being able to perform weddings at all:
In a letter to David Cameron the south coast MP had said
that the proposed Coalition amendment to the 2010 Equality Act to allow
religious bodies or individual places of worship to register the
controversial ceremonies would remain “unfair” as long as heterosexuals
could marry in the churches of their choice. The law must instead be changed to compel churches to register civil
partnerships, said Mr Weatherley, whose constituency near Brighton which
has one of the highest numbers of gay couples in civil partnerships in
the country. HT from Joe Carter at First Things; emphasis mine
Is anyone surprised by this? When Sweden ordained women the conscience clause allowed Bishops who opposed it to remain.... but it was eventually ended and all dioceses were compelled to accept it. When the Episcopal Church here in America ordained women, the same kind of allowance was made but eventually it has come down to women nearly everywhere and, where Bishops oppose it, another ordains the women priests for that diocese. It took longer in both cases but it is only a matter of time before those opposed will also be compelled but this time for the issue of gay and lesbian marriage...
Those who think that conscience clauses (in the setting of the church or the state) will allow and protect dissenting positions are fooling themselves. Eventually what was tolerated in the beginning will become the norm that is required. The old Neuhaus principle at work in another setting.
Another snippet from the MP: “I am becoming increasingly concerned about the inequality which
exists between the unions of same-sex couples and those of opposite-sex
couples in this country,” he said in his letter. “As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality,” he said.
Zero tolerance for religious intolerance, it would seem...