Comments: Civil partnerships on religious premises: developments

Baroness O’Cathain

'She is known for her socially conservative views, in particular her efforts to retain the ban on same-sex couples from adopting, and has taken on a leadership role in the movement after the death of Lady Young'. - Wikipedia

She is also chair of the Chichester Cathedral Council!

Posted by Richard Ashby at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 12:17pm GMT

You would have thought that recent events at St Paul's would have been a wake-up call for the church. But no, we must still spend a huge amount of money and energy to make sure we can keep those gays out of our churches.

Makes me want to weep.

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 12:44pm GMT

Thanks Richard and Erika. As you can imagine, Quakers (and I would expect Unitarians and Liberal Jews) are pretty outraged at Baroness O'Cathain's attempt to restrict their (our) spiritual freedom. The Hill Opinion says at para. 21: "the number of religious organisations which have evinced an intention to avail themselves of this statutory amendment is miniscule" [basically the 3 denominations I have mentioned - IM]. And THAT is a reason to deny our spiritual freedom? I hope that TA readers who feel similarly outraged contact any Peers they know (try to ask them to vote against the O'Cathain motion.

Posted by Iain McLean at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 1:58pm GMT

Mark Hill's opinion is comprehensive and lucid, as one would expect from him. The problem he raises is not that some religious groups will be permitted to hold Civil Partnerships on their premises, but that the mechanism for creating this permission is drafted in such a way as to create an obligation for other faith groups to do so, even against their own doctrines or consciences.

It seems reasonable to me, and evidently it seemed reasonable to the government given their assurances to that effect, to protect faith groups (and individual clergy) that do not wish to permit civil partnerships on their premises from charges of discrimination whilst at the same time providing permission to faith groups who are so-minded to host Civil Partnerships. What strikes me as odd is the continued refusal to allow faith groups to use a religious ceremony to effect a Civil Partnership. I suppose this will become moot once the definition of marriage is changed.

Faith groups are permitted to discriminate in a variety of ways, such as refusing to ordain women or non-celibate men, refusing to solemnise certain marriages and so on. Professor Hill suggests that the privilege to discriminate in such ways is being curtailed with respect to Civil Partnerships.

Whether one accepts any specific discrimination is a separate matter, but in my view religious freedom requires protection of the right to do so, at least in certain definable circumstances.

Posted by Alan T Perry at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 4:57pm GMT

Whatever one's position on the principle, nobody wants to force any church or minister into a situation that is plainly contrary to both the governments intent and the wishes of all people of good will.

I find the opinion of Professor Hill sometimes convincing but occasionally framed in hot language not normally his style.

The argument around trusteeship and tenants works both ways. One can envisage the owner/trustee withholding permission when a congregation long to exercise this pastoral ministry, there will be many Anglican communities in this position. But while this would completely thwart the willing aspirations of a willing church I cannot see how a perverse trustee registering a building for Civil Partnerships forces the Church or Minister to carry them out, or (depending on their tenancy) even allow them to take place ... someone will have to explain that to me!

And precisely what would the Minister have to do? If s/he does not ask to be registered as a CP Registrar - as the regs are drafted nobody other than the Registrar need be present ........

Also, with such a declaratory preamble and with all the statements from government ministers it is barely conceivable that any litigant would succeed in prosecuting an unwilling Church or Minister under any Act.

Still, we can see some real concern ..... my only sadness is that there are few who are complaining who have any genuine "good will" .......

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 6:04pm GMT

The point is that if there is any doubt about whether religious officials or groups are protected from prosecution, it should be a simple enough matter to draft the necessary legislation in such a way as to remove that doubt. It might be that no litigation will succeed, but that doesn't preclude the attempt, which would cost a significant amount of time, energy and money.

The Canadian government faced the same doubts with respect to the Civil Marriage Act (2005), and resolved them by inserting section 3.1:

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Posted by Alan T Perry at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 7:47pm GMT

What happens if you are a gay couple who happen to attend a local Anglican church, and you want to your relationship to be solemnized in the church where you worship?

Should the views of a local vicar or PCC overrule the right you ought to have, to have your relationship thus solemnized in your own church building, even if other officials have to be drafted in to preside?

Should the conscience of some be allowed to overrule the conscience of others, in a way which discriminates between gay couples and heterosexual couples?

Why can't an objecting priest just say "Because of my conscience I will not preside myself, but you are free to be blessed by someone else."

That would seem the nearest path to charity, and respect for everyone's consciences.

