Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Archbishop of York: Church would need to approve gay civil marriage law

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Is this prattling primate threatening a coup d’etat?

    1. Certainly sounds like he trying to overule parliamentary democracy!

      1. don’t the bishops in the house of lords do that on a regular basis?

    2. Oh I geddit primate because he has brown skin and looks like a monkey 20+ and no challenges including the morality police Stu.

      Charming

      1. It’s nothing to do with the colour of his skin. One of the official titles of the Archbishop of York is “Primate of England”. In this context, primate simply means a senior bishop.

        1. Well you learn something new every day I feel about

          This

          big

          Thanks for letting me know

    3. So presumably, Keith you think the Church of England are racist due to bishops being termed Primates?

  2. The day an athiest can come into your church and set doctrine is the day you can interfere with civil law.

  3. Absolutely poppycock. Even the established church cannot dictate to a sovereign parliament.

  4. Again, someone is clutching at straws!

    The Church has no say in legal issues and the sooner this idiot gets that idea into the void space below his skull the better!

    1. Jack Sraw?

      1. oops meant Jack Straw

  5. The Archbishop is wrong (and in my view deliberately seeking to mislead). There is no need in civil law for the church to be involved in how civil marriages work and are recognised. There have been numerous changes to civil marriage since 1662 that did not require church consent or approval – because they were CIVIL matters.

    He seems to forget that this country is not a theocracy.

    Lets for one moment assume though that he was correct that the law states the church would need to consent such a change in law (which eminent constitutional lawyers state is facetious and blatantly untrue). If he was correct in his thinking, there is nothing to stop Parliament enacting a law on civil marriage which resolved this legal difficulty by passing a new law overruling it. The law needs to be changed to ensure equal marriage – if there is a technical legal problem it can be resolved.

    The reality is the church have no such veto. There is and should be no special status for the church (and

    1. the sooner we get rid of the Bishops in the House of Lords to remove their influence on civil law the better!

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 12 Mar 2012, 2:13pm

        Better yet, get rid of the HoL altogether. It’s undemocratic, anachronistic and none of them have been elected. It’s abominable to think that a body of unelected people are allowed to pass laws in the first place. They do NOT represent the people either.

      2. Father Dougal 12 Mar 2012, 2:36pm

        Start a petition!

      3. Father Dougal 12 Mar 2012, 2:39pm

        It makes it hard for us to criticise theocratic regimes when we still have the apparatus of one in place at home!

      4. The good bishop may just be supplying the wedge issue required to enable a case to disestablish the CoE in order to separate church and state.

      5. Notice that the Archbishop wasn’t challenged about his dodgy assertion. In fact the BBC kept repeating the excerpt during the day.

        For more about what the BBC is up to check out my latest blog entry –

        http://newsround-bias.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-after-seven-years-of-reading.html

        1. Just checked – that clip from the Andrew Marr Show with Sentamu talking about the 1662 Prayer Book was broadcast on Channel 4 too. They should know better!

  6. Lumi Bast (@nugoyxi) 12 Mar 2012, 2:01pm

    Hmmm, I wonder if black people wanted the church to need to approve of interracial marriages

    FOR THE LAST TIME, MARRIAGE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS THING. Holy matrimony is. If people of different faiths- everything from Atheists to Muslims to Wiccans to Baha’is, and people who don’t follow other rules of the Bible can get married, there’s no reason for gays not to be able to. Nobody’s forcing you to marry them. Let it go.

    1. Let me also post something I posted in another article

      The right to Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom is provided for in all three constituent legal systems, by devolved, national, European, and international law and treaty. Four constituent nations compose the United Kingdom, resulting in an inconsistent religious character, and there is no state church for the whole kingdom. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which provides in Article 9 a right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; and the policy of the British government is to support religious freedom.

      1. One more thing to add, all these religious people that claim they don’t want to redefine marriage, I’m not sure about the UK but in the US by law a woman used to be a man’s property, up until twenty or so years ago a woman couldn’t refuse her husband sexually, interracial marriage was illegal, a woman couldn’t own property, etc. Archbishop, your definition of marriage is archaic and outdated, and only is useful for barbaric tribes 2000 years ago.

        1. the same used to be true in the uk women were regarded as part of the husbands chattels (have I spelt that right?) . Their property became ther husbands etc and were not allowed to vote until the early C20

  7. He needs to stop sucking c0ck now. His front teeth are in a terrible way because of it.

    1. His predecessor by all accounts liked too.

  8. Paula Thomas 12 Mar 2012, 2:10pm

    Now who’s ‘acting like a dictator’?

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2012, 6:43pm

      Exactly. Isn’t it funny the ones screaming dictatorship are the ones who want to deny any freedom.

