It is ironic that bishops such as Akinola, dead-set against “any and all” church recognition of same-sex relationships, can dare to call themselves conservative. And that so few other churchmen are knowledgeable enough to call their bluff.

Margaret Funnell.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 states:

A marriage celebrated after 31st July 1971 shall be voidable on the following grounds only, that is to say—
(a)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it; .
(b)that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate it;

So what exactly consititutes a wilful refusal or incapacity to consummate same-sex relations, lesbian or gay? ‘Consummation of the marriage, according to Dr Lushington in D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039, requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse.

Or do we make up another law for that?

I would doubt that those outside the church accept this or anything else as ‘divinely inspired’.

Funny that he has writen a book on the marginailsation of Christianity for his son, Andrew, who, as is well known is divorced and remarried, very much against the traditions and rules of the Church of England. One law for the heterosexual male…

Do people like Lord Carey not realise how much damage they do to Christianity with this kind of misrepresentation?

Thank you for bring this to our attention.

I have just found an interview that George Carey gave in 2001. It makes interesting reading given his comments today.

“The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, has insisted the Church of England will not sanction gay marriages. Dr Carey told the BBC that the Church should not “muddy the waters” over the nature of marriage.

He told the Breakfast with Frost programme: “Marriage is a relationship between man and a woman. I don’t think it actually helps to confuse terms.” He went on: “People can have deep friendship, and call it friendship, but we don’t have to muddy the waters in terms of calling it marriage. So let’s be clear about the language we use.”"

(See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1267288.stm)

Mike Dark

I like the banner

That is precisely what racism does. It passes judgement on people that completely ignores their lived reality in favour of a pre-conceived opinion.

I say the Nicene Creed every Sunday and mean it. My bishop has been called a heretic and a renegade. But he, too, says the creed and considers it so important that if it is omitted at any Sunday celebration in the diocese, he demands an explanation in writing.

It includes the words, “I believe One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” But I don’t take that to mean signing an intellectual blank check and turning one’s brain off. If I’m mistaken in this, I’ll have to get my hat and leave. So will almost everyone else.

Today in Christendom, many gay people, perhaps most, are known as gay people. In the good old days you are pining for, this was not the case. They hid. They were encouraged, even forced, to hide who they were. Society didn’t want the truth. And that deceit perpetuated the oppression.

So just how are we now turning from the truth? And how can it be that a correct doctrine requires lies for its survival?

In much of the house of Islam, treatment of women is appalling. But in Christendom, a woman is free to get an education and to pursue any career that a man can. This, too, wasn’t always the case. This may be a debatable development regarding the priesthood, but does it otherwise constitute a turning away from Christianity? I don’t see how.

What about the American South and elsewhere in the world where the cruelest slavery was not only routine only 150 years ago, but was defended by some Christians as the WILL OF GOD? Even after it was abolished, we have been dealing with the legacy of racial discrimination ever since, slowly overcoming it. In the Roman Empire, slavery was also routine (although whether it was as cruel as that practiced by sanctimonious Southern overlords is debatable). Hilaire Belloc argued at length that the gradual disappearance of slavery was a major moral achievement and fruition of the church over its history. In this respect, too, it looks as though the Kingdom of God is advancing, not retreating. I agree with Belloc. Maybe you don’t?

If you don’t look at the big picture, you might start imagining that you would be happier living in Teheran.

So, how does a couple get married? In the film “The Blue Lagoon”, a boy and a girl were shipwrecked on a small island where they were the only human residents. In due course they had sex and bore a child of their own. Were they married? Or should they have abstained for the rest of their lives for lack of whatever– clergy, government official, magic ring– that you may be thinking of is required to make it acceptable? You can probably guess my answer to that question. If yours is different, please explain.

The church does teach that the two partners marry each other. Notwithstanding that teaching, the unthinking conventional deference to priestcraft and governmental authority, even among folk who would probably describe themselves as Protestants, is quite astounding.

Some elderly folk live as man and wife but refuse to tie the knot because that would mean one of them having to give up a badly needed pension. Does your regard for the formalities extend to an accusation that they are thus sinful?

What about a heterosexual couple who are fully committed but who on principle refuse the privileges attached to making it official as long the same status and privileges are being denied by the powers-that-be to other couples just as loving and committed?
They’re not sinners either, in my book. What about yours?

It turns out that when someone needs an organ transplant, the chances of success if one’s spouse is the donor greatly exceed those from a stranger, all else being equal.

This recent finding is powerfully reminiscent of the biblical description of marriage: the two shall become one flesh.

Now, if the same proves to be true with long-time same-sex partners effectively committed to each other as in marriage, it seems to me that the case would be clinched.