The problem comes when people are discriminated against (refused the same facilities that are granted to someone else, on grounds of colour, gender, sexual orientation etc) and one group of people are trying to enforce their own consciences not just over themselves but over other people as well.

Posted by Susannah at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 9:48pm GMT

I agree with Alan and Mark that the matter should be clear and beyond dispute.

But as far as a lawyer is concerned that (being beyond dispute) would be unique in the history of legislation.

Section 3.1 of the Canadian Civil Marriage Act LOOKS pretty catchall though!

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Thursday, 24 November 2011 at 11:14pm GMT

Guardian news report on this:
Lords debate threatens decision to allow gay weddings in churches
by Riazat Butt

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 12:32am GMT

I'm sympathetic to your point, Susannah, but the fact is that same-sex couples are not permitted to have their relationships solemnized in the Church of England as it stands. (Yes, I know that there are any number of blessings every week, but they are still not permitted.) And the Covenant will guarantee that this remains the case.

With respect to the actual solemnization of a Civil Partnership, I don't see how a C of E parish could be licensed to become a venue for such a ceremony. Not that that will necessarily stop people from trying!

Posted by Alan T Perry at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 12:48am GMT

It would seem that, until (and unless) the British government brings in legislation enabling Same-Sex Marriage - as an institution with the same civil rights as Heterosexual Marriage - the Established Church of England will never be hospitable to any understanding of faithful, monogamous Same-Sex relationships for its many Gay members.

Maybe, like the Ordination of women into its ministry, the Church of England will wait for other Faith Communities to make the first step towards the religious solemnisation of Same-sex partners in any ceremony hosted by the Church. this does seem a sad reflection on its so-called Christian ministry to the under-privileged.

Despite Gospel exhortations for its leaders to lead the secular world in justice initiatives, this is one area where the Church lags behind.
No wonder the world is bypassing the Church.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 1:40am GMT

What prevents the Abp of Canterbury from issuing a pastoral decree to every parish priest saying -- if that's what the CofE really wants -- "Thou shalt not solemnize the legal civil partnership of two men or two women", while other religions are free to exercise the option to solemnize or not to solemnize as their teaching and revelation dictates?
Why is Parliament in the position to tell non-CofE religions whose civil marriages or civil partnerships they may or may not solemnize?

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 5:28am GMT

Well, Peterpi, this is not how the Church of England works. Unlike the Pope (for Roman Catholics), The ABC has no canonical authority to demand any new disciplinary measure of any parish or clergy-person. Quite rightly, in my opinion! Such measures have to be approved by General Synod - a more democratic way of doing things.

There is no Magisterium (yet) in the Anglican Communion. But hold on to your hat, it may just be coming in with the Covenant Process.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 9:49am GMT

Ron - this is an English matter, not a British one. Marriage in Scotland is covered by Scots law, and the legal processes are different here. In England, a parish priest is legally bound to marry previously unmarried couple who can legally be married. In Scotland no minister of religion of any denomination is bound to marry anybody. Scotland is currently consulting on a raft of matters relating to equal marriage and to civil partnerships.

Posted by Rosemary Hannah at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 10:07am GMT

So now bishops bless road salt as well as battleships. Pathetic.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 10:25am GMT

Praise God for the Conservative peers in the House of Lords! The state has no right to pass coercive legislation that binds the national Church, or any other Christian denominaotion, to perform ceremonies that are inimical to Christian teaching. Civil partnerships are not marriages but exist to protect property and the financial security of partners when one party dies. As a matter of interest, does anybody know how many relicts of civil partnerships are being supported by the Church of England Pensions Board?

Posted by John Bowles at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 11:39am GMT

Alan and others

the Equality Act 2010 can be found on and the Explanatory Notes on From reading Section 202, Schedule 23 and the Explanatory Notes on both, Parliament's intention to allow the C of E and other faith-based organisations to opt out of providing space for civil partnerships without any penalties seems clear.

Do you think there is any ambiguity in the law as it now stands, in which case it could be amended to make it even clearer? Or might those opposed to allowing civil partnerships in religious premises be exaggerating the risks?

Posted by Savi Hensman at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 1:22pm GMT

John Bowles misrepresenting the facts again. The state is doing no such thing. It is the Conservatives who, as usual, are doing their damnedest to coerce others.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 4:27pm GMT

Those powerful organisations and peers, who hate lgbt people most, lie vocally and misrepresent us - often.

And yet the truth of the wonderful gay lives does out in the end.

