STOP INTERFERING! The service should BE the way that the gay people come together in their union.
Meanwhile, I've seen the first draft of the response of the English national Church to the government. It follows below:
Church in England press release needs to indicate that given the decision that Parliament has already taken against our better Plan A judgement to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the response here focuses on our Plan B need to have unfettered freedom to deny gay people our blessings and to be able to continue to legislate internally to this end for as long as we want.
Opting in is the key. Unless and until and underwear the General Synod should say 'aye' three times, there will be no dirtying our premises with such actions, so our lot can keep their vests on.
We need a full hermeneutically checked submission that addresses the specific issues raised by the consultation from Cleggy to clergy, without any Open Evangelical or Affirming Catholic double facing nuances, and this would be so if so set out below.
Q1: Requiring consent
We like the idea of consent, and once general consent is given in a denomination then the locals might have someone to say we would like to register the building for the purpose - and let's just see what local prejudice there is in these so called progressive denominations. Hah! But if you don't opt in to start with, no one local will be able to ask. The Church in England then would have to give its consent first, though this would have to be consistent with the Anglican Communion Covenant and providing the Archbishop Instrument to the Communion. So we won't be opting in until the Nigerians do. Hah!
Q2 and Q3: who will be required to give consent?
For some decades now we have lived alongside all sorts of heretics and strange beliefs so they'd better do something nearer to what they want, though it hardly goes along with the Erastian principle and keeping our focus of unity heterosexual bishops in the House of Lords.
We are epicopally led synodically governed. This means that the Archbishops shout at people and bully the other bishops, who are generally stupid. In the end the General Synod makes a decision, but they love the Archbishops and operate like jelly. See how we are getting this Anglican Communion Covenant through! Hah! So despite us being the State Church, this General Synod is our Parliament and it will keep the gays out as well as think about other forms of prejudice.
So the law should name the General Synod as the body that makes decisions despite the fact that the Archbishops twist people's arms, leak and go to the toilet. That'll be nice.
Q4 and Q5: demonstrating consent in applications to the local authority
Just send off your applications once the denomination has said yes, but if it says no then put a line through it.
The local authority might delay matters just to check that the denomination did agree, but by calling it a consultation it would notify the public that gays would be gathering in these places and the public might want to organise some mob-like opposition.
If the local authority cocks it up (hah!) then a right of review should also exist after approval so that the denomination can say it said no or the mob can have more time to organise.
The denomination would also be able to say yes and then no, and thus scrap all the local consents to have gay people present for so called blessings. We reckon five days is about right to reverse things and organise the mob.
Q7 and Q.8: Buildings issues
Obviously churches ought to look like churches and temples look like temples, otherwise there's going to be all sorts of confusion about people having something so-called sacred or not sacred, religious or civil, Richard and Cyril. We need less unclarity on this matter.
Presumably use can be made of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 in so far as that system is applicable. We don't want the Scottish situation where some cleric can do it in the street. We don't want gay blessings in the street, after all, although we would make an exception for a busy road.
But it is nothing to do with us as the Church in England doesn't register its buildings for marriage as we have Erastian State privilege, or at least we used to have this until Civil Partnerships and equality legislation came in.
But belonging to does not a Church or Temple make. In any case there is no such thing as the Church in England inc, although clergy do use Church in England ink. We think our diplomats should meet government diplomats for bilateral talks on this matter, which might create some delay.
Q.9 and Q.10: Availability and public access
Now here's an important principle. We don't want institutions of one religion or denomination doing Religious Civil Partnerships for members of other faiths or denominations. So if a bunch of Unitarians started gay-marrying Christians, we would seek damages in court and have such a denomination shut down. We refer to the Lady Hewley and Lady Healey case, a couple of Puritans who were a bit naughty with one another.
If heretics use the church for a service, then heretics are the only people to go inside them for their so-called blessings and partnership wotsits.
Q.11 and Q.12: Layout and general use
And the other thing is, a church is a church and not a restaurant. So if food isn't normally consumed on the premises you can't exactly have a Civil Partnership done with religion given the tendency for Civil Partners to eat and drink. Otherwise this will clash with the Equality Act that states that all people must have equal access to food and drink, consistent with the money in the handbag or whatever the man has.
Q.13: Religious symbols, iconography and objects
Denominations and faiths may as well keep the pictures on the wall and other items on shelves and tables while Civil Partnerships were registered.
On the other hand, a Civil Marriage can't have such symbols on display. You might have a moonlit night picture but not a church in the foreground. This creates some confusion, because a Civil Partnership won't be like a Civil Marriage any more, but then was it? But let's keep a Civil marriage secular so that our religious marriage is the real deal, the proper dog's bollocks when compared with something else in religious premises.
Q.14: Conduct of the ceremony
But if there is a Civil Registrar, then you can't have religious things going on. Just as a Civil Marriage can't have a Bible reading, or from the Qur'an, or from Star Wars, nor should a Civil Partnership with a registrar. So we think that the way to do this is have a registrar with his or her or transexual fingers in his or her or transexual ears while the so-called religious bits happen, and singing away "la la la", until the religious celebrant tells him, her or himher to come over and use some ink.
If he/ she/ heshe does the civil ceremony first then the religious bit will be like it is now, any sort of add-on, and it would even more so be a rubbish thing that others do. It wouldn't be a combined Religious Civil Partnership, and thus only heterosexual marriage would be the real deal, the dog's bollocks.
Q.15 - 20: Approval of premises
Who can apply
Talk any more about trustees and proprieters and we'll call our lawyers.
Of course local authorities should charge for Civil Partnerships. The price should be prohibitive.
If the local authority can find an excuse, they should be able to close religious premises down that have conducted Civil Partnerships.
Training and information
Although it won't concern us, we would be interested to know how training will be done. The more ignorant people are, the fewer places will open for this sort of thing.
Q 21: Other issues
The fuckilty jurisdiction
Now here is how we are going to stop it all. The General Synod says no. So some people might be a bit sneaky and try and hold a ceremony in a parish church. Will they cocoa! Let's be honest - these blessings are not properly religious. They are secular and if you do secular things in an English church then you need a fuckilty. Like if you want to do some social science, you need a Fuckilty of Social Science (and then you can fuck up some Economics, Politics, Sociology). So, any non-sacred use of a church building would have to get a fuckilty from a consistent court. Such a non-sacred use of one of our premises ain't going to get a fuckilty from a consistent court.
And no, faith groups and denominations shouldn't have celebrants as registrars for Civil Partnerships! Hah! So you can't have a registrar involved, he ought to act first, and you can do your so called religion afterwards. How is that different from now? IT ISN'T!
Yes we want to interfere in how you do your so-called religion!
Q.22: Potential legal challenges
We want our position watertight. No gay partnerships on our premises, and we will make sure there are no fuckilties.
Q.23 - Q.25: Impact assessment
Perhaps no one wants these things after all? Anyway, the labour cost is under £18 an hour. That's how much our ministers get for reading a book and imagining a sermon.
(Interfering, overtly gay-free) Church in England
For June 2011