-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 104 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
The Marital Spectator
The Church of England and Same Sex Marriage
Prime Minister Cameron finds himself at odds with leading figures of the established church.
Two notable retired Church of England bishops have recently spoken forcefully against Britain’s possibly legalizing same-sex marriage by 2015.
“This matter is so serious and so important for our nation that we cannot allow this act of cultural and theological vandalism to happen,” recently warned former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey in uncharacteristically vivid language. “The government has no mandate from the people to redefine marriage, and that is why we are gathered here today,” he told a group called Coalition for Marriage. Carey has also called potentially legalized same sex marriage “one of the greatest political power grabs in history.”
Tony Blair’s former government legalized British same-sex civil unions in 2004. Prime Minister David Cameron supports a process that would legalize same-sex marriage by 2015 for England and Wales.
“Marriage will only remain the bedrock of society if it is between a man and a woman,” Carey has written in a recent op-ed. “The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.”
George Carey was appointed as senior prelate of the Church of England and the global Anglican Communion under Margaret Thatcher’s rule. He style was typically careful. But when forced to choose, he almost always sided with theological orthodoxy against liberal revisionism. Although often hailed for his brilliance, Carey’s successor, Archbishop Rowan Williams, is often more ambivalent on key theological and ethical issues. His post-modern nuances frequently make his ultimate point incomprehensible.
The Church of England remains the largest religious communion in Britain, but only a small fraction of British people are regular church goers. The more spiritually healthy congregations tend to lean evangelical, often thanks to African, Caribbean, or Asian immigrants. Despite diminished numbers, bishops of the established church, some of whom sit in the House of Lords, are still public figures whose stances often attract publicity.
“[We are] worried because an institution that has stood the test of time and is the building block of society is under threat,” Carey announced to the Coalition for Marriage. “[And we are] disappointed that the government has taken upon itself to redefine the nature of marriage.” Carey noted that some of his homosexual friends are “uncomfortable that their situation is being exploited to challenge the traditional view of marriage.” These friends “perceive that when marriage as we understand it is challenged, so is the centrality of the family at the heart of our society.”
Similarly, retired Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali has warned against Britain’s diluting the definition of marriage. He defended traditional marriage for serving a wider social good for the nation and not simply the parochial interests of religious institutions. “On this issue the church is not just talking about themselves and their rights, they are talking about the wider good of society and therefore must be listened to,” he said.
Himself of Pakistani ancestry, Nazir-Ali had been considered a potential Archbishop of Canterbury. But his more liberal critics regarded him as too acerbic. There was probably little chance that the former Tony Blair government would countenance the appointment of an outspoken defender of Western mores against multiculturalism. Nazir-Ali’s parents were converts from Islam to Christianity. He was himself the youngest bishop of the global Anglican Communion when still in Pakistan but had to flee in the 1980s amid threats from angry Islamists. He retired as bishop in the Church of England in 2009 to focus on advocacy for persecuted Christians.
While emphasizing the church should defend traditional marriage as a social good of itself, Nazir-Ali warned that legalized same-sex marriage inevitably would threaten traditional churches: “Given the direction that legislation has taken recently where conscience has not been legally recognised, how can we be sure that any assurances given to the church at this time will not later be overtaken first by an amendment which allows such marriages to take place in religious premises and later on a case is brought by someone which rules that it is discriminatory not to do so?” Thanks to his immigrant past and history of persecution as a religious minority in Pakistan, Nazir-Ali is renowned for more robustly defending the church’s role and its teachings in British life than native-born prelates typically are.
The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, a native Ugandan, is not typically as outspoken as Nazir-Ali. But as the Church of England’s second most senior prelate he also is opposing same-sex marriage, even while accepting same-sex civil unions in Britain. “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Sentamu told a reporter earlier this year. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.” He surmised that Prime Minister Cameron would be acting like a “dictator” if he attempted to foist same-sex marriage on Britain. “The Church has always stood out — Jesus actually was the odd man out. I’d rather stick with Jesus than be popular because it looks odd.”
