Californians are selfish?

Sooner or later we'll have to deal with this in the UK, but for now we can only look in abject amazement at what the Californian majority has done.

Personally I can't understand it. The nearest thing I can liken the passing of Proposition 8 to is an unbelievably selfish dog-in-the-manger attitude. We can be thankful for one small mercy I suppose: at least those same-sex marriages that occurred during the brief respite will not be annulled.

"Marriage is ours! You can't have it!" seems to encapsulate what the vote is saying. The majority don't want gay marriage. Fine, it's entirely up to you whether you approve or not. But don't deny it to those who do want it. Gay marriages aren't performed in church, so it's not a religious issue.

In the UK we have church marriages and we have registry office marriages. The church should consider itself privileged that signing the register as part of a church ceremony counts as a legal wedding. Those who don't wish for a church ceremony can have a civil wedding at a registry office - and they will be legally married under UK law.

The church is free to make up its own rules as to who can and can't be married in church (though in the case of the Church of England it's a bit more complicated than that, because they are the 'established church'). Those who don't like the rules can get married in a registry office.

It seems to me that what's happened in California is that the majority has voted for the church to have dominion over the secular. In a country whose constitution explicitly forbids such interference, this is a serious matter indeed.

In the general euphoria surrounding the news that the American electorate made a wise choice on November 4, the passing of Proposition 8 in California is unpleasant and embarrassing.

UPDATE, 2008-11-12:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

Women bishops have a problem with reality

On the Today programme this morning:

Thirteen hundred clergy, including several bishops, have written to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in protest at the prospect of women being made bishops. Canon Beaumont Brandie, from the group Forward in Faith which opposes women priests, says this as a warning shot to the Church that they must do something to respect their views.

Listen to the streaming audio here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7483000/7483108.stm



The problem with the appointment of women bishops, apparently, is that according to a certain faction within the Anglican Church, they might not be "real" bishops, and consequently any male priests they ordain would not be "real" priests. And therefore any Communion Services these priests conduct would not be "genuine."

I'm sorry, I couldn't help laughing.

Theological wisdom: Rowan Williams on debt

It's been suggested[1] that theology isn't actually a subject at all. But if that's the case it has a huge advantage over many other disciplines: being qualified in theology gives you the authority to speak out on subjects that have nothing whatever to do with the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

On Friday's Today Programme, Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke to John Humphrys about debt. The audio is available on the BBC's listen again service here.


Download RealPlayer here

The muddle-headed cleric was interviewed for about eight minutes in advance of a debate in the House of Lords. The essence (indeed the whole) of his thesis was "something must be done."

I've nothing against people having opinions, but when they appear on national media to speak on a particular topic, I expect them to have some established expertise, authority or at least relevant experience that will add to the debate. But just because Dr. Williams is a nice chap with a posh voice - that's not a good enough reason to put his views on the nation's premier morning news radio programme. If you listen to what he said in those eight minutes, you'll find he said nothing new or useful.

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006), 57

Church to impose 'rule book' of beliefs

This from the Sunday Telegraph (2007JUN03):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/03/nchurch03.xml

The bishops' paper warns that in order to preserve the unity of the Church, those who do not conform to a more prescriptive statement of faith will be "forced out".

I appreciate that this is probably the Telegraph's journalistic interpretation, but it still left me wondering about the logic of trying to counter disunity by ... enforcing disunity.

And anyway, doesn't the Church of England already have a 'rule book'? (I think King James had something to do with it....)