  9. Utter bilge. This rubbish is the mirror-image of legal and political reality.
    Established Anglicanism was created by act of Parliament; the Anglican Church does not validate Parliament.
    10 out of 10 for meaningless hot air.
    0 out of 10 for constitutional history.

  10. This man is a fool. Not to be too blunt about it, but if Parliament HADN’T made certain legislative changes, the only way he would have been in England would have been as an indentured servant, and NOT a cleric (and the Church sanctioned THAT practice, too)

  11. Jack Holroyde 12 Mar 2012, 2:14pm

    “you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are”

    I think their God would disagree… He’s pretty powerful, apparently. So could he not change it?
    If they concede that point, then it’s just a case of haggling over how much power someone has,

    1. No, no, no. God is a “she”.

      She probably finds the comments of all these men in funny hats and cloaks as hard to understand as we do.

      1. If you read the bible it’s quite obvious “God” is not female. Unless they’re one of those women who hate other women.

        1. God didn’t write the bible though, men did.

          1. So are we picking and choosing now?

            God didn’t say the things he said about women covering their heads and not having valid opinions but he said all the other nice things in the bible…

            All the bad stuff in the bible is written by men all the good stuff actually happened and is the word of God?

            It’s like the bigot interpretation of the bible in reverse then.

            Or maybe, just maybe, the whole book is a load of nonsense.

  12. Jamie Taylor 12 Mar 2012, 2:14pm

    I don’t think he understands. The government wrote the law, they also have the power to change it.

  13. Not very well up on democracy, are they?

  14. Father Dougal 12 Mar 2012, 2:34pm

    The prayer book and C of E Article 30 have nothing to do with it. The man is delusional.

    1. Article 30 doesn’t even mention marriage. Not sure what this guy is on. The 39 articles really don’t go into the stuff he’s saying at all.

      1. See other messages: we think he means Canon B30.

  15. For the Attention of Archbishop of York

    Opinions are like assholes, we all have one, but yours stink.

  16. Another christian leader who doesn’t live in the real world. But I guess when someone believes that a man came back to life after being dead for three days, they could believe anything.

    1. Katie Murphy - ex cath family 15 Mar 2012, 3:29am

      Someone needs to remove a few more of his front teeth to bring him to his senses.

      I seem to think that in the distant past it took chopping of heads to break free of the catholic church of endless pedophilia.

      The same church that protected children in eg spain and Au by stealing hudreds of thosuands of babies – many from unwed mothers, to give them to catholic families. Just another variation of how the church terrorized, and even mass murdered people who went agains ttheir beliefs in the middle ages and the anything but HOly Inqusition.

      As well as the burning of women at the stake – not a protestant creation but a catholic patriarchial church power grab.
      Teh catholic church is nothing but a scam based on promises of an insurance policy against death. Based on stories from an age of ignoance and stuporstition.

      Mixed with Mytheology

  17. Peter & Michael 12 Mar 2012, 2:55pm

    As we understand a motion by Lord Ali in the House of Lords was passed to allow gay marriage in church last year. We are also to understand that a church in Manchester according to Ceefax on BBC is preparing to allow Same Sex Marriage in a religious setting. Whatever happens in a Secular society and various religions such as the Quakers, Methodists whom wish to perform Same-Sex Marriage in a religious setting is nothing to do with the cofe nor catholics, they cannot influence any laws that Secular society or what other religions demand. This does not require the permission of an archbishop who was born in uganda.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 12 Mar 2012, 3:19pm

      Indeed.

      To do so would be in breach of other religions right to “freedom of religion”.

      Hypocrites all.

  18. Thank f___k we had the Enlightenment, that’s all I’m saying.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 12 Mar 2012, 3:17pm

      If we hadn’t had the Enlightenment you can rest assured that you would not be typing that into a computer.

      Smoke signals perhaps.

  19. This man’s motives have to be questioned. Is it really God’s will, or that of a defunct & powerless body trying to reaffirm itself? Sentamu challenged ‘institutionalised racism’ within the Church; a long-held tradition, along with sexism and elitism. His argument, “the expectation of the historic, white, educated elite English norm is maintained, regardless of the make-up of a congregation”. The congregation also includes loving, same-sex couples, who wish their unions to be blessed by their religion. Diversity isn’t just about race or gender. Dr Carey commented on racism in the Church, saying “the Church would celebrate the diversity of mankind…without each other, we are less of the people God intends us to be.”

  20. Dear John
    Get a grip, and stop making a total idiot of yourself. The prayer Book is NOT the Law of the Land, never was and never will be!
    Seems your Holy Arrogance has overstepped the mark … again!!!

