Dear Dr Sentamu
I have read your opinion piece in the Guardian about same-sex marriage and although I did not go on from there to read your full paper on the subject, I presume that the extended article does not include your recantation, apology for upset and acceptance of equal treatment in law. Normally I do not take much notice of reactionary old men; I see one every time I look in the mirror. However, I must make an exception in your case, as I did in a previous blog on this site with cardinal Keith O’Brien, a catholic fellow traveller of yours.
I must confess to a certain disappointment in you. When you first became the archbishop of York I thought that you brought a new breath of life into the Church. I admired your stand against president Mugabe of Zimbabwe, especially as he had been so dismissive of gay people, and I anticipated a modernising effect on the edifice with a concomitant challenge to the past. Of course, I was wrong. What we have in you is someone as out of touch as the sad lord Carey but with a political nous that he lacks. You are not in the same cadre as David Cameron who earnestly supported Section 28, condemning gay relations as “pretend” families, but now “because he is a conservative” is in support of same-sex marriage. No, your politics are firmly within the christian camp. A cynic might opine that you were more concerned about the dubious prize of the top job and appeasing those who might influence suggestions for that appointment, rather than making your church more inclusive. This same cynic might also conclude that keeping a steady ship, with a nod to the fundamentalist wing here and abroad would do you no harm even if your aspiration to succeed Rowan Williams is thwarted. When all is said and done, you, John Sentamu, owe your living and lifestyle to the church and it is not in your personal interest to challenge the status quo in any serious way.
When legislation pertaining to a particular sector of society is proposed then consultation with that sector should have greater weight than mere general opinion. There are examples, of course, where general opinion has been damaging to the interests of vulnerable groups, such as the shameful assault on welfare provision for the disabled. In the main, interested parties should expect their views to be more persuasive, especially if the proposed actions have little or no effect on others. It should be thus for the proposal to allow same-sex people to enter into civil marriage. As you accept in your Guardian article, one marriage has no bearing on another. The sky did not fall in when a previous archbishop helped create a whole new church to allow a king to divorce, nor when rape was outlawed within marriage. The idea that marriage is some exclusive club for one man and one woman ordained by a god is not even borne out in the Bible that you say must define the relationship. Just the use of a search engine will provide multiple examples of different marriage structures over time and I find it difficult to believe that someone who is a leader of thought has not used his time more productively.
The introduction of same-sex civil marriage will not cause any church to even blink an eye unless it chooses to do so. All the leaders of the main religions have pejorative things to say about gay people. Sometimes these are dressed up in fancy words of the “hating sin, but not the sinner” type, other times they are quite blatant about their dislike, disgust or hatred and what they would like to do with gay people. I don’t play in their yard but they insist in interfering in mine. We had the same tired rhetoric when civil partnerships were first introduced. Society was supposed to be going to hell in a hand cart then. What is it about gay people that exercises you so much, Dr Sentamu? Why do you find it so necessary to waste as much energy on this when you could be a constructive thorn in the side of this destructive government, rallying support for the weakest in society. That is the social pluralism you should be promoting.
Yours truly
Mike Pennell
May 25, 2012 @ 09:08:27
Dear Mr Pennell,
Thank you for sending an open letter to the Archbishop of York. The Archbishop has read your blog post and asked me to reply on his behalf.
You admit in the first sentence of your letter that you have not read the Archbishop’s full paper regarding marriage and civil partnerships. It is therefore disappointing that you choose to write against the Archbishop’s views at such great length without having actually read them.
To address your main point, the Archbishop agrees that those in same-sex relationships should receive equal treatment in law – this is why he supported the introduction of civil partnerships. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 ensured that those in same-sex relationships have the same legal and economic rights as everyone else. However the Church is clear that the definition of marriage is that it is a life-long commitment between one man and one woman.
The Archbishop has never said anything pejorative about gay people. He has said same sex relationships must not be diminished, condemned, criticised, or patronised in any sort of way. He has offered support and pastoral care to those in same-sex relationships long before civil partnerships came into being.
There is no question about the equality of all human beings, “heterosexual” or “homosexual”. The Archbishop believes that none of us is of greater value than anyone else in the eyes of the God who made us and loves us.
Can I also take issue with your comments regarding a number of other issues in your letter? You ask why the Archbishop “wastes so much energy on this [issue] when you could be a constructive thorn in the side of this destructive government, rallying support for the weakest in society”. The short answer to that is that the Archbishop does spend the majority of his time talking about the importance of supporting the weakest in society and role Christians can play in seeking justice.
If you were to take a quick look at the Archbishop’s website, this would show you that he has spoken out several times in recent days, weeks and months about the importance of supporting the weakest in society. It might have helped your response to have read this information before writing and posting your open letter. I note you raise the issue of welfare reform in particular, which is an issue that the Archbishop and many other Bishops have contacted the Government about.
