In the same debate, the bishops were crucial in defeating government proposals to limit the space within which religious bodies are exempt from anti-discrimination law. They see that as a fundamental matter of conscience. But it is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the Church of England and simultaneously to deny the spiritual independence of the three small communities who seek this change for themselves (and not for anybody else).
The bishops’ “slippery slope” argument is invalid. Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice. To deny people of faith the opportunity of registering the most important promise of their lives in their willing church or synagogue, according to its liturgy, is plainly discriminatory. In the US it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise . . . of religion.
Why limit it to two? Why not allow siblings? Why not any combination that people can think of?
Well now, what do we have here?
Current Bishops:
Only one real one – David Stancliffe, liberal Bishop of Salisbury, about to retire after a period of some illness
Retired Bishops:
John Gladwin, liberal just retired Bishop of Chelmsford who managed to alienate a lot of the diocese of Chelmsford. In particular there was a standoff with an ordinand who refused to be ordained by him as he was on the board of one of the gay advocacy organisations, and he in turn refused not to participate and allow someone else to do the deed. Standoff solved when an alternative was arranged on the intervention of the ABC and senior bishops who told all sides to buck up their ideas.
Harries of Oxford – liberal ex Bishop of Oxford. Tried to get Jeffrey John appointed as his suffragan in Reading.
Peter Selby, former Bishop of Worcester. Managed to lose a parish in Kidderminster with his membership of a pro-gay organisation and his intransigence with the vicar. Mind you it takes two to tango. Now a back-seat driver.
Kenneth Stevenson and Bill Ind, former Bishops of Truro and Portsmouth – don’t know much about these has-beens.
Some dodgy deans and minor clergy:
Jeffrey John in St Albans – very nearly split the church when Harries tried to make him a bishop – would have beaten Robinson to it.
Colin Slee – Dean of Southwark – carrot top already does blessings on the sly by encouraging gay partnered couples to come along to one of his ‘general blessings’ at Southwark Cathedral where he reckons they can have anything they want blessed.
Judith Maltby, college chaplain and one of the American TEC-in-a-bag ladies who lurk in Oxbridge chapels along with a number of other WATCH members from other colleges. Thinks she ought to be a bishop.
Some Oxbridge lecturers:
Diarmaid MacCulloch, gay and a non-practicing Anglican who has done a rather interesting televised history of Christianity.
So all in all, only one real bishop on the way out, five has-beens, and the usual suspects from liberal Oxbridge and WATCH and a few non-Anglicans.
Who is missing? Tom Butler of Southwark who is just retiring. I wonder what he is up to in the House of Lords?
Elsewhere there are reports that the liberal Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stephens is pushing for the end of the ban on gay ceremonies in church [not that many of the writers of this letter take any notice of it]. The usual Thinking Anglicans pin ups seem to be making a break to claim that the church is of their view while the ABC is wandering around the Holy Land. It will be interesting to see what the real bishops and church have to say. FCA anyone?
pageantmaster – have you considered the content of the letter at all?
Minutes of a meeting of the Bullroarer Club, a little known Oxford drinking club frequented by traditional Anglican liberals:
Iain: Well Winchester ignored my last letter even though it was published in “Open Democracy”
Simon: and everyone ignored the letters from 50 independendent mainstream religious organisations six of us wrote
Iain: This calls for serious action – we better write a letter to The Times – Ruthie will help like last time, won’t you?
Ruth: Ooh rather, how thrill-making, I love a bit of excitement to write about, the wackier the better.
Iain: and we need some Bishops, anyone know any?
John, Richard, Peter, Kenneth and Bill: We used to be bishops, you know!
David: I’m still a bishop – just!
Judith: I want to be a woman bishop
Jeffrey: So did I
Colin: Me too, no one recognises my obvious talents and calling
Iain: right, that’s settled then, and I suppose we ought to invite some of the oiks from the other place to sign as well. Any other business?
Diarmaid: Anyone fancy a quickie in The Bull?
All: Hooray – mine’s a pint! You’re in the Chair.
#3 badman – there’s content? All I read was a lot about the US constitution and some ranting about floodgates and slippery slopes. But perhaps it was written in the pub.
Oh and by the way there are some basic errors:
[blockquote]Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice.[/blockquote]
All marriages between men and women are “civil” in England. Religious marriages can also take place, and certain religious bodies [but not all] may also deal with the civil part at the same time, as is the case with priests in the CofE where the civil part is usually dealt with in a vestry after the main religious ceremony when the registers are signed. Where the religious body is not authorised in a civil function, then an appointment with the Registrar also has to take place.
“Civil unions” are something legally different to civil or religious marriages.
Well, since badman did ask, here is my take on the issue in the Bishops’ letter:
I think it is important to look at what marriage, both religious and civil, and civil partnerships are at the moment and be aware of the distinction between the civil or legal aspects and the religious.
A civil marriage between a man and a woman takes place before a registrar in a registry office or other place appointed by the local authority. Documents and requirements are checked to have been met and then the marriage is an act of registration where currently no religious music, prayers or other religious acts are permitted.