  21. I really think this guy would have been more at home staying in Uganda. That isn’t a racist comment either.

    1. I know what you mean!

  22. jamestoronto 12 Mar 2012, 3:41pm

    The Church of England was created by an Act of Parliament. So I think Parliament trumps the Church. (It can if it wishes also un-create the Church.)

  23. all mantions must be human rights and equality fair ambassadors of humanity, THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HAS NO PLACE IN THE PERSONAL LIVES OF THE PEOPLE , IF PEOPLE WANT TO GO AND GO TO PLAY BINGO, YOU DONT ASK THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND BECAUSE ITS SIMPLY NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS, THOSE FAMIILIES ARE GROWN THOSE FAMIIES MAKE THIER OWN DECISION ABOUT THIER PERSONAL LIVES AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT HARMING OTHERS AND THEIR RIGHTS, THIS NATION HAD BETTER WAKE UP AND REALIZE THAT THE MEN AND WOMEN IN RELIGIONS ARE JUST WOMEN AND MEN , NOBODY ANGELICAL AND DIETY, THEY ARE JUST BOYS AND GIRLS WHO WENT TO SCHOOL WITH YOU ARE SOMEBODY ELSE, THEY PICKED BUGORS AN FORTED IN THE CLASS ROOM LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, THEY ARE NO ANGELIC VOICES FOR THE PEOPLE EXCEPT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES FOR FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY, NOT RELIGIONS, WHO IS JUST A GROUP OF PEOPLE ACTING THE SAME WAY VERY SET DATE THEY APPOINT TO MEET ARE CARRY OUT THEIR MAN MADE RITUALS, YOU CANNOT ALLOW THESE LUNATICS TO KEEP FORMIMNG OCCULTS,

  24. TONY BLAIR AND DAVID CAMERARON AND LYNNE FEATHERSTONE, MUST NOT ALLOW THESE WICKED HATEMONGERING DANGEROUS RELIGIONS TO AFFECT THE REST OF THE NATIONS AND FAMIILIES ,THEY MUST START PUTTING THESE CREEPS IN JAIL FOR BEING NOSY AND INVADING IN PRIVATE LIVES WHERE THEY DO NOT BELONG, THEY ARE HETERSEXUAL PEDEPHILES AN SEX ASSA;ULTERS AN ADDICTS, AND MANY OF THE SICK CREEPS AS FALSE HETERSEXUAL PASTORS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR SEX ASSAULT ON CHILDREN AND KID PORNOGRAPHY LIKE THE HIGHES SO CALLED ARCHBISHOP IN UNITED STATES , THESE MEN ARE JUST PEDEPHILES IN LONG ROBES WEARING CROSSES AND TRYING TO HIDE THIER PEDEPHILIA BEHIND A NAME THE CALL A CHURCH GROUP, THEIR THE CAUSE OF MURDERS AND CHILDREN SUICIDES , THEY WORSHIP SATAN AND R;UN SEX TRAFFICKIN IN AND THRU THE CHURCH THAT AFFECTS WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN A DANGEROUS HARMFUL WAY, LIKE IN ARIZONA WHERE THEY ARRESTEST THE SICK PULPIT PERVERTS FOR SEX TRAFFICKING THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE MEGA CHURCH, THEIR WEAR COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE

  25. YOU MUST SIT THESE NO GOOD RELIGIONS DOWN , AND PUT THEM BACK IN THEIR PLACES, THEY DO NOT EVERY HAVE ANY BUSINESS BEING SPOKE PEOPLE FOR A COUNTRY ARE COMMUNITY UNLESS THEY ARE TRYING TO SO LOVE AND PEACE IN THE COMMUNITY, THE HEAD OF EVERY COUNTRY SHOULD ALWAYS BE MADE UP OF HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICIALS ENSURING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWED AND ACTS OF FAIRNESS EVERY IS NOT VIOLATED, THATS NATIONAL SECURITY BECAUSE ITS THE RIGHT THING ANYWHERE, OUTSIDE OF THOSE EQUALITY AND FAIR BOUNDS YOU ARE COMMITING CRIMES AGAINST OTHERS CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS,

