Reader comments · Church of England officially gives up the fight against same-sex marriage bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Church of England officially gives up the fight against same-sex marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I don’t say thank you to the bully who has finally decided stop bullying me.

    The harm done, the lies and hideous slanders repeated by representatives of the church, the institutional bigotry incited and enabled, will not be forgotten.

    Learned a long time ago with the bloody church (remember? they opposed equal AoC as well) that if you turn the other cheek, they will just hit you again.

    Hypocrites who have caused a lot of harm over the last 18-24 months, setting back the very necessary change in the national zeitgeist that moves people away from bigoted behaviour (law change is one thing, cultural change is a different creature).

    My loathing is complete and permanent, I shall never ever respect this church, its representatives or its followers.

    1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 8:58pm

      No question, the religiously motivated bile that has spewed forth in this debate has pushed my tolerance of religion to an all time low.

      I don’t see that they haven’t given up at all. Clearly they will now attempt to limit and cripple this bill in whatever way they can, as intimated by the disingenuous phrase “better shape”.

      We can expect plenty of attempts to impose limits in the name of freedom ” where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned.”

      1. What annoys me is how welby expresses regret over the way the religious community has failed to serve the LGBT community but then opposed the bill. The bill was serving the LGBT community!

        On a separate note, I can understand your feelings about religion but I feel that its people and not the religions that are at fault. Sure, the abrahamic religions say some pretty vile things about us… But only a tiny little bit. If you took it all together it would probably equate to a page and half of scripture; in comparison to another 8000+ pages which extol virtues kindness, forgiveness compassion and love.

        The problem is the disproportionate emphasis that’s placed on this ‘fine print’ by people like welby with a political agenda. I just wanted to throw that in as an alternative discourse, although I do understand how you feel.

        Oh, and I’m not religious myself. I’m so lacking in faith that I’m not even an atheist. That’s my ‘fine print’.

        1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 11:07pm

          Welby is a political entity who speaks with a forked tongue; I wouldn’t trust him further than I could throw him.

          Hmm , I take the opposite approach to you with religion in practice. I’d rather give the individual the benefit of the doubt. My beef is primarily with organised religion and its control, not religion or spirituality per se. And in terms of the bible’s scripture there are an awful lot of violent, disturbing and hateful things in there. Its pretty heavy on the smiting, to be fair.

          I’m more than happy to discuss religious and spiritual matters until the wee hours, what gets me wound up are the proudly closed of mind who feel bound to impose their views and way of life on everyone else. They aren’t interested in discourse or enlightenment, just in getting their own way.

        2. Since the religions are human creations yes I do hate the religious, and frankly its not only us they try to degrade, they are also racist and sexist.

        3. Religion is the problem. It is created by people to abuse people it is a tool or weapon nothing more or less.

          It takes children and brainwashes them, damaging their minds for life. It is nigh on impossible to then change these damaged individuals who go on to lead lives of hatred and prejudice of others.

          The benign individuals who end up neutral on the subject but still claim to have “faith” are the apologists for those that do all the actual harm, they just failed the full brainwash.

          All the good elements you speak of are nothing to do with religion but just human nature and most atheists live better lives without religion.

          If you only do good because you want to go to heaven, how good are you? I do good just because I think it is the right thing to do, the human thing to do. Not because I am afraid of hell, which doesn’t exist.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jun 2013, 10:34pm

      18-24 Months Valsky? More like the past 450 plus! I wonder if this sudden decision to stop resisting the change has anything to do with the word they fear most…’disestablishment’. I sent Welby an email this past Monday about that to remind him that many people in the country support it. I urge everyone to go to the LobbyALord site and email him why you think disestablishment must happen. Avoid rudeness at all costs, as tempting as it may be, otherwise we lose the argument…

      I don’t trust this snake in the grass one bit. I smell a rat and I’m concerned that the makeup of the Committee favours the bigots something which C4M brought up during the Commons’ Committee hearings being stacked with supporters of the Bill. Let’s hope Baroness Thornton and others keeps a firm grip on things so they don’t get the upper hand. I wonder how the selection process happens and the criterion used?

      1. colin (London) 6 Jun 2013, 12:31pm

        You are absolutely right..they have just changed tact that’s all.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jun 2013, 5:07pm

          Baroness Thornton emailed me today saying that anyone can participate in Committee which means there could well be more in opposition sitting there. Not a good thing and unfair. I can’t believe nobody is in charge. Let’s hope whoever is leading the Committee with the casting vote is a strong supporter. In my view, since the Commons vote was so overwhelmingly in favour as well as the second reading this week, the Committee should be stacked with supporters to reflect the will of Parliamentary MPs and the people they represent. Opponents shouldn’t have any right to dominate Committee’s when a piece of legislation has so much support.

