I want you to read the following from the Archbishop of York on the BBC website today, and what I want you to do is to substitute the word ‘slavery’ for ‘marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’.
He supported civil partnerships, he said, but only “dictators” tried to overturn history and redefine marriage.
The government will open a consultation on the issue of same-sex marriages in March. A consultation on the subject by the Scottish government ended last month.
But the Archbishop told the Telegraph that it was not the role of government to “gift” the institution of marriage [liberty? - Wolfers] to anyone.
“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, by the way, 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.”
It goes on for a while, and demonstrates exactly why I have no time for organised religion. You see government is bad enough with its desire to rule our physical lives, but the churches (yes, and mosques and synagogues etc) seek to control our very spirits, and that is worse.
The thing is John, what you are putting forward are so similar to the arguments that were put forward when the movement to abolish slavery was near to approaching its goals. Tradition, God’s will, an affront to liberty, State interference, all of them were held up as examples of why the abolitionists were wrong.
So, Dr. John Sentamu, were they wrong? I’m guessing you think that the abolitionists were right, and yet you see fit to restrict freedoms to others. Odd that, isn’t it?
Here’s a shock for you, when you say ”I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is”, I’d agree with you. But then, neither is it the role of the Church, and you admit so yourself.
Dr Sentamu also said both black parishioners and white working class churchgoers were poorly represented in the Anglican church.
And that’s because your organisation is now utterly irrelevant and yet you still seem to think you should have a big say in the way things are done around here. You can’t scare us any more, you don’t scare us any more, and religion is based on fear, ‘if you don’t do what we say, you’ll burn for eternity in the fires of hell’. We don’t believe you. Haven’t done for a long time.
You see people’s relationships are no business of anybody but those involved in those relationships, but so important are those relationships to people that they feel the need to certify them, to make them some how ‘official’. Now, I’m not suggesting that the Church of England or any religious institution be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, it’s your club, you make it quite clear that you don’t like homosexuals, and quite why they’d want to be a member of your club is beyond me. The CofE doesn’t have a monopoly on God, none of the religious clubs do, and I see no reason why the Big Gay Pink Church of God can’t be started, it’ll have no more or no less credibility than all the others, and they can be free to tell ‘breeders’ to take a hike and can be free to ensure that ordination of Bishops is only open to lesbians or transvestites, I really don’t care, it’s their club. Go knock yourselves out.
But the Church has no place blocking the marriage of same-sex couples in civil ceremonies, none whatsoever. It is of no concern of yours. You don’t own the word marriage.
Then he comes out with this, I’m almost at a loss;
“We supported civil partnerships because we believe that friendships are good for everybody.”
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Friendships? What the actual fuck are you going on about? You know you sound like a mother who has tried to come to terms with her son’s homosexuality but can’t quite make it. “This is my son Gary and his. . . . ‘friend’ Kevin.” In many ways this is worse than overt bigotry, it is almost silent, cowardly.
But Dr Sentamu said the Church would not stand idly by if the government sought to allow same-sex marriages to be on a par with heterosexual ones.
Oh, bless him, he’s going to allow the gayers to be ‘friends’, he’ll even let them get a bit of paper to say that they’re really good ‘friends’. Here’s an idea, John, let’s stretch the metaphor of the piece, shall we? Why don’t we make sure that they have to ride at the back of the bus, or have their own waiting rooms at train stations, or entrances to shops? I’m sure they’ll be grateful for that, it isn’t like they’re proper people is it? Have we heard that argument before somewhere?
But he said: “When I was a vicar there was a lady who didn’t want me to take her husband’s funeral because I was black. I took one funeral and at the end a man said to me, ‘Why did my father deserve to be buried by a black monkey?’ We received letters with excrement in.”
Yeah, discrimination is hurtful, isn’t it? So why, having been on the receiving end, are you so keen to make other people feel second class?
I have a word for people like you, a word that gets wheeled out very rarely. That word is ‘cunts’.
I despise the Church, not because I have a problem with God, certainly because I have a problem with the evil that they have done in God’s name, but most of all because they, all of them, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever, are peddlers of the most sickening bigotry.