Wednesday, October 11, 2006

‘Living in sin’ is the new marriage

The Church of England has continued its pursuit of the via media by extending its definition of marriage. By supporting legal rights for unmarried couples, it is participating in the agenda to formalise cohabitation as a State-recognised union. The Church of England still believes marriage to be central to the stability of health of human society and that it provides the best context for bringing up children, but it asserts there is a ‘strong biblical precedent’ for protecting the vulnerable. This is undoubtedly true, but Cranmer asks his communicants to consider that biblical exhortations to protect the widow and orphan is hardly justification for giving a cohabitee the right to 50% of his or her partner’s assets.

The Rt Rev Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark, said: ‘It is perfectly justified in terms of public policy for marriage to continue to confer particular benefits and privileges not available to those who choose not to commit to an enduring legal relationship, so long as adequate steps are taken to prevent manifest injustice. The test we would commend in assessing possible solutions is whether they will genuinely correct injustices without at the same time downgrading or creating disincentives to marriage.’

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, observes that marriage has ‘suffered a long process of erosion’, but is at a loss to know how to strengthen the institution. The concept of cohabitation is an utterly vague one that covers a huge variety of arrangements, and the Church of England is intent on giving formal recognition to all of them. At this rate, there is likely to be a liturgical blessing for heterosexual cohabiting couples and homosexual cohabiting couples. But why stop there? If one defines marriage as a partnership with whatever takes one’s fancy, why not a liturgy for marrying the dog?


Anonymous Colin said...

"why not a liturgy for marrying the dog"

Exactly, His Grace.

A liturgy for marrying the dog makes as much sense as the demand by some individuals - calling themselves CoE, state or whatever - that consenting adults need their approval for what they are doing in their private life. It's hubris.

Attraction, love, attachment, monogamy, and the upbringing of offspring existed in mammalians millions of years and in humans 100,000 years before any church has ever been invented. Attachment was and is so essential to the development and survival of the human species (without any licences, liturgy, and state regulations) that it exists in all human tribes and societies. More details can be found at Helen E. Fisher's website. She is Research Professor and member of the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies in the Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University.

There is absolutely no need for busybodies mettling in other peoples lifes for making a living.

12 October 2006 at 00:06  
Blogger Joe Otten said...

But why, your Grace, should there be any incentives for marriage? Marriage is a promise. Make it if you mean it. Incentives encourage insincerity.

If you want to incentivise good childrearing, there are surely more direct and efficient ways to do so.

12 October 2006 at 00:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Colin, you might reflect that the Church was responding to a proposal from The Law Commission which asked for its input.

That this input was supplied by the morally dubious Tom Butler, Beadle of Southwark is a matter for reproach at the Church of Secular Inanities.

As for cohabitees - I just do not see why I should pay taxes for their offspring or their failed serial relationships. If they wish to be truly independent, so be it. I see no reason to create this marriage-by-custom as Brasil has done and oppose the notion that gay couples could be created automatically by those sharing student lodgings or flatmates in expensive real estate districts.

You Colin attack the Church for "meddling" but this initiative is from The Secular Church of Humanist laptrpa - ie The Law Commission. Even the C of E could not think of anything so stupid, but it does boost the revenues of lawyers at a time when marriage and divorce hold fewer attractions

12 October 2006 at 06:47  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Cohabitation is a de facto marriage, so I don't see a problem. Cohabitees split, but marriages also breakdown. You could argue that messy divorces are a worse evil, not least for any children involved.

12 October 2006 at 10:15  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Cohabitation is a de facto marriage, so I don't see a problem.

I do !

If a man shares a flat with a woman he automatically has obligations towards her ?

How many flatmates will be turfed out if this ever went through ?

Everyone must live alone - that should boost demand for housing. Only family members within bounds of consanguinity will be immune from being "married" against their wishes by The State.


12 October 2006 at 11:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

So if a man lives with his son he cannot be consigned to a "civil partnership" but if he lives with his separated daughter in law they are automatically an espoused couple.

There are no prenuptial agreements in England to safeguard against persons losing their assets to a lodger, but this piece of lunacy is how The State wishes to make the courts central to our lives at a time when they are backlogged

So in future a man cannot get rid of his live-in housekeeper without using the divorce courts !

This is gettung to the point of destroying all structures. I suppose if they make it a two year period before it is assumed unrelated persons are "espoused" it is possible to "fire" them every 20 months without risk of financial penalty.

Alternatively, live with two single women and push for the state to recognise bigamy as a legal status.

