Coronation Street homosexual actor says Churches opt out of same sex marriage must go

Charlie Condou, the homosexual actor in Coronation Street, has written an article for The Guardian in which he asserts that the Churchs’ opt out of same-sex marriage must be removed in the name of ‘Equality’:

There remains the problem of the opt-out: individual churches can “opt out” of gay marriage on grounds of religious “conscience”. Does this mean that if we get married, we are going to have to shop our equal love around to various churches until we find a priest who is willing to allow it to be equal? That isn’t really equal, is it?

Although there are many within the Church of England who are open-minded about gay marriage, it has officially been fighting gay marriage every step of the way. This contest between religious and civil rights will be a serious test of governmental conviction on both sides of the Atlantic. But we feel more confident now that both Cameron and Obama are on our side, two of the biggest boys in the playground. Go get em lads!

Protect the Pope comment:It didn’t take the gay activists long did it! Only three days after the vote for same-sex marriage and they have started the campaign to have the quadruple locks removed.  The obvious implications of Condou’s ‘Go get em lads!’ is that he expects Cameron and Obama to force the Churches and their ministers to conduct same-sex marriages.  It’s amazing how uninformed individuals, such as Charlie Condou over-estimate the power of the State over the Church.  The Catholic Church, and her ministers, will never conduct same-sex marriages. Never.

18 comments to Coronation Street homosexual actor says Churches opt out of same sex marriage must go

  • Rifleman819

    Who is this Charlie Condou?

    Never heard of him?
    It always makes me laugh at the sententiousness of so-called “celebs” (even D List ones)…on any topic at all.
    They know better …because they are celebs………I remember a fascinating BBC phone-in debate between some delusionally self-important actor and a Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry over the effects of even medium-term cannabis use upon the brain.
    The BBC anchor person was clearly trying to give as much weight to a member of Equity as to someone who has spent their entire professional career in a highly specialised and evidence-based scientific area.
    Laughable-it really was.
    But that all too often is the level of public discourse and debate in Britain 2013-over so many topics as well.

  • Karla

    How dare he compare this to Rosa Parks and the Black struggle in the South….. are you kidding me, that is disgusting. That is offensive, homosexuals have not been strung up on trees either because they can not get married to each other or because of their sexuality or put water hoses and dogs set on in them the street like Blacks in the South were. Homosexuals were not told to sit at the back of the bus; they were not made to go through a separate entrance to a cinema; homosexuals were not told by the highest court in the land that that because of their sexuality they could never become citizens. Black people were told they could never become citizens in the Dred scott supreme court desicion.

    Homosexuals have never had such comparable discrimination.

    Some homosexuals are discriminated against but do not hijack a legacy of brutality from slavery onwards and compare it to you seeking marriage

    • Karla

      Discrimination against homosexuals should be denounced BTW but if you think marriage is about equality for all then ask yourself do you really believe anybody should be able to marry who they want? There are laws prohibitings siblings, first cousins, persons that want to marry an inanimate object, animals, multiple people or parents and child(ren) from marrying so the government does not view EQUALITY as a reason to allow marriage for any other relationship other than for homosexuals now

      There are good reasons to regulate who can marry and what age, and equality doesn’t come in to it and it should not be a reason to legalise gay ‘marriage’

    • Terri

      You bet, it is beyond disgusting Karla. I cannot believe that such a small group of people can cause such division, but I guess “divide and conquer” is part of the “plan”. The radical homosexual agenda is one of the tactics marxists use. We have to speak out in one loud unified voice in opposition, and PRAY. We know who wins in the end.

  • Michael Petek

    If Charlie Condou wants a same-sex marriage he can always join the Metropolitan Community Church.

  • ms Catholic state

    No sir…shopping around for a Church willing to conduct your ‘marriage’ isn’t equal. But then…your ‘marriage’ isn’t equal either. Even the new legislation doesn’t treat SSM equally….seeing how it can’t be consummated and adultery doesn’t matter. Not equal…and never can be equal.

  • Rifleman819

    Dear Deacon Nick ,

    I notice , having read his “Guardian” piece that there is no mention there of

    “shopping our equal love around to various mosques until we find an imam who is willing to allow it to be equal? That really isn’t equal , is it?”

    I find that omission slightly curious…since under Equality we are all supposed to be equal-imams included….including their congregations??

    It’s going to be interesting………..

