Sorry, your best man is gay

1567911

Comments

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").

    That sounds like an invitation to heckle ...
    Word has it that the curate got her own back in a closing prayer "thank you God that marriage is for EVERYONE".

    But to be honest, I'm not really sure that this form of retaliation was the right approach either.

    duelling prayer?
  • Paddle faster.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The wedding address by the priest laboured, and I mean laboured, the point that "marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN", not least by inviting the congregation, pantomime fashion, to complete the assertion ("because marriage is between a MAN and....?!").

    That sounds like an invitation to heckle ...

    I agree, depending on the bride and groom of course; it would hardly do to ruin their day further.

    But I'm really losing patience with bigots. Transphobic and homophobic attacks and murders; this isn't a game and these people need to be given no quarter.

    If you head over to purgatory a bunch of folk will quite happily tell you you just like being outraged.

    Wow, those are some really bad comprehension skills you're waving around in your report.

    Nope, just sick of centrist handwringing bullshit.
  • Church weddings should be for committed believers. Their sexual orientation should be irrelevant.
  • You haven't read this thread, have you?
  • Just when you thought this nonsense was something rare...

    Friends' children were asked to be joint best-man for a school-friend's wedding, which was to take place in HTB plant church. All going swimmingly, date fixed, meeting with ushers, etc.

    Out of the blue text message to say not only are they not to be best man, they are "disinvited" to the wedding, there is to be no further communication, friendship at an end. Message ended with statement to say this action is "not the church's fault, I've left the church, but X and I can't have unbelievers at our wedding". Following from this they're de-friended from a Whatsapp group, together with everyone else from the schoolfriends group.

    Anyone else smell a rat?
  • Just when you thought this nonsense was something rare...

    Friends' children were asked to be joint best-man for a school-friend's wedding, which was to take place in HTB plant church. All going swimmingly, date fixed, meeting with ushers, etc.

    Out of the blue text message to say not only are they not to be best man, they are "disinvited" to the wedding, there is to be no further communication, friendship at an end. Message ended with statement to say this action is "not the church's fault, I've left the church, but X and I can't have unbelievers at our wedding". Following from this they're de-friended from a Whatsapp group, together with everyone else from the schoolfriends group.

    Anyone else smell a rat?

    Sounds like they've left the church and joined a cult. Certainly doesn't sound like a HTB modus operandi. They're a bit nutty but not "cut yourself of from all your friends" nutty.
  • They're still going to the HTB plant and the wedding is to take place there.
  • They're still going to the HTB plant and the wedding is to take place there.

    "Man whut?" as I believe the kids say these days.
  • In this instance, I don't see any prima facie evidence so far that the uninviting is at the behest of the church hosting the wedding.
  • They're still going to the HTB plant and the wedding is to take place there.

    This reminds me of a wedding I went to, of a very charismatic friend, where a relative/friend came who was a pagan.

    Normally I'm sure nobody would give them much of a glance but a) they sat near the front in unusual clothing and b) everyone else was in full-on charismatic mode whereas they just sat looking uncomfortable and miserable.

    I've never heard of anyone barred from a wedding outside of exclusive Brethren groups.

    Almost every strict and conservative and charismatic (and I've known people in many different shades) would welcome non-believers as potential converts to preach at.
  • Second thought: is it possible that the new venue is a lot smaller and that they are just clumsy at telling people there is less space than they thought?

    Or maybe that they are pregnant and embarrassed?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    In England and Wales weddings have to be open to the public, though it would take some chutzpah to exercise the right to attend in the face of a specific disinvitation.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    In England and Wales weddings have to be open to the public, though it would take some chutzpah to exercise the right to attend in the face of a specific disinvitation.

    True. It wouldn't be impossible to find out when it was either. But if someone has moved venue and time and told you not to come, it would be an effort to find out when it was. And you might not be welcome if you did.

    At my own wedding, an estranged relative of a bridesmaid turned up. Which was awkward.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    In this instance, I don't see any prima facie evidence so far that the uninviting is at the behest of the church hosting the wedding.

    I suppose kids could ask the church if they really wanted to know.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    In this instance, I don't see any prima facie evidence so far that the uninviting is at the behest of the church hosting the wedding.