    3. Good Grief, I’m going to get so many down votes here.

      While I agree with every word you’ve said, Valksy – seriously, I was clapping my hands at such a clearly expressed view of my religious experience.

      But the world has changed since I grew up and faced all the ‘God-is-sending-you-to-Hell’ crap. But that was then – it’s not now.

      Most people professing to have a Christian and/or Catholic faith in this country support us in terms of gay marriage.

      The leaders of those churches can say whatever the hell they want, but the people who fill their pews support us. Catholic believers – as opposed to Catholic leaders – support us a lot. And they’re rapidly followed by the Anglicans and Methodists and every other Christian group going.

      Refusing to acknowledge that most people of a Christian faith in this country support us is like refusing to accept that most heterosexual people support us, too, irrespective of faith.

      1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 11:23pm

        A fair point Dazzer, no down votes from me. Last survey I saw 41% of UK Catholics supported the idea of celebrating gay relationships (not necessarily marriage) – which is pretty good. Still, that means the majority do not support us. I’m aware it is better for C of E, but I can’t recall the figures.

        It seems to me that both Anglican and Catholic followers in the UK are not being fairly represented by their leaders in many matters.

        Sadly it is not the average follower but the religious leadership who are directly involved and who have (I believe, undue) influence in the halls of power. As individual voices, the followers of faith are apparently not being listened to by those leaders.

    4. Enrique Esteban 6 Jun 2013, 7:06am

      Pls, sign to support the gay marriage in Romania.
      Help to sign: prenume=fist name; nume=family name; oras=city; tara=country.
      You’ll receive a mail and have to click on the 2nd link to confirm. Thanks.

    5. Peter & Michael 6 Jun 2013, 8:16am

      Valksy, our reply to your good comment, please scroll further down, Many Thanks !

  2. A pragmatic decision.

    1. Midnighter 5 Jun 2013, 8:51pm

      Democracy made the decision, they’ve merely woken up to the reality of it.

      I’m sure you don’t believe they are going to do anything other than fight for as much ground as they can take over any amendments ;-)

      1. No, I mean pragmatic in the sense that for Welby it’s purely done in the interests of self protection and damage limitation.

        All the nonsense we are going to have to hear about religious ethos and teaching traditional marriage to children, I really don’t think they should be teaching heterosexuality in the classroom, particularly allowing faith schools to promote how to do the heterosexual act to young children.

        1. Midnighter 6 Jun 2013, 11:26am

          Quite right. They are – as you say – now on the back foot and fighting a rearguard action. My comment was highlighting their irrelevance to the decision-making process and thereby to society, not disagreeing with your sentiment.

          Yes, it will be fascinating to see how they square that particular circle whilst trying to portray themselves as having the moral high ground. With any luck their attempts at selective “morality” will ultimately prove to be own-goals in the long term; with feelings running high against Islam, the idea that faith schools are allowed to even exist in order to isolate and indoctrinate children should be raising alarm bells.

  3. Tom (Winnipeg) 5 Jun 2013, 8:53pm

    The first sign of wisdom in the Christian church! There must be hope for them somewhere.

  4. “For the Bishops the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith, important though it is to get that right, not least where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned”

    What about the right to freedom of expression of sexuality and gender identity of those gay and trans children in such schools, Archbishop Welby?

    1. Absolutely! Children should be taught the truth. That homosexuality is a normal part of nature and there is nothing wrong with it. If marriage is about procreation and parenting why did they allow Charles and Camilla’s marriage to be blessed in church? Do they expect them to reproduce or can they accept that they may be [presumably] having sex because they love each other?

      1. Don Harrison 6 Jun 2013, 6:11pm

        Joseph and Mary did not consumate their partnership either

  5. Well that may be Mr Fruitloop, but your support wasnt required or asked for, so don’t expect a thankyou.

  6. Yep, quit while you’re behind…

  7. Please does it mean that we can get married in the C of E or what???

    1. No. Do you want to?

      1. yes, am a Christian and seek the rite …also the exemption extends to the ban of use of c of e premises by non christians..they hold some of the most beautiful premises ( not just churches) in Britain

        1. Midnighter 6 Jun 2013, 11:52am

          While I loathe the Church as an institution, I don’t think that they should be obliged to allow people to use their building just because it’s pretty, any more than they should be expected to officiate if they don’t want to. But then unlike the Church I have a sense of fairness and an aversion to authoritarian disregard of others’ wishes. Perhaps turn-about would be fair play after all ;-)

        2. Why on earth should the CoE – or any religious institution – allow non-believers to use their premises, beautiful or otherwise, for their rites? Are you not aware that, except perhaps when they’re united in homophobia, the religions are usually in opposition to one another? (“My god is the one true god!” “No, mine is!” No, mine is!”)

