Is gay marriage going to become an election battleground?
Dear Chris Bryant,
Obviously you’re feeling a bit left out as Foreign Office Minister these days, so you’ve decided to cause a stir in the newspapers this morning with your comments about civil partnerships and homosexuality. Personally, I think your views are vindictive for the most part, even though you might have inadvertently stumbled across some issues that would be worth discussing.
First came the accusation that “if gays vote Tory they will rue the day very soon.” Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw also chipped in by saying ”a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”. However, you weren’t done there. Apparently, as an openly gay minister you think it is your place to decide that homosexual “weddings” should be celebrated in churches. You want clergy to be “much more open” to the idea of treating civil partnership ceremonies like traditional marriages. Having trained as an Anglican priest yourself, you declared that: “All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their ‘marriage’ or their ‘wedding’ so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality. I would like to see churches be much more open to the idea of gay relationships or partnerships being celebrated in church.” Not unsurprisingly, this goes directly against the rules of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which state that only the union of a man and a woman can be celebrated by a priest in church. The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said: “Of course all citizens must have equal rights without discrimination. But marriage is the basis of the family, and the stability of the family is grounded in the sameness in difference between men and women. Those who make public law have to realise that people of faith have consciences that need to be respected.” A spokesman for the Church of England said: “The Church of England’s approach has always been clear: marriage is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, and that is what the liturgy of the C of E Marriage Service is exclusively intended for. …Some who register civil partnerships seek recognition of their new situation and pastoral support by asking members of the clergy to provide a blessing for them in the context of an act of worship. The Church expresses what it believes through the liturgy of its worship. As there is no theological consensus about same sex unions, no such liturgy is authorised.”
Let’s start with your comments about the Conservative Party. What kind of politics is this? How on earth do you know how David Cameron, who has very liberal views on homosexuality, will behave as Prime Minister on these issues? What gives you the right to make blanket generalisations that many Conservative MPs will find deeply offensive? You’re talking as if all Labour MPs are somehow whiter-than-white and fully support homosexuality and recent legislation in this area, in which case you are clearly living in some fantasy land because many Labour and Lib Dem MPs are religious and are therefore highly unlikely to support gay marriages. Aside from your borderline slanderous remarks about the Conservative Party, your remarks about gay marriages are even more shameful. All your ‘friends’ can call a civil partnership whatever the hell they like - I couldn’t care less. Marriage is a religious institution, whether you like it or not. As such, religions set the rules, not you. Civil partnerships should afford homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples (bar child-related issues, I suppose) but it should never ever ever become a ‘marriage’ because religions explicitly forbid marriages between people of the same gender. What is so complicated about this? We also had Peter Tatchell saying this morning that the civil partnerships introduced by Labour for same-sex couples were “a form of sexual apartheid” because they institutionalised different marriage laws for heterosexual and homosexual people. If there are any differences in terms of the legal status between civil partnerships and marriage then I’m more than happy to listen and discuss, but this aggressive and wholly disrespectful anti-religious agenda is appalling.
I am not even vaguely religious and neither are my family, yet even I can see how unnecessary and inflammatory your comments are. Ironically enough, your barbed remarks about Conservative MPs come on the same day as Gordon Brown has criticised “crude” personal attacks in politics, saying that people should “think twice” before making accusations. Sadly, it is quite clear to me that even if homosexual and heterosexual couples still had exactly the same financial and legal existence, you were still be attacking the institution of marriage for what I can only assume to be punitive and selfish reasons, and I find that very sad.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
“Sadly, it is quite clear to me that even if homosexual and heterosexual couples still had exactly the same financial and legal existence, you were still be attacking the institution of marriage for what I can only assume to be punitive and selfish reasons, and I find that very sad.”
Sadly, most gay couples are quite happy with the compromise of civil partnerships. But for the militant gays, and the progressives, it’s now not about ‘equality’ (if it ever was, for some) it’s about rubbing the straights noses in it…
I can’t quite understand why any homosexual would want to get married in a church when they have been stigmatised and shunned by them for years. How can you believe in a God when their preachings say you are sinful and going to hell blah blah blah. There is never any of that love your fellow human beings without a huge long list under the ‘except’ section.
Like you LFAT I am not religious at all but I have no desire either to force the church change it’s view. It’s not compulsory to be in a religion – at least not in this country! And there are so many places that you can get ‘married’ that it is just a nonsensical argument.
I’m a Christian but am not opposed to gays and lesbians having the right to civil marriages alongside civil partnerships; indeed, perhaps in those circumstances, there ought to be civil partnerships for straight people to ensure equality before the secular law. But there can and should be no obligation for religions, religious people or indeed non-religious people to accept that such marriages are true marriages if they don’t believe they are.
