In justifying his pressing ahead with same-sex marriages even when it appeared the vote to allow them failed, Michael Bird said:
In the words of David Jones, the chancellor of General Synod, our current marriage canon “does not contain either a definition of marriage or a specific prohibition against solemnizing same-sex marriage.” At the same time, it is clear that our Anglican conventions permit a diocesan bishop to exercise episcopal authority by authorizing liturgies to respond to pastoral needs within their dioceses, in the absence of any actions by this General Synod to address these realities.
So, according to its chancellor, the Anglican Church of Canada recognises no canonical definition of what marriage is or who can marry whom. Some time ago, the Diocese of Niagara used to chant this incantation at every available opportunity: “draw the circle wide, draw it wider still”; the more they chanted, the more people fled.
Now, it seems, the marriage circle has been drawn so wide that, providing there is a “pastoral need”, anyone can marry anyone – or thing.
A woman could marry a horse, a man could marry a goat, or a pillow or himself. We are assured by the ACoC chancellor that there is nothing in the canons that prevents this – so why not? Personally, I’m delighted to see that there is absolutely no prohibition against solemnising a union between a man and his guitar; none at all!
There are two ways to render something meaningless: one is to make it mean nothing, the other is to make it mean anything.
Mustn’t “in the absence of any actions by this General Synod to address these realities” now mean since the 2016 vote that our Anglican conventions no longer “permit a diocesan bishop to exercise episcopal authority by authorizing liturgies to respond to pastoral needs within their dioceses”? Surely there ought to be a legal challenge to all such episcopal actions taken before the 2019 vote, which may or may not render them canonical?
Tragically many so-called bishops – they are nothing less than apostate – seem to believe their decisions or word takes priority over Scripture. This is precisely why the ACoC has lost any claim to be Christian and is nothing less than a church of political expediency. Even General Synod does not have the authority to make decisions that are totally in conflict with THE WORD.
You can marry your horse, your dog and even your fridge as long as it is allowed by civil law. Religious marriages are also a matter of civil law because when a minister of religion performs a marriage he/she is acting as an agent of the State and the partners must comply with all the requirements stated in the current marriage legislation, and the marriage will grant the spouses some civil rights…so go for it, start a petition asking parliament to allow you to marry your donkey, and make sure the animal can consent to the wedding…try marrying your flute, you make like it.
Or even better, get over it
Yes, indeed, marriage is a matter of civil law which has no care or concern for the Gospel. Atheists or any other persons are not subject to adhere to any faith and can be a complete unbeliever. However, when a priest or other clergy person agrees to perform such a ceremony I believe he/she has an obligation to ensure the parties have a commitment to the Gospel. If that is not evident the parties should be referred back to the marriage commissioner. Neither the priest or the church are obliged to be party to any ceremony that is not true to the Gospel.
Then the slippery-slope argumentation about same-sex marriages leading to people marrying their dog, their fridge or their flute or their pillow is nothing but a bunch of crock (not that we did not know it)
Go tell the writer of the original post, because he seems not to understand that point and keeps using it as a ridiculous and absurd argument