          1. The Church of England is the established church. The local Vicar is obligated to marry any male/female couple (except divorcees or foreign nationals) regardless of the couple’s religious beliefs.

    2. Spanner1960 9 Jun 2013, 1:12am

      Don’t push your luck.
      Have you not been following this?
      The government has made it specifically ILLEGAL to get married in a CoE church to prevent any kind of challenge.

      1. The government didn’t make this illegal, it was the CofE’s decision…

  8. Translation:
    They attacked us. They slurred us. They did every damn thing they could to hurt us. They fought tooth and nail to deny our rights

    And lost

    So now they’re in damage control. They know they look like vicious bigots and they know they need to try and fix their reputation. Now they know they can’t win they’re going to claw back some attempts at respectability

    They were pretending not long ago that they supported civil unions. Guess lying is biblical after all.

    Don’t fall for it – these homophobes didn’t give an inch when they fought they could win

    1. Best reply here.

  9. That There Other David 5 Jun 2013, 9:20pm

    Finally realised that nobody is falling for their crap on this one. BTW, the Catholics have gone similarly quiet too haven’t they?

    1. Abp Weasel 6 Jun 2013, 11:08am

      Was their rep there for the vote?

    2. Colin (London) 6 Jun 2013, 12:34pm

      Oh yes they would be around shafting anyone to stop this Bill. I so hope the days of the church are over soon.

  10. The Kitty Channel 5 Jun 2013, 9:21pm

    Two cheers, maybe only one. Let’s just wait and see what damage they try to do in Committee Stage. Personally, with the CoE’s history, I wouldn’t trust them very much. The leopard doesn’t change its spots.

  11. ie they are now going to join the other nasty peers and introduce more wrecking amendments!!!!

  12. “The Bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage”

    I’ve got no issue with that one. Something I didn’t know about until watching the debate last night is that if one half of a heterosexual married couple has a same-sex affair, it doesn’t class as adultery, but could be described as ‘unreasonable behaviour’ as grounds for divorce. Maybe this is something that does need to be tidied up, and taken into account when a framework for dissolving same-sex marriages is drawn up.

    If we are going to ask for marriage as an equal right, then surely we should be prepared to take seriously those vows which go with it.

    1. Some antis have implied there is something risky about using a same-sex relationship to claim unreasonable behaviour (one of the grounds for divorce in England), but this is a familiar aspect of family law.

      But I entirely agree that the definitions of adultery and consummation should be updated to reflect current understandings of sexual practices. A model of what acts constitute sex is available in sexual offences legislation and a similar list could be used to define adultery and consummation. This would enable same-sex couples to be treated identically to different-sex ones.

      It would also better reflect the way most people now understand sex. Most people, and even some family lawyers, are surprised to discover the current definition of adultery, adding costs to divorce proceedings when petitions have to be rewritten. The definition of consummation also means any couple which eschews intercourse could have their marriage annulled, IIRC even if the reason is a known disability.

    2. Commander Thor 5 Jun 2013, 10:46pm

      I like how somebody pointed out that the situation is symmetrical though: there is no unfair advantage/disadvantage given to same sex couples.

      If a heterosexual cheats with a same sex fling, it is not adultery.
      If a heterosexual cheats with an opposite sex fling, it is adultery.

      If a gay person cheats with a same sex fling, it is not adultery.
      If a gay person cheats with an opposite sex fling, it is adultery.

      Of course, the whole consummation and adultery thing is bol!ocks anyway, as pointed out by others. But it is dishonest for a bigot to claim it is unfair to straights.

      1. Adultry and consummation are both based on Cannon (church) law. By definition they don’t apply to Civil Law. Either could be argued under ‘unreasonable behaviour’- it’s got nothing to do with the sex(es) of the couple, just whether they were married by a church (with attendant rules) or not.

        1. I’m sorry but this is not true- adultery and consummation are very much part of civil law.

          You are incorrect. Annulment is VERY rare, however, ironically enough, the only case I knew was put forward by an agnostic man whose wife wouldn’t ‘put out’ after the wedding!

          For this bill to be fair, there must be either abolition of the two concepts full stop OR equivalent for same sex couples.

      2. Totally, a great explanation and well written.

        1. Above comment was for Commander Thor, to avoid confusion.
          ( these comments seem to get out a bit of whack).

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jun 2013, 12:13pm

      Welby is delusional, a fool. How on earth can fidelity be addressed and legislated for? I notice he’s not calling for a ban on divorce. What galls me is that he gets to foment division in what is purely a civil matter for registrars who will be given the authority to marry us with this intended new law.

