conciencious objections in the workplace, what to do?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, where does this notion of God not recognising the marriage come from?

From the fact that I make no commitment to God, nor do I make the Christian notion of a commitment to my wife.

Don't Christians view marriage as life long commitment based on Christian principles between you, your wife, and God? If I'm not doing this how am I being married in the Christian sense of the word?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

From the fact that I make no commitment to God, nor do I make the Christian notion of a commitment to my wife.

The comitment to God has little to do with it being a legitimate marriage. As for the commitment to your wife, well thats your business. We go through the legal ceremony etc so that the marriage commitment cannot be broken willy nilly. Its why the 'marriage of the hearts' is not practical as a proof of commitment in a society such as ours. Although I don't actually believe a marriage ceremony, legal or religious, is required to be truly married. It is most certainly required as a practical tool to leitimise marriage in our society.

Don't Christians view marriage as life long commitment based on Christian principles between you, your wife, and God?

Not that I'm aware of. I believe most Christians would recognise a marriage conducted outside of Christianity as still a marriage. At the most basic level, marriage is a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman. Whether you are hindu or whatever, its still a legitimate marriage, the ceremony of which will have been carried out in good faith. Of course, the behaviour of those within the marriage can undermine it etc, but thats to do with the individuals. If they declare their commitment to each other by answering positively to the relevant questions, then the registrar\solemniser grants their wish in good faith. Only the individuals (and God of course), will know if they are honest. Of course, a Christian will argue that like with all of life, a marriage (not wedding) with God in it will be more fulfilled than one without. Understanding Gods purpose for marriage etc helps us understand and achieve the potential marriage offers us. In essence though, God does not need to be involved for it to be a legitimate marriage.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I believe most Christians would recognize a marriage conducted outside of Christianity as still a marriage.

A Christian marriage or just a social form of marriage?

If it is the latter then who decides what is or isn't a marriage? I mean if you aren't going to engage in a Christian marriage then what does it matter what type of non-Christian marriage it is?

A marriage is defined by a man and a woman in Christianity. Lots of other things are defined in a marriage in Christianity. If you are not getting married in the Christian sense then these obviously no longer hold.

So why hold some people to the Christian notion of marriage based on the man and woman principle, but not others to other Christian notions of marriage?

oisindoyle

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not going to get into the 'Where will it stop' territory, as I think its the most lazy of reasoning. However, I'll ask the following.

Is it ok for a christian to perform a gay marriage/union ceremony?

Ive read most of the above pages and some has desended into a bit of OTT ness if there is such a thing !!

My points to the OP are these...

Firstly,the proposed Civil Partnership Bill is NOT marriage (unfortunately) ,so please make it clear .

We in the Rep of Ireland do not have gay marriage,unlike some other european countries.

Secondly ,all the objectors to this CP Bill come mainly from religious groups. .Now I respect peoples beliefs BUT religion has NOTHING to do with civil law .I object to people trying to impose their religious views on others ,they have no right to do so .

Thirdly ,If you (OP) are a Christian shouldnt you live by the word of Jesus when he said we should Love one another .
What's so wrong with two people of the same sex wanting to love and commit to each other??

As a registar you should be happy to be part of their happiness not criticise it.
So my answer to you is YES it is right for a Christian to perform a civil partnership.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

A Christian marriage or just a social form of marriage?

If it is the latter then who decides what is or isn't a marriage? I mean if you aren't going to engage in a Christian marriage then what does it matter what type of non-Christian marriage it is?

A marriage is defined by a man and a woman in Christianity. Lots of other things are defined in a marriage in Christianity. If you are not getting married in the Christian sense then these obviously no longer hold.

So why hold some people to the Christian notion of marriage based on the man and woman principle, but not others to other Christian notions of marriage?

That's a good question.

For most Christians, marriage would include several key elements:
1. It is a covenant made in the sight of God.
2. It is a lifelong commitment that is broken only by death ("till death us do part").
3. It is between a man and a woman.
4. It is between only two people (ie not polygamous).

Other cultures have had different concepts of marriage (eg polygamy or temporary marriages) but for 1200 years, in Europe, the popular concept of marriage coincided with the Christian view.

