Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Archbishop of Canterbury questions mandate for equal marriage rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So O’Brien wants war – and he will lose …

    And Williams has splinters the size of Wales from his sitting on the fence – well, if he isn’t for equality and civil rights then he is against it – and he should expect the ferocity of any anti-RC war campaign to impact on him too.

    He talked yesterday about the CoE heading into the abyss because of its failure to find equality with the ordination of female bishops (although again he refused to show leadership their either – sitting on the fence!) … the church will be anihilated by its inability to be humane.

    Its very sad that an organisation which is supposed to love, reach out to its neighbour and support human integrity seeks to self destruct by battling within in the efforts of many within it to demonise, harm and restrict civil rights and equality of others.

    Which church is going to self destruct first?

    1. oops there either

  2. And to think, just yesterday some deluded bloody fools on PN were trying to say the odious old coot was friendly and was leaving the church in protest at how his church behaves.

    Simple minded cretins.

    THIS is what his church is. Hateful. Divisive. Obstructionist.

    The “feelings” of christians have no bloody bearing. If same sex marriage makes them blubber and snivel then don’t bloody have one. But get your dogma off my bloody life.

    1. As a Buddhist I wish these Christianists would keep their dogma out of my karma!

  3. Because, of course, the Church of England has a legitimate electoral mandate to do what it does. Given that we all voted to have it as an established state religion, that a majority of us go to its services every week, that it pays its taxes and that it is directly answerable to the British public by means of transparent accountability measures. It’s not as if it’s headed by a hereditary monarch and an unelected Archbishop after all. Not to mention that it is a vital and valuable public service and in no way a pointless sixteenth-century irrelevance that places considerable burdens on the state.

    Gosh, where would we be without this brave and essential bulwark against those seeking to subvert our precious democracy!

  4. Actually, if the daft old loon had checked, it *was* mentioned by both governing parties prior to the election.

    Even if that were not the case, governments are not restricted to legislate based only on their manifesto pledges.

    Now, why doesn’t he sod off and get back to deciding if women should also, according to his big book a fairytales, be treated as equal to men?

  5. Equal marriage doesn’t affect them. Let members of the CoE come to their own conclusions based on their own conscience or be sheep like and follow the church’s official line – whatever either of those conclusions may be. No one will be forced to marry someone of the same sex if they don’t want to. No religious institution will be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple if they don’t want to. Civil same sex marriage really has no implications for the CoE at all.I wonder if this isn’t all being used as a distraction from the mess the church is in: women priests, gay clergy, falling church attendance numbers and the likelihood that eventually the unelected bishops will be kicked out of the house of lords. Bye bye, Rowan. We won’t miss you. Looking further ahead – bye bye CoE. Ditto.

  6. “The basis of the mandate for changing the state’s understanding of marriage given the lack of any commitment in the election manifestos of the main parties”

    Try again (or actually please don’t bother, you look ridiculous enough!)

    Lets look what the political parties actually said:

    Liberal Democrats
    “Before the General Election in 2010, Nick Clegg made his position on equal marriage clear: “All couples should be able to make that commitment to one another.” In September 2010, the Liberal Democrat party voted at Conference to support equal marriage and civil partnerships. This made them the first major UK political party to support this position”

    Conservative
    “We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage”
    http://www.conservatives.com/news/news_stories/2010/05/our_contract_for_equality.aspx

    Labour was the only of the major three Westminster parties not to have a manifesto pledge in relation to equal marriage.

    1. Other parties had a position, including:

      Green Party
      “Open up civil marriages and civil partnerships, without discrimination, to both same-sex and opposite sex couples. ”
      http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2010-02-24-lgbt-launch.html

      There is clear support from parts of Plaid Cymru and the SNP also.

      So, the parties that clearly supported equal marriage in the 2010 election accounted for in excess of 55% of the vote.

      It seems to me that for a man so intellectually and academically capable to read and indentify facts – to these publically comment in such a way that is contrary to the facts can not be explained by misunderstanding or misinterpretation – it can only be explained by scheming, lying and deception.