    4. why not just remove all ‘reasons’ for divorce? we signed a legal contract saying that we wanted to be next of kin to each other and now we don’t.
      sign here!

  13. Welcome to the 21st Century! At Last.

    1. More like, welcome to the 20th Century!

    2. Wouldnt go that far – they are for the most part still mysoginist, even some of the women in the C of E eschew equality and they still do not believe that gay and bisexual people should have the equal rights, they have just stopped blatently opposing the bill, but I dont trust them – watch out for more exemptions for their delusional beliefs and subtle wrecking amendments, they have a track record for this.
      The denigration and lies about gay people and trying to force their beliefs into law plus their attempts to deny freedom of religion for others is a perpetual stain which I shall remember for the rest of my life.

  14. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Jun 2013, 9:55pm

    “…..condemning the use of homophobic language as “shocking”…..”

    And yet he will now doubtless support amendments to allow teachers to use such language in the classroom in order to express their religious so-called “conscience”.

  15. GingerlyColors 5 Jun 2013, 10:03pm

    Don’t forget the Church of England was established 480 years ago by Henry VIII because of HIS dubious sex life!

  16. Brace yourselves. Amendment time is coming.

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jun 2013, 10:40pm

    I wonder why the National Secular Association of the UK hasn’t made more inroads in the disestablishment issue? I would love to see a petition started to push for it.

    1. Abp Weasel 6 Jun 2013, 11:12am

      You don’t need to disestablish to get the bishops out or reduced in the HoL. Anyway, then it would be taken over completely by Evangelicals funded from the US.

    2. Spanner1960 9 Jun 2013, 1:14am

      Why should they?
      Just because they don’t believe in god does not make them anti-religious.

  18. Does anyone actually know how many bishops voted, and what they voted, and who they were?

    I know it was a voice vote, but that information seems to be available for other people.

    1. 14 bishops were present at the vote on Tuesday night, the largest number to attend a vote in recent times.

      Of the 14, nine voted for Lord Dear’s wrecking amendment to deny the Bill a second reading. Five abstained.

      1. Jan Bridget 6 Jun 2013, 8:38am

        Do we know which ones? I ask because I lobbied our bishop and am curious to know how he voted. In fact, I more than lobbied him – a few years ago when I ran an LGBT youth group I invited him down. I gave a presentation on homophobia including he role of the church, followed by members giving a presentation on issues facing them. He stayed on for a further hour chatting to members. As a result he wrote an article challenging church homophobia that was published in the Church Times.

  19. I’m not cheering. It wasn’t any of their business anyway, not after they got their quadruple lock. They looked obsessive and nasty then, and I don’t really believe that they’ve changed their view at all.

    If they shut up about equal marriage forever, I’d be happy, but they won’t. I bet we’ll still hear constant whining and pompous pronouncements as they seek ‘religious freedom’ to discriminate against LGBT people and mark us out as ‘lesser’.

  20. Aha all this means is they will now claim in 5 years time that they were resolutely in favour of gay marriage, whilst opposing us on whatever issue they fight us over next

  21. Like filthy, slimy, disease ridden rats jumping from a sinking ship!

    How disgusting that they are trying to sell the idea that we are completely scrapping marriage and replacing it with something totally new that has to be rebuilt from the ground up when all we are really doing is allowing a small group of people who have been excluded full access to the existing institution. They make it sound as if, now that gay people will be able to get married, we have to teach people to take care of children. I’m sick of ignorant, pompous religious twits!

  22. Love how the Roman Catholic church has a problem with gay marriage but looks the other way when it comes to their pedophile priests and will even whisk them out of the country that they are in to protect them from prosecution and prison.

  23. He means, we lost, now lets just use any means to protect, as much as possible, our right to discriminate.

    Never trust any person that believes in illusions, because those illusions are fluid to protect themselves and their source- a mentally ill mind. Religious nuts will do anything to manipulate to protect the weak protective shells surrounding their need to hate, divide and attack what does not fit their constructs.

  24. 482 years ago (1531) homosexual acts were not illegal in criminal law in this country. Thanks to Archbishop Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell (mostly) and Henry 8’s obsession with destroying the monestries and removing the Popes influence on his questionable relationships with a series of women. we have the CofE and nearly 500 years of gay persecution, they will not give it up even now inspite of all the evidence.
    That is sustained bigotry and persecution.
    No-one is persecuting them – we are refusing to be bullied or denigrated or recognise any right for them to to continue to do so.

