Bishop Gene 'banned'

Episcopal Cafe has a good story in its 'lead', that Bishop Gene Robinson has been denied permission by the Archbishop of Canterbury to preach while in this country during Lambeth. I've been following this for some time, as there was a story going round that Sir Ian McKellen, the gay actor, would take part in a service and 'preach' the sermon for Bishop Gene while he stood silently beside the pulpit. Sir Ian is understood to have expressed his sympathies for Bishop Gene in writing. Also, when my own husband interviewed him a while back for The Times Magazine, although these quotes didn't make it into the finished article because they weren't relevant, Sir Ian was clear in his outrage at the Anglican goings-on. When I spoke to Sir Ian about it a few days ago he was adamant that he wished to make no comment. And Sir Ian's office tells me he has no plans to do anything for Bishop Gene at present. In any case, whether he did or not would depend on Bishop Gene being banned from preaching in the first place. So has he or hasn't the bishop been banned? Will Bishop Gene and Sir Ian put on a 'double act' at St Mary's Putney, an event that would be a massive publicity coup for Inclusive Church and Bishop Gene's supporters? (Update: see Peter Carey's follow-up to this story.)

It does make me wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury has deliberately given them the opening they need to do just this. Because if Lambeth Palace hadn't denied him permission to preach, he could hardly make such a powerful protest against a non-existent injunction. But maybe that's a conspiracy theory too far.

Church House, Westminster were explicit on Canon Law when I checked last week.

To preside at the eucharist, a priest visiting the Church of England from another province needs permission from a diocesan or provincial. Merely to preach, permission is not needed. All that is needed is an invitation from the incumbent.

Bishop Gene, as he did last time he visited England, nevertheless wrote out of courtesy to Lambeth Palace to request permission to preach. Episcopal Cafe reports, and I understand this to be accurate, that he received an response back from an official advising that this would not be prudent. Apparently this was what the response was last time as well.

So the constant complaint we hear from Lambeth is that it has no authority to intervene in anything. Yet here it is, by effectively imposing a ban, accruing to itself authority that is in fact without the Church's own Canon Law. Still, as a journalist I am grateful. I hope Sir Ian comes on board and gives us the drama we've all been waiting for. Because with the schedule so far making it look like nothing more than one gigantic three-week prayer meeting, there's going to be precious little else to write about at Lambeth.

Comments

[Octavian]

Well, thank God for California!

Alan: it is true that the two Canadians in a same-sex marriage failed to get this recognised in a UK court recentlt, but then their marriage was not solemnised in an EU country, was it? EU citizens have the same human rights across the EU, including, surely, the right to have their marriages recognised. I bet you that the next few years will see test cases of European gay couples legally married in one country demanding the right to have their marriage recognised in another EU country: it's obviously going to happen, isn't it? The list of countries recognising same-sex civil marriage continues to grow: it is likely that France will soon follow by converting its current civil partnership legislation into full marriage. We will, within a decade, I would predict, have same-sex civil marriage in right across the EU. So, what's the point in making Christians seem merely small-minded and churlish when we should be welcoming what is good in same-sex marriage: the honouring of love and commitment. After, they are Christian virtues...

[J Pearce]

A Morality Play (In Microcosm):

[light fades in. JP sits in the forum, strumming his fingers]

"Helloooo! Dave? Dave, are you still there?"

[no reply. time passes. JP checks his watch]

"Ah, I see" says JP, to no-one in particular. "It doesn't look like Dave is going to actually address the arguments I've put forward, despite his inferences that he knows everything about Christianity."

[time passes. light begins to fade. exit JP stage left]

"I wonder" muses JP upon leaving, "if the truth is, Dave doesn't actually know diddly squat about what he claims to - and has in fact been making it up as he goes along?".

[curtain falls. fade to black]

"YEP, YOU GOT THAT RIGHT" booms a voice from above.

[end]

[J Pearce]

"I don't. Quotes please."

OK.

"If you continue to be allergic to the source of that teaching - the Bible - then don't waste everybody's time expressing opinions on what it says and means in practical terms." [D Smith 13/05/08]

Translation - I don't want you posting on this forum if I don't like what you have to say.

"What I HAVE done is to ask what purpose is served by a person criticising or even referencing Christian belief and the practise that flows from it in any area when they neither know or understand what Christian belief on that issue is.
So far I have had no satisfactory answer to this questionning."

Dave, the answer is quite simple. Why don't you actually address the arguments put forward by Mike and myself, regarding the contextuality, perception and validity of Christian marriage compared to civil marriage, using this vast Biblical knowledge you claim to have? After all, that is what the main thrust of the debate has been about - right up until the point you decided to attack me rather than the arguments I have been putting forward.

You can criticise me for my perceived "lack of knowledge" all you want, but so far, you have completely failed to address the ongoing debate about Christian marriage in the above thread at all. May I suggest that instead of concentrating on negative debating tactics, you actually focus on the arguments at hand? Then you can impress us all with your vaunted knowledge of all things Christian.

Sound reasonable?

[George Parr]

Hello Dave,

Since you are in the business of rather messily splitting hairs, I have not said that you personally have stated that the forum exists for those professing one kind of faith. So why do you raise it as if it is something I might attribute to you?

No-one is going to bother to give you satisfactory answers to questions that are clearly irrelevant. Amazingly Dave, other contributors are not answerable to you - oh, and still no content from you on the issues then. At least you are boringly consistent.

'To be allowed to go on arguing untouched?' - possession, control and delusions of grandeur.

'Christianity' as a personal monolith? Oh yes, possibly the biggest and most important delusion in Dave's head and accounting for the unbalanced treatment dished out to those unimpressed with his rather singular version of it...

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'I am interested in understanding exactly why you feel uniquely qualified to be able to sit in judgement upon who should be allowed to comment on such forums?'