In the case of a religious marriage between a man and a woman a separate civil registration following the above rules will also be necessary unless the religious establishment is also authorised to conduct the legal aspects of the marriage. An example of this dual function is the marriages which take place in the Church of England and the Church in Wales. The civil aspect is completed with the signing of the registers usually in a separate vestry or other place set aside. This is distinct from the religious aspect of the ceremony which coexists with the legal, but this allowance by the state is not the case with all religious ceremonies. Unless the religious body is permitted to perform these functions, then a separate civil marriage will be necessary.
A civil partnership in England is also conducted by an authorised person at a place set aside and approved by a local authority. When the requirements of the law have been met, notices given and forms completed and a waiting period has passed, two people of the same sex may register as civil partners of each other by completing a civil partnership document together and the authorised person if satisfied will register it. Like a civil marriage, no religious aspects are permitted, and it is not permitted to take place in a religious building.
Now of course, this can be changed. The dividing line between a civil marriage and a civil partnership on the one hand, and a religious marriage, with civil aspects on the other can be blurred. Hymns and prayers could take place in a registry office, or somewhere else approved: on a beach, in a betting shop, or even MacDonalds if the legislation were amended. If the prohibition were removed a civil marriage or civil partnership could take place in a religious place. However the secular nature of both a civil marriage and a civil partnership would have been removed.
So I think that the letter from the mostly retired bishops, Oxbridge chaplains and lecturers and a few clergy proceeds on an emotive front that does not really take account of the issues. Can civil partnerships be registered in a religious building with hymns, prayers and a blessing and civil marriages not? Does everyone want this blurring of the nature of two civil registrations, in particular the secularists and atheists who believe that religion has no place in the administrative performance of civil functions?
I think the attacks on the Bishop of Winchester and Chichester really miss the mark, when you examine what these three distinct ceremonies really are. Much emotion, but not much research and thought has gone into this letter. I hope the professors in particular apply more rigour to their academic and biblical studies than has gone into this. And that is to leave on one side the irrelevant material about the US constitution and the talk of floodgates and slippery slopes.
Some materials on the original civil partnerships legislation from 2004 is here [and has to be read subject to any amendments]:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=975804
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/en/ukpgaen_20040033_en_1
Following on from the last point when the letter says:
“Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises.”
and
“To deny people of faith the opportunity of registering the most important promise of their lives in their willing church or synagogue, according to its liturgy, is plainly discriminatory.”
There is a slight confusion. A civil partnership is neither something registered by faith communities, nor is it “registering the most important promise of their lives…according to its liturgy”. There is no religious or liturgical element to a civil partnership in the legislation, it is purely a registration function of a document signed by the parties based on their previous actions. It is not analogous to a religious exchange of vows, more like an administrative rubber stamp. Further, only authorised persons, such as registrars can perform this function.
I think the point is that at the moment, for a religious marriage in the CofE, the minister acts both as a priest conducting a church wedding, but also as an official deputed by the state to register the legal formalities as well. Only CofE priests and others who have this right to represent the state for these purposes can do this. Not all religious bodies can do this and I am not sure about the 3 bodies the letter writers talk about. Can they conduct religious weddings, which are also valid for the state as well? If not why licence them to do civil partnerships? Strictly to have a civil partnership in church then either the priest has to be licenced by the state in advance as an authorised person for registering civil partnerships, becoming in effect a state registrar [not ideal if the church does not approve of them in its moral teaching], or there has to be an authorised person there in church alongside the priest to register the civil partnership, with the priest just standing by to administer a blessing around it. It would be extraordinary to surrender the main part of a religious ceremony to a state official in a church.
So all in all I don’t think it has really been thought through.
It is instructive to look at some figures for the three faith groups who are pushing this amendment:
Quakers: 20,000 UK members
Unitarians: 6,000 members in Great Britain
Liberal Judaism: no figures readily available but 30-35 Synagogues and groups [35 listed on their website].
They have joined with a strange alliance of Oxbridge Senior Common Room and Episcopal retirement home.
Yesterday, there were a number of articles run in the Guardian from various of the backers of this amendment, including one from Prof. Diarmaid MacCullock for whom after a long rant directed at Church of England Bishops, it seemed that the penny had finally dropped:
[blockquote]It has to be said that the law not just around civil partnerships but also civil marriage is a bit weird: thanks to the last Tory government (and not actually thanks to the church), it is impossible to conduct civil marriages on religious premises or conversely to have any prayers or forms of worship in registered civil premises, regardless of the wishes of couples who might like to bring God into a civil ceremony in a measure decided by themselves. But just because all that is a bit silly, that is no reason for prelates of the Church of England to misuse Anglicanism’s established status to bully smaller churches in the name of a thin-end-of-the-wedge argument that by no means convinces all Anglicans anyway. If Lord Alli’s amendment was part of a wider package to remedy the anomalies around civil partnership and marriage, then that would be very good. But it is good as it stands; and one should never let the best be the enemy of the good.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/24/equality-bill-bishops-civil-partnerships%5B/blockquote%5D
While understanding that civil ceremonies do not permit religious participation in them he thinks that this is because it is all a bit silly. Well no, not really, it is because Parliament designed them to be secular and administered by the state. Which, I suspect, is why in each case they were prominently labelled “Civil”.
