Reader comments · Senior Anglican warns equal marriage could force the Queen to break ‘the laws of God’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Senior Anglican warns equal marriage could force the Queen to break ‘the laws of God’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That There Other David 3 Jun 2013, 11:16am

    Now they’re REALLY getting desperate. Could it be that the Lords might actually not act as the obstacle the anti-gay crowd are hoping they will?

  2. Helge Vladimir Tiller 3 Jun 2013, 11:20am


    1. Midnighter 3 Jun 2013, 1:20pm

      Of course it is, he’s a ThD. They are always popular with atrophied intellects; I’d be embarrassed to claim a doctorate on the basis of the ability to talk nonsense about a favourite fairy story. Better to claim a degree in hairdressing, it would at least be intellectually honest and allow you to contribute to society.

      1. Helge Vladimir Tiller 3 Jun 2013, 6:44pm

        Maybe hairdressers have refused him a h.cut due to his anti gay attitude ? I suggest a holiday in Iran, where for sure they’ll cut a lot- and probably not just hair. But—-if he tells them he’s against gay people—he has a chance to survive !

  3. Jock S. Trap 3 Jun 2013, 11:23am

    Boring… and the next pathetic argument to allow discrimination for this debate is….?

  4. Sorry Mr. Ex-Bishop, we do not live in a theocracy as you seem to wish for.

  5. This man is talking tripe – but then we should be used to that from him by now as he’s clearly an escaped inmate from a Trollope novel.

    And one has to be so careful not to leave out the ‘r’ in his name. Easily done.

  6. Talk out your mouth and give you arse a rest! FFS!

    What complete and utter bile!

    1. His mouth has worn out.

  7. The Anglican ‘Mad Mullah’ !!! Sigh!!!

  8. Gayspeak EZine 3 Jun 2013, 11:28am

    Then she should start stoning adulterers as well. Like her children.

  9. He’s an embarrassment even to the CofE

  10. The more hysterical these religious fanatics get over this issue, the more ridiculous their arguments become!

  11. Commander Thor 3 Jun 2013, 11:31am

    So basically you are happy to ignore Timothy 2:12 by having a female head of the church, but you want to pretend the bits about homosexual rape refer to marriage?

    1. Commander Thor 3 Jun 2013, 12:02pm

      And what about the ban on slavery? Isn’t that against God’s will, when he went to so much pain to provide details on how to treat your slaves?

  12. Michael 2912 3 Jun 2013, 11:35am

    There seem to be no depths to which these bigots will not sink.

  13. This and the comments by Justin welby and lord Carey are nothing but the death rattle of a lost cause.

    The anti gay marriage debate has been lost and these grasping, incoherent and arbitrary arguments only reinforce that.

    Now, the more they talk, the more they strengthen our position for equality.

    Keep up the good work!

  14. “Dr Michael Nazir Ali said the Queen vowed when she was crowned 60 years ago to “uphold the laws of God”.”

    That’s funny… I don’t remember voting for either of them.
    Why the hell should God get a veto in the democratic process? I read his biography in school RE classes and he comes across as a right twunt.

    Genocide, slavery, fire, brimstone, turning someone into a pillar of salt for the crime of rubbernecking a disaster scene.
    It’s like subcontracting democracy to a capricious dictator.

    It’s kind of apt that he’d be given the veto over any equality measures by a bishop who’s name is a homonymn for ‘Naz! Rally’!

    1. Midnighter 3 Jun 2013, 12:03pm

      Quite. If we need an institution to balance parliament, lets have one that is construed democratically and fit for a modern society.

      The C of E does not represent the country by any statistical measure and the views of its leadership on social issues frequently don’t even gel with its members, let alone society as a whole. Equal marriage is merely a case in point.

      Presently we have a system born from institutionalised “old boys networks” that by definition is not a body representative of society by measures such as religion, age, gender, race, sexuality, cultural or economic backgrounds let alone democratic will. Such a body cannot claim to be unbiased and know what is right for society nor should it be in a position to interfere with the democratic wishes of that society.

  15. Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,”…and with adultery being pretty high on the 10 commandments list, where are all the marches through the streets against divorce?
    No much better to concentrate on gay relationships as Jesus was pretty clear about his feelings on that subject too, he said…oh yes……absolutely nothing!
    The church either advocates the following of all biblical laws…..stoning minors to death, rape of virgins (as long as you marry them afterwards), keeping and beating slaves, making sure all women stay indoors during their period etc etc, or none…..they can’t really just cherry pick their favourite laws.

