Yes it does.
However, would the damned CoE like to consider where THEY think they get a bloody mandate to speak out or try to influence the law of the land? No one elected them, and they are an ever diminishing sect of believers in a primitive middle eastern religion.
They have no mandate to do anything at all other than pander to their “faithful”.
Indeed, we vote for who runs this country, not dictated to by the religious!
I bet anything you like when this passes through and hopefully even with the Parliamentary Act use these religious extremists will try to halt using the courts in a ever-so desperate attempt to stop this bill.
They will try to use the ‘no-mandate’ argument and they will fail. Watch their attempts get more and more nasty as they run out of ideas!
Let’s just get these religious tyrants out of our parliament now.
The Queen has the last say actually as the other earthly head of the anglican church, if she gives the Royal Assent it is techincally a yes – that Anglican churches will have to give same sex couples the anglican marital rites .She is more than a Constitutional monarch as she is attached to a church that is saying one thing and she if she gives the royal assent to the bill is saying another . She does have the right NOT to give a Royal Assent to it but many Bishops dont think she will back away from signing it.
The right for gays to marry has been going on for years around the world. It is not like the UK is the first to enter into this. One has to wonder how many centuries the church will need to examine and suggest changes.
Silly bugger….go bury your head back in the sand.
“Pause for thought”, eh?
I’m for equality. There. That was easy! Try it yourself, Bishop Stevens.
Including the title page and the contents page the Bill runs to 4 pages – there aint that much to study!
Only 4 pages, Craig? I think you may have only seen a summary of it. The Bill is many more pages long than that.
No, it is a short bill, but hard to understand as it refers to so much other legislation. Read it yourself if you wish
Dan, I digested that entire Bill the other day. And the link you have provided goes to exactly what I read . . . which, in its entirety, involves some 50-odd pages.
All this statement from Mr. Tim Stevens says is that he and his lot continue to be frightened and fearful and are therefore inclined to play for time.
Interesting though that he has acknowledged that the first third or so of the Bill goes to extraordinary lengths to placate the fears of religious people.
I mean what are they worried about – only elderly grannies bother with church – people only turn to it as a past time during retirement.
The C of E should just feck off and die. They have no mandate to promote hate and fear of gay people.
Hey, CofE, remember why you were made? Yeah, so that Henry VIIth could go against Mark 10:8-9 and divorce. Little bit hypocritical there.
Religion should be a personal issue and have no place in government
Henry VIII more like. Henry VII married the niece of the man he had just defeated in battle (and killed), to achieve ‘unity’, rather like coalition-building!
Henry VIII married his late brother’s betrothed so as to avoid having to return the dowry, and regretted this at leisure, eventually deciding to get an annulment on the grounds – shock, horror! – that he had married, quelle surprise, his dead brother’s wife. The then Pope, who was at the time prisoner of the said wife’s uncle, said no, so Henry VIII decided sod you, I’ll head the church myself and get shot of her to marry the lovely, but six-fingered, Ann Boleyn. Of whom he got shot by a much swifter method. On such foundations is our national Church built.
Henry VIIIth is who I meant, obviously… there’s a level of where pedantry just gets a bit sad
… there’s a level at which pedantry just gets a bit sad.
So wrong on both accounts. They’re just trying delaying tack ticks in a desperate attempt to halt this equal legislation.
Fact 1: they’ve have the same amount of time as everyone else but clearly they mean years to study not weeks.
Fact 2: Think again pussy…. it was indeed in the manifesto… It’s the church that has No mandate to deny decency and responsibility to others.
The church needs more time? For what? It doesn’t agree with equal marriage so what is the point, Stevens? This is nothing more than a desperate rant because they know they’re outnumbered and the government has clipped its wings with the quadruple lock, diminished some of the church’s power and pushed them into isolation with the roman cult. If anything calls for disestablishment, it is equal marriage. Get it done and then proceed to get rid of state religion once and for all, make the UK a truly secular nation.
As a Canadian where same-sex marriage is legal for many years…I’m stunned that the CoE is so stupid to think that they have the mandate to dictate what elected government should do..The church would be very wise to shut up and silently collect their pay from the few remaining seniors that go to church…soon the clergy(and hopefully soon)won’t have anybody to listen to their hatred..