  • Christopher

    Dear Deacon Nick,

    Is this honestly surprising? They will stop at nothing until everyone accepts what they want. They can keep day-dreaming in thinking the Church will comply, the Catholic Church prevails, always.

    God Bless.

  • Lola

    Any liberal CofE priest/priestess who support equal “marriage” must be dull. Don’t they realise that supporting same sex marriage provokes disestablishment of their Church? And, where would they all be when that happens?

  • Mike2

    Homosexuals (or at least the Stonewall types) are against what they see as discrimination. Full stop. Some Churches may continue to marry heterosexual couples and refuse to “marry” homosexual pairs. The Stonewall types were bound to see that as discrimination. So they were bound to start complaining about it once marriage was redefined. Anybody who took seriously ‘assurances’ that Churches would be allowed not to opt in was just not living in the real world. The ‘assurances’ were no more real than the ‘assurances’ that Civil Partnerships would not lead to a demand for redefining marriage. However, I am a little surprised that the campaign to end this ‘discrimination’ has got off the ground before the ink on the Marriage (Redefinition) Bill has even begun to dry.

  • Delia

    More of this kind of stuff would be very welcome at this stage, since it shows up the Government’s assurances for what they are. It might make the waverers vote against the Bill at the third reading, and give it a much rougher ride through the Lords.

  • fintan michael

    the first problem here is that marriage is between a man and a woman. therefore gays no matter how hard they try to redefine marriage cannot get married and that is their problem and they know it. they can prance around in wedding gowns all they like and demand ceremonies but still at the end of the day they wont be married. what they want is a blessing on their act or acts of sodomy and other interesting sexual perversions. this eases their conscience or so they think. what has to be brought home to them in no uncertain terms is that they suffer from a real live illness and unless they address this they may die of terrible diseases and we are not just talking about aids here there are plenty of other diseases that gays get as a result of their behavior. unfortunately these hard facts have not been brought home and as a result a whole political realm has grown around perversion where homosexuals now believe that they are a minority who suffer discrimination. alcoholics and addicts to some extent are in the same category. they suffer from an illness also but if we are foolish enough to give them special rights then we ask for serious knock on problems. in the wake of the legalization of gay marriage we are now going to experience serious problems where innocent children up for adoption will suffer and where real christians are going to be persecuted. this is going to happen because we failed to stand up for what is right.

  • Rifleman819

    Dear All,

    Actually if we think about it…it is always darkest just before dawn.

    I so loved the hubristic smile on Peter Tatchell’s face.I hope he savours the moment of his victory.And he basks in his glory like some bath house Apollo .For it will be of short duration. Such is the nature of these things.

    The wings of nemesis are about to be spread. Assuredly.

  • Robin Leslie

    What amazes me is that a basic injustice is being done to us all by applying this reductive
    idea of Equality to all, irrespective of difference. It is a basic principle and test of Justice
    that unlike cases cannot be treated alike, and likeke cases cannot be treated unalike.
    Marriage is a union of opposites, and subsists transcendently of the parties to it, it is objective, a sacrament, a state of being into which the parties enter. Therefore it is
    Ontologically impossible for same-sex parties to enter this state.
    A failure to recognise and a denial of DIFFERENCE has led to the secular power to treat unlike cases alike in this instance, a moment of scandalous overreach by the secular in the sacramental
    life of the Church.
    The entire conception and practice of Equality is reductive and unjust for it measures all
    relationships by a vacuous standard principle of ‘discrimination’. We all make distinctions
    and discriminations in our judgements, and DIFFERENCE is the cornerstone of civilisation.
    We must rethink Equality and cast the current practice and notion into the fire!

  • Mal

    I suppose they could have their ‘marriage’ in a mosque, a Hindu temple or a Sikh one – if any of these would let them!

  • SteveD

    Of course the Churches are going to be expected to ‘fall into line’ after a decent period and an appeal or two to Europe. This is going to cause the sheep and goats to separate. I know of one Catholic priest who appears to think that we should be ‘flexible’ on this issue (i.e. give in) and there must be dozens (hundreds?) of others who feel the same way. This actor and Stonewall are doing us a favour by enabling those who are Catholics to distance themselves from those who merely claim to be. To our Bishops – go get ‘em lads!

  • ForFaithForever

    No True Christian can Endorse ” Same Sex Marriage ” Regardless of Politicians
    God Ordained Marriage to be between a Man and a Woman and Nothing Else

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>