Thursday, 22 March 2007

SORs: what the bishops did etc.

There were three bishops present and voting last night, and one retired English bishop.

Lord Harries voted against the amendment.

The Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Winchester, and the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham each spoke for, and voted for the amendment.

Lord Eames also voted for the amendment.

You can read their speeches here (in chronological order, scroll down as necessary):

Southwell & Nottingham

York

Winchester

Ekklesia has commented on this aspect of the debate: Bishops reject calls to vote on Sexual Orientation Regulations and also Bishop’s vote over Sexual Orientation Regulations.

The Press Association issued Kelly welcomes gay equality law

Zefrog has Sexual Orientation Regulations - Lords Vote and What the Christian Right Doesn’t Want You to See Anymore.

The Public Whip analyses the Lords voting in detail here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 11:31am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | equality legislation
Comments

Archbishop John Sentamu, supporting the amendment, expresses the fear that:
"The time is fast approaching when Christianity will be almost as openly disavowed in the language as in fact it is already supposed to have disappeared from the conduct of men ... and to believe will be deemed the indication of a feeble mind and a contracted understanding."

Well, Eboracum old pal, I share your apprehension. And you're doing exactly the right thing to bring that very situation about.

Posted by: Caliban on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 1:17pm GMT

In the interests of (Anglican) equality I would point out that another retired bishop, Lord Eames, voted for the amendment, going one step further than he did the last time this matter came before the Lords.

Posted by: ChrisM on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 2:29pm GMT

ChrisM
thanks for pointing that out. I will amend the article.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 2:36pm GMT

'The Message is onward onward Christian soldiers. A lot of good has come out of this fight against the SORs. Many Christians 'smelt the coffee' for the first time because of this issue and realised what this aggressive liberal New Labour Government is really about. So Christian please do not be too downhearted. Many believers have put up a sustained noble and dignified fight on this issue, sadly they have been undermined by some liberal Christians and even some non-liberal Christians who were perhaps taken in by the Government's false reassurances and smooth sounding soundbites. Fool them!

Eventually I hope and pray that all Christians unite to make a stand against this atheistic Government and it's aggressive secularist agenda. I also hope in future fights on important moral issues, Christians don't use Christian 'grace' as a poor excuse for cowardice and doing nothing.

Posted by: Simon Icke on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 3:57pm GMT

Simon Icke pleaded
"Christian please do not be too downhearted."

You mean there's something to get downhearted about? That some silly idiot running a hotel can't run two sets of values?

Posted by: Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 5:39pm GMT

Of course a lot of good has come out of it -- the SORs have been voted in handsomely. I am content.

On balance I think it better that the anti-gay stance (wonderful word that -- stance), of certain bishops and others has been widely advertised. We know what we are up against in working for an equal society. Their speeches would repay listening to or reading -- even though an unpleasant task. The bishops are lagging behind. Why don't they get some of their gay colleagues to give them a seminar or workshop on it all. They could all go to Exeter diocese for it. Nice part of the world that. Bill Ind might consent to chair it.

Also when our prayers have been answered what do we say /do ? Or do Simon and Andrea now think that God got it wrong, this time ? Anyone for theodicy ?

And now I understand what Eames means -- or at least hope he employs the word 'homophobia'. His behaviour makes it most clear. He famously did the introduction and comparing (remember ?) at the launch of the Windsor Report -- and assured us over and over that 'it is not homophobic'.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 7:52pm GMT

Simon Icke, you won't have me on your side. I'm in favour of it, very much so, a very good measure to insist that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of who they are. We live in a society, and there is no liberty in being someone who is discriminated against by people because of their unrelated views to the service they are providing.

Posted by: Pluralist on Thursday, 22 March 2007 at 11:07pm GMT

...also of interest, the Howe's voted differently.

Lord for the amendment, Lady against!

Posted by: Merseymike on Friday, 23 March 2007 at 1:11am GMT

Thinks: what a pity the SORs were not described as 'The Anti-Hypocrisy Regulations'. Might have got a few folk thinking above the navel.

Posted by: mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Friday, 23 March 2007 at 9:47am GMT

;=) ?

Don't think so. Some people won't be saved.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 23 March 2007 at 1:24pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.