Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Church of England: Allowing straight civil partnerships would ‘introduce confusion’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 2:49pm

    Actually, this is welcome news because trying to include CPs for straights in the original bill could see it delayed. It’s a slap in the face for Tory bigot Tim Loughton whose amendment this is, an ardent Anglican adherent.

    I do think though that straights should have access but let the government address it as Maria Miller announced.

    The CoE is wrong on important point. The consultation last year revealed that 61% of respondents supported CPs for straight couples.

    This confusion the CoE speaks of is bogus. They’ve made it quite clear that CPs aren’t marriages and never will be, but I welcome their resistance. Just get the current bill passed and then sort out the rest after.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 2:50pm

      …on an important point…

    2. For the church it is all about power: they are losing it.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 2:56pm

    Francois Hollande just signed equal marriage into law. Let’s hope this is mentioned on Monday and Tuedsay.

  3. Let’s see now… why exactly were civil partnerships introduced again?

    OH YES!!! It was to satisfy opponents of equal marriage! The whole “anything but marriage” brigade.

    Such hypocrisy, it’s mind-blowing.

  4. Marriage and Civil Partnership being open to both gay and straight couples is about as confusing as seeing a Mac and a PC on display at a computer store.
    Some people see one as more fitting to their needs than the other, and their heads do not implode from the knowledge that both are available.

  5. The CofE can’t make up their minds if Civil Partnerships are identical to marriage so gay people should accept them or they’re different from and less than marriage so straight people shouldn’t settle for them.

    This is what happens when your arguments are completely lacking in substance and fact.

  6. I’ve always found the CofE’s understanding of CPs a bit confusing, a kind of partnership without any sex. So CPs are good enough for “elderly spinster sisters” and gays (preferably celibate) but not really for anyone who has sex.

    Sex outside of marriage is forbidden as well so I don’t really know how they would ever accept any form of CP (gay or straight) where the couple is actually having sex.

  7. Scott Larsen 18 May 2013, 3:45pm

    For what it’s worth, my two-cents as a cradle Episcopalian/Anglican American living in Canada:

    My beloved church is fast becoming marginalized – if it isn’t already – around the issue of same-sex marriage. In an attempt to placate whatever side needs placating (I know little about the working of the internal church from Lambeth Palace, let alone the debate over same-sex marriage in Parliament), it seems clarity from the founder of the Christian Church, Jesus Christ, over the declaration to ‘Love thy neighbour’ has been lost.

    While I do believe Jesus was talking about fellowship love and not sexual love, let us remember here was a man who associated and lived with 12 others who just happened to be men as well.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 4:24pm

    I contacted Tim Loughton earlier today and receive an immediate response. I asked him why he did not champion CPs for heteros prior to and after the legislation in 2004, prior to and after the consultation in 2012 and prior to and after the second reading of the marriage bill in February.

    He ignored all of it, but responed with a one liner why I opposed his disingenuously dishonest amendment. He responded…

    “Clearly, ignorance is bliss”.

    It seems as though I hit a raw nerve since he failed to address my questions.

    If any of you feel so inclined, write to him at

    loughtont@parliament.uk

    GIve him a piece of your mind.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 4:59pm

    Update to my last comment.

    Loughton wrote back telling me he supported CPs for straights before that law was enacted and said his amendment for next week is to address an inequality (for heterosexuals). Yes, inequality for heteros while he will be voting against equal marriage next week. He warned me about calling MPs bigots, which I did anyway because that’s just what his amendment is all about, giving them more rights while denying us the same. He said that equal marriage doesn’t convey any more rights than CPs as a justification for the amendment. If anyone is in denial, it’s him.

    1. bobbleobble 19 May 2013, 9:09am

      I wonder if the amendment is accepted over the next couple of days whether that means that Loughton will vote for the bill. It would be interesting if that happened.

      Loughton knows there is not chance of the amendment being accepted and that of course is why he’s backing it. He can then say that he won’t support the bill because of this inequality. He’s also hoping to sway some MPs to the no column for the third reading over this matter. If it wouldn’t mean jeopardising the bill I would love for his bluff to be called. It would be hilarious to see him justify voting against a bill which contained an amendment he proposed.

      Oh and isn’t you know that calling a bigot a bigot hurts their poor little feelings! He warned you about calling MPs bigots!? That almost sounds like a threat.

  10. auntie babs 18 May 2013, 4:59pm

    to be honest I think that if the Government passed a law making it compulsory to go to Church every Sunday these people would be up in arms about it.

    1. Yes… and it wouldn’t be the first time either:

      Eccentric and bad behaviour by clergy and parishioners was a common theme at Slaugham in earlier centuries. Church attendance was made compulsory after the changes brought about by the English Reformation of the late 16th century, and especially in the early years detailed records would be kept of non-attendance or inappropriate behaviour in church.