Today numbers 1 and 2 have largely gone by the board. Marriage is often viewed as a purely civil contract with no thought of God, and it is more usually seen as a contract that is temporary - it can be discarded if either party gets fed up with it.

Despite this Christians and the State have maintained an uneasy alliance with regards to marriage with the State recognising religious marriage ceremonies and the Church recognising civil marriages.

Now, in some places (but not in Ireland), number 3 is also being ignored. Gay marriages are being legalised.

I would expect that number 4 will also eventually fall by the wayside and, in a generation or two, polygamous marriages will become increasingly accepted, and legalised, in Europe.

At some point the growing disparity between Christian and civil concepts of marriage will cause a breach. Then it might be necessary for Christians to abandon the word 'marriage' altogether and to conduct their own unions, entirely separate from the State. Such unions, maintaining the four characteristics outlined above, would have little in common with the civil, temporary, sometimes same-sex, sometimes polygamous marriages being contracted by the State.

rantyface

JimiTime wrote: »

By heterosexual civil union, I gather you mean a civil marriage? A few people have alluded to this. That there is some kind of 'difference' in the legitimacy of the marriage depending on who conducts it. There really isn't. Marriage, in Christian terms, is the joining of a man and a woman. Its more than a contract, its more than legalities, its more than who conducts the ceremony and its more than ceremony itself. From a Godly perspective, I was married over a year before my wedding ceremony. The marriage ceremony is a societal thing. If I was in a jungle somewhere, I wouldn't require any ceremony. In our societal culture however, there are certain customs we follow. Then of course there is the legal entity of being married.

Is cohabiting not generally frowned upon? I was cohabiting, but am experiencing a slow but steady return to faith (not denominated or anything yet) and I am very confused about all of this. Are you saying that the priest's role is not the most important? That the love two people have for each other makes the "marriage" and the ceremony is just a formality?

rantyface

PDN wrote: »

That's a good question.

For most Christians, marriage would include several key elements:
1. It is a covenant made in the sight of God.
2. It is a lifelong commitment that is broken only by death ("till death us do part").
3. It is between a man and a woman.
4. It is between only two people (ie not polygamous).

I would also add that in our tradition they are in love. Arranged marriages between people who do not love each other are more at odds with my view of what marriage means than a union of two men. Yet, people are more opposed to gay civil unions than arranged marriages. I am sick of hearing about homosexuality, there are so many more important things in the Bible that go completely ignored. It wasn't top of Jesus' agenda yet it is top of all the political christian movements' agendas.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

So why hold some people to the Christian notion of marriage based on the man and woman principle, but not others to other Christian notions of marriage?

Probably along the same lines as you'd consider a workable car to be one where the engine was functioning well even if the bodywork was pretty dented. But not the other way around.

God's way is the ideal way. It's the car that is precisely as it left the factory: perfect, pristine, no modifications made in the attempt to 'improve' on it. What sinful mankind does, in his asserting of "self", is take what God has made and modify it suit himself. He takes off the air filter - which lets more air in and produces more power. But it also lets in grit and dust which wears the engine out at a fast rate.

The closer you get to God's ideal for intimate relations between people the better off you are: more of the blessings that are assigned to marriage will be yours. And the further away you go the less they will be yours - and the more the consequences of ignoring God's order will arrive at your door (globally: a man (Christian or no) reaps what he sows). A gross example of this is STI's - not possible if following a godly order and rampant in the case you're ignoring god's order altogether (and asserting 'self').

And so; someone can celebrate two atheists getting married (male and female) despite the fact that in some ways they are separated from the ideal order assigned by God. But that someone can eschew two gays or three hetrosexuals getting married because they are involved in something grossly distant from the order assigned by God.

Victor

rantyface wrote: »

Is cohabiting not generally frowned upon? I was cohabiting, but am experiencing a slow but steady return to faith (not denominated or anything yet) and I am very confused about all of this. Are you saying that the priest's role is not the most important? That the love two people have for each other makes the "marriage" and the ceremony is just a formality?