I don't. Quotes please.

George Humane-itas:
'I do not accept any rubbish that the forum only exists for those professing certain kinds of faith.'

I have never said it does. Quotes please, or is this just yet another straw man from you?

What I HAVE done is to ask what purpose is served by a person criticising or even referencing Christian belief and the practise that flows from it in any area when they neither know or understand what Christian belief on that issue is.

So far I have had no satisfactory answer to this questionning.

If I discuss the beliefs of others and you think that I do not know or understand these correctly, you are perfectly entitled to raise this with me.

The wriggling and squirming you two do to be allowed go on arguing untouched against 'Christianity' from a place of pure ignorant prejudice is just amazing!

[George Parr]

By the way Dave, I do not accept any rubbish that the forum only exists for those professing certain kinds of faith. The pious do not exist in isolation in the world and too frequently make very large statements affecting everybody.

In short they do not give a hoot how far the holy shrapnel travels and what collateral damage it does. The days are over when it was commonplace to bamboozle the ignorant, with claims of religious moral superiority.

[George Parr]

Hello Dave.

'What you are saying', Dave the Transformer, is that biblical knowledge is necessary to challenge all issues that Christians have a partial view on. In order to try to appear erudite, in your own indefensible elitist way, you are playing 'the bible card' over subjects that non--believers are perfectly entitled to challenge.

And what is all this about you criticising arguments? Time and time again your postings attack not the argument but the rights of others to express what they believe. In fact you say little else. You are commenting from an implied but imaginary position of superiority, with pitifully little substance in your posts.

I can adopt exactly the same tone Dave:

DO try to address the arguments. You REALLY should not be here if you cannot bear the views of others. What knowledge of humanism do you actually have? Have you consulted widely from Thales of Miletus, Plato, Pliny, Petrarch, Erasmus et al, through to Burkhardt, Dewey, Einstein and Thomas Mann? What exact knowledge do YOU have in order to engage from a philsophical perspective? I can tell that you have very little. If you must insist upon posting here with your biased Christian notions concerning the human worth of homosexuals and ludicrous claims of divine conversion, and we all have to put up with you, you really should acquaint yourself with the basis of enlightenment thinking. Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau might be a start. You REALLY cannot engage in social and cultural issues without it...

Gets up your nose doesn't it.

[J Pearce]

BTW Dave, if you would like to enlighten us by bringing your enormous knowledge of the Bible to bear on the particular arguments I, or George, or indeed Mike have put forward, then by all means do so.

(this is a polite way of saying put your money where your mouth is...)

[J Pearce]

Errr...no, Dave. You are not criticising my arguments, you are criticising my fitness to make the arguments.

In other words, you are attacking me and not the argument.

Which makes you guilty of precisely the trait you seem so keen to stigmatise in others.

Given this level of dissimulation and artifice, I'm beginning to get an inkling on how you carry out your "therapy"...

BTW, I would like to ask - as George has already referenced above - on what basis you make for judging the breadth and depth of my knowledge?

Also, I am not aware that one has to conform to a particular, Dave Smith-approved standard of Biblical literacy, in order to engage in a public forum. Perchance you can direct me to this particular codicil?

Notwithstanding accepted levels of public discourse and taste, I am interested in understanding exactly why you feel uniquely qualified to be able to sit in judgement upon who should be allowed to comment on such forums?

[David Smith]

George Humane-itas:
'Your 'arguments' rely on the assumptions that those defining themselves as non-believers have little or no knowledge of Christianity. You, of course, have no idea. You are also able, apparently mystically, to decide which parts of the bible others have read and or understood.'

No assumptions, and nothing mystical about it at all, George.

I make no generalisations. But, in those specific areas of Christianity on which unbelievers comment, I have plenty of 'idea'. I can tell both from what they write on specific topics, and from their own direct confessions to the effect that they have not read the Bible on them.

e.g. on Christian marriage: 'Dave - I do not need to read a Bible.. ' (J Pearce)

George Humane-itas:
'The Christian Church has no manners.'

What you are saying here is that Christians should emphatically not offer what they believe personally or believe to be God's perspective on same-sex unions. If my simply asking you or J Pearce questions about the efficacy or purpose of aspects of your contributions on this blog is 'ownership and control', then I wonder what this is - and not just as regards this blog, but the public sphere generally?

Do try to practise what you preach, George.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'As I recall, you seem to take great umbrage when you perceive that during certain topics of debate, people criticise others personally, rather than criticising the arguments. Yet here you are, doing precisely what you keep whinging about in others.'

I am not doing this at all.

It is precisely your arguments - on different aspects of Christian belief and action - that I am criticising. And I am doing this on the basis that you don't know what Christianity actually holds on these.

[George Parr]

Since other bloggers can read perfectly well Mr Smith, they might notice that on the 'Protestant or Catholic' thread, you appear, magnificently, to provide a commentary on what Mr Beekman has written and then to pass judgment on someone who robustly challenged him.

I would also remind you that commentators on a religious blog are not restricted to one belief system, or indeed any. Moreover your overblown claim that non-Christians cannnot understand religious doctrines which are peripheral to issues they might comment on is presumptuous nonsense.

'If you must get involved here'. What does this mean? YOU are able to decide who can get involved and who cannot? YOU will allow? Another statement of ownership and control. At least in attempting to write from a perspective which embraces humanity and tolerance - both supposed claims of Christians, if not very evident - I am not making grandiose claims of messianic proportions, purporting to be god's vicar in matters of human worth.

You, rudely, to JP, "so how does anyone benefit from your offerings?". And "Don't waste time in expressing opinions"

More ungracious demeaning comment designed to subdue and detract, wholly signifying ownership and control.

