You are here . on the pale blue dot


'Anonymous' comments without a pseudonym are not published.
(See Introduction note in right hand column)

Comments for publication should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties please.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites the comments will be removed as spam.

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

Earl Emsworth to wed Empress?


The Earl of Emsworth with The Empress                                                                         Credit: BBC


The prime minister has hailed the news as sending a "powerful message" about equality in the UK. He said the love Lord Emsworth has for The Empress is clear. As the law stands when "love is divided by law, it is that law that needs to change".

The anglican bishop of Effingham supported by other rule benders expressed his delight at the news saying that priests should be “creative” to get around restrictions on marriage and should do so in defiance of the official line. "Clergy should follow their conscience and defy the Church of England’s restrictions" he said looking forward to the most radical change ever made to the legal definition of marriage in Britain.

The freedom of choice organisation Brickwall said there is no turning the clock back now. Equality means equality for all. Prejudice will no longer be tolerated in our country.

6 comments:

  1. Why should there now be any limits? The government has decreed that henceforth marriage should be a form of civil partnership (albeit dressed up and dignified with the term, marriage for anyone who wants it. It has already tacitly approved polygamy by providing full benefits to those adherents of a certain religion who have taken four wives in ceremonies approved by their faith. None of this has more than a passing resemblance to the Sacrament of Marriage. The best thing for the Church in Wales (and the Church of England) would be to secure complete disestablishment, and to make it as clear as possible to all inquirers that a register office ceremony is not the same thing as a Christian celebration of Holy Matrimony. Which is what the Church of Rome has said all along, and it has now been proved right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes I agree there must be strict limits or these gays will want more and more equality than we have already given them with their civil unions - surely that was enough. The next thing you know these gays getting married will be having children as and as we know, gay parents will raise gay children since straight parents only raise straight ones. And as Simple Soul says (and as AncientBriton has argued) Civil unions provide most of the same benefits as marriage but with a different name, and the gays should be satisfied with that a “separate but almost equal” institution - let them be content with that.. And whilst were at it, lets go back to the good old days when there were separate schools for blacks and whites, as in America - that worked well, so there should be no reason why separate 'marriages' for gays and lesbians. Satire by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A few points of definition :
    The "powerful message" from David Cameron is that the government's ideology about equality is moving us towards a totalitarian state,for it is aiming to control every aspect of our lives,even seeking to dictate the faith of the Church in a clever surreptitious way.
    Prejudice applies only to an opinion held without foundation : the' opinion' or understanding of the Sacrament of marriage arises through our faith, and can never be said to be held erroneously.
    There is difference between satire and sarcasm : satire at times is funny, but sarcasm is bitter and insulting

    ReplyDelete
  4. Simple soul, rather than appeal to semantics in your attempt to understand prejudice, why not ask those who have experienced prejudice first hand on this issue to help you better appreciate that the problem here is not about preserving the integrity of a sacrament but one of honouring the dignity of fellow human beings. Both racism and homphobia stem from a prejudicial hate of those who are different, and to deny one group the sacramental grace of marriage purely on the basis of what they are is, in my book, prejudice; believe me, I have experienced it first hand (many times). I am not bitter about this (but suspect that my posting can across) but I do hold a righteous anger about many of the issues discussed so glibly here. Have a good day though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Semantics? How else can one understand what each other means?. If you have experienced 'predujice'such as not wanting to associate with you,sit with you on a bus or anywhere else,then that is to be regretted and considered inappropriate. However ,for persons to understand and accept the Church teaching on Holy Matrimony and to understand that Christian marriage is as taught by the Church cannot be said to be prejudice .
    The law concerning the 'new' marriage has been argued principally from a secular background .If indeed the Government wished to take sensitive regard of the Christian Church ,then no doubt Archbishop Welby and other church leaders would have been involved in the rushed decision. However it was put in place from an equal rights perspective - whatever equal rights might mean to the MP's . When the issue was first mooted , the question the government put to the House was 'HOW' this could be implemented ,and not 'WHY' and 'if' it was to present a problem to the Church in any way. This is why I say the government is veering towards totalitarianism and it is dangerous for us all. Archbishop Welby clearly pointed out that ' the law is the law' ,but he said it does not alter church teaching ,and at least the Government acknowledged this much ,inasmuch that churches cannot ,in fact, perform same sex marriage.
    The Church of England being the established Church ( whether one thinks this is good or not) should have been consulted and listened to in this matter. If the government and country have no respect for an institution-the Anglican Church of England- which is part of the establishment, then this implies 'lip service' only. I have never been able to understand how formerly a heterosexual couple wish to 'marry' in a Registry office : Holy Matinony is a sacrament of the church ,and is celebrated in church by a priest, otherwise it is surely a Civil Partnership, whatever the secular law says.
    Equality is a big subject, but we have not been made equal and we never can be 'equal' : each one of us is different. Did you hear 'Thought for the Day' on radio 4 this morning? . Generally speaking ,people want to be different , from the clothes we wear to how we adorn our houses . Even down to council houses - the occupants want to be different from the neighbour next door and the first thing to do is paint the front door a different colour.
    Equality is not that which is achieved by an attempt to alter ,redefine or even destroy Divine Law .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Queery, there is no point at all in being angry about this. The law of England and Wales now permits you either to enter a civil partnership or a secular marriage with another man.

    But God made marriage as a bond between one man and one woman for life. The bible is at its most crystal clear where this issue is concerned. If you are angry at God that you find yourself homosexual, then that is an issue between you and Him.

    The Church is not going to rewrite the bible so that you can "marry" a man, however much you might think it a good idea, not least because marriage is a sexual relationship according to Christian teaching, and the kind of sexual relationship which might take place between two men is completely contrary to the teaching of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is absolutely forbidden, and Jesus affirmed very clearly that he had not come to abolish the law. Instead he described marriage in the terms set out in the Book of Genesis: a union of a man and a woman, who become one flesh in the bond of marriage.

    Life requires of us that we make many choices. You have made yours, but it does not entitle you to redefine the Bible as a consequence.




    ReplyDelete