Cohabiting is yes generally frowned upon. However, it is not a sin. The related sin would be fornicating, which isn't the case if its a committed, monogamous, loving relationship.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A gross example of this is STI's - not possible if following a godly order

Tell that to people with AIDS from infected blood products and their partners.

PDN wrote: »

Despite this Christians and the State have maintained an uneasy alliance with regards to marriage with the State recognising religious marriage ceremonies and the Church recognising civil marriages.

While states often recognise religious marriages (France does not), can it be said that the church recognises civil marriages? Certainly the Roman Catholic Church is, at best, hesitant.

Victor

JimiTime wrote: »

The marriage ceremony is a societal thing. If I was in a jungle somewhere, I wouldn't require any ceremony. In our societal culture however, there are certain customs we follow. Then of course there is the legal entity of being married.

Is there another requirement of marriage - for it to be witnessed?

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, where does this notion of God not recognising the marriage come from? Is that a catholic thing or something? Do people actually believe that God only approves of church weddings or something? 'Marriage' in a Christian sense is about hearts, not pomp and ceremony. Its about a man and a woman becoming one entity. God doesn't care that you got reverand such and such to conduct a ceremony. He cares that you are committed to the love of your husband or wife, and that your hearts are truly joined. The ceremony is mostly just a public declaration, and a legal requirement. The wedding can change from culture to culture. What does not change however, is what the marriage truly is in a Godly sense.

Consider a civil marriage then, that is merely a marriage of convenience or fad (Britney Spears comes to mind - is she married or not these days?).

If a marriage is only between two people and a civil registrar and not a bona fide marriage before God as there is no commitment to permanency, is it a marriage?

JimiTime

rantyface wrote: »

Is cohabiting not generally frowned upon?

Yes it would be. You are expected to make a public declaration of your commitment to each other in our society, and I do not want to underestimate this importance in practical terms. It would not be wise to expose ourselves so easily to ingenuine dishonest folk simply telling us, or each other, 'Yeah we're married in the heart, no need for all that legal stuff'. No doubt, and I can testify on a personal level, that there would be people who were genuinely like this. Its important however to publically and legally declare this commitment. In fact I'm always dubious of people who say 'Marriage is only a piece of paper'.

I was cohabiting, but am experiencing a slow but steady return to faith (not denominated or anything yet) and I am very confused about all of this.

Slow and steady can be good. Build some solid foundations rather than be caught in an emotional whirlwind.

Are you saying that the priest's role is not the most important?

Absolutely. The most important thing is the hearts of the two commiting themselves to becoming one.

That the love two people have for each other makes the "marriage" and the ceremony is just a formality?

Yes, but I'm not saying the formality is not important. The commitment that two people have to each other is what is most important. However, let me point out, that in practical terms, 'getting married' is extremely important. I am not advocating a rebellious stand. The public marriage, be it in a registry office or in a church, is important in our cultural context. I'm not saying 'its just a piece of paper' or anything of the like. It is a necessary public declaration. I am pointing out however, that a true marriage takes place in the hearts of those commiting to each other. As far as God is concerned, he'll see through any pomp and ceremony to the hidden things of the heart.

JimiTime

Victor wrote: »

Is there another requirement of marriage - for it to be witnessed?

Legally yes. Culturally too. It is important to make a public declaration of commitment in relation to marriage. I am merely saying, that what is truly most important though, is the folks getting married, and their hearts becoming one.

Consider a civil marriage then, that is merely a marriage of convenience or fad (Britney Spears comes to mind - is she married or not these days?).

That is the business of the couple, UNLESS, the registrar or solemniser have genuine reason to believe that the vows and declarations made at the ceremony are lies or deceptions. If a registrar KNEW, that the couples declarations were false, then they could stop the ceremony. Obviously though, you assume the honesty of the couple. So in practical terms, you simply conduct the ceremony in good faith.

If a marriage is only between two people and a civil registrar and not a bona fide marriage before God as there is no commitment to permanency, is it a marriage?

The marriage is only between two people. It is authorised societally (is that a word?) and witnessed by others, and there is at least a declaration of permanency. I would say, that someone who enters into marriage with a plan to divorce later, has a)Lied in their declarations, and b)undermined their marriage.

