Michael Ingham

Michael Ingham, for those who don't know, is the Anglican Archbishop of New Westminster, which covers all of Vancouver. He is not only a heretic and a dishonest idiot, as so ably (and famously, in certain quarters) demonstrated by Michael Davenport here (pdf here) but he doesn't appear to believe in religious freedom. Some might consider this an odd position for someone who would have been a feather in the hat of any heresy-hunter of centuries past. But let nothing stand in the way of imposing the Brave New World of the sacrament of sodomy on orthodox Christianity!

I dredged up an article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutional. Michael Ingham's reaction: pity they didn't lower the boom on religious freedom:

However, the Anglican bishop of Greater Vancouver saw a ‘mixed blessing’ in Thursday’s decision regarding homosexual rights, a wedge issue that increasingly separatese Canada’s 20 million nominal Christians.

Ingham, who has been at the centre of an international storm since his Anglican diocese agreed to bless same-sex unions in 2002, said the ruling leaves him pleased for gays and lesbians in Canada. But Ingham also worried an ‘unintended message’ in Thursday’s court judgement will foster the continued ‘ghettoization’ of religious organizations in Canada’s pluralistic society.

Since the ruling affirms the right of Canadian religious groups to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, Ingham said it will allow conservative religious organizations to continue to ‘discriminate’ against gays and lesbians.

“I’ve always been distressed by arguments for religious people to be able to continue to discriminate against gay and lesbian people. I don’t believe in that kind of God. It’s as if one is saying: ‘If you’re a non-believer, you can’t discriminate. But if you’re a believer, you can. So if you want to discriminate against gays and lesbian people, join a religious organization.”

...

Ingham agreed with the strict legal reasoning in the Supreme Court ruling protecting religious freedom. But he wondered, since neither the courts, society nor religious leaders would allow discrimination against Semitic people, why do they support discrimination against gays and lesbians regarding marriage?

That's right- he says he agrees with the legal reasoning, but considers it a pity. But then he goes on to suggest that the court did get it wrong!