Thinking Anglicans

university in discrimination row

Read about this in the Guardian today, University to ban gay marriages on campus by Jessica Shepherd.

The heads of a university closely aligned to the Church of England plan to ban civil partnership ceremonies on campus. The vice-chancellor, chair of governors and deputy pro-chancellor of Canterbury Christ Church University argue that the church’s position on homosexuality makes it wrong to conduct lesbian and gay “marriages” on the university’s premises…

…Canterbury Christ Church currently offers its premises for civil marriages at its campuses in Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells. From spring 2007, it is likely that new legislation will forbid institutions licensed for civil marriage ceremonies to refuse to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. There is unlikely to be a clause allowing them to opt out on religious grounds…

Earlier reports from the Guardian here, and from the BBC here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
34 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
laurence
laurence
14 years ago

I understand that in order to stop doing weddings for same gener couples, they must stop all weddings, for everyone. What a price to pay in terms of the lost joy and delight. Speaking of cost, i am also given to understand that they stand to lose a cool £1 million a year, that weddings had been bringing in. I hope, with hands on hearts* and heads held high, they can say , “It was well worth it.” (Keeping my community out. What about outreach or don’t they beleive in that ?) * if they have hearts This must be… Read more »

matthew hunt
matthew hunt
14 years ago

A reminder how few steps we are from burning people in the village square.

drdanfee
drdanfee
14 years ago

I occasionally think that the best that could happen with all this newly exclusive Anglican and general Puritannical rightwing realignment stuff is that it really continue to dramatically play itself out, so publicly, right out in the open. Make the air and sunlight of the rest of us who continue to participate in democratic society – and who can positively cope with historic Anglican leeway, flexible social institutions, and something besides black/white categorical preferences in thinking – serve the admittedly fallible discussion, inquiry, and disinfectant aims so innate to admittedly fallible democracy. The CoE in that case probably does need… Read more »

drdanfee
drdanfee
14 years ago

Or, alternatively, shouldn’t the CoE marry only those straight couples who can sign off in public to great acclaim, on the entire and absolute and compleat rightwing religious agenda? If the Elizabethan Settlement must for reasons of good conservative conscience, end effectively for queer believers who can no longer live honestly inside CoE (as lay, as priest, as bishop), then surely that settlement or legacy of leeway ends for straight people as well. Rowan can say that nobody is arguing for an unintelligent reading of scripture; but our continuing de facto daily life with this realignment demonstrates to us otherwise.… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
14 years ago

Does this “university” have 4 Faculties?

Dave
Dave
14 years ago

At last some people in public life are getting the guts to stand up for their beliefs, and their right to express that in what they do and don’t approve and support!

I expect that liberal commentators will be crying “heresy” and demanding burnings at the stake! Or the modern equivalent – exclusion from the public square..

Martin Reynolds
14 years ago

Bishop Venner argues that the University has a world-wide Anglican significance – that it has deep religious connections from its foundation to today and that these religious connections are so fundamental that the buildings should (nay MUST) be exempt from celebrating Civil Partnerships. At some time in the past these buildings were registered with the Registrar General as a place fitted for CIVIL marriage. At that time the university would have had to convince the Registrar General that: “These premises must have no recent or continuing connection with any religion, religious practice or religious persuasion which would be incompatible with… Read more »

laurence
laurence
14 years ago

“These premises must have no recent or continuing connection with any religion, religious practice or religious persuasion which would be incompatible with the use of the premises for the solemnization of marriages in pursuance of section 26(1)(bb) of the Act.” Someone here is or has been deceitful.’ A very good point this. It remeinds me, that we are told, that when people were joining the Armed Firces in WW2, when the recruitment process was being gone through, if people answered the question, ” Religion ?” . with , “Agnostic, or atheist”, the recruitment officer would put down “C of E”… Read more »

Merseymike
Merseymike
14 years ago

I agree with Martin.

This is homophobia, pure and simple – civil marriage is not religious marriage.

In Liverpool, the Council have already made it clear that venues cannot pick and choose. Either they provide for civil marriages and civil partnerships, or neither.