From a legal and Godly perspective though, you are still 'married' by power of your word. Though God will see through your shallowness, you will still be held to account on your word.

Of course, all of this goes out the window if we redefine the basic 'Man - Woman' structure of marriage. People 'Marry' their horses. I remember seeing one programme about a woman who 'married' The Berlin Wall. Bizarre stuff altogether. Obviously, when we get into these realms, then marriage from a Christian perspective becomes unrecognisable.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

That is the business of the couple, UNLESS, the registrar or solemniser have genuine reason to believe that the vows and declarations made at the ceremony are lies or deceptions. If a registrar KNEW, that the couples declarations were false, then they could stop the ceremony. Obviously though, you assume the honesty of the couple. So in practical terms, you simply conduct the ceremony in good faith.

Indeed, if it is later demonstrated that the marriage vows were not made in good faith (eg a sham marriage to help an immigrant get a visa) then the marriage will be seen as legally invalid.

The marriage is only between two people. It is authorised societally (is that a word?) and witnessed by others, and there is at least a declaration of permanency. I would say, that someone who enters into marriage with a plan to divorce later, has a)Lied in their declarations, and b)undermined their marriage.

This line of permanency is becoming increasingly blurred. For example, prenuptial agreements would seem to assume a lack of permanency.

PDN

rantyface wrote: »

I would also add that in our tradition they are in love. Arranged marriages between people who do not love each other are more at odds with my view of what marriage means than a union of two men.

That's your view, but it's not been the Christian view for most of history. In fact, arranged marriages were the norm in Europe for centuries. The idea of romantic love always preceding marriage is a fairly late innovation.

I am not advocating arranged marriages - but I have a number of friends from other cultures whose marriages were arranged for them. Funnily enough they appear to be deeply in love and committed to one another, more so than the average Irish married couple. They accepted that this was the way their culture worked, they place a very high premium on respecting their parents (including their choice of a spouse) and they determined to make the most of the situation by loving their wife or husband.

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course, all of this goes out the window if we redefine the basic 'Man - Woman' structure of marriage. People 'Marry' their horses. I remember seeing one programme about a woman who 'married' The Berlin Wall. Bizarre stuff altogether. Obviously, when we get into these realms, then marriage from a Christian perspective becomes unrecognisable.

Every year (I believe on Ascension Day, which is of course today), the Doge of Venice would be rowed out into the Venetian Lagoon in his splendid galley Il Bucintoro and he would throw a ring into the water, thereby symbolically "marrying" the sea. Canaletto painted the scene of the Doge's departure. This ceremony would almost certainly have included some sort of blessing from the Church, but clearly wouldn't be marriage from a Christian perspective.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

At some point the growing disparity between Christian and civil concepts of marriage will cause a breach. Then it might be necessary for Christians to abandon the word 'marriage' altogether and to conduct their own unions, entirely separate from the State.

Personally I would take the other view, to me "marriage" is your word, I don't mind you holding on to it.

I think atheists like myself need to look at what exactly we want out of the tradition (and in my view out of date) concept of a marriage and extract that out of the traditional concept and have that a some sort of civil union, giving you guys back "marriage". I've no probably not using the term

For example, I would like to be able to tell the State who I want to decide what happens to me if I'm in a serious accident. I would like to tell the State who should automatically get my money if I die. I would like to tell the State who I plan to have children with.

All these things set up handy default positions, convention over configuration as we would say in the programming world. You should be able to tweak them individually if necessary, but it is handy to get the default positions worked out in a single swoop.

All this was traditionally done within a marriage, but I've no issue with not using the term marriage if I can still have these things in some other form of civil agreement.

So as far as I'm concerned marriage is your concept. I will allow you to keep it :pac::P

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

.. I have a number of friends from other cultures whose marriages were arranged for them. Funnily enough they appear to be deeply in love and committed to one another, more so than the average Irish married couple.

It's not hard to see why: how many Irish marriages were entered into

a) on the basis of being 'in love' - something that tends to wear off after a while

b) on the basis that you can escape if it doesn't work out.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not hard to see why: how many Irish marriages were entered into

a) on the basis of being 'in love' - something that tends to wear off after a while

b) on the basis that you can escape if it doesn't work out.

