Angry in the Great White North

The much anticipated vote has been taken, and Canada's Anglican Church has decided not to bless same-sex marriages:

Canadian Anglican delegates meeting in Winnipeg have voted against blessing same-sex unions, despite the majority of members actually being in favour of the motion.

"The laity voted in favour, the clergy voted in favour, but it was the House of Bishops that narrowly decided not to approve the motion that was before the members of Synod," Reverend Canon Christopher Pratt, of the Diocese of Huron, told CTV Newsnet on Sunday.

"In total point of fact, there was a majority of members of Synod that voted in favour (of the motion)."

The Anglican Church does not perform weddings for same-sex couples; instead, debate focused on whether it should allow priests to perfrom blessings for those who obtain a civil marriage.

Earlier, delegates had deciding that blessing same-sex unions would not conflict with the Church's core doctrine. But the final motion -- that clergy should be allowed to perform such blessings -- was defeated.

There is some genuine anger over this:

They should burn in their own hell.

They've just damned themselves to irrelevancy.

They've just declared themselves useless and dead.

Two anti-human churches are in "full communion" indeed. May their memory be erased from the annals of humanity.

That is an abomination.

We have come a long way (even though many people's religious feelings may have been hurt), and we have a long way yet to go.

A sampling of the vitriol at the babble board. But here's the interesting thing. Only Boom Boom is Anglican. The rest of the commenters are clearly not religious in any meaningful, that is to say, organized, way. Whatever metaphysical beliefs they hold to are probably opportunistic and fluid, constantly changing in order to encompass and justify their desires and actions. Theirs are the quotes above. So I have to ask myself just why do they care? The opinion about organized religion ranges from indifference to vicious hostility.

Churches are not supported by tax dollars, nor are they run by government departments, nor are they allowed to forcibly convert people. An internal decision like this one should have no meaning to an atheist.

[By the way, not being taxed is not the same as being supported. A tax is a punishment -- not being taxed should be the natural, default state, and not something special.]

But the decision of this private organization that affects some tiny segment of the Church membership whose religious beliefs would otherwise earn nothing but scorn and ridicule from these people (though perhaps not to their faces -- notice how babblers take turns to excoriate the Anglican Church and then profess nothing but respect for Boom Boom) is now a cause celebre.

This is not a discussion about public policy and the legal definition of marriage as set by a democratically elected government. This is a discussion about how a private organization perceives of marriage according to terms utterly unconnected with public policy.

So why the anger? And more importantly, why the interest?

The only thing that makes sense is that they want in. They have their legal civil redefinition of marriage, but the Lutherans, the Catholics, and now the Anglicans have said that within their spheres, marriage will remain a traditional heterosexual institution, and moreover, no special dispensation will be given to same-sex couples, even a lightweight blessing or other minor aknowledgment.

But that's not good enough. A legal and civil definition seems empty when the heterosexuals continue to get married in churches will all the bells and whistles. So when a Church takes an opportunity to affirm that they are not compelled to make changes for the sake of political correctness but instead based on centuries of theological thought, the homosexual crowd and their supporters are enraged.

Even the ones who would otherwise not be caught dead in a church.

Unionist's last comment -- "we have a long way to go" -- is indicative of this. For unionist and his sort, religions are to be managed by people like him, and would only be allowed to behave in a authorized manner, according to his rules. Not that unionist would ever go into a church, but he would make sure that no church would ever hold true to a doctrine that is contrary to his opinions.

Be we still have to answer the question: Why would unionist and his sort even care?

Couched in terms like "human rights" and "equality", these people are desperate to belong to something, or more accurately, to belong to anything. But belonging means compromise, and sometimes even submission, and for the emotionally immature, that is non-starter. So instead they scream for equality on their terms, which means of course they define what equality means, and the rest of us who do not get a say are required to submit to their will. Sounds like a religion, except that they would force their "religion" on everyone. And the fact that they can't get their religion off the ground drives them around the bend.

If unionist could have his way and force the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church and the rest do what he says, then he could say he belongs to all of them. He would never go into a church, of course, but something inside of him would be happy.

The Anglican Church might very well change its position one day on this issue. But that's for the Anglican Church to decide according to their rules. As for the enraged babblers, the viciousness of their reaction just goes to show that their opinion concerning the "irrelevancy" of organized religion is just a cover. I can't imagine becoming so worked up on something that I truly believed was irrelevant.