  16. Godric Godricson 3 Jun 2013, 11:53am

    This just writes itself! Now for disestablishment for the Church of England!

  17. Does the queen eat shrimp?

    Has she upheld a law against tattoos?

    Gods, even being a ruling woman likely breaks Biblical laws. How desperate are they that they’re trying to force the Queen to impose Biblical law!

  18. She seems pretty happy wearing mixed fibres. Perhaps Nazir should discretely give HM a bit of sartorial advice.

    I take it he’s a pure cotton man.

    1. Isn’t a crucifix a “graven image”? And where’s his beard? Some Christians think these details still apply.

    2. Midnighter 3 Jun 2013, 1:54pm

      As someone else pointed out recently, defects of the eyesight are a bar to entering sanctified spaces according to Leviticus 21:20.

      I recently googled “Anglicans and leviticus” to try to understand their rationalisation for cherry picking from the old testament. They all boil down to “traditional practice” – i.e. we don’t know why we cherry pick, its just always been that way, so there’s a precedent. Apparently being stupid makes you clever by default if you do it for long enough.

      On the ‘issue’ of alternate favourable interpretations of biblical texts the response is that these make presumptions about what is NOT said, which we are wrong to do because – the argument goes – their OWN presumptions about what it NOT said would actually contradict us. You know, if it was actually written down and all. They must have run out of ink, right guys?

      If you don’t believe me take a read:

  19. The idea that ‘God’s Law’ should have been recovered from an incomplete, conflicting and mistranslated bunch of dusty old scrolls is both laughable and extraordinarily arrogant, even if you were to believe in this particular version of a uni-God.

    But there’s still money and power in this conceit, so the bandwagon continues to roll.

  20. I thought that’s how the CofE came into this world , by Henry 8th breaking gods laws to allow for a divorce. Seems a bit of a hypocritical statement to me.

  21. “…equal marriage could force the Queen to break ‘the laws of God’

    Shock! Horror!… Horror! Shock!

  22. I think you’ll find, Michael dear, that she already did that when she signed the Act decriminalizing us nearly 50 years ago. That line has not just been crossed by Her Majesty but leapt over. Now get over it.

  23. “The idea of a constitutional monarchy comes from the Bible.”

    I have no words.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 3 Jun 2013, 1:26pm

      I do but they would get me removed from the site.

      1. Heh – me too. That has to be one of the silliest claims (out of many) from this embarrassing creature.

  24. Clutching at straws clearly. These bigots will make any old rubbish up to support their ridiculous beliefs.

  25. a,j,mainland 3 Jun 2013, 12:30pm

    Leave our glorious, devoted, wonderful Queen alone, you malicious man. What she has said in her Synod has been completely ignored. “Not one of us has a monopoly,”

  26. Two of Her Majesty’s realms have already introduced same sex marriage, Canada (2005) and New Zealand (2013).

    She hasn’t abdicated as Queen of Canada or Queen of New Zealand.

    End of Argument!

    1. Precisely my thought. Royal Assent was given to marriage equality in Canada & NZ and no one ever suggested such a silly notion. The anti equality side is grasping at straws.

  27. bobbleobble 3 Jun 2013, 12:43pm

    Even if he’s correct, then her maj has already ‘broken the laws of god’ on many occasions by signing into law the decriminalisation of gay sex back in the sixties amongst other things so there’s plenty of precedent and no reason why she shouldn’t do so again now.

    Bog off and come up with some better argument or just STFU!

  28. Ahaaaah!

    Another example of
    “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt”.

    The collected (and redacted) camp fire tales of wandering desert nomads are not a basis for knowledge, science or democratic civil government.
    This man is an example of why religion should have no place in our schools and places of education and learning.

  29. Good grief! I thought the bottom of the barrel had already been scraped.

    “God’s laws” no such thing matey.

  30. Mumbo Jumbo 3 Jun 2013, 1:25pm

    “….we have a monarchy that has taken an oath of upholding God’s laws…”

    Assuming he means his god (after all there are hundreds of competing claims for creator of the universe) and his personal interpretation of what that god thinks, is he saying we live in a theocracy?