    The uninviting statement was explicit it was because they didn't "share beliefs". The two people concerned are both baptised and confirmed members of the CofE, one is considering ordination.

    As for it not being "at the behest of the church" - how else to explain that an entire friendship group, numbering some 9 people, have all been dumped and ghosted, all with the same message, all told that the person concerned has "left the church" when we know it is still taking place there. And the church is where the happy couple met, worship and are heavily involved.
  • That is certainly odd.
    If I were feeling up to it, a text to say “Gosh I didn’t know you’d left the church, that sounds very painful, I’m so sorry. Where will you be getting married now?” (the imaginary batting of eyelashes goes here....) would be tempting.
    But the friends may consider they have had a lucky escape and need to maintain some distance for their own sanity.

    I’d have thought, similar to Blahblah, that an HTB church would have taken any available opportunity to rack up another sale for Jesus. Sorry, conversion.
  • Difficult for anyone to get in touch. All groups have been blocked, all numbers are barred.

    As for whether or not this is "typical" HTB behaviour, this is the same place that re-baptised the soon-to-be-groom, despite being told he'd been baptised as a baby.
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    All numbers barred is really horrid. Your poor friends, how grim for them.
    (I was baptised as an adult having been christened as a baby, but this was a FIEC church, so not Anglican).
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    You haven't read this thread, have you?

    Not all of it. Please explain what I have said that is wrong
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    In this instance, I don't see any prima facie evidence so far that the uninviting is at the behest of the church hosting the wedding.

    The uninviting statement was explicit it was because they didn't "share beliefs". The two people concerned are both baptised and confirmed members of the CofE, one is considering ordination.

    As for it not being "at the behest of the church" - how else to explain that an entire friendship group, numbering some 9 people, have all been dumped and ghosted, all with the same message, all told that the person concerned has "left the church" when we know it is still taking place there. And the church is where the happy couple met, worship and are heavily involved.

    I'm not really in a position to give advice but maybe it is worth someone in the friendship group contacting the leadership of the church.

    It sounds like it is possible something else is happening and excuses are being made.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Blahblah wrote: »
    ...I've never heard of anyone barred from a wedding outside of exclusive Brethren groups. ...
    Mormons don't allow anyone who's not a paid-up member in good standing (even parents of one of the couple), but I don't know of a Christian denomination that does that. The whole thing is odd.

  • Difficult for anyone to get in touch. All groups have been blocked, all numbers are barred.

    As for whether or not this is "typical" HTB behaviour, this is the same place that re-baptised the soon-to-be-groom, despite being told he'd been baptised as a baby.

    According to their website (link), Holy Trinity Brompton practises infant baptism, so that sounds like a plant gone rogue, and not the theology of the mothership.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    You haven't read this thread, have you?

    Not all of it. Please explain what I have said that is wrong
    Maybe just (at least) have a look at the OP and consider in what way your comment about church marriage being only for committed believers advances the discussion about the church marriage of these committed believers who, as it happens, also appear to be heterosexual.

    If you just mean that the sexuality of their best man ought to have been irrelevant, then that seems (on this thread) already to be common ground.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    You haven't read this thread, have you?

    Not all of it. Please explain what I have said that is wrong

    Please explain what the relevance of your comment is to the OP.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Difficult for anyone to get in touch. All groups have been blocked, all numbers are barred.

    As for whether or not this is "typical" HTB behaviour, this is the same place that re-baptised the soon-to-be-groom, despite being told he'd been baptised as a baby.

    According to their website (link), Holy Trinity Brompton practises infant baptism, so that sounds like a plant gone rogue, and not the theology of the mothership.

    Something doesn't add up.

    I wouldn't expect a fully-HTB-compatible member to tell a barefaced lie about having left their church, especially as that shouldn't be too difficult to verify. Assuming all the information as relayed by @TheOrganist is in some sense true, I suspect the person getting married has fallen under the influence either of an external group or a faction within the church, neither of which the leadership may even know about. Or really interfering inlaws-to-be.
  • I thought typical "HTB- type" behaviour would see weddings as the opportunity to get all your unbelieving friends together to hear the gospel.
  • The first question that leaps to mind is whether there's anything that the disinvited have done - whether individually or collectively - that could have led to the disinvitation. Weddings are times of heightened emotion, so is it possible that there's something which would normally have been laughed off but which this time has triggered this massive response?

