The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has warned the government that if it tries to legalise gay marriage, it will face a huge onslaught from religious bodies.
These are not empty words. The Church of England and the Catholic Church are already in talks to launch a major fightback against the coalition's plans to make marriage - in some form - available to same sex couples.
"Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," says Dr Sentamu. "I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is."
Yet, the government's plans will specifically exempt religious groups from participating in the conducting of same sex unions if they don't want to. Dr Sentamu asserts, in effect, that it is his (dwindling) Church not parliament that alone has the power to define marriage, even though civil marriage, in which all religious elements are proscribed, has existed in England since 1836.
You just go to your local town hall and they will do the honours with the express non-involvement of the Bible, Koran, Jesus or God.
Dr Sentamu's reasoning is: "Marriage is set in tradition and history and you can't just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are."
If we follow this through to its logical conclusion nothing would ever change. And, indeed, Dr Sentamu would probably be a slave somewhere, not a Bishop of the Established Church. Marriage between races would also be forbidden and Belgo wouldn't be able to sell Moules Mariniere.
Then Sentamu tries the old anybody-who-doesn't-do-as-I-want-is-a-dictator ploy. "We've seen dictators do it in different contexts", he says, "and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way. It's almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God [will be] an arm of the Armed Forces. They must take arms and fight. You're completely changing tradition."
This is a completely false comparison, but it is indicative of the kinds of arguments we are going to see over the next few months, particularly after the government launches its consultation on the issue in March.
Needless to say, the Catholic Church is also particularly keen on thwarting the government on this issue. Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark was at the Home Office meeting. Let us not forget that when he was Archbishop of Cardiff, Mr Smith opined that gay people should not be employed as teachers. So we know where he is coming from.
Last week, church leaders held a meeting with Home Secretary Theresa May to make their objections known (it is revealing how the churches simply only need snap their fingers and the Home Secretary invites them over). To her credit, she apparently told them categorically that the plans would go ahead and, in fact, that the consultation was not about the principle - which has already been agreed - but only the details.
Ms May reassured the two Churches that the government had no intention of acting on a suggestion from conservative backbencher Mike Weatherley, who wrote recently to the prime minister saying that same-sex couples had an "absolute right" to marry or register a civil partnership in a church and any church that failed to comply with this 'right' should be barred from conducting any marriages at all.
Naturally this has infuriated these 'church leaders' and they have now go together to plan a concerted campaign to stop the legislation.
Last Wednesday committee of leading bishops of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales met to finalise details of a campaign against the Government's plans. Also at the meeting was the Church of England's Archbishops' Council secretary general, William Fittall.
Right-wing Tory MPs are likely to join with the churches when the issue comes before parliament and the plan is understood to have been criticised by Tory MPs at private meetings of the Conservative Party's 1922 Committee. Gay marriage is, however, strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats, who have pressed for its legalisation.
A consultation on gay marriage has already been held in Scotland, with the Scottish government hoping to introduce the change, possibly later this year. The Scottish Catholic Church reacted with bitter attacks on the government and on gay people. The Scottish consultation is thought to be potentially more radical in that it does not appear to rule out iopening up existing marriage legislation to same sex couples, but this is not thought to be contemplated by the government in respect of England and Wales.
But, of course, these kinds of reactions do the churches no good. They simply reinforce the image they already have of being intolerant, dictatorial and completely out of touch with ordinary people's attitudes. Traditionalists argue that they cannot change the words of the Bible to fit modern thinking.
If that is true, then in all honesty they should be working not only to thwart gay marriage but to have all homosexuals stoned to death. Isn't that what the Bible tells them?
Ross Murray: The Relationship Between Faith and Marriage Equality
Andy Watts: Would Jesus Belong to a Country Club?
Archbishop of York: marriage is still the bedrock of society
British law is well out of date. I can wholely understand the reasons for its Christian roots, but come on people.......Humanity has known but been afraid to say for hundreds of years that there is no god. As the grip of the church slackens and people are free to say what they wan't without being punished by religion then so will come a time for people to cooperate as brothers and equals around the world.
But before that happend there will be one almighty struggle as the religions fight to stay alive.
