The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.

We don’t like gay marriage.

Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history.

We’re unfamiliar with the concept of change.

Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity,

Let’s ignore the fact that the sole reason we were established was so that the King could get a divorce.

but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.

Surely you people realise that where there’s a plug there must be a socket?

We have supported various legal changes in recent years to remove unjustified discrimination and create greater legal rights for same sex couples and we welcome that fact that previous legal and material inequities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships have now been satisfactorily addressed. To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.

Somebody sent us this comic but we don’t understand why it’s meant to be funny.

We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.

It’s not right for people outside the church to think they should define what a word means; you see the church owns the word “marriage”. We’re thinking of having it trademarked.

The consultation paper wrongly implies that there are two categories of marriage, “civil” and “religious”. This is to mistake the wedding ceremony for the institution of marriage.

In fact all marriages – even the civil ones – are owned by us. We license the term (and tax breaks) to people…

The assertion that “religious marriage” will be unaffected by the proposals is therefore untrue, since fundamentally changing the state’s understanding of marriage means that the nature of marriages solemnized in churches and other places of worship would also be changed.

…and if gay marriage is permitted it means that they might want to start getting married in church…

To remove the concept of gender from marriage while leaving it in place for civil partnerships is unlikely to prove legally sustainable.

…which is a slippery slope…

It is unlikely to prove politically sustainable to prevent same sex weddings in places of worship given that civil partnerships can already be registered there where the relevant religious authority consents.

…since we can’t control our own employees we require legislation to remain unchanged in order to prop up this bulwark against sin.

And there have to be serious doubts whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable.

Otherwise [gay] people might start start shopping around for churches where they can get what they want.

For each of these reasons we believe, therefore, this consultation exercise to be flawed, conceptually and legally.

Therefore, please don’t drop us in it.

Our arguments are set out in greater detail below.

More verbiage is here if you need it.