NOT JUST AN ISSUE, ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN

There you have it. Same-sex marriage is not a particularly controversial issue for the vast majority of the members of the Anglican Communion; their minds are on other things.  Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England must speak against the passage of the bill making its way through Parliament which legalizes same-sex civil marriage in Britain.  I guess there's a kind of logic there, but I can't quite make it out.  Of course, the Church of England is the established church, which complicates the matter in ways I don't fully understand, but I don't see why the opinions of all the members of the churches in the Anglican Communion should affect legislation on civil marriage in Britain.

What about LGTB persons in England?  What does the Primate of All England offer in the way of pastoral care to same-sex couples who are members of the church and would like to be joined in a civil marriage ceremony?  Little in the way of empathy or compassion thus far.  An awareness that marriage equality is not simply an issue, but that the lives of real people will be affected by the legislation seems to be missing from the archbishop's commentary.  Let's hope the path is uphill from here.

Note: The interview took place before the vote in favor of the equal marriage bill in the House of Commons.  

THE ARC OF THE UNIVERSE BENDS TOWARD JUSTICE

As I've followed the struggle for marriage equality for LGTB persons, I see many similarities with the Civil Rights movement for equality for African-Americans here in the United States, which is not at all surprising as the fight for justice for any oppressed group will have parallels with the struggles of other groups.  Here in the US, the movement toward same-sex marriage equality is now state by state.  Gay marriage is legal in nine states: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont,  Washington, and the District of Columbia, with Illinois likely to follow soon.

Thanks to Colin Coward's real-time Facebook reports, I followed the debate in Britain's House of Commons on the bill to allow same-sex civil marriage in Britain preceding the overwhelming vote in favor.  The established Church of England's opposition to the bill, including a statement by the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, is a puzzlement, but I've addressed the matter briefly elsewhere.

Thanks to Kelvin Holdsworth for the link to quotes and a video of one of the most eloquent speeches in favor of the bill by MP David Lammy from Tottenham.

Separate is not equal. 

But there are still those that say that this is all unnecessary.

“Why do we need Gay Marriage when we already have Civil Partnerships”, they say.

“They are the same - separate but equal”, they claim.
Let me speak frankly.

“Separate but equal” is a fraud.

 “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

“Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

 “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

 “Separate AND oppressed”.

 “Separate AND browbeaten”.

 “Separate AND subjugated”.

Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

Brilliant, heartfelt, and quite moving. 

Here is the link to the entire original speech that David Lammy intended to give but for the four-minute limit on backbench speeches.

UPDATE: France seems to have crossed a major hurdle in its progress toward the approval same-sex marriages. 

CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

Despite the headline, I should rather say a few persons in high places in the Church of England claim to speak for the entire church in the matter.

Introducing same-sex marriage could lead to the church being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, the church claimed in a potentially explosive submission in response to the government's consultation on gay marriage, which closes on Thursday.

To get the churches out of the marriage business altogether sounds like a good idea rather than an explosion to me.  France does it rather well, with the religious ceremony of blessing (if desired) following the legal marriage in the registry office.  But I digress.

I'll let the English speak.

Giles Fraser is "spitting blood".

The Church of England says it is against gay marriage. Not in my name

I am furious about this ridiculous and unrepresentative statement from the Church of England on gay marriage
....

The church is no more a cartel of moral wisdom. And those of us who still stick with it – though there are days like today when this is increasingly hard – do so in the hope that it can be called back to a deeper moral seriousness that is not in hoc to bourgeois notions of respectability and prejudice.

Read the entire opinion piece.  As you see, Giles does not mince words.

Colin Coward is upset (to say the least!).

I woke this morning to the R4 Today programme’s news headlines about the Church of England’s response to the Government’s equal marriage consultation. I felt so angry. The Church has achieved another set of disastrous headlines thanks to its ill-considered submission. The Church looks like an institution in panic and crisis, terrified that the lesbian and gay hordes are about to breach the defences and destroy marriage in one decisive strategic move.

As you may or may not know the Danish Parliament recently approved same-sex marriages in churches in Denmark.

Layanglicana says, "Bring on the Vikings!" 

I know the first Viking invasion gave them rather a bad name (for raping, looting and pillaging, not to put too fine a point on it).

But that was after they had been cooped up for weeks in a long boat. The 21st century version would, I am sure, choose Easy Jet, and  be only slightly irritable as a result. A pint or two of lager and half a roasted sheep ought to mollify them sufficiently to be able to deal with the powers that be at Lambeth. And after all we don’t want them too amenable, the whole idea is to let them show who is boss.

There you have it - the word from England.

As a humble former colonial, I have a nerve to even think of offering an opinion, much less post on the matter on my wee blog, but here goes.  What in heaven's name does the 13 page document sent to the English Parliament have to do with the Gospel imperative of The Two Great Commandments to love God and love our neighbor and the Golden Rule to do as we would be done to?  Archbishops and senior bishops of the Church of England, answer me that.

UPDATE: Another voice from England - Erika in the comments...

the real disaster is what the publication has said to the members of the CoE itself.

- a small group of us claims the right to make public pronouncements on your behalf.

- we do not have to stick to the truth if it doesn't suit us. You may remember that we strongly opposed civil partnerships, but we will now launch a PR campaign trying to make those who don't remember this believe that we actually love gay people in a very cuddly way.

