Comments: Church "shocked" to get what it lobbied for

"the impression that the Church of England were unfriendly towards gays"

Don't worry, the public had already gotten that impression from other things, like your treatment of Jeffrey John.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 2:09pm GMT

If the CofE still does want the 4th lock (in spite of its protests) are they not going to end up looking very silly at best and mendacious at worst?

My advice to the Labour Party is to simply support the Bill and not to believe a word the CofE says.

Posted by Craig Nelson at Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 2:16pm GMT

The situation is unavoidable as the Church of England's Canons (which currently specify marriage to be between a man and a woman) are a part of the law of England. To pass a separate law which enabled the CofE to conduct same sex marriages would in effect give rise to two statutes which would contradict one another.

The CofE could change this situation by passing a Measure in the General Synod which altered the Canon Law with regard the the definition of marriage, and also amended the BCP. This Measure would then be sent to Parliament for approval.

There is much in common with the hullabaloo over women bishops - Parliament does not change the Canon Law on its own but does so in response to a request from the Church.

Posted by Original Observer at Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 5:23pm GMT

No wonder the C-of-E seems less and less relevant to more and more people. Established for whom, by whom and with whom?

Posted by Sara MacVane at Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 7:37pm GMT

We have a decidedly two-faced (and po-faced) church in the C of E: it says one thing, but practices another. No place for homophobia, says the incoming ABC — but what is the C of E's opposition to equal marriage if not homophobia? It is a straightforward fear of — if not outright paranoia over — what allowing gay relationships equal status might imply; and I've yet to see any sensible reasoning involved, all I see is conservatives waving their hands around in horror and insisting that marriage is and can only ever be a heterosexual institution.

Posted by Phil Groom at Monday, 17 December 2012 at 9:19am GMT

The link on the C of E website seems to have been removed.

ED Yes, for the second time, the URL for this article was changed. I hope I have now corrected all the places where it was linked on TA.

The reason for the second move appears to have been to correct an unfortunate typographical error...

Posted by Suem at Monday, 17 December 2012 at 6:51pm GMT

"Church 'shocked' to get what it lobbied for"

Again, I mention the King Henry (I confess, I forget which #!) and ABC Thomas Beckett parallel: "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest/these marrying gays?"

ED: Henry the Second.

Posted by JCF at Monday, 17 December 2012 at 7:35pm GMT

Perhaps the Church was consulted, but those who responded on behalf of the Church didn't believe that the views expressed would be taken seriously ... the CofE still has influence in the corridors of power!

Posted by Mark Bennet at Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 10:49pm 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.