Mind you I simply prefer to derecognise the State

12 October 2006 at 11:40  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Dr Rowan Williams, observes that marriage has ‘suffered a long process of erosion’, but is at a loss to know how to strengthen the institution.

Somebody please remind me, just what is this sandal wearing welsh compost heap for?

12 October 2006 at 12:24  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

"Everyone must live alone - that should boost demand for housing"

There's a shortage!! Living together therefore solves another social problem.

12 October 2006 at 12:35  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

That Dr Williams is "at a loss to know how to strengthen the institution" comes as no surprise. If he wants advice, perhaps he might like to ask Anglican Christians who have actually worked through these issues in their own lives, and in gratitude to God now give their lives to help others do the same.

The concept that the secular world has for so long ignored or rejected, and the leaders of the main Christian denominations have utterly failed to stand by is that marriage is not simply a human institution, but is divinely ordained as God's foundation for the family unit.

Since the 1960s we as a society have deliberately turned away from God's ordained blueprint for the basic building block of society. We have sown the wind of sexual promiscuity, have allowed our written and broadcast media to built up a myth of intense 'romantic love' with no boundaries and without acknowledging that the hard work in a relationship begins as that intensity inevitably subsides, and have encouraged unlimited personal selfishness unhindered by the fear of any 'blame' or opprobium.

We are now reaping the whirlwind of family and societal breakdown as fewer and fewer children live in a family unit that models a healthy marriage, who in turn grow up without the relational 'toolkit' to choose (and, more important, be) the right partner, and who cannot make a marriage work, let alone parent their own children properly. And so the vicious spiral continues.

However, some seeds of hope come in the form of grassroots initiatives that have a Christian foundation, such as the Bristol Community Family Trust:

They unashamedly teach that living together is not the same as marriage, and should not be treated as such. However, they take people as they are, and try to help couples by providing relationship and parenting education through skills and mentoring programmes.

When all else fails, read the Maker's instructions!

12 October 2006 at 12:47  
Anonymous The jabberwock said...

Totally OT, but so, so true:

Source URL:

From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Thu, 2006-10-12 12:30
(source unknown to us - tbj)

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn’t always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a Band Aid to a student – but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I’m A Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

12 October 2006 at 13:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The Church of England is the greatest secularising force in the kingdom. It lacks anyraison d'etre and has for too long been obsessed with structures and too little with purpose.

12 October 2006 at 17:09  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

It's an over-statement to say the CofE is a secularising force. Like all faiths, it is attempting to engage with godlessness without being affected by it. But like God descended to man, the CofE is finding that its vocation demands that it is affected or infected.

It may be obsessed with structures, but it sustains a spirituality which is felt over here, and possibly more respected over here, so secularising it is not.

12 October 2006 at 19:39  
Anonymous vikki said...

Voyager,welcome back...

12 October 2006 at 20:57  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you for kindly commenting on my statement.

I totally agree with you. Especially, with your statement: "As for cohabitees - I just do not see why I should pay taxes for their offspring ...

This is precisely the point. Why should anyone be forced to pay for somebody else whether they have a license or not? The only difference between you and my view seems to be that you are willing to pay taxes to help certain individuals but not others while I consider it entirely immoral if other humans force you at gunpoint to give them part of your hard earned money. It's robbery, pure and simple. At gunpoint? Sure, try to refuse paying taxes and the police will take care of you.

The same is true for unnecessary laws and lawyers as you quite correctly remarked. In my humble view, all form of coercion (mettling in other people's lifes) is immoral and injustified.

In fact, neither a "state" nor a "church" exists. These are abstractions. However, what does exist are people, human beings as you and I, who claim to have the authority to tell you, me and anybody else what we may and what we may not do.

Such claims would be considered ridiculous if they were not enforced at gunpoint. This becomes obvious by an analogy. If I or your neighbour would tell you that in our view you don't have our permission to do certain things and that you have to give part of your money to us, how would you react? You probably would think we got mad,you would laugh at us and tell us to mind our own business. Unfortunately, such healthy reactions are not possible if some people say, we are the state or we are the church. These people went to school with you. They aren't any wiser than you and me, but they have the power to force you and me at gunpoint to fulfill their wishes instead of ours.

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! " according to the sociologist and economist Franz Oppenheimer in The State.

How did we get to this sorry state of affair that robbery is considered morally superior to volutary exchange and taking care of oneself?