As to the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, his views are as always opaque. But speaking recently to the World Council of Churches in Geneva, he implied opposition to legalized same-sex marriage, at least as interpreted by the British media. He spoke of “alien cultural standards [that] are somehow being imposed — particularly in regard to inherited views of marriage and family.” And noting claims that failure to legalize same-sex marriage “perpetuates stigma or marginalisation for some people,” he suggested this concern should be “addressed at the level of culture rather than law.” Like the Oracle of Delphi, Williams’ remarks usually call for interpretation that is rarely definitive.
British Roman Catholic bishops of course are strongly opposing same sex marriage, with support from some Muslims, while liberal Judaism, Quakers, and Unitarians are for it, as are some liberal Church of England bishops. The Church of England’s unique role as established church ensures its special role in the debate. That debate may ultimately revive at least parts of the often dormant church as they defend traditional faith against Britain’s latest secular trends.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From The Marital Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/12/the-church-of-england-and-same
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Public Nuisances
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 3.12.12 @ 7:08AM
"The government has no mandate from the people to redefine marriage, and that is why we are gathered here today." If that's the argument, it's already lost. What the government and/or people say is irrelevant (or should be). The Bible is VERY clear that marriage is between one man and one woman. If the church does not stand on the truth of the Scriptures, the church stands on nothing.
Missouri David| 3.12.12 @ 9:39AM
'T is a sorry state of affairs when we have to even consider the abomination of homosexuality, a sick, sinful, and perverted lifestyle; as a question in our halls of gov't. As Americans our first religous freedom is religon and when the Supreme Court negates our rites, as in 1962?, white males should be up in arms and now with a total ignorance of JESUS' HOLY WORD, we need to re-Christianize our nation. To hell in a handbasket are we fast descending and we seem to be enjoying the ride. Thanks and Merry Christmas
Alan Brooks| 3.12.12 @ 8:17PM
'T is a sorry state of affairs when we have to even consider the abomination of homosexuality, a sick, sinful, and perverted lifestyle?"
Depends what a guy looks like; if he looks good, you might get in the sack with him.
Appleby| 3.12.12 @ 7:35AM
I was an Anglican for a few years, but the Anglican church here in Toronto is so anti-American and pro-homosexual that I left it in disgust; indeed, I took my sister to Evensong when she visited me here and we had to get up and walk out due to the rhetoric spewing from the pulpit. I believe that the Anglican church in its present form is doomed. And not a moment too soon.
dennis2j| 3.12.12 @ 10:21AM
I don't know about Canada, but in the US there are still Anglican churches that are theologically sound. My wife and I have allied ourselves with just such an Anglican church in North Carolina. The irony is that these churches are largely under the protection of African and South American Anglican provinces.
Walter| 3.12.12 @ 3:01PM
I, too, left the Canadian Anglican church almost 10 years ago beause of its pro same-sex marriage leanings.
KyMouse| 3.12.12 @ 8:19AM
The issue of same-sex marriage is, at its core, an ongoing challenge to the authority of the Bible. Although the Bible contains examples of sexual sin (it's a warts-and-all record of human rebellion against God), the Holy Spirit warns repeatedly in its pages that God forbids homosexuality and blesses only sex between men and women who are married (and whose marriage did not begin in adultery).
Jesus affirms Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:4-5 -- "And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh..."
We can tell God that He's wrong all we like, but He will have the last word.
Although homosexuality has been practiced throughout the centuries, I cannot recall any country that decided to make it equal to heterosexual marriage. As one person has asked, what did they know that we have yet to find out?
Binx Bolling| 3.12.12 @ 4:47PM
Even filthy Edward II got married and had children. Lot of good that did him. Sissy Eddie got the red hot poker treatment way back in 1327 in Berkeley Castle for his wicked ways.
RCV| 3.12.12 @ 7:32PM
Same sex marriage is legal and equal in all respects to heterosexual marriage in ten countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden, as well as in several jurisdictions in Mexico, Brazil and the United States.
AngloSaxon| 3.12.12 @ 10:01AM
I knew that there wasn't much difference between the major parties in Britain in that all of them have to support the welfare state, but I was hoping after 13 years of New Labours war on traditional British values the assault wouldn't be continued by the Tories of all people. I know that no British monarch has vetoed a bill since Queen Anne, but too bad Elizabeth doesn't call Cameron in and tell him that she will not sign queer marriage into law.