  26. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH ANYWHERE, SHOULD NEVER, EVERY RUN A GOVENMENT AN TELL LAW ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS WHAT TO DO, THE TASK FORCES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IS THE POLICE FOR OF ALL NATIONS WHO IS SUPPOSE TO MAKE SURE THAT RELIGONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OTHERS NOR THEIR LIVES, SO THAT THEY DO NOT STEP OUT OF BOUNDARIES WITH INDIVIDUAL FAMLIES, THAT IS NOT THEIR RIGHT NOR BUSINESS, ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS IN THESE COUNTRIES IS BECAUSE OF BAD DANGEREOUS VIOLENT BIGOTED AN SEX ADDICTED HETERSEXUAL RELIGIONS , BOTHERING GAY PEOPLE, THEY ARE WOMEN AND CHILDREN ABUSERES AS WELL, OPPRESSORS, THEY ARE NO GOOD, TONY BLAIR, AND DAVID CAMERON AND LYNNE FEATHERSTONE HAD BETTER PUT THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND OTHER HATE RELIGIONS BACK IN THEIR PLACE AS JUST REGULAR MEN AND WOMEN LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, THAT MUST MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND AFFAIRS AT THEIR OWN HOME AND FAMLIES AND STAY OUT OF THE LIVES OF OTHERS, THATS INVASION OF PRIVATE LIVES, STALKING AND HARRASSMENT ,

    1. Dear Carrie,

      Please could you post in lower case and try to make use of paragraphs. Both of these changes would make your comments much easier to understand.

      Thanks

    2. @Carrie — Paragraphs. Lower case. Fewer words.

      Otherwise NO ONE WILL READ WHAT YOU WRITE.

  27. “Church would need to approve gay civil marriage law”

    Any first year law student could tell you that that’s bunk.

  28. “The consultation will not cover religious marriages between gays, only civil unions, but it has prompted increasing criticism from senior figures in the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church over the past weeks.”
    Don’t forget the Daily Fail and The Sun

  29. More proof that the Church seems to think it runs the country

  30. Hes an idiot…..

  31. I NO ALL ABOUT THESE LUNATICS , I WAS RAISED UP IN MINISTY, THE HETERSEXUAL MEN ARE APARTOF EVILS AND OCCULTISM, THEY TAKE THE YOUNG MEN ON MISSIONS THEY LIE TO CHURCH ABOUT TO PICK OUT AND SOLICIT YOUNG GIRLS AN BOYS AND TAKE THEM BACK TO THEIR HOTEL ROOMS AND THIS IS WHAT THEIR CONFERNCES IS , THE CHURCH CONFERNCES, THE MEN GO IN AN OUT OF WOMEN ROOMS WITH CHILDREN , MESSING WITH THE YOUNG CHILDREN AND GIRLS, IN HOTELS AND CALL IT CHURCH CONFERENCES, THEY NEED TO HAVE SECURITY SERVIELLIANCE IN HOTELS, HALLS, AND THEY NEED TO MAKE SUE THAT HETERSEXUAL MEN ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THE FLOOR OR IN THE SAME HOTEL WHEN THE CHURCH IS SUPPOSE TO GO ON PROGRAMS WITH CHILDREN CHOIRS AND RECREATIONS, THESE WICKED RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN OUT SMARTING TASK FORCES FOR A DECADE UP UNTIL NOW, SOME OF THEM ARE TAKING ACTION ON FINDING OUT HOW THEY REALLY NETWORK, THIS IS NOT A GAME THIS IS THE CHIDRENS , LIVES THE FAMILIES LIVES TAMPERED WITH BY HATEMONGERS AND PEDEPHILES FROM THE HETERSEXUAL HETERSEXUALS

  32. PARODY, A POLICE AGENCY , THAT IS SUPPOSE TO BE SURVELIANCING ALL RELGIONS IN THE HETERSEXUAL REALM MUST GET BUSY AND DO MORE, THEY ARE THE NUMBER ONE REASON ALONG WITH THE KLANNS OF HATE THAT OUR NATIONS HAS NO PEACE AND REST FOR THE FAMILESE AT ALL, THEY STAY IN THE FACE OF GOVERMNENTS WHERE THEY DO NOT BELONG AND THEY STAY IN THE FACE OF OTHER GROWN FAMILIES WHERE THEY DO NOT BELONG, THEY ARRESTED SEVERAL BAD PASTOR GOING INTO PRIVATE ACCOUNT OF PEOPLE IN CHURCHES, SOME TOOK ALL THE MONEY AND WAS BUYING HIM AND BOTH OF HIS SONS PRIVAT E MILLION DOLLAR PARY AIRPLANES, THESE RELIGONS ;USE THESE PRIVATE AIRPLANES TO CONDUCT SEX ACTS AND VILE ATTACKS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AS WELL, THEY NEED TO MONITOR WHO GET ON THE PRIVATE JETES OF ALL RELGIONS MEN, OF THESE HETERSEXUAL PEOPLE, YOU CANNOT TRUST ANY OF THEM, ANOTHER MEGA BAD MINISTER, HAD THREE WOMEN LOCKED AND KIDNAPPED IN A HIDDEN TRAILER BEHIND THE BIG CHURCH, AND WAS SEXUAL VIOLATING THEM, AFTER CHURCH, THESE ARE TWISTED BAD PEOPLE

    1. Ben Foster 12 Mar 2012, 5:32pm

      Carrie, for your own sanity, give it a rest.