Your 'arguments' rely on the assumptions that those defining themselves as non-believers have little or no knowledge of Christianity. You, of course, have no idea. You are also able, apparently mystically, to decide which parts of the bible others have read and or understood.

It is utterly ridiculous to propose that to have an opinion on social issues, such as civilly-sanctioned forms of partnership, it must somehow be measured against Christian notions of marriage, and that a biblical knowledge is required. The history of Christian marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the spirit of the legislation concerning civil partnerships, in fact quite the reverse. Christian marriage actually flies in the face of mutuality, problem-solving and love. It proposes that human love for one another cannot exist on its own and should somehow be wrapped up in god-fearing guilt, with divine, stigmatic consequences. It does not recognise human frailty and has no mechanism for dealing with it.

The inescapable truth is that the Christian marital union, which remains an option for those who want it, is now very much reduced in demand. People have discovered they are fully able to express their love and commitment to each other with or without it.

Two people of the same sex do not require the blessings of anyone else, and passing loud comment institutionally on their decision to unite, can be seen as intrusive and grossly offensive. The Christian Church has no manners. Many people certainly cannot relate the reality of human union to the concept of gods.

Pious zealots, who comment adversely over same-sex unions, do so from a hideously prejudiced standpoint; a position of ghastly realisation that their privileged and elitist stance on morality has been popularly challenged, found wanting and changed.

Blathering on endlessly about homosexuality, as if it, and all that surrounds it, is the particular province of Christians, who own a right to comment publicy about it, paints Anglicanism in the biased restricted palette that, increasingly identifies it as culturally meaningless.

[J Pearce]

Alan:

"In the absence of a defined alternative to the Church's understanding of marriage..."

This is just garbage, Alan. I have a perfectly good civil marriage myself, which works for myself and my wife. As do millions of other people. It IS a perfectly viable alternative to marriage as understood by the Church!

Fair do's, it bears similarities to Christian marriage in some respects. But we certainly do not understand our marriage in Christian terms - and would in fact be very offended if someone suggested that we did!

Your arguments are stuck in a rut, Alan. The simple fact is that marriage means different things to different people - and that the Church does not have the copyright on marriage. The state offers a perfectly valid and well understood model for those who choose not to engage in a Christian marriage ceremony - and in case you hadn't noticed, civil ceremonies are far more popular than religious ones.

Its pretty sad when a supposedly intelligent man such as yourself has to stick his head in the sand, ostrich-style, to pretend that this is not the reality of the situation today.

[J Pearce]

Deary me Dave! You are in a right old tizzy, aren't you?! Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Let me get this straight - this now perpetual rejoinder from you about my alleged lack of knowledge is fast becoming your weapon of last resort, is it not? Sir, is this the best you can come up with?

Some facts, Dave: you have made no contribution whatsoever to the actual debate regarding marriage. I have not actually criticised Christian marriage as such (your accusation), instead I have offered the opinion - valid, in my understanding - that marriage is culturally and societally specific; and I have stated that those Christians who hold Christian marriage up as the exemplar and original of the form are, in fact, deeply mistaken in those beliefs.

My criticism is of the presumption within Christian circles that their form of marriage is the only historically viable and valid form.

As I recall, you seem to take great umbrage when you perceive that during certain topics of debate, people criticise others personally, rather than criticising the arguments. Yet here you are, doing precisely what you keep whinging about in others.

Given these new rules of debate you seem to want to impose on this public forum, can I suggest the following:

[modified from D. Smith 13/05/08]

"if you want to criticise (or comment valuably in any way) on any aspect of homosexuality you first need to know what being a homosexual is all about. If you continue to be homophobic then don't waste everybody's time expressing opinions on what it involves and means in practical terms".

So, given the next potential thread regarding the discussion of homosexuality and the Church, should you have the inclination, can I kindly request you cease and desist form partaking in it?

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: please read what I said. The CofE has a legal standing but the religious aspects of its marriages do not - they are for the church alone. The laws referring to marriage are not connected to religion, and there are no 'special laws' relating to religious marriage (except for the Royal Family!)The Church can say exactly what it wants, but its view is not what drives the law - because the majority of marriages are civil and so the law has to apply equally to them all.

Hence, there is a defined 'alternative' in the sense that the civil law is what counts, outside the church. I think you must be living in cloud-cuckoo land if you seriously think that people getting married who aren't churchgoers give a single thought to religion. No-one is denying that marriage is for opposite sex partners, but what I am saying is that civil partnership is essentially the same legal contract for same sex partners, which you cannot deny as it is a fact. Indeed, this was the main argument against civil partnership by the antis at the beginning - until; they realised that by keep saying that the government had created de-facto gay marriage, they were damaging their own case. Now they change tack and try and pretend it is something different. yes, there are two essential differences. One is for same sex, the other for opposite sex partners. One is decided by words one says, the other by the signing of a register. But that really is all. Otherwise, the legal rights and responsibilities are the same.

The Government can do what it likes with marriage, because it is not the property of the church - a dying and struggling organisation which most people never go near and which even opposite sex couples largely shun for marriage (and when they do use it, it is largely dependent on the attractiveness of the church - ask any vicar!)

There are no special privileges for anyone,except couples both same sex and opposite sex who wish to pledge their love and commitment and are willing to take on the rights and responsibilities that entails - and that's the way it is, whether you are your religionist mates like it or not. Naturally, if you wish to extend those rights and responsibilities to siblings, you need to first change the law of incest, and secondly make it possible for siblings to agree a contract with one another, having freely chosen to do so ( a problem when you are blood related) an to divorce if the relationship breaks down.

Never did realise how keen conservative religionists were on legalising incest!

