Anglican Mainstream

From 4thought TV

Watch:  

John Richardson here

SPUC's Anthony McCarthy here

By Frances Kelly, MercatorNet

What does “marriage equality” actually mean?

Q. Why are gay rights advocates changing the terminology from “gay marriage” to “marriage equality”?
A. Because “marriage equality” wins more votes.

In October 2011 a Rutgers-Eagleton poll revealed that 52 percent of voters in New Jersey supported “gay marriage.” That’s significant enough for us to ponder, but when the question was reframed as “marriage equality,” support for same-sex marriage increased by 9 points to 61 percent.

“One of the simplest rhetorical truths is that the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate wins the debate,” columnist Selwyn Duke observed recently about the 2012 election. Labels are powerful. Why hand victory to opponents of traditional marriage by using their language when it comes to marriage?

It is time to articulate the issue on our own terms. We need a new paradigm for the new redefinition of marriage.

Opposing "gay marriage" makes it sound as if we oppose gays. This plays right into supporters’ hands; they want us to look anti-gay so they can call us hate-filled. But we’re not. We have friends, relatives, and neighbors dealing with same sex attraction; we’re not against them. We are sceptical of the gay agenda.

The term “gay marriage” also implies that marriage needs to be redefined to accommodate individuals with same-sex attraction, as if they are excluded from gender-integrated marriage. But they are not. Everyone has a gender; everyone qualifies.

Read here

By David W Virtue, Virtueonline

The Bishop of Olympia, the Rt. Rev. Gregory H. Rickel believes he has come up with the perfect solution to same-sex marriage. He says his idea is not exactly new, but it is based on the notion of fidelity. "Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments and also in our life as Christians," he opined in a statement at his diocesan website.

"It seems to me we have held our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in a 'catch-22'. We say they cannot live up to our value because they cannot be married, or even blessed in their union. While many of them have begged for this, it is still not possible. What they ask of us, the church and the government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect, which would also mean that we expect the same from them. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community. To me, this is a conservative proposal. I am for it, and I hope we will finally make way for this to happen, not only in our society, but also in our church."

There you have it – a clear unalloyed statement of support for gay couples as long, of course, that they are faithful and monogamous and don't misbehave like heterosexuals do from time to time.

It is expected that Washington state legislators will soon deliberate two bills, HB2516 & SB6239, which would make same sex marriage law in that state. "Our Episcopal Church, after a long discussion about this over the years is poised to do roughly the same this summer at our General Convention," noted the bishop.

VOL believes there are multiple reasons why the bishop and the passage of this proposed legislation is wrong.

Here are a few reasons:

Read here

From BBC News

By Peter Saunders, CMF

The Prime Minister intends to legalise same sex marriage and is launching a consultation in March to ask how.

But very little has so far been written about by what means it could actually be done.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution practised by virtually all societies and cultures.

This definition of marriage has long been recognised in British law and was originally based on biblical teaching (Genesis 2:24).

Marriage was then formally defined in a famous court case late in the 19th century. Lord Penzance, in Hyde v Hyde in 1866, called it:

'… the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

So there are, in other words, four conditions for a marriage:

•it must be voluntary
•it must be for life, ie the parties’ intention at the time of the marriage
•the union must be heterosexual
•it must be monogamous

In addition, the parties must be of marriageable age.

Read here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

Next week, 7-14 February, is marriage week, when all around the country churches and community groups will encourage married couples to focus on actively nurturing their relationships.

More than two thirds of Britain’s families are headed by a married couple and statistics show that these twelve million couples are more likely to stay together because of, not in spite of, being married.

To launch Marriage Week 2012, Sir Paul Coleridge, Rabbi Mirvis and Professor Scott Stanley will speak at an event in the Houses of Parliament on 6 February.

The website tells us that Marriage Week ‘celebrates healthy marriages – the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, primarily though not exclusively, with the intent of procreation and the raising of children.’

It adds that ‘this social institution has been enshrined in the history of civilization providing vital inter-generational links and stability’.

And yet this event is taking place in the middle of moves, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, to redefine marriage altogether.

Read here

By Madeleine Davies

MEMBERS of Parliament have spoken out in support of the Arch­bishop of York, Dr Sentamu, after he voiced his opposition to gay mar­riage.

More than 100 MPs could oppose the Prime Minister’s plans to change the legal definition of marriage, one Labour MP, Jim Dobbin, suggested.

“This is not an equality issue, but a redefinition, a change of the under­standing that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Mr Dobbin said. “It will have all sorts of ramifica­tions. If you consider what is being taught in schools, children are going to have to be taught a whole different aspect to marriage, because we are rede­fining it. It’s an institution that has been there for centuries.”

He estimates that “in excess of 100 MPs” are warning the Prime Min­ister against the legalisation of gay marriage.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph last week, Dr Sentamu said: “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history, and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.”

