Bishop backs calls over gay marriage - ballot

1:30pm Tuesday 12th June 2012 in News

BACKING: The Rt Rev Dr John Inge BACKING: The Rt Rev Dr John Inge

THE Bishop of Worcester is backing the Church of England’s opposition to Government moves calling for same-sex marriages to be legalised.

The Rt Rev Dr John Inge said he “whole-heartedly” stood with the Church’s position, and joined them in launching a scathing attack on the Government’s consultation for being “prejudicial” to a fair process.

The consultation finishes on Thursday.

Echoing the Church’s statement released today, Bishop John said the law had already addressed “legal and material inequalities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships”.

“To go further and change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships,” he said.

He said it was “deeply unwise” to impose change for “ideological reasons”.

Bishop John also blasted the “hasty consultation” on the institution of marriage, adding it was completely wrong to say “there is such a thing as ‘religious marriage’ as distinct from ‘civil marriage’ when there is, in fact, no such distinction in law.”

The Church and Bishop John are urging the Government to reconsider its plans.

Comments(30)

Samboy says...
2:39pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Marriage is an institution devoted to the basic family unit practiced in one form or another by most animal groups for the development of the young and the ultimate survival of the species. It is modern society which is increasingly out of step. We appear to be attacking every established institiution 'just because it is there'. The civil contract is effectively the equivalent of marriage and should be sufficient for all practical purposes without destroying the foundations of society.

Report this post »

worcswolf says...
2:54pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Same sex relationships have been going on for as long as we have. It's known it was rife in roman times and to be honest their is nothing for same sex couples to be ashamed of. I'm heterosexual and live with my wife and children we had a civil ceremony as I'm an atheist and think religion has a lot to answer for the worlds problems.
But if you have practising people who want their marriages blessed in church then they should be allowed, I'm sure Jesus was all for inclusion and The churches attitude to same sex relationships is based on family but Elton John has a child and I'm sure other children living in same sex households are not loved any less.
This is the 21st century and everyone has the right to live free from all isms the church needs to encompass all their worshipers and respect their lifestyles.

Report this post »

PaulMeUnder says...
3:24pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Ah it's nice to sit back and watch as the CofE slowly but surely seals its own inevitable fate of non-relevance and ultimately non-existance.

Report this post »

Piccolo says...
5:04pm Tue 12 Jun 12

The critical issue is not so much whether the Church of England has or has not lost touch with modern society (whatever that might be) but whether it's in touch with God - & thank God for this encouraging demonstration that it is! Partners in same-sex relationships have every right & entitlement to make their own choices & commitments; but for the government to seek to fundamentally change so centrally valuable an institution established for millennia - to the extent even of dispensing with consummation laws & procedure - is beyond its mandate & moral authority. Civil partnerships meet every practical requirement & there is no need or justification for taking things further.

Report this post »

Hack says...
5:11pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Two practising and devout Christian males/females meet, fall in love. Their church rejects their 'gay' union by refusing to marry them in the sight of the God they pray to. Right or wrong. Discuss.

Report this post »

pinkfluff says...
6:13pm Tue 12 Jun 12

If two people are in love and want to celebrate that love by making a commitment then they should be allowed. That's it.....I really don't understand why anyone would try to stop them.

Report this post »

cressylock says...
6:32pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Have I missed something? Why does this sound like "Church of England" bashing? If the law is changed to allow gay marriages, then it is surely up to the individual churches whether they will actually perform the mariage ceremony - you can't force a church to perform a service. And what about other religions, will Catholic and Muslim 'churches' perform equivalent cermonies?

Report this post »

Hack says...
7:06pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Well cressylock, that's not the way it's being spun. The church believes, according to a debate I heard, that an appeal to the EU on Human Rights would mean they had to. The other side say that if a vicar/priest chooses as their human right not to perform the ceremony, based on their personal belief, it won't happen.
I'm not CofE bashing, but the debate is an interesting one.

Report this post »

molecat says...
7:09pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Anyone who wants a gay marriage should just get on and do it instead of bashing the Bishop.

Report this post »

pinkfluff says...
7:24pm Tue 12 Jun 12

naughty molecat ;-)

Report this post »

cressylock says...
7:33pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Hi Hack - thats what I find strange, and why I must be missing something. So if two heterosexual atheists wanted to get married in a church and the church refused (Ok, I don't know why they would want to, but it is very likely that the church would refuse) then the atheists could go to the EU court? I just find this all a very strange...

