Church of England accused of scaremongering over gay marriage

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Church of England accused of scaremongering over gay marriage

Gay rights campaigners hit back at claims that introducing same-
sex marriages could force church out of its wedding role

Ben Quinn and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 June 2012 10.52 BST

The Church of England was accused of carrying out a "masterclass in melodramatic scaremongering" as it delivered an uncompromising warning to the government against pressing ahead with a controversial proposal to legalise gay marriage.

Introducing same-sex marriage could lead to the church being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, the CofE claimed in a potentially explosive submission in response to the government's consultation on gay marriage, which closes on Thursday.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, which campaigns for gay rights, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Many bishops in the Church of England today will be rather pleased because once again they are not talking about global poverty or the HIV pandemic - they are talking about the subject that obsesses them, and that is sex.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/church-of-england-scaremongering-gay-marriage

[WillParkinson]

1. Gasp...

The church scaremongering? Oh, say it isn't so!

[stevenleser]

2. Real simple solution. The Church of England should endorse and perform Gay marriages.

This needs some leadership by Queen Elizabeth. She could step in and resolve this immediately. The British Royal family doesnt have much real power left, but one they do hold is 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

[tjwmason]

4. The Queen doesn't have that power

First there would need to be legalisation of gay marriage by Parliament (currently under consultation with the government indicating that it supports the move); then extending that permission to religiously solemnised marriages (the current proposals explicitly exclude marriages solemnised in a religious ceremony); then the Church of England would have to amend its canon law to permit it (potentially this would have to be ratified by Parliament too).

Supreme Governor of the Church of England is like the rest of her titles, extreme in its apparent meaning but heavily constricted in its real power.

[stevenleser]

5. No question. I did not mean to imply she could make gay marriage legal for the UK.

However, her authority over the Church of England does extend to its ecclesiastical rules, does it not? In effect, like with Reformed Judaism in the US, LGBT folks can get married in Reformed Jewish temples here in the US. Unless the state you are in recognizes gay marriage or civil unions, it unfortunately does not carry the weight of law. That requires individual state or SCOTUS action.

[tjwmason]

6. The Church of England has a system of councils

Right up to the General Synod, which is effectively the Parliament for the church - they're the ones who set the rules. The Queen is generally held in high respect by the bishops and other senior members, but she doesn't get a genuine say in how the Church acts.

The biggest problem is that the Church of England, being established, won't do anything which isn't in-line with the state.

There is widespread use of blessing services for gay couples, but it's always under the radar...and in those parishes which are accepting of it. The Church of England houses everybody from those 'more catholic than the Pope', to Bible-thumping evangelicals, to 'so liberal they're pretty much unitarian'...and so attitudes are varied, any change in formal policy will take a long time to get through.

[PennyB]

3. Jeremy Vine Debate

Was listening to a great debate today on Radio 2.

The basics was that Gay marriage is not needed as many gay and lesbian couples consider the Civil Partnership as good as marriage, and it essentially means the same thing.

Obviously there is the Biblical viewpoint which we could debate till the cows come home, but Id like to know if G+L people really care? Is it really that important whether you get a "real" marriage, or if a civil partnership is enough?

Is this really important to the Government or is it just a "vote gatherer"?

[William769]

7. Really?

Do we Really care? You ask that here? Really?

I think you need to explain your comments here.

[gkhouston]

8. If civil unions are truly "as good as marriage" for gay people, then they should be

"as good as marriage" for straight people, too, and no one needs marriage. It's "marriage equality", not "marriage as good as" that people are seeking. I know gay couples who have civil unions. I know others who have "holy unions" (religious ceremony, no legal effect). None of them are married, but I can discern no reason why they shouldn't be, nor why they should have to settle for "as good as".

[Fearless]

9. If there is no difference between the two then why have a distinction at all?

If they are the same thing, why not just keep the older term... marriage... and move on instead of creating an entirely new categorization for an allegedly yet heretofore un-defended position that the two terms are synonymous?

Because they are not the same. Separate but equal is inherently and by design unequal every time. Otherwise no such distinction would be made at all. "Civil union" or your even more bland "civil partnership" is more at home in a business merger than heartfelt and equally valid love between members of the same sex.