Alan Johnson MP: The State Can Sanctify
Blogged by James Preece on 6th February 2013
So, I wrote to my MP... I was tempted not to bother as my MP is Alan Johnson and I've got as much chance of changing his mind on the question of "same sex marriage" as I have of winning the lottery. Twice.
I sent my letter anyway and I got his response...
Dear Mr Preece
Many thanks for your e-mail of 4th February.
I will vote in favour of the Bill as I see no reason why same sex couples shouldn't be able to sanctify their relationship through a civil marriage. I would however strongly object to any encroachment onto religious ceremonies and see the protection of those religions which do not wish to undertake such marriages as being a crucial element of the Bill.
Many thanks for contacting me on this important issue.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Johnson MP
You know that thing in movies where a character looks at something and doesn't seem to notice anything untoward and then then goes "whut?" and looks again. A double take. Well, that.
Sanctify? Did he just say Sanctify?
As in..
Sanctify
Set apart as or declare holy; consecrate.
Make legitimate or binding by religious sanction.
I know some people mistake the state for God but this is ridiculous.
A "civil marriage" will be able to a declare a relationship holy? To consecrate it? To give it religious sanction? No matter what genders are involved - that's quite a claim for a secular authority to make.
Still, it wouldn't be the first time...
Reader Comments
+6
Mark Dobson said...
Since he categorically doesn't believe in God, I can only assume it's an offhand way of implying their (potential) full legitimacy under British law, borrowing the terminology, probably unconsciously, for his own purposes.
+
+2
New Friend said...
It is perhaps an unfortunate word to use when replying to you but maybe you missed the full definition in the OED:-
" Definition of sanctify
verb (sanctifies, sanctifying, sanctified)
[with object]
set apart as or declare holy; consecrate:
a small shrine was built to sanctify the site
make legitimate or binding by a religious ceremony:
their love is sanctified by the sacrament of marriage
free from sin; purify:
may God sanctify his soul
cause to be or seem morally right or acceptable:
ancient customs that are sanctified by tradition"
It clearly depends on context and it must be in the second to last one that his meaning falls.
+
+2
Nix said...
My response from Tessa Jowell showed she was similarly confused! She used the phrase 'I support the right of people-- (love and Commitment blah blah)--to make vows to that effect to God'!
+
+4
Jonathan said...
This legislation will allow same sex marriages to be celebrated in religious ceremonies. It is not the state who will be sanctifying the marriages but the god of the Unitarians, of the Quakers and eventually the god of the CofE. Given that the Triune God doesn't sanctify gay marriages surely it is now time to move our relationship with Protestants from the 'ecumenical' box to the 'other religions' box?
+
+6
Patricius said...
Non-Catholics have a right to be confused- poor souls- when one considers how the Church of England, while claiming to uphold life-long marriage and not accept divorce, nevertheless performs "blessings" following the register office weddings of remarried divorcees. Indeed was not the same done for the Prince of Wales who is living with another man's wife? I look forward to the extension of this logic into other areas. A rite for the blessing of the burglar about to go out on a "job" perhaps. In the Catholic Church one can be absolved of sins committed and repented of but what price getting a blessing to actually go out and commit sin!
+
+2
New Friend said...
Patricius
Where I spend half my life, if you are Catholic (most are) and are rich, then you can be pretty sure that you will get an annulment. You just need to know a lawyer, who knows a judge, who knows the right priest to channel the right amount of money. If you are poor, no chance. Doesn't stop families splitting though, but they cannot make new ones which receive the approval of their Church.
It therefore isn't just in the UK, or just via the C of E, where the rich and famous take advantage. Your own Church is every bit as guilty.
+
+3
Maryfa said...
My M.P. voted against. Good. But I have been scandalized by the fact that in my parish in Yorkshire, the whole issue was ignored. No mention from the pulpit or the buuletin. No postcards from the Bishops' Conference. I searched the Diosesan website(not Middlesbrough), equally no mention. Our pastors have let us down badly. The Catholic opposition
seems to be heavily concentrated in the
Metropolis and the South-East. Are we more Homo-friendly up here or just idle?
+
+5
Catholic Mother said...
At the evening Mass at Westminster Cathedral on Sunday January 27th the priest gave a good sermon on the legislation on marriage, HOWEVER, there was no mention of the postcards which the bishops had produced for the faithful.
In contrast, one of my children attended Westminster Cathedral a year or two ago they had a money raising effort: envelopes were on all the seats and everyone was asked to complete the envelope during Mass.
For the elderly, and also those who find it difficult to write letters, the postcards were something they could do to register their opposition to the proposed legislation. Poor show if pastors did not even put the cards at the back of church and mention it in the notices.
