Comments on: Church to vote on financial benefits for gay partners of clergy

By: Brian Burton

Brian Burton — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:39:05 +0000

It’s about Time male Partner’s of Clergy were recognised. There has been Gay Clergy couples for generations but kept well in the background!

By: Mihangel apYrs

Mihangel apYrs — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:24:54 +0000

At this point it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with fairness and employment law: these people have paid their dues (and probably never expected to use the survivor pension because they couldn’t marry) but now they can (or at least get CPed) so the money they’ve paid ought to come back to them in the same way as to marrieds. But that would cost money, and the Church, like the rest of society, is used to benefitting from LG people’s contributions to the tax-take…

By: Bishop Ioan

Bishop Ioan — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:39:55 +0000

Let spouses of GLBT couples have full pension rights. Gay and lesbian couples have sex, get your minds out of the gutter, C of E and get over it! This coddling of the homophobes is ridiculous and needs to stop. Who CARES what a bigot like Akinola thinks?

By: Riondo

Riondo — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:07:51 +0000

Lizzie -
It’s old news. As soon as Civil Partnerships came in, the C of E told its priests they could have one as long as they didn’t boff their partners. The sad thing is that lots of gay clergy swallowed the humiliation and accepted the conditions, at least officially. Denial of pension rights would show that you can sell your soul to the Church and She will still crap on you.

By: the.kitty.channel

the.kitty.channel — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:41:12 +0000

It says here: “It wouldn’t be right for the church to provide gay clergy’s partners with the same pensions as it would mean that the Church would be recognising homosexual relationships in the same way as marriage.” Obviously, because heterosexual people are *more equal* than others. Effing idiot.

By: Jean-Paul Bentham

Jean-Paul Bentham — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:09:03 +0000

“It would show that the church is becoming increasingly liberal and moving further from Biblical teaching.” -Alison Ruoff

Ain’t it funny how so-called scholarship can lead one down the garden path?

Any fool would know enough to say:

“It would show that the church is becoming increasingly loving and moving closer to Biblical teaching.”

@Mihangel ap Yrs:

Right on, mate.

By: Robert, ex pat Brit

Robert, ex pat Brit — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:06:16 +0000

Lizzie, no, they don’t because the C of E cult adheres to the old testament (jewish part of the bible) Leviticus quote that “homosexuality” is an abomination. Just to prove how not only absurd and hypocritical the cult is, check out http://www.fallwell.com. There you will find virtually every absurd quote that religious nutters deliberately reject but reserve the Leviticus quote as a weapon against us. Actually, it follows its sister cult in Rome that accepts us provided that we don’t have sex. Love the sinner hate the sin nonsense.

To digress, have any of you watched a BBC production called “Demons”? I’m trying to find the name and address of the church used in this series. I did hear it was St. Jude’s but can’t find this particular church online, let alone its exact location. Thanks.

By: Lizzie

Lizzie — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:55:26 +0000

“Gay clergy may enter a civil partnership as long as they promise to remain celibate”

i’m absolutuely flabbergaasted! i had no idea such ludicrous stipulations are made of gay clergy.
But what about straight clergy? do they have to fill in a questionaire about what they get up to in the bedroom department?? or make ridiculous promises??

By: Robert, ex pat Brit

Robert, ex pat Brit — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:32:08 +0000

“Concerns have been raised that making the change could cost the church millions, as its pension scheme is already in financial trouble.”

Well now, here we have that worn out mantra that opponents of same-sex marriage in the U.S. use to deny us full equality.

From now on, if the C of E cult wants to use that lame argument as a justification to not provide identical benefits to same sex partners, then from now on they must cease and desists from granting any more pension rights to future straight clerics and their partners. A good place to start would be to shut down the theological colleges to stem the costs, if that’s really their main concern which I doubt. I dare them to do it.

By: Sister Mary clarence

Sister Mary clarence — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:08:48 +0000

“Concerns have been raised that making the change could cost the church millions, as its pension scheme is already in financial trouble.”

Mmmmm, isn’t history repeating itself here a little. Wasn’t the original ruling on priests not marrying much to do with the land they controlled passing to their heirs upon their death, therefore ‘robbing’ the church of its assests?

I hope they vote against equality and get taken to the cleaners in court – thus depriving them of even more money!!!

By: Squidgy

Squidgy — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:14:22 +0000

Lets hope this gets pushed through. As already said they have paid for it why should they have to fight to have the same rights. They should be automatic.

Alison Ruoff and the like I presume find a same-sex couple, being in a committed loving relationship a threat to the old ‘stereotypical’ view that all gay people just sleep around. Surely a loving couples commitment should be encouraged not dismissed, dare it be a threat to the bigot general synod somewhat tainted views.

By: Mihangel apYrs

Mihangel apYrs — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:02:15 +0000

another example where pension provision isn’t equal regarding CP and marriage. The people concerned will, of course, have been paying into the pension fund from the start of their careers in the same way as their straight colleagues

Saqme situation obtains in the Civil Service – CP benefits are backdated only to 1987 or 1988