And it is curious how on the one hand, gay people are accused of not wanting commitment and of all sorts of similar things, and yet when we want to take on responsibilities and commit to one another, that too is opposed. Really, I'm sure you'd be happier if we all disappeared or went back into those closets - ain't going to happen, Alan!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Of course the Church of England view has a legal standing, Mike, it is responsible for conducting many thousands of wedding services each year - and its doctrine can not be changed by the state, which must acknowledge the rights of the Church to define what marriage means within its own understanding.

In the absence of a defined alternative to the Church's understanding of marriage, many if not most of those who marry still view it in Christian terms, since where a civil marriage is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life, it is properly understood as marriage.

It is perfectly obvious that the government set out to subvert the meaning of marriage, both as commonly understood and as believed by the Church, but what it has created can not be marriage; nor can it be right to provide special privileges for just one category within society while denying others - claiming the illusion of "marriage" as a justification for the discrimination enshrined in the Act.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
'So Dave, do you actually have a point to make yourself?'

I do wonder which part of my last exteremely short post (Judgemental George was at least right about this) you don't understand.

You express opinions on Christian marriage - in particular that it is 'merely a copy' of what went before. But you haven't read the Bible on this subject and so don't know what it actually is.

Christian marriage is intimately linked with the core concept of the Christian gospel itself. You don't know what this is either.

So how does anyone benefit from your offerings - apart from you perhaps through a form of anger therapy?

If we want a further example of your essentially uninformed and empty waffle on this subject we need look no further than this your next post:
'What differentiates Christian marriages are the Christian-specific norms of marital behaviour, as codified and reinforced by the general Christian ideological (theological) parameters and validated through Christian-specific ceremonial rites.'

My point, made to you and others many times on this blog, is that if you want to criticise (or comment valuably in any way) on any teaching of Christianity you need first to know what that teaching says. If you continue to be allergic to the source of that teaching - the Bible - then don't waste everybody's time expressing opinions on what it says and means in practical terms.

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: people enter into both civil marriages and civil partnerships because they love each other and wish to share their lives together. Some may then wish to incorporate God in to that process: but I suggest to you that is a very small number. It is that which has changed - the centrality of Christian understanding of marriage, when most marriages are civil, and many of those which take place in church are for reasons utterly unrelated to religious commitment of belief. Also, now civil partnership exists, gay couples can gain the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage and are recognised in law. As the opponents know only too well, this has and will change the way marriage is thought about - which is why they are so desperate to separate the two despite the overwhelming similarities which you have, as yet, been totally unable to refute.

[Mike Homfray]

Alan; the proposed amendments to the legislation were defeated because they would have altered the entore point of establising civil partnerships in the first place. I repeat, they were introduced for the sole purpose of establishing a status for gay couples, which has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but a different name. If you look at what these rights and responsibilities are in the case of civil partnership compared to civil marriage, you will see this for yourself. This is also why the European courts judged as they did - because there is clearly a difference between a freely entered relationship such as civil marriage or civil partnership, and that of brother and sister, or cousins, or whatever. Civil partnership was designed for gay relationships, as all the consultation material explained.

Now, the antis realised that their chances of defeating the legislation was nil. So, they tries to undermine and scupper it by making civil partnership something different. You lost. yet you are still repeating the same defeated arguments. You are going to have to do a little better than this.....because the rights and responsibilities are the same as civil marriage, whether you like it or not. The tactics of the antis is now what you are trying - to pretend that civil partnership is something quite different top what has been voted for and established.

The Church really must try and remember that the days of its dominance are over. Most people do not attend church, and we have no intention of being dictated to by religionists. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the church unless people choose to opt for that interpretation of it - but in itself the church view has no legal standing. Indeed, religious symbolism and content is absent from both civil marriage and civil partnership. They are secular and offer legal rights and responsibilities that have, in law, nothing whatsoever to do with any gods.

[J Pearce]

George, I thank you for pointing out the "interesting" points of Dave's arguments. You may note with wry amusement that despite all evidence to the contrary - and the copy/paste facility - Dave still continues to misspell my surname. Draw your own conclusions as to why that might be.

Dave - I do not need to read a Bible to gain a general understanding of what Christian marriage entails. It is kind of embedded into our culture, is it not? The point I am making is that marriage - or, rather, a culturally acknowledged cohabiting partnership - is something that predates Christianity as the basic building block of organised, functional society. What differentiates Christian marriages are the Christian-specific norms of marital behaviour, as codified and reinforced by the general Christian ideological (theological) parameters and validated through Christian-specific ceremonial rites. But the template for marriage has existed a lot longer than Christianity has.

This does not mean that Christian marriages are the only viable form of partnership or, indeed, the "best" form of partnership. Indeed, one might argue that we have evolved civil marriages and partnerships - and the concept of divorce - as a means of adapting to the pressures exerted by modern, technologically advanced industrial societies.

Therefore, when Alan says "..what marriage does mean needs to be clearly understood by those entering into it " he is at least right, in the sense that what marriage means differs between people and cultures. Unfortunately, I think Alan is of the rather parochial opinion that Christian marriage is the only "viable" marriage form - and this is simply not true.

So Dave, do you actually have a point to make yourself?

[David Smith]

Judgemental George (Parr):
'David Smith...insinuating that he (J Pierce) is commenting from a position of ignorance, and consequently that his opinions are worthless.'

I didn't insinuate anything, George. I stated my opinion outright. I also asked J Pierce a question, in case he would like to take issue with me.

'His woefully trite and emaciated five lines are designed to insult and depreciate.'

I suggest you take care not to negatively judge others by yourself - it doesn't help your claim to be Mr Humune and Tolerant on this blog. Where I am concerned, you yourself seem reduced to giving a running negative commentary on my interaction with other bloggers. I'm sure everyone else can read just as well as you.

Wouldn't you do better, if you must get involved here, to address the issue of how a person can meaningfully and informedly contribute on any aspect of a belief system if he doesn't actually know or take the trouble to find out what that belief system teaches on it?