+
+1
New Friend said...
"Homo-friendly"? What does that mean, and does this infer that the opposite is "homo-unfriendly"? Through the smallest of cracks a big picture can sometimes be seen.
+
+4
louella said...
A godless Government always mistakes itself for God.....always.
+
New Friend said...
louella
That's just silly. A secular government would have a mix of those who believe and those who don't amongst it's members. It just has no connection to any specific belief, but respects all, and those with none. The resulting government is not going believe itself "godlike", or demand that we all worship it.
+
+3
Catherine said...
As Plato said;
“Many a victory has been and is suicidal to the victors,”
+
+1
Mike said...
“I would however strongly object to any encroachment onto religious ceremonies and see the protection of those religions which do not wish to undertake such marriages as being a crucial element of the Bill.”
Does he mean what he says or does he follow the Chris Bryant MP understanding of assurances? ie. That an assurance is something which is a mere whim and can be ignored whenever you want to ignore it?
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/first-reactions-on-ssm-bill.html
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
I wonder why some people read things into statements that just aren't there?. What Mr Bryant said was true, and not just in this case but in every case. What he said was that he cannot speak for future parliaments. Nor can he, or can everyone else. All he can give are personal assurances based upon his current opinions, which are possibly going to change in the light of new information. Would you seriously wish our representatives not to consider new information? We may as well suspend parliament in such a scenario.
The blogger comes at this issue with his opinion already determined and is simply looking for anything he can throw at the other side. For me that completely taints his contribution to the debate.
It often feels to me that Catholics see the devil under every bed, and this is another example of this phenomenon.
+
+1
Mark Dobson said...
"The blogger comes at this issue with his opinion already determined"
Apparently the NF hypocrisy alarm only works on other people. Bother.
+
New Friend said...
Mark
The point I was making was not that he is from one side of the debate, but that his piece was not an objective analysis, and just an opportunity to cast stones. I am not blogging. I am just commenting, along with lots of others, with a variety of opinions.
At least you seem to accept that the piece was hypocritical.
+
+1
Mark Dobson said...
No, I don't accept that.
+
+3
Chrysostom said...
As I write this, there are thirteen comments, four of them by "New Friend". He or she, has taken up 35 lines. I repeat my request to you, Mr Preece, that no one individual should be able to put more than three comments: only "New Friend" would feel the restriction.
Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda who were martyred because they resisted the advances of an evil homosexual paedophile – pray for us.
St John of Matha - pray for us.
+
+1
Cohab Monkey said...
Thanks for kickstarting a much-needed discussion. Permit me to offer a few thoughts.
One: Other than they both contain the word 'marriage' there is no connection between religious and civil marriage. Moreover, today's civil marriage is most certainly not 'traditional'. It is in fact the handiwork of the Californian state legislature which in 1969 introduced the western world's first so-called 'no-fault' divorce law. And where California led, others US states and the rest of the English-speaking world followed: Britain in 1973; Australia in 1975; Canada in 1986.
Two: By ceaselessly 'promoting' civil marriage from the pulpit and through the media, and by facilitating the signing of civil marriage licenses within their churches, religious clergy have taken on the dual role of the marketing department and retail distribution channel for the divorce industry.
Three: Civil marriage is dying and will soon be dead. In the US the four-decade long downward spiral in civil marriage rates is projected to reach zero around 2042. Expect the last British civil marriage take place around 2038.
Four: The decline of civil marriage is evidence of a failure of supply rather than a lack of demand. Young people still seek couple and family commitment. They just aren't buying the version of legal commitment offered by the government marriage-and-divorce systems.
Five: The rise in 'unmarriage' or couple cohabitation is not a flight from legal commitment - but rather a journey towards a new and better version of civil marriage: the cohabitation agreement or 'cohab'. The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reveals there has been a 39 per cent increase in requests for ‘cohabs’ over the past five years.
Six: Cohabs enable couples to form legal unions that enshrine their own values and circumstances - and are grounded on contract law rather than so-called family law. Legal commitment-based legal union isn't dying or dead - it's just being recreated in a new era by a new generation with a new hope and under a new name.
As for the signing within church property of government marriage paperwork - it's a terrible idea for the following two reasons: it confuses religious vows with secular law; and it elevates to a kind of divine status politician-created laws that are unrelated and indeed contrary to the tenets of religious marriage.
Like the money-changers of old the family lawyers of today have no rightful place on church grounds; they and all their works belong outside the temple not inside it. It's time for individual clergy and churches generally to exile from their property and its marriage ceremonies the state marriage license - in reality an application form for the state divorce system - and say 'Goodbye and good riddance'.
+