Something myself and my wife have been discussing recently actually. A topic sparked by something Wicknight mentioned on another thread (You see WN, you have your uses:pac::) ). This whole abstract notion of 'falling in love' and 'Falling out of love'. Its a concept up until recent years (I'm 29 now), I kind of just, played along with. It makes Love into this mystical uncontrollable force. The strong feeling I have for my wife, certainly didn't just go 'Ping'. I had the initial attraction, mostly sexual, and as we got to know each other I began feeling like I just always wanted her company. I was 21 at the time, my faith was on the back-burner, and I was torn. I enjoyed my lusty life as a young, travelling, handsome:) musician. I felt a conflict. I wanted to be with this woman who would eventually become my wife, but I also wanted to get my jollies with anyone else that took my fancy. Thankfully, and it was my rather dormant faith that played a major role in this, I 'conciously' rejected my lust. I 'started' to love this woman, but it wasn't some mystical force, and that initial decision was a selfish one. I knew if I went with someone else it would be over. As our relationship developed further, my love became less and less selfish, and is 'still' progressing after 8 years. I think the ideal, is that its simply second nature. That 'Godly' love. However, in our context as fallen humans, Love is something we must strive and work for. Its easier for some more than others. I was\am fairly selfish, so I have fought that inclination for the sake of Love. I think much of our nature is at odds with Love and its many facets. Its not some abstract feeling that comes and goes. Pauls Love verse in Corinthians is a geat benchmark.

Anyway, I digress.....

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so; someone can celebrate two atheists getting married (male and female) despite the fact that in some ways they are separated from the ideal order assigned by God. But that someone can eschew two gays or three hetrosexuals getting married because they are involved in something grossly distant from the order assigned by God.

But what are you making that judgment based upon?

Isn't a sin a sin? Who says that God cares more about a homosexual couple that an unChristian heterosexual couple?

Surely there is God's plan and not God's plan. Anything else is just subjective interpretation by humans.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Something myself and my wife have been discussing recently actually. A topic sparked by something Wicknight mentioned on another thread (You see WN, you have your uses:pac::) ). This whole abstract notion of 'falling in love' and 'Falling out of love'. Its a concept up until recent years (I'm 29 now), I kind of just, played along with. It makes Love into this mystical uncontrollable force. The strong feeling I have for my wife, certainly didn't just go 'Ping'. I had the initial attraction, mostly sexual, and as we got to know each other I began feeling like I just always wanted her company. I was 21 at the time, my faith was on the back-burner, and I was torn. I enjoyed my lusty life as a young, travelling, handsome:) musician. I felt a conflict. I wanted to be with this woman who would eventually become my wife, but I also wanted to get my jollies with anyone else that took my fancy. Thankfully, and it was my rather dormant faith that played a major role in this, I 'conciously' rejected my lust. I 'started' to love this woman, but it wasn't some mystical force, and that initial decision was a selfish one. I knew if I went with someone else it would be over. As our relationship developed further, my love became less and less selfish, and is 'still' progressing after 8 years. I think the ideal, is that its simply second nature. That 'Godly' love. However, in our context as fallen humans, Love is something we must strive and work for. Its easier for some more than others. I was\am fairly selfish, so I have fought that inclination for the sake of Love. I think much of our nature is at odds with Love and its many facets. Its not some abstract feeling that comes and goes. Pauls Love verse in Corinthians is a geat benchmark.

Anyway, I digress.....

I'm curious, why would you not consider the bits I've highlighted, and the process you wen through, as "falling in love"?

You basically say you picked your wife over the other things in your life such as lustful encounters with other women (totally jealous btw :pac:). Did you not do this because you were falling in love with her and wanted to be with her?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm curious, why would you not consider the bits I've highlighted, and the process you wen through, as "falling in love"?

Its not really that I don't. Its just not very concise or descriptive as to what is going on. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Sure, as a communicative tool, people pretty much know what you mean when you say it, but it really falls short of describibing what actually happens, and can be deceptive.

You basically say you picked your wife over the other things in your life such as lustful encounters with other women (totally jealous btw :pac:). Did you not do this because you were falling in love with her and wanted to be with her?