  25. On the plus side, marriage equality is almost guaranteed for the UK now. Australia -we are still waiting.

  26. All kinds of mealy mouthed words by religious leaders.

    Blah Blah. Hardly anyone listens to them . Soon the second coming of the dinosaurs – religion will join the extinction of the first dinos.

  27. Christopher in Canada 6 Jun 2013, 3:55am

    All this proves is that the church is made up of followers, not leaders.

  28. Philip Breen 6 Jun 2013, 5:54am

    Although the CofE has maintained opposition all along, this apparent paradigm shift is significant because it marks the official recognition by the establishment in our country, and not only a recognition on the part of practicing Christians, that perspectives have changed, despite their having wished they had not. Now it will be interesting to see if & how they walk the talk; That is, to note if they curb their belittling and homophobic teachings to support this change of policy. Then, which other established mainstream faiths will follow, I wonder, to adjust their stances? The landslide vote would not have been possible, even a few years ago. Which faiths will now feel exposed & sociologically compelled to construct new ideas to get with the program?

  29. lukefromcanada 6 Jun 2013, 5:56am

    I would like to believe that welby, who seems like a practical man, will come around on the issue and when he does I will be proud to shake his hand.

    1. That There Other David 6 Jun 2013, 10:54am

      Won’t happen. When a man professes his admiration for Nigeria’s interpretation of family values (as Welby has done) he’s basically saying in a roundabout way that he doesn’t see LGBTs as worthy of legal protection.

    2. Don’t be so f__king stupid, @lukefromcanada

      1. lukefromcanada 7 Jun 2013, 2:19am

        all I mean is I would congratulate him on his realization that he was wrong, of course I do admit that my first post is totally fantasy. realistically I know he won’t, perhaps I should have been more clear on that.

      2. Don’t be so f__king rude, @Paolo. No need for it, m8y :)

  30. The Church of England is NOT ending its opposition to changing the law. Its opposition is merely morphing into “joining with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape.”

    Secondly, the Church wishes to reserve the right to teach its understanding of marriage in schools, under the protection of freedom of speech, thus propagating fresh generations of homophobes.

    Thirdly, in saying that its focus “during Committee and Report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement,” the Church is putting us on notice that it will attempt to delay the realisation of equality for as long as possible.

    We have been warned!

  31. GulliverUK 6 Jun 2013, 6:56am

    It’s clear they intend to try to re-introduce amendments which would violate the Equality Act, by allowing registrars to refuse to carry out their legal admin function, amongst other measures. In case of registrars they are just admin officers, there is no religious components, this is a state secular function, and all the courts here and the ECHR have ruled that registrars cannot refuse to carry out this function on personal religious beliefs. LobbyALord should now move to technical argument on why existing protections are entirely sufficient and do not need to be amended. We don’t want a crippled discriminatory bill to emerge. They have religious protections in THEIR churches, and that’s all they need, nothing more.

  32. Pls, sign to support the gay marriage in Romania.
    Help to sign: prenume=fist name; nume=family name; oras=city; tara=country.
    You’ll receive a mail and have to click on the 2nd link to confirm. Thanks.

    1. GulliverUK 6 Jun 2013, 7:37am

      I’ve signed, but perhaps you could email Pinknews and see if they will do a specific article – this is certainly news-worthy. I’ll also tweet the link shortly for you – we should all sign.

      1. Peter & Michael 6 Jun 2013, 8:47am

        We too !,

    2. Spanner1960 9 Jun 2013, 1:18am

      You’ve got two hopes, and Bob Hope’s long dead.
      They don’t even allow Gay prides, so what chance do they have of marriage?

  33. Peter & Michael 6 Jun 2013, 8:12am

    We agree with you, Valksy, the position remains that at committee stage amendments can be brought and voted on to dilute the original Bill, although passed in it’s original form by the House of Commons. Can we say for instance that a Registrar that believes in the christian ethos would be allowed to withdraw from a SSM ceremony, this is a smokescreen by the church to further their opposition to the original Bill.

    1. Absolutely! Allowing a registrar to withdraw from officiating a same-sex wedding is no different from allowing a register to refuse to marry a couple because one or both are black, or disabled, because they don’t ‘feel comfortable around black or disabled people’ or they don’t agree with mixed race relationships etc. if the CoE an others can’t see this then they care nothing about injustice or inequality – discrimination is discrimination, whatever its form.

