Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Vicar’s petition says Church of England is ‘undermining itself’ on equal marriage issue

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Thank You Father Stubbs – good to see people of integrity standing up against the homophobia and bigotry of the Church’s official stance.

    I think you should organise a large scale protest at York – I would support you!

  2. Signed it proudly a few days ago!
    Thanks Father Stubbs – my faith life doesn’t include homophobia either.

    1. So did I
      My faithlife ditto

  3. I love the way that the churches are eating themselves alive over the issue of marriage equality.

    Divided churches are weaker churches, and if the church of England continues the way it is going then pretty soon it will no longer be possible for it to remain the ‘official’ church here, and separation of church and state will be much easier.

  4. Glad to see Anglicans who’ve been ridden over roughshod are starting to speak up – well done.

  5. Very very nice. There are sensible people in religion after all. Well I’ll be.

    Well done that vicar!

  6. I love the fact that more and more members of the CofE are standing up against the church leaders. This is further proof that the church will implode before long.

    Thank you Ftr. Stubbs for your support

  7. Signed!

    The Church of England rather gave away the game when one spokesman, a Bishop I think, said publically that the Church feared for its Establishment – in other words they were more interested in preserving their ‘power’ and influence than they were in what their business is supposed to be!!! Hypocrits!!!!

  8. Perhaps too little, and probably too late, but I must say the comments on that petition make for some truly lovely reading. A mood-lifter indeed for the days when the hate is really taking its toll.

    Warmest love and thanks indeed to Fr Stubbs, and the 2500+ other Anglican clergy and chuch-goers co-signing his letter. I hope this is picked up by the wider press!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jun 2012, 1:55pm

      It’s not too late, Court. I think we’ll see more clergy get on board as time passes prior to the eventual vote.

      1. I hope you are right, Robert.

        I just feel that, since the absurd opinions of the CoE heads have been common knowledge for ages on this issue, and since it was hardly a surprise they would make a submission precisely along the lines they did, perhaps these kind souls like Fr Stubbs could have spoken up earlier — made some effort to temper the response the CoE gave to the consultation.

        To me, at least, it feels like the damage is already done, and being an apologist after the fact is a lot less useful that had they been challenging their leadership’s bigotry from the outset.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jun 2012, 4:07pm

          Court, I think we will be pleasantly surprised at the end of the day once the vote comes.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jun 2012, 1:54pm

    Well said, Fr. Stubbs and thank you. A priest who truly gets it as well as the christian message. Let more of them get on board and relegate the CoE to irrelevance.

  10. So, the CoE actively campaigned against the normalising of age of consent, against CP and now against marriage equality.

    I guess patterns of bad acts and institutional homophobia don’t bloody register for some people.

    The CoE is NOT LGBT friendly, and the actions of one minnow church in the face of the hierarchy – who have been scaremongering and engaging in the most disgraceful acts of mendacity for months – amount to precisely nothing.

    So no, no big hug for stepping up because it doesn’t mean anything at all. And the actions of the CoE, given its history were 100% bloody predictable.

    1. Paul.Essex/London 18 Jun 2012, 4:57pm

      So you’d rather he jumped on the bandwagon or just kept his head below the parapit like all the rest?

      1. I think what he does will make no difference at all. I think that a well established pattern of bad acts by his church, of which he is a part and has been for years, makes their anti-gay behaviour a given and what he has done should have been attempted BEFORE the church went on the attack.

        And I’m sorry, but what he represented (the people who pay for him and support him in every way) have bullied British LGBT people for a long time and I don’t thank my bully for deciding not to, when that behaviour should be the default from the start.

        1. Paul.Essex/London 18 Jun 2012, 6:08pm

          What has he done before this point? The answer is that none of us know. Either way, I for one am glad that he has done SOMETHING, it’s not always the big things that form people’s opinions but the little things. This petition also goes some way to publicly show that not everyone in the Church believes in anti-gay views. The Church supported slavery and the treatment of women as second class citizens, along with majority of society, those changes didn’t happen overnight but the difference still happened. Why? Because the likes of Fr Stubbs decided to stand up and be counted.

          1. Looks like the petition kicked off on the 12th. That’s what, three days before the consultation that had been open for months finally closed?

            Plus, of course, he isn’t toeing the party line and that party line still stands. Did you see the Torygraph today? Lord bloody Carey playing martyr? Whether people here like it or not THAT is the party line.

          2. I believe Father Ian Stubbs is known in Anglican circles as being a strong supporter of LGBT rights for a number of years.

    2. Everything positive makes a difference.

  11. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2012, 2:27pm

    Good on Father Stubbs.. a voice of reason within the Church.

    May many more stand up to those bullying extremists.

  12. Good on Father Stubbs!
    And, by the by, I am totally in love with Derbyshire, and having walking holidays there nearly every year.

  13. MANY churchgoers discovered in the newspapers about their adamant opposition to same-sex marriage. Whether they agree with its position or not, they will find the paper submitted to the Government’s consultation on their behalf to be tendentious and poorly argued. In brief, it says that the government consultation on same-sex marriage is flawed (it is); that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman (it has); that matters such as consummation will be hard to work into a new definition (they will); and that there is a false distinction being made between civil and religious marriage (there is, although this is the Government’s clumsy attempt to preserve the Church’s right to discriminate).

