Thinking Anglicans

Equally, a matter of orientation

Last week’s Church Times carried an article with this title. I didn’t write the title, but I did write the article. It is about the most recent proposals for further UK legislation concerning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

The Church of England response which is discussed in the article can be found here (RTF format). The press release about it is here.

The original government consultation document is a PDF file. It is here.

Gluttons for punishment can read the Anglican Mainstream response, also briefly mentioned, here. On the other hand, for a sensible discussion of some of the serious practical issues, particularly with regard to schools, the LGCM response (PDF format) is interesting reading.

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
MerseymikeChristopher ShellnathanDaveAugustus Meriwether Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Augustus Meriwether
Guest
Augustus Meriwether

So, the Churches don’t like gay people even using their school premises after hours? Is this because they will indirectly contaminate the children with gayness? Or is this simply because they find some human being creations of God disgusting. Like, erm… lepers and haemorrhaging women and things. I have to say, I have come to find the churches disgusting. I mean that in the nicest possible way. I really do. I believe in Christ Jesus and my trust and hope is in Him, and I actually believe I have an ongoing, real, interactive relationship with God, and so I define… Read more »

Dave
Guest
Dave

Simon, a good review of the situation. The difference between the AB’s Council and the Government shows how two different world views lead to conflicting assessments of what is proportionate and reasonable.. If the Government decides to overrule people’s religious beliefs and legislate that they must act differently from what they believe on this issue then I guess that discrimination against unmarried couples would be the obvious follow on… (as per the recent consultations – which the ABofC reacted rather strongly against!). Basically this is all just enforcing cooperation with “freedom of sex” on those who still disagree… and despite… Read more »

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

I don’t think the church can expect to be allowed to discriminate carte blanche.

Directly religious functions, maybe – but nothing else – equality legislation cannot and does not discriminate between what a person is and what they do. The CofE realises this, and as a result, its objections are not sustainable – Anglican Mainstream’s are, based on unbridled homophobia.

Meg Munn made it clear in the Commons that the Government has no intent on incorporating anything but the most basic opt-outs. The Church really must stop thinking it can discriminate against people in civil society.

nathan
Guest
nathan

From the LGCM response: “Civil partnership does not necessarily imply any sexual relationship, but it does imply a very strong mutual emotional and hopefully life-long commitment. One would expect them to welcome and celebrate this, especially since their view of the same-sex covenant made between Jonathan and David [see I Samuel ch.18 etc.] is that this relationship “must” also have been non-sexual. The implication should follow that the covenant made between these two “before the Lord” was wholly praiseworthy. In logic, therefore, it should form a precedent for the blessing of civil partnerships. But they will not face up to… Read more »

Christopher Shell
Guest
Christopher Shell

‘Gluttons for punishment can read the Anglican Mainstream response…On the other hand, for a *sensible* discussion of the issues….the LGCM response…’. Will progress ever be made when presuppositions and spin weigh so heavy upon us? I guess we have two choices: to be spin-driven ideologues or to be open-minded and focus on the issues and arguments. I don’t know who wrote the blurb for this excellent blog (‘from a liberal perspective’) but it is unworthy of it. If we already know what our ‘perspective’ is going to be before we start, then we are not interested in the issues or… Read more »

Merseymike
Guest
Merseymike

Must say I agree. Everyone knows (except those connected to the Church?) that civil partnerships are gay marriage with a different name. Thats who they are for – and the consultation process showed that only too well. Outside the church, they are simply not a controversial issue. Of course, there may be some companionate civil partnerships, just as there are some marriages which are not sexual, but they will be extremely rare, as are such marriages. I wanted my relationship to be given status and recognition by the State, as do my married friends unions. Happily, after our civil partnership,… Read more »