      Shame on you, Dr Williams.

      1. If you add on the Labour vote (who now support equal marriage) that takes the electorate who supported parties who endorse equal marriage at the last election to over 90% of the 2010 vote.

        Dr Williams ability to examine facts and reason seems to be clouded by either his inability to show leadership or his ephemeral faith or both.

    2. Stuart Neyton 9 Jul 2012, 11:28am

      also, don’t forget Labour’s had a change of leadership since the last general election, and Ed did endorse equal marriage before being elected as leader.

  7. Dangermouse 9 Jul 2012, 10:58am

    If you think hes bad, wait till Dr John Sentamu takes over. Then the church will be in favour of concentration camps for gay people

    1. Thankfully however the Cult of England is drawing its last breath.

      As a force it is over.

      It is time to separate church and state in the UK.

    2. I am a gay man and on the PCC and the synod and I can tell you that Dr Sentamu will not be taking the role.

      The church of England is a big old monster that takes a lot of time to move.

      1. I hope you are right!

  8. And what mandate does that minnow of a human being Rowan Williams, have in deciding who has access to civil marriage.

    it has nothing to do with that hateful bigot.

  9. When we look at the origins of the Church of England it is an organisation that broke away from the catholic church because one man’s desire to marry again and again and again.
    In lecturing about the sanctity of marriage these lot need to look at their own history. It all seems a bit odd that they should see it as a challenge to an institute based upon a man and a woman when it actually fact it is based upon a man and a woman until one gets feed up and fancies moving onto the next fancy that comes along.

  10. Civil marriage is nothing to do with him or his church. Why wasn’t he up in arms when my straight friend dared to get married in a registry office after having been refused marriage in a local C of E church? I mean how very dare he, eh?

    Of course, I gave away the answer to my question in the question itself – ie “my STRAIGHT friend”…. Yes, straight people can do what they want because the C of E is pathologically obsessed with LGBT people.

    It doesn’t matter who has a civil marriage as long as they’re straight; it doesn’t matter what ‘biblical standards’ they supposedly breach. They can be any religion or none at all; any race; married umpteen times before; non-virgins etc etc – but god forbid they actually love someone who happens to be of the same sex. I mean that’s clearly beyond the pale *rolls eyes*

    1. Absolutely Iris, this has everything to do with institutionalised C of E homophobia, an anti-gay position which has no honest basis in scripture.

      The ease with which these church leaders tell lies and spread disinformation is almost quite awesome, given that…
      http://www.conservatives.com/news/news_stories/2010/05/our_contract_for_equality.aspx

      1. Also the Lib Dems, Greens (and to a lesser extent some candidates of Labour, SNP and Plaid Cymru) also support seeking equality in marriage.

        The AoC is known to be a man of intelligence. However, he clearly does not know how to apply this intelligence – or is lying.

      2. Thanks for the link, Pavlos. I think they don’t even realise they’re lying half the time. They get so used to repeating untruths that they don’t stop to consider the veracity of what they’re saying. They just join in with the bleating like sheep, and get stuck in a vicious circle of repetitive bleating and whining.

        Of course, many fundie groups knowingly spread lies and misinformation, hoping that if they repeat them enough times people will think they’re actually true.

        As for Williams – I’ve no idea.

  11. Stuart Neyton 9 Jul 2012, 11:24am

    what mandate does he and the other bishops have to sit, speak and vote in the house of lords?

    In 2010 the 26 bishops claimed £135,762 in tax payer money to sit in the Lords (although admittedly Rowan Williams didn’t claim anything).

    He’s not one to talk about democracy.

  12. It always amuses me when a church talks about government not having a mandate for something the church disagrees with.

  13. Mumbo Jumbo 9 Jul 2012, 11:39am

    Three out of four marriages taking place in England are civil and have no religious content.

    Where is his mandate to interfere with these?

