The Progressive Christianity Network (PCN) is the latest British faith-based group to come out in favour of legal recognition of gay marriage.
Reverend John Churcher, a Methodist minister and chair of the PCN, said in response to comments from Roman Catholic bishops – who have urged Christians to campaign against the government’s proposal – that there are very few biblical texts that appear to condemn homosexuality, and that the interpretation of those that do is controversial…
There are now a range of Christian groups on both sides of the debate. Those groups who have expressed support for gay marriage include the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. They are joined by the Metropolitan Community Church, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the thinktank Ekklesia and the Catholic group Quest.
* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
Geoff Reid
Margaret Pollus
David Raw
12 Comments
Whether we like it or not, the ‘faith groups’ listed above represent a tiny fraction of practising Christians in the UK. It’s a bit disingenuous to imply groups like PCN are very representative, or at all numerous or influential.
Ben
As a Quaker I completely agree with you, we are a tiny minoirty, and those who agree with us are too.
Mind you, we were also a tiny minority in 1783 when we started lobbying against the slave trade, and those who agreed with us were a tiny minoirty then too ;-)!
Ben – I am not sure that these groups are a tiny majority. The clergy in my church are anti, but I don’t sense a majority either way in the congregation…
@Ben – I clearly missed the liberal principle of placing the sensibilities of the majority over the liberty of a minority. They are Christians who want to solemnise partnerships between same-sex couples. Remind me why we’re planning to maintain the bizarre ban on them doing so?
@Emma
Ver good point.
Emma
Not a good point at all. We are banning nothing. We are merely upholding legislation that says marriage is an institution comprising a man and a woman. Why we wish to change a law for a tiny minority who can be accommodated by whatever religious institute wishes to is beyond me.
Cameron really has managed to divert people from the real issues with this one!
John, why should the Government forbid a religion from carrying out a service with its willing congregants? The Government is not upholding the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman – the Government is introducing same-sex marriage. If you believe in religious freedom, you should oppose the ban on religious same-sex marriage.
As someone that has a fairly strong belief in a ‘faith’, I am actually very concerned about the level of negative influence that faith organisations have in society and particularly on the development of our laws.
The current debate about same sex marriage is an excellent example to me as to why there should be a separation of church and state, as many of the faith based arguments against same sex marriage are based in ignorance (and I am being discreet in what I really mean). I believe that some people are trying to use a veil of religious respectability to support an outdated and unwarranted opinion.
I appreciate that my words will offend some, but as the saying goes ‘Some people are gay. Get over it!’, for surely Liberal Democrats are meant to be ‘liberal’.
Ruwan, in a sense it is nothing to do with gayness. A lot of gays do not wish to get “married”. It is to do with changing a definition of a tradition that is hundreds of years old. Don’t conflate the two issues. We got over homosexuality a long time ago. Now I would like to see gays get over it.
I would humbly suggest that the statement “We got over homosexuality a long time ago. Now I would like to see gays get over it” tends to indicate that gay members of the community are still seen as ‘different’.
Perhaps minority ethnic people should get over racism, women over sexism and people with disabilities, should just “pull their socks up” and learn to live with exclusion? The reality is that homophobia is as prevalent today as is sexism and racism and other phobia’s, but in this specific case, some are using a religious argument to hide their ‘ism’.
What on earth can be wrong with same sex marriage? The current legislation is no longer acceptable and needs to be changed. Why should gay people accept a lower standard than their heterosexual peers.
There’s a good book just out by David Blamires ‘Pushing at the frontiers of change: A memoir of Quaker involvement with homosexuality’ which charts the history of Quaker attitudes over the past half century.
Further information here: http://www.quaker.org.uk/shop/frontiers-of-change
John: are you claiming that because something has been so for a long time, therefore it ought to stay that way? Civil gay partnerships are what is allowed at present. Social conservatives ought to be impressed and pleased that gay couples take the name and institution of marriage so seriously, they want to be married.
How can a Liberal advocate denying something to a minority when ceding it would in no way harm the majority?
Oh, and the groups cited are certainly a small minority of Christians, but many Christians not in these groups support what the government is doing. I attended a C of E service recently, the elderly priest suggested in his sermon that opposition to gay marriage, women priests and women bishops was an example of the sort of attention to the rules and past practice of religion orather than the spirit of love that characterised the Pharisees in dispute with Jesus, and I didn’t hear any intake of breath!