Firstly, the Church of England is now inconsistent in its defence of the sacrament of holy matrimony as the exclusive union that can be celebrated between two people in church. Some time ago, we decided to leave it to the discretion of individual parish priests as to whether they would agree to marry those who had previously been divorced. I think that was right and just - it was cruel and unredemptive to have a blanket ban on the re-marriage before God of those who had a failed marriage behind them.
So that initiative recognised that there was room for the blessing of a bodily union outside a single marriage between a man and a woman, even while one of the original partners of that marriage is still alive. With that original model of marriage now compromised and re-marriage left to the discretion of the vicar, it becomes impossible to defend the notion that the only union that can be celebrated in church is one, lifelong commitment between a man and a woman. All that is left is disapproval of homosexuals and homosexual acts.
Which brings me to my second point. I don't believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and I believe that it is truly perverse, not to mention deeply damaging and offensive, to attempt to "cure" people of their natural sexuality as if it is a mental illness. But that is a separate issue. The real point is that there is little or nothing in the gospels about the condemnation of sexuality (if anything, rather the reverse) and a great deal about love. The Christian Church - the Body of Christ - should be about the celebration of God's love wherever it is found.
(George Pitcher, THE MAIL)
Good old George! The fact that this has been published by The Mail (the UK's equivalent of Fox News) is extremely heartening and it will, hopefully, influence the attitude of some who would not normally be sympathetic to change.