However, if you insist on continuing your 'running commentary', do please try to be more accurate from the outset.

I didn't 'select a sentence'. I selected over 20 lines (the heart) of the post in question.

[George Parr]

David Smith emerges; as usual to select a sentence and feebly de-construct it as a poor attempt at point scoring.

J Pearce, in answering Alan Marsh makes a number of germane points. He speaks of parochialism and the role of Christianity, within a timeline of human union. He comments on partnerships and makes comparisons with the constructed values of Christianity. He offsets religious notions of marital worth, by drawing attention to levels of divorce. He discusses Christians as victims and the pressures that they are under to maintain a thin veneer of respectability in the face of judgmental peers. He gives another example of Christian sexual intolerance - the stigma attracted by adultery - and he draws attention to the lightweight and superficial arguments maintained by faith groups, which rely on wordplay, prejudices and little else in the matter of civil partnerships. It is hardly an uninformed view.

David Smith, however, contributes absolutely nothing. His woefully trite and emaciated five lines are designed to insult and depreciate. He tries to reduce in value JP's post, by insinuating that he is commenting from a position of ignorance, and consequently that his opinions are worthless.

In utilising this desperately tired format, Mr Smith once again appears supercilious, limited and unworthy; but is possibly content with having provoked a reaction.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I wonder why you continue to deny the facts about the history of the legislation, and what it signifies in terms of rights conferred?

A number of proposed amendments to the legislation, which would have allowed for partnerships for a variety of circumstances, including siblings, were all eliminated by the government.

There is nothing about the rights created which presume marriage of any kind, and therefore no good reason to exclude siblings - except the pretence for public consumption that the Act somehow equates to civil marriage, as you are trying to maintain.

Again, you vaguely attempt to suggest that "things have moved on" but this is not true either legally (civil marriage remains confined to opposite sex partners) or socially. People do not get married in order to obtain tax exemptions.

And again, you try to suggest that the Church tries to "colonise that which has nothing to do with them" but in fact the government's agenda has precisely been to try to colonise the concept of marriage - which the Church has administered in England for some 1600 years - with the concept of a partnership, which is a commonplace business arrangement.

In deciding what "marriage" means, whether civil or religious, the Church has a very important role to play as there continue to be many who seek a religious wedding, and what marriage does mean needs to be clearly understood by those entering into it.

[Mike Homfray]

No, Alan, the rights have been dienied to no-one. You are, again, failing to recognise why we have civil partnership. It was to give a legal status to same sex couples on the same lines as marriage, albeit with a different name so not to frighten the horses! Civil partnership was designed for same sex couples in relationships - look at all the consultation material sent out in advance and its clear enough. Same sex civil partners are looked at as essentially having signed the same sort of voluntary contract as opposite sex married partners. People can marry and not have sexual relationships or share a house, but the vast majority will do so. The same is true for civil partners!

Siblings cannot marry - unless you are suggesting a change in the law of incest? They also cannot undertake a civil partnership, since that is designed for same sex couples in relationships which give the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. That includes dissolution - siblings do not choose to enter into those partnerships, neither than they divorce.

There may well be measures which could be introduced to help those who suffer from current inheritance laws, but they should not be confused with either civil partnership nor civil marriage.

Civil marriage is simply not about 'Christian' marriage, and the vast majority of marriage in this country is civil, not religious. You really must realise that things have moved on and that your vision of what marriage is refers only to church understandings of specifically Christian marriage. Civil marriage is not about religion or your god. Your church may choose to 'recognise' civil marriages, as they do have this habit of trying to colonise that which has nothing to do with them! This is the problem with having a state religion, but I doubt whether that will be feasible long-term as less and less people are availing themselves of such collective delusion.

I thought I had explained earlier: I oppose homophobia from wherever it emerges, and it is usually from religion. However, your lobby has been immensely incompetent in opposing civil partnership. It matters not whether the church recognises my relationship or not - what import has the church these days? What matters is the legal rights and responsibilities which exist , and they are the same for civil partners and married partners, as much as you may dislike that fact.

Get used to it - because civil partnership and gay legal equality is here to stay.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
' ..Christian marriage is merely a copy of what went before it etc. etc. ...Christian marriage.'

Still not read a Bible, J Pierce?

Still talking at length about the Christian way - a subject you therefore know nothing directly about?

I wonder what benefit to you or anyone else you think this can possibly be?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I have strong objections to the discriminatory way in which the rights conferred on civil partners have been denied to others who equally need provision to be made for them.

These rights are perfectly appropriate for siblings: none of the rights which you have now acquired presume any kind of sexual relationship, or indeed that you will even share a house.

The government however wants to present civil partnership as if it were, somehow, marriage. But it fails the first test of what "marriage" is in Christian understanding. You keep saying that this is irrelevant to you, but if so, why do you remain so concerned about what the Church thinks?

For the record, the Church of England acknowledges UK civil marriages whether carried out in an office or at a stately home. The blessing of a priest in a church wedding is not a necessary requirement. This is because marriage is still understood in the UK (yes, legally as well as generally) to be the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Octavian, the law in Belgium does not apply in the UK. There was a test case concerning two Canadians quite recently and they lost in court.

You have a curious logic, which means that 80% of crimes in Belgium are committed by Roman Catholics, therefore crime is Christian in Belgium.

[J Pearce]

Alan,

You offer up a classic case of parochialism and small mindedness when discussing marriage. The concept of familial bondings as a unit of society predates Christianity by quite some margin, yet you still cling to this tired and historically bankrupt notion that it is only Christianty which offers the only "valid" form of human partnership available.