    2. Turn your friggin caps off woman FFS! Do you email your friends like this? I doubt it!

    3. STOP SHOUTING!

  33. “Adam Wagner, barrister and founding editor of the UK Human Rights Blog told the Independent he doubted the Archbishop of York’s understanding of the law.”

    How politely phrased :D Sentamu is making himself look extremely silly. If he’s trying to turn lots of people off religion for good, he’s doing an excellent job.

  34. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AN ALL RELIGONS MUST BE MADE TO WALK IN HUMAN RIGHTS ARE BE SHUT DOWN, THE CHILDRENS LIVES AND THEIR FAMLIES ARE THE IMPORTANT PEOPLE BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER IN PEACE AN SAFTEY, AND NOT HATE TERRORISM IS THE FIRST PRIORITY OF ANY GOVERNMENT, YOU DONT ALLOW RELIGIONS TO WALKI UP IN THE FACE OF GOVERNMENTS AN TASK FORCES AND COURT HOUSES AND ASK THEM TO ALL THEM TO AB;USE FAMIES AND HTEIR CHILDREN AND TO RUN OTHER GROWN PEOPLE LIVES, WHEN THE CREEP TALKING TO YOU IS A PEDEPHILE AND AN AB;USER THEMSELVES, THEIR ASKING YOU TO COMMIT CRIMES OF MALICE AGAINST ANYONE THEY THE BAD PASTOR DOES NOT LIKE, THEIR THUGS IN ROBES, GANSTERS , I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH SOME OF THEM AN YOU HAVE TO , YOU PUT THESE CREEP IN THEIR PLACE AND ARREST THEM IF THEY BOTHER FAMILIES, AND OTHERS, WE ARE SICK OF THESE NOSY MONSTERS, JEALOUS OF OTHER AND PEDEPHILES THEMSELVES, THEY ARE NOT THE TASK FORCE AND SHOULD NEVER BE , BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WALK IN HUMBLNESS AND KINDNESS, THEY ARE WICKED

  35. Paul Halsall 12 Mar 2012, 4:35pm

    It turns out that Parliament has changed the list of who you can marry and who you can’t at least 4 times in the past century or so. This is quite an interesting site which explains how often it was done

    http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html

  36. THE DVINC CODE TELLS THIS NATION ABOUT THE BIG EGOS THESE OUT OF CONTROL MEN HAVE IN THESE RELIGIONS AND TELLS YOU OF ALL THE CRIMES THESE SAME MONSTERS HAVE BEEN COMMITING IN THIER RELIGIONS AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN , THEY ARE ABUSERS WHO TRY AN VIOLATE PEOPLE DEMOCRACY AND LIBERTY AND RIGHTS, THEY ARE OPRESSORS OF EVIL, LIKE THE DEVINCI CODE SAID, THEY ARE VILE AND MASSES OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN RAPED BY THE SAME HATEMONGERING RELIGIONS, YOU DONT LET A HAND FULL OF HATEMONGERING BAD RELIGIONS TELL YOU ANYTHING AS A GOVERMENT NOR THE CITIZENS INTHE NATIONS, YOUR JOB IS TO ENSURE HUMAN RIGHTS, AND PEACE, EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS EVERYWHERE, WHICH IS NATIONAL SECURISTY, AND BEING CIVILZED PEOPLE GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS AND GOING ON ABOUT YOUR BUSUINESS TO YOUR OWN HETERSEXUAL FAMILEIS, GAY FAMILES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HETERSEXUAL FAMILIES, AT ALL, THEY NEED TO GET ON WITH THEIR OWN LIVES, THEY STILL GET MARRIED AN ACT OUT THEIR OWN VIOLENT , DISTASTEFUL PEDEPHILIEA WIFE BATTERYI

