Today's news about same-sex marriages

[MissM]

I am not a Christian, or religious in any way. Culturally I am Jewish, but would describe myself as an atheist.

However, I am very interested in religious and spiritual issues, and in other people's perspectives on them. So in that light, could I ask Christians on this thread to give me their feelings about the C of E's announcement today that it feels that the church is threatened by same sex marriages (link?

Does this announcement by 'the church' represent what you also think? I personally feel quite astounded at their arrogance, and at their implied dismissal of gay and lesbian people who are also church-goers.

Another atheist here, but going to reply anyway!

I'm delighted at the news today. I think it's hilarious, and shows beautifully exactly how ridiculous and untenable the Church's position is. It demonstrates that these people see their power waning, and are raging against their losses.

Fantastic. More please, church people, nothing delights me more than seeing you show yourselves up quite so clearly!

Crunchy you get your wish of a Christian turning up.

I do not like the fact that some leaders of my church have made this announcement on behalf of all Anglicans.

I follow the teachings of Jesus and use the rest if the Bible as a guide but not as important as Jesus' ministry.

He seemed to have some main themes going through his few years of teaching. Care for the poor, judging being wrong, use of our money, trusting in God, being faithful not religious and how much God loves us being a few.

He has more concern over s having multiple partners and not being faithful.

I for one would celebrate same sex marriage.

I find it depressing that same sex marriages are consider against God, but straight people can divorce and marry over and over and over again.

Especially celebrities who seem to get married for 5 minutes.

So much for sanctity of marriage, eh?

I'm a Catholic. The Catholic church didn't spearhead this campaign but they have jumped on the bandwagon. I think the church are hypocritical. I think they should read some of their own documents such as this from Vatican 2

"The basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition ... With respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent ... fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honoured.
Therefore, although rightful differences exist between men, the equal dignity of persons demands that a more humane and just condition of life be brought about. For excessive economic and social differences between the members of the one human family or population groups cause scandal, and militate against social justice, equity, the dignity of the human person, as well as social and international peace."

The anti equal marriage campaign have made several statements about how equality will devalue marriage etc but they haven't said why in any articulate way. I suspect because they can't. I am a gay rights campaigner because of my faith, not in spite of it. The laity are overwhelmingly (ime, not real research) in favour of equal marriage and I truly believe that the (Catholic) church's position will officially change from the bottom up rather than the top down. It was thus with slavery and apartheid which were deemed by the Vatican to be in line with 'natural law' long after they were condemned by all right thinking people.

There are huge ructions atm within the catholic church over this. US Fransican sisters are embroiled in a battle with the pope and they do seem to be widely supported. Priest and even the odd Bishop are speaking out. Cardinal Schonborn seems to be the highest ranking hope for the future. The Soho Masses would have been unthinkable in the past. Now it would be unthinkable for them not to take place There is a definite general pressure amongst Religious as well as laity to overhaul social and sexual teaching. It will happen. Even Obamas healthcare reforms are throwing spanners in the Vatican's works.

I'm going to work now so I won't be able to answer all of the traditional questions you get on these threads along the lines of "why don't you just go to a different church". "how are you a real Catholic when you disagree with the Pope". etc.

Really encouraging to hear these responses (and yours too Hebie, but we're singing from the same hymn sheet as it were). I often feel quite inhibited from speaking about 'sensitive' issues with Christians as I disagree so vehemently with what comes from your leaders. But it's nice to hear that you're not just sheep. It would be nicer still if there was a grassroots campaign among Christians and Catholics who aren't in support of what their bosses say. Good point re. apartheid and slavery too.

One of my concerns over this is that my DD goes to a C of E primary school and I get nervous that someone will preach to the kids that this is the line the church takes (and therefore that it's ok). I know her headteacher never would as a more tolerant and inclusive man I've never met, but I'm less sure about the church liaison officer who comes in, or what she may hear from other kids who are members of the church.

'They also fear that they will bring condemnation on the country for encouraging homosexuality.'

The church is hardly encouraging homosexuality though is it, even if it did marry same-sex couples. Gay people are quite capable of doing their own encouraging! You can't 'encourage' a state of being, that's akin to saying that you can convert someone to heterosexuality.

'Lastly, they fear that those homosexual acts will condemn those involved in them.' That's part of the arrogance. How can the church make these assumptions on someone else's behalf? Condemn them to what? Everlasting hellfire for loving someone?

"I think these churches absolutely should be able to marry people as they please, both religiously and civilly. As long as they are not abusing or bullying, there should be no intervention from the government. They are following their own conscience, which they should be able to do, regardless of whether or not you agree with them."

They are opposing homosexual people being able to marry in civil ceremonies. They are using the "slippery slope" argument. They are making it abundantly clear that they not only believe homosexuality is wrong, they believe it is important enough to campaign over in a more overt way than any previous governmental decisions.