Shame on them ! Shame on the powers that be in the Church of England, which would soon collapse without its lgbt parisheners, pcc members, church-wardens, ministers and bishops !

Those of us who see this, find the lack of integrity of the bishops and archbishops' council shameful.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 4:54pm GMT

Encouraging response from Westminster:

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 5:28pm GMT

John Bowles: the Act absolutely does not bind any church. See the text of it posted by Savi. It was passed at the request of Quakers, Unitarians, and Liberal Judaism, who all came to a discernment that it was God's will that we should celebrate civil partnerships in our meeting houses etc. The Quaker theology underlying this is in "We are but witnesses" available on British Quakers' website. Quakers took most of a week to come to this discernment at our Yearly Meeting in 2009.

The fears expressed by Mark Hill QC on behalf of Christian Concern etc are imaginary. The Act says on its face that nobody will be forced to conduct cps against their will. So do the disputed Regulations. Watch this space for a rebuttal of the Hill opinion, coming shortly we hope.

Posted by Iain McLean at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 6:07pm GMT

John Bowles: "The state has no right to pass coercive legislation that binds the national Church, or any other Christian denomination, to perform ceremonies that are inimical to Christian teaching. Civil partnerships are not marriages but exist to protect property and the financial security of partners when one party dies."

Well, if you look at the thread above, this is precisely what is happening at the moment in Denmark - where there is a real Protestant State Church. If a civil partnership can in fact be a marriage perfectly well in the kingdoms of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium and Spain, as well as the republics of Portugal and Iceland, then there is really no logical reason at all why it should not also be the case in the United Kingdom, is there?

Posted by Fr Mark at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 8:41pm GMT

"The state has no right to pass coercive legislation that binds the national Church, or any other Christian denominaotion, to perform ceremonies that are inimical to Christian teaching" - John Bowles -

Perhaps Commentators on "Thinking Anglicans" - in order to present their case clearly - ought to be subject to a test in English comprehension. Then Mr.Bowles would not be tempted to post such a derisory comment as that above.

A simple reading of the proposed legislation does not 'require' any religious organisation to conduct Same-Sex partnership ceremonies. It merely allows such a ceremony to take place in the premises of a willing party. No legal obligation!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 25 November 2011 at 11:40pm GMT

It is good that informed commentators have clarifield the powers defined by this proposed legislation. But what right has the Government to impose such options,rather than demands, on Christian bodies and the national Church? Quakers, Unitarians, and Liberal Jews represent a small minority in this country and it is immaterial what they think. They should have no influence, however indirect, on the policies of the Church of England.

But let's go further. If militant homosexuals can pick on innocent, law-abiding, Christian bed-and-breakfast proprietors and effectively ruin them because they were denied accomodation, the outlook for the national Church (whatever the legislation allows) is bleak. I can foresee cynical test cases ad nauseum organised by the Gaystarpo which will act as if incumbents are obligatorily required to conduct these farcical ceremonies.

In the meanwhile, I have no doubt that currently unofficial blessings galore are showered on civil partners by accomodating Anglican clerics. Yuck!

Posted by John Bowles at Saturday, 26 November 2011 at 9:34am GMT

John Bowles,
May I toss it back your way?
What “right” does the Church of England have, to tell Quakers, Unitarians, and Liberal Jews that they have “no right” to officially recognize legal civil partnerships in their churches and synagogues as their revelation and discernment see fit?
Why can't the General Synod -- or whatever the appropriate body of the CofE would be -- say "We won't officially recognize such unions", while other churches and houses of worship can decide to do otherwise?
If a liberal Jewish synagogue gives sanction to same-sex legal civil partnerships, how on Earth or in the heavens does that have the slightest effect on any CofE parish, great or small?
You dismiss Quakers, Unitarians, and Jews so lightly. How noble of you. “Eskimos or Innuit make up such an insignificant percentage of the population, who cares that our laws negatively affect them? I’m not harmed!”
Also, the bed-and-breakfast you are so aggrieved about agreed to open its doors to the general public, all of the general public, and to follow the laws of the land. The laws of the land say "You shall not discriminate." The laws of the land also state that the CofE and other religions can, to a certain extent, follow their own rules. The CofE, for example, will never have to accept a Jewish rabbi as a priest. It should be absurdly easy to make the national laws reflect that some churches and houses of worship want officially sanction same-sex couples, while others don't.
It's called "freedom of religion". Not "freedom of religion unless CofE hardheads disagree".

