Anglican Mainstream

From Coalition for Marriage

Over 659,800 have signed the petition so far.  Please add your signature and encourage others to do the same.

SIGN HERE

Various information resources and campaign updates may be downloaded from here

By George Eaton, New Statesman

Support for UKIP surges to a record high of 22 per cent in the latest Survation poll, with the Tories down five points to 24 per cent.

by George Conger, Anglican Ink

By James Kirkup, Telegraph

[...]  Bear that in mind when you hear the inevitable claims that David Cameron has been humiliated by having to rely on Labour votes to avert defeat over gay marriage, meaning the Prime Minister is weakened and embarrassed. That assessment may well be correct, but probably only for MPs and others in the Westminster village who follow the detail of parliamentary proceedings and political powerplay.

For people outside the bubble, I suspect the key point will be this: David Cameron wants to let gay people get married and now Ed Miliband is saying he does too. (Nick Clegg also, but anyone who pays attention will surely have assumed that anyway.)

So will today’s events change anyone’s mind about the issue? I doubt it. But for those who don’t want gay marriage to be allowed, the fact that the party leaderships are in broad agreement to allow it could well reinforce the feeling that a Westminster-based political elite is trying to enforce its consensus view on the rest of the country.

Because for a lot of people, politics today is not something to participate in. It is something that is done to them, and done to them by a small group of middle-class men in with similar careers, suits and accents. Rightly or wrongly, that group is blamed for people feeling like it’s somehow bad or wrong to think and believe as they do, that, people who disagree with the men in smart suits are “mad, swivel-eyed loons”, or “bigoted” or “clowns”.  (Emphasis ours.)

And anyone who doubts the importance of that view should ask Nigel Farage to explain it to them.

Now the precise level of public opposition to gay marriage – and the intensity of that feeling – is debatable. But there are people who are unhappy, and they each have a vote. And elections are won one vote at a time.

For each of Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg, the die is cast. They have committed themselves to the same course of action on gay marriage and cannot go back.

That being so, there is surely a political prize to be taken by the first leader to appeal convincingly to those who disagree with him, to persuade them that while he does not share their views, he respects them nonetheless.

So far, that prize looks like going unclaimed.

Want to read more about the gay marriage row? Try these:

Read here

From Mass Resistance

If you're looking for some good news – here it is! All eyes are on Illinois.

We've watched the legislatures in state after state capitulate to the well-funded and well-organized "gay marriage" blitzkrieg. This year the final state in the "gay marriage" path is Illinois. But it looks like the "gay lobby" will probably be stopped there by a marvelous pro-family army!
 
Telling it like it is. Pastors' press conference organized by Illinois Family Institute to stop "gay marriage' from coming to Illinois.
 
With only two weeks until the current session ends, it's down to a final vote in the House. After months of intense lobbying, the "no-on-gay-marriage" votes have a pretty strong lead, which actually seems to be growing a bit. It appears from this delay that unless it is clear there are the 60 "yes" votes needed to pass, the leadership will not bring it up for a vote. 

How is this happening with (1) the enormous funding that the gay lobby there has, (2) the incredibly slanted Illinois media pushing for it, and (3) the corrupt nature of Illinois politics? The answer: Hard work, an uncompromising non-mushy attitude, a great coalition of groups and churches, and enough funding from local pro-family donors to do what is necessary.

Read here

While failing in their attempts to amend the legislation in any form, Conservative MPs voiced their concerns in large numbers on a range of issues.

A proposal which would have allowed civil registrars to opt out of presiding over gay marriages on grounds of conscience was backed by 150 MPs – including Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Owen Paterson – although 340 voted against.

In a subsequent vote, 148 MPs supported an amendment to protect the religious beliefs of a person who believes that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman but 349 MPs voted against.

Read here

The Church of Scotland's ruling General Assembly has voted to allow actively gay men and women to become ministers. Assembly commissioners in Edinburgh voted in favour of a proposal that allows liberal parishes to opt out of the church's policy on homosexuality.