Single motherhood is just as much against scripture, but the church is not coming out against that. Most churches will happily baptise the children of unmarried couples. Many churches will marry divorceés. Adulterers are not forbidden from marrying, yet people in same-sex, monogamous relationships are. Adultery was spoken against (according to the Bible) at least as much, if not more, than homosexuality.

It is, at its root, nothing more or less than homophobia.

What are the differences in the needs?

A partnership should be just that, regardless of gender?

I'm not sure which laws protect one gender over the other, can you clarify?

I don't see how the church of England could be forced to marry same-sex couples. Divorce and remarriage has been legal for years, but churches have not been forced to marry previously divorced couples. They do agree to do it sometimes, but even Prince Charles, the future head of the church, could not make them carry out his marriage to the woman he committed adultery with - he had to have a register office wedding and a church blessing afterwards.

I think the slippery slope argument is a complete red herring, and I have seen comments in the news from lawyers saying as much today.

The most simple and fair arrangement would be to take civil ceremonies away from the churches. Just as everyone from every other religion and none has to, you have your civil ceremony to adhere to the law, then you go and do your church/ temple/ mosque/ grove of special trees in the nudd blessing thing.

Fair's fair, why should one sect of christianity get all the power?

I heard some bishop or other on the Today Programme this morning trying to justify the church's position.

It seemed to boil down to a belief that if gay marriage is legalised then, of course, the Anglican church could not possibly allow such horrid people to get married on their property.

But that nasty old European Court of Human Rights might step in and insist that the church allows such marriages, what with those pesky laws about not being a bigot discriminating based on sexuality.

But as the Anglican church couldn't possibly allow such people to get married on their property, the church would have to disestablish itself to prevent it from being forced to perform such ceremonies. Which rather left me thinking "Be my guest, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out."

I can't see one good reason why gay marriage should not be legalised. If your preferred religious says that homosexuality is wrong then no-one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex as you. But if gay marriage is legalised and the Anglican church wishes to retain its privileged role in England then it should follow the damn law and marry anyone who is legally allowed to marry. If it doesn't like that then it can feel free to give up its seats in the Lords and all the other pomp, ceremony and privilege and go and join the ranks of the other, less lordly churches.

(Although one wonders how much the church's behaviour here is fueled by theology and how much it's powered by a fear of an even bigger schism with some of the African branches of Anglicanism that are even less gay-friendly than the English branch.)

I heard that bishop this morning too, and his argument didn't hold any water at all. It sounded like a PR person had thought it up to avoid any awkward questions about homophobia.

I don't think churches should be forced to marry gay couples - and the proposal for equal civil marriage of course doesn't do that - but I'm curious to hear from sciencelover why she thinks that, as a lesbian mother, have different 'needs' from marriage than her?

What particularly peed me off with the Church's statement - as well as the recent contribution from John Sentamu - is this line of 'we're all very pro our homosexual brethren, and we've always spoken up for them, but we shouldn't get into confusing wants and needs, and we already have this marvellous civil partnership business which is just hunkydory so why try to change it?" This reframing themselves as our friends who are just kindly but firmly pointing out to us how we are getting this wrong... The church establishment in this country has fought every move to improve the lives of lesbian and gay people in this country. They do not think I should have the right to love who I want. They do not think I should have legal equality. They do not think I should have my children. They do not want people like me serving in their church. They do not want my children in their schools. Why on earth should I believe that they have any understanding or concern whatsoever about my 'needs'?

I make a firm distinction here between the church establishment and individual Christians, who I often find thoughtful, passionate and astute.

I agree, MissM. The PR team came up with the line that they thought would carry best in a secular context, but forgot to include the ring of truth.

I think that's why I asked the question Devora, because I struggle with the clash between what the church establishment says publicly and what believing Christians think themselves (I say 'believing Christians' to try to distinguish between those who worship regularly in a church and believe in God, Jesus etc as opposed to getting married in church and then never going again).

As I said, I am not a Christian. But I feel that if I was, and was a member of the C of E, I would find it very hard to remain in the church when its elders were saying such things as if they spoke for me.

Oh, and I also don't think the church should be forced to marry gay couples. But I do think they should be honest about their reasons for their reluctance, not hide behind some kind of apparent legal disestablishment bullshit. Like Snorbs, I also had a 'off you go then' reaction to that threat.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jun/12/church-of-england-gay-marriage

Powerful piece by Giles Fraser.

What a fantastic piece. Good for him.

Devora, you're right. When Bishop wossname on the Today Programme said that the church had always been in favour of civil partnerships I almost swerved off the road, such was my need to shout "You sodding liar!" at the radio. I very clearly remember the church opposing it every step of the way and I'm pretty sure most, if not all of the bishops in the Lords voted against it.

Shame that the bloke from Stonewall wasn't allowed to make that point.

I thought the Bishop was given far too much uninterrupted airtime compared to Ben Summerskill.

The bishop was given enough rope to hang himself. Ben Summerskill didn't need any longer to prove himself right!

Good point Seeker.

US Catholic priest speaking in favour of equal marriage

Interesting quote from Benedict XVI about halfway in and a rather sweet quote from Cardinal Hume to end.