Oppenheimer convincingly descriped the development of the modern state from its beginnings: "The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

Also today, the people in power (aka The State or The Church) are using political means (coercion) but now they claim that it is for the benefit of the dominated populace that they have to rob their money aquired by hard work, tell them what to do and not to do, in short treat the people like herdsmen take care of their own cattle. And once a well-organized system of robbery has been installed, everybody wants to get a piece of the cake.

I am not against "the Church", "the CoE", Islam or secular religions as long as they operate on a voluntary basis and do not use coercion. Unfortunately, they always used and still are using coercion. "The Churches" in all European countries including the UK receive large sums of money from "The State", which is robbing it (taxes etc.) from you and the rest of the population. That's why I concluded: "There is absolutely no need for busybodies mettling in other peoples lifes for making a living."

We all are wondering about the lack of common sense, truth, responsibility, and moral in our society. As far as I can see that's the consequence of the system of coercion.

" The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else" wrote Bastiat in The State. And those human beings claiming to be "The Church" are not much different in their desire to have a comfortable life financed by robbery (taxes) than those claiming to be "The State".

12 October 2006 at 22:13  
Anonymous Voyager said...

See you Grace when the CO of the British Army states:

Sir Richard even linked the presence of British troops in Iraq with the growing Islamic extremism taking hold in Britain. He said that failure to support Christian values in Britain was allowing a predatory Islamic vision to take hold. “When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country.”

we have an interesting thread in the making

13 October 2006 at 06:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The only difference between you and my view seems to be that you are willing to pay taxes to help certain individuals but not others

No Colin, you misunderstand.

In the case of married with children the State takes less of their income in taxes (supposedly) in order that they might support future citizens and replacements.

The benefits system has become distorted by providing tax credits to the well-off households above and beyond married state.

However there are no tax advantages to marriage in Britain, in fact compared to non-married couples or single households with children, there are disadvantages.

My preference is to reverse this skewing

13 October 2006 at 06:11  
Anonymous Colin said...


I absolutely agree with your statement:

"However there are no tax advantages to marriage in Britain, in fact compared to non-married couples or single households with children, there are disadvantages. My preference is to reverse this skewing"

In my view, the best method for reversing that skewing is to abolish the benefits system so that the natural state of affairs is reestablished.

"The benefits system has become distorted by providing tax credits to the well-off households above and beyond married state."

"Tax credits" are no credits at all, except if we assume that the entire income of every individual is property of "the state" in the first place. In fact, "tax credits" are nothing else than less taxes (less plundering) by the the State. If the "well-off households" did not steal their income but aquired it by working, there can't be any justification for taking it away and giving it to other people who don't care to work as hard.

In principle, the idea of Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving it to the poor appears to be convincing. In reality, redistribution has always led to irresponsible behavior, immorality, and poverty (see e.g. the ancient Roman empire, Soviet Union, Mao's China, East Germany, North Korea). The medicine of interventionism by "the State" has always had the same undesired long-term side-effects: moral decline, destruction of wealth and of society. We now are witnessing this effect in the Western world. Some are advocating more of the same medicine. Others, want to withdraw this dangerous medicine. However, people have become so addicted to the opium of state interventionism that they fear the withdrawal symptoms and demand the continuation of the "therapy".


Audio: Interventionism by George Reisman including the effects of Labour's rule in Britain.

Ludwig von Mises: Interventionism - An Economic Analysis. A lengthy and detailed analysis.

Ludwig von Mises: ECONOMIC POLICY - Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. A brief update.

F.A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom Comment on Amazon: "Hayek's main point, that whatever the problem, human nature demands that government be the solution, and that this is the road to hell, remains more valid than ever."

13 October 2006 at 10:30  
Anonymous vikki said...

Colin, a name change in the offing? We now have.....istanbultory,voyager...

13 October 2006 at 10:49  
Anonymous Colin said...


Glad to hear you voice again.

Colin, a name change in the offing? We now have.....istanbultory,voyager...

I am open to any suggestions.

13 October 2006 at 10:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Tax Credits are more insidious than that. They take Benefits and they are netted off the tax burden to imply that taxes are in fact LOWER simply because certain groups receiving benefits is netted off the overall tax is typical of the sleight of hand so favoured by this regime

13 October 2006 at 11:52  
Anonymous vikki said...

Colin, istanbultory....we know....vovager?

13 October 2006 at 12:09  
Anonymous Colin said...


GC might be istanbultory but who is voyager? The latter seems to have some interesting comments on "EU referendum". But maybe I did not correctly understand your question.

The link given above - to George Reisman's audio about Interventionism including the effects of Labour's rule in Britain - is wrong. Here is the correct link to his interesting audio.

