The law has no right to legalise same-sex marriage, the Archbishop of Canterbury declared yesterday. Dr Rowan Williams said a new marriage law for gay couples would amount to forcing unwanted change on the rest of the nation.

His remarks yesterday came after Coalition ministers insisted they would go ahead with a same-sex marriage law whatever the churches say. Equality minister Lynne Featherstone said last week the churches did not own marriage law. She added a same-sex marriage law would be ‘about the underlying principles of family, society and personal freedoms’.

COMMENT: Okay, let's get this straight (forgive the pun) once and for all. The extension of marriage to include same sex couples IS NOT A CHANGE. It is an addition. Heterosexual couples, both now and in the future, will experience no difference whatsoever. They will not be forced to "change" anything. On the day after same sex couples are given the freedom to marry under English law, nothing in the lives of anyone, except gay couples and people who work in secular registry offices, will alter in the slightest.

For the Grand Tufti to insist that there will be change where there obviously will be none is a cynical abuse of his status as a national spokesperson. His incorrect use of the English language will whip up fear and hatred among those citizens of England who will, in reality,  not be affected at all by the "addition." Quite honestly we "have the right" to expect a lot more accuracy of language from our academics and a lot more honesty and love from our Christian leaders.

A good example of a change in the law that did force unwanted change on others would be the repeal of slavery. The slave owners and most white, southern states Americans, got really pissed off about that one. Following Williams logic, if the persecution of gay people is no different to racism, but gay people should not be allowed the same rights as everybody else, then it was wrong for Lincoln to champion the freeing of the slaves.



  1. I’ve read the lecture from which the Mail derives its story. Even though it is the Archbishop speaking (pseudo clever) and the Mail listening (pseudo stupid), I still can’t see where they derive the story from.

    Lecture is here:http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/other-meetings/visits/lecture-by-archbishop-of-canterbury-on-human-rights-and-religious-faith.html

    Can anyone see in that lecture or anywhere else a statement from the ABC that the law has no right to legislate for same-sex marriage or that it would amount to “forcing unwanted change on the rest of the nation”?

    If I’ve missed that bit in the lecture, could someone point me to it?

    He did say this: ‘If it is said that a failure to legalise assisted suicide – or same-sex marriage – perpetuates stigma or marginalisation for some people, the reply must be, I believe, that issues like stigma and marginalisation have to be addressed at the level of culture rather than law.’

    But that ain’t the same, I don’t think.

  2. The law has no right to legalise same-sex marriage, the Archbishop of Canterbury declared yesterday.

    Yeah, and Rome has “no right to ordain women.”

    This passive HIDING BEHIND what you bloody well have the right to change is reprehensible!

    Being made in the Image and Likeness of God, human beings have inherent rights to CHOOSE freedom, to CHOOSE equality. “Not to choose is to choose”…oppression for The Other.

    “Lord, when did we see you sick or in prison or… and we didnt…”

  3. Oh, you people and your original sources! Some of us do not have the leisure time to peruse the small print, you know.

    Anyway, Archbishop John, to who I remain a faithful servant, has this week ushered in a new world, south of the border, in which the popular press, by warrant of its very popularity, is to be regarded as the purveyor of eternal truth, an accolade it so richly desires. At long last the house style at OCICBW… is in the mainstream of modern ecclesiastical thinking.

  4. Pffft. Marriage is overrated anyway, straight or gay. Dump the whole damn institution and be freaking well DONE WITH IT. ha!

  5. Now that we are so close to getting marriage equality I am having real problems with the proposal that we get rid of the institution.

    It smacks of the segregationists in the American south in the 1960s who closed schools rather than let black children attend. Marriage matters desperately to some of us. Those (especially those who are straight) who call for the institution to now be scrapped seem to be on the side of those who would do anything to keep us out.

    Just stop it, in other words. Marriage is an important part of society, and we have fought for too long and too hard to get the right to have recognition of our relationships. You don’t get to abolish the institution just because we are almost there.

    In December my partner and I passed our ten year mark together. We have weathered financial crises, health crises, the hell of graduate programs, a mortgage and the challenge of selling a house at the height of the housing collapse. We have survived through more than most straight marriages that I know of. At this point I have had it with the f*cking libertarian ploy to keep us out of marriage equality.

    You are going to have to put up with us getting marriage equality.

  6. Tracie isn’t being a libertarian. She’s just being a woman. And when it comes to not understanding women there is absolutely no difference between gay men and straight men. None of us can fathom them.

  7. well at this point it is non-negotiable for me. man or woman, I damned well expect support for marriage equality. this affects my life too much, and I refuse to put up with asinine comments that don’t lead to equal recognition within marriage.

    anything other than full acceptance is simply supporting bigotry. full stop. no discussion. I am a one issue voter and this is the only issue I know. It gets to the core of the recognition of us as human beings.

    this is my life and we are damned well going to have marriage equality.