Earlier this year Dr Sentamu received racist abuse after he became the Church of England’s first senior cleric to speak against the controversial plan. Now the Archbishop has reiterated his position, pointing out that civil partnerships already offer “same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to marriage”.
He added: “If the rights of Civil Partners are met differently in law to those of married couples, there is no discrimination in law, and if Civil Partnerships are seen as somehow ‘second class’ that is a social attitude which will change and cannot, in any case, be turned around by redefining the law of marriage. It may even make social attitudes go in reverse gear. So I submit that to use the law to redefine marriage when there is no legal inequity involved is a misuse of the Statute. It must never be used to give comfort or reassurance but to remedy an injustice.”
I'm just a humble, unemployed priest who left school at the age of sixteen and who cannot hope to keep up with the reasoning of intellectual giants of the stature of the bishop of York. So, I'm a bit worried about asking the following questions in case I come across as incredibly stupid. But heck, I'm going to ask them anyway.
If there is no difference between a civil partnership and marriage what is John's big problem with gay people marrying each other? Is he really alienating most of the population of England from the Church of England over a matter of semantics? Surely not! That wouldn't be very clever, would it?