About Christian views?

"To hold the orthodox Christian views marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations".

Christian views to God

After all, people who wish their unions to be God-ordained generally marry in a church. It is strange for a person who has such a strong belief that marriage is "God-ordained" to enter a profession which concerns itself with conducting legal rather than religious marriages. And that's leaving aside the problem whereby most "orthodox Christian views" tend not to believe a woman has any place in consecrating what we describe –erroneously in this case – as a God-ordained relationship at all.

Anyway, with Christian views to civil partnerships became this part of the mix Did you ever asked to be exempt from marrying people who had been married already, or had had children already, or had had sexual relations outside marriage already?

 A Christian views story

Jose's religious beliefs ever allowed her to carry out any marriages in racy old Islington. It is clear that Jose's appeal to scripture logically prohibits her from ever marrying any people, of any gender, who are not virgins or who believe in divorce. Jose's "orthodox Christian" views, I fear, are manipulated entirely to suit her own private agenda.

Isn't it suspect that Jose applies her beliefs so strictly only when gay people are involved? Christ never made any recorded reference to homosexuality. He did suggest that marriage was the only appropriate setting for sexual intercourse. But he did concede that there were various reasons why a person may not choose to marry. That's it. Very tolerant.

Christian views to Christians

This teaching leads many Christians to believe that people are quite entitled to enter into all kinds of relationships without upsetting Christ. This is exactly the liberal idea that threatens schism in the Anglican Church, and exactly the one that must have guided Jose into believing it was fine to be a civil registrar, facilitating non-religious marriages. Plenty of Christians who consider themselves as close to God as Jose believe it is absolutely fine to be gay, very splendid to be in a settled and loving relationship, and utterly great to wish to proclaim it publicly and secure for it a legal basis. Jose’s Christian views have every right to agree with the conservatives. But the further right this tribunal has mistakenly conferred enshrines her contestable religious belief as above the law. It is clearly gay sex Jose objects to, not all non-marital sex, so her appeal to religious scruple is vexatious.

I have no difficulty with tolerating people whose views are strange to me, even abhorrent, unless they are doing harm to others, or breaking the law. People can be as homophobic as they like, as long as they keep it to themselves. I don't think people do harm by refusing to conduct civil ceremonies, if they don't want to, as long as they accept that their private wish to defy the law of the land is one that they are personally responsible for. Jose is at liberty never to conduct a civil ceremony as long as she lives. But that ought to stop her, as a matter of conscientious objection, from being a registrar at all.

Already there has been much irresponsible speculation about the implications of this silly and misguided ruling. It has been mentioned that Muslims might now claim the right in supermarkets to refuse to handle alcohol or pork. Only, surely, if they had good reason to be utterly surprised at the nature of their duties.

Christian views and life

I do have some sympathy with Jose. She had no way of knowing, when she became a registrar, that performing civil partnerships would become one of her duties. I dislike fundamentalism of any kind, and if I'd been Jose's boss I might have quietly accommodated her stubborn views, rather than risk getting to this stage.

There is nothing wrong with discreet compromise in situations of swift social change. Islington council would not have been failing in its duty to provide services to the homosexuals of Islington if it had itself been tolerant enough itself to indulge Jose's unfortunate position. But it's too late for fudge now. The last thing we need is for the idea to take root that ill-considered religious prejudices can trump the law. It is important that the council challenges, and wins, this tribunal's ridiculous ruling at appeal. This, in view of the glaring contradictions in Jose's own behavior, should not be a problem.

Sex and the deregulated city of Christian views

In a heart-warming display of cross-cultural respect, tout le monde has rallied to let Michelle Palmer (especially) and Vince Acors (less forcefully) know that they have no one to blame but themselves. The pair were caught having drunken sex on a Dubai beach by a persistent policeman, and few have any sympathy for their predicament.