The decision will have to be endorsed by the church's regional presbyteries and officially approved next year.

Divisions were caused when the first openly homosexual minister was appointed by the Kirk four years ago. Two congregations and six ministers broke away.

The vote to allow gay ministers in civil partnerships follows a report by the church's theological commission, which set out arguments on both sides.  General Assembly rules dictate it must be approved at a presbytery level and then rubber-stamped at next year's gathering.

Read here

Around 3,000 people from Tanzania, other parts of Africa and beyond gathered at Dodoma's Cathedral of the Holy Spirit on Saturday 18 May for the installation of the Anglican Church of Tanzania's new Primate.

The enthronement of the Bishop of Mpwapwa Dr Jacob Erasto Chimeledya was described by one church worker as "like a dream" because of the number of dignitaries in attendance. These included the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion Archbishop Justin Welby and his wife Caroline.

Other notable guests at the service included the Primate of the Anglican Church of Kenya the Most Revd Eliud Wabukala and representatives from other Anglican Provinces including Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi. As Dodoma is the country's political capital, the service was also attended by many government leaders including the President of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete.

Archbishop Chimeledya did not waste this opportunity to speak to the country's political leaders. He urged the government to take action against those guilty of "hate speech" especially the traditional media and those who publish comments online. With particular reference to the relationship between Muslims and Christians he asked Tanzanians to not just tolerate one another, but respect each other. "We only tolerate an enemy, not our fellow citizens," he said.

While there was only room for around 400 people in the cathedral, other guests were able to watch the two-hour service on screens under tents outside. Thousands looked on as Archbishop Justin was made a senior elder in the cathedral of the Anglican Diocese of Central Tanganyika, and they listened as he spoke about the risk of fear, especially to church leaders. He stressed that while fear is a part of life, it can be overcome through the Holy Spirit.

Read here

by Conservative Councillor, Mary Douglas - last updated Mon 20 May 2013

The coalition's gay marriage Bill returns to the Commons this evening with Tory MPs and activists deeply split over the issue. Tory critics are attempting to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill to allow heterosexuals to have the same right to civil partnerships as gay couples.

In an article for ITV News, Conservative councillor Mary Douglas urges the Prime Minister to return to core Conservative values and stop trying to impose legislation for which 'there is no mandate'. Only that, she says, is the path to success at the next General Election.

Lifelong supporters of the Conservative Party do not know where to turn. The Party they have served all their life seems to have headed off into the long grass, veering away from core Conservative values. Deeply held beliefs in marriage, as the lifelong commitment between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, are at risk of being discarded without so much as a 'by your leave'.

And it is not only the party faithful who are bewildered and betrayed. Ordinary men and woman are at a loss to explain what their government is doing with an institution so dear to their hearts.

Proposals to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is a radical change to the fundamental shape society. It would be which, until the last decade, has never been done in the whole of history, in any civilisation, ever.

Mary Douglas is a Conservative Councillor for Salisbury St Francis and Stratford and is a member of Conservative Grassroot

Read more here

Afternoon Summary

by Christopher Booker, Telegraph

The Oxford sex-grooming case reveals the glaring failures of our child-protection system

Most of the coverage given to the case of the seven men found guilty of the appalling physical and sexual abuse of underage girls in Oxford has focused on the fact that most of these monsters were of British Pakistani origin. But what should be seen in its own way as even more disturbing is the fact that five of these six girls were in the care of our “child protection” system.

Not only did the social workers consistently refuse to protect these children from hideous abuse over eight years – one 12-year-old girl’s parents pleaded in vain with them to intervene more than 70 times, another mother rang social services to report her daughter missing more than 100 times – but social services also actively connived in it, as when one care home bought a 13-year-old child “sexy underwear”, before sending her out to be drugged with heroin and gang-raped.