    1. Oh, this is glorious! Glorious! DO keep it up, Carrie. You’ve got us all in stitches!

  37. NO ONE SHOULD WANT DANGEROUS UNLOVING AND UNKIND PEOPLE ANYWHERE IN THE SYSTEM , BECAUSE THEY ABUSE SOCIETY, AND THATS WHAT RACIST AND BIGOTS DO, THE JUDGE WROTE WELL WHEN HE PUT IN THE NATIONAL NEWS PAPER , THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO ALLOW RELIGONS TO COMIT CRIMES OF HATE AND SEX CRIMES AGAINST ANYONE, ABUSIVE CRIMES THEY ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAWS OF HUMANITY AND CONSTIUTIONAL RIGHTS, SO MANY YOUNG MEN ARE NOW RUNNING TO BE A BAD PASTOR BECAUSE OF THE SEX ADDICSTED AND ABUSE AND OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN MISUSING THE POOR PEOPLE A GET RICH SCHEME OF MEN PASTORS, OFF OF POOR PEOPLE, THEIR BAD MEN THATS ALL, USING OTHERS AND ABUSING OTHERS THEY ALL NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN AND TURN THOSE CHURCHES INTO SOUP KITCHENS AND SHELTERS ALMS OF REAL CHARITY AND RECREATIONAL CENTERS FOR FAMILIES, THEY DO MORE GOOD THAT WAY, AND PEOPLE GET POSITIVE USE OUT OF THEM , INSTEAD OF BEING ABUSES AND BRAINSWASHED AND COMING OUT AS THUGS IN GANGS AND DEFAMATORS, ABUSERS,

  38. YOU AS A GOVERNMENT MUST BE A PEOPLES GOVERNMENT, FOR THE PEOPLE, TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE AND THEIR RIGHTS HUMAN AND CONSTU;TIONAL RIGHTS, NOT WIMP AS SPINELESS OFFICIALS TAKING A BACK SEAT TO JUSTICE AGIANST INJUST CHARACTERS AND ABUSES OF RELIGIONS, YOU ARE THE GODDAM GOVERNMENT ACT LIKE IT AN SIT THE GODDAM HATEMONGERING RELIGION DOWN AND REPRIMAND THEM IF THE BOTHER ANY ONE , START SHUTTING THESE PEOPLE DOWN, YOU MAKE THEISE PEOPLE OVERHAUL THESE RELIGIONS INTO REAL CHARITYS OF KINDNESS AND HUMBLENEES TOWARDS PEOPLE ARE YOU SHUT THEM DOWN AND REPRIMAND THEM, REMOVE BAD PASTORS OF HATE AND ELECT PEOPLE HUMAN RIGHTS ONES WALKING IN LOVE AND PEACE WITH ALL, ARE BE SHUT DOWN

  39. We need the media to keep interviewing and to publish what this man says as it is removing all doubt about his sanity. He doesn’t know it but he is helping our case to change the law. Thankfully.

  40. I said this in another comment on another article, but it applies here too – marriage is not, has never been, and never will be an exclusively Christian institution. Christianity defined marriage to be in such a way to agree with its own twisted beliefs, yet is up in arms about the fact that others are trying to do it now. It’s quite sad, really… like a bully taking a toy off another child and then getting upset when they have to give it back. Christianity does not own marriage, and it can’t seem to get that into its arrogant head.

  41. LOL. In the one of the few countries in the world with a Parliament that has no legal restraints due to a lack of a written constitution he claims this!

  42. de Villiers 12 Mar 2012, 5:46pm

    Does anyone really know the answer to this? England has a state religion and marriage is defined in the book of Common Prayer. Does that effect the law in a country with an established church?

    From previous researches, it appeared that matrimony was the estate into which a man and a woman entered when they consented and contract to cohabit with each other and each other only: Book of Common Prayer, Form of Solemnization of Matrimony; Harrod v Harrod (1854) 1 K & J 4.

    According to the doctrine of the Church of England, marriage was a permanent permanent, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity: Revised Canons Ecclesiastical, Canon B30 para 1. See also Canon B30 para 2.

    1. de Villiers 12 Mar 2012, 5:47pm

      - affect

    2. Basically he’s talking nonsense. Parliament is the sole legislative power in the UK, and the church has little/no sway in that regard (see my comment below).

  43. The 1836 Marriage Act removed marriage from the sole domain of the church and created marriage as a civil union.
    Further the principles of parliamentary sovereignty means that this quack from York is completely wrong. Parliament is a sovereign legislative power and can amend/introduce or remove any law it so chooses. The only time the “church” gets its input is through those that are seated in the Upper House (Lords). Naturally constitutional convention requires the Upper House to bow to the will of the Lower House (Commons), which if ignored can be enforced under the 1911 Parliament Act.
    So in other words Archie… shut up and stop pontificating about something you know nothing about.

    1. de Villiers 12 Mar 2012, 7:21pm

      It did seem odd that the Church could veto a law passed by the Parliament.

      1. @De Villiers

        Either the Archbishop is deluded, lacks intelligence or is trying to deceive … I know which one I think it is …

        1. all 3 me thinks

          1. He seems to have gone from calling David Cameron a dictator to acting like one himself now
            Clearly he doesn’t actually understand what dictating is

            Sentamu, you’re as useful as a chocolate teapot!