I don't believe it would be right to force the Anglican church to perform gay weddings, any more than it would be right to force the Catholic church to marry divorcees, and this legislation is not proposing that. Sentamu was objecting to same-sex civil marriages and that is frankly none of his business.
Terr,y I am taking issue ONLY with the sentence you wrote. If you're going to cite the Bible in your argiument, Terry, then it would help if you understood what it actually says. Sinful activity is defined in the Old Testament, and penalties for it are put in place, including as you allude stoning for certain things. The New Testament describes that the penalty for sinful activity is now taken on the Cross, and states that any sinner can take advantage of that. Therefore, all sinners may repent, if they choose. But more importantly, everyone is released from the Law and its consequences.
But nowhere does the New Testament seek at any time to re-define what is sinful. In fact, it re-iterates it.
Therefore your conclusion that logically Sentamu or anyone else ought to be seeking the death penalty for being gay is erroneous, and a red herring.
I re-iterate, I am only taking issue with the sentence I have quoted above.
So lets make this battle, Biblical!
To suggest that Christain principles may hinder social progression is ludicrous (example given of Archbishop Senatmu’s freedom from slavery is a case in point – try Googling William Wilberforce).
Sooner or later Mr. Sanderson and the secular society (membership growing??) will have to accept that there is a Christian population in this country that, shock horror, hold beliefs and might have an issue with same-sex marriages in their churches .
"Yet, the government's plans will specifically exempt religious groups from participating in the conducting of same sex unions if they don't want to." Mr Sanderson seems to be objecting to the idea that the government will let Churches effectively "opt-out" of conducting same sex marriages - but I am in favour of letting Churches opt-out - that was my comment.
He then goes on to write..
"Ms May reassured the two Churches that the government had no intention of acting on a suggestion from conservative backbencher Mike Weatherley, who wrote recently to the prime minister saying that same-sex couples had an "absolute right" to marry or register a civil partnership in a church and any church that failed to comply with this 'right' should be barred from conducting any marriages at all."
...and in the next paragraph says that this assurance "infuriated" the churche leaders - why on earth would it, surely they would be pleased at such assurance! Explian (please).
I would have thought that a group that is 'loving its neighbour as itself' shouldn't really be investing millions of pounds in the arms trade, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
As for loving thy neighbour, I have never knowingly treated anybody any differently in my life on the basis of race, religion, sexual preference etc. - it is true that not all those that claim represent the church can say the same. The problem is that Christians are guided, in part, by the concept of "sin" which most of the world considers outdated or simply does not recognise. Objecting to sin should should not be confused with wishing ill on your neighbour - this is the tightrope that Christians have to walk in their faith.
Let me answer that.....NO ther'e all nonesense. The truth is were all human beings with differing education standards. You are not born a christian or a jew or a muslam or a conservative catholic....you are born a child.
I am not religious not even spiritual and yet the church still seeks to force it’s its outdated irrelevant beliefs upon the rest of the country. For that reason alone I will fight against any attempt by the church to limit people’s life’s any further.
Gays must have full equal rights in the state and in the National Church - your Church. If Anglicans do not want that, then disestablish the Church and get your guys removed from all positions associated with the State. You cannot have it both ways.
And give us back our Cathedrals that your predecessors stole from us. These buildings belong to the people as their sacred spaces which is what they were before the Anglican theft.
Agree with the first half of this statement only. The State has an obligation to equality and justice because it represents ALL of the people.
The Church SHOULD have an obligation to justice and equality because it is what Christ stood for. But the Church must come to that conclusion on its own - as many faiths are, indeed, doing - that treating all of God's children equally is simply the embodiment of doing to others as we would have done unto ourselves.
It is, frankly, quite sad, that some Churches resist this. But, since they are not the government, it will have to be the consciences of the (various) Churches that will need to be pricked before justice throughout God's realm is realized.
If the English Anglicans wish to oppose secular law, then they should withdraw from all participation in processes of the State.
They should be deprived of all privileges as an established Church if they wish to engage in political activities opposing extension of right..
Besides, most of us don't want you to marry us, Bishop. We want to be recognised by the state. You're getting your garters in a twist over the use of a word that accurately describes something we already do.