Report this post »

moonpig says...
7:40pm Tue 12 Jun 12

I think that the point here is that CofE vicars are the only religious officials who are able to *legally* marry someone. All other religions (including catholics) have to have a registrar register the wedding to make it legal so they are able to refuse to have ceremony for a gay couple if they want to. The only way I can see that the Anglican church can get out of their legal obligations to marry anyone covered by the law, is if they take the same approach as the other religions and only have the religious ceremony and leave the civil part to a registrar.

Report this post »

Hack says...
7:49pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Interesting comment cressylock. If the hetero non believers confessed to the Vic what they didn't believe in, but they liked the church bit 'cos it's got a lot more je-ne-sais-quoi than the registrar's office in the town hall, how would the Vic react? My guess is he/she would say 'oui' 'cos you never know if you can entice a convert with the ambiance of the interior of the church. So, if you are prepared (and that's a surmise by me) to marry non-believers 'cos they meet the male/female control factor, why not two same sex Christians?

Report this post »

Hack says...
7:59pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Web checks leave me confused with your post moonpig re the registrar registering the wedding.
For RC's divorcees are out and one of the parties has to be a 'baptised' Catholic.
But, this is about the CofE. Perhaps RC's come later ...

Report this post »

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
8:15pm Tue 12 Jun 12

It is up to the Church to decide who it marries, not the State. And if the law that Parliament passes enables the law to be challenged under the HRA, then it is bad law. Anyway, why is the Coalition spending time on this when there are more important issues that need sorting?

Report this post »

Hack says...
8:26pm Tue 12 Jun 12

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
It is up to the Church to decide who it marries, not the State. And if the law that Parliament passes enables the law to be challenged under the HRA, then it is bad law. Anyway, why is the Coalition spending time on this when there are more important issues that need sorting?
Do you not think 'oldcap' that relationships are part of the bedrock of our society?

Report this post »

Lew Smoralz says...
9:10pm Tue 12 Jun 12

moonpig wrote:
I think that the point here is that CofE vicars are the only religious officials who are able to *legally* marry someone. All other religions (including catholics) have to have a registrar register the wedding to make it legal so they are able to refuse to have ceremony for a gay couple if they want to. The only way I can see that the Anglican church can get out of their legal obligations to marry anyone covered by the law, is if they take the same approach as the other religions and only have the religious ceremony and leave the civil part to a registrar.
Well thought through moonpig. The CoE currently performs the same role as the registry office, in that its priests do the same as the registrars, except that the ceremony has a religious framework.

You can't have your cake and eat it. The CoE has to either accept what the courts decree or become like thge other churches just a religious body.

I would be happier if the church untangled this relationship with the state, which I think is unhealthy.

And why do the CoE have 5 unelected Bishops in the House of Lords? Why not Muslims, Methodists and Catholics as well? That is again an unhealthy symptom of something else that has to be changed soon.

Report this post »

Maggie Would says...
9:24pm Tue 12 Jun 12

I keep trying to get the slightest bit bothered about this subject but fail every time.
It beats me why anyone would get married anyway - it's just more mess to untangle when you separate.

Report this post »

Hack says...
10:01pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Maggie, B U a cynic? I B married; needn't I guess, but it's GR8. Married or not, it all goes rong it hurts.
Marriage aint needed, I accept. Just get it on and share. Nowt is perfect. But U got 2 wrk at it. Just don't start me on love ... how do you define that one ...

Report this post »

Maggie Would says...
10:10pm Tue 12 Jun 12

In English?

Report this post »

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
10:16pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Hack wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
It is up to the Church to decide who it marries, not the State. And if the law that Parliament passes enables the law to be challenged under the HRA, then it is bad law. Anyway, why is the Coalition spending time on this when there are more important issues that need sorting?
Do you not think 'oldcap' that relationships are part of the bedrock of our society?
I am not denying same-sex marriage - just that in this case the CofE should decide who it marries, and if the law is written such that it can be challenged under the HRA then it is bad law.

Report this post »

molecat says...
10:18pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Maggie Would wrote:
I keep trying to get the slightest bit bothered about this subject but fail every time.
It beats me why anyone would get married anyway - it's just more mess to untangle when you separate.
I can't think of a better argument for gay marriage than that. In these days of equality gay couples should have to suffer in the same way heterosexual ones do when relationships go wrong. Why should they have it so easy?