    Similarly, where is his mandate to interfere with the religious freedom of those churches that wish to marry same-sex couples?

  14. Jock S. Trap 9 Jul 2012, 11:42am

    Unless Mr Williams is planning to marry anyone, male or female I don’t see how this has anything to do with him the church or any religious that wishes to remain bigoted.

    Perhaps the Church should focus on the real issues of the the world and encourage the loving, stability of a relationship and commitment.

  15. The comments on the Telegraph website are vile. Maybe if those people would pray harder instead of commenting their deity would intervene and prevent these plans? Just a thought.

    1. They are just bullies with the mentality of schoolyard bullies pretending to be religious and hiding behind religion.

  16. It was good of the BBC’s Director-General to admit the corporation can’t keep ignoring the ‘gay marriage’ topic.

    Mr Thompson also said if the BBC failed to serve any significant section of British society “it will start to look out of touch, and ultimately irrelevant.”

    http://goo.gl/epJd1

  17. Omar Kuddus 9 Jul 2012, 12:20pm

    The Archbishop of Canterbury and in his role as the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion and Church of England, can protest as much as he likes regarding the introduction of gay marriages.
    The irony is, when, will the church realise that Marriage is NOT a religious institution but a civil one, and thus their opinion and campaigns cannot change the fact that all people heterosexual or LGBT are entitled to the same institution of marriage by the mere fact that we are all born equal.
    Perhaps when we STOP calling it a “gay” marriage but merely a marriage, people will realise that it is just that.
    A union of two people, in love joining together, into a partnership and commitment for life, just like all others who have entered into such a bond.

  18. What sort of mandate does this man have to try and dictate civil law.

    Is he trying to have some impact during his last few months by attacking gays? A group he may see as an easy target? Pathetic.

  19. I see the CoE have continued to be misogynist in relation to women leaders – why should homophobia and a lack of awareness about political mandate then be a surprise?

  20. Pavlos Prince of Greece 9 Jul 2012, 12:26pm

    Yes, ‘same-sex marriage has now official support of all three main parties’. Get over it, Mr. Political Observer for ‘The Telegraph’ in spe.

    1. Hi Pavlos Prince of Peace, are you some kind of near clone of mine or something, I don’t get it really if you are.

      1. Greece I mean, excuse typo.

        1. Pavlos Prince of Greece 9 Jul 2012, 3:33pm

          ‘Prince of Peace’. I adore it! And hope, its a nice omen for my future in the Herodes Street Palace, when this ridiculous Greek Republic fails…

  21. Sister Mary clarence 9 Jul 2012, 12:35pm

    If we are discussing mandates, I’d like to discuss HIS mandate to decide anything that affects my life or that of anyone else who doesn’t want or need a clergyman stuffing his belief down our throats every Sunday morning.

    I can tell right from wrong. I don’t need someone who has little or no experience of the realities of the world at large preaching to my like I’m some sort of child about subjects that he knows little or nothing about (and of which he has no interest in learning).

    I can’t help feeling that were any of their religious clap trap to be true and the baby Jesus did pay us another visit, you could bet your bottom dollar, Mr Williams would be one of the first to be exiting the temple via the Messiah’s boot.

    Its this guy’s life’s work to do down and criticise other people.

  22. Cardinal Capone 9 Jul 2012, 12:50pm

    This is a bit rich. Neither the Anglican nor the Catholic churches have a mandate from their members to oppose equal marriage. Many clergy have pointed this out. Right wing cliques in both are imposing their will. The difference I suppose is the catholic clergy cannot speak, out since it is an absolute monarchy.

  23. WHY IS THE ARCHBISHOP EVEN DISCUSSING CIVIL MARRIAGE?

    (Sorry to shout, but honestly! I get so frustrated by these people sticking their oar in where it ain’t needed.)