This is just the sort of thing which will continue to give the church a bad image – do they not realise that young people, in particular, despise this sort of prejudiced nonsense?

Still, it will drive more away from this variety of religion, which can only be a good thing.

Fr Joseph O'Leary
14 years ago

“At last some people in public life are getting the guts to stand up for their beliefs, and their right to express that in what they do and don’t approve and support!” If they are running civil weddings, they have to accept all couples the State considers valid. The Roman Catholic Church could not be involved with celebrating civil weddings in general, since it recognizes only a certain set of weddings as valid matrimony. If the Anglican Church associates itself with the civil wedding system, this must mean that it is accepting all sorts of weddings as valid. Adding Civil… Read more »

JCF
JCF
14 years ago

Do these CofE university whackos not CARE how they’re dragging the distinguished name of “Anglican” through the mud?

{sigh}

Maybe it really IS time to begin the worldwide *Episcopal* Communion. NOT as an American church . . . but as a *Christian* one! :-/

Steve Watson.
Steve Watson.
14 years ago

Martin: I agree that there has been deceit (or less than full consistency), and confusion. First, the confusion. 1. If, as the UK Government and the bishops of the CofE claim, civil partnerships are NOT marriages, then it cannot be discrimination to decide to host marriages but not CPs. They are said to be different things. 2. CPs are themselves discriminatory because different-sex couples are not allowed to enter them (as they are in New Zealand). Don’t CPs fall foul of the SORs? Second, the lack of consistency or honesty, with information supplied by people who know the place: 1.… Read more »

laurence
laurence
14 years ago

I agree with Steve W. –equality for all !

Gerry Lynch
14 years ago

“The old dilemma of God and mammon, I think.”

Which they revolve by saying, “A man and a woman living in sin is not enough of an affront to God to stop us taking the mammon. But a man and a man living in sin is just taking things too far.”

And this shower of hypocrites expects us to take them seriously?

Göran Koch-Swahne
14 years ago

Matthew Hunt wrote; “A reminder how few steps we are from burning people in the village square.”

Indeed, the Nanny State intrudes daily with its Erastian EU-nuck diktats on the Consciences of those faithful Christians who would do this in good Conscience.

Its time for the Archbishops to write a letter to the Times…

(my mistake! they already did 🙁

Göran Koch-Swahne
14 years ago

Laurence wrote: “…the recruitment officer would put down “C of E” on their form!”

I’m sure he was an Evangelical ;=)

Christopher Shell
Christopher Shell
14 years ago

Hi Mike

You mentioned homophobia. Two questions:
(1) Does this refer to hatred or (more etymologically) to fear?
(2) On what basis would you distinguish between (a) a position based on analysis and (b) a position based on pure emotional reaction? Do you think that the world is devoid of (a)? If not, how do we identify the presence of (a)?

I mention this because those who see the whole world in emotional terms are so obviously the more inmmature: ie teenagers etc..

Merseymike
Merseymike
14 years ago

Done this one Christopher. No, you are living linguistically, as well as theologically in the past. Homophobia refers to anti-gay attitudes – for an example, read your own posts.

Done the second one and not prepared to go through it again with someone who doesn’t understand the meaning of social research or evidence.

Göran Koch-Swahne
14 years ago

a) would – it seems – require some kind of “analysis”…

… well any kind would do ;=)

If not: b)

Dave
Dave
14 years ago

Dear Christopher

I think that what campaigning liberals use “homophobia” to mean is: any belief or action that does not affirm homosexuality as equal (as a ‘sexuality’). However, it is easily proven that homosexuality is NOT equal; especially biologically and physiologically, but also sociologically.

Nature herself is homophobic in their terms.
Shome mishtake shurely!!

David H.
David H.
14 years ago

“Shome mishtake shurely!!”

Nice, Dave. Very nice. You like to mock people with ethnic stereotypes, too ?

