Is David Cameron about to force the Queen to break her Coronation Oath?
His Grace wishes to take the focus to where the MSM has not (yet) gone. The Report includes:
...Saying, therefore, as the consultation paper does, that no changes are proposed to marriage according to the rites of the Church of England overlooks the fact that the institution of marriage would have been redefined generally for the purposes of English law. At the very least that raises new and as yet unexplored questions about the implications for the current duties which English law imposes on clergy of the Established Church.
...The Canons of the Church of England are part of the law of England. The Queen‘s licence and the Royal Assent are required before a canon may be made and promulgated. Canons are additionally subject to statutory provisions which provide that they do not have effect if they are contrary to the customs, laws or statutes of the realm.
...Were legislation to be enacted by Parliament that changed the definition of marriage for the purposes of the law of England, the status and effect of the canonical provisions that set out the Church‘s doctrine of marriage as being between one man and one woman would be called into question. In this way too the consultation overlooks the implications of what is proposed for the position of the established Church.The legislation for same-sex marriage is the shallow proposal of a disingenuous government intent on an unsatisfactory and ill-considered reform . For many of the reasons His Grace has previously written about (eg HERE and HERE), the proposal is, as the Report concludes, ‘lacking in coherence’ because ‘redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage’.
There can be no protection for the Established Church from those militant gayists intent on securing their ‘rights’ against unjust discrimination: as the state church, it would be relentlessly assaulted by same-sex couples demanding equal treatment under the law, the consequence of which will be to undermine its status as the state church, which is exactly what they want. Uniformity is a logical consequence of equality. If the Courts of England do not enforce equality, the exemption being ‘guaranteed’ by the Government is unlikely to survive legal challenges in Strasbourg.
This is likely to result in a constitutional crisis: as human rights legislation forces the Church of England to treat homosexual couples in the same way as heterosexual couples, we are on the path to disestablishment as the Supreme Governor becomes embroiled in the mightiest church-state battle in centuries. At her Coronation she swore the Oath:
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.According to the Laws of God and the Protestant Reformed Religion, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. According to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Church of England it is ‘an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church’. Insofar as Her Majesty swore to preserve the rights and privileges of the Bishops and Clergy of England, she cannot give her Royal Assent either to a Bill of Parliament which would oblige her ministers to perform same-sex matrimonial services, or to one which seeks to disestablish the Church.
In such a scenario, would she pragmatically sign in order to avoid a crisis? One might hope that she, like George III, would tell her government:
“Where is the power on earth to absolve me from the observance of every sentence of that Oath, particularly the one requiring me to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion? Was not my family seated on the Throne for that express purpose, and shall I be the first to suffer it to be undermined, perhaps overturned? No, No, I had rather beg my bread from door to door throughout Europe, than consent to any such measure. I can give up my crown and retire from power. I can quit my palace and live in a cottage. I can lay my head on a block and lose my life, but I cannot break my Oath. If I violate that Oath, I am no longer legal Sovereign in this country”The shame, of course, is that a Conservative Prime Minister would ever put her in such a position.