07/10/2008
Gay Married Anglican Priests Plan Party at Westminster Abbey?
One of the gay priests who was married by an Anglican bishop last month, has turned in his resignation and is said to be planning a civil partnership party at Westminster Abbey where he has conducted services for a decade. Some aren't too happy about the rumored plans:
"But the prospect of a party for the gay vicars in one of Britain's most historic churches, where Kings and Queens have been crowned for centuries, has outraged traditionalists in the church. Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, a member of Parliament's Ecclesiastical committee, said: 'I regard it as remarkably insensitive. It is most unfortunate. They could show some sensitivity to the church.' One senior lay member of the abbey congregation said: 'It is an incredibly inflammatory idea so soon after the uproar they caused with their church wedding. It could embarrass the Queen if enough people complain.'"
Heterosexual rector Martin Dudley first angered conservatives by conducting the civil partnership using traditional Anglican liturgy.
Posted 10:02 AM EST by Andy Towle in Anglican church, Gay Marriage, Great Britain, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"It's incredibly insensitive to the church"?
I think it is incredibly insensitive to the people who want to get married to make a ruckus about about them getting married but no one seems to have a problem with that. As far as being an embarrassment to the Queen goes, she is supportive of same-sex marriage. She has come a long way in the past few years.
Hypocrites!
Posted by: PJ | Jul 10, 2008 10:40:43 AM
And this is why I and many others are against gay ‘marriage’. I know it’s a tired, debated rant, but ‘marriage’ has always been based in religious ideology. They can keep the ridiculous ‘M’ word and their absurd voodoo notions about ‘standing here before God’ (it’s 2008 – how anyone still falls for that bible crap astounds me). Fine, keep the word ‘marriage’ – I for one will NEVER call my partner my ‘husband’ – it sounds and is monumentally stupid. My partner and I will call each other what we see fit.
But don’t DARE deny me the same rights as a heterosexual ‘married’ couple. It’s not a gay right or a special right ~ it is a human right and therefore we should be bestowed those rights.
Posted by: jeffreychrist | Jul 10, 2008 12:10:07 PM
Actually Jeffreychrist, marriage is a civil act. The ceremony is a religious act. Anyone with the authority to conduct the marriage may do so. That includes: judges, ship's captains (when in international waters), senators and even the President of the United States.
The laws that are behind marriage are certainly civil laws. They are not religious codes.
Too many people are confused because the same churches that judge us are able to legally recognize us. If anything, they should take the authority away from the churces and put the authority back where it belongs, at least until the churches are willing to give us tax breaks, write laws protecting us, give us power of attorney.
Marriage ALWAYS been for political purpose. The idea of marriage being for love is relatively recent. Dowries, bride-prices, etc. are all legal contracts. The marriage license is a legal contract. Because they are legal, it makes them civil, not religious.
Posted by: PJ | Jul 10, 2008 12:24:04 PM
Hmm, well...
That most historic of churches just happens to have a number of gay or bisexual men commemorated in Poet's Corner in its south transept, among them Rupert Brooke, Christopher Marlowe, AE Houseman, Lord Byron, Laurence Olivier, Noël Coward and that notorious somdomite (sic) Oscar Wilde. Throw in Shakespeare if you're believe in his conjectured bisexuality as well.
Posted by: John C | Jul 10, 2008 12:25:43 PM
'It is an incredibly inflammatory idea so soon after the uproar they caused with their church wedding. It could embarrass the Queen if enough people complain."
I don't know. These queens seem pretty unflappable to me.
Posted by: Christopher | Jul 10, 2008 12:28:04 PM