But this “clause” is clearly poor. It does not prevent ministers from being compelled to marry contrary to there beliefs, what its states is that a minister cannot be compelled to marry on behalf of a church or organisation if that organisation opposes same sex marriage on religious grounds.

There are obvious problems with this, first what about churches which have a liberal and conservative wing, where some ministers oppose and some dont and the denomination is undecided. Pretty obvious, the church does not have position so the exemption does not apply. Or consider another likely situation a conservative denomination which does not have a position on homosexual marriage in its official belief statement, again probably common given that belief statements are generally short and spell out essential doctrines. Again the exemption would appear to not apply. Moreover what about a situation in a church where the liberals argue the doctrinal statement does not condemn homosexual marriage and the conservatives say it does. Is the court going to rule on which interpretation is correct to determine if the law has been breached.

Its hard to believe any sensible MP supports this exception clause.

Perhaps the fundies can all go and live there with like minded folk

http://global.christianpost.com/news/russia-to-push-bill-criminalizing-homosexual-propaganda-90845/

The reason that churches kept registers of marriage was so that non-married couples could be shamed and persecuted by the church authorities.

Fortunately we have now moved beyond that.

9.46pm “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. It involves ordinary sexual intercourse”

And you ran the old ‘homos are kiddy fiddlers’ line.

Clap clap.

Bronze.age.superstition.booga.wooga.

Marriage was necessary to determine status/legitimacy for inheritance. Thus was part of the development of the notion of private property separate from group property – as recognised by the group. Marriage was useful in forming inter-group alliances – whether families/clans/tribes (or royal dynastic alliances).

It was only when the Government started assigning benefits to those married that the registers were centralized by Government and thus began the slow degradation of the institution.

Now that pregnancy is a choice, not a consequence of sexual activity – it is something both heterosexual and same sex couples can organise.

When I hear more erudite arguments than ‘men and women fuck and that is the basis of trad marriage’

But nobody has made that argument – rather the argument is that men and women make babies together, a scientific observation rather than a religious argument.