  24. The Government is discussing equalising *civil* marriage, so why do they need to talk to the church of England?

  25. Garry Cassell 9 Jul 2012, 2:01pm

    Here he goes again…trying to find something to talk about so he can again feel important..trouble is nobody wants to hear what he has to say…it’s old news(hatred)…most of us are past that stage Williams…move on…and out…

  26. Under this guy’s logic (or lack of) we’d have to elect a new government on a daily basis just so they have a mandate for their day to day dealings – like opinions of a Eurozone meeting or their position on cycling laws…Fu(kwit

    1. Oh i don’t believe David Cameron had a mandate to talk to Obama this morning about the Ozone…Election time!!
      This guy is a senile joke and all the better when he’s gone

      1. However, there was a mandate about equal marriage. So whilst its not essential (after all there are democratic checks and balances in parliamentary processes!), there already was a mandate for equal marriage.

  27. Well done Rowan – and don’t forget to kick the dog on the way out

  28. Perhaps people like him should be given a dose of their own medicine for a change. How about a petition across England to find out how much support there is for disestablishment of religion? I wonder how he and the majority of his rabidly anti-equality gang of haters would react to that? I bet you there would be no mandate to maintain state religion in line with most other truly democratic western societies.

  29. simple, keep religion out of politics

  30. Dangermouse 9 Jul 2012, 2:17pm

    Who gives a F***k what he thinks anymore, along with all the other religious dinosaurs.

  31. Marriage equlity and full gays rights will happen, Sir, and there is nothing you can do about it. Please don’t lower yourself or the Church of England to the level of the Roman Catholics and Islam.
    Bow out gracefully.

  32. Kevin (really) 9 Jul 2012, 2:45pm

    Carefull read, it is clear Rowan is NOT questioning the government’s mandate, only explaining what it is comprised of. He cites consultations between the church and the government, as well as all-party support in parliament for equality in marriage.

  33. Well, let’s just take a look a three of the main players in the “defence of traditional marriage” here in Bizarro World:

    First we have the Catholic Church with its never married, “celibate” men prancing around in silk and lace dresses blathering on against gay people and promoting an institution that they’ve never been a part of.

    Then we have the Church of England, great defenders of traditional, one man-one woman, til death do us part marriage founded specifically because of their refusal to support and promote traditional one man-one woman til death do us part marriage.

    And finally we have the Mormons. America’s strongest defenders of traditional marriage. Their favorite argument is that if we allow same sex marriage then it is a dangerous slippery slope that will lead to polygamy and bestiality. Funny that, since their religion was founded by a men who had scores of wives and Mormon scriptures not only allows for men to have multiple wives but actually MANDATES it!

  34. Williams is clearly not letting concern for his legacy get in the way of his words and actions. Something tells me that he will deeply regret that. I don’t know if Mr. Williams will live forever in heaven but I’m positive that his legacy will live forever here on Earth.

    1. Peter & Michael 9 Jul 2012, 7:01pm

      Williams, ‘Uni here I come ?

  35. Kevin (really) 9 Jul 2012, 4:09pm

    In no way does the archbishop question the government’s mandate. He merely explains what it consists of, namely consultation with the church and all-party support.

  36. So basically the Church of England’s tactic is to keep rewording their ignorance and clear homophobia in as many different ways as they possibly can and try any back door available to them.

    Marriage is about life partners in love, sexuality and gender don’t come into it.

  37. Pity, that…
    Of course, on the west side of The Pond, we here in the USA have our own who are feeling embarrassment, shame, and disgust — but only because their nose has ventured beyond its own business.
    Still, it is amusing to some of us here to witness the spectacle of the CoE wrestling, scratching, tackling, and we-we-ing, all in tangles over something irrelevant to themselves.
    Silly, that.

