Sorry, your best man is gay
Yes, St X the Y of Z diocese, UK, I'm looking at you.
You the diocese that have encouraged two vulnerable individuals to grow in the faith and become a committed part of your parish.
You who welcomed their plans to get married.
And then discovered that their potential best man is gay.
And rapidly tried to back out of having anything to do with the wedding as a result. Summoned them to a meeting in another parish church without notice of the agenda at which you invoked, wrongly, the House of Bishops' Guidance on the issue of remarriage of divorcees (which somehow had never come up before) as a fig-leaf for your evident homophobia and your evident reluctance to go forward.
I mean, I could imagine you having problems with marrying a same-sex couple. I could even imagine you being sensible enough to offer an alternative celebrant to overcome your issues of conscience.
What I couldn't imagine is offering for them to go down the registry office and do their thing there but under no circumstances in the church.
All because a witness whose only moral and legal responsibility is to show up, who commits you in no other way, happens to be gay?
Just how are you "serving the people of" [your parish] here?
[changed thread title because I can and because I'm so mad]
You the diocese that have encouraged two vulnerable individuals to grow in the faith and become a committed part of your parish.
You who welcomed their plans to get married.
And then discovered that their potential best man is gay.
And rapidly tried to back out of having anything to do with the wedding as a result. Summoned them to a meeting in another parish church without notice of the agenda at which you invoked, wrongly, the House of Bishops' Guidance on the issue of remarriage of divorcees (which somehow had never come up before) as a fig-leaf for your evident homophobia and your evident reluctance to go forward.
I mean, I could imagine you having problems with marrying a same-sex couple. I could even imagine you being sensible enough to offer an alternative celebrant to overcome your issues of conscience.
What I couldn't imagine is offering for them to go down the registry office and do their thing there but under no circumstances in the church.
All because a witness whose only moral and legal responsibility is to show up, who commits you in no other way, happens to be gay?
Just how are you "serving the people of" [your parish] here?
[changed thread title because I can and because I'm so mad]
This discussion has been closed.

Comments
I haven't mugged up on the House of Bishops' Guidance on marriage of divorcees yet as I only just discovered its existence a few hours ago, but I'm confident it would not apply. But that info is good to know.
The question of any previous marriage should routinely be raised with a couple at the time of booking.
Could the bozos in question withstand that kind of scrutiny themselves?
Tempted to suggest someone friendly to the couple get an online ordination (Universal Life Church, etc.) and be the wedding celebrant. (Don't know if that would be legit there, and probably isn't what the couple wants.) ULC's foundation is "Do that which is right". The bozos mentioned above could learn from them.
As for the reaction by the bishop - that's why more than 75% of marriages here are conducted by civil celebrants.
As mentioned, everyone concerned is apparently involved in the parish. The bride-to-be leads some meetings, the husband-to-be has been in the parish since he was 8, etc. They have apparently got some support from the congregation, so this might backfire on the pastoral team.
What gets me is the dishonesty, the disregard for the couple's standing in the church, the total failure to seek a more honest compromise by offering a replacement celebrant, the spiritual abuse... I could go on.
Anglican priests have a civil office as registrars so far as I can make out. I can understand them being reluctant to do walk-in marriages for complete unknowns, but it seems to me that they have not only a religious but also a civic duty to their parishoners. Preserving the perks of Established Church status whilst also wanting to pick and choose who they exercise the duties of that status for seems profoundly unjust to me, and another argument in favour of disestablishment. (I much prefer all marriages to be civil with a religious ceremony thereafter for those who so wish, which is how we do things in France).
You couldn't make it up.
Quite so.
I just can't get my head around how the fuck the best-man has anything to do with anything.
But that doesn't sound much like what you are describing.
All I'm recalling is that he keeps the groom from escaping/fainting, has custody of the ring until the groom puts it on the bride's finger, escorts the maid/matron of honor down the aisle, and gives a mawkish or bawdy speech at the reception after.
Even if I were a priest who regarded the best man's sexual orientation as deviant, unnatural, and rebellious against God's Holy Word, I fail to grasp why he cannot hang about in a nice suit and a boutonniere while his buddy ties the knot. Because really, isn't that about all he does?
Is this really just about signing the license as a witness?
The point on which I'd take issue with the OP, is that if,
"Actually, it’s not clear that it has reached the bishop’s ears at all.", why is the accusation being framed as,
"You the diocese ... "?
There's no link to the original story. So none of us have any basis on which we can evaluate the likely actual facts, rather than the version @Eutychus is incensed about.
And what the actual hell does it matter?
If news, link, please. Thx.
That's because it's (so far) a private matter; I know the couple involved. These people are in another country from me, and it may be that there are pertinent facts of which I'm not aware, but I'm confident enough of what I do know to be mad about it.
I thought the requirement for that was to be a warm body.
Someone should introduce them to "Mississippi Squirrel Revival" (Metrolyrics). There are various recordings online. Here's a You Tube video by Ray Stevens, the songwriter.
In Scotland the witnesses have to be over 16; I'd be surprised if that wasn't a requirement in England too. But that's not the issue here, of course.
I'm reasonably certain that nobody - not even a CofE officiant - can determine a witness is not suitable on the basis of sexuality.
So they have no required civil status at all with respect to the proceedings, in fact? Like the parents of the spouses?
Nope, it's a courtesy title I believe.
The CofE has just changed its website since I last went digging there, so I can't find anything, but there is a definite change happening around welcoming LGBT - May 2018 article from Pink News discussing a Lichfield Diocese guidance:
The rules on marriage of divorced people in the CofE depend on the church. Some churches won't, full stop, others will. But there is a guideline that the CofE cannot marry a couple where one party was involved in the breakdown of the previous relationship (so check divorce certificates and the dates to make sure it's not too recent and if so, ask about the breakdown of that previous marriage). The depends is PCC policy, so that should be checkable to see if the PCC policy is in place.
If their supposed homosexuality/homosexual relationship was an issue for the church, it should have been an issue for the church before now. If it hasn't previously been, it shouldn't be now.
Besides, to see this as a scandal that somehow affects the church's image is really a stretch.
It's like Watergate. It's not the scandal, it's the attempts to avoid one...
Both the prospective bride-to-be and the groom are longstanding members of the church and the bride-to-be's marital history and the reasons for it are undoubtedly well-known to the church. So far as I can tell, they were not raised in initial discussions with the priest in charge about the forthcoming marriage. They have only been invoked once the priest found out who the best man was supposed to be, and things have only turned nasty after they have stood firm on their choice of best man having come under pressure to choose someone else.
In my experience of evangelical churches in the UK, church people may often be gossipping and disapproving of someone’s lifestyle (such as a hererosexual couple living together, or a divorced person) but won’t confront them directly (a sort of British reserve/fear/none-of-my-business thing) unless that person wants a role in the church. Then they tell them they can’t have the role. And I think it is partly because of how influential members of the church would disapprove and make a big deal of it. And also a power thing in general - the idea of ‘We should love the sinner but not give them any power (because we need to show they are inferior to us).’ So I was wondering if this might be the same sort of thinking. I am not so familiar with Church of England, but I have found certain churchy attitudes seem to seep into all denominations.
(In case it’s not clear, I am not condoning this attitude in any way. I am trying to make some sort of sense of a decision that seems bizarre to me - to work out what thinking and context might underlie it.)