Almost identical was the case of those British Pakistanis from around Rochdale, jailed last year for similar offences against underage girls, most of whom were also in care. In Parliament, Simon Danczuk, Rochdale’s MP, quoted health workers who told him that the social workers had refused to intervene “because they believed that the girls had been making life choices, which was why they were seen as prostitutes”.

Read here

The issue of gay ministers will top the agenda at the Church of Scotland's General Assembly, four years after the first openly homosexual minister was appointed by the Kirk. The move caused divisions in the church and resulted in two congregations and six ministers breaking away.

At the heart of debate will be a report by the Theological Commission, which sets out arguments on both sides. But there is no guarantee of a final decision on the matter.

The General Assembly is the supreme court of the Church of Scotland and its annual national business meeting.

About 850 church commissioners – mainly ministers and elders – from across the church's 48 presbyteries, gather in the Assembly Hall on the Mound in Edinburgh for a week in May.

On the gay minister debate, the General Assembly has the option of "pausing for further reflection", which could delay a decision for another year. And even if church representatives agree on the way forward, rules dictate it must be approved at a presbytery level and then rubber-stamped at next year's General Assembly.

The dilemma facing the Church of Scotland goes back to 2009, when the openly gay minister Scott Rennie was appointed to the Queen's Cross parish in Aberdeen. He was backed by most of his congregation and by the General Assembly, but the decision resulted in protest and the break-away of a small number of congregations and ministers.

The issue returned at the Kirk's gathering in 2011, which voted to accept gay and lesbian clergy – on the condition they had declared their sexuality and were ordained before 2009. At that General Assembly, the theological commission was set up to report this year, before a final decision on the issue of gay ordination would be taken.

The 94-page report does not offer any conclusion or recommendations, but set out different paths the Kirk may want to take.

Read BBC News Report here

View video from BBC Breakfast Programme this morning

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954

Watch BBC Parliament Live for the debate  Started at 4.30 p.m.

by Isabel Hardman, Spectator

This morning, Labour was facing a rather awkward choice on the Same Sex Marriage Bill. This afternoon, the opposition party has turned the situation around so that it appears to be on the front foot. Initially the party needed to decide whether it would back Tim Loughton’s ‘wrecking amendment’ to introduce heterosexual civil partnerships, or whether to take heed of Maria Miller’s pleas and reject it. The first would have demonstrated that Labour does want equality in civil partnerships as well as in marriage. The second would have demonstrated that the party doesn’t want to delay the first gay wedding any longer.

But Yvette Cooper announced on the World at One this afternoon that rather than plump for one or the other in this unpleasant choice, the party was tabling its own amendment which calls for an immediate consultation on introducing heterosexual civil partnerships.

[...]  Initially, the party seemed to be on the front foot, leaving the government jogging behind. But it turns out that this party’s amendment is in fact an amendment to the government’s own amendment.

Read here

Follow Andew Sparrow's Live Blog here

By Steven Swinford, and Peter Dominiczak, Telegraph

David Cameron will personally vote against an amendment to the gay marriage bill in the Commons tonight.

By Steven Swinford, and Peter Dominiczak, Telegraph

The Archbishop of Canterbury has told MPs to oppose an amendment to the gay marriage bill which would allow heterosexual couples to have civil partnerships.

In a briefing to MPs, the Archbishop warns that the amendment does not have any "clear social good" and will only create "further confusion" about the role of marriage in society.

As many as 150 Tory MPs are expected to join forces with Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs to vote for the amendment, which the Government has said could derail the whole same-sex marriage bill.

Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, has warned that giving heterosexual couples the right to enter civil partnerships would "throw up significant challenges" and mean a "significant delay" to legislation.

The Church of England's briefing, which has been published today, says: "We believe that this would introduce further confusion about the place of marriage in society.

"We remain unconvinced that the introduction of such an option would satisfy a genuine and widespread public need, other than for those who pursue 'equality' as an abstract concept.

