I would put the RC church and anti-gay Institute as greater enemies of human rights and equality than the CofE- but only just!
Thank you to The Times for your support.
Not forgetting Andrea Minichiello Williams of so called Christian Concern and the so called Christian Legal Centre both closely linked with the so called Christian Institute, she has secured herself a place on the Anglican Synod as a lay member.
How could I forget the grizzly and demented Andrea! ;-)
The RC church just whack you in the face whilst the CofE just smile at you and then stab you in the back.
The CofE with their secret parliamentary meetings and their privalged places in the HoL I believe are a greater danger to LGBT rights in the UK.
It’s easy to dismiss that RC church as OTT in the UK but the CofE with their acedemic ditherings and sit on the fence attitude is almost more annoying.
I think PN should run a survey on which organisations LGBT people think are the top 10 threats to gay rights in the UK….I think the CofE is close to number 1.
This is the times trying to distance it’s self from the rest of the Murdoch trash in the US
Thats probably a very perceptive interpretation of their decision making. Nonetheless, I welcome their support.
Be careful we do not want to be useful idiots for the times editors. They will probably be looking for a buy when murdoch kick it
Journalist friends of mine tell me the Times and the Sunday Times are papers that, despite being owned by News International, have always firmly maintained editorial independence.
When the other opapers were running stories about murdoch and phone hacking they didn’t
I don’t get the Times often but I do get the Sunday Times and they certainly had stories about the hacking scandal and Rebekah Brooks etc.
The Times continues to fight for us admirably. But meanwhile where are those supposed stalwarts of liberalism The Guardian and The Independent? The only comment I have seen from the Guardian is Michael White’s comment that the status quo is ok for now. The Independent on Sunday declared its support for us last weekend but what about the daily version. Are we to be let down by two of our natural allies on this whilst the Murdoch paper rallies to our cuase?!?!?
In fairness there’s been plenty of pro-gay marrige comment in the Guardian over the last fortnight, though I suppose they do have a habit of throwing in other viewpoints for “balance”.
But not an editorial supporting us unlikes the Times. What’s the position of the paper itself?
I have been very disappointed in the Guardian not giving a categorical view of where their actual editorial position is on equal marriage. Are they in favour or not? At the moment they are sending out scurrilously mnixed messages. Its time they nailed their sails to the mast and said which side of the debate they favour!
Last week in their editorial, they stated they were for marriage equality….
They also ran a piece condemning equal marriage:
Some consistency would be helpful!
The Graun isn’t what it used to be and has become disturbingly pro-religion of late.
There was an unequivocal editorial in the Guardian on Thursday last week. Michael White is and always has been a Tory so I wouldn’t base your prejudice against the Guardian on his words. The Guardian has been a long time supporting us and was vocally for gay rights even when the Times and other papers were calling for recriminalisation as a response to AIDS. It is not a courageous act to voice support for an issue only when the majority are already calling for it.
I ceased ‘taking The Times’ a long time ago (when it was purchased by Murdoch in fact), and of course I have never bought or read The Sun or the NotW, but credit where it is due, last week and this The Times has spoken out forcefully for fairness and justice and the shrill denunciations from from ‘religionists’ only emphasise that they know their hateful prejudices and bigotry is ultimately doomed, perhaps not immediately to be realistic, but definitely they are on the run – and not before time. The Guardian and Michael White sure are a disappointment, not entirely surprisingly unfortunately – their usual. ‘right on’ stance is certainly not very convincing just at present, but then nor is their corporate policy on taxation as it affects their own publication and that has been going on for a long time; if recent events cause their hypocrisy to be exposed so much the better.
Thank you, The Times, well said.
Stu, I think the C of E is on an equal footing with the RC church. Both use the same hateful rhetoric as evidenced by Lord Carey and to some extent Rowan Williams. The majority of them opppose the ordination of women and both use biblical references to jusitfy a ban on same-sex marriage. Virtually identical. Denying a gay man the position of bishop because he happens to be in a “celibate” civil partnership is no different than a RC priest being thrown out because he questions his church’s authority and its bankrupt moral arguments and judgements about gays and women. Both are hateful and intolerant.