He compared the Government’s telling churches to carry out gay marriages to the Church’s being told to become part of the armed forces, “competely changing tradition”.

Read here

From CEN

CHURCHES IN England and Wales are opposing the Coalition Government’s plans to introduce gay marriage.

Lynn Featherstone (Lib Dem), Parliamentary Undersecretary of State at the Equalities Office, has announced that she is to open a formal consultation on the issue in March. She told the House of Commons that she has already met with representatives of the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Alliance and the Christian Institute.

In an interview with the ‘Daily Telegraph’, the Archbishop of York said it was not the role of the state to redefine marriage.

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and woman,” announced Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just change it overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

“We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.”

The Archbishop was attacked for his views by Peter Tatchell, the veteran campaigner for gay rights. “Dr Sentamu is a religious authoritarian who opposes equality,” said Mr Tatchell. “It is not a loving Christian value to demand legal discrimination against gay couples and to treat them as inferior, second class citizens.”

Read here

Ruth Gledhill The Times

Bishop Holtam told The Times: “We are living in a different society. If there’s a gay couple in The Archers, if there’s that form of public recognition in popular soaps, we are dealing with something which has got common currency. All of us have friends, families, relatives, neighbours who are, or who know somebody, in same-sex partnerships.”

For a long time he believed that marriage could only be between heterosexual people. But he said: “I’m no longer convinced about that. I think same-sex couples that I know who have formed a partnership have in many respects a relationship which is similar to a marriage and which I now think of as marriage. And of course now you can’t really say that a marriage is defined by the possibility of having children. Contraception created a barrier in that line of argument. Would you say that an infertile couple who were knowingly infertile when they got married, weren’t in a proper marriage? No you wouldn’t.”

Read here (£)

Read Bishop Michael Nazir Ali on Marriage here

AM Website comments

Life long friendships are not the same as marriage and clearly the church needs to support them in a lonely world. Because we affirm lifelong friendships, that does not mean they should be confused with marriage. Each relationship has its own integrity. Marriage is God's ordained best for human flourishing. No Christian theologian has ever said that marriage is only for the procreation of children.  Man and woman together are the image of God in Genesis. Marriage is a union of commonality and difference which are complementary. This is particularly evident in the analogy that Paul draws between a husband and wife and Christ and his Church.

By Maggie Gallagher

Ron Paul, the de facto head of the libertarian wing of the GOP, has argued it is a state’s right to define marriage as it chooses. Here’s the case for why states should choose to support the traditional understanding of marriage and repeal same-sex marriage.

1. Government did not create marriage and has no business redefining it.

Government did not create marriage and has no business redefining it. Government’s job is to protect marriage and help it fulfill its unique mission, not change its meaning to accommodate the latest politically correct notion.

The government has been involved in marriage because marriage has been seen as key to protecting children—both by preventing out of wedlock births and by encouraging mothers and fathers to stay together and raise their children.

That this is the state’s interest in marriage was not an argument made up in order to oppose gay marriage; to the contrary, it has been repeatedly expressed explicitly by courts, it is the explicit reason the majorities of state courts have rejected a right to same-sex marriage. If encouraging mothers and fathers for children is a key part of marriage’s public purpose, then same-sex couples simply do not fit.

They are not marriages and government should not force the wider society, or third parties, to change their views on marriage to accommodate the views of the fashionable left.

All of us are free to live as we choose, none of us have the right to redefine marriage, which is a prepolitical institution the government protects and supports because it is so key to the future of the whole society in terms of creating and protecting children.

Read here (pdf)

By Brian Brown, NOM

[...]  "Never in human history has marriage been defined as two men. Never in human history has marriage been defined as two women. Who has the right to redefine it?"

The crowd shouts: "No one!"

"This is reckless social experimentation. Marriage is the fundamental cell of society. If you mess with marriage, you threaten the very future of humanity. We ask our government to do their job. Fix the problems we already have. Don't make new ones! Do your job!"

Do your job. Fix the budget. Get the economy back to work. Solve problems, don't create them, and don't blame the people for refusing to accept your insults or your epithets as a substitute for rational argument.

Up in New Hampshire the same spirit of courage was demonstrated by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, who takes the gay marriage activists to task for what he calls "usurpation by redefinition":

Read here

By Jennifer Roback Morse, Ruth Institute

I am here today to address those of you who have already made up your minds to redefine marriage. History will not be kind to you. Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. Particular people advocated the policies that led to today’s 50% divorce rate and 40% out of wedlock childbearing rate. None of these people has ever been held accountable.

I am here today to hold you to account, for the predictable harms you have already caused and will continue to cause by redefining marriage.

Let me remind you of the essential public purpose of marriage. Marriage attaches mothers and fathers to their children, and to one another. Once you replace that essential public purpose with inessential, even frivolous private purposes, marriage will not be able to do its job. But children will still need secure attachments to their mothers and fathers, a need which will go unfulfilled.