No doubt, completely new churches that do accept gay marriages as authentic marriages will spring up, as they have in the US. There are also already many liberal congregations or clerics in the CofE that tolerate and bestow blessings on gay ’spouses’ or partners. That is as it should be in a pluralist society. But tolerance has to work both ways: tolerance towards those who believe in gay marriage, and tolerance towards those who don’t.
I got married in a registry office as neither my wife nor I believe in sky fairies and chose to get married because of how we feel about eachotHer and not because some ancient myth or chunk or of the state told us to. I don’t see any difference between civil weddings and civil partnerships (apart from the obvious genders of the participants!).
Anyone who tells me that my marriage is less valid than anyone elses for not involving some kind of religon is, from my perspective, a moron. Equally, gay people who crave a church wedding have far deeper psychological problems than just being hung up on marriage – they are craving acceptance from faith organistions that, in the words of Leviticus, hold them to be abhorrent in the eyes of God. And that, I’m afraid is 2-bald-men-fighting-over-comb country.
Julia, the militant wing of many minority groups are really starting to take control of the media, which is helping them force through their political correctness agenda.
Candid, the conflict between religion and homosexuality is huge and I’m also not sure why they want to be associated with it!
BW, if homosexuals want to set up a new church, I’m not really fussed. However, for them to demand that the most ancient and respected churches in the world accept them on their terms is totally out of line.
Shaun, their craving of acceptance is indeed baffling and civil partnerships – as long as the legal status is upheld – makes perfect sense.
On radio and TV news/politics shows yesterday and today Gordon managed to whip up a fair amount of sympathy for having been called a liar.
He has managed to somehow persuade the commentators that he and his party are above name calling and this childishness is undignified.
“a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”
if only BB had added “The gay bashers.”
I happy enough to believe Brown isn’t a liar because if he isn’t, he can only be utterly delusional…
There is in fact no discrimination. I am heretosexual, and was able to marry any woman who would agree to it. Equally, had I not already exercised that option, I would be free to enter into a civil partnership with anyone (except my sisters…).
Ben Bradshaw is able to enter into a civil partnership with anyone (except any siblings of his). He is also able to marry any woman who will agree to it. The situation is therefore identical as between us. There is no discrimination; he as a homosexual has identical rights to me as a heterosexual.
This is worlds away from a sign on a letting advert (for example) which says “No Gays”, which would be discrimination as it prevents homosexuals doing something that heterosexuals may.
What he seeks is not the removal of an unfair discrimination, but the equalisation of two different things. The fact is, a homosexual union is not the same as a heterosexual union. If it were, we would not have different words for them, my wife would have been somewhat surprised all those years ago, and there would not now be two small people walking around my house.
My wife and I chose to have a Nuptial Mass when we got married last year, (despite her being non-religious and me being an Anglican). It’s unusual, but beautiful and spiritually uplifting, and that’s what mattered to us. It wouldn’t be for everyone though: the key thing is that it was a choice, freely made, and that’s what the militant homosexuals would deny the Christian Church.
Perhaps the answer is to follow the approach that they have in Belgium? (Shock, horror). In the UK, people can conflate the religious and the secular elements of the marriage service (what many people don’t realise is that in the eyes of the law the religious service is irrelevent and the marriage only occurs when the register is signed). In Belgium, they require that these are separate events – if we were to do this, then everyone would enter into a civil partnership, and then if people chose to have a religious wedding as well then it would be entirely up to them.
Shaun, BTW, as a Christian Leviticus doesn’t apply any more. The New Covenant replaced the need to follow the letter of the law included in the Torah.
Shaun, BTW, as a Christian Leviticus doesn’t apply any more. The New Covenant replaced the need to follow the letter of the law included in the Torah.
That’s certainly your enlightened view but it’s not one shared by the more voluble of your brethren as exemplified by these US weirdos….
“…the militant wing of many minority groups are really starting to take control of the media.”
Please tell me you don’t actually believe this. Though if you do, I have instructions for making a tin foil hat I will happily sell to you. I guarantee it will stop the militant wing of minority groups from broadcasting brainwashing signals direct to your mind.
“Marriage is a religious institution”
No it isn’t. In this country, marriage is a legal institution. I don’t remember the specifics off-hand, but via an Act of Parliament. 1948, ‘49, something like that. As I recall it specifically excludes religion from registry office proceedings. Or don’t you consider non-religious, heterosexual marriage ceremonies to be “real” marriages either?
Isn’t the point that the church is a “club” and therefore perfectly entitled to set the rules of who may or may not use its facilities?
I don’t know why some blue-rinsers get excited about the word marriage when applied to gay couples but this is not what Bryant is talking about. He is talking about forcing the church to entertain something it disapproves of on its private property.
I am all for the law to be changed to align the marriage rights of any two people who wish to register their partnership, but totally against telling a private organisation who it should allow onto its premises.