      From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary%27s_Church,_Slaugham

      Roll on the 2nd Age of Reason

  11. Paul Essex/London 18 May 2013, 5:21pm

    Well it’s all coming back to bite them in the a*se isn’t it?!

    9 years ago they wanted to keep gay people’s relationships separate from straight ones, in order to avoid the time when some of the church’s most ancient teachings would be shown as completely invalid and directly responsible for the cruel and heartless demonisation of generations of people (including the current one). So they championed CPs which they could look at as not proper relationships.

    Now it looks like heterosexuals will be able to have them too, which is why in the netherlands (sweden I think) a man and two women were permitted to enter into a civil union, because it wasn’t the same as a marriage. Congratulations all you religious homophobes! Thanks to you, you might actually have paved the way to re-introduce polygamy to these shores!

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 5:51pm

    Just learned that the CoE now supports the quadruple lock stating it gives them adequate protection. At least that’s out of the way and done with. Won’t be music to Loughton and Burrowes’ ears after all the ranting on during Committee Hearings about it.

    I just contacted openly gay LibDem MP Stephen Williams who supports Loughton’s ill-intentioned CP amendment. Drop him a line and ask him to withdraw support.

    stephen.williams.mp@parliament.uk

    Also, write to the Lords asking them to support equal marriage.

    http://www.parliament.uk/

  13. take their business away more like…

  14. “Equality as an abstract concept”. WTF !!

  15. Barry William Teske 18 May 2013, 7:47pm

    Gosh forbid anyone be as confused as the Church of England…lmfao!

  16. I wonder if the CofE has the courage of its convictions and is willing to print the names of the ‘christians’ who drafted this little missive?

    …and I’m willing to bet that it’s the right wing homophobes again.

    There have been ructions before over this type of underhandedness from other CofE members who don’t agree at all – Time for them to stand up and be counted.

    In all honesty, nothing is likely to satisfy a fight wing fundamentalist religion in full flow – forget logic, forget compassion but remember hypocrisy because that’s exactly what this is!

  17. Why are many of their arguments based on the idea that the British people are so stupid as to be confused by this…?

    Individuals will make up their own minds about what marriages and civil partnerships mean to them (if anything), contrary to the Church’s belief that us mere ants need clear messages handed down from the top.

    I am legally male and have a wonderful girlfriend. I wish to have the relationship recognised in the absence of religion, thus a non-religious marriage OR a civil partnership might suit us best. That is at least anecdotal evidence of a ‘public need’.

    1. bobbleobble 19 May 2013, 9:14am

      Didn’t you know, there are literally millions of French heterosexuals meandering around the French countryside unable to function because they have the choice of marriage or PACs. Same in the Netherlands.

      It’s almost as if these people believe we live in some kind of vacuum and the outside world doesn’t really exist. We are not pioneers in either SSM or non-marriage for heterosexuals.

      The CofE obviously has a very low opinion of the intelligence of heterosexuals. If gay people don’t get confused why would straight ones? If I were straight I’d be more than a little insulted.

  18. The church opposes CPs for opposite-sex couples because of “lack of demand”. Clearly not the case since there is at least 1 couple who are taking the UK to the European Court so that they can have a CP. Even if it is just one person’s rights being trampled on, that is injustice. There will be no “confusion” over marriage. What there will be is choice. Something that bigots, despots and tyrants rarely support.

  19. Confusion? or just people thinking for themselves and making their own decisions about their lives?

  20. Well then, CoE must be extra stupid since such practices have existed in continental Europe for years. And people over there have the luxury of choosing which “mode” best matches their wishes.

  21. Translation: ‘Given the low IQ of the members of our organizations, it is easy to confuse them. Thus, we would like everything to stay the same, so we can continue to fleece them in support of our illusions and wearing fancy dresses.’

  22. WTF is going on with these idiots.

    In the Indie it says he “abandoned his support for allowing heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships under pressure from the church hierarchy.”.

    He is head of the hierarchy, surely !! He supported it, now doesn’t. But who cares what he thinks.

    I recommend completely ignoring anything which comes from the Church of England leadership – they’re daft buggers, but have no authority or power to interfere with civil law. Every time they try to it backfires.

    Ignore them completely and your level of well-being will go up and up, mine certainly has. I’ve no interest in what Welby or his unelected hierarchy thinks – most of their congregants agree with equal rights and the freedom to marry – they’re the only ones who really matter. I can’t believe I’m thinking Welby should resign / go so soon !

  23. I’m mainly confused by the way our politicians still pay any attention to these religious people, who seem to be representing themselves only.

  24. Godric Godricson 19 May 2013, 5:42pm

    My main recollection of the Church is the sheer hypocrisy involved. “I know they’re lying because their lips are moving”, sums up my views of the Church especially when involved in any pronouncements on marriage / equality.

  25. It is about as confusing as the C of E letting gay men and women be priests but not bishops.

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