This poor bishop feels so atttacked and out in the cold because his scope for attacking gays has been lessened -as he sees it. But not that much, or else we wouldnt be treated to this regular hateful, anti-gay diatribe. He feels attacked because he wants to attack.

He seems to know nothing of the processes of projection, and does not inquire much into his own motivations.

Briitain is more godly now than it has been in a long time. The spirit is at work, but those who 'speak for the churches' cannot discern it. The spirit has left the bishops who little or nothing to say to us.

Scott-Joynt led the campaign to liberalise divorce and remarriage, over-turning centuries of 'Christian and biblical tradition'. But he is very selective about what he wants overturned, and what he wants to see liberalised.

It all comes with the price of being the established state church.

Double-barrelled Old Wykehamist living in Wolvesey Palace says that his illogical social prejudices (anti-gay, yet pro-church remarriage after divorce) are not given sufficient welcome when he attempts, unelected, to influence legislation in the House of Lords.

And he thinks this is something to complain about?

The problem, of course, is in seeing a conflict between the rights of Christians and the rights of gays. It undoubtedly does not occur to the bishop that many of these gays are, in fact, Christians themselves.

Of course he's right - remember Jody Dobrowski being murdered in London a couple of years ago for being a Christian? No wait, that was because he was gay.
Or Christian teen suicide attempts running at a rate four times that of atheists? No, wait, that was gays again.
Sure, a lot of people assume Christians are stupid, benighted, unable to think for themselves - I wonder why we got that reputation? But the worst "problem" I've had since converting is getting sneered at ONCE on a train for reading a bible.

Scott-Joynt and his colleagues in the House of Lords are following a long tradition in which the Bishops use their place in the House to prevent the enactment of humane and liberal legislation, to the harm of vulnerable people in society. In his excellent book 'Hanging in Judgement', Harry Potter (really, he is a priest and a barrister) charts the way in which, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the bishops in the House of Lords subverted the attempts of reformers to abolish the death penalty. It's a long story, but, basically, people had grown disgusted at the public hangings of murderers, and there was a head of steam for abolition. The Bishops spearheaded a reform which put hangings into execution sheds, out of the public gaze. In this way, they prolinged the use of the death penalty for nearly a hundred years. plus ca change. (cedilla, please, Simon)

Of course, the real mistake was thinking that religion should be any part of equality legislation. It should be a matter of private belief, not affecting secular, civil society. I don't think opinions should be protected