Now ehre could we have gottren that idea?

What seems to have happened over the past couple of decades is that the Southern Baptist convention has gotten more centralized, which I find rather ironic, since a central principle has always been the autonomy of congregations.

Ben in Oakland: I meant “evil” in the sense of ruthless. And I agree with you completely, which was the thrust of my comment — it’s a political showdown, of a sort, between the Church and the Government. At least, that’s my reading.

By English law the CoE is required to marry parishioners who can legally marry with a few exceptions (divorced people being the big one), even parishioners who aren’t Christian. This means any new law on marriage would have to take this into account. I don’t know whether the Church in Wales has this requirement post-establishment; it can still marry people by banns or license from the bishop (I believe all other ceremonies religious or not have to get paperwork from the registry office).

Church of England Canon law is state law which means if the the CoE decides to change the canon on marriage to allow same-sex marriage it must get Parliament to approve it even without this proposed law (the only thing added is that Parliament at the same time would have to modify its own law and lift the ban). The canons of the Church in Wales don’t require Parliament approval so they are in a different and worst situation.

The second lock may be more problematic as it presupposes in a religious denomination a hierarchical governance with a minister in control of a premise. It does not seem to allow a governance where individual congregations have ultimate power even if organized in larger groupings. For example if a baptist congregation decides it has no problem with SSM it won’t be able to perform them legally without leaving the larger group (in the US in states where SSM is allowed the congregation could do so and the convention would then have to accept, ignore, or kick out the offending congregation). I could be wrong.

In this case, I believe that he thinks marriage equality is the right thingsto do. I suspect he doesn’t want any church interference in what ought to be both a strictly secular and a religious freedom matter. I also suspect that he has some other plans that might get the holy knickers in a twist.

This is both good politics and practical.

And apparently the Church in Wales wasn’t even consulted about this law.

Probably the church wanted some sort of legal block on marriage equality partly to hold themselves together, to help paper over the cracks between the conservative and liberal wings. Being a state church has it’s pluses: it’s easier to put pressure on the government; and also its minuses: it’s possible for the government to legislate specifically about your practices.

I think Ben’s on the money:

The church by its own request has rendered itself irrelevant to the discussion.

TRiG.

From what I can gather, the CofE has been a huge pain the neck for Cameron on SSM. I didn’t think he was evil enough to stick it to them like this, but he did. If the Church changes its position in the future (which some clergy are already suggesting will happen), they’re going to have to come to the government to allow it.

Payback’s a bitch.

Not really, Dr. Morgan — the church has put itself in an enormously difficult position.