The Bill abolishing marriage
and replacing it with something else entirely, but under the same name, has
received Royal Assent. It has done so after the House of Lords gave it an
unopposed Third Reading. For that, blame the bishops.
Their decision to throw in the
towel calls most gravely into question the moral leadership that they have
undeniably provided against assisted suicide, against usury, against this
Government’s wicked persecution of the poor, in support of community
organising, and so on.
Not, contrary to what is usually assumed, that moral leadership is anything more than a by-product of their membership of the Upper House. It is not specifically why they are there.
Not, contrary to what is usually assumed, that moral leadership is anything more than a by-product of their membership of the Upper House. It is not specifically why they are there.
The presence in the House of
Lords of bishops (and historically also of abbots and others) has nothing to do
with Establishment. It predates the Reformation by several centuries, and until
the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the Lords Spiritual formed the majority of
the members.
They were there because of their enormous landholdings, and that is why a certain number of bishops of the Church of England, this country’s largest landholder after the Crown, are still there to this day.
They were there because of their enormous landholdings, and that is why a certain number of bishops of the Church of England, this country’s largest landholder after the Crown, are still there to this day.
Being moral bastions, or
spiritual advisors, or whatever, has never in principle had anything to do with
it. Still, the idea seems to have taken hold that it has. Until this event, they
had been doing that quite well.
The whinges against them are their “lefty” concern for the poor, their “reactionary” concern for the sanctity of life and until now for the institution of marriage, the fact that they have to be men, and the fact that they are drawn from only one part of the United Kingdom.
The whinges against them are their “lefty” concern for the poor, their “reactionary” concern for the sanctity of life and until now for the institution of marriage, the fact that they have to be men, and the fact that they are drawn from only one part of the United Kingdom.
In answer to which, let every
registered parliamentary elector in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland be given the right, every 10 or 15 years, to nominate a body which
would then name a woman, perhaps of no politically partisan affiliation, to sit
as a Lord Spiritual, with the eight bodies receiving the most nominations in
each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland thus acquiring the right so to
name for the 10 or 15-year period.
Of course, electors would be
free to nominate secularist or humanist organisations. Those would certainly
make it into the top eight in Wales, probably in Scotland, and possibly in
Northern Ireland, if they had their act together. If they did not have their
act together, then they would not deserve to make it into the top eight.
24 is two fewer than 26, but
there are far more people in England than there are in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland combined.
If the English were to look at these arrangements and fancy something similar for themselves, then the almost immemorial boundary between the Provinces of York and Canterbury, in its chicken and egg relationship to the North-South Divide, might be used, with each side having 13 Lords Spiritual determined by the above means. At that point, the sex-based requirement might be abolished.
If the English were to look at these arrangements and fancy something similar for themselves, then the almost immemorial boundary between the Provinces of York and Canterbury, in its chicken and egg relationship to the North-South Divide, might be used, with each side having 13 Lords Spiritual determined by the above means. At that point, the sex-based requirement might be abolished.
Didn't know there were any bishops in the House of Lords - or are you referring to men who belong to the Church of England and like dressing up in gaudy fancy dress similar to Catholic vestments?
ReplyDeleteThat is their legal, not their doctrinal status, which is what we are discussing here.
ReplyDeleteLike lay rectors, or the lay abbots and such like who may still linger on in parts of the Continent: having acquired the property, they acquired the civic responsibilities and privileges, including the titles, and for that matter the costumes. Or the seats in the House of Lords.
It had little or nothing to do with theology, before or after the Reformation, such things being not peculiar either to the period since the Reformation or to countries that ever experienced it.
Didn't you say gay marriage wouldn't pass?
ReplyDeleteAnd it wouldn't have done, if the Lords Spiritual had held the line. Blame them.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been kicked into the long grass marked "after the next Election", there to die for lack of time like every other Private Member's Bill. If anyone had ever even bothered to reintroduce it.
Perhaps you would now like to be humble enough to admit that you simply got this one wrong and misjudged parliamentary opinion.
ReplyDeleteNot only did the vast majority of MPs, but Lords too, support this change. Indeed, the Lords themselves were shocked at the size of the majority
Labour MP's were enthusiastic in voting through the change, led by Ed Miliband himself who wrote to all Labour MP's.
The Bishops are entitled to their own views - but this made it quite clear that they no longer represent anyone than themselves, and the bulk of the country is effectively secular, not Christian. They actually didn't change their view. They respected the fact that as an Established church, they cannot afford to be seen as so far out of line with the dominant view - and Welby acknowledged this himself.
The fact is that the majority of MP's supported the change. Cameron wanted to show that his party could still be modern. Labour saw it as the fulfilment of the introduction of civil partnerships.
Your side lost because you couldn't convince MP's or Lords of your argument, and has showed us clearly that we are not a theocracy
Oh, no, the Lords Spiritual could have prevented Third Reading of they had held the line. With no manifesto commitment to this, there would not in practice have been any invocation of the Parliament Act.
ReplyDeleteDavid. They couldn't
ReplyDeleteThe majorities in both houses were huge and the bishops all voting together would have made no difference to that majority.
They don't have any sort of influence any more in the sense of government saying 'the Bishops are against so we must withdraw the bill'. Everyone knew the bishops views but the fact is that they don't in themselves have the sort of influence you suggest
I'd also like an acknowledgment of how totally wrong you got this one - this may tell you why you are not really in tune with Labour as it now stands