The biggest problem with Rowan Wiliams' speechifying on these matters is that there is never an ounce of self- and Anglican- critical function as the ground for speaking at all on such matters. There is never a sense that historically speaking, Anglicanism is a deeply contingent tradition and is compromised in making assertions with over ease--think Henry VIII, divorce, and slavery as a few examples.

And Williams' own behaviors as archbishop in dealing with lgbt persons in socio-religio-political-institutional action (rather than personal support) make his own statements on this matter also deeply contingent and compromised. To start from this honest place of humility is not fault, and it would pull his speechifying back down to earth perhaps where he would have to meet lgbt persons eye to eye as he talks. Where he would have to notice that law and culture are not so easily identified as separable, but are deeply intertwined. A change in law, after all, against slavery was deeply antithetical to long held religio-socio-cultural-political attitudes and behaviors, justified by the use of Scripture and Jesus.

At heart, there is a never a "I could be wrong" and "the Church doth err" as the place from which he pronounces in eruditese a line that says "you belong" and "on my/our heterosexual terms only." That produces deep existential dissonance, and lgbt persons are right to reject his words.

It comes across as a God's eye view looking down and pronouncing to the world. Frankly, it is secularity that has given space for lgbt people to have some modicum of space to just be. And while it has become popular to pit Christianity over and against secularity, it might be wiser for us to examine where secular criticism has something to say to us as Christians, rather than pretend it is a one-way conversation of pronouncements to the "world."

It is also clear in his speechifying that he himself has never experienced existential degradation and required the law to intervene. That experience is in sharp contrast to the experiences of lgbt persons among others, and too often the law itself has colluded with the degradation.

Has there ever been a more deeply disappointing Archbishop of Canterbury? At least with George Carey we knew what we were getting.

How in the hell is marriage laws even remotely comparable to assisted suicide? What is wrong with this guy????

Eric

I think he is as pusillanimous today as I thought he was in my comments yesterday. But he continues with a false presentation of the issue as Civil Law or International Law against religious tradition. The reality is that this is a battle between Civil and International Law with the support of Enlightenment Faithful and Counter-Enlightenment Faithful. So he speaks for a portion of his own Church, not all of it.
In that he has decided to take a side that seems a more than a little false. It is sweet that he FINALLY opposes the GLBT community being criminalized, remember he is late to that game too, but meaningless if civil law is used to restrict their equality with respect to relationships. His continues to side with those who call same sex sex, sin and must live in some special prelate la-la land if he cannot connect the dots from defining it as sin and punishing the sinner.

How pathetic.

The real problem in paragraph 14 is that he speaks of categories of marginalization or stigma, which is not the issue of why marriage is a fundamental human right. It has nothing to do with GLBT wanting "acceptance" but of access to rights and responsibilities to which they are entitled by virtue of their being human. Same-sex couples are seeking marriage equality -- not the removal of some stigma.

I take back what I said earlier - Rowan has lost his moral authority.

A lot of Americans wanted segregation, only to have desegregation forced upon them by law. This was the correct thing to do.

It's wrong to say that the law has "no right" to legalize same-sex weddings. It's true that politicians will have to answer for their choice, but the only situation in which a legislature would have no right to legalize same-sex marriage is if a national Constitution forbade that.

Besides that, one of his justifications is that same-sex marriage would go against the beliefs of most people. I'm not up on public opinion, but there seems to be evidence that a majority of people in the UK support same sex marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom

As soon as one says "It is morally permissible to treat a group of human beings as ontologically LESSER THAN", it is a guarantee that "...but not unto death" will be left unheard.

Wash your hands all you want, Pilate, it doesn't matter.

Kyrie eleison!

JC Fisher

Until the church provides unqualified support for the human and civil rights of GLBT persons, and unqualified support for gender equality, it would be better for church officials to simply stay quiet on the matter. It's a case of telling others do as we say, not as we do. The church has little credibility on the human rights front.

In response to Rod Gillis - I think that reasonable conservatives should definitely be against laws like Uganda's. They are clearly against Christian teaching. You should be able to be against legalized persecution, while at the same time opposing same-sex marriage. I could respect that, and I can think of one Christian (Tony Campolo, albeit he's not exactly a conservative Christian overall) who takes such a stance.

So, Rowan should definitely have come out against Uganda's law. I think some on this thread should consider: you've castigated him when he was silent, which is good, but you continue to castigate him now that he's spoken ... would you rather he have remained silent?

Walking back to my earlier comment, I am deeply and truly disappointed that Rowan has made an assertion that is most likely not grounded in fact. It does hurt his moral standing, in my eyes. I am also deeply disappointed about how long he has remained silent on this issue (at least that we know - he may well have thought it best to try to exert pressure behind the scenes). But he's spoken out in public. So, I can live with this. I can excoriate him for his frankly idiotic statement on same-sex marriage in the UK, though.

The problem Wiewen, is his attempt to address two issues -- the Ugandan and the English -- in one statement. He could simply have deplored violation of human rights in the form of draconian law without even mentioning the issue of whether law should _advance_ human rights in other settings. "Chalk and cheese" -- to use the English expression.

Wiewen Ng has a very good point.

Here's my problem. For decades Anglican leadership has lectured governments and business on a variety of social issues i.e. discrimination, poverty, investment policies, foreign policy etc. etc. Yet, when it comes to taking decisive action within the "household of God" what does the church do? It responds with the same rejoinders it has received from business and government i.e., " you don't understand" or " this is not the time" or "it's very complicated" or "one must respect the conscience of conservatives" blah, blah, and more blah.

The problem is not the ABC's critique of the law in Uganda, for example. The problem is the split thinking on human and civil rights both within the church on on the part of those leading it.

[aplogies for the misspelling of Weiwen's name... my eyesight and fingers were failing me.]

Rod, this is the problem with religious exceptionalism, and the artificial privilege given to ideologies once they are branded "religions." Why should religious beliefs trump social goods? As someone noted recently, there is no war on religion, but there is religious war on society! It is just that the religious (some of them) want all to do as they believe ought to be done. Most religions haven't yet woken up to the reality of a pluralistic society no longer gi8ving them the privilege of calling the shots. (The establishment in England makes it all the worse...)

Mr. Williams fails the so-what test. Why should anyone care about the gap between civil law and religion? If the discourse of universal human rights is to be applied equally to all similar situations, then it ought not have any relation to any particular religion. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. This is the same person who wants to say he is a universalist but justifies sharia law.

Let Parliament and not the C of E legislate on assisted suicide and civil marriage equality.

"And so we face the worrying prospect of a gap opening up between a discourse of rights increasingly conceived as a universal legal ‘code’ and the specific moral and religious intuitions of actual diverse communities."

Gary Paul Gilbert