Comments on: Church of England bans hosting civil partnership ceremonies

By: Thiora

Thiora — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 13:53:18 +0000

I was under the impression that companies and organisations that received funding from the government were obliged to not discriminate against people. Given that the Church relies on funding from the government, I don’t see why they can do this.

Imagine the uproar if thy had said they refused to host interracial marriages, just as a “gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes”. Would Ms. Featherstone still have no issue with it?

By: alan

alan — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:38:03 +0000

”A gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes.”
But nevertheless feels within in its rights, to dictate the side on which customers may dress.

By: Jessika

Jessika — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:28:20 +0000

They’re not being ‘forced’ to do anything. They have the OPTION of performing civil-partnership ceremonies. Anyway, despite this stupid ban, there will be some clergy who will defy it, without doubt. Somewhere, really, REALLY deep down, the Church knows that it is wrong about homosexuality being a sin – They’re just too stubborn and afraid to admit it (After all, if one thing that the Church said turned out to be wrong, then it could be construed that EVERYTHING it said was wrong, and total chaos would reign!….Cos, you know….Human beings NEED to be told what to do in order to be decent…..And if my sarcasm isn’t getting across enough, then I’m sorry.)

By: Tee

Tee — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:26:52 +0000

Surely while it’s true that ”A gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes.” that outfitter surely wouldn’t be allowed to tell a woman she couldn’t shop there and wasn’t allowed to wear the clothes.

By: The Church Mouse

The Church Mouse — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:53:34 +0000

I’m afraid this story is wholly missing the point (most likely to to inept media management by the Church). It is simply a statement of fact that the Church cannot perform this kind of service without it being adopted by General Synod – that is simply a statement of the governance of the Church. So you could re-write the headline as “Church will host civil partnerships once agreed by Synod”.

Now we all know that there is a debate within the Church as to whether this is the right thing to do or not, and both supporters and opponents are sizeable groups, but to spin this as a new ban on something is simply untrue.

By: Lulu

Lulu — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:26:02 +0000

QUOTE @Johnny Miller: While I think they probably should allow civil partnerships to take place it surely has to be their decision. [...] like TV producers trying to insist you, Derren, host a show which at its heart goes against your morals / principles.[...] Would you do it?

I get what you’re trying to say here, but the very fact that it is considered an issue of morals/principles is unacceptable. The church could, if they wanted, try to use the same analogy of gentlemen’s and ladies’ clothing being ‘different’ to refuse entry of ethnic minorities into their ceremonies. However, under that circumstance the general public would be able to immediately see how ignorant the claim was, and the church claiming it was their ‘principle’ would just be disregarded, instead of given this credence.

By: facets

facets — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:06:01 +0000

The real irony here is that this declaration of the General Synod goes against the wishes of many of their members; the ‘on the ground’ ministries, congregations and vicars in communities across the country. This is not an indication of ‘Christian’ beliefs but rather a central decision which has been made in order to appease and stabilise the position of this particular faith as globally it fragments around various issues.

To suggest that ‘The Church’ is fundamentally opposed to homosexuality is actually a gross oversimplification of the situation. Atheists rush to define ‘The Church’ in particular ways for their own purposes, similarly operates to shut down dialogue and is not remotely helpful in reaching a position of coexistence and tolerance.

By: Slugsie

Slugsie — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:24:45 +0000

Whilst on the one hand I agree that in general religious institutions should be able to uphold the bigoted and homophobic views – for the whole world to see. On the other hand I do think that the ‘official’ religion of this country should be required to NOT be discriminatory. Or they should lose their official position.

By: @simonmroberts

@simonmroberts — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:11:28 +0000

All this does is highlight the bigotry of the church, so damning of homosexuality but forgetful of the equally ridiculous shellfish and mixed linen rules, a church which separated from the roman catholic church so a king could have an annulment. There are no morals here, just bronze age mythology, bigotry and misogyny. If it wasn’t for the beautiful architecture I doubt many would want to marry in a church anyway.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:25:51 +0000

Requirement and Benefit are two different things. Would a child benefit from adult’s books? Or a woman want to buy men’s clothing, heaven forbid pants? The Church is trying to make this issue seem perverse, as if they didn’t invent it and define it.