Many people have absolutely no problem with the idea that civil marriages and indeed civil partnerships are "modelled" on Christian marriage. But then, Christian marriage is merely a copy of what went before it. The only difference you can offer are the ceremonial aspects (and I include the verbiage about God in that), which are ultimately cultural specific. There is no way of validating that Christian marriage is any "better" than any other form of partnership - and the divorce statistics suggest that Christian marriage offers no better a model for life long cohabitation than any other marriage form, in that it is still susceptible to the pressures exerted by society as any other form of civil partnership.

Whilst you might argue that Christian marriages demand "more" from their adherents, look at the flipside - a Christian marriage is, like the religion itself, ultimately based on a regime of fear and submission. To abandon a Christian marriage is to invite calumny and scorn from other Christians, is it not? Regardless of the circumstances that might drive a marriage apart - e.g. adultery, abuse - Christians are culturally victimised and morally blackmailed to maintain the illusiion of a working civil partnership, which itself may be causing unfeasible amounts of distress.

And lets face facts, only Christians are the kind of people who would want to engage in the ideals of a Christian marriage! Like attracts like, yes? I suspect people want Church weddings these days for the kudos and ceremonial aspects as much, if not more, than the ideals promoted by Christian marriage.

Ultimately, your argument boils down to semantics, i.e. what exactly does "marriage" mean? For the Church to claim onwership of the concept and definition of the term, is simply calculated machismo on the part of the Church. In reality, people adapt what marriage means to their own unique circumstances. Your attempts to denigrate other interpretations of marriage is merely another form of the cultural bullying that the Church specialises in.

[George Parr]

Rick would like to express his thanks for those who believe in him. However, he does rank homosexuals alongside atheists, liars, thieves, whoremongers and an implied long list of other sinners, all of whom exist in a state of utter wickedness. Because of this none of these people will ever get to heaven unless they repent. Rick's Aunt Matilda has a view but it does not matter what she thinks.

Luckily, their terrible sins do not prevent Rick gleefully doing business with these dreadful people, despite his strict religious beliefs, which can be temporarily suspended to accommodate the open market. Rick will still be going to heaven.

Rick has found that all homosexuals are very likeable people and he is at great pains to reiterate that he does not hate or despise them.

Sadly, the worlds 1.1 billion Catholics are all blinded by false teachings, and Rick has discovered that a staggering 80% are not biblical. Catholics do deserve to know the truth and are advised to go to another thread where they can read it in its entirety. However, Rick thinks that only one Catholic will bother, but then, happily, will be able to decide.

Men, with two college degrees, are dressing up in religious clothes and Christians must decide if what Jesus said agrees with them. They do have a choice over this however, as does Rick.

This has been a discussion, and we will be having more of them. Like Rick, Jesus loves homosexuals, atheists whoremongers, thieves and liars, but presumably does not do business with them.

Rick is a teacher.

[Octavian]

Alan: I'm a UK citizen, actually, and if I marry my same-sex partner here in Belgium and later return to live in the UK, I shall expect my marriage to be recognised by the British government too, indeed I imagine I have the right for it to be. There's no point at all in you trying to hold out for some different lower status for gay people - equality will come, and you'll just make the Church look silly. Incidentally, Belgium is an 80% Catholic society, as is Spain, which also has gay marriage, so there's no need to claim it's not Christian: Christian gay couples marry as much as non-Christian ones here.

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: I think it is you who doesn't realise what the legal status of civil marriage is all about. The ceremony is simply a means to a selection of legal rights and responsibilities - held by both civil marriage and civil partnership.

Now, we, along with most others who have a civil partnership, did have a splendid ceremony, and it was a very special day - but the rights and responsibilities are far more important, legally, than a ceremony! If you are trying to kid yourself that it is really the ceremony that gay and lesbian people have worked so hard to see introduced, then I think you are woefully out of touch.

And this is underlined by your failure to realise that the majority of marriages are now civil, and an increasing number take place in hotels, country houses and other such venues. As do civil partnerships. I think you really ought to see things as they are - not how you would like them to be. I have been to two church weddings in recent years, and neither bride nor groom were in the least religious - it was dome in one case for family reasons, and the other because the building looked lovely on the photos.

The one dissimilarity you have noted is largely a legal irrelevance - and I think the task of listing the legal equivalence would indeed be tiresome since it includes almost everything else

Civil partnership was created to provide an equivalent to marriage for same sex couples. No dishonesty, Alan - just something you are not comfortable with, but then, that's your problem. Siblings cannot have that sort of equivalent
relationship, although there may well be a case for revising inheritance laws.

And my concern is only when Christians try and oppose civil partnership or try their hardest not to face reality - that other than a couple of issues which have no legal significance, the rights and responsibilities are the same as for civil marriage. You can believe what you want - but if you try and impose that view on me in the public sphere, expect to be opposed. An ever dwindling and dying religion simply can't impose itself on the non-churchgoing majority.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

To God Be All the Glory But I thank you for Your Mostly correct beleifs in me.

Actually I do Not Hate Despise Anyone That Includes Homosexuals..Catholics..Or You An Atheist. I don't Agree With The Homosexual Lifestyle Geoege I However I Do Buisness With A Few Homosexuals They Are Very Likeable People..True They Are In Sin And No Matter what You or I Or Aunt Matilda Thinks They Gotta Repent If They Ever Believe They'll Get To Heaven. No Worse Or Better Then An Atheist A Liar..Thief Whoremonger Etc Etc Etc.

As For The Catholic People They Are Blinded By The False Teachings Un-Biblical in 80 Percent of Teachings..And Deserve To Know The Biblical Truth. If They Don't want to read it..Go to another thread..for the One that does He/she will read for themselves to decide. Point Being George..If someone claims to be a "Christian" then they need to know what Christ (The first Name in christianity) what Jesus said and taught to see if it agrees with Men dressed up in religious clothes with two college degrees teach. They have a Choice like we all have. Anyway see you on a future Discussion..And remember George Jesus Loves The Sinner..But hates the Sin..