The ire directed by many of this group at the Church of England and its bishops and in particular the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester is remarkable to see. Very tiny religious groups and a few academics believe that it is only right that they should be listened to, but the big denominations and faiths, and in particular the Lords Spiritual, are not to be consulted and should just shut up.
Perhaps this is because of the way this is being done. The usual way of dealing with issues like this is to table proper legislation after consultation with groups who would be affected by it, including all the major denominations and faiths. This would be part of the usual process of Parliamentary green papers, white papers, committees and properly drafted and scrutinised legislation through the proper processes of both houses of Parliament.
Instead, an almost identical amendment was tagged late on to the Equality bill and defeated in the House of Lords. Not taking no for an answer, Lord Alli supported by this strange alliance of retired bishops and Oxbridge academics have made common cause with three of the tiniest faith groups in the country in whom they have not previously shown any interest. Together in a concerted campaign backing an almost identical amendment, they have issued a letter to The Times and some disgruntled and abusive articles in the Guardian. They have tried to put the boot into some of our bishops, told the major denominations that they have no say in the matter and told the Lords Spiritual to stay out of it.
The government has not yet indicated whether they will be supporting Lord Alli’s amendment. Its spokesman made noises about the need to consult the other denominations and faiths.
We will have to see. Personally I think the way this has been done, tacking religion on to some clearly secular administrative arrangements and then abusing those who objected is pretty deplorable. Of course it is done in this fashion because this Parliament has run out of time before it is dissolved for the election. There has been no consultation of the faith communities, and no proper consideration of how suitable existing legislation is to be shoehorned into a context it was not designed for.
Lots of people will be watching this process in the country, in the faith communities, and of course in the Anglican Communion. I am sorry to see our bishops abused in this way, and they have my prayers as they weigh their consciences as members of the legislature, their duty to the doctrine of the church and the Anglican Communion and the interest of all faiths in the UK in the changes being proposed.
Some links:
BBC religions guide
Guardian Special Report on UK religions
Liberal Judaism
Article in the Jewish Chronicle
Quakers
Unitarianism
Instead, an almost identical amendment was tagged late on to the Equality bill and defeated in the House of Lords.
No, there has been no vote so far on this amendment. Lord Alli withdrew it after a short debate, and reserved the right to bring it back at Report. This is all normal HoL procedure. All three faith groups mentioned here were also mentioned in the earlier debate.
Incidentally the amendment was supported in that debate by two prominent Anglicans, Lord Harries, former Bp of Oxford (also signed the letter) and Lady Butler-Sloss.
backing an almost identical amendment
The text of the amendment to be proposed next week has not yet been published, and under HoL procedure it does not have to be the same wording as before.
#10 Thanks for your response Simon.
The intent of the amendment is the same. As it was put in the letter:
[blockquote]The amendment will be re-presented by Lord Alli on March 2[/blockquote]
and the article from Prof MacCulloch:
[blockquote]Luckily on 2 March the Lords have a chance to think again and think more logically, since Lord Waheed Alli is proposing to re-present the amendment that Winchester and Chichester helped to kill last month.[/blockquote]
I imagine the writers who have given their support have prudently ascertained what it is that Lord Alli will be presenting before publishing their letter and articles on the amendment. If Prof. MacCulloch, the retired bishops and other writers have made further errors, you might like to take it up with them, but as far as I can see my reference to an “almost identical amendment” remains correct.
Also:
Well, not really. Normal procedure to change civil partnerships and civil marriage would be to produce a new amending Act or a consolidating Act in the normal way, provide for consultation, and allow it to work its way through the proper Parliamentary processes.
What we are seeing is an attempt to circumvent proper Parliamentary process, in an increasingly desperate and backdoor trend:
1. Change the law on euthanasia not by Act of Parliament and proper process and consultation, but by fiddling with the prosecution guidelines of the Attorney-General’s Guidelines to the police and Crown Prosecution Service so that prohibitions on people killing their relatives are circumvented by the Government’s law officers; and similarly
2. Try to legislate for religious same-sex partnerships, by taking an unsuitable piece of civil partnership legislation and include it in a bill on equality at a very late stage, and even then not confirm the final text until it is bounced on the House of Lords on the day of the debate.
In both cases, no time to consider and reflect, no proper consultation with those denominations and faiths to whom this will apply, no proper scrutiny by committee, no proper drafting and no proper legislative process.
And I am not very impressed with Lady Butler-Sloss. As an experienced senior judge I would have expected her to uphold full and proper Parliamentary process for this novel move.
But of course it is not about the rights of a few thousand Unitarians and Quakers, who the retired bishops and sloppy academics have taken on board, but any old way of pushing forward an aggresive gay agenda, by any means and using any unsuitable bit of legislation to hand.
Of course, if successful one will end up with an unwieldy, odd and unsuitable stitch up.
And if unsuccessful I noted that Prof Iain McLean [who claims to be a Quaker] opine that Quakers may just go for civil disobedience if they don’t get their own way on this:
[blockquote] A