Comments on: Ladele v Islington – was there a conflict of interest?

By: Danivon

Danivon — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:10:25 +0000

I said ‘orthodox’ not ‘Orthodox’. There is a subtle difference, and perhaps the word ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’. However, there have been several periods when various churches have taken it upon themselves to declare that only marriages witnessed by a minister are valid (the abolition of the ‘Newgate Marriage’ was one example in England).
But as I understand the Eastern Church’s doctrine, a wedding is significantly more bound up in sacrament than in the West – grace is conferred upon the couple by the priest, rather than him being a witness to it. Only bishops and priests can perform a marriage. Marriage is also seen as a martyrdom and a joint pilgrimage. (I have been to Greece quite a few times, and my uncle lived there for a decade or so and was fluent, so that’s my source)

Additionally, there is a movement, particularly in the US, which is trying to declare that indeed ‘marriage’ is a religious institution and that any civil wedding should not actually result in a ‘marriage’ – it’s an outgrowth of the opposition to Gay marriage.

You yourself say that “marriage ought to be conducted through a religious service to ask for a blessing on the marriage from God”. So does that mean that you think people who did not do that are not married?

By: N

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:07:12 +0000

Er, no, Danivon. Orthodox Christians do not hold that “you are not married unless it was conducted by the right minister of religion in a place of worship.” I just wonder where you got that information from? I believe that marriage ought to be conducted through a religious service to ask for a blessing on the marriage from God, and to thank Him for his goodness. Someone not married by a minister, but by a registar is still recognised as married by Christians.

By: Paul.Ferrari

Paul.Ferrari — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:21:16 +0000

Tomrat – I really don’t think I need to answer, as Davey L and Peter Curtis has summed it up so much better than I could.

By: Danivon

Danivon — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:30:21 +0000

Hang on, shouldn’t someone who has very religious views on marriage not be conducting secular services? After all, orthodox Christians would hold that you are not married unless it was conducted by the right minister of religion in a place of worship.

She was already compromising by being a registrar.

By: Peter Curtis

Peter Curtis — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:21:51 +0000

It may be helpful to set out some essential truths about the furore surrounding the case of the errant registrar of Islington, before the current controversy gets out of hand and for reference in the all to likely occurrence of similar events in future.

Registrars are public servants and as such are subject to general conditions of service applicable to all employed by the state. A principle condition is that a public servant shall be impartial. This requires them to carry out their statutory duties serving and respecting all people regardless of their gender, marital status, race, ethnic origin, religion, age, political affiliation, sexual orientation or physical and mental capability.

In this present case the fault lies with the Employment Tribunal that failed to take due and proper regard of the conditions of service of registrars as public servants. This particular registrar sought to impose her own partial and discriminatory conditions of service on her employers. The tribunals should have dismissed her case out of hand. Having concluded that her conditions of employment were unacceptable, the registrar’s only option was to seek alternative employment. To paraphrase: ‘Render unto the state the things which are the state’s; …’ Affiliation to a fantasy ideology does not excuse. End of story.

By: Davey L

Davey L — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:16:16 +0000

Tomrat claims that ‘the rules governing her role had changed and she was unable to meet the new requirements – she was thus disenfranchised.’ She wasn’t unable to perform the ceremony, she was unwilling to perform them and refused. That is her choice and as such she was not fulfilling the obligations of her job.

A change in policy is not relevant. Most of us have situations where our job changes over time and we are obliged to change also. I have a role in implementing Health and Safety legislation in my own workplace. I can’t decide to refuse to implement new legislation just because I don’t like it. I have to either work with the changes or resign. If her personal views so conflicted with her professional duties then the ethical thing to do would be resign.

I’d be delighted to see how this goes on appeal.

By: Patrick Walsh

Patrick Walsh — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:08:06 +0000

‘What’s next?’

How about… another question?

By: Patrick Walsh

Patrick Walsh — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:03:38 +0000

What’s this?

Hypocracy from a religious person?

Whatever next?

By: Tomrat

Tomrat — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:44:14 +0000

Sim-O,

I agree fully with personal responsibility – the difference is that I (try to) govern the way I conduct my life by biblical principles, not mans.

Paul,

Absolutely, as probably when she started her job, it wasnâ€™t possible for Men to marry Men and for Women to marry Women – but it is possible now, and as her job is to marry people, she should either do her job and shut up or leave her job and not complain about it.

I believe the answer to this is in the type of legal battle she faced: an employment tribunal; the rules governing her role had changed and she was unable to meet the new requirements – she was thus disenfranchised.

You would not treat any other employee grievance with the same degree of prejudice; why this one? As it happens the tribunal didn’t and found rightly in favour of Ms. Ladele – she would lose her job in the light of policy changes causing a conflict with personal conviction and so was discriminated against.

By: Paul.Ferrari

Paul.Ferrari — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:25:17 +0000

Ms. Ladele most probably started her job as an officiator for marriages between man and woman

Absolutely, as probably when she started her job, it wasn’t possible for Men to marry Men and for Women to marry Women – but it is possible now, and as her job is to marry people, she should either do her job and shut up or leave her job and not complain about it.