Gay marriage allowed in Church of England

[Truth_Faith13]

You seem to be one of those people that doesn’t like the facts to get in the way of a good story!

Will you please stop assuming things about me…I am doing nothing of the sort and I am going to stop talking with you because quite frankly you are beginning to frustrate me…

Yes the news may be wrong, yes the facts the news said might be wrong…but this is a forum for open discussion and I was merely posting things I had heard to get people’s (name removed by moderator)ut. Whether you like that or not is not my problem! You can’t hide from the fact there are articles (whether rightly or wrongly) state otherwise.

So I shall say good day sir and move on…

 

[liturgyluver]

The problem, as previously stated, is that the Church of England is The State. HM Elizabeth II is Defender of the Faith. And since The State has said that marriage is a covenant between two adults, who are not related, gender is irrelevant, then it must follow logically that The State as The Church must follow. You all know and I know that the homosexualist activists will press the issue for The Church of The State to conduct marriages in accordance with The Laws of The State.

It remains to be seen…

The constitutional position is precisley why the Church of England (and Wales) have been banned from conducting gay weddings.
The government proposes that couples who are the same sex can get married. However, the change will not be forced on religious organisations - they will have to “opt in” to holding ceremonies if they want to hold gay weddings. The bill specifies that the Church of England and Church in Wales would be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages.

Ministers had already stated that legislation allowing same-sex marriages in England and Wales would not compel any religious organisation to conduct such marriages. Culture Secretary Maria Miller said the Church of England and the (Anglican) Church in Wales had stated their strong opposition to same-sex marriages. But they are not the only religious organisations to have done so. The legal ban may have the effect of protecting the Church of England from legal claims that as the Established Church it is bound to marry anyone who requests it*

 

[coachkfan1]

You seem to be one of those people that doesn’t like the facts to get in the way of a good story!

I repeat that the legislation makes it illegal for the Church of England to conduct gay weddings:

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18407568

If churches wish to perform them they have to opt-in but the CofE does not have that choice. The current discussion is about whether or not blessings should take place, not weddings.

The Queen is not head of the Church of England - she is the supreme govenor, but this is irrelevant as she has to give royal assent as monarch to legislation enacted in parliament, and the legislation which allows same sex weddings - in the same way that it already exisits in the Catholic countries of Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Argentina, some provinces in Mexico, and some states in the US! - cannot force a church to perform them.

Legislation, unlike Catholic Church doctrine, can be changed by other legislation. Correct?

 

[liturgyluver]

Legislation, unlike Catholic Church doctrine, can be changed by other legislation. Correct?

Of course - the point I am making is that it hasn’t been and remains illegal even if the CofE were to redefine the definitions of marriage under their Canon Laws - which they haven’t done either.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I think it is just a matter of time before the Church of England follows The Episcopal Church and blesses gay marriages. I assume the Church of Sweden permits gay weddings.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Hate to be blunt again, but these are the things that happen when churches separate
from the established Church of Jesus Christ (not of ‘‘Latter Day’’, but ‘‘Original’’ Saints).

(Referring to the Roman Catholic Church, of course)
​

What can we expect of a sect begun by King Henry VIII?
:tsktsk: ________ :ehh: ___________ ___________ :dts:

 

[Novocastrian]

Hate to be blunt again, but these are the things that happen when churches separate
from the established Church of Jesus Christ (not of ‘‘Latter Day’’, but ‘‘Original’’ Saints).

(Referring to the Roman Catholic Church, of course)
​

What can we expect of** a sect begun by King Henry VIII**?
:tsktsk: ________ :ehh: ___________ ___________ :dts:

I’m sure people will have called you out on this before, but it’s probably worth pointing out again…

 

[Picky_Picky]

It is the case that the Church of England is opposed to same-sex marriage, and that it led the opposition to the proposals, now passed, to allow such marriages in civil ceremonies in England and Wales. As has been said above, such marriages are not only impossible in CofE churches under the CofE’s own arrangements, they are specifically outlawed by the new legislation.

It is, however, true that in the course of their opposition to the new legislation, which involved of course having open discussions with homosexual lobbying groups, the bishops of the CofE became more aware of the extent to which homosexuals felt themselves marginalised within the church and the victims of that homophobia which the Pope himself has recently denounced. It may be that this greater understanding of the distress faced by homosexual Christians has fed into the Pilling Report on Human Sexuality, a CofE report which has recently been published (and I confess I have not yet read it) and it may be that it was an ignorant and careless representation of the Pilling Report on tv that caused the confusion evident in the OP.