AngloSaxon| 3.12.12 @ 10:01AM
I knew that there wasn't much difference between the major parties in Britain in that all of them have to support the welfare state, but I was hoping after 13 years of New Labours war on traditional British values the assault wouldn't be continued by the Tories of all people. I know that no British monarch has vetoed a bill since Queen Anne, but too bad Elizabeth doesn't call Cameron in and tell him that she will not sign queer marriage into law.
RCV| 3.12.12 @ 7:34PM
If she interfered in affairs of state, she'd be out on her rump in a minute. The British love a ceremonial monarch, but they don't want hereditary kings and queens exercising any political power.
POST American| 3.12.12 @ 10:23AM
---Great piece!
BTW --speaking of churches acting as
enablers, churches as collaboators etc.
---consider---
In 1933 there were some 14,000 evangelical
churches in Germany. Fewer than 800 of
them protested the installation of I G Farben/Standard Oil
'fave' Adolf Hitler as dick-tator.
In this, the 11th hour of the Globalist RED China
handover, takedown, TREASON, plunder
and world EUGENICS OP
----------------THINK ABOUT IT----------------
--------------------------------------------DEEPLY.
BTW ---ANYONE heard ANYTHING more
on Breitbart? ---or the videos???
------Didn't think so.
Bill| 3.12.12 @ 10:50AM
Yeah, this weekend, on one of the MSM news shows, somebody interviewed a Breitbart successor who claimed that the video shows President Obama as a young supporter of Derrick Bell. The news "journalist" pooh-poohed that revelation, seeming to find it unremarkable.
RCV| 3.12.12 @ 11:11AM
That's because it is unremarkable. Derrick Bell was a prominent and respected law professor, former Dean of the University of Oregon Law School, who spearheaded the legal efforts on behalf of James Meredith's admission to the University of Mississippi.
Bill| 3.12.12 @ 11:47AM
That must have been before Critical Race Theory.
Bill| 3.12.12 @ 10:37AM
Pass a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in all 50 states. That will save our community.
Bill| 3.12.12 @ 10:47AM
If that were done, it would be an interesting moment: we would find out if the Constitution or the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land.
Somebody would surely say that such an amendment to the U.S. Constitutional is unconstitutional.
Bill| 3.12.12 @ 12:25PM
as they said, Obamacare is constitutional!
Petronius| 3.12.12 @ 11:11AM
AS wants Her Majesty to defend the Faith. If only. With Knighthood and Peerage all but totally debased by the class warfare clowns in the Commons, and Magna Carta a gutted shell, the swinish herd now demands the sanctification of their vices from the COE and the Vicars of whimsy. And they shall have it for one reason. The perverts have real Money; the kind that affects national policies. And the ordinary long suffering Christians don't. It won't take long before the perverts can screw everything but their pets legally. There are enough animal lovers to prevent that.
Jeamar| 3.12.12 @ 6:29PM
Thank you Petronius for the chuckle--I like your style. Like you I think the next step is marrying your pet goat. I could probably live with civil unions but wait until the legal divorces start; they will beg to go back to just living an alternative life style.
Mistral| 3.12.12 @ 12:58PM
Well, cut me off again if you like at American Spectator but he and also The Catholic Church are right among many non-Christians that homosexuality is wrong morally. The overwhelming majority of people know it is unnatural. Historians generally also know it leads to the end of civilisations together with sterility in human relationships. Looking at the demographic disaster impending in so-called developed nations we can understnad why. Denial is possible only for so long.
Kevin in Appalachia| 3.12.12 @ 1:04PM
Psalm 53:1
...The fool says in his heart, "There is no God..."
Dave Williams| 3.12.12 @ 6:26PM
...and the wise man SHOUTS IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!
JimH| 3.12.12 @ 1:13PM
In the U.S., with the way Church and State are constitutionally viewed, what either says about marriage should be irrelevant to the other. In England, the C of E is part of the state so for them the issue is different.
