Comments: CofE bishop declares support for equal civil marriage

There is no such thing as a spokesman for the Church of England. It is wrong for a person describing himself as a "spokesman for the Church of England" immediately to slap down a considered statement by a Bishop of the Church of England. That he did so shows that the central office of the Church, which has no powers of governance or opinion control, is fearful of the public getting the impression that views within the Church of England differ - although they do.

Posted by badman at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 3:49pm BST

All I would add to the comment from Mr/Mrs/Ms Sockpuppet at Church House is (1) I am, of course, entirely committed to marriage between a man and a woman, but that does not exhaust the subject or the possibilities of marriage in the light of reality as we experience it. (2) This is about relationships and not simply law. The Church, of all bodies, should not be cynical enough to reduce marriage to a merely legal arrangement.

Posted by Bishop Alan Wilson at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 4:05pm BST

Would the 'spokesman' care to comment on the lack of transferability across legal jurisdictions of the Civil Partnership as opposed to the generous recognition of the status of Civil Marriage?

Posted by commentator at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 5:10pm BST

Few laws on God's good earth have changed as much as has marriage law in England. This is not the land of the Medes and the Persians, after all.

And yes, having a law that governs everyone, rather than special laws for special arrangements, is a good principle of responsible social governance. This is why we call it marriage equality.

Posted by Tobias Haller at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 6:08pm BST

I've never been able to get my head around the concerns about changing the definition of marriage for everyone. When the State decided that people could remarry after divorce within the lifetimes of their former spouses (changing the definition of marriage from an unbreakable lifelong bond) it didn't affect the Church's definition of marriage, nor did it interfere in the marriages of those not intending to divorce. No one ever hinted that the institution of marriage was threatened because people wouldn't bother entering into a union that could be dissolved. Why should the fact that members if the same sex get married bother straight couples? Surely they don't get married just because gay people can't, do they? "I'm sorry, dear, but I want a divorce. Now that the queers can marry each other it's just no good - I mean, what's the point?"

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 6:22pm BST

Three cheers for Bishop Alan! And since when has the C of E had spokespersons who speak for it as a whole and from on high? At least one of the participants in this debate shows some integrity.

Posted by Russell Goulbourne at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 7:15pm BST

We had a long discussion a few postings below on the "Church of England spokesman" issue. I still find this practice to be:

1. Sloppy journalism. As I mentioned before, I can't imagine any reputable U.S. newspaper permitting this kind of comment to be made so anonymously.

2. Cowardly. If some press-spokesman (and it's almost certainly a male) wants to publicly criticize a Church of England bishop in print, he ought to be man enough (ditto) to have his name attached to his pompous comments.

Posted by dr.primrose at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 7:37pm BST

God as an angry old man out to get us.
I thought Christians believed God is love. I thought thunderbolt-hurling went out of fashion along with Zeus and the rest of the boys.
But it appears that numerous individuals still need that judgmental old time religion - especially if they're directing where the thunderbolts are hurled.
Bishop Wilson,
May I offer a heartfelt thanks for your video, and for your pastoral care for ALL of God's children.

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 8:08pm BST

THANK YOU Bishop Alan! God bless, and may your numbers (so to speak) increase!

Posted by JCF at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 8:19pm BST

It seems so wrong that somebody claims to speak for the entire Church of England as if there was a single 'block vote' view against Gay Marriage, and appearing to knock down views like Alan's which reflect the truth and reality in the Church of England today - that there is no consensus whatsoever on this subject.

There simply isn't a single and determining viewpoint, and I think a so-called spokesman (who fails to speak for many) would be far more truthful and honest if he told the press: "Listen, in our Church there are divergent views just as there are in society."

That, at least, would be the truth.

It would also be a step towards reality.

Posted by Susannah at Thursday, 23 August 2012 at 9:43pm BST

Just when I was beginning to think that all English bishops were peevish headmasters, along comes Bishop Alan Wilson preaching Gospel and spreading hope.

Thank you Bishop Wilson!

Posted by Counterlight at Friday, 24 August 2012 at 12:04am BST

I welcome a heterosexually-married Church of England Bishop, who is also a husband and father of children, who gives his considered assent to the idea of extending the grace of Marriage to same-sex couples who love one another, who celebrate that love, and who wish to share their lives together. The intimation is that perhaps the Church could add a Blessing to such relationships.

Granted a same-sex couple cannot beget children, but there is nothing to deny the fact that they might be able to offer otherwise 'unwanted' children a safe environment in which to grow and be nurtured.

It's good to see a Bishop who can stand up and be counted on this important issue of justice for all in the Church.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 24 August 2012 at 1:53am BST

It would seem that the Bishop of Buckingham has at last caught up with the former Bishop of Woolwich - John "Honest to God" Robinson in asserting that God is not "an angry old man" in the sky "out to get us".
Alas, reports of his demise are a little premature as some still seem to desire to cling onto this image - thunderbolts and all.

Posted by Father David at Friday, 24 August 2012 at 6:21am BST

>> Would the 'spokesman' care to comment on the lack of transferability across legal jurisdictions of the Civil Partnership as opposed to the generous recognition of the status of Civil Marriage?

Further to your point, in Canada where we've had marriage equality for.. dunno a decade now maybe?? a few cases have come up it seems where British civil partnerships were not recognized as marriage in Canada, because they weren't actually marriages and the courts don't know what to do with them.

Posted by Randal Oulton at Friday, 24 August 2012 at 7:58am BST

Now, we have marriage and civil partnership. If we have "marriage equality" we will have opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage. Underlying the discussion there is a confusion between equality and difference. Maybe all that is needed is alterations to the form of the civil partnership ceremony that align it with marriage, and the removal of any other differences between the legal effects of the two. Giving opposite sex unions and same sex unions the same name cannot alter the fact that they are different. It is rather like trying to deal with racism by calling everybody "White".

Posted by John Ross Martyn at Friday, 24 August 2012 at 9:23pm BST

No, Mr. Martyn; if we have marriage equality we will not have opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage, but simply marriage. On the other hand, if we tweak civil unions to give them the legal status of marriage we will have precisely two forms of marriage in everything but name.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Friday, 24 August 2012 at 10:55pm BST

My partner and I have been a couple since age 18; we are now 75. In 2009 during our 50th class reunion we were married by a UCC minister in our undergraduate alma mater's chapel with Episcopal priests assisting. The Service, based upon the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (USA), is available at .

Posted by Canon Richard T. Nolan at Monday, 27 August 2012 at 12:15am BST
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.