Good Morning Britain: A Heated Debate

The Archbishop of York became embroiled in a heated television debate with Piers Morgan this morning over gay marriage.

Archbishop John Sentamu appeared on the ITV show to promote his reasons to vote remain in the upcoming EU referendum but the topic soon moved on to the Orlando massacre.

MailOnline columnist Mr Morgan, 51, asked the religious leader about the church's views on gay marriage following Sunday's attack, which took place in a gay club in Florida.

Dr Sentamu, 67, was forced to deny that the church was homophobic and insisted that he has lots of gay friends - and he was particularly unimpressed when Mr Morgan compared homophobia to racism.

The MailOnline columnist said: 'What if I said to you that you can come to this country as a Ugandan born man but because of the colour of your skin you can only have a civil partnership, you can't have a real one.

'No, some of my relations died on the ships. Slavery was a very wrong thing.'

Dr Sentamu insisted that while he is not in favour of gay marriage due to his religious beliefs, he is not homophobic and he wants to support the LGBT community.

He said: 'I've got a lot of gay friends and they see me as a friend, as someone who wants to support and defend them against homophobia.

'Not supporting gay marriage does not equal homophobia.'

Mr Morgan said: 'You've taken a pretty strong stance against gay marriage. Is it about time that religious leaders from all faiths came together and were more tolerant generally towards homosexuality?'

But the archbishop replied: 'You can still have your view, in terms of teaching the church's position on marriage and at the same time be intolerant of those who are homophobic.

'The church's teaching on marriage between a man and a woman is very clear. I support civil partnerships because for me that's a matter of equality, a matter of fairness

'My upholding of Christian marriage as I understand it goes hand and hand with saying to people that to diminish homosexual people is anathema to the Christian faith because God loves us all equally.'

Mr Morgan was undeterred and asked: 'Is homosexuality a sin?'

The archbishop said: 'I would never say that. I will never say that because sin is doing something consciously against god.' 

Mail online.

The unspeakable in pursuit of the unspeakable etc.

Archbishop Of York: Isn't It Ironic?

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth yesterday over the Archbishop of York's condemnation of gay marriage.
If you ask me, taking any notice of what Dr John Sentamu has to say on this matter makes as much sense as taking traffic instructions from a mad drunk tramp who's standing in the middle of a motorway and shouting.
Best to ignore the homophobic publicity-seeking mentalist, that's what I say.
However...
His comments were made in The Daily Telegraph, but there was a companion piece that the furore caused to be cruelly overlooked; 'Dr John Sentamu: Church Must Avoid Being 'Too Middle Class’
I only got round to reading it today and my bullshit detector fairly exploded.

See if you can spot any irony, contradictions, flaws, hypocrisy or good old-fashioned fuckwittery between Dr Sillyoldmoo's anti-gay comments yesterday and this:

'While the focus has often been on the introduction of homosexual and female clergy, Dr Sentamu is aware that the Church must do more to avoid its leadership being solely white and middle class.
“I used to chair the committee for minority ethnic Anglican concerns, and we seemed to be making some progress but that now seems to be going backwards. Where we have lost out is black people who had been realised Anglicans, who are now joining Pentecostal churches. That’s a huge drain.”
'He said white working-class parishioners were also poorly represented in the Church’s leadership, often being relegated to making tea after services, and highlighted support groups for single mothers and replacing theological books with audio versions as ways to help disadvantaged groups.
“The Church should be a sign of the kingdom of heaven and should be telling us what it will look like. Heaven is not going to be full of just black people, just working-class people, just middle-class people, it’s going to be, in the words of Desmond Tutu, a rainbow people of God in all its diversity.”'

Quite.
The article also reminds us that the archbishop is currently in Jamaica.
But how in the name of Jehovah did anyone miss this line?

"Back at his 1950s hotel in the coastal town of Ocho Rios, where he struck up an unlikely friendship with the actor Rupert Everett..."

One wonders what they find to talk about.
Unless "struck up a friendship with Rupert Everett" is a new euphemism, that is.
God bless!