    Besides these points, however, the paper makes a number of unsupported claims. In just one example, it states that the view of marriage as “a lifelong union of one man with one woman” is “derived from the teaching of Christ himself”, first without citing which teaching, and

    1. second without any apparent embarrassment over the use of the word “lifelong”. The impression that Church and state have walked hitherto arm in arm up and down the aisle can be sustained only by ignoring the huge chasm over divorce that opened in the 19th century. Much is made of the Church’s supposed susceptibility to legal challenge; but again, this has not been its experience when clerics have refused second marriages in church. Hardest to follow are the paper’s arguments that the benefits society derives from heterosexual marriage will somehow be absent if marriage is extended to same-sex couples.

      Whether its legal arguments hold water, the paper is right to suppose that pressure will increase on the Church to comply. Had the Church been as welcoming of civil partnerships as this paper implies, this crisis might have been averted. By declining to bless them, the Church contributed to the impression that civil partnerships were mere legal arrangements, and not declarations of love

    2. and commit­ment. It is patronising to dismiss the desire to emphasise this as merely answering an “emotional need”.

      There are many in the C of E, and in the country at large, who hold traditional views of marriage. These ought to be respected. But so, too, should the views of those who, in conscience, see gay partnerships as comparable with marriage to the extent that the use of the same word now seems right. It is astonishing that the unnamed authors of the submission refer to themselves as “the Church of England” on a subject so contentious that two reviews are in progress to discover what people in the Church of England actually think.

      Fr Ian Stubbs makes a brave and courageous stand and I wish him well.

  14. Dangermouse 18 Jun 2012, 3:24pm

    My sort of Christian, a REAL Christian who knows what Jesus really stood for, unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bigoted friends.

  15. For me the most important part is where he says “[the church] is in thrall to literal-minded understandings of scripture and tradition and lacks the energy and moral courage of Jesus who challenged unjust social structures and traditions”

    This is most clearly seen in Jesus’s teaching about divorce. Jewish men at the time were able to just give their wife a certificate of divorce and buy a new wife. The divorced wife had no means of supporting herself so Jesus told the men it was wrong to divorce.

    So instead of being a radical teaching to support women, religious conservatives have completely turned this teaching on it’s head by saying that Jesus is against divorce keeping people in loveless and abusive marriages.

  16. We love this man

  17. GingerlyColors 18 Jun 2012, 3:58pm

    The Church of England is split on a whole range of issue, not just marriage equality. There is a debate on whether women should be ordained as Bishops for example. The church once banned women from being vicars but nowadays women vicars are commonplace. The CofE is just one of many churches which split from the Catholic Church during the Protest Reforms which happened during the middle of the last millenium because Rome refused to move with the times. The Church of England needs to continue modernising if it is to survive into the current millenium and that means accepting gay people as a part of everyday life. A split in the church will result in the creation of a gay friendly church, but also a homophobic, more fundamentalist church.

  18. Laughing. People are actually being grateful because he has decided to (a) not be a jerk (b) stand up against jerks.

    Are those not the default actions of every human being simply by virtue of their humanity? Do religious people REALLY need a pat on the bloody head for doing what should be the base bloody standard of behaviour?

    1. Paul.Essex/London 18 Jun 2012, 6:17pm

      Yes that’s right. By showing appreciation for someone who can actually be bothered to take action, as opposed to the great majority of our society (not just the Church), then that makes us all sycophantic fans of the pro-gay section of the Church.

      (Warning: this comment may contain sarcasm)

      1. Then, given the obvious stance of the church, why wait until three days before the consultation closed? Why not make it an issue 2 bloody years ago? Why do it now when it has NO bloody useful purpose? It looks more like an ego stroke to me.

        1. Valksy:
          I think I can understand your fury & frustration but I, like many of my fellow-Anglicans, was so staggered by the ill-informed AND mis-informed woffle put out by the Church’s hierarchy in their consultation submission in OUR name – which is quite frankly not a million miles from the insidious bullsh1t uttered and promulgated by those whom many of us regard as pernicious extremists, Christians in name only – that we felt we simply had to go on public record by saying “NO, it is NOT in our name!”
          [By theway, my name IS Ian, but I am NOT Fr. Ian Stubbs]

          1. And yet you claim membership of the church, add to its numbers and give it legitimacy. And you give it your money, even though the hierarchy has openly derided you for years.

            It’s not the first time that the CoE has behaved this way. It has a well established pattern of homophobic behaviour and – by putting your backside on its pews and your money in its hands – you have been a part of it.

            What the church did with the consultation process was entirely predictable. And what this particular vicar has done is meaningless. Just as your words here are meaningless. Your hierarchy – those who have the power and have the headlines and have the voice that is being heard – do not care what you or this vicar think. Is a church a democracy? No. But you do grant it at least tacit permission by naming yourself as part of it, and you are trying to wash your hands of its bad acts as if you can pretend they aren’t doing it. You collaborate in your own oppression.

  19. Well done that man. Just goes to show that the establishment that we all think hates us does not have the backing of it’s own people :)

  20. Thank you Fr Stubbs. Those are strong and, hopefully, effective words.

  21. Well done and thank you Father Stubbs. We need more people like you and those on that petition, in the Church of England. May the Lord God establish the work of your hands.

  22. The Vicar is right. It is good to see real men of faith standing up for the word of God and the Bible today.

  23. Thank you Father Stubbs!! We need more like you and your fine congragation!

    And everything you said is true. the churches stance on this is giving other very fine christians a bad name!

  24. I have also signed it and passed it on! :)

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