An Anglican minister argues that the institution of marriage will be strengthened, not undermined by including same-sex couples.
Gay marriage is high on the government agenda, and the Church of England is not happy.
Short years ago, the possibility of quasi-connubial bliss was extended to gay couples through civil partnerships.
This had practically all the legal trappings of marriage, without quite being marriage as such. Now the government wants to extend wedded harmony to same-sex partners on the same footing as their heterosexual counterparts.
The Church of England believes this would be a bad thing because it would undermine the institution of marriage.
But this is, on inspection, a curious argument.
What form would this undermining take? Would the extension of the nuptial franchise to gay couples really "water down" marriage so that heterosexual couples would be deterred from tying the knot? Will a tweak to the marriage service to accommodate those who cannot by definition "procreate" rob marriage of its essence? Dream on!
"Some of the Church's proudest moments have come when it has changed"
In the context of the debate about the place of gays in the Church of England, the arguments coming from within its ranks can sound a trifle precious.
They forget that for a good part of Christian history, marriage was not regarded as the pinnacle of the human state. Certainly, in the west, celibacy was regarded as a higher calling, based on certain texts written by St. Paul. Church authorities very much regarded marriage as "second best".
This is why the pious Thomas More, living on the cusp of the Reformation, regarded his inability to hack the monastic life because of his need of sex and human love, as a kind of personal failure.
The Church of England appeals to tradition for its social conservatism on marriage. But some of its proudest moments have come when it has changed, rather than sought to preserve things how they were. Think of its attitudes to slavery and lending money at interest.
In the Catholic tradition of which the Church of England is a part, marriage is regarded as a "sacrament", a concrete sign of God's grace.
The Church of England is about to vote on legislation which, if passed, will enable women to become bishops, something unthinkable even a generation ago, and still unthinkable in the Roman Catholic Church. Is there any reason why the sacrament of marriage can't be extended to partnered gay men and women who wish to institutionalise their hopes for a permanent, faithful and stable relationship in the sight of God?
Surely this would protect, uphold and promote marriage, rather than undermine it.
Whats your views on this?
Read at:
No comments:
Post a Comment