Church powerless to stop same-sex marriage

The Catholic and Anglican Churches haven’t a show of stopping marriage equality in the UK:

A long-awaited official paper on same-sex marriage makes clear that the Church will be powerless to stop the change even if it mobilises hundreds of thousands of objections.

The Government’s national consultation document, which was published this morning, asks the public whether they “agree or disagree” with allowing homosexual couples to have civil weddings.

But it makes clear that, while the question is posed in principle, it is a matter of “how not whether” the change is introduced.

It also warns that the Government will take into account the various points raised in the consultation but “not the number of responses received”.

Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, said that the launch of the paper was a “hugely important step”, upholding principles of “family, society and personal freedoms”.

But opponents of the move immediately accused the Government of holding a “sham” consultation” in which opposition would be “ignored”.

In its first official statement on same-sex marriage, the Church of England committed itself to “the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman”.

A carefully worded statement, drafted by the Archbishops Council, hinted that the question of marriage could undermine its position as the established church.

Announcing the four-month consultation, Miss Featherstone and the Home Secretary Theresa May said the Government committed to ending the ban on same-sex couples marrying in register offices.

“I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, whatever their gender,” said Miss Featherstone.

“Today is a hugely important step as we consider how to lift the ban on civil marriage for same-sex couples.

“This is about the underlying principles of family, society, and personal freedoms.

“Marriage is a celebration of love and should be open to everyone.”

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Trevor Mallard

    Might be an idea to get someone to read the rest of the article to you Whale. Clearly incapable of reading it yourself. If this is marriage equality you are a balanced 20 year old welterweight.

    • Auto_immune

      Genuine question Mallard:  What is Labour’s policy on Marriage equality?  I just did a search on the party’s website and it didn’t come up with anything relevant.

      • Trevor Mallard

        Conscience issue – vast majority of caucus will support. My personal view is that all marriage should be civil and it then should be left to religions to add whatever ceremony they want for whoever they want. Having the state endorse particular religions doesn’t sit well with me.

      • Super_Guest

        Convicted violent offenders serving in our parliament doesn’t sit well with me.

      • Peter Wilson

         My personal view is that all marriage should be civil

        Probably living in dreamland there Trevor. We’d like to think marriages, and indeed relationships are civil, but they soon deteriorate.

      • Agent BallSack

        Oh Fuck. Trevor’s allowed back on the computer again. PS Trevor about this Junket overseas for new MP’s. Exactly why are you going on it again? All of us would like to know.

      • Blair Mulholland

         Wow, I agree with Trevor Mallard!  *checks out window for flying pigs and impending apocalypse*

      • LesleyNZ

        Trevor Mallard: “My personal view is that all marriage should be civil and it then should be left to religions to add whatever ceremony they want for whoever they want.”Thank goodness Trevor Mallard and the Labour Party are no longer in government . The Labour Govt did enough social engineering damage. Is marriage the next one on the list? What a Godless lot they are!     

    • Agent BallSack

      That’s an interesting statement coming from a failed teacher who doesn’t even have the where-withall to place a “buy Now’ on a Trade Me auction. How was Homegrown Trevor?

  • Jos B

    It won’t happen. The Catholic Church will never assent to gay marriage, secular law or not. The authorities will have to like it or lump it. 

    • nzd.gbp

      I hope the authorities lump it and say fark you to the papist’s assent and do what Trevor Mallard suggests above. All marriages civil – and then religions can add their sprinkle on top. That way you can’t sue a church for refusing to add their sprinkle and denying you marriage.

  • STEVE AND MONIQUE

    Waiting for it.The crys of marriage is for hetros,not homos,and it will end the world as we know it.God loves the special people,and you phobics are real special.As for me,well dont have a problem with it.The final line of Cams post says it all,”Marriage is a celebration of love,and should be open to anyone.Must keep an eye open in case the sky falls,yeah right.

  • Jos B

    Unfortunately, the rationale of doing something because of “love” is very simplistic. 

    One could say they loved and wanted to marry – 

    their cousin, 
    an underage child, 
    their pet, 
    two different people, etc etc. 

    There are valid reasons against doing this, just as their are valid reasons that two people of the same gender cannot marry. The desire for something does not make it right or moral (although that seems to be the main criteria for liberals wanting to do anything nowadays).

    • STEVE AND MONIQUE

      Cousins,well the royals have played that card in the past,polagamy is going on in the USA,and other countries.Underage child,(14-15 years old)well some countries allow it,and think England was guilty of same at some stage in its past.They are still arranging marriage in some countries,and thats not based on love,just goats,and money.Animals,(though have Aunty who loves here cat like a child) is wrong in so many ways.So it seems because times and morals change,we dont like the idea of 2 consenting adults getting married if they are of the same sex.