    And does this mean that the queen must support the killing of adulterers and people who work on Sunday etc?

    Or is he just another intellectually dishonest and increasingly desperate religious butthole?

  31. I always laugh when I hear these bigots refer to the Bible as “the law of God”… It was WRITTEN by MAN — NOT GOD! Until God suddenly appears and TELLS us His “law” don’t try to tell me that the Bible, written by barbarians thousands of years ago, is the “law of God”!!

  32. Daniel Moreau 3 Jun 2013, 1:41pm

    stop referring to the rules made by man as “the laws of God”…no matter how you twist and turn it, all these were written down by fallible men…NOT GOD…God has written NOTHING!!

  33. It comes as little surprise that these witterings were reported in the Mail – an organ that presumably considers Pakistani immigrants like Nazir-Ali acceptable provided they’re profoundly conservative and can come up with drivel like this to order.

    1. Sorry I just reported you as I was trying to agree with you, a combination of fat fingers, a tiny iphone screen and the report button being right next to thumbs up button…..GRRRRRRRRRRR.Ben.

  34. David Jordan 3 Jun 2013, 2:10pm

    As I recall, isn’t the Queen the head of the Anglican Church, meaning the bishops actions are rather like a private trying to order around a general.

  35. Rich Hudson 3 Jun 2013, 2:47pm

    Have I missed something? The queen’s going to marry a woman? Oh, I see. (shame she’s not :/) They’re the laws of his God as he chooses to interpret them. Another irrelevant, putting his tradition before love and compassion. WWJD?

  36. Really bad to try such tactics- wicked even. How decrepit to stoop so low.

  37. Adulterous divorcees can marry repeatedly under civil law and the new testament has quite a lot to say about adultery and divorce?

    I could understand this hand wringing more if churches were in some going to be compelled to participate.

  38. Christopher Coleman 3 Jun 2013, 4:16pm

    Interesting to speculate on the number of highly educated churchmen who, seemingly, limit their reading to just a single book. It offers them the certainty that God’s laws apply to those things they do not want to change, but cannot find a divine law to forbid the changes they cannot control, such as the discoveries of science. Space travel must be against these supposed laws, as humans were given dominion over the earth, according to the Bible; no word about dominion over the solar system or the universe. O, hang on! The humans who created the Bible didn’t know there was a solar system, let alone a universe. Poor old God! So much more clever and interesting than the claims made on His behalf by His so-called followers!

  39. Newsflash for you Dr Michael Nazir Ali:
    the UK is NOT a theocracy.

    You’re welcome.

  40. Unless I’m mistaken, “my Lord Bishop”, the “laws of God” apply to all things upon this Earth…including over 500 other species of creature that demonstrate homosexual behavior.
    Sounds to me like that qualifies it as one of “God’s Laws”…wouldn’t you have to agree? Then again, cherry-picking the application of such things seems to be a specialty amongst your ilk.

  41. I see that picture of Michael Nazir Ali . . . and I see a swivel-eye loon!

  42. JackAlison 3 Jun 2013, 5:46pm

    oh for christs sake!
    Just get out of the way of history making legislation you tired old piece of used arse wipe.!
    Where do they get these ppl. from?

  43. Scott Larsen 3 Jun 2013, 10:06pm

    I would think an Anglican cleric who is a person-of-colour would know better. Sounds like he funked his British or Anglican History 101 course…

  44. Norris Nordin 3 Jun 2013, 10:55pm

    Now tell me “senior Anglican”: Are you quite sure the laws you spout are God’s laws or did some distant ancestor (whose mindset a few thousand years ago was very much like yours today) decide to play God?

  45. Colin Rayner 3 Jun 2013, 11:00pm

    The Queen has already signed same-sex
    marriage bills through her representatives in her realms of Canada(2004) and this year in New Zealand.

  46. With so many people over the years that have written things that have ended up in the “BIBLE”, it is difficult for us “Laymen” to believe who is correct and who is not. Therefore, I came up with a solution many years ago: Forget the BIBLE; Just “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you”. It has stood well for me for over 80 years.

  47. It depends on whether she ACTUALLY believes it is a violation of the law of God or not … don’t it?

    if she doesn’t think being gay is a sin then there is no breaking of that promise.

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.