While it may be your perception that the Archbishop spends most of his time talking about those in same-sex relationships, it may be worth noting that in reality this is far from true. The Archbishop was asked during an interview in January, in Jamaica, about his views on marriage and same-sex marriage. He replied that, whilst he supports civil partnerships for those in same-sex relationships, that the Church views marriage as being between one man and one woman. Given the responses that the Archbishop received to the reporting of this interview, the Archbishop this week wrote and published a longer paper setting out his views concerning marriage and civil partnerships. Perhaps you should read it – http://www.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/2481/a-response-on-marriage-and-civil-partnerships
In the last 8 days the Archbishop has written 5 articles for 4 different national newspapers. One article was about marriage and civil partnerships. The others were about end of life care, global poverty, Ascension Day and hope, Rogation Sunday and supporting farmers. Other issues he spoke about publicly this week include the importance of tackling poverty, the Church taking practical steps to address poverty, pilgrimage, Pentecost and improving standards in the media. I am sorry that these seem to have passed you by.
A short look back at what the Archbishop has said previously about the treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people would show that he has repeatedly spoken out against the intimidation or discrimination of the LGBT community. For example, he has consistently spoken out against the anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda and spoke out condemning the murder of former York resident David Kato in Uganda.
The Archbishop is focussing on his role working hard in York, nationally and internationally to seek justice for the vulnerable – and looking to bring hope to those in need. He has just returned from South Sudan to support the churches there in their difficult and challenging task of restoring peace, justice and human flourishing.
While I understand this is an issue you feel strongly about, I would be grateful if you could take the time to read what the Archbishop has actually said, rather than what you fear he might have said. This would help avoid further misunderstandings.
With best wishes,
Kerron
Kerron Cross
Director of Communications for the Archbishop of York
May 25, 2012 @ 11:38:10
Mr Cross, I find your verbose and glib defence of your employer deeply offensive. I am sure hollyhock140 has indeed taken time to read enough of “what the Archbishop actually said” – without reading the Collected Works With Notes From The Author – to clearly understand that he wishes to refuse equal civil rights to some members of society, while at the same time falsely claiming to be on their side.
It may be genuine misapprehension on his part; I sincerely hope so. The alternative interpretation does not place him in a good light.
Allow me to quote from the article you linked to: “The retention of the current understanding of marriage should not prevent gay and lesbian couples from being able to affirm and honour their relationship without being obliged to fit into another category.”
This is pure politicking. Inventing categories, in order to claim that people should not be forced into them, is a classic example of the straw man argument. Currently, UK law as it stands *does* oblige same-sex couples to fit into another category: marriage is for heterosexuals only, civil partnerships for homosexuals only.
You will argue that both these groups have equal rights and recognition, that the difference is only semantic. I will prove to you that you are mistaken, for two reasons:
1) Whereas a civil marriage contract will be valid in more and more countries as equal marriage becomes legal worldwide – and it *will* – civil partnerships will of necessity remain a contract under UK law only. This can and does create problems for binational couples, or couples who move from one country to another. A multiplicity of mutually-exclusive partnership contracts, of which marriage is only one, makes life harder, not easier. It certainly does not promote equality.
2) There is one, extremely vulnerable, minority group that is currently adversely affected by the law as it stands: transgender people. Physical transition is, for many of us, absolutely necessary to our mental health and well-being. Unfortunately, UK law currently obliges those of us who are already married or in civil partnerships, but who wish to remain with their current partner, to dissolve those marriages/partnerships and – to obtain those same rights etc the law has just forced us to give up – we then have to enter a fresh partnership/marriage.
Is this not discrimination? Is this the “no injustice” the Archbishop claims?
Perhaps the Archbishop will argue “Justice is the primary category. It does not mean not treating everyone the same way but giving everyone what he or she needs or deserves” and that transgender people like me do not deserve the continued, unbroken relationship that our supportive partners wish to give us? Or that we deserve the added paperwork, expense and heartbreak involved?
I also note that your employer writes: “In fact it could be argued that to create two kinds of marriage, as is proposed, Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage,” Please inform him that civil and religious marriage are already separate. It is technically possible for religions which allow polygamy or polyandry to perform wedding ceremonies which confer no legal status whatsoever on the couple. It is certainly not necessary to have a religious ceremony to be legally married.
Or perhaps Achbishop Sentamu was railing against the proposal to forbid religious organisations to perform same-sex marriages? In which case, I would agree with him: while it should not be obligatory (just as Catholic priests may refuse to remarry divorcees), it should indeed be an option for the celebrant in question.
Although with an attitude like his, I cannot but wonder *who* would want to go to the C of E to be married.