  38. Wrong again Rowan – anyway no time to quarrel – I’m out on a mandate!

  39. Paddyswurds 9 Jul 2012, 5:59pm

    Once Gay people have all their rights recognised as being equal with the rest of society, our next and arguably most important battle must be to rid the world of the evil that is religion …especially the Abrahamic cults. Pride has been described as being in need of a political agenda; this is surely it. The churches have set their minds against a sizeable minority of the population and we simply cannot let that situation pertain. O’Brien has declared war, so we don’t need to, but face him and all the other Abrahamic cults down we must. Our very survival depends on us winning this battle. We must not relent until these people are neutralised or eradicated otherwise the lives of Gay people will be blighted by this bigotry and hatred for all time. They started it but they should be made aware that they will not end it; we will, and they will be the losers, there must be no equivocation about that…….. Our first battle must be the disestablishment of the CofE…….

    1. Paddyswurds 9 Jul 2012, 6:17pm

      ….and then we must turn our attention to the elephant in the corner that is taxes. Churches and clergy must be compelled to pay taxes on the billions they rake in every year. After taht churches must be banned from any contact with children including a requirement that children must not be indoctrinated into any religion until they reach majority and then they can decide for themselves. Public preaching outside of religious establishments must also be banned as must public displays of religious symbols such as the odious cross, crescent moon and star, and the star of Judaism, and associated clothing such as dog collars, Burkas, hijab, head scarves and even nuns habits. . That must also include temporary mission tents and such like. there must also be strict laws in regard to the total separation of church and state. In other words religion must become a totally private matter for those who are deluded enough to practice it.

      1. Paddyswurds 9 Jul 2012, 6:28pm

        ….I would also argue that anyone who adheres to the irrational heresy that is religion must not be allowed to hold public office of any kind. Religion must not be allowed access to public media such as news papers, radio or television, and strict approval methods for any publication presented by any religious organisation, including their application for license to broadcast on radio or television. The RCC must be made to account and pay for the crusades and the inquisition and the horrendous child abuse carried out with its tacit approval world wide
        Religion has declared war and religion IS going to lose, of that there can be no doubt. .. … …. …..

  40. Peter & Michael 9 Jul 2012, 6:04pm

    Yes and the answer would be be ‘what would jesus have done ‘, as a peace loving ‘ son of christ ‘, he would have blessed any loving relationship whether between two people of the same sex or otherwise, as long as they were commited to each other.

  41. Peter & Michael 9 Jul 2012, 6:07pm

    ‘committed’ sorry

  42. “Following the Prime Minister’s announcement last autumn there have already been several formal and informal discussions with a number of Government ministers, including the Home Secretary.”

    This is so stupid. Six words that need to be branded onto the forehead of rightwing cretins who think they are an authority on how other people should live their lives: IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

  43. Paddyswurds 9 Jul 2012, 6:39pm

    Where are my comments PN?

  44. Rowan Williams is a gutless quisling and has been from the moment of his election. He will go down in history as one of the biggest disappointments in the recent history of his Holy Office.

  45. The way forward, Dr. Williams, is for you to stop leading from the rear. Placating the biots in your church at the expense of loving LGBT couples who belong to your congregations is enabling hatred and bigotry. When COE makes hyperbolic arguments about the unhinging of society, you sound the same as racists who insist on segregation. Lead the bigots out of darkness and you’ll have a lasting legacy.

  46. And where is YOUR mandate to even speak on the subject of CIVIL marriage.

    Go away Bish.

  47. And who exactly should have the manadate to change civil laws? – It seems rather obvious to me that the (More or Less) elected Governemnt of the United Kingdom has the right to chnge laws. Who hasn’t the right to change them is the leader of a church which is based on the family values of Henry VIII

  48. Well, with this unnecessary swipe at our well being he has proved himself to be a vile homophobe – in case anyone had any doubt.

  49. Everybody who has read the Conservative manifesto would have known that the party was likely to bring in equal marriage.

    Everybody who voted Labour did so knowing that they have been consistently pro gay rights in their last government, bringing in civil partnerships.

    Everybody who voted Liberal Democrat had most likely spent the last decade campaigning for gay marriage anyway.

    The SNP, and Plaid, and the Green Party, have also made it very clear they’re pro equal-rights.

    Dr. Williams- sad as this may make you, the country is not run by the DUP.

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