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Saturday, 26 November 2011 at 6:08pm GMT

"But let's go further. If militant homosexuals can pick on innocent, law-abiding, Christian bed-and-breakfast proprietors and effectively ruin them because they were denied accomodation, the outlook for the national Church (whatever the legislation allows) is bleak. I can foresee cynical test cases ad nauseum organised by the Gaystarpo which will act as if incumbents are obligatorily required to conduct these farcical ceremonies."

I thought you all didn't get Fox News over there...

Don't you just love "hate-fear" mongering? I mean, why do a pathetic minority get all frothed up at two-people that wish to cherish each other until death do them apart?


Posted by evensongjunkie at Saturday, 26 November 2011 at 6:51pm GMT

One can only suppose that Mr Bowles has read his 'Alice'.

...he only does it to annoy
because he knows it teases.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Saturday, 26 November 2011 at 8:16pm GMT

[To paraphrase Rachel Maddow, re GOP candidate Herman Cain]

John Bowles is an art project.

[Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if "John Bowles" is one of those bog-standard Guardian atheists, TRYING to make religious people look like rank bigots. Again, I'm afraid Poe's Law raises it's ugly head's_law]

Posted by JCF at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 3:10am GMT

Peter Gross

In an earlier comment you made the excellent point that the Archbishop of Canterbury might issue a pastoral direction prohibiting the solemnization of same-sex 'marriages' while recognising the freedom of other denominations to undertake them. Fine.

I raised the decisions of the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews because their decisions were cited as precedent for other denominations, including the Catholic Church as well as the Church of England. Not only are these insignificant bodies but their doctrinal convictions are unorthodox, whereas Catholic and Anglican doctrine is not, however much individuals may dissent from it. Quakers repudiate sacraments, Unitarians deny the divinity of Christ, Liberal Jews are not Christians. None are representative of mainstream Christian teaching and offer untenable precedents which are probably entirely misunderstood by secularist opinion.

As for selective bed-and-breakfast proprietors, they are also admitting guests to their homes while providing a service, and surely have the right to decide whom to accomodate. If drunks and addicts can be refused, so, surely, can co-habiting couples and homosexuals? In this instance, a homosexual organisation was cynically making a test case, knowing the Christian convictions of the proprietors. It matters nothing to them that they have been financially ruined and their livelihood taken from them. I am praying that their appeal will be successful.
I gather that well-wishers have helped to pay their damages.

Their harassment by a group whose members could easily have found accomodation elsewhere is sickening and discredits the Gaystarpo further while drawing attention to its unscrupulose methods. This will only result in more prejudice against homosexuals. The Gaystarpo has turned from the bullied to being bullies.

Posted by John Bowles at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 10:45am GMT

a group whose members could easily have found accomodation elsewhere'

Expecting this in a nativity play near you any time soon ?

Homophibs are in fact victims. Queers (like me) are apparently Gaystapo - not the long suffering patient types we thought we were -appart from the odd Stonewall riot ! ...

Yet the anti-gay people with power do things like trying to scupper civil partnerships in the first place by trying to get our sibs and pets included -- and now this unpleasant and deceitful yes deceitful tactic :

Do they ever read the Bible much or inwardly digest ?

John Bowles I warmly suggest you ask Santa to bring you a copy of The Queer Bible Comentary (SCM -reduced) and read the chapeters on 1 Thes and Galatians in particular ! (But tis all inspirational).

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 3:01pm GMT

Since Mr Bowles has raised again the issue of the B&B couple again he should remember that they were running a business and were registered and taxed as such and no doubt subject to the same sort of regulations regarding fire, hygiene etc. They are bound by the same laws as all other businesses. If they didn't like the implications they should have shut up shop.

And why shouldn't they be tested as to whether they comply with the law. Do they seek exemption from fire regulations because they believe the Lord looks after his own?

Those running businesses are subject to rules and regulations which don't apply in private houses and may be subject to inspection and testing, why not? They may be financially ruined as you say but no doubt they supporters are rallying round, and in the meantime they have their sense of martyrdom to keep them warm.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 5:46pm GMT

For the record (1), in the bed-and-breakfast case that John Bowles cites (Hall and Preddy v. Bull), the judge stated:

"There was a suggestion in the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants [the b&b owners] were “set up” by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall. If this were true then while it would not of itself defeat a discrimination claim it would very materially affect the issue of damages. I can see why the defendants might have thought that this was so but I am quite satisfied on the evidence of the claimants that this is not the case and, in fairness to the Defendants, let me make it clear that their counsel, Mr James Dingemans QC, did not seek to run
the case on this basis."