Report this post »

Maggie Would says...
9:43am Wed 13 Jun 12

molecat wrote:
Maggie Would wrote:
I keep trying to get the slightest bit bothered about this subject but fail every time.
It beats me why anyone would get married anyway - it's just more mess to untangle when you separate.
I can't think of a better argument for gay marriage than that. In these days of equality gay couples should have to suffer in the same way heterosexual ones do when relationships go wrong. Why should they have it so easy?
It's not the heartache and suffering that bothers me, it's all that paperwork!
I shall never divorce again, it's too much trouble, but there again I'd be surprised if I could find another mug to marry me!

Report this post »

Ted Elgar says...
12:13pm Wed 13 Jun 12

The CofE think they will be forced by the European Court of Human Rights to conduct same sex marriage. They won't. Legal argument that the priest's right to NOT carry out the ceremony counters the couple's right to be married. Not only out of touch, but terrible legal advice too. Threats of de-establishment total unconvincing. The death-throes of an increasingly marginalised cult.

Report this post »

WhatGracieDid says...
2:01pm Wed 13 Jun 12

I really cannot stand the scaremongering that the CoE are intent on with regards to Equal Marriage.

The Equal Marriage consultation specifically states that it will still not allow religious marriage to happen regardless of any religious institutions wish to do so. It is only consulting on Civil Marriage, in the eyes of the state.

The thing I can't get over is that the church keeps harping on about the sanctity of marriage, however CoE was formed because a certain someone wanted a divorce... So much for sanctity of marriage.

As a gay woman who recently became engaged to my rather awesome partner, this means so much to me. All I want to do is to be able to declare my love for her and formalise it in the same way that everyone is able to. To be able to call her my wife and have all the rights and responsibilties that the title conveys.

Yes, there is Civil Partnership, but being seperate is not equal.

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
1:39am Thu 14 Jun 12

WhatGracieDid, you describe all the things that make a relationship work, and I can assure you it's not a piece of paper. And you don't even need a ring to have the safest , loving ,trusting relationship, because you have all it really takes.
If you still require a piece of paper then you have a problem that a piece of paper will not solve.

Report this post »

WhatGracieDid says...
10:00am Fri 15 Jun 12

Its not about requiring a piece of paper to validate my relationship. Its about equal rights, and having the same legal standing as any other couple. To not be inferior or separate to anyone else.

Report this post »

27feet says...
10:28am Fri 15 Jun 12

Jabbadad - I believe a Civil Partnership is not seen as "binding" in various countries, particularly with respect to usual familial rights in the event of an emergency (Hospital etc).

The nice, easy option would be to whack it on a ballot paper the next time we all pop off to vote. Let the majority decide and finally put an end to the persistent noises from a minority interest lobbying group (the Church of England)

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
5:12pm Fri 15 Jun 12

I agree to a vote but then others are deciding your destiny, and often those who think they could be inferior sometimes are, yet frequently aren't.
I have been in two long time pre-marriage relationships, and the marriage part added a dimension that I couldn't handle, whereas the relationships were full of trust, respect, and a situation where no-one held the ownership of the other, or for that matter the others belongings. Ask yourself weren't Marriages invented by religions, I think we should all ask why. Perhaps religion is the biggest business in the world without being classed as such. For in reality the bond between two people doesn't need a blessing or a piece of paper.
I have met many people who have been in a stable relationship for years, that have never needed a wedding to signify that what they have is the real thing. It's all about how people see this issue, but a vote may well make things more difficult to politically change for many years to come. Just get on with your lives, you don't have to ask anyone else to sanctify your love for another person.

Report this post »

Hack says...
5:33pm Fri 15 Jun 12

Some interesting points of view. Notwithstanding my personal view of the church, I go back to the point I made earlier. Two practicing Christians meet and fall in love. They are the same sex. On what basis does the church refuse to recognise their commitment that they wish to have acknowledged in the church and in the sight of the god they worship? It is, as WhatGracieDid said, a matter of equality. Also as Jabbadad says it is about religious control. If a 'priest' refuses to marry in church two people of the same sex, the HRA cannot make him/her as that would contravene his human right to oppose same sex marriage based on his personal religious belief and refuse to carry out the ceremony. There will though be some CofE vicars who oppose the current church view who will perform the marriage ceremony in church. Yes, a piece of paper will suffice legally, but if that is all it takes, then perhaps revoke the right of the church to carry out marriages.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree