Lord Carey Has Spoken!
Shamefully though, it is to compare supporters of gay marriage with the Third Reich on the rather dubious basis that "Let us remember the Jews in Nazi Germany, what started against them was when they started to be called names. And that was the first stage towards that totalitarian state."
Leaving aside the playground taunt of invoking Godwin's Law and Mister Carey automatically losing the argument, I have yet to find a supporter that will advocate Christians wearing a triangle to mark them out as "The Other"; packing them off en-mass to concentration camps; depriving them of their livelihoods or experimenting on them medically.
Further more, the Church of England, its leaders and members really do not have the moral authority to commentate on the religious/state contribution towards the definition of marriage due to the acquiescence of the church in Henry VIII's manoeuvrings to obtain his divorce from Catherine of Aragon which I have blogged on previously.
Perhaps if I ever were to meet Lord Carey, I would ask him: "Who is a better advert for a loving relationship and commitment to each other? Is it Elton John and David Furnish? Or take your pick from any of these..."
Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church of England. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Marriage as a Credible Institution
So, the Church of England has suggested that the extension of the right to marry to gay couples will undermine the concept of marriage.
Lets have a little history lesson, Henry VIII establised the Church of England to nod through his divorce to Catherine of Aragon and sanction a marriage to Anne Boleyn, his mistress.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
This is a clear precedent that the control of the validity of any such marriage is at the discretion of the State and that the Church has acquiesced in these political manoeuvrings for nearly 600 years.
Furthermore, the 1949 Marriage Act also defines how the Church of England can hold their ceremonies as well as allowing for Registry Offices to conduct marriages. Gyles Brandeth's private member bill in 1994 extends the right to conduct marriages in other approved locations.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
It is clear that the State has the preeminent right to define how a marriage is valid. Not the Church. By history, by convention and by practise.
The Church can already lay down its own rules about who can marry in a Church. Henry VIII's Great (many times) Nephew - Charles Philip Arthur Windsor (aka Prince of Wales) faced controversy when marrying Camilla Parker Bowles. Although technically a widower as Diana has died, Camilla's ex-husband was still alive.
There is absolutely no reason whatsover, why the Church cannot set its own rules about who can or cannot get married within its premises.
But I do have to consider. What makes the bigger mockery of marriage?
Britney Spears marrying Jason Alexander which was annuled 55 hours later?
Or two people of the same sex, who love each other very much and want to demonstrate that commitment the same as any other couple.
Lets have a little history lesson, Henry VIII establised the Church of England to nod through his divorce to Catherine of Aragon and sanction a marriage to Anne Boleyn, his mistress.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
This is a clear precedent that the control of the validity of any such marriage is at the discretion of the State and that the Church has acquiesced in these political manoeuvrings for nearly 600 years.
Furthermore, the 1949 Marriage Act also defines how the Church of England can hold their ceremonies as well as allowing for Registry Offices to conduct marriages. Gyles Brandeth's private member bill in 1994 extends the right to conduct marriages in other approved locations.
Where was the concern about undermining the institution of marriage then?
It is clear that the State has the preeminent right to define how a marriage is valid. Not the Church. By history, by convention and by practise.
The Church can already lay down its own rules about who can marry in a Church. Henry VIII's Great (many times) Nephew - Charles Philip Arthur Windsor (aka Prince of Wales) faced controversy when marrying Camilla Parker Bowles. Although technically a widower as Diana has died, Camilla's ex-husband was still alive.
There is absolutely no reason whatsover, why the Church cannot set its own rules about who can or cannot get married within its premises.
But I do have to consider. What makes the bigger mockery of marriage?
Britney Spears marrying Jason Alexander which was annuled 55 hours later?
Or two people of the same sex, who love each other very much and want to demonstrate that commitment the same as any other couple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)