    2. “The 1836 Marriage Act removed marriage from the sole domain of the church and created marriage as a civil union”

      Not exactly. Marriage always was a civil matter. What the 1836 Act did was set up a parallel mechanism as an alternative to a ceremony in a CofE church – leaving the CofE route untouched. All other religions (with the exception of the Jews and Quakers) have to incorporate the basic elements of the *civil* ceremony to be recognised as legal.

      Whichever way you look at it, “changing the definition of marriage” won’t affect the CofE. Of course, they may fall foul of Human Rights legislation, because as a state institution they can’t discriminate – but that’s a separate issue.

      1. Nonetheless establishing an alternative to the CofE format of marriage changed how marrriage can occur in England and Wales.

        1. Yes, but it changed all the time. The 1836 Act just changed things in the wake of Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753, which had tightened things up – tightened them up too much, as it happened.

  44. Sod off you idiot!! You give Christianity a VERY bad name!!

  45. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2012, 6:40pm

    The Church has Nothing to do with civil marriage. Nothing to do with whom love whom and should keep their dirty, bigotted, discriminating conks out of the matter.

    Of course they won’t and no doubt their attempts to hijack the issue will grow increasingly desperate. to which we will no doubt suffer but the end game is the church is proving their complete irrelevence to a decent 21at century society.

    This is really only about ther loosing control of society. Nothing more.

    Enough already.

  46. Could it possibly be that the RC church are being so concerned about UK attempts to ensure fairness, transparency, equality and integrity in marriage when equal marriage is introduced because of their experience here:

    http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13637&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29

  47. One more thing to add, all these religious people that claim they don’t want to redefine marriage, I’m not sure about the UK but in the US by law a woman used to be a man’s property, up until twenty or so years ago a woman couldn’t refuse her husband sexually, interracial marriage was illegal, a woman couldn’t own property, etc. Your definition of marriage is archaiac and outdated, and only is useful for barbaric tribes 2000 years ago.

    1. archaic*

  48. Patrick Mc Crossan 12 Mar 2012, 8:20pm

    As a gay man and as a gay catholic I have problems with Stonewall’s Draft Marriage Bill

    I think they have deliberately chosen words and phrases to assist me as part of a minority that will offend the majority.

    I believe Stonewall who have done and who do great work have chosen to upset the majority by removing Husband & Wife by amendments completely from the marriage bill. ( see )

    Extension of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Bill 2012 [HC] a husband and wife” substitute “parties to a marriage”.

    For those who have been married and see it as an institution, and as Husband & Wife are part of the worlds accepted married status I feel it will create far too much upset to achieve marriage rights for gay people by removing the majority’s right to continue to be called Husband & Wife.

    Stonewall should achieve equal marriage rights without upsetting the majority.

    It is issues like this that gets people to believe we are going too far when we denigrate others rights to achieve our own right

    1. Equality and fairness is the important thing here.

      You can’t make an ommelette without breaking a few eggs. If a few people are upset by equality – so be it …

  49. He had told the Daily Telegraph: “We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.

    Isn’t the above exactly what henry 8 do to marry is umpteenth wife in an attempt to get a male heir?

    1. Katie Murphy - ex cath family 15 Mar 2012, 3:55am

      dictators – the church, with stone age beliefs, used for power mongering.

      And the cause of most wars

  50. Ok, firstly my understanding is that it’s not strictly gay marriage. It’s marriage equality and there IS a big difference. Neither Pink News or this fool can get it into their heads that it also affects straight people.

    Secondly, I thought it was civil marriage. As others have said, the only religious leaders who might have some control over whether this is passed are those who sit in the HofL.

    Silly man.

    1. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2012, 1:56pm

      @Mendirin…
      ….I agree totally and have been ranting about it for yonks It’s Marriage Equality. Using the term Gay Marriage is a ploy used by opponents to scare the religious bigots who have palpitations at the very word Gay. I have even complained to PN about Stephen Grays constant use of the term but he stubbornly continues to post the wrong term. ARE YOU READING STEPHEN GRAY …It is MARRIAGE EQUALITY….GET IT RIGHT

  51. Quaker Marriages (not the domain of the CofE)!!!!

    “…This principle led early Friends into conflicts with the state. They would not accept any interference by the “magistrates” in their discernment of whom among Friends the Lord was calling to marriage. This reluctance persists. However, beginning with the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753, and proceeding through various statutes regulating the conditions for Quaker marriages, the situation per the consolidating Marriage Act 1949 is now that the state trusts Friends to regulate marriage according to the usage of the Society of Friends themselves. We welcome and cherish this privilege.”

