Reader comments · Archbishop of Wales to meet Government to tell them not to ban his church from performing same-sex marriages · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Archbishop of Wales to meet Government to tell them not to ban his church from performing same-sex marriages

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. He’s right. Those churches that or part of the churches of England and Wales that want to be able to offer ceremonies should be able to do so.

    All organisations should be part of the opt-in.

    1. Julian Morrison 21 Dec 2012, 2:40pm

      As it stands they still won’t be able to, because the opt-in is phrased as per-religion, not per-congregation. Which IMO is still too much imposition.

      1. GulliverUK 21 Dec 2012, 3:37pm

        As those in the know, like Ekklisia and Thinking Anglicans, point out, many religions don’t operate on this central authority and local churches doing what the central authority dictates. Many churches have devolution at the local church or parish level. The proposals don’t take that in to account. They will have to be sufficiently flexible to allow central authorities to not “approved” same-sex marriages doctrinally, BUT allow the flexibility to approve of individual church buildings being used for same-sex marriages, AND for individual clergy to carry out same-sex marriages IF they want. Clergy in Scotland and England + Wales have said they want to be allowed to do this. It doesn’t require the leadership to change their beliefs, only to allow individual clergy and their buildings to be used. I think that would be the best solution – in fact, I think that’s pretty much the only workable solution for the CofE. Is there any other solution?

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 5:24pm

          The CoE won’t go for that. Wouldn’t be workable with Sentamu and Welby in command. Rowan Williams would be vehemently opposed too. They’ve already voted to ban female bishops. There’s no way they’d concede anything to the equal marriage legislation. It insisted on adherence to Anglican orthodoxy, love it or leave it and are comfortable with Maria Miller’s announcement in a statement church officials made the day after.

  2. Don’t blame the government, blame Sentamu. In fact, why doesn’t the Daily Mail do a spot with Sentamu and ask him how wonderful he now feels for turning the clergy of the Church of England and Wales into potential jailbirds?

    1. Yes, it’s amusing when you think about it, here we have an Anglican bishop creating clerical martyrs for the gay cause. I suspect it was not quite what he had in mind.

    2. I agree. He has effectively criminalised COE clergy over the issue. And, obviously, the Archbishop of Wales is determined to stop him.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 1:02pm

      Quite. Have you noticed the silence of Sentamu and Williams lately? Totally gobsmacked by Maria Miller and they’ve now been pushed into a corner from which they will never be able to get out unless they concede. So be it. They got everything they wanted and more. So they should stop the whining and get over it.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 5:30pm

      I wouldn’t go as far as that. Any Anglican priest who decided to perform a same-sex marriage in defiance of the ban I very much doubt would be prosecuted but censured by his bishop and given a suspension of duty or sacked. I don’t see the government pursuing legal action, maybe perhaps a fine and a warning, although I would welcome a prison sentence so that the hierarchy could be seen as bringing it upon itself by not objecting to the quadruple lock. They’re between a rock and a hard place but even that is self-imposed as a result of their strong objection to not only religious marriages but civil marriages for gay couples. They should have just voiced no objection to civil marriage and these would have been forgotten and done with, while the 4th element of the quadruple lock would probably not have been necessary. No sympathy from me.

  3. Sao Paulo state in Brazil pretty much just legalised gay marriage. Where on earth are the articles on that? I also looked at the Advocate and scanned the news… Weird…

  4. Peter Robertson 21 Dec 2012, 9:47am

    The government should get out of religion completely. Whatever people want to believe is up to them and no business of anyone else. Of course, that works both ways; the religious should keep (and be kept) out of government too and not be able to force their beliefs on others.

  5. Jesus! Clergy fighting for us? What next?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 5:20pm

      He’s really not fighting for us. If he supported equal civil marriage, then yes, but he’s not. He’s only interested in not having his church branded as a bigoted, discriminatory cult which it always has been and always will be. No different from the CoE in any way shape or form. It makes NO sense for the LGBT community to have any dialogue with them. They have nothing to offer even those who are religious and gay. Gay Anglicans should leave and join the Unitarians or start their own branch of the American Episcopal church. I’m surprised some of the priests haven’t done that already. Now that would really put pressure on the CoE/W combined as they see vocations grinding to a halt while a more supportive denomination accepts them.

  6. Peter & Michael 21 Dec 2012, 10:42am

    That is exactly what the church presently stands for ‘ unwelcoming and homophobic’. The reason why a ban in place would stop them interfering in our lives with their homophobia, the church will not have a voice and that is very upsetting to the them, and they cannot live with that. David Cameron is right to excommunicate the church in our lives, and those religions that wish to perform SSM should be allowed to do so.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 1:29pm

      I agree. I don’t want the lock to be tampered with. This is exactly what Sentamu and Williams wanted, the official view of the church since it admitted that it was ‘comfortable’ with the decision shortly after Maria Miller made the announcement. It matters not if the CoW isn’t the state church of Wales. It made its views well known that it would not be prepared to marry gay couples although it really didn’t oppose the introduction of equal civil marriages. I’ll grant it that.

      Dr. Morgan should have been more vocally proactive prior to the government announcement and not have been so complacent. Maria Miller repeatedly stated that there would be a foolproof amendment granting full exemption and protection for the CoE in accordance with Sentamu’s concerns weeks before it was finally announced. She actually met with several Anglican officials prior to the announcement and if he or one of his church weren’t there, then that’s his fault. No sympathy.