    If that's not the case, then the way forward may be to fact find as much as is practical - very often things like this involve some sort of misunderstanding, or someone not having the full information. But if that doesn't resolve (or at least explain) matters, then a complaint about a CofE church which seems to be running off the rails may be appropriate - presumably to the archdeacon, as someone close enough to know what is going on, but far enough removed to be able to see the full picture.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    You haven't read this thread, have you?

    Not all of it. Please explain what I have said that is wrong

    Please explain what the relevance of your comment is to the OP.

    It was something that I wished to say. If I have offended you, I apologise.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    [query] What is an HTB church? [/query]
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    A church plant of Holy Trinity Brompton, I think.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    [query] What is an HTB church? [/query]

    Holy Trinity Brompton, source of the Alpha Course, for good or ill, as well as the current Archbishop of Canterbury. Usually middle class, urban evangelical, quietly homophobic but not particularly misogynist.
  • They're also probably the most active part of the CofE in the sphere of church planting and taking over struggling congregations. They technically abide by the Anglican rules on ordinations and baptisms etc, but with a very evangelical line on them.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Thank you!
  • Could his account(s) have been compromised and a third party set up the blocking? There is otherwise old fashion regular mail. Does anyone in the group know any of the parents (or have parents who know the parents) and could sound them out on whether everything is otherwise fine? If school friends are considered unbelievers to be shunned, one wonders whether the parents have been disinvited also or are otherwise being distanced.
  • BroJames--
    BroJames wrote: »
    In England and Wales weddings have to be open to the public, though it would take some chutzpah to exercise the right to attend in the face of a specific disinvitation.

    ??What?? Does that simply mean there must be people there besides the bridal party? Or it has to be open to anyone who passes by? Or it has to be open to anyone who feels they have a right to be there???

    Thx.
  • Re the wedding with the barred guests:

    I may have missed something, but some thoughts:

    --Are the guests and the couple in hailing distance in the real world? If so, has anyone tried to see the couple personally, even individually? (If they're in that kind of church, I presume they're not already living together.) Does anyone know where they hang out?

    --Was there any incident involving the nine guests? Painful joke, prank, etc.?

    --Does anyone have a physical address for them? Maybe send a certified letter (i.e., with tracking and possibly requirement of a signature). Or a gift? (E.g., something simple/funny from a delivery florist (balloons, flowers, etc., with card).) Or an early wedding gift and card? Just something that might get past the couple's defenses long enough for them to find out their friends are confused and concerned.

    --Any mutual friends who are still in touch with the nine and the couple? Anyone who's met the couple's parents in the past?

    Hoping for whatever's best.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    BroJames--
    BroJames wrote: »
    In England and Wales weddings have to be open to the public, though it would take some chutzpah to exercise the right to attend in the face of a specific disinvitation.

    ??What?? Does that simply mean there must be people there besides the bridal party? Or it has to be open to anyone who passes by? Or it has to be open to anyone who feels they have a right to be there???

    English laws on weddings have accumulated though they may be revised soon. You can only have the legal ceremony at a registered building and the place has to have "open doors" (with the possible exception of Quaker or Jewish weddings). It is the reason that Mormon weddings in England have two parts; the first a legal ceremony outside the temple which everyone can attend and second the temple ceremony which only Mormons in good standing can attend. The idea behind the original law was to prevent secret or forced marriages.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Thank you!

    thank you for asking the question. I was wondering too as I read through the posts.
  • Net Spinster--

    Thx. What exactly does "open doors" mean in this context, if you know? (Per my previous questions.)

    Preventing forced weddings is very good. But secret ones??? Not so much. Sometimes, it's a matter of safety--both emotional and physical.
  • Well the law was written in the mid-1700s and originally referred to open doors at churches; I'm not sure how it is implemented. The secret weddings they were against were ones where one or both partners were trying to hide something that will make the marriage illegal or, if known, would otherwise cause the marriage not to go ahead (e.g., underage, too closely related, already married to someone else, not who he/she said they were)
  • An open door is just that - an unlocked door (or doors) through which any member of the public may pass without requiring permission (though public buildings may have security measures such as metal detectors etc.).