So the elected government has no mandate but the unelected self aggrandising church does? Who voted for the bishop of leicester?
This Government has NO MANDATE AT ALL!!
Thank you for that, Robert: Do you remember the results of the 2010 election? or are you another person that votes without thinking?
Yes, of course I am: After all I only remember the result of the 2010 election where the Conservatives DIDN’T GET A MAJORITY! THAT IS NOT A MANDATE, bell-end!
The voters voted for a coalition and that’s what they got. The government also includes the Lib Dems and they are almost totally pro gay marriage.
This government therefore has a larger percentage of the vote than Thatcher or Blair had and under Thatcher we got clause 28. I don’t remember anyone saying she didn’t have a mandate.
Actually Liam, there is a majority of Conservative MPs in England and Wales. As they are the only two parts of the union this legalisation will cover, there clearly is a mandate.
A church built on divorce lecturing about morality. Imbecilic hypocrites .
The mandate of the C of E is from the crown. It had the papal mandate till Henry VIII couldn’t contain his loins and accept papal teaching on marriage. The bishops’ would do well to ponder where their mandate comes from – and if the crown is willing to redifine marriage again, as it previously did at the Reformation – then they should set up, or Pope over to Rome!
No mandate? Can anyone recall voting for this man or having the opportunity to vote for him or against him? What a brass neck.
Why should some fantasy organisation set up originally to enable a despot king marry and murder his way through a plethora of women, have any say in the lives of 21st century people any more than Sesame Street should. I’m sure Sesame Streets people didn’t get a chance to “study in full the proposals before publication last week” nor did the Grand Wizard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As for the Roman cult, whose people think they have a say over our lives; I for one have no truck or regard for an organisation with the sole purpose of protecting and enabling thousands of Paedophile clerics all over the world….and nor should they be consulted on anything…they haven’t earned the right or respect to be allowed clean latrines never mind be allowed control other peoples lives..
Well as I am NOT C of E, I’m not sure what my future has to do with you anyway!!!
How would he like a referendum to disestablish the CoE? How about a government mandate for that? Vile old bigot.
That is just not true :-
MYTH: The Government has no mandate to introduce same-sex marriage.
REALITY: The Conservative Party’s Contract for Equalities, published alongside its General Election Manifesto in 2010, set out clearly that we would consider the case for
changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.
Independent surveys, such as the one carried out by the Times in March 2012, show support by the general public with 65% thinking gay couples should have an equal right to marry, not just to have civil partnerships.
As others have already noted, it’s a bit rich for the C of E to talk about mandates. Their influence is slowly but surely perishing. They are just self-harming now.
What the hell is going on here?! We don’t live in a bloody theocracy. The Church of England should have absolutely *zero* say when it comes to redefining CIVIL marriage. Not religious marriage, CIVIL marriage. Then they go and complain about how their religious rights still aren’t being protected. Do you really expect, after all these years, and after so many of our fellow gays losing their lives due to inequality, that we should give the tiniest shit what you and your cult think? How you still have a bloody mandate to speak in parliament is beyond me. That is all.
Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s! This is Ceasers law.
The Bishop of Leicester says: “It [marriage] is a social institution that predates both church and state and has been part of the glue that has bound countless successive societies together.” What he neglects to comment on is that there is plenty of evidence, even after most of the evidence has been destroyed by monotheistic colonialists, for same-sex marriage in the majority of societies throughout all recorded history. Same-sex marriage has existed for as long as heterosexual marriage.
Why do you need time to read the proposals? Like you take any notice of legislation anyway…..
There is a mandate. If you don’t wake up and join the 21st century, you will find yourself ostracised. Your ilk will be forgotten about.
Well if the other earthly head of the c of e gives it a Royal Assent that is the end of it isnt it . If the CEO signs a cheque you dont need the underlings to counter sign it END OF
Methinks somebody doesn’t know what a mandate is. We vote for MPs. I sure as heck didn’t vote to be ruled by the church!