- we believe that everyone in this land should be bound by our definition of marriage, all the 98% of people who don't go to church but who are included in our elevated idea of ourselves as ministering to everyone in our parishes. And so we reserve the right to define marriage for all other faiths too and for all agnostics and atheists.

- we do not need to make the slightest warm pastoral noise about caring about the spiritual wellbeing of gay people. We can just casually dismiss their relationships as friendships without content. If we really believed that God creates them like this but that for some reason, baby Jesus cries if they hitch up, we would be full of sympathy and we would try what we could to make their God imposed loneliness more bearable. But, actually, we don't give a stuff as long as they don't threaten our order of things and keep quiet in their sinful moral morass.

THAT is what this document is saying and it's saying it to its own members.
Which is why I, for one, have had enough and have now left the church. I shall watch it with mild interest from the sidelines to see if it ever joins civilised society again.

Hear, hear!  

GOOD NEWS! DIOCESES OF DERBY AND GLOUCESTER SAY NO TO ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction:

The Diocese of Derby in the Church of England voted against the adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Bishops: for 0; against 1 (bishop Humphrey not present)
Clergy: for 1, against 21, abstention 2
Laity. for 2, against 24, absention 1

Tobias says:

Derby has been an Indaba partner with New York and Delhi (India) and according to the Twitter feed comments on the debate the Indaba experience contributed to the negative vote. This is natural, because Indaba represents the ideals the Covenant lauds but paradoxically disables in its notorious Section 4.

Yes! May the vote in Derby inspire other dioceses in the UK to vote against the proposed covenant. The supporters of the document say that there is no alternative to the covenant, but Indaba is one better way forward for the Anglican Communion as opposed to threats of 'relational consequences' for provinces who do not toe the line, although where the line is drawn, who can say?

Update from Nicholas Knisely at The Lead:

We're also seeing reports on twitter from Lesley Crawley's stream that Gloucester has voted against the Covenant as well. We're hoping to find more information soon on that.

It is confirmed that the Diocese of Gloucester voted against the Anglican Covenant. The numbers are below.

House of Clergy YES: 16; NO: 28; 1 abstention
House of Laity YES: 14; NO: 28; 6 abstentions
House of Bishops YES: 1; 1 abstention

ABOUT THE ANGLICAN COVENANT...

Recently, I read three excellent posts on the Anglican Covenant, which I believe warrant wide coverage. As many of you know, I am a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, and I make no effort to provide balanced coverage, since I hope very much that many churches in the Anglican Communion vote against adopting the covenant.

Canon Alan Perry of the Anglican Church of Canada says in his post titled 'Logs and Specks':

The proposed Covenant is about logs and specks. It's about being empowered, and possibly even obligated, to look for the specks in others' eyes, which will inevitably give rise to others pointing to logs in one's own eyes. The trouble, as Jesus suggests, is that it is often much more interesting to look for specks than to deal with one's own logs, and in fact it's human nature to be in denial about one's own logs.

I can see already the long procession of people claiming to see specks in the eyes of other churches in the communion. What are the rules for presenting claims against other churches (or your own church, for that matter!), and which bureaucracy will winnow the complaints and decide which warrant further investigation by the newly-endowed-with-great-powers Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion? Many questions; few answers.

Next up is a post by Paul Bagshaw, a priest in the Church of England, titled 'Seven constitutional questions on the Covenant'. Paul's post references constitutional questions that may arise in the Church of England if General Synod votes to adopt the covenant. Since a number of people from England read my blog, I link to Paul's post mainly for their benefit, but those of us from other churches should be mindful that the adoption of the covenant may pose constitutional questions for our own churches.

Paul says:

Now it may be that someone somewhere has drafted answers to all these questions and more. In which case it would be useful to have the proposals public so voters can see some of the ramifications of the options before they make their decision. But if no-one has addressed the constitutional implications then I'm even more worried.

Let's face it. The covenant is being rushed through General Synod of the Church of England in the hope of a vote in favor before too many people have an opportunity to take a close look at the document and consider the consequences for the church. It appears to me that those who are so very intent on pushing the covenant may not themselves have considered the consequences. If they have, then they're being very quiet about their deliberations.

At Lesley's Blog is the address by Perran Gay, Canon Precentor of Truro Cathedral, to the Diocese of Truro Synod titled 'The presentation against the Covenant in Truro'

Dreadful though all of this is, it might almost be worth putting up with it if there were any real indication that the covenant would work. But of course it won’t: although it is offered as a mechanism to achieve unity, its immediate effect is to create divisions. Churches that cannot or will not accept the Covenant automatically become second-class members of the Communion. The Orwellian implications of Section 4 will likely further distinguish between full and ‘less-than-full’ members of the Communion, making it harder to have the kind of discussions that family members ought to have together. And as we know, the more conservative Anglican churches who most want this kind of arrangement in place, who subscribe to a notion of a clear Anglican doctrinal identity that has never existed, have already started to boycott Anglican Communion affairs in any case, staying away from the Lambeth Conference, setting up a rival bishops’ meeting and working towards an alternative global fellowship. Even if adopted, the Covenant is set to fail.

I had a difficult time extracting a quote from Canon Perran Gay's address because of its excellence in its entirety. In the end, the Anglican Diocese of Truro voted against the adoption of the covenant.

Please, if you are at all interested or concerned about the Anglican Covenant, get a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, a glass of wine, or a good stiff drink, make yourself comfortable, and read the posts to which I've linked. C'mon. Just do it.