Please therefore desist from repeating this incorrect claim.

For the record (2). Quakers are NOT asking other denominations to celebrate civil partnerships. They are asking - and Parliament has agreed, by a large majority, which Lady O'Cathain is now seeking to overturn - to be allowed to celebrate them IN THEIR OWN MEETING HOUSES. Please get your tanks off our lawn, Mr Bowles.

Posted by Iain McLean at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 6:05pm GMT

The bed and breakfast proprietors have not been 'martyred' because they have not given their lives for their convictions. But they have been victimised and deprived of their livelihood by cynical activists. If anything, they fall into the category of confessors, those who defend the Christian faith. It is perfectly dreadful seeing elderly people penalised in this way, one of whom is seriously ill. I hope they win their appeal. The harshness of your legalism is sickening, Richard Ashby. As for the middle-aged queans who brought the prosecution, they couldn't care tuppence. I doubt if they have a conscience.

Posted by John Bowles at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 6:40pm GMT

The legislation permitting houses of worship to provide religious services for civil partnerships will no more require the Church of England to do so than the General Synod measure permitting women bishops (when it is adopted and effective) will require the Roman Catholic Church in England to do the same. Permission is not requirement.

This is no doubt made messier by the Establishment, and the right of all parishioners to be married in their parish church -- whether they are believers or not. But it is also clear under the terms of the measure that there is no such right for civil partnerships. If Parliament passes a law for marriage equality, then the church will have to make a decision. But the Sturm and Drang and invocation of Godwin's Law are surely premature.

Roland Allen protested about the "sham marriage" tradition in English parishes -- that is, unchurched people using the church as decorative backdrop for their nuptials. Surely that is a real problem, isn't it? And one well worth solving over a hundred years after Allen's resignation...

Posted by Tobias Haller at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 9:39pm GMT

The harshness of your 'gaytapo' jibe is 'sickening' Mr Bowles. And it isn't my 'legalism' it's the law of the land. I am not aware that being either elderely or ill is an excuse for law breaking. And for good measure you might withdraw your accusation as regards a 'homosexual organisation cynically making a test case' which as shown above is refuted by the judge in the case.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 11:01pm GMT

I do not think hoteliers should be allowed to put signs in their windows saying "No Blacks" or "No Irish".

Nor do I think they should be allowed to put "No Gays".

Talking about majorities and minorities in this thread, the majority view in this country is that people should not be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation.

If you own a private house, it's really up to you which friends you invite to stay.

If you run a business offering services to the public (eg accommodation) then the law is quite clear that, just as it would be degrading to turn away a customer because they're black, it is also humiliating if a couple are turned away because they are gay.


Posted by Susannah at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 11:16pm GMT

If you can't accept the majority view in this country that being gay is alright, and if this would cause you to turn away gay couples, then it is clear that you should consider other employment because in this country we don't believe that people should be told: "You're gay, go away."

It's the law of the land, and quite rightly. Running a B&B is the wrong business for someone who rejects (and breaks) the law of the land.

They are entitled to their views. They are not entitled to break the law or place ordinary, decent people in positions where they have no idea from place to place whether they will be treated like other human beings or sent packing like some kind of outcasts.

For goodness sake, how would you feel if someone had a sign which said "No Blacks". Do Gay couples hurt any less? Do they bleed different blood? How would you feel? We should be proud of a country which says, you can't discriminate because someone is gay... or a woman... or a Muslim... or black... or lesbian... or transsexual.


Posted by Susannah at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 11:19pm GMT


Hoteliers need to obey the law about services to the public. They can't claim exemptions from the bans on discrimination if they are providing services to the public... because if you are on the receiving end, it hurts, dismays, and humiliates; and for those on the receiving end, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

A person can *choose* whether to run a B&B. A person can't choose whether to be Black or Gay or a Muslim etc. And anyway... they are just people.

The B&B Christians may be sincere and lovely people, but they cannot be above the law, and they will almost certainly lose their appeal. The Christian lawyers losing successive cases for their clients seem to me, in a way, to use those clients as pawns, because as lawyers they should know that the law can't just be over-ridden. But if they pit their dogma against Parliament's laws, I'd argue they expose their clients to painful public defeat, which may compound their original upset.

The B&B couple, sadly, are not fit to provide services to the public without discrimination. They really don't have a leg to stand on. They're not running a home, they're running a business. It is on that point that they will lose their case. It is arguably unkind for the lawyers to drag them through another ritual defeat.

I feel sorry for them. I think they are poorly advised.