[David Cohen]

2003 - that's ANCIENT history for you, Malcolm? So it's OK then?

I suppose that the pace at which you change your doctrine means that 4 April this year is also old hat.

And that if you don't know about something, it hasn't happened.

I see...very convincing!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I have read both Hansard and the legislation itself, and what I see there is a government determined to create an illusion. Although it dresses up civil partnership as much as it can in order to resemble civil marriage, ultimately it boils down to the provision of a modest number of social rights and tax breaks.

This is signified by the absence of a ceremony for a civil partnership, which is effected simply by signing a register.

Civil marriage, however, continues to be modelled on religious marriage, for which it was designed to be an alternative in a state rather than church context. Many of the aspirations of couples seeking a religious marriage are matched by those who choose a civil ceremony for a variety of reasons, not always because they do not regard it as a religious as well as legal commitment. In point of fact, many do regard it as such even though the ceremony is conducted by a registrar in an office.

It would be tiresome and pointless to list the legal similarities and dissimilarities, apart from the obvious and fundamental dissimilarity which I have already outlined. The dishonesty which lies at the heart of the Act is that this can and should be portrayed as "marriage", when it is simply a means to certain legal privileges which have been denied to others, such as siblings, who ought equally to be able to register a partnership for the same purposes.

Again I am puzzled by your inconsistency. You claim that what Christians believe about marriage to be "utterly irrelevant outside the confines of your church" - but here you are, yet again, demonstrating that it is not irrelevant to you.

[Malcolm+]

David, I had no idea you were so short of propaganda and distortions that you had to go all the way back to 2003.

Your subsequent description of events in Metchosin is curious. I've seen nothing to suggest that Jim Cowan was "caught in the act" with a locksmith.

And a curious story about a Supreme Court intervention that never was. None of these have gotten anywhere near the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, it seems you haven't bothered to look at the recent order from the ONtario courts that makes it crystal clear who owns the buildings - and it ain't the bloody schismatics, old bean.

Oh, yes. And your claims about the authority of Lambeth Conferences is still as false as it ever was.

[Mike Homfray]

Incidentally, Alan, still waiting for you to produce a list of those similarities. As much as you may dislike it, they are considerable - and your view about what constitutes marriage is utterly irrelevant outside the confines of your church.

[Mike Homfray]

Alan: of course civil partnership is between same sex partners and civil marriage opposite sex partners. That makes no legal difference in terms of the rights and responsibilities between the partners, though. Also, the service itself is not compulsory for a civil partnership - but that doesn't actually affect the expectations of the relationship. It is for that reason that siblings cannot be considered civil partners, for example - and if you bothered to read the debate in Parliament and the context of the legislation, you would realise that you are as ever, trying to make civil partnership what you would like it to be.

As for civil marriage, it is explicitly not Christian - and I turned down toe three separate offers of 'blessing' for our civil partnership. I still regarded myself as a Christian then, I don;t now, but I certainly don't need lukewarm unofficial 'blessing' from homophobic dying institutions and their premodern gods and 'saviours'. I'm happy for Christianity to continue to ally itself to prejudice - means that still more people will reject it or view it as irrelevant to their lives.

In the meantime, civil partnerships are hear to stay, although the name change to marriage will happen within say, 25 years. Because there will be virtually nothing else to alter!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Octavian, I have been addressing the situation in the UK, which is not yet entirely governed from Brussels - still less the Christian faith, which is international like no other organisation.

The view of the Church, throughout history and in almost all of its branches in the modern world, is that there can be no such thing as marriage between same-sex couples, because marriage is a part of a divinely-created order and is modelled for us in Genesis as a bond between male and female.

This is reiterated definitively for Christian teaching in the words of Jesus in Matthew 19.4-6, where he speaks of marriage as a union between man and woman, intended by God from the very beginning.

Ths state of Belgium evidently considers that it is appropriate to offer a secular alternative to the scriptural and sacramental concept of marriage as the Church understands it. But it does not have any authority to re-write scripture or to change the Church's teaching.

Even if it should be the case that a man can legally marry a man in Belgium, it remains ontologically impossible within Christian teaching since the very relationship which the term "marriage" describes refers to the union of a man and a woman, without which marriage can not exist.

It is open to UK citizens to enter a civil partnership, which seems to me to be a more honest description of what is happening, and in some western states that is even termed "marriage".

But the Church is equally at liberty to hold to its own understanding of the divine will and of human nature as created by God, and to come to a very different conclusion.

If the Church's view on this means nothing to you, why should you find it "insulting" that the Church does not agree with you?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, I have read the legislation itself - unlike you, I rather suspect. I won't retaliate by accusing you of relying on propaganda from your own lobby.

You say, "the civil law. Thats all I care about" - So why do you persist here?

The government has gone to great lengths to package civil partnership so that it resembles marriage, and even included coercive provisions so that those who disagree about the nature of marriage itself can be prosecuted for refusing to cooperate with the government's version of (un)reality.

But even in a comparison with civil (as opposed to Christian) marriage, there are clear expectations expressed in the ceremony itself that marriage is between a man and a woman (a most fundamental difference), and that it will be faithful.

A civil partnership does not presume a faithful relationship, or a sexual relationship, or that the partners will share even a car, let alone a roof. The advantages it offers are important for those concerned, but not equivalent to the completeness of commitment which is presumed in civil marriage - which is itself modelled on the pattern of Christian marriage.

[Octavian]

Alan: I live in Belgium, where gay couples marry the same as straight ones. There is no difference in law, nor in the lived reality of people's relationships. How can you be so insulting as to suggest otherwise? It's time British people ditched their whole long history of sexual hypocrisy and discomfort, which is all that your "theological" views on this topic add up to.

