Marriage Equality: CoE bishops not clear on "the program"

Andrew Brown, writes in The Guardian, on Sentamu's recent speech on equal marriage and the resistance of the bishops to calling it marriage. Brown puts things in historical perspective well:

The archbishop, John Sentamu, asked: "What do you do with people in same-sex relationships that are committed, loving and Christian? Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree, and not them? However, that is a big question, to which we are going to come. I am afraid that now is not the moment."

No. It isn't. That moment passed years ago, when civil partnerships were first brought in, and the archbishop's was one of the loudest voices demanding that the Church of England have nothing to do with them. The bishops still don't realise what damage they did then.

Even the supposedly liberal Rowan Williams said the other week, while lecturing on the fifth anniversary of his sharia speech, that "I am not wholly clear to what problem same-sex marriage is the answer" – at which my neighbour whispered: "He's an idiot if he doesn't know the problem is not listening to gay people." So Williams is an idiot on this subject. And so is his colleague in York, and both for the same reason, very damning to Christians: they failed to listen to the weak because they thought the noisy bullies mattered more.


And by ++Welby's own words so it seems is the current Archbishop of Canterbury.

Comments (4)

I would be grateful indeed if +++ Williams would be so kind as to explain to me what "problem" is solved by heterosexual marriage. Even more interesting would be his response to the inevitable follow-on question, "And how well do you believe that marriage solves this problem?"

Given the sorry state of marriage overall, the CoE would do well to bark up another tree if it wants to protect this regrettably none-too-sacred institution.

Eric Bonetti

Marriage is supposed to guarantee the legitimacy of heirs and their inheritance, reduce fornication and help order society. Well, one successful solution out of three isn't too bad.

@Paul: Love it, and ROTFL. But given the rumors about Prince Harry's possible parentage and his proximity to the throne, the ABC would be ill-advised to bet the family farm,...err, cathedral...on any of the three.

The problem heterosexual marriage solves is male-female inequality.

(1) Since women can't earn a decent living, they depend on men for financial support.

(2) Marriage provides security for women as they age. Women force men into entering the marriage contract by withholding sex. Once locked in men have to provide financial support for life.

Oops, I forgot. Women can now support themselves--and men, by and large, don't provide financial support. And, oops again, heterosexual marriages are readily dissolvable and men dump women anyway.

Hey, maybe heterosexual marriage doesn't solve any problems either.

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space