Posted by Susannah at Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 11:26pm GMT

I suggest that Mr Bowles has a look inside a dictionary. Amongst other things mine defines a martyr as 'a person who suffers, or pretends to suffer, greatly from any cause...'.

The Christian Institute and other such bodies have been looking for and promoting martyrs in order to roll back the human rights and the equalities legislation for GLTB people. Having comprehensively failed so far, the 'Christians in Parliament' group has instituted an enquiry into 'discrimination' against 'Christian'. And look at who they are getting evidence from: why it's the Roman Catholic Church and the Christian Institue!

And while we are at it the word is 'queens', Mr Bowles, not 'queans'. Of course you could have used many more unpleasant epithets, all designed to belittle and eventually dehumanise GLTB people. Insult, belittle, caricature, then treat as less than human, discriminate against, brand, expel. Have you forgotten that leads to camps, cattle truck and a trip to the east, never to return? Or perhaps you don't care?

Posted by Richard Ashby at Monday, 28 November 2011 at 9:33am GMT

Two points, Susannah. The homosexual pair who asked to stay at this guest house need not have done so. They could have chosen to stay elsewhere. Apparently, there are others in the vicinity.

The Christian proprietors also refused to allow unwed heterosexual couples to stay in their guest house. Nobody appears to have made a fuss about that, yet an enormous fuss has been made about these middle-aged homosexuals who deliberately forced a test case irrespective of the decency of the now ruined proprietors. This is nothing more than bullying. There is no need to pity homosexuals, they can look after themselves and be as awkward and objectionable as any other organised minority.

Posted by John Bowles at Monday, 28 November 2011 at 10:12am GMT

Nothing anybody says will change Bowles' mind. I suggest we all stop feeding the troll.

Posted by Laurence C. at Monday, 28 November 2011 at 11:26am GMT

John: "The homosexual pair who asked to stay at this guest house need not have done so. They could have chosen to stay elsewhere. Apparently, there are others in the vicinity."

So would you legitimise "No Blacks" signs on the same basis. Just tell "them" they can go away and find somewhere else, and if there's somewhere else, that makes "No Blacks" alright?

Why is it wrong to discriminate (ever) on grounds of race, but ok to discriminate against two people who love each other (whether gay or unmarried heterosexual)?

The law says, if you provide a service to the public, you can't discriminate. No-one has bullied them into breaking the law, John. They have set their dogma above the law.

That doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for them. But if you don't like the law, try to get it changed. I doubt you will succeed, but you can try. As I say, if "No Blacks" is wrong, so is "No Gay People".

Posted by Susannah at Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 12:05am GMT

Roland Allen protested about the "sham marriage" tradition in English parishes -- that is, unchurched people using the church as decorative backdrop for their nuptials' (Tobias Haller).

I cannot let this pass without comment. I find it appalling.

They are not sham marriages. The loving couples who bring their deepest hopes and love and aspiration, are not 'using the church as a decorative backdrop'.

Are the ministers shams too on this reckoning ? Have I been wasting countless Saturdays; and indeed other evenings in meeting and seeking to prepare them and me ?

Please don't slip (or sleep ?) into language that demeans our parishoners like that.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 2:04pm GMT

Laurence, I was referring to Roland Allen's position, not mine or yours. (Frankly, I think he was being too purist in his attitude.) But he felt that the requirement to baptise any child and marry any couple who applied for the same -- whether they were believers in the rites in which they were about to participate or not, was intolerable, and resigned his cure on that account.

I assume that many if not most people who apply for these rites today are far more "churched" than those about whom Roland Allen was troubled in 1907. But I have to say that I receive occasional requests for marriage in my church, from non-parishioners, primarily because it is such a lovely building. When I explain that more is involved in terms of preparation, they often decide it isn't worth the bother.

Posted by Tobias Haller at Tuesday, 29 November 2011 at 4:50pm GMT

I am not an Anglican but a dissenter. My Church the URC, is a mainstream amalgam of Presbyterian, Congregational and Churches of Christ. To judge by the growing number of our congregations which have already decided to conduct blessing services, there will be a significant demand to take up the facility offered by the Regulations. I object to other branches of the Church seeking to impose their "orthodoxy" on mine, comtrary to my perception of the Spirit's working and guidance.
With time so short can we now concentrate on backing the LG Foundation and lobbying those peers we believe to be friendly to attend and vote on 15 December to prevent O'Cathain's "prayer" [ironic word!] from succeeding?

Posted by Ian Buist at Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 11:22am 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.