Alky| 3.12.12 @ 3:14PM
Sharia law and same sex marriage are incompatible! Pick one!
Derek Leaberry| 3.12.12 @ 4:44PM
Cameron is a Romney Tory. Or is it that Romney is a Cameron Republican?
POST American| 3.12.12 @ 11:42PM
--------------------WORD IS OUT-----------------------
The Obama Bell video ---is a mere decoy.
The REAL video(s) have been suppressed
a la Breitbart himself.
CFR Bushes ---Clintons---and 'BAR--Rockefeller'
Obamas maintain TOTAL lockstep continuity
for the Globalist Trojan Horse unfold.
AGAIN
'ARREST Angelina Jolie for War Crimes'
-InfoWars video
(released 2 days ago)
WHY ALEX JONES ---IS--- THE PRESS.
BEST video of 2012 so far!
Send it out to everyone.
Start clearing these 'EYE---CON ' -jobs a la
Eastwood, Hanks, Gates and Jolie ----OFFFFF
your respective pedestals.
"The UN is a murdering EUGENICS body
that's killed MORE people than Hitler!"
-ALEX JONES
--------------------DEVASTATING!--------------------
----------------------------&--------------------------------
-----------------------ESSENTIAL------------------------
Vox populi| 3.13.12 @ 1:44AM
If anyone thinks Rowan Williams is "Brilliant", I'd hate to see their idea of dumb.
D. Singh| 3.13.12 @ 5:04AM
Sir
An accurate report by Mr Tooley.
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed.
Some members of the Muslim intelligentsia in Britain are examining this debate carefully – if SSM were to be introduced then there is no logical argument against introducing polygamy.
Polygamy in a sense is already being practiced – a third party is required to provide a child in SS partnerships.
In the Nordic countries where SSM was introduced years ago people were marrying only after their first baby was born – now they are not marrying when their second baby has arrived. Partner rotation is common.
What is clear from the lucid writings of the American anthropologist Stanley Kurtz – is that once SSM is introduced the Welfare State needs to grow into a colossal structure. The State, in effect, becomes the parent of all.
The US may one day have a president whose title may well be: the Father of the Peoples.
Giselle| 3.13.12 @ 12:16PM
Dear D Singh,
You are incorrect in saying that the article is accurate because it missed the point that only civil marriage is being considered, please see my point below.
Your slippery slope argument regarding polygamy: your argument is not logical but instead tries to imply a connection that does not exist. The legislation at issue relates to couples who wish to marry. The UK has never had polygamy and I would be most surprised to hear any MP suggest it. I believe he would be laughted out of the Houses of Parliament.
The disconnect between couples marrying and any recognition of groups of people like polygamy is that society's interest lies in stable relationships. When people mutually support each other then society is better off.
A group of three people or more however is not based on a single relationship of mutuality, it is not the same as the bilateral relationship between a couple. In complete contrast a group of three people contains three bilateral relationships (A-B, B-C and A-C). There will always be inequality between some of those relationships - this makes a group of three a less stable relationship group than a couple. In groups of four of course the number of bilateral relationships goes up to six.
If any three people do wish to form some kind of committed group, then they may do so in a free democracy. The state however does not have to recognise this and it won't because it is not in its interest.
There is no slippery slope from extending marriage to all couples and mistakingly thinking that anything about marriage equality would lead to polygamy. There is just no connection.
This is a very misleading argument that does not further the discussion.
Richard Baker| 3.13.12 @ 5:28AM
Ah yes, buggery.
Giselle| 3.13.12 @ 11:35AM
There is an error in this article, specifically in this sentence: " Prime Minister David Cameron supports a process that would legalize same-sex marriage by 2015 for England and Wales."
There is a word missing: it is specifically "civil marriage" which is being discussed. The consultation process will be looking into whether the UK will extend marriage licences for civil weddings to all couples (over the age of consent, legally capable of consent, and not related to each other, obviously). These are weddings that take place in registry offices (or other licensed venues) but not in churches.