I think its touch and go on the differences but I think the rhetoric from Cardinal O’Brien and the Archbishops of Southwark and Westminister – along with that of the Pope is marginally worse than that of Sentamu and Williams. The CofE also have the likes of Dr Johns and the Bishop of Salisbury which slightly mitigates the organisational scenario (the RC church has no mitigation)
Maybe you’re right Stu. Either way, both are despicable. They just don’t understand that their opinions, beliefs when stated in this context of equality, sow the seeds of hatred and intolerance, not what I would call “christian” of them, quite the opposite.
Whichever side is worse (and it is marginal!) they are both despicable this is true!
They certainly seem to be living up to the exact opposite of the message of the Gospel (as I understand it) “love your neighbour as yourself”. Its rank hypocracy the position they have taken.
They have chosen which side of history they want to be on!
Bravo to the Times!
Exactly . . . its great to have thier support!!!
Hello J-P and JohnK. Good to see your names! Yes, amazing to see the generally stalwartly conservative “Times” seeming to be wholly in our favour. Regards.
Hi Eddy . . . good to see your name as well
Hello Eddy -
Yea, David Cameron really turned things around when he said he is supporting marriage equality ‘because’ he is a Conservative, not ‘in spite’ of it.
Whou would have thought that The Times would be such a strong supperter of gay marriage, but it is welcomed all the same!
Two weeks in a row – well done, Times!
It appears we have an MP who seeks to support the apartheid against LGBT people:
She states “it is ultimately my decision how to vote”, indeed it is. It is your decision whethner to treat your LGBT electorate as second class citizens or not. It is your decision whether denying them equal civil marriage is acceptable or not. It is your decision whether equality and fairness matters or not. It is your decision which side of history you are on.
Woah Murdoch press and Tory Party on our side versus COE..its like ive slipped into an alternate dimension!
Great opinion piece in some local press too:
“Is my life diminished at all if two people of the same gender make those promises to each other, believing in lasting commitment? Not one iota. Good luck to them. Last week Cardinal Keith O’Brien, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, said the “grotesque” plans would “shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world” if implemented. A bit hysterical, if you ask me. The Pope has denounced the marriage plans and cardinals and archbishops have warned legalised gay unions will seriously reduce the significance and sanctity of marriage. Each to his own opinion, of course, but to be honest chaps – and I speak as a divorcee – I’d have thought heterosexuals had already managed to do that very well indeed, without any help from you or David Cameron. The toughest knot to untangle presents itself when we
… remember how, for more years than any of us can bear to dwell on without fury, disgust and sorrow, senior churchmen have had to be cornered into saying anything at all about the long-term sexual abuse of young boys by priests and so-called Christian carers.
And even when the Church did raise its shamed head to speak apology, it did so in a muffled whisper.
So, what exactly is the point here? Sex without strings, love or responsibility – and so long as you’re not found out – is fine, but marriage is to be avoided?
Sounds to me that what we have here is just another bunch of men terrified of commitment.”
Great article, thanks for posting. I believe as the months go by, more people will come out in support of us rather than those who oppose us. They’ve yet to hear our life stories, experiences, especially those of us who have children. Not supporting us in marriage equality is anti-family since it also discriminates against our children.
If anyone didn’t hear it and isn’t within range of anything breakable, here is this morning’s Thought for the Day:
Apart from being pure drivel, it’s just a nasty apologia for segregation wrapped up in a bow.
I complained to the BBC:
“This mornings Thought for the Day was essentially a free political broadcast for those that oppose equal marriage for gay people. It was not a news story or current affairs article where both sides of the argument were examined, it was just bigoted propaganda. Essentially it was a political broadcast stating that one community should be denied full civil rights. The BBC would never allow a Thought for the Day opposing civil rights for black people and it is outrageous that you would give a free, unchallenged platform for this kind of prejudice”.
