Being First - A finger on the pulse!

George Carey has rushed in to be the first to comment upon the vote in the Lord's (3rd march) by writing to the Times. well, alright not the first but he's probably not the last (+Winchester having said everything George is now saying!).
     
The fears that civil partnership ceremonies in churches could result in some clergy being prosecuted or face discrimination if they 'fail' (which I think means refuse) to conduct ceremonies. This, even to my limited brian is a stone bonking certainty and only confirms Michael Scott-Joynt cautionary words.
   
In the Times George asks, "How long will it be before church ministers are threatened with legal proceedings in they perform marriages between a man and a woman, but not civil partnerships?" The answer is simple, it's about one minutes after they've said, "No!" Now wasn't that easy?
    
Let's consider Rowan for a sec. For a bloke with so much intellectual wit he's so incredibly dense at times. He doesn't appear to recognise that his inactivity and his 'working behind the scenes' (which has been so good at seeing TEC maintain their position of restraint regarding you know what) is not only fuelling schism but leaving us in a bad light with other 'orthodox' Christian groups.
    
He's managed to push the Resolution 'C' boys into a place where Rome is attractive and Bennie, seeing a wounded animal rich for the pickings has taken the opportunity that Rowan has created makes offers that entice. After all, how could the CofE General Synod vote that those who opposed women's ordination and consecration were not true or faithful Anglicans? Shame on those who voted for it - laity, clergy and especially bishops - who make themselves appear to be hypocrites who will still take their (FiF, Res 'C' chaps) parish share and yet denounce them!
    
Anyway, back to the original issue. Let's get real about this - Frank And Earnest (which is what a couple should be) arrive at the vicarage and ask for a Civil Partnership. The dog collar (DC) issues Anglican-like apologies and says that they couldn't do such a service within their walls, blah, blah, blah. Immediately  we have a situation whereby the 'rights' of one person to live and act as they choose collide with the rights of another to believe and act as they choose. Who has the greater rights here? If it were an issue of colour, we would gasp should someone say that they wouldn't provide a service of someone on the grounds of colour. The same applies these days regarding the sex of an individual (which by the way is not the same as gender, a popular confusion on the part of many).
    
Can we force someone to act against their own belief, values and standards? I don't think we can. If this premise is wrong than I must have the right to make a friend of mine eat meat because I'm a meat-eater and I can force another to drink alcoholic drinks. Personal values and standards can be washed away to please . . .  er, please who? 
    
Those who choose to enter into homosexual relationship are free to do so, it's a minority sport, but it's their minority sport. Should they wish to have a civil partnership done in church or engage in a 'gay marriage' service, that's not a problem because there are many others, especially those with no real integrity and a self-seeking publicity streak have been doing this for a long time just pop down to the City of London (and other places besides)! 
     
I choose not to enter into this lifestyle and therefore we take different paths as a matter of choice. I don't expect homosexuals to 'bless' my heterosexual choices and don't see why I am expected to act any differently. I choose not to pillory or vilify those who have made their choice and in return expect the same consideration. This is what civilised society is about - we make choices and take paths that neither cross nor need to be made to do so.
     
But it's about more than this, this is really about control and having the upper-hand and this is why some will seek to threaten and display the very attributes that deny any reason to be doing anything in church, for it's not a place that glorifies the world but God. As a parting thought, I would deny anyone the right to have a marriage in church if by doing so it would bring the Gospel into disrepute, would cause anxiety to the community (local and Christian)  or would have the potential for controversy.
     
If a man and woman came asking for a marriage service and it transpired that they had previously been married and each was the reason for the other's divorce, then according to the rules, I couldn't marry them. I would merely seek to be consistent and maintain my integrity and that of the Church locally, universally and historically. So, if they're are going to be people coming knocking and threatening to burn the church down if they don't get what they want (any issue or area) then I will tell them now, I am prepared for them . . . . 
   
I've bought a couple of pounds of chestnuts!