Vercoe and gays

OK I know it’s a bit late….

You may be interested to know that I spoke with Archbishop Whakawhatsisname Vercoe today - he who supposedly wants a world without gays. I asked him, "Does he really?"

His reply regarding the first paragraph of > the controversial article and headline in the Herald: " They were not my words and I don’t agree with it." He didn`t want to say much more, as he has been talking to journalists all day, all of whom have been asking the same question.

Sure, the bishop may not be favourably disposed to homosexuality, but if an archbishop believes homosexuality is a sin, why hasn`t he got the right to say that? Others have expressed their right to say it is not a sin - but do they get told they have no right to express that opinion? I`ve yet to see it. And people such as MP Georgina Beyer has come out saying that Vercoe is Nazi-like, demented, uneducated. I think that's uncalled for. Who's the uneducated one now? Thats a bit like Stephen D Taylor telling MP Tim Barnett that he should be put down like a rabid dog because he is expressing his opinion and doing his job.

Most clergy would agree with the Archbishop. Is that necessarily Victorian? Another Anglican bishop, Richard Randerson seems to think that an archbishop has no right to communicate what he believes, when asked to do so. He then said "Archbishop Vercoe says that he regards gay relatives as still being his blood, his kith and kin. That seems a much healthier affirmation from which to start than a ringing statement of condemnation."

Yet it was Randerson that said that Maori found homosexuality culturally difficult. Ask any gay Maori what they think of that. How did Randerson know that Vercoe didn’t start with the suggested information in the Herald interview?

I doubt if he has even spoken to Vercoe since the interview was published, and betore he made the comments.