 

[GKC]

I’m sure people will have called you out on this before, but it’s probably worth pointing out again…

Contarini often did it. I rarely do.

GKC

 

[ltwin]

Plus you have the problem that the queen as head of the Church of England has declared her blessing (whether this is a mere formality or not is not the point).

The Queen is a constitutional monarch (Meaning that giving Royal Assent to legislation is automatic. It’s a formality. No monarch has refused to assent to a law Passed by Parliament since Queen Anne in 1708.)

When it comes to matters of state, the Queen is functionally a figure head. She can only act according to the advice of her Prime Minister. Essentially, the Queen has nothing to do with this. Her job is to sign the papers and smile for the camera.

The Queen is the supreme governor of the Church of England. This role also is a figure head role.

Parliament is the legislator for both State and Church. Before 1919, all changes to the government and doctrine of the Church of England could only occur by an Act of Parliament.

In 1919, Parliament passed the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, which delegated legislative power over ecclesiastical affairs to a body now known as the General Synod of the Church of England. This body can create legislation for the Church of England, which is then approved by the Parliament.

Therefore, if Parliament had wanted the Church of England to marry gay people, it would have said that in the law. It didn’t. It is the law that the Church of England CANNOT do this.

Furthermore, if the Church of England wanted to marry gay people, it could have asked Parliament to allow it to do so, or it could have passed its own legislation concerning that, which would then need to be approved by the Parliament anyway. As it happened, the Church of England requested that it specifically be illegal for it to do this, and Parliament respected its wishes.

 

[Adamski]

You need to read the news more carefully.

1. Civil same-sex marriage will be allowed in England and Wales from 29 March 2014.
2. The law specifically prevents the Church of England performing any same-sex marriages.
3. Other religious bodies may, if they wish, perform such ceremonies but cannot be forced to do so.

rossum

I do know as of last week the Church of England had a lawsuit against it and a gay marriage group claimed that they shouldn’t have to have their taxes go to the Church of England of they can’t get married in it

 

[biggybig]

Civil or noncivil does not matter. The queen is the head of the church! That would be like the Pope giving the ok, which is NOT OK.

 

[ltwin]

I do know as of last week the Church of England had a lawsuit against it and a gay marriage group claimed that they shouldn’t have to have their taxes go to the Church of England of they can’t get married in it

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church of England is supported by voluntary donations and historic endowments. I don’t believe they receive government support via taxes.

 

[ltwin]

Civil or noncivil does not matter. The queen is the head of the church! That would be like the Pope giving the ok, which is NOT OK.

Is the Pope a figure head?

No.

Ok, then. It’s not like the Pope approving gay marriage. The Pope would actually make that decision. He would be responsible for it.

In the case of the UK government, laws are passed by Parliament, which is a legislative body. After a law is passed, it is automatically given Royal Assent. The Queen has no political role whatsoever.

It would be like the honorary president of some society or organization being blamed for the actions of the board of directors of the organization. The office is honorary, i.e. has no real power.

Parliament is Supreme. Instead of blaming the Queen, who has no real power, why don’t you actually give credit where credit is due–the Parliament of the UK and the Prime Minister. If you want to blame someone, blame those guys.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think it is just a matter of time before the Church of England follows The Episcopal Church and blesses gay marriages. I assume the Church of Sweden permits gay weddings.

Technically do bishops in some dioceses of TEC allow Episcopal priests to bless gay marriage? Or instead do they allow SS union blessings but still consider marriage to be between a man and a woman? I only know I’ve been told by Episcopalians it’s the latter.

 

[liturgyluver]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Church of England is supported by voluntary donations and historic endowments. I don’t believe they receive government support via taxes.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[sirach2v4]

I’ve just read a book about Reform Judaism by Rabbi Alan Kaplan.

RJ provides a framework in which the condemnation of homosexual conduct and, much further, a ban on same-sex unions can be abandoned. It is: It is clear from the documentary hypothesis that the Torah was written not by one Moses, but by at least several writers and editors.

Therefore, RJ considers the Torah to be “inspired by God but written by men.” Hence, these man-made ordinances can be rewritten, under prayerful inspiration, to adapt to science and, yes, public sentiment.

In a Jewish or, here, a Christian context, we have to go back to Bible and ask the question, what is it? What is the Bible? Can you “change” the Bible? RJ says yes, emphatically.

In the specifically Catholic context, (see ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM )
old testament practices have been abandoned and/or replaced by Christian ones. That document was crafted as a beginning of the understanding of the relation between the Old and the New. Perhaps it is time for a much more thorough and definitive evaluation.