I think you'll be heartened to see how some in this now very muddled Christian denomination are working toward a middle that can simultaneously embrace both moral principles and a commitment to civil society.
However, it's necessary to make an important correction to his article. Goddard writes:
Some of the criticism of the Nigerian church's support for recently proposed state legislation is unfounded because there is no human right to same-sex marriage.As I wrote in the comments section of this titus one nine post:
A careful read of the legislation (pdf) shows that it would ban more than gay marriage -- it would also ban constitutionally protected speech, press, assembly, and freedom of religion. The legislation goes beyond denying recognition of gay marriages to banning private ceremonies. Worse, it bans advocacy of gay marriage, or a defense of homosexuality, and it levies a punishment of 5 years' imprisonment.
Some within the Anglican Communion, such as Changing Attitude, might condemn the Church of Nigeria for endorsing a ban on gay marriage.
But the US State Department, nearly 20 human rights organizations, and 60 members of the EU Parliament have not criticized the ban on gay marriage, but the ban on far more basic civil rights: speech, press, assembly, and religion.
No one should be denied their right to speak out against what they perceive to be an injustice. About homosexuality, gay and lesbian Nigerians may be wrong or they may be right, but by its endorsement the Church of Nigeria has come dangerously close to letting ministry turn to persecution.
It seems to me that even the most even-handed, well-meaning conservative Anglicans still don't know what's in the Nigerian legislation. But thanks, Andrew, for advancing the argument in a very civil direction.