13 October 2006 at 13:10  
Anonymous Colin said...


I apologize that it took me so long to grasp your hints.

You are probably right. Very smart of you! How did you know? Feminine intuition?

By reading some of voyager's comments on EU referendum , I discovered similarities in style and content with our good old friend "mission impossible". Well, I am glad that he is with us again. Aren't we all?

Welcome voyager !!

13 October 2006 at 13:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Voyager is not Mission Impossible

13 October 2006 at 15:40  
Anonymous vikki said...

voyager reminds me of our dear friend......rick

13 October 2006 at 19:37  
Anonymous Colin said...


Looking at voyager's comments here and at EU referendum, he reminded me at MI because he strongly complained about Gramsci's plot to destroy Western civilization (not many talk about that) and laws favouring women (also a hallmark of our friend MI). In addition, he seems to be well informed about German politics (but so was Rick). Moreover, voyager showed a tendency to ad hominem attacks (also a favorite of MI) at EU referendum so that the Site Administrator once threatened to close down the thread.

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter if voyager is MI, Rick or somebody else. Anybody is welcome at Archbishop Cranmer's blog, if I correctly understand His Grace, as long as they contribute to an interesting discussion.

13 October 2006 at 20:28  
Anonymous Voyager said...

so that the Site Administrator once threatened to close down the thread.

You should have read the whole thread then you could have met Ray Elliott and his brand of American hegemonism ot AlanC............and then you would understand Richard North better

13 October 2006 at 21:33  
Anonymous vikki said...

You are right Colin.....everyone is welcome.....but out of curiousity.....

Pray sir, who art thou?

14 October 2006 at 13:30  
Anonymous Voyager said...

14 October 2006 at 18:17  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

'"The Churches" in all European countries including the UK receive large sums of money from "The State".'

I can't think of any large sums of money the C of E gets from "The State" (except to run schools which were taken over from the church in the first place). Do you know of any other large sums?

14 October 2006 at 20:47  
Anonymous Colin said...

Little Black Sambo,

In one of the earlier threads, either Croydonian or Rick explained quite convincingly to me that the CoE depends financially on the British state. Maybe he could give this information here again since you are interested in this issue.

Alternatively, I would have to search through the older threads to find the info for you.

14 October 2006 at 21:28  
Anonymous vikki said...

voyager- Sir, I followed your instuctions....but alas, I am none the wiser.....would you be kind enough to put us out of our misery.....are you our dear friend rick by any chance?

14 October 2006 at 23:19  
Anonymous Voyager said...

How could I be someone I do not know ? Who is Rick ?

15 October 2006 at 07:14  
Anonymous vikki said...

Thanks kind sir

15 October 2006 at 08:09  
Anonymous Colin said...

Little Black Sambo,

You asked for evidence by writing "I can't think of any large sums of money the C of E gets from "The State" (except to run schools which were taken over from the church in the first place). Do you know of any other large sums?"

Here is more evidence:

Elaib Harvey published an article at Brusselsjournal entitled "Should the State be Funding Religion?" and stating "I know that in Sweden, Germany, Portugal, Belgium and so on the state funds the official churches and religions, but yesterday’s statement by Ruth Kelly, the British Minister for Women and Equality, that “our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those [Muslim] organisations .."

15 October 2006 at 19:49  
Anonymous Colin said...

Little Black Sambo

Here more evidence from the "Church Times": C of E presses case for more state help with buildings :

The Church of England is asking the Government for increased financial support for maintaining and preserving the fabric of church buildings. It would be targeted and weighted in favour of those demonstrating community use.

15 October 2006 at 20:00  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Colin: not much evidence yet of state support for the Church of England. Grants for the upkeep of historic buildings are made for entirely non-religious reasons; in any case so far they have been tiny and getting smaller. Nationalization of the buildings (as in France) would be another means to the same end. That would relieve the church of a huge expense, but the intention would not be the support of the church as an institution.

16 October 2006 at 13:01  
Anonymous Colin said...

Little black sambo,

You wrote: "Nationalization of the buildings (as in France) would be another means to the same end."

That's obviously correct. These historic buildings must be maintained.

I searched for the information a discussant gave a few threads ago, but I couldn't find it anymore.

He mainly said that the C of E is the largest employer of social workers in the UK and that the charitable work of the church is financed by the state. I don't know if it is correct.

However, it seems that you are well informed about the C of E's financial situation. Can you tell me what kind of incomes the CoE has?

Finally, the English liberties appear to owe quite a lot to the beneficial influence of the Church of England in regard to the Magna Carta.

17 October 2006 at 15:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older