  7. Keith Francis Farrell 21 Dec 2012, 11:29am

    it is all about the “money” as soon as the church ses how much they are loosing they will want to start same sex marrage,if this law is changed to exclude them, they they can start saying that they dont get equal rights, I believe it is up to the relavent church and priest/mnister to decide if he wants to do the wedding. lets face it who wants to get married by a homophobic priest in a churchwhich hates gay people. If you are accepted by your church and priest, then they should be allowed to do the wedding. What theCatholic church is afraid of, is being taken to court for discrimanation. who cares, not me, I just want the same equalrights, I want to be able to travel with my hubby in the EU without problems, that is still a problem because many member state still do not accept a spouse i a civil partnership, so my spouse cannot get a spousal visa like straight couples can

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 12:24pm

    “I am not sure we want that kind of protection which makes us out to be very unwelcoming and homophobic”.

    Spare me, Dr. Morgan, it remains homophobic and unwelcoming because its opposed to conducting a marriage for a gay couple. You can’t have it both ways.

    “It is not that I am advocating that the Church in Wales is right to perform gay marriages but that decision needs to be made by the Church in Wales, it’s not for the State to decide for us.”

    But he and the CoE thought it was their right to tell the government not to allow uss to even have a civil marriage. Oh, the hypocrisy of the man.

    Now he’s whining about not being consulted. So why didn’t he approach the government before Maria Miller’s announcement? He had more than enough time.

    I want the lock to remain because what it does is diminish the power of the church just a bit more. It is answerable to the government which appoints Archbishops, not the other way around.

    About time we had civil marriage for all.

    1. GulliverUK 21 Dec 2012, 1:50pm

      I want the ban to remain for each …. unless … the CofW and/or CofE come forward and ask for it to be removed, and state publically that they accept the 3-lock solution, one of an opt-in.

      Unfortunately, having seeing a bit more info on this, on Thinking Anglicans, it is confirmed that both churches have an obligation to marry all that ask, subject to the usual things, i.e. not marrying close relatives, etc. In Canon law (for the CofE) and the Common Book of Prayer, marriage is defined as between a man and women. There would be a conflict between one part of the law (some church Canons are part of state law), and other parts of the law. One solution is to continue the existing ban (adding it to the front cover of the legislation is a parlour trick, since it will have no effect, the existing ban remains whatever). The other possibility, where everybody has to have a registry office marriage, would start the ball rolling to disestablishment of the CofE.

      1. GulliverUK 21 Dec 2012, 1:54pm

        Without the 4th lock there is some slight potential for legal action, since there is a conflict between the CofE’s obligation under the law, even if they don’t opt-in to offer same-sex marriage. But they could choose to place their trust in their arguments and the law, and the government stance, and accept the slight risk.

        4 locks, no risk, they look like homophobes, they feel a loss of religious freedom.

        3 locks, tiny risk, they look progressive, they can make their own decisions in time, they have religious freedom.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Dec 2012, 2:38pm

        I’m an ardent supporter of disestablishment but you can bet, if there was a ground swell across the UK for it, those same Tory bigots would be foaming at the mouth, blaming those pesky liberal elite gay activists and equal marriage. No, I want the lock to remain. They asked for full protection and that’s clearly what they received. The government, a Tory government no less called their bluff. I think the 4th lock signals the disempowerment of the church, another reason to build momentum for disestablishment. Removing it would give power back to them. It doesn’t mean it would portray them as progressive because as long as they remain vehemently opposed to conducting our marriages and equally opposed to equal civil marriage, they are just as bigoted and backward as ever. Notice Sentamu, Williams and Welby aren’t demanding an opt in? If they conceded that they would allow individual clergy to perform our marriages, then maybe I could live with it. Not going to happen though.

        1. I admit that, as an American, I am a bit confused as to why the government would tell the church what to do. There is a difference between the civil institution of marriage and the religious sacrament of marriage. Why doesn’t the UK govt do what all the US states that have passed gay marriage laws have done. Put in a clause that exempts churches from having to perform weddings that violate their own teachings. Churches marrying gays is a whole different battle, one that has to be fought within each church or congregation.
          When I read: “All clergy are registrars and are required by law to marry anyone within our parishes who can ask for a wedding”, I have to say I was a bit shocked. So in the UK, as long as you’re not diseased or related to each other, and of age, your church has to marry you? Over here most churches require every couple to go to classes or counseling or regular meetings with the clergy to show the viability of their relationship first.

  9. Stay out of it Morgan.

    Your disgusting cult made perfectly clear how bigoted it is.

    Stop trying to delay civil marriage for same sex couples

  10. Pavlos Prince of Greece 21 Dec 2012, 2:19pm

    The position of gay friendly Mr. Morgan in the Church of Wales is similar to this of Mr. William in the Church of England, and Church of Wales is independent enough from Lambeth and Westminster. Then why same-sex marriage in the Church of Wales not became a reality yet?

  11. I really don’t get it. That their objection to the ban seems to be greater than their homophobia is odd. I hope the ban gets lifted so bringing the day closer when GLBT members of the established church of the UK can get married within it if they want to. While the ban remains it will undermine the validity, in some quarters, of SSM by other religious bodies.

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