    2. GulliverUK 6 Jun 2013, 8:31am

      The ability to hold the view that marriage should be between one man and one women (that’s not an actual Biblical view, but a modern interpretation which doesn’t actually accord with scripture), is quite different from letting what is a purely admin person who is a public service refuse to carry out the job for which they were employed. All the courts in this country already said that but also the ECHR ruled on that with Civil Partnerships, and that ruling will apply across the EU. The government would be in breech of that ruling if it allowed Registrars to distinguish in some way, having to carry out Civil Partnerships but somehow getting a right to discriminate against only same-sex couples and marriage. Would Registrars be allowed, for example, to refuse to carry out a Civil Partnership for opposite-sex couples (when approved) if they believed only marriage was right for heterosexuals?

    3. Spanner1960 9 Jun 2013, 1:29am

      If people are interested the details of how a bill passes through its various stages is explained here:

      The status of this particular bill is here:

  34. Jan Bridget 6 Jun 2013, 8:54am

    We have a long way to go before the churches acknowledge and apologise for the roles they have played in creating and perpetuating homophobia and the thousands and thousands of lives that have been lost, and continue to be lost, as a result.

    We know that homophobic bullying is worse in religious schools: I wish the bishops could hear some of the stories young people have experienced; perhaps then they would realise that their position actually encourages homophobic behaviour.

    1. GulliverUK 6 Jun 2013, 10:33am

      What is disturbing is that some see Welby as having apologised when if you read his words he hasn’t. He said it was sad that the church hadn’t always been there for people who are LGBT.

      I’d point out that they have a) never been there and b) at the center of taking away our rights, and c) resisting all efforts of governments to put those rights back. Welby is the only slightly better than having Carey back on the throne, both are complete idiots, unable to hold an intellectual debate or argument, both are homophobic whether they think they are or not, and Welby has just taken the church back two steps and very likely ended its historic link with the state – disestablishment is now not only favored but a requirement which must be promptly delivered. They’ve committed suicide with their neo-facist jack-booted thugs in the House of Lords and made the case for their own removal. All this sh*t over the last 2 years is down to religion, and then there’s 1500 years before that.

  35. Im Sick Of These Organized GreeDy Religion Leaders!!! It’S Very InevitabE That UK Will Eventually HavE MarriaE Equality By 2014! Now More Countries Are Following, Just Wait… Luxembourg Australia Finland Ireland Germany Mexico Vietnam And Hopefully, My Most Loyal Catholic Nation On Earth, The PhilippiInes Would Follow Suit With Its FellOw Brothers And Sisters In Latin America. And Why Are These Bishops Of COE So Paranoid, And A Big Fan Of Bigoted Teachers And Registrars???? LAw Is Law And Should Be Teach In The Class.Why Are They So Afraid Of It???? Ohhh ,Because It Will Lessen Their InflueCe, Power, And Manipulation… CatholiCs And Other Hypocrties Relgious Heirarchies Are Well Known Expert Of DoIng SucH Unchristian Ways!!! Probably The Lord Is Punishing Them ThRu Making Same Sex MarriaGe Legal In 15 Nations. Who Knows?

  36. One Thing, The Pope During The Nazi Regime Was Silent WhiLe Hitler Is Doing His Killing Spree In Europe… Shame! Catholic Church Is Already Of Blood On Its Hands And feet

    1. Spanner1960 9 Jun 2013, 1:31am

      You Do Not Have To Capitalise Every Word.
      This Is Not An Advert.

  37. The day of reckoning for all of us comes when we stand before God to give account of our lives.

    At present, the forces of wickedness are prevailing but we Evangelical Christians will have the last laugh on that judgement day. We are going to Heaven, unrepentant homosexuals are going to Hell.

    1. Beelzeebub 6 Jun 2013, 9:33am

      Please rearrange the following you brainwashed goon.

      Off f\/ck

    2. Midnighter 6 Jun 2013, 10:29am

      Seems like a win-win to me. You get to say “told you so” , and we don’t end up having to hang around brainless wierdos like you. Totally worth it.

    3. Jock S. Trap 6 Jun 2013, 10:43am

      LOL… well you’d hope wouldn’t you but hey what if you are in the wrong religion eh?…. Along with your hate I guess you might be joining us….

      alas religion = hypocrite and I thinks it’s a safe bet that when ya go, ya go, end of, no more, extinguished, only good for fertiliser…. though I hope your hate doesn’t poison the Earth after death.

    4. That There Other David 6 Jun 2013, 10:56am

      LOL. Spending eternity with the likes of you is actually my idea of Hell. Bit of a conundrum that one.

      Good job it’s all lies really isn’t it?

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jun 2013, 12:19pm

      Delusional loon. Name one individual who came back from the grave to say there’s an after-life? When you close your eyes and take your last breath, you’re asleep in the dark forever. Judge not lest ye shall be judged, hypocrite!