Again, 'falling in love' I find quite meaningless in this context. It doesn't describe what actually went on in any tangiable manner. I was still selfish, desire was my king, and I loved my ego-boosting, exciting, illicit ways. I would actually say Love had quite little to do with it. I desired her, but unlike the 'conquests', I desired her company and companionship more than her body to put it bluntly. My reasons for not 'doing the dirty', was my for my own sense of honour, and that I didn't want to lose her. I still desired others though, and wasn't really motivated by concern for her and her feelings.

It was my dormant faith, that finally got me on the right track. I can state that it was categorically my faith, i.e. trust, in God and his advices that made me 'decide' to go for it with her. His way was that intamacy with one woman, and becoming one with one woman was his created ideal. My desire told me otherwise, but I decided to trust God. Its been the best decision of my life, but it was also one of the hardest. Its not been happy ever after stuff neither. Love is still at odds with much of my nature, so it still takes work, responsibilty and decision making. It has been the most amazing experience thus far. Love truly NEVER fails, even if those of us striving towards it do.

Below is IMO, the most tangiable description of Love and its worth ever written.

1 Corinthians 13 wrote:

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I Love my wife. However, we see our love relative to Gods. We realise it takes work, and that its not just our emotional feelings. There are degrees of Love, and the Love we strive for. I do not have perfect love, but Godly Love is the key to life and happiness.


Man, this thread has taken quite the OT tangeant.

plein de force

JimiTime wrote: »

We don't even need to introduce the God question to this scenario tbh. Marriage was clearly defined when the job was taken. All of a sudden, its been redefined, and only this one specific redefinition is causing a problem. I can continue to conduct marriage services, but civil unions, no. Do you think its fair to sack me?

yes i do
you are employed by the state to carry out something defined by the state, not what's defined by your particular belief system, if you refuse to carry out what you are employed to do i think that's more than fair ground of dismissal.

Genghiz Cohen

The longer this thread goes on the more confused I get.
Is the person in question now being asked to Marry homosexual couples or perform Civil Unions?

Victor

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, if it is later demonstrated that the marriage vows were not made in good faith (eg a sham marriage to help an immigrant get a visa) then the marriage will be seen as legally invalid.

Not all sham / temporary marriages are there for the purposes of fraud as such. Sometimes an inheritance might be contingent on marriage, other times its designed for getting away from overbearing parents or military conscription. There will of course be the people who do it for kicks or as "temporary little arrangements".

Victor

Will religious judges have qualms about dissolving (divorcing) civil unions?

elekid

jimitime wrote:

I actually agree with that. In this 'Been a registrar for 16 years, but they've just dramatically redefined one of my duties' case though, I believe that there is a human element to be considered. The attitude that you and others have encouraged I find quite cold. . I personally see how in this case they could be easily accomodated. Rules or not, I'd prefer to encourage a bit more than heartless legalistic attitudes.

So if, due to unforseen circumstances, the only registrars working on a particular day all objected to same-sex unions, a tax paying same-sex couple would be refused their civil partnership ceremony? 'Rules are rules, like it or p!ss off' Sounds a bit cold (and completely unacceptable) to me...

PDN

elekid wrote: »

So if, due to unforseen circumstances, the only registrars working on a particular day all objected to same-sex unions, a tax paying same-sex couple would be refused their civil partnership ceremony? 'Rules are rules, like it or p!ss off' Sounds a bit cold (and completely unacceptable) to me...

Actually, until a few years ago, that was the way everyone except Church of Ireland or Catholics was treated.

Most people wanted to hold their weddings on a Saturday, but civil registrars didn't work Saturdays. Catholics and CoI were allowed to register their own weddings, the rest of us were not. Therefore none of us could get married on a Saturday.

Ickle Magoo

PDN wrote: »

Actually, until a few years ago, that was the way everyone except Church of Ireland or Catholics was treated.

Most people wanted to hold their weddings on a Saturday, but civil registrars didn't work Saturdays. Catholics and CoI were allowed to register their own weddings, the rest of us were not. Therefore none of us could get married on a Saturday.

All registry offices being closed on a particular day is not really the same as them being open for business to all but gays...