Ripping a page from the playbook of Cardinal Timothy Dolan — who ominously claimed that marriage equality would turn the State of New York into a communist dictatorship — the Church of England warned hysterically today that the British government’s plan to allow same-sex marriages presents the greatest threat to the relationship between church and state in 500 years.
The Church of England, also known as the Anglican Church, is the established religion of the United Kingdom. Its leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is appointed by the Prime Minister on behalf of the British Sovereign and is the highest-ranking non-royal in the realm. According to an article from The Independent, the relationship between the Anglican Church and the United Kingdom has lasted half a millenium and weathered threats as diverse as the Spanish Armada and the English Civil War, but senior clergymen have threatened to disestablish the church from the state if marriage equality were to become law as the government intends.
The government argues that no religious institution would be compelled to perform marriages between same-sex couples in violation of their religious beliefs, but the church counters that changes to the civil definition of marriage would do just that due to the entanglement of canon and parliamentary law. The Independent notes that critics — including many within the Church of England — have dismissed the church’s feverish claims as melodramatic scaremongering, especially in light of the fact that other established religious bodies in European countries like Denmark, Iceland, and Sweden have embraced marriage equality.
These latest developments come in the midst of a concerted push by the UK government to give same-sex couples the same right to civil marriage that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. The effort is being led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, who famously said, “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.’’ Cameron has also released a video for Dan Savage’s It Gets Better Project.
I suppose worshipping a dead Jew on a stick is more important that people’s civil rights
Elaygee – the same cut and paste comment you’ve posted on Joe.My.God several times.
They would never diestablish the church as too much public tax dollars would be lost. An atheist can dream, however.
This coming for a church founded solely because the king didn’t like the existing definition of marriage and refused to do what the Vatican told him to.
Lordy, churches are so frightened of civil equality for all the citizens/people. Hasn’t it always been that way? Their history is like a garbage dump of inequality, superiority, class-dominance, and assorted atrocities in conjunction with various governments that they literally ruled. Yet they are the ones that speak about God’s love for all. How can God’s love be equal for all his creatures yet condone some of his loved ones being made second class and subordinate to others who claim special rights? It’s actually much simpler: if the churches can’t control the minds and hearts of their believers, then they lose power over them. It means that free thinking believers are likely to see where the churches are not doing what is best for all. AND, they stand a good chance of losing their only source of income, i.e. MONEY! Saving souls is not the most profitable business, but stirring up people against other people is, when you tell them you need the money to protect them from that devil.
THe Xtians are always shrill and hysterical about something that really is none of their business. How clear does the British government need to make it to them. What will probably happen is that ALL church marriages will have to be forbidden for same-sex couples and those who are religious will have to go through two ceremonies. Again, something that no straight couples have to. The Anglican Church is disgusting–just as well that the Episcopalians broke away from them.
As the current proposals stand, not only will churches not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages, but they will be BANNED from doing so.
The only impingement of religious liberty happening is the restrictions placed on denominations such as the quakers, episcopalians etc, who actually WANT to perform same-sex marriages.
When will the church get it through their thick skulls that this has NOTHING to do with them, and for them to presume that their way is the best way for the rest of us (a vast proportion of the population here in the UK describes itself as having ‘no religion’) is the height of ignorance and arrogance.
@Gianni
As Betrand Russel said:
“You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.”
@Merlyn
Having two ceremonies isn’t such a bad thing. It’s like that in most continental European countries that were influenced by the French Code Civil. There you have to have a civil ceremony at city hall before you can have a religious one. People who don’t care much about the civil ceremony can do it in five minutes or so. It’s really no different than a short ceremony from a judge. But civil registrars are also able to do more elaborate ceremonies if the couple wants to.
Elaygee — A dead Jew on a stick? I am Gay and Christian and I appreciate your right to free speech. But do you not think that would offend even Christian Gays and chritian hetrosexuals who get it? (His message of love ) Your remark is terribly offensive and I think I’d rather have you on the other side, since their is no difference in your hatred remark. A dead Jew on a stick indeed lets show some respect because that is what we are looking for too.
Actual people deserve respect. Religious ideas don’t. They are exactly the same as any other kind of ideas and philosophies that are freely criticized and attacked all the time. Religion doesn’t deserve it’s special armor that shields it from any kind of attack
No Steve, Elaygee just showed any conservative looking around in here for proof that gay people can be as obnoxious, childish and uncouth as most of the fundamentalists/conservatives amo for them in their next debate.
People deserve respect, and part of being is a person is their identity. Some parts, like being gay, cannot be changed. Other parts, like their religion, can, but that does not make those any less their core identity. In any case, insulting the millions of people who are pro gay rights and Christian was hurtful and immature. Insulting out enemies with THAT descriptive was just stupid, as well as insulting.
Can you write what you did? Yeah.