    6. Laugh away, pet – from all descriptions (from the over-imaginative) heaven sounds as though it’d be populated by the most frightful bores.

  38. From this article, it looks like that welby creep and his cronies intend to use any opportunity to scupper the bill and use wrecking amendments and delaying tactics spitefully and hatefully. He just said all that tripe because he assumes that LGBT are so inferior , that CofE can easily placate us with a load of empty words.

  39. I think it’s amazing that in today’s age people still think it’s OK to profess publicly in schools and such, how they view marriage.
    What if I as a teacher, believed that marriage is that between one white person and another? It would be deemed an unacceptable (and rightfully so) view, especially to profess such views to vulnerable youngsters, so why the double standards when dealing with same sex marriage?
    If marriage is to be discussed at all in places like schools, it should be discussed neutrally by the teacher. He/she may explain there are different views on the concept of marriage, but not be propagating his/her own personal views to the class. His or her views are irrelevant.

    1. There is nothing in the New Testament that teaches that marriage should be only between people of the same skin colour. However, there are 3 references to homosexuality being sinful viz. Romans 1 v 26-27; 1st Cor 6 v 9-11 and 1st Timothy 1 v 10.

      1. Chester666666 6 Jun 2013, 10:32am

        You mean the mistranslated verses as “homosexual” was from 1869 and added in 1949

      2. GulliverUK 6 Jun 2013, 10:40am

        It’s in the Old Testament, the story / curse of Ham, and was used by churches as justification of slavery of black and other non-white peoples, in addition to discrimination against them, including preventing them from marrying at all, then only marrying people from their own ethnic origins, and it was the justification the Mormon church used to keep blacks our of their church until the late 70s.

        It’s strange how Christians steal from and lay claim to the Old Testament when it isn’t their book – written over 1000 years before they even got going, and somehow ignore half of it and then use the others to bully and harass and discriminate against other groups. Christians either are Jews or they are not, if not why would they be using books which originally belongs to other people? As for the New Testament – it’s a fabrication, forgery, 4 Gospels out of 50 written included, all with major discrepancies, originally there was no resurrection story – it was added later.

      3. Midnighter 6 Jun 2013, 10:47am

        Nah lots of Christians will tell you that you’ve misread those bits. Romans is about pagan worship, Corinthians is about people acting against their natures (so that would be like a gay man trying to be straight), and Timothy is a bad bit of translation from the greek and in context refers to some kind of exploitation for financial gain involving sex.

        Most importantly you need to remember that what you are reading there is a collection of fanciful and contradictory tales drawn up well after the alleged events by someone who wasn’t even there and just happened to create himself a nice little cult after allegedly seeing a ghost. But hey, its a con act that worked well for Joseph Smith Jr and Ron Hubbard amongst others, so he’s in good company.

      4. @Bob

        Mmmm. Sexy… Is that a crucifix in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?

        1. Bob, why should I particularly care about what one book of fables say?
          Should marriage be based on the vedic texts? No? Why? Because you’re not an Hindu?
          I’m not a Christian. Your particular mythology is completely irrelevant to me. And two-thirds of the planet Earth.

  40. Archbishop Weasel 6 Jun 2013, 10:26am

    I read that they were only going to have a maximum show of 6 bishops, and were going to abstain, in order to prevent a constitutional crisis given the overwhelming vote in the Commons.

    Now it appears they turned up en masse with a large block vote to try and overturn the will of the Commons, and any Bishops that supported equal marriage were persuaded to abstain.

    So I think now there is indeed a constitutional crisis about the large number of bishops in the Lords, who under this new regime at Canterbury are willing to throw out the traditional restraint in their theoretical voting power, and use it in practise.

    I would support a petition to throw them out of the Lords altogether or restrict their numbers to one or two.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jun 2013, 12:17pm

      Hear, hear! There should be a petition but of course, the opposition would call it an aggressive gay agenda to undermine religion and the political system as a bi-product of the Marriage Bill passing into law. I can just hear their loony screeds in the coming weeks as the Bill advances.

  41. Jock S. Trap 6 Jun 2013, 10:38am

    This sounds like a good thing but I suspect what it means is he’s push for all the amendments the House of Commons, the elected place, rejected.

    He will no doubt try to reduce the meaning of marry to us to a pittance and I hope he fails. If he doesn’t get what he wants then they’ll try to delay it again.

    Keep going I say, it’s on your head but don’t blame all others for why no-body wants to be a part of you and your religion.