Gay Marriage: Waiting At The Church

At the risk of Fagburn repeating himself...
So far, this is all the Home Office are on record as saying about the possibility of gay marriage being introduced in the UK;
"The Government is currently considering what the next stage should be for civil partnerships, including how some religious organisations can allow same-sex couples to register their relationship in a religious setting if they wish to do so.
"Ministers have met a range of people and organisations to hear their views on this issue. An announcement will be made in due course."
That announcement is expected this week or next.
However, like yesterday's Sunday Times - who may know something we don't - some have already decided to break out the champagne.
And all on the back of one single quote in The Sunday Times from an anonymous Whitehall source.
Here's that quote again in full;
“This is not just about gay rights but about religious freedom. Quakers and liberal Judaism want to do this. Attitudes have changed to gay marriage. We are going to look at what legislative steps we could begin to make gay marriage possible.”
Fagburn wonders if this quote just shows a more general semantic confusion over this issue; using "marriage" in an informal sense when you technically mean "civil partnerships" - as did many papers yesterday and today.
Was the Whitehall source talking about making registering civil partnerships in churches possible?
It's quite possible - that is what the first two sentences in the quote clearly refer to, sometimes in inverted commas, sometimes not.
Whatever, a leader in today's Independent was already celebrating; A welcome blow against discrimination
"Less than 50 years ago, homosexuality was illegal in Britain. The last half-century has seen a revolution in social attitudes since a pioneering Labour home secretary, Roy Jenkins, pushed through the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the Sexual Offences Act in 1967. This week, the Coalition's equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, is expected to knock away another pillar in the ancient and unlovely edifice of institutionalised prejudice by announcing legal changes enabling gay men and lesbians to marry."
But have they though?
The Independent notes;
"Much attention around the expected change to the law will concentrate on whether the churches will now have to allow gay marriages to take place in their places of worship. Certainly, it will be interesting to see how the Church of England, which remains bitterly divided over the ordination of gay priests, responds."
This is interesting - and it could prove instructive.
That allowing civil partnerships or gay marriages in places of worship is the controversial issue now - not that of allowing gay marriages.
On BBC TV's The One Show yesterday, Andrew Marr asked Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop Of York, for his thoughts.
"...I, who believes in a liberal democracy and actually want equality with everybody, cannot say the Quakers shouldn't do it. Nor do I want somebody to tell me but the Church of England must do it, but the Roman Catholic Church must do it because actually that's not what equality is about. You mustn't have rights that trump other rights." [Transcript]
Like other papers today, The Daily Telegraph picked up on this; Sentamu: Don't force churches to conduct gay weddings "Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and the second most powerful cleric in the Church of England, has warned against forcing vicars to conduct same-sex civil partnerships as the Coalition prepares to grant full marriage rights to homosexual couples."
We're still none the wiser what this really means - allowing partnership ceremonies to be conducted in religious buildings is the last real "right" straight couples have that's denied to same-sex couples.
It would make civil partnership equivalent to marriage, but allowing gay couples to marry is another thing entirely.
The Daily Telegraph later clarifies;
"As The Daily Telegraph reported in December, the Coalition is also considering extending homosexual rights to allow full “marriage” for same-sex couples." [Emphasis added]
Let's step back in time and look at that then.
Coalition ministers consider gay marriage plans Daily Telegraph, December 24th 2010.
"Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, is expected to announce that same-sex civil partnership ceremonies will be allowed in churches and other religious settings for the first time.
"The move, likely to come early next year, could be a prelude to overhauling the law on marriage itself, which currently applies only to the union of a man and a woman."
And if you still need clarrification, later in the same article this is spelt out again;
"A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said the coalition had no “plans” to change marriage law but a Government source said potential reforms were “being discussed”."
I hate to say this, but that's what Fagburn was arguing yesterday.
There's no evidence of "plans" for gay marriage, only that it will be discussed - and the Tories have been saying as much for months.
I'd be more than happy if they proved me wrong on this one, though.