Did it make you look as bad as some of those who oppose equal rights? Yeah.
the Anglican Church is run by men who are not brave enough to make a stand for quality out of fear, but who want to embrace GLBT people because so many in their own clergy are GLBT. They want it both ways, and are not brave enough to take a stand and take the heat. This is sad, and wrong of them.
No need for us to stoop to an even lower level than they have though, insult out allies, many of our own, and give out opponants an example of hatred on our parts.
Grow up.
Well said Gene.
Steve and Gene
I see and take on board your point regarding Elaygee’s post, it was indeed childish and peurile, and perhaps even plays into the hands of the fundies. However, I don’t necessarily see anything particularly wrong with that.
I for one often feel sick and tired of trying to be whiter than white, holier-than-thou, watching what i say all the time just in case it might play into the hands of the enemy, or make me just as bad as them. I often think that people become right wing because it is just so EASY! It takes no effort at all to mindlessly swallow fundie rhetoric and accept blindly the knee-jerk reactions and superstition inspired predjudice that forms the basis for fundamentalist ‘thinking’. It is an emotion based world-view, and thus childish outbursts and idiotic comments are expected, even encouraged. Its all about getting folks all riled up. It also feels good to say something silly and slightly offensive sometimes, an outlet for frustrations and so forth.
Our progressive and liberal position, on the other hand, is based on reason, observation, rationality, science and compassion for those who might be very different from ourselves. Things that require education, investigation, and resistance against our own immediate emotional reactions. We ask people not to mindlessly follow those who appeal to their base instinct, but to put themselves in other’s shoes and educate themselves about an issue, to find out the actual facts. This takes effort, and is sometimes difficult.
Unfortunately this position does not allow for ridiculous and provocative comments, or at the very least these are frowned upon, as our position requires reason, facts, and a measured even tone so as not to have the debate descend into a mud slinging session, and thereby making us as bad as them.
This requirement (and don’t get me wrong, i firmly believe that this should remain our default setting) can often make me for one feel a little restricted, and always having to watch what i say, and having to keep my emotions in check in the face of sometimes appalling bigotry, well, it can feel like being back in the closet all over again.
I for one love the odd stupid statement. They provide a satisfying outlet, stir the pot a little and (dare I say this?) as in the case of Elaygee’s post, actually quite funny.
Blah, Blah, Blah…
No, it doesn’t make me look bad. Why the hell does religion deserve this special privilege? It’s not any different from any other beliefs people hold and care deeply about. And if this were about any other idea, people wouldn’t react this way when it’s treated disparagingly. You are putting religion on a pedestal that is absolutely unwarranted. Or you’re giving in into the defense mechanisms churches have created to shield themselves.
Conservative Christians already don’t have any respect for either liberal Christians or atheists. They already think we deserve to be tortured for eternity. They already think they are persecuted by everyone around them. Making a crass remark every now and then isn’t going to change a thing. Though they should be used with care so they don’t lose their impact.
If the Church of England was disestablished as a result of the country instituting marriage equality, I would count that a nice bit of lagniappe.
Sorry Steve, I think I meant David and Gene.
Np, I was replying to Gene
Christianity, here in the US, has made itself the Ultimate Sacred Cow That Dare Not Be Criticized. It has, in my opinion, earned every bit of contempt that gets flung at it, gay, straight or anything in between. “Believe or go to hell” is not a loving message. If some Christian isn’t sending me to hell for being gay, a whole bunch of other ones right behind them are sending me to hell for being an atheist.
And Elaygee’s point, however crassly stated, is one that is ***way too frequently*** part of the Christian ethos in this country, namely that dogma takes precedence over relationships with real people. Christianity, in its least common denominator form, is so very interested in being RIGHT that alienation of others is the acceptable cost.
Just because a Christian is gay or gay-friendly does not automatically make them my friend.
If churches are too afraid, why would we want them as allies? Part of being an ally is trust, and they are clearly undeserving of it, if they lack the strength of will to overcome their fears, not that even without the whole fear issue they’d be trustworthy. They have too many skeletons in their closets (certain atrocities, among other things) for me to even consider throwing in my hat with them. We also need to be careful of the company we keep, after all.
Canterbury is light years behind the Episcopal churches in North America on these issues. We pay no more attention to them than most American Catholics do to Rome.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
Thank you Bertrand Russell
[...] wanting to be outdone in the alarmist anti-LGBT hysteria department by their Anglican brethren (who threatened last month to disestablish the Church of England from the state if the government [...]
[...] hold the fragile Anglican Communion together. Bishops in the United Kingdom have even threatened to disestablish the church from the state if the government carries out its plan to legalize civil marriage equality for [...]
[...] do? Threaten to “disestablish” the church from the state like the Church of England did last month? Is the Church going to take its toys and go home? What, exactly, do they think they’re [...]