  42. Note the slippery bit of rhetoric that appears in the middle of the Church’s statement: “If this Bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace.” I dispute the claim that the Bill represents “new marriage”. I’m sure others would too. There have always been lots of interpretations of what marriage is, even Christian marriage, and these have developed steadily over time throughout history. I think the global movement (still patchy, of course) towards acceptance of same-sex marriage definitely represents a cultural shift in how marriage is perceived and experienced but I would describe this as an expansion of traditional interpretations of marriage. I think that representing the Bill as “new marriage” in contrast to “old marriage” is just too stark and is either naive or, more likely, sour grapes from those who have not got what they wanted.

  43. Bishop Krusty 6 Jun 2013, 11:01am

    I think this new stance is hypocritical. They should have nothing further to do with the matter if they are opposed to it in principal. No one will believe they are not simply taking part in declared efforts of opponents to sabotage the bill.

  44. Beelzeebub 6 Jun 2013, 11:05am

    Sorry Bish.

    You sh!t on your bed.

    Now you can lie on it.

  45. Michael 2912 6 Jun 2013, 11:11am

    Justin 5-kids Welby is an utterly rotten individual. What is more homophobic than saying that a tradition or institution will be weakened (by which he really means currupted) simply by virtue of same sex couples being able to participate in it? He speaks with forked tongue and it’s a fork handed to him by Satan, in whom, of course I don’t believe.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jun 2013, 5:02pm

      By the same token, he should include divorced Anglicans who weaken marriage by committing adultery sometimes many times over.

  46. davevauxhall 6 Jun 2013, 11:45am

    Same sex marriage you would think that it was all about them. Selfish bastards

  47. Of course, what your country needs now is a truth and reconciliation commission which would investigate the treatment of gay people in the past, name and shame the instigators, the perpetrators (dead or living). For example, the people behind the arrest and torture of Alan Turing. Also, those who were actively instigating mistreatment of gay people trough various means (parliament and media).
    A closure of such kind would serve the change of attitudes and ensure that it never happens again. It would also create a precedent for other countries and give an importance to the issue of human rights for gay people.

    1. GulliverUK 6 Jun 2013, 12:18pm

      Great idea, but right now I don’t want any reconciliation with homophobic religious leaders, but am fully supportive of those many people who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., who do support full equality. The only closure I want is a) rid the House of Lords of all religious leaders, b) disestablishment of the Church of England, c) much tighter controls on religious speech and incitement to hatred and d) removal of the tax except status from every religious organisation (TRUE charities, which can prove a benefit to society can continue as they are). I don’t understand why any church should be getting tax exemptions – which is effectively state funding. Oh, and removal as The Queen as head of the Church of England, … naturally :)

    2. Intresting idea, but what really needs to happen is the removal of CofE bishops from our upper legislative body and its reform or abolition the ceasation of state funding support for religious schools and the dis-establishment of the CofE.

    3. Philip Breen 6 Jun 2013, 1:52pm

      Yes- and you can see it is still going on in this country in 2013. If you look at the new ‘filtering’ regulations published during the last week by the DBS (the successor to the CRB) you will note that, while the premise for what can never be filtered is governed by the paramountcy of safeguarding prerogatives, they have included all of the old and now repealed gay offences ‘soliciting for an immoral purpose’, ‘importuning’, ‘persistently importuning’, ‘gross indecency’ ‘procuring men for homosexual acts’ that have nothing to do with safeguarding issues and everything to do with the ‘pretty police’ agents provocateurs and the entrapment of homosexuals that was so frequent an occurrence until the 2003 Sexual Offences Act. Barely hidden in the inclusion of these former crimes is the understanding that gays are potential child abusers by default. While the list was published when all were watching the gay marriage vote, no human rights group is yet challenging this disgrace.

  48. On the other hand 6 Jun 2013, 12:20pm

    “I find homophia sickening, but I don’t want those gays marrying in my church”. Hmmm.

  49. PeterinSydney 6 Jun 2013, 1:28pm

    The Anglican Church should not have started the fight in the first place. Now they should apologise for their bigotry, especially that of Lord Carey and Arch Welby.

  50. Don Harrison 6 Jun 2013, 6:07pm

    Are you telling us that no body pointed this out?

  51. Its not pragmatism. Its called loosing. Just the usual hypocritical twaddle. What did you expect.

  52. Spanner1960 9 Jun 2013, 1:08am

    About 4 years too late; Better late than never I suppose.

    The sad think about all this is there *are* a lot of good people in the church, and they must have known this campaign was doomed to failure from the outset. All the work, effort and money could have gone to something much more worthy like homeless people etc, instead of throwing it at this pointless exercise.

    I really hope they have learned from this and will stay out of politics from now on.

  53. Now CofE will you kindly give up the unelected seats you hold in the House of Lords.

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.