    • Guestosterone

      i can’t think of any logical reason to not let someone marry their pet – marriage is a meaningless title

      now if you think your pet should get a drivers licence or be able to vote that is something else

      • Jos B

        That’s just it – marriage is not a meaningless title, but liberals would like it to be so. Surveys show that gays do not really want to get married.  An article by Matt Barber explains what is really going on in this quest for marriage –  

        Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics there have been only 9,695 total “gay marriages” in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Governor Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the “gay marriage” novelty toy still had its sheen.In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the “gay-pride” plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 “gay” couples had “married” in Massachusetts.

        Even more telling — though not particularly surprising — are statistics coming out of Canada where “gay marriage” is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto — which boasts of having one of the world’s largest homosexual populations —only one Canadian “gay” couple has “married” so far this year, according to a report by Reuters.While recently addressing the rapidly downward spiral in homosexual “marriages” in Massachusetts and elsewhere, Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts State Director of Concerned Women for America, observed,

        “The thrill of their ‘victory’ is gone. It’s not about their ‘right’ to marry and it never has been. It’s about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional marriage.”

        And Mrs. Mosher is absolutely right. As the numbers on this whacky “gay marriage” social experiment continue to plummet, it’s becoming obvious that homosexual activists don’t care one iota about “marriage.” Their true agenda is not really “marriage equality” and the right to enter into monogamous “marriages,” but rather, their intention is to water down traditional marriage so that the institution — which is so very important to healthy child rearing and a healthy society — no longer has a unique and respected place in society.

        Everything that marriage stands for (i.e., monogamy, fidelity, the nuclear family and those “oppressive” gender stereotypes associated with the need for a “mom” and a “dad”) must be done away with in order to foster acceptance of sin.But it goes far beyond simply undermining marriage. In order to legitimize disordered sexual behaviors, which have traditionally been considered immoral and are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive, it’s necessary to dissolve the notion that traditional marriage and the nuclear family are normative and represent the gold standard.

        According to some, that’s a sexually repressive Judeo-Christian concept, you see. And in order for secular humanism to properly take root, we need a society which embraces the idea that all forms of sexual behavior — no matter how perverse or destructive — are equally valid.

      • Guestosterone

        Its not about condoning “their” lifestyle for me, its about ridding the planet of religion… one church brick at a time… god bless fags!

        religions are just uncivil unions if you think about it

  • Andrei

    As the once Great Britain sinks into further decline the powers that be pathologically incapable of addressing the real problems of the real world focus their attention on changing the meaning of an institution for no    purpose that any rational person can discern.

  • Super_Guest

    Can’t wait until this stuff blows over. Part of me hopes that gays don’t get the right to marry, just so I can see the hilarious hysterical aftermath from gay activists and simpering lefties after their votes.But at the end of the day while I still have more respect for the Church(es) than I do for any activist regardless of who they fuck (they’re all muppets anyway) I won’t be the end of the world if gays can marry.

    • Kosh103

      Ahhhh can you feel the love of the rednecks.

      • Gold

         Pretty sure he’s on your side Kosh but just pushing our socialist trolls buttons.

      • Super_Guest

        Gold’s right Kosh, I’m about as gay friendly as you’re going to get on WOBH.

  • Blair Mulholland

    I think the Anglican Church needs to give the British Crown a divorce – this is a gay marriage that is clearly about to come to blows, and both parties would be better off without the other.

  • Steve p

    “Marriage is a celebration of love…” So what does the state have to do with a “celebration of love”?

    “…and should be open to everyone.” It is.

  • Joesephusjones

    The church is powerless of course, the unbelievers will have their sick parody of marriage but that does not mean the church will recognise it. We will not surrender, the opinions of men are not as important as the opinions of God. 

  • Rufus

    sure, make 2 categories – a “civil” marriage, and a”religious” marriage.

    Cue outrage when homos discover that not all religions will give them a “religious” marriage… 

    Back to square one.

  • Kthxbai

    God has nothing to do with marriage.  Civil and religious marriage existed for thousands of years prior to Christianity.

    Civil marriage is nothing to do with the godbotherers, they need to move along.

    • Blair Mulholland

       Well that is a silly statement.  The earliest mention of marriage in recorded human history is in the Torah.  Marriage has everything to do with God.

  • Grantavius

    The problem that the Anglican Church of England faces is that they have to administer the law, as they are an established church, meaning that, although they get no state support, they have to perform certain civil functions for any citizen who requests it.This is why the idea of gay marriage has been characterised as a ‘power grab’- the state is seeking to define religious doctrine.

  • LesleyNZ

    Years ago the liberal ones wanted to “live together” and not be married. Now they want to be married and they want to get rid of the words “husband” and “wife”. Give ’em your hand and they take your arm.
    UK same-sex reforms see ‘husband & wife’ removed from official forms
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10792596

  • Kosh103

    Wow, the Uk govt are really going at this whole gay marriage thing hammer and tongs.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10792596

  • davewin

    What happens when homosexuals realize they can’t breed together even when they marry?

    Sue God?
    Go to ACC?
    Pay poor married people to breed for them?

    I’ll bet that whatever it is they do not quietly go off into the night.

39%