Thursday 11 February 2010

CofE Supporting 'Gay Marriage' by stealth

What a clever move by Mark Bratton and what a complete and utter howler on the part of those who claim to be 'orthodox' the acceptance of the motion to 'provide parity of pension provision for surviving civil partners' was. Having been passed in all three houses the CofE has just endorsed same sex relationships and basically accepting the oxymoron that is 'gay marriage'.
    
Oooh, there will be some weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth tonight, especially in the non-camp camp as they realise that whilst they went shopping or worded another letter for them all to sign, the deed was being done in front of them. Sadly, they were obviously too dense to realise what the motion meant and decided to be elsewhere.
    
I Can't wait to read some of the responses from pressure groups and others. Here's one that I have to say that I fully understand and support . . .
    
"Utterly ashamed of the synod today. Yes, let's take faithful Christians' money and reward civil partners for a lifetime of committed sin!"
    
Add to this John Broadhurst's comments this week regarding Gene Robinson which basically said something to this effect:
    
"If a man left his wife for another woman he'd be out of the ministry, so how does a man leave his wife for another man and remain a bishop?"
    
A good question but at least we can say that the other bloke will get a pension over here if his  priest partner dies!!! So now we know that civil partnerships and marriage are synonymous!    
Don't we have fun us Anglicans?

4 comments:

Helegant said...

Sorry Vic, it isn't clear to me which elements offend you. Are you suggesting there is no difference between adultery which is an insult to an existing partnership, and contracting a civil partnership?

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

If I leave my wife of another woman I am acted against but to leave my wife for another man is not an issue. I think that's what JB is saying and I think this is what your comment refers to.

I haven't mentioned the word 'offended' and am not sure where this comes in. Bemused (and confused) would be more accurate a description of my emotions.

I am assuming that both adultery and same-sex relations are sexual sin. One is the breaking of a covenant and the other is a breaking of a God ordained convention. Such a position fits the Scripture, Reason and Tradition test and that there is some logic in JB's words.

I am saddened that we (Anglicans)have made civil partnership and marriage synonymous for many reasons. I think the fallout from this might have some implications for ecumenical relations with some groupings and denominations and I~ see this as another cause for sadness.

Hope this answers the question - time for bed now as both eyes in the same socket and brain been put back in fridge for the night!

Pax

Helegant said...

Vic, sorry to have put the word 'offended' in your mouth - my mental shorthand fell onto the page. Thanks for that clarification; I understand now where we agree and where we differ, and where I haven't quite worked out why I think as I do - trying to make theology drive the answer, not using it to gloss over an existing opinion. Hope you slept well. Px.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

Up and at them - another day and I managed to sleep in until seven something or other (makes a change from 05:10 at the desk!) :)

Know what you mean about theology - i try to use mine to shape situations rather that redefine it to accommodate and herein lies the problem as I see it.

I'll stick in in a post . . keep watching and thanks,

V