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, if St Martin's Vancouver is not in the diocese of New Westminster, why was it seized by Bihop Ingham in September 2003, and the St Martin's youth leader who discovered the locksmith at work fired by the diocese of New Westminster?

I know Canada is a big country, but I would have expected you to get the geography right.

There was a similar operation at the church of St Mary, Victoria, BC, on 4 April this year when Bishop James Cowan was discovered with a locksmith secretly changing the locks and installing a security system, but the following day the Supreme Court intervened requiring the diocese to allow the parishioners to use their own Church again.

You shout loudly, but others will judge who is purveying pure bunkum.

[An American Observer]

Unlike many (or any other?) of the readers of this column, I have actually heard Bishop Robinson preach. Like any good preacher, he kept his ego out of it and simply talked about the Gospel for the day.

A "media tart"? Not that I could see.

[Mike Homfray]

Actually, you are wrong as usual, Alan. Can I suggest you consult a legal opinion which isn't that of the Christian Lawyers Association or anything connected to religionism?
The reasons for dissolution are irretrievable breakdown. The same as for civil marriage.

As for the church, it can think what it wants about marriage - which is utterly irrelevant in terms of the civil law. Thats all I care about, not some made up god or its made up glee club. I gave that one up for good. Great newsaw to hear that fewer than ever are being taken in by it - may the number ever inbcrease!

Of course marriage is between a man and a woman and civil partnership between same sex partners. Now, take off your blinkers and make a list ofg all the ways in which the two states are iudentical in legal terms. You will find it is a very long list indeed - no wopnder you have to scrabble around for exemptions!

[Malcolm+]

David, you really should consider using facts.

First off, the church building you refer to is not in the Diocese of New Westminster at all, but rather in the Diocese of British Columbia.

Second, the dioceses do not "claim to 'own'" the buildings. They do own the buildings. That is clear both from the titles and from the civil legislation establishing the respective dioceses. Again, you may consider dealing in reality for a change and consult the recent interim order from Ontario.

Oh, and David, your pretence that Lambeth resolutions are binding is still pure bunkum.

[George Parr]

Rick, a Super-Christian living in America, knows absolutely what is morally correct and this makes him rational. For him there are no grey areas. He does not approve of the lifestyle of homosexuals and often criticizes and de-humanizes them, by treating them as possessed religious pariahs. However, this does not mean that Rick is unfriendly to homosexuals although he often feels the need to deny that actually he hates them. Outside of the 'possessed pariah' thing, Rick definitely welcomes them just like other normal sinners.

To those who say he is fully entitled to his beliefs, Rick says that he does not need to justify the way he functions in everyday life. Homosexuals on the other hand cannot possibly justify how they function in everyday life, because they are possessed with evil spirits, physically inserted by Satan. People with Rick's mindset will go to heaven. All others, especially Roman Catholics and those, like homosexuals, who do not REPENT will go to hell. It's that simple.

Rick rarely counters any arguments, and prefers to avoid awkward questions which challenge the sanity of his beliefs, or the veracity, relevance and interpretation of The Book.

Rick is a teacher.

[Rick Beekman]

George;

Contrary to what you may think..I don't need to justify the way I function in everyday life. People know who I am what I do and know I live like I teach. Also Living For God is not as restrictive as one might think. I'm a very rational individual I just do what is morally correct. I have stated to you on other occassions; I do not hate homosexuals. I don't like their lifestyle. I welcome any individual No matter who they are...

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I am well aware that the term "marriage" has been wrongly used to describe civil partnerships, but the fundamental differences between even civil marriage and civil partnership make it inappropriate.

First of all a civil marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman; and secondly the grounds for ending a civil marriage are very different to those on which a civil partnership can be terminated, because the latter is treated as a very different kind of legal relationship.

And I was in any event commenting on what marriage means in the Church's understanding of the term, something very different again. The preface to the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer sets it out very clearly, if anyone would care to read it.

Evidently Mike has not read the Civil Partnership Act's own introductory literature. I wonder what he has committed himself to without checking the fine print in advance?

[David Cohen]

Malcolm, the diocese of New Westminster has in fact seized the church buildings of one of its congregations, changing the locks and excluding the Vestry, and it is even now planning litigation in order to seize the assets of several more congregations, which it claims to "own" but to which it has never contributed a cent - in fact it received substantial amounts of financial support from them up to the time it decided unilaterally to permit some of its clergy to "bless" gay unions.

[George Parr]

Well Rick it is one way of living your life! If you want to avoid thinking for yourself and are content to regard the 'infallible' biblical instructions, that ninety-nine per cent of religious people apply SOME sort of interpretation to, then why not eh?

It goes without saying however, that you will be regarded as unfriendly to homosexuals, narrow minded over the protocols of human relationships and even incapable of thinking on your own. In a book as wide, contradictive and discursive, in the rambling sense, as the bible is, it seems to me wholly optimistic if not insane to regard its total contents as verbatim instructions from a higher authority over life choices. What a life you must lead explaning all this to those around you!

[Rick Beekman]

J.Pearce;

Your Comparison Of Obeying What The Word Of God says With the Invention Of Computers Is Like Comparing Apples And Oranges!

The Bible Teaches From Genesis To Revelations How People Just Like You Refused To Listen Or Obey God's Word And The Trouble in This World just keeps on Coming Day After Day. See Mr. Pearce One Day I Decided To See If God Was Right Or I Was Right The Way My Life Used To Be. You Know what? I Found Out How Stupid And Ignorant I Was. All I Do Now Is Stick To What The Book Says To Do..AND IT WORKS!!

By The Way There is also a verse in The Scriptures That States; "In the latter times Knowledge shall increase" Yes..God Even Told Them 2000 Years ago what was coming. So have a wonderful day!