No Gay Weddings at Queen Mother's Castle

TRUSTEES of the Castle of Mey, the Queen Mother's former Scottish home, are at the centre of a row after insisting only religious marriages will be permitted on the property, pulling up the drawbridge to civil ceremonies or gay partnerships.
Management thought they could earn extra funds during the quiet winter months by promoting the late Queen Mother's beloved castle as "Scotland's latest romantic wedding venue".

But the move has led to gay groups alleging discrimination and insisting the venue should be open to all.

Under the plans, couples seeking a religious wedding can apply to have it in the surroundings of the castle, in Caithness.

Read on in the Scotsman....

The report states that a marriage can take place at the castle if performed by a religious figure who already holds a licence. With current developments within many of the mainstream churches it is very likely that an obliging cleric will be found in order to satisfy the 'religious' requirement.

Elsewhere a Highland newspaper carried a report of a lesbian couple who were 'married' in a civil partnership ceremony in Inverness a few years ago by a local Church of Scotland minister.

Christians Together, 24/03/2009

Feedback:

(page 1 2)

	Alan Hughes	02/10/2009 12:18
So much for "stand up for that and so others can identify their oppressors" And you dont identify yourself? I stand up for what God says is right, not what I say is right, or you for that matter. God expressed His word on this topic, if you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. Homosexuality is a sin. I have no problem welcoming those who seek to rectify their lives but not those who advocate this sin as normal behaviour.
	George Orr	03/10/2009 11:46
'Aberdeenshire Minister' Are you hiding behind a moratorium or just shy of using your name? Just an question - you understand.
	Alan Hughes	08/10/2009 22:25
We had this problem before with unidentified people sticking their two bob's worth into conversations. Can you imagine having a debate in public with a hooded, masked figure who refused to be identified? It just wouldn't happen and from now on I wont even bother replying to any unidentified troll's.
	Editor	09/10/2009 09:18
I monitor the postings which are anonymous or use psuedonyms; and intervene where this is necessary. Many people - including non-Christians - read these postings and whatever we might think of persons choosing (from time to time) to remain anonymous, I would trust that we can be courteous in any responses that we make and in the language we might use. One of the reasons for people posting anonymously is the fear of being 'jumped on' or verbally abused when they ask a question or offer an opinion. It would be a pity indeed if this were the case in any discussion on this site.
	Alan Hughes	09/10/2009 22:05
"I would trust that we can be courteous in any responses that we make and in the language we might use. " I dont think anything I said was out of order. It's not discourtous to ask someone who is addressing you to at the very least reveal their identity. "One of the reasons for people posting anonymously is the fear of being 'jumped on' or verbally abused when they ask a question or offer an opinion." I doubt those are the real reasons.
	Editor	10/10/2009 11:10
Calling people "unidentified trolls" is not what I would expect from a follower of Christ.
	Andrea Mac	10/10/2009 16:33
To be fair to Alan, there is a newer understanding of this term based on internet vocabulary and the dictionary describes it as thus: [ trans. ] informal Computing send (an e-mail message or posting on the Internet) intended to provoke a response from the reader by containing errors.
	Alan Hughes	13/10/2009 07:48
Thanks Andrea. Apology accepted Editor! :-)
	Editor	13/10/2009 08:49
Fine Alan. Just (please) don't do it again :-)
	Alan Hughes	15/10/2009 22:15
I can only say I will try.

(page 1 2)