Read here

From The Christian Institute

The leaders of Holyrood’s opposition parties have committed themselves to “campaign” for the redefinition of marriage, despite widespread opposition to any change.

The leaders of the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green parties signed a pledge calling for the change at an event at Holyrood yesterday.

But John Deighan, of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, said: “It is disappointing that party leaders have been so cavalier in joining the bandwagon for redefining marriage.

“We deserve a more reflective approach from those in a position of political leadership.

“Marriage is essentially linked with recognising and supporting the roles of mother and father.”

Read here

By John-Henry Westen, LifeSite News

In news that will come as a heavy blow to many coffee lovers, Starbucks has officially backed homosexual ‘marriage.’

In a January 24 letter to U.S. partners, Kalen Holmes, Starbucks executive vice president, expresses support for the homosexual “marriage” legislation in Washington State. The “important legislation,” says Holmes “is core to who we are and what we value as a company.”

The legislation has been decried by pro-family advocates as a major threat to freedom, since it would force religious institutions to open the doors of their facilities for homosexual “marriages.”

The letter, which boasts of the company’s LGBT activism begins, “Starbucks is proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples.”

The letter concludes: “We look forward to seeing this legislation enacted into law.”

Read here

Dr Jennifer Roback Morse on the consequences of redefining marriage to include gay couples (starts at 0.44).  We urge everyone who is undecided on this issue to watch this video.

By John Smeaton, LifeSite News

Dr John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (pictured) has told David Cameron, the prime minister, not to legalize gay marriage*. He said (in an interview in the Telegraph this weekend):

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman … I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are … We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way … “

Dr Sentamu rightly alludes to the actions of “dictators” when referring to David Cameron’s plans, for the following reasons:

Firstly, consider the enormity of what the government intends to bring about. David Cameron and his government intend to re-define marriage: a fundamental good of human beings, the first and vital cell and source of human society, which is upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the following terms: “Men and women of full age … have the right to marry and to found a family. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

As Mario Conti, the Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, put it (in the context of the Scottish government’s plans):

Read here

From Christian Today

In just a few weeks, the Government will begin rounding up opinions on marriage and whether the current legal definition of a union between one man and one woman should remain, or be redefined to apply also to same-sex couples.

Whenever a change to the law is being considered that has the potential for significant impact on a nation’s social structures or the way in which future generations think and live, it is always best to err on the side of caution.

So the pace at which the Governments in Westminster and north of the border are trying to push through a change to one of society’s most fundamental institutions – for many, the bedrock institution – is alarming and baffling in equal measure.

For centuries now, marriage the world over has been defined as a union between one man and one woman, with the assumption of childrearing as a natural consequence. It was defined as marriage not because any government named it so, but because that is what it was. It is therefore difficult to understand why we are now faced with the prospect of the meaning of marriage being changed largely as a result of government intervention.

Read here

By Katie Liptrott, York Press

By Patrick Lee, Witherspoon Institute

The conjugal conception of marriage is just and coherent; the same-sex marriage proponents’ conception of marriage is unjust and incoherent.

The “marriage equality movement”: that’s the name chosen for themselves by same-sex “marriage” supporters. The implicit argument is that the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is undue discrimination. The claim has an initial plausibility: the state grants a marriage license to John and Mary but not to Jim and Steve. Isn’t that unequal treatment? But this charge, I will show, rests on a profound confusion about both marriage and equality. A state’s recognition that marriage is only between a man and a woman is not unjust. What’s more, a state’s endorsement of same-sex “marriage” does create an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

A law is unjust only if the distinction it creates is not essentially related to a legitimate purpose of law. But whatever one holds about the morality of homosexual acts, it is clear that the state does have an interest in promoting and regulating marriage as traditionally defined, and that the sexual relationships of same-sex couples are distinct in kind from that. So, even if—contrary to fact—the state did have an interest in promoting same-sex sexual relationships, that interest would be different from the one served by promoting marriage. And so the two types of relationships or arrangements should not be lumped together. Moreover, falsely to equate the two is to obscure the nature of marriage.

Read here

Andrew Brown, Guardian

The Archbishop of York must understand we are not facing a 'dictatorship' on gay marriage but a change in popular morality

The archbishop of York, John Sentamu, hopes that people will pay attention to other things in his most recent interview than his attack on gay marriage. Fat chance. When he said that the government will be acting as dictators have done if it introduces gay marriage, he put himself squarely in the wrong on a matter that people care about.

Nor does he give what I think are likely to be his real, animating reasons: that he believes gay marriage is bad because it makes being gay look normal and even admirable, and because gay people should not have sex with each other. Around most of the world, and certainly in most of the Anglican Communion, these would be perfectly respectable and uncontroversial things to say. But in modern Britain they are a minority view, and certainly not a respectable one. They are not going to win a political argument – and that's what he's fighting here.

Read here