    If this were not so, the question; 'Does anyone know of any just cause ....' would be somewhat redundant.

    Marriages must also take place between 8am and 6pm
  • Well, good thing I never tried to get married in England or Wales (or anywhere else). A couple of anonymous people who abused me tried to push their way into various events of mine and other aspects of my life, thinking they had an absolute right to be there. Fortunately, one was deterred by someone else; another didn't make it to a particular event; and another wreaked havoc that way through much of my childhood, with an enabler, and tried to snatch me away.

    But if I had married, I would neither invite nor tell them, nor any of my relatives. I doubt that any of them would get to the UK. But I wouldn't take that chance, 'cause history.

    So a secret and/or very private wedding would've been mandatory for me.
  • That's a very distressing situation to be in.

    Well people can be excluded for various reasons including but not limited to:

    an injunction or restraining order

    if it can be reasonably be thought somebody is gaining access for some unlawful purpose

    the maximum legal capacity of a venue would be exceeded ( I suspect this is the one that gets you excluded from celebrity/royal weddings - those abbeys always look very full) .
  • Could his account(s) have been compromised and a third party set up the blocking?

    This possibility had also occurred to me.

    @Golden Key the fact that a wedding is open to the public doesn't necessarily mean the entire public know about it, or that it's easy to find out. In my city you'd have to go down to city hall and read the marriage banns posted beforehand. And you'd have to know in which city or town hall to look.

    The alleged "disinviting" in the case @TheOrganist refers to is another illustration of the sort of problems that can arise when a civil wedding is confused or co-mingled with a religious one.
  • Robertus--

    This is emphatically NOT aimed at you. I know you're just relaying info, and thx for that.

    A restraining order wouldn't work, because I think the object of it has to be informed--which would mean they'd know where *I* was.

    "Unlawful purpose" probably wouldn't work...except some of them could endanger children. If there'd be a way to prevent them attending because of what they did to me, and that they were likely to cause a disturbance...But that still might involve telling them where I was, and when I was going to be there.

    The last one could be fun. Gather people from the highways and byways, and invite them in!
  • The traditional solution to avoiding the scrutiny involved in marriage law in England and Wales is to high tail it to the border with Scotland, specifically to a blacksmith in or around Gretna Green. These days a similar effort is required to have your marriage solemnised according to an Anglican rite if your betrothed happens to be of the same sex as you, though the nearest Episcopal Church is in Gretna itself.
  • Why a blacksmith? Can they officiate? If so, I'm guessing it's some very old tradition.

    Thx.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Why a blacksmith? Can they officiate? If so, I'm guessing it's some very old tradition.
    It's because the law in Scotland on marriage is different from England. They are separate legal systems. Since Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753, for the prevention of clandestine marriages and uncertainty as to who was married to whom, marriages in England have been subject to very strict rules to ensure openness, publicity, public notification (by banns) and parental consent for minors. These rules have been updated several times since. The parental consent element has been less of an issue since the age of majority dropped from 21 to 18. However, they have to be complied with strictly.

    I know very little about Scottish law and there are shipmates who do. Perhaps they can give us more on this. However, in Scotland, I think, all that was necessary in the C18 was that the couple declared before a witness that they took each other as husband and wife. There were not the same stringent requirements about parental consent for minors. The blacksmith, I think, was the first place over the border at Gretna just north of Carlisle. The law there also has changed, with a residence requirement of some sort, and the need for a clergy person or a civil registrar to be involved.


    One difference that still survives between Scotland and England and Wales is that it is possible for two non-UK-residents to marry in Scotland without having to comply with an extremely hostile environment towards possible fake marriages. That is, provided they are BOTH non-UK-resident and clearly intend to go away again after the ceremony. So Scotland can offer wedding tourism to those what want as wedding in a baronial castle with a piper. In England and Wales, that really is not possible and not worth trying to achieve.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Why a blacksmith? Can they officiate? If so, I'm guessing it's some very old tradition.

    Thx.

    Originally it was any citizen who could officiate at an irregular (but legally recognised) wedding. The local blacksmiths were easy to find and easily recognised should anyone need to confirm. The law in Scotland has tightened up a fair bit but you can still do things you can't in England, like marry on the beach or at home.
This discussion has been closed.