[awaits the replies pointing out that the CofE is the established church which is totally irrelevant to this point as nobody is forced to contribute to its upkeep]
as nobody is forced to contribute to its upkeep
Except obliquely through paying for their state rituals (Royal marriages – when the first gay royal wants to marry their same-sex partner, then I suspect we’ll see the CoE fall over itself to host the ceremony…) and the upkeep of their ex-officio members in the House of Lords… But considering how much of the property market they control and the according taxes thereon, I’m prepared to concede that they are probably revenue-neutral (at least!).
BE, marriage rights should indeed be aligned.
Madeley, I’m talking much more broadly about minority groups. Other notable examples of crazies who had a guaranteed media slot include Trevor Phillips, Cath Elliott and Harriet Harman, although the latter is obviously more excusable. And surely marriage has religious origins, even if it was later enshrined in law?
Bill, I think Brown is onto a serious losing streak by suggesting that people shouldn’t attack him for talking crap.
Patently, well said. This isn’t about ‘rights’ at all, it’s about religion-bashing.
Oh all right, but you know what I mean
“And surely marriage has religious origins, even if it was later enshrined in law?”
As far as we can tell, marriage predates recorded history. We don’t actually know what the origins are. It certainly predates the Christian definition. I understand that Ancient Greek marriage was practically a financial transaction, trading property from a father to the husband (I may be wrong about this, happy to be corrected by someone who knows more about the subject.)
Regardless, we aren’t discussing the institution of marriage as it was historically, we are discussing the institution as it stands today. And in Britain, the authority for the institution is legal, not religious.
Actually, on re-reading your post I assume that where you refer to marriage being a religious institution, you mean marriage within a religious context.
Shaun
Linking anyone to the Pheleps family is almost as bad as what Chris Bryant was up to
They are not representative of anyone except themselves (and frankly if someone is that hate-filled I struggle to see how they can see themselves as Christians at all)
“Please tell me you don’t actually believe this.”
Pressure groups are set up and initially exist to foster a particular cause – name one that has got what it originally wanted and then said: “OK, boys and girls, let’s all pack up and go home..”
You always, always get ‘mission creep’, because you are employing people and they don’t want the sack, so they push for more and more, until the organisation is far beyone what it used to be, and the original founders look with disbelief on what it now is.
‘Shaun, BTW, as a Christian Leviticus doesn’t apply any more. The New Covenant replaced the need to follow the letter of the law included in the Torah.’
The New Covenant is pretty clear on the position as well. The only acceptable form of sex is noted as being between and man and a woman who are married.
The Bible doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals per se. It discriminates against any sexual activity outwith that defined above.
Leviticus required the death of anyone caught in pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, bestial sex, extra marital sex or those guilty of rape.
The position in terms of what is ‘acceptable’ didn’t actually change in the NT, but the penalty was removed. In contrast, Islam still requires the death penalty for some of the above.
Christians who hold an allegorical view of the Bible will tend to be more ‘liberal’ in their interpretation of how this applies today.
Christians who hold a literal view of the Bible will tend to be more ‘conservative’ in their interpretation of how this applies today.
Might help explain why you have division on this issue.
Another misunderstood idea is that people will be sent to hell because they’re homosexual. This again, is not what the Bible teaches.
It teaches that everyone is a sinner and requires redemption (the whole purpose of Christ being a sacrifice for sin). That redemption is offered freely to everyone INCLUDING homosexuals. Unredeemed sinners go to hell.
Where the debate comes in is on the whether homosexuality is a sin or not. See point about literal vs allegorical.
And so we return to the point in hand. Those who hold a literal view will feel that being forced to accept gay marriage in Church is deeply contradictory to their beliefs. Those who hold an allegorical view will be quite comfortable with it.
You may well justifiably disagree with the literalists viewpoint and consider them backward, but surely the question of wanting (forcing) such churches to accept gay marriage and to perform such marriages against their ethos in law, is the same as demanding that Stonewall must also promote a straight agenda in law.
Surely prejudice is the same, whatever guise it comes in.
Very nicely put, A Tory! I wish Bryant would just keep his opinions to himself. I see no signs of “homophobia” in the Conservative Party. As for imposing secular practices on the Church this is a non-starter. Yes there are homosexually inclined persons who are faithful Christians but that is certainly not the same as traducing the doctrines for the pleasures of the World.
Chris Bryant comes across as a rather sly person who acts in un-Christian ways by impugning others. Ben Bradshaw was involved in a “prayer book” that contained homoerotic stuff. Neither men appear at ease with themselves. They have brittle natures and just rub people up the wrong way!
I read in the Telegraph that Bryant is an ex clergyman (he trained as a priest and served as a curate); he is clearly seeking to use the law to settle some theological dispute he has with the religion he loves because it holds his sexual conduct in contempt. Poor, confused fool.
“They have brittle natures and just rub people up the wrong way! “
*cough*
Damn, spilled my gin and tonic now!