Thought For the Day is described by the BBC as “reflections from a faith perspective” whilst I may not have agreed with Angela Tilby i do consider that she is entitled to her “faith” opinion.
I was, i have to admit disappointed with her stance but it certainly was not a “political broadcast for those that oppose equal marriage for gay people”
Oh and more importantly YAY for The Times!!!!
Quite right Mumbo Jumbo. The ‘separate but equal’ argument really is pernicious and offensive. It really does my head in how people can lay out all the evidence and still come down in the wrong spot – but then again this woman is happily employed in an organisation that will limit her career because of her sex. I assume she finds that misogyny sacramental too. Here’s to a long and permanently stunted career to you, madam!
My radio is programmed to turn itself off whenever TFTD comes on !
Great piece on one of the Conservative blogs explaining the irrationality of the churches argument:
Well done The Times yet again makin a stand against the homophobic bullies and bigots who are acting like nothing but spoilt children.
Wait until the CI and C4M hear about Denmark which legalises same-sex civil marriage in June with a provision for religious denominations to offer services. Anne Widdecombe et al will get their collective knickers or bloomers in a twist. Well done, Denmark. Next stop, UK.
The Christian church is the problem with 99% of the attacks in America on LGBT people. The Christians have infiltrated the LGBT community to spy on them and make trouble for them, in short to stop them any way they can. Wake up people Christians who have been pretending to be gay have been in your gay groups for a long time now. They have a plan to stop you any way they can. They have been taking names ans numbers. Consider yourself warned. You need to investigate people who are not supporting the gay rights movement and then expose them if they have been discovered to be a Christian spy or trouble maker.
Well said ‘The Times’
The reason it’s that way is because the Bible is homophobic. You can’t expect them to be for homosexuality, and you can’t expect them to perform same-sex marriages. The issue is that in the UK there is freedom of religion. They have no say in civil marriage as it is not a solely religious thing.
I’d be careful about tarring all Christians with the homophobia brush. The Bible has many verses in it that can be used by homophobes to support their delusions, but it similarly has verses that could be used by slavery advocates, creationist anti-scientists, violent anti-feminists and other bigots. In other words, the Bible is not of itself homophobic, as proved by the many Christians who support equal rights for women, gays, other racial groups etc.
Too many people use the line “but the Bible told me to do it!” – we as gays and lesbians should not be supporting that sort of illogical claptrap.
/end of rant
Exactly, but they pick and choose what to believe in, and they’ve happened tp pick and choose homosexuality. And the Bible itself is homophobic
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.
Those are just three verses of several.
The bible also condones rape, incest, slavery and murder.
But no one take that seriously.
Just becuase the bible says something, its not rational to immediately assume “that’s okay becuase they believe that, so its just faith” – this nonsense led to concentration camps. This is a democracy. Freedom of religion is fine once it does not interfere with, detract, or remove the civil liberties and human rights of another.
Er, my comment was supposed to agree with you, but it sounds the opposite – so just clarifying, my point was I am agree :)
The Times has a long and proud history of editorials that have ruffled the feathers of the Establishment.
This is probably its most famous one in living memory.
Good to see they’re keeping up the tradition.
Yeah, the Bible is against homosexuality, so there’s no surprise at all. The only thing they’re ever going to get over in my lifetime is marriage because they don’t own it.
Huh, my comment didn’t appear earlier, I thought it didn’t send. Oops :X
The Bible is not against homosexuality, because its authors did not know homosexuality existed. It’s against anal rape. Just Google for “clobber passages debunked” if you’re interested.
Besides, not every Christian regards what’s in the Bible as the word of God fixed for all time.
(I am not a Christian.)
Great piece in the Irish Times this morning:
Explaining why Christian churches need to adopt more of a “Christian” approach to gay people.
I’m delighted by gobsmacked. I might even have to start buying The Times – OMG! (torn between giving money to the Murdoch empire and supporting The Times’ unequivocal support for equal marriage)
oops, typo – should have been “delighted but gobsmacked”