Dr. Shell, I’m afraid your allies are people like Dave here. So I’m gonna go with b) above as well…

Fr Joseph O'Leary
14 years ago

Dave, I don’t really think the claims that “homosexuality is equal as a “sexuality” ” is a central plank of gay rights argumentation. What I have heard a million times is the claim that gayness is a natural variant of human sexuality, and is in itself good and to be respected. This is not to say that homosexuality is equal to or interchangeable with heterosexuality (though some such crass notion of “equality” may underlie the Labour Government’s tendency to conformist social engineering). And what homophobes balk at is not some declaration of equality but at the acceptance of gays as… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
14 years ago

First it was (Indo European) Holy Scripture (in the singular) – now it is Mother Nature.

What’s next?

(Le Prejugé reste le même – les arguments changent)

Merseymike
Merseymike
14 years ago

Joseph ; I would say ‘equal to’ in a moral and legal sense, certainly – but that doesn’t mean ‘the same as’. However, in may ways, the similarities ie people who love one another and wish to form a relationship together – far outweigh the differences!

Christopher Shell
Christopher Shell
14 years ago

Hi Mike- I disagree on the definition of ‘homophobia’. Even supposing that your definition were in official usage – which it may be – it is incoherent. Why? (1) The general term ‘anti-gay’ can cover all sorts of different and incompatible kinds of attitude which cannot be lumped together. Being pro the people but anti the action for ick-factor reasons. Being the same for statistical reasons. Being anti both person and action. (2) Most ppl know that ‘phobia’ means fear. It doesn’t mean ‘antipathy’ in a general way. I didn’t get your point on ‘social research or evidence’. Is your… Read more »

laurence
laurence
14 years ago

I am more than happy with Mother Nature & her # Cornucopaeia of blessed gifts# ! …. even though being a gay male at this time and place in history has meant living as a* second or third class citizen* for over half a century — and only just changing,for the best, fingers crossed ! —- I should not give up my life and my ‘me’ for ANYTHING . Thank you Universe! / Multiverse ! * pathologisation / aversion ‘therapy’, criminalisation by State, demonisation by religion(s), queer bashing — ‘the bad ole days’. However, Mitigated by the Grace of God,… Read more »

matthew hunt
matthew hunt
14 years ago

So is it okay if we say you are homoantipathetic? I can agree to that. I’m so glad we can discuss terms in such a civilised way. I’ve never had the opportunity in real life to object to being called a pouf and so on. And to think that those men who called me those things whilst jamming their fists into my face and breaking the bones in my head were never in any way influenced by the homoantipathetic teachings of the ‘church’ all those centuries and most particularly those decades when these particular men were growing up trying to… Read more »

laurence
laurence
14 years ago

oh dear ! I am sorry but ’43 years’ should have read (cf my post above), of course ’34 years’ !
also while I’m at it : the #Cornucopaeia of blessed gifts# — I meant to indicate the gifts in my final para following #Mitigation by Grace of God# by placing this # symbol down there. But I’m sure you got that…

They were right about ‘counting my blessings one by one’. I enjoyed recalling them & ‘what God has done.’

Göran Koch-Swahne
14 years ago

Try me:

One doesn’t have a case by being one.

The “statistics” you go on about is not science, but superstition.

Dave
Dave
14 years ago

Joseph O’Reily wrote: “….This is not to say that homosexuality is equal to or interchangeable with heterosexuality (though some such crass notion of “equality” may underlie the Labour Government’s tendency to conformist social engineering). Dear Joseph, That is exactly what I think they, and their supporters, are trying to do. And “crass” is a good description of a lot of the arguements extended to defend imposing their ideology – and exclude all those who aren’t quite as liberal as they are. To explain what I meant about “nature being homophobic” in the terms some campaigers use to define it… Firstly,… Read more »

Dave
Dave
14 years ago

ps As I think no-one pointed this out earlier… the CofE recognises non-religious marriages as valid marriages. Therefore Canterbury Christ Church University is not going against the teachings of the church, by being seen to affirm something that the church says is sinful, when it allows it’s premises to be used for civil marriages ….unlike Civil Partnerships.

Merseymike
Merseymike
14 years ago

Tough, Dave.

They will have to obey the law. They are not above it nor exempt from it.

laurence
laurence
14 years ago

I for one, am glad you came through and are here matthew hunt . thank you
laurence

Göran Koch-Swahne
14 years ago

No dear Dave, it’s not O’Reily; that’s FOX news.

34
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x