There has been a deluge of coverage in the media since yesterday morning.
On Channel 4 News last night, The Bishop of Leicester and The Revd Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs for the Archbishops’ Council, were among those interviewed. The several reports are all linked from this page.
This morning the Telegraph reports Ministers signal gay marriage could take place in church.
And the Independent reports We do… MPs to give strong show of support to same-sex marriage.
The Daily Mail has Cameron CANNOT protect Church against gay marriage laws (says his own Justice minister)
The Guardian has this editorial today: Gay marriage: progress v the pulpit
The Independent has this leading article: Nothing but hyperbole on same-sex marriage
Yesterday the Guardian reported Church of England accused of scaremongering over gay marriage.
Simon Jenkins wrote The marriage of church and state is anything but gay.
Adam Wagner wrote Gay marriage: the Church of England’s argument dissected.
Giles Fraser wrote The Church of England says it is against gay marriage. Not in my name.
In the Telegraph George Carey wrote Gay marriage is a threat to the bonds of Church and state.
Steve Doughty wrote in Mail Online Is it any wonder that the Church doesn’t trust the Government on gay marriage?
From Channel 4 – ‘The Rt Rev Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, said the Church of England had been supportive of civil partnerships when the legislation was introduced eight years ago.’ The Church is re-writing history. At every stage the Bishops and the vociferous have opposed all movement towards greater equality for GLTB people either on the spurious grouds of the ‘protection’ of the young (men of course nothing said about women) or the nonsense of the diminution of marriage. “We continue to be supportive of the gay community and want to see that inclusion in our society increased and… Read more »
I thought Malcom Brown looked extremely awkward when required to defend the party line on Channel 4 – I simply don’t believe he believed what he was having to defend.
Sadly, the damage of this frothy letter from the CofE bishops is not limited to Britain: The NY Times has the following headline: “Churches Challenge Britain Over Same-Sex Marriage” And the article continues: “Just two days before a deadline for public responses to Prime Minister David Cameron’s plan, both the Church of England and Roman Catholic bishops insisted in public statements that marriage was the union of a man and a woman.” In this way the CofE is helping to un-church a younger generation of folks in the US and all over the world – since people under a certain… Read more »
you may find this
http://bit.ly/K0X2k9
summary of the press release and the fuller submission useful
“George Carey wrote Gay marriage is a threat to the bonds of Church and state.”
No, George, *your stance* on equal marriage is a threat to the bonds of Church and state.
Yes, I agree with the poster Richard Ashby. “condescending support” of the hierarchy for the glbt community is something we do not need. It is insulting. In many cases it is homophobic and shows great ignorance. The Church is trying its’ best to re-write history. Thank you to Richard for his insightful comments in this thread.
A different bishop voice: http://fatherowl.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/not-in-my-name/
Lord Carey: “Christians being barred from wearing crosses at work”. ** sigh ** That chestnut again. I think employers who bar jewelry, for safety or other considerations, aren’t malevolently attacking Christians. I think they’re instead trying to protect said Christians from electrocution, strangulation, laceration, mangling, or other injury, or false readings on clients’ medical tests that could lead to misdiagnosis. Lord Carey then ominously warns, “To press ahead with these proposals could undermine the establishment of the Church of England, let alone the monarchy.” To quote Winnie the Pooh, “Oh, bother!” How does same-sex civil marriage threaten Her Majesty? She… Read more »
Jeremy, Malcolm very much believes what he’s defending. He’s very clear that opening up the definition would, as he said in the interview “hollow out” marriage; and marriage as it currently stands is the one institution, he says, which entails and prioritises (my words, not his) biological parenthood above all others. He thinks there are no other institutions which specifically support biological parenthood and society would be diminished if the definition is changed. I don’t get it, but he and others genuinely seem to hold that view.
Pluralist – Thank you for that link to the Bishop of Grantham’s strong views on the recent statement from the Bishop of Leicester on the Government’s proposals re. same sex marriage.
Unfortunately the Bishop of Grantham bats for the Second Eleven, as it were, in that he is not a member of the House of Bishops and therefore does not have a vote in the General Synod. Discounting the Bishop of Dover – only four of his fellow Southern Province Suffragans have that honour as members of the House of Bishops – namely:- Dorchester, Dudley, Grimsby and Willesden.
At present, if I understand the position correctly, the decision to carry out in Church a marriage ceremony where one or both of the couple are divorced is left to the indvidual choice of the parish priest.
Can a similar arrangement not be made for Gay marriage? Clearly, some parish priests would say no, but I suspect that a majority would be happy.