Read here

By David Baker, Christian Today

Is it just me, or is there something not quite right about the latest batch of church attendance figures?

I don't mean that in some way the actual numbers themselves are dubious. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statistics that have been compiled.

Nor do I necessarily mean the spin that is being put upon them – though there are some legitimate questions to be asked about that. No, what I have in mind is something rather more basic than that.

The latest figures, published by the Archbishops' Council, suggest that, nationally, average weekly attendance in Anglican churches fell by 0.3 per cent to 1,091,484 in the year 2011. On the other hand, there was significant growth in attendance at Christmas services. In 2011, 2,618,030 people were in church over the festive season – a rise of 14.5 per cent on 2010. Early returns from 2012 suggest a further increase last Christmas.

The Bishop of Norwich, Graham James, says the overall fall of 0.3 per cent represents "a stabilising trend" and that in total the figures demonstrate a "quiet confidence". There are certainly some questions to be asked about this sort of interpretation: I doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, would describe a 0.3 per cent contraction in the economy as a "stabilising trend", for example!

But, be that as it may, it seems to me there are some rather more basic questions we should be asking about the language that is being used.

Read here

The Coalition Government wishes to redefine marriage. But its absence from the Queen’s Speech suggests that they have lost confidence and openness about their intentions. They have received a drubbing at the polls and clearly realise that this proposed innovation has not caught the mood of voters, let alone the silent majority that is Jo(e) Public. The legal provision and benefits that Civil Partnerships grant to same-sex couples are now widely accepted as necessary, appropriate and sufficient. But most are unconvinced that marriage should be changed.

In a world of trial marriages, sham marriages, civil marriages, cultural marriages, and now so-called equal marriages, we come as community leaders to praise real marriage, not to redefine it. We urge our MPs to see (or continue to see) sense in resisting the ill-founded and unnecessary attempts to ‘improve’ marriage. For all our history this country has received marriage as the unique and distinctive union between one man and one woman. This is its ancient legal definition. Marriage has been understood and experienced in this way socially, culturally and spiritually for generations and for good reasons in our country. However, in the face of novel and individualistic alternatives, we feel it is right and good to stand up for real marriage. We champion it for the blessing and flourishing of women and men, of children, and of human community and society.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Church of Scotland's General Assembly debate on same-sex marriage for clergy is available to watch on Live Webcast here

By Damian Thompson, Telegraph

It's a measure of just how messy and convoluted the gay marriage debate has become that opponents of same-sex marriage will tonight vote for an amendment supported by Peter Tatchell.

I thought Tatchell might back away from his support for heterosexual civil partnerships, given that it's inspired a "wrecking amendment" – but I should have known better. Tatchell (whom I know and like, while vigorously disagreeing with him on most subjects) does not abandon causes for political expediency. Here's his statement:

"The Government’s decision to oppose the legalisation of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is hugely disappointing. It is a sad betrayal of the principle of equality. Nevertheless, I hope a majority of MPs will rebel and next week vote for the parliamentary amendment to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Every MP who supports straight equality should vote for the amendment."

Read here

From Brother Ivo, Cranmer

[...]  The only new contribution he can now offer is the following short observation identifying an overlooked absurdity:

If the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is passed, we will have Gay Marriages, and Gay Civil Partnerships. The only difference will be at the point the relationship is created. Thereafter, the rights and obligations will be identical, as will be the procedures for ending the relationship.

As Nadine Dorris has correctly identified, sex is a major component within the marital status; there is a full body of jurisprudence to support this, developed from the days of ecclesiastical legal jurisdiction. This has been entirely ignored – or, rather, deliberately excluded – from the legislating framework for these new institutions. So, in brief, we shall have a position where gay men who are 'married' will have more in common with gay civil partners who are not married, than with heterosexual couples who are.

How can this be logically described with any integrity as 'equalisation'?

Read here