Comments: Equality Bill latest

Another silly letter in the Times today from Lord Carey, in which he repeats the exact same canard that Lord Alli carefully refuted for the Telegraph on 7 March.

Lord Carey's letter at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7072873.ece

Lord Alli's piece at http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004276.html

Posted by badman at Wednesday, 24 March 2010 at 12:40pm GMT

badman, is this the same Carey under whose leadership the CoE hemorrhaged membership?

Posted by JPM at Wednesday, 24 March 2010 at 1:29pm GMT

Not for the first time one wishes Lord Carey would take himself somewhere far from the media - Pitcairn Island comes to mind - and shut the hell up.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Wednesday, 24 March 2010 at 5:12pm GMT

One might wonder whether there is a concerted campaign to deliberately mis-represent what Lord Ali's amendments actually mean. And how some people can represent this as aanother attack on religious freedom when in fact it liberalises the law for those who want to take advantage of its provisions, is beyond me.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Wednesday, 24 March 2010 at 6:39pm GMT

"In response to the concerns, new amendments were voted through on Tuesday which made it clear consent must be given for religious premises being used for the ceremonies. This could allow national churches to veto the desire of liberal clergy to host the events." - Martin Beckford, Telegraph -

This will be the real testing point for the Church of England - on whether or not they will allow their churches and clergy to add God's Blessing to the committed monogamous relationship of legal, faithful, same-sex partnerships in Church.

Contrary to +Winchester, and others within the Church who are fearful of the consequences of the passage of this Bill, there will be no prospect of legal action against religious bodies who do not offer religious ceremonies for Civil Partnerships. What, though, will be really important - in terms of the dispensation of charity and justice - is the degree to which the C.of E. is willing to affirm the validity of same-sex relationships.

Thank God the House of Lords is acting charitably on this important issue - paving the way for the House of Commons to affirm the Civil Rights of the LGBT Community in England and Wales. Let not the Church be condemned for institutional homophobia.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 24 March 2010 at 9:44pm GMT

The Religious freedom issue gets complicated. Because religions organise themselves in such a variety of ways any law can easily have unintended consequences. Its not hard to see that a law or set of regulations may advantage one part of a religious group over another.
An example of this where the TEC through its Dennis canon asserts its right to hold property communally. State law in Virginia allows individual congregations to leave with property. TEC argues this abrogates its religious freedom to organise hierachially.

Posted by John Sandeman at Wednesday, 24 March 2010 at 9:55pm GMT

What strange 'bed-fellows' - My Lords of Winchester and Clifton! What is it about the desire of Christians to be able to celebrate their faithful life-partnerships with a Blessing from God in their places of worship that so antagonizes these noble lords? Even if they - as Anglican prelates - have no regard for same-sex relationships, they must surely accept that there are other religious bodies that believe in celebrating them.

If both Clifton and Winchester believe in the concept of heterosexual divorce and remarriage, then their discrimination against faithful same-sex relationships can hardly be based on sexual mores. The Bible says nothing about faithful same-sex relationships, per se, but it has a lot to say about serial monogamy.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Thursday, 25 March 2010 at 8:46am GMT

"One might wonder whether there is a concerted campaign to deliberately mis-represent what Lord Ali's amendments actually mean. And how some people can represent this as aanother attack on religious freedom when in fact it liberalises the law for those who want to take advantage of its provisions, is beyond me."

Ah well - sounds like your reactionaries are taking a page from our tea-baggers, who have managed to convince many people that the health care bill will set up death panels, provide free unlimited abortions, give insurance to illegal aliens etc etc etc. Now someof those who voted for the bill are getting death threats, vandalized offices. Don't go there!

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Thursday, 25 March 2010 at 11:35am 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.