I believe there is some discussion about whether the consultation should also look into whether those faith groups who wish to marry same-sex couples (like the quakers, Unitarians and reform Jews) should be given permission to do so (in my opinion it would be a restriction of their religious liberty if they couldn't) but no-one is trying to extend this to faith groups who oppose marriage equality.
Therefore I find it incredibly worrying that church people are advocating what the state should allow or forbid - a great number of people in the UK are either not religious or do not belong to those anti-marriage equality religions - and I for one will not be dictated to by a church I do not give any authority over me.
This actually feels like an attempt at dictatorship by people who believe they have more influence than they actually possess.
Civil marriage does not get decided by faith groups just like the state does not get to decide who a faith group should marry.
Everybody would be happy as long as people did not try to go beyond their remit. I really wish the marriage equality opponents would not see it as their duty to come across as what can only be perceived as bigoted and discriminatory.
D. Singh| 3.14.12 @ 11:34AM
You are misleading the readers.
'marriage equality'?
Same Sex 'Marriage' is not the equivalent of conjugal marriage.
I think you are a civil servant from the British government writing here to ensure the prime minister's visit goes without questions being asked.
Jim Hlavac | 3.13.12 @ 2:21PM
If y'all think "banning" the government from recognizing marriage for gays you are silly people. Gay folks make up less than 5% of the nation, of any nation, of all nations, in fact, since it's just a worldwide thing. But marriage for gays can't be "banned" short of arresting us all and incarcerating us in separate cells for the rest of our lives. No law can prevent us from saying we're "married" -- or are we to be arrested for using the word? Talk about liberty lovin' eh? And are gay couples to be arrested for telling their friends and family they're "married"? Will any church be shut down for recognizing gay couples and offering services to the couple? At what point does the assault on us few gay folks go to arresting us all again, or perhaps genocide even, -- to salve the sordid souls of heteros who can't fathom that we are naturally gay by God's grace? It's mind boggling that a magazine all "for" marriage wishes to prevent gay taxpayers from getting the benefits of marriage -- while having no problem with heterosexual shacking up, fornication, divorce and adultery. Why don't you propose constitutional amendments against that?
And where is gay folks religious freedom? Our rights to free speech, freedom of assembly? On and on through the thrashing of gay folks because you heteros are so positive that you'll all turn gay in a fortnight if a nice word is said about us, or that the government to which we pay taxes -- mostly as entrepreneurs since we get fired from jobs so much we set up our own businesses. You folks are all for liberty for all -- except gay folks. Absolutely astounding, your fear and loathing of a tiny few.
DEPRAVITY| 3.14.12 @ 11:58PM
Absolutely astounding, you idiotically lie that it is fear when instead it is truthfully disgust of your sexually deviant perverted degenerate behavior
Absolutely astounding, you defy your Creator who makes clear your sexually deviant perverted degeneracy is as abominably detestable as it is detestably abominable.
Alecto| 3.13.12 @ 2:56PM
What kind of mass arrogance must exist in any government official (who holds by definition a temporary post) to presume to legislate the meaning of words? Passing laws or making pronouncements about institutions which predated these petty bureaucrats by millenia? I think we need to bring back the Iron Maiden (something they think refers to birth control).
Marriage is and only ever an be defined as an institution between a man and a woman. Anything else leads to national suicide.
Tony in Central PA| 3.13.12 @ 10:04PM
I think the same - sex marriage question is the marker for the imminent collapse of western societies. In order for a question like this to arise, the institution of marriage and its true purpose in building a society and protecting children has been largely lost.
Marriage has become another forum for radical individualism. This had happened long before the same - sex marriage spectre was raised.
Ali - Nazir is right when he predicts churches will be legally forced to marry same - sex couples over time. Before that happens, Muslim men in Britain will be legally able to multiple wives. Once the government decides marriage has nothing to do with the sex of the participants, there is no legal reason to restrict it to two people.
Same - sex marriage will not likely survive very long anywhere. As these societies collapse, they will be reformed upon a basis of many small rules. In Britain, those small rules will likely to be found in sharia.
Vox populi| 3.20.12 @ 7:44AM
Legalising buggery will be the end of the
Church of England and a good job too. But I hope someone preserves all those lovely and historic old buildings.