  52. johnny33308 12 Mar 2012, 10:55pm

    If we use this person’s logic, then the government should most certainly take control of all churches and their belief systems, making them ‘Civil’ departments rather than ‘religious’ departments. He obviously does not understand the words ‘civil’ and ‘secular’ and appears illererate in his prattlings…these fools are tired and boring, presenting their bigotry as some sort of right. Epic FAIL!

    1. johnny33308 12 Mar 2012, 10:57pm

      oops…..*illiterate*

  53. This article is written very well. I really like. Maybe you’re interested in Abercrombie Fitch Deutschland</a

  54. What an idiot. He obviously has been promoted beyond his rank and now beleives they hype and make idiotic comments.

    Fak off you prick

  55. I can’t stand that bloke and his holier than though attitude. Forcing people to live by the rules of a make believe sky fairy should be considered as abuse and a mental illness.
    Religion = discrimination ignorance and hate. Religion should have no say in our laws and the bishops that sit in the house of Lords should be thrown out. They are unelected and only serve to drag us back to the dark ages.

  56. I remember this song which sums up what we should be saying to these idiots!

  57. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2012, 1:59pm

    @……….
    …It’s Marriage Equality. Using the term Gay Marriage is a ploy used by opponents to scare the religious bigots who have palpitations at the very word Gay. I have even complained to PINK NEWS about Stephen Grays constant use of the term but he stubbornly continues to post the wrong term. ARE YOU READING STEPHEN GRAY …It is MARRIAGE EQUALITY….GET IT RIGHT

  58. I was interested in finding out what article 30 actually said (since Archbishop Sentamu seems convinced it gives the church power to prevent democracy). So I looked it up. This is what it seems to say:

    “The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”

    Now, try as I might I can see no relevance either to the church usurping democracy nor to opposing civil marriage in any form or specifying the make up of couples in civil marriage.

    Next …

    1. Stu you’re not supposed to do that.

      You’ve spoilt it now, here we all were thinking that what he said must be true because he used references and now you’re saying his references don’t make any sense.

      Damn and blast!

      Now I don’t know what to believe…Is the Archbishop a liar or a fool?

      You’re really ruining my Tuesday.

      1. *hangs head in shame* ;-)

        I should know better …

        The Archbishop lying – who would ever imagine such a thing was possible ;-p

    2. Actually, the best guess is that he meant to refer to Canon B30 “Of Holy Matrimony” of the Canons Ecclesiastical. These are a form of primary legislation, but passed by the General Synod and (obviously) only applicable to the Church of England.

      Yes, the canon does seem to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but it also calls it a “lifelong union”, so it doesn’t recognise divorce either! It would need to be mofied to allow same-sex marriage in a CofE church, but they have managed to accommodate divorce somehow. It has absolutely no relevance to civil marriage or marriage equality.

      And you would have thought that an Archbishop would know the difference between an Article and a Canon…

      1. Why? He doesn’t seem to know the difference between his ar$e and his elbow

        1. The irony is that he is a lawyer! He was apparently kicked out of Uganda because he fell foul of Idi Amin in his legal work.

  59. Don Harrisoin 13 Mar 2012, 3:38pm

    I sent an email about worldwide homophibic bullying, torture & murder to
    Pope Benedict XVI
    Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams
    Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu,
    Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O’Brien
    Bishop of Ely, Stephen Conway,
    Revd Dr Eleanor Williams.
    Prime Minister Rt Hon David Cameron MP
    Deputy Prime Minister Rt Hon Nick Clegg
    Lynne Featherstone MP
    Steve Gilbert MP
    James Paice MP
    Peter Bone MP
    Adrian Trett Chair LGBT+ LibDems
    Peter Tatchell
    PinkNews
    I am composing one right now about gay marriage
    Don

  60. MARRIAGE DOESENT BELONG TO RELIGION !!!!! and it certainly predates the 1600’s

    Morons who preach from a book about things they think happened in the past yet they have no knowledge of history.

  61. “She [Lynne Featherstone] dismissed a claim by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, that the Government could not change the law on marriage without the backing of the Church of England’s General Synod: “My understanding is that Parliament can legislate to do what it wishes.”

  62. Staircase2 15 Mar 2012, 2:27pm

    He’s not too bright is he…

    ‘permission’ my arse!

    ALL marriages are a State Contract – the Church is allowed to facilitate them – thats it.

    If he’s seriously suggesting that the institution of marriage only began in 1662 then he’s even more deluded than his idiotic comments would have us believe…

  63. Rudehamster 15 Mar 2012, 4:47pm

    Rancid old homophobe.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all