The Church of England has thrown down the gauntlet to the government over the issue of same-sex marriage. The message is clear: "Do as we say or there will be dire consequences."
Their response to the government consultation on its intention to legalise civil marriages between same-sex couples is overwrought to the point of hysteria. It is manipulative to the point of blackmail.
It seems the Church of England has decided to adopt the tactics that are currently being used by the Catholic Church against the Obama administration in America. There, the Church is bringing a legal action to challenge to the President's health insurance mandate on the grounds that it would involve them in the provision of contraceptives.
Although the US Government has said that the Catholic Church would not have to pay this element of the insurance for its employees working in hospitals and schools, the bishops are still undeterred. They have banded together to launch a court challenge to force the government into retreat.
And it is at this point that it becomes clear that this is not, as they claim, about "religious freedom" at all. It is about establishing how far the power of the Church can reach into secular government; how much ground it can gain in the lawmaking process.
The primary - but hidden - purpose is to humiliate the President and cause him to climb down from the main plank of his election promise - which was to introduce health insurance for all. Grandiose talk of protecting "religious freedom" conceals what is really going on. Now "religious freedom" seems to mean the right for religious bodies to do whatever they like without consequences.
If Obama capitulates, the Church will then move on to its next objective which will probably be the banning of abortion. The politicians, anxious not to receive another bloody nose from their eminences will offer little resistance..
The same thing is happening in Britain. The Church of England says that eventually the European Court of Human Rights will force it to conduct same-sex marriages in churches. And besides which - according to the consultation response - there is no difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. They are both for the same purpose - for a man and a woman to produce children.
It says the government doesn't have the right to "redefine" marriage.
But the government regularly redefines marriage, as does the church. Let us not forget that in the Old Testament it was usual for men to have several wives. Indeed, King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives.
At one time divorce was illegal, but the government changed that (again, in the teeth of furious opposition from the churches). Marriage has changed constantly over the centuries and it will weather another change - it might even be strengthened.
But the real purpose of this challenge from the Church of England is as much about staking out its territory in the political arena as it is about gay marriage. Mr Cameron is in the same position as Barack Obama - if he backs down the Church will have won a major political victory on which it will build an even more reactionary empire.
And that is bad news for all those of us who value the progress our society has made in the past few decades.
Let us not forget that the Church of England tried to exempt itself from the Human Rights Act when it was going through parliament. It tried to exempt itself from the Equality Act, saying it had a special right to discriminate where others had none. It stands in the way of the legalisation of assisted dying, even though polls show that 80%of the population would support it.
It wants more money for its buildings, its schools and the many other projects connected with the Big Society that would help it extend its influence into a society that has mainly rejected it.
The increasingly reactionary and unpleasant church has a regressive agenda that it will, if it can win this battle, happily impose on us all.
David Skelton: I'm Sorry, Dr Fox - Gay Marriage Isn't Just a "Metropolitan Elite" Issue
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...
History has proved that marriage is no boundary for who people have sex with. With regards to commitment, surely the only need to commit everlastingly is for the sake of family, Vis any offspring. I dont know how common marriage between older couples has been over the centuries, but I would guess it is a fairly new phenomenon. I dont suppose for a moment that marriage was introduced to provide any salvation for the elderly specifically.
Im sure all humans are equal, and as such we all deserve the same chances and opportunities. However, some peoples endeavors and commitments are greater than others and therefore the bonds and rewards should reflect that..
I believe the church has a distinct and sacrosanct right to define male / female unions in keeping with their beliefs.
Also, I would not wish to deny any person their legitimate right to seek happiness in their own way.
It does seem clear to me that a union between a male/female for the purpose of raising their offspring (and dont get me wrong, love and sex do play a part) is fundamentally different to two people seeking to legitimize their love/desire for each other. This type relation ship can be the focus of same sex and different sex couples.
However, the two types of relation ship (i would see) require fundamentally different types of commitments.
They are not mutually exclusive nor are they mutually inclusive I agree.
I cannot see why the church should have the right to define its own rules without fear of being labeled discriminatory.
To avoid the confusion one or other should adopt a different term to use. As these new life style people are so bent on changing established protocol, Im surprised they havent invented there own
protocols and terms.
Scotch made any where other than Scotland cannot legally be called scotch?.
No idea whose got the monopoly on what defines marriage. As has been pointed out there are many religions all with there own take on it.
It is not at all clear. Homosexual couples can adopt, and they can also have children by means of a surrogate.
The rules have been watered down so much over the years that the vows taken are already almost meaningless in a social context any way.. I can still see that introducing a context of gay marriage for some would simply bury it altogether. My point is why should one persons sense of perspective be destroyed just because someone else claims they want to join in but only at the expense of changing the game.
When they could easily invent there own game and call it something else, when that's what it is.
The darkness that was the pre enlightenment world is still lurking in the shadows.
Disestablish this bigoted cult and be done with them. Separation of church and state. Now that's a good idea.
Yes! Thomas Jefferson got it right. "If my neighbour tells me there is no God, or that there are 20 gods, it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg". Take away their residual powers in the House of Lords, and then they can scream at the wind for all the good it will do them.
But marriage is not just about producing children, statistically this is untrue now, more children are born to unwed parents than wed parents, and this implies that married persons who choose not to have children are not ‘truly’ married, because they haven’t done what marriage is for, which is absurd.
All religions want preferential treatment, not just the Christian church, look at the differences we have in our schooling sector for a clear example, with faith schools being exempted for the national curriculum and healthy food guidelines.
If the government doesn’t have the right to redefine marriage who does then, because the church has been doing it for millennia.
Mahatma Gandhi
The Churches in the UK seem to be putting up the same arguments that they do here in the US - claiming attacks on religious freedoms when they don't get everything they want - you would think that they would be happy with their tax exempt status and the right to wear those pointy hats in public. And just what "dire consequences" is the Church of England threatening? Sounds a lot like what the Pope and the Catholic Church threatened Henry VIII with - don't seem to remember that it worked out well for the Catholics.
Good luck!