English, Welsh bishops say churches cannot endorse today's legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’

[lizardley]

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster said the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’ in England and Wales today represents a ‘watershed in English law’ and was a moment of ‘profound social change’ that required the protection of religious freedom.

Archbishop Nichols, president of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, conference vice president, released a joint statement on behalf of their fellow bishops stating that churches could not be expected to endorse The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. The statement comes in spite of the fact that the legislation received Royal assent today after being backed by an overwhelming majority of MPs and peers. Similar legislation will be voted on in the Scottish Parliament later this year.

Full report, including full statement from the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales: sconews.co.uk/news/29820/english-and-welsh-bishops-react-to-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage/

 

[edwest2]

Here, here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PietroPaolo]

How long until the fines start heading their way? Recusancy laws anyone?

 

[liturgyluver]

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster said the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’ in England and Wales today represents a ‘watershed in English law’ and was a moment of ‘profound social change’ that required the protection of religious freedom.

Archbishop Nichols, president of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, conference vice president, released a joint statement on behalf of their fellow bishops stating that churches could not be expected to endorse The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. The statement comes in spite of the fact that the legislation received Royal assent today after being backed by an overwhelming majority of MPs and peers. Similar legislation will be voted on in the Scottish Parliament later this year.

Full report, including full statement from the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales: sconews.co.uk/news/29820/english-and-welsh-bishops-react-to-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage/

This is an excellently worded statement from the Bishops.

 

[liturgyluver]

How long until the fines start heading their way? Recusancy laws anyone?

Hardly likely considering the legislation says that no church will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings (something which even the most vociferous supporters of the bill have supported), makes it illegal for the Church of England to conduct gay weddings (whether it wishes to or not), and also you must have missed this extract from the Archbishops’ statement:

“We also welcome the Government’s amendment to the Public Order Act which makes it clear beyond doubt that ‘discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to the marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred,’” they added. “Individuals are therefore protected from criminal sanction under the Public Order Act when discussing or expressing disagreement with same sex marriage. In other respects, however, the amendments we suggested have not been accepted.”

 

[OriginalJS]

I didn’t know churches there either endorsed or withheld endorsement of legislation.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Hardly likely considering the legislation says that no church will be forced to conduct same-sex weddings (something which even the most vociferous supporters of the bill have supported), makes it illegal for the Church of England to conduct gay weddings (whether it wishes to or not), and also you must have missed this extract from the Archbishops’ statement:

“We also welcome the Government’s amendment to the Public Order Act which makes it clear beyond doubt that ‘discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to the marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred,’” they added. “Individuals are therefore protected from criminal sanction under the Public Order Act when discussing or expressing disagreement with same sex marriage. In other respects, however, the amendments we suggested have not been accepted.”

This sounds great but I doubt that people will be protected. I can’t help but think how little time passed between the establishment of civil partnerships and the closing down of Catholic adoption agencies who were against gay couples adopting. This happened even though promises were made about their protection and exemption previously. I have no reason to believe things will somehow be different now. I expect the Catholic church to distance itself from the state in order to protect itself. Couples will sign the papers at the registry so their marriage is recognised by the state and then have the real wedding at church.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is really quite nonsensical to define marriage without somehow connecting it to children.

What does homosexual acts have to do with sex? Is a back rub now enough for consummation? And if not a back rub, what kind of sexual activities are necessary to deem something a same sex marriage rather than just a loving relationship?

And if marriage no longer has anything to do with consummation of any kind of sex act, then on what legal basis is there for denying a father and a son, or an uncle and a niece marriage papers, so that they can take care of each other, and any adopted kids that might arise?

The argument for same sex marriage is based totally on feelings and people wanting to compensate for homosexuals being mistreated over the years.