The only reason the government is making the distinction between civil marriage and Matrimony is that the State Church has consistently refused to bless the marriages of same sex couples, or their civil unions. 1. The House of Bishops, which demands its “right” to discriminate against LGBTI persons and couples, now proclaims itself the victim. 2. The House of Bishops, having wasted decades in failing to develop a coherent theology of committed loving relationships, now complains that the government is acting in haste. 3. The House of Bishops, which could see this issue coming for years, exercised no leadership in… Read more »
It is difficult to express just how appalling this document is. This is the Sentamu Church in its full horror. I do not criticise the Church of England for not agreeing to same sex marriage (even though there is no where near anything that might be described as consensus on the matter, with many Anglicans open or supportive of equal marriage). I criticise the C of E for making itself look ridiculous; for its exaggerations, lies, scaremongering, for obsessing about obscure privilege as the established church. I think this reveals a naked hatred of LGBT people and the patent lack… Read more »
Giles – I stand corrected! Nevertheless, I am sure that there has to be some perhaps half-conscious cognitive dissonance that he and those of his ilk – +Tim Leicester for instance – must feel when they at one and the same time try to big up C of E support for serious committed gay relationships, and at the same time indulge in the patronising and demeaning “hollowing out” language. One, the bigging up of the C of E support is both laughable and also a lie. But it is a very interesting feature of the whole business. What is it… Read more »
“…. opening up the definition would ….. “hollow out” marriage; and marriage as it currently stands is the one institution …… which entails and prioritises ….. biological parenthood above all others. He thinks there are no other institutions which specifically support biological parenthood and society would be diminished if the definition is changed.” – Giles Goddard summarising Malcolm Brown’s views on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. “The proposals will undermine the primacy of the genetic kinship rights that are mutually surrendered through sexual union and thenceforth shared by spouses in marriage. Non-genetic demands for parental recognition will displace genetic parental… Read more »
“This is the Sentamu Church in its full horror”
“Think it’s going to be a rough ride if York moves to
Canterbury”
Reading most of the above comments I am left wondering if the House of Bishops (the Archbishop of York, in particular) is currently the most persecuted minority in England? I’ve never known such opprobrium to be poured upon their Lordships heads following the publication of the two amendments and their response to the Government’s consultation on same sex marriage.
Roger: ‘And in the Church Times, Lady Oppenheimer (who she?) writes “To suppose that backing same-gender unions redefines marriage is like supposing that backing adoption redefines parenthood.”’ Adoptive relations are established to fulfil the role vacated by biological parents. A court order or the consent of the biological parent is needed. Hence, the primacy of biological relationship is not undermined by adoption. In contrast, same-sex marriage is not proposed to fulfil the role in a homosexuals life that was vacated by a heterosexual partner. It is not proposed as secondary to biological kinship and therefore it re-defines the institution. PS,… Read more »
Now, let’s just see if there is any other definition of the word ‘Marriage’ in the Bible!
Oh Yes! ‘The Marriage of the Lamb’ – that doesn’t seem to fit the unilateral understanding of some commenters here. It is not anything to do with a heterosexual connubial relationship.
Who first defined exactly what marriage entails? Were such forms of relationship not around before the Bible was written?
GS Misc 910: ‘3.26 The Archbishops’ Council’s responsibilities are different in kind. Its status as an incorporated trustee body requires it to take decisions of a financial and practical nature, and in these decisions the lay voice will be strong. From time to time it will need to issue statements outlining the Church of England’s position on various subjects, but these should reflect the decisions of the General Synod and the guidance of the House of Bishops. Ecclesiologically speaking, such statements do not have the inherent authority that statements of the House of Bishops or of the General Synod enjoy.’… Read more »
What authority in fact does this statement have in the Church of England? Who prepared it? Who authorized it? Who, if anyone, signed it? Did the bishops of the C. of E. approve it? Do the two archbishops? Obviously General Synod did not. Is this response merely the wishful thinking of a few “curial” types at Church House? I think it is important to clarify this matter of authority and for someone or someones to take responsibility for the statement. Can anyone provide more information about this?
Lady Oppenheimer is a very distinguished Anglican, see
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/bibliog/lhoindex.html
I know, Simon. I was just being naughty. But thank you. This birth parenting stuff is just so nonsensically irrelevant, not to mention just a wee bit scary. Sort of thing one supposed might be of interest to – maybe even understood by – two, maybe three, RC canon lawyers.
“In contrast, same-sex marriage is not proposed to fulfil the role in a homosexuals life that was vacated by a heterosexual partner.”
No, it’s proposed to fulfill the role in a gay person’s life that’s analogous to a heterosexual person’s life w/ a heterosexual partner.
This isn’t rocket science, DavidS. Reading Rowan or not, why are you complicating a simple adjustment the law, which does so much good and NO harm?