a malign force, a form of 'soft' Fascism, which seeks to browbeat society into accepting the liberal-left consensus. I believe that its ultimate objective is to severely weaken, or preferably eradicate, Christianity. Unfortunately 'Human Rights' is often used by PC as tool manipulate people's sense of guilt.

I must say I find your last comment interesting: Why should it be that "the Church has to accept it can no longer have any legal authority to grant marriages at all, unless they truly inclusive"? I gay people can be married in other places, such as registry offices', why should the church be forced to be 'truly inclusive'? If people are happy to be married according to the church's rules and traditions, then surely they should be allowed to have that choice; if other people don't like the church's way, surely they will be free to choose a registry office. If I said that registry offices should no longer be permitted authority to grant marriages unless they go by church law, you would presumably be outraged. Your comment was truly Fascist in character, and illustrates, to me, the way things are likely to develop in the future...

Bsc (sociology)

Groups who have suffered some kind of persecution, whether perceived or actual, will carry on complaining even in the face of others accepting and accommodating them.

The usual pattern of behaviour is not to acknowledge this acceptance and accommodation, but to push ever harder for more and more rights and special treatment.

When, inevitably, other people find this nuisance tiresome, then those abrasive groups who have pushed for the ever increasing rights can resume their persecution argument. So it goes full circle.


I agree, Mjolnir de Jersiaise. The "wishy washy" brigade tells us that churchmen will be allowed to follow their religious beliefs and will be free to decline to officiate over this type of wedding.

I foresee that this promise will not be kept and that any rector or canon who does decline to act will be pilloried, hectored or otherwise bullied. In time, the law will no doubt be quietly changed in order to force a reluctant churchman to duly comply.

There is already case-law in the UK where a registrar has been told that his religious beliefs count for nothing; it is only a matter of time before the clicking of heels is heard and the "goose-stepping liberals" direct their sanctimonious attentions to the theologists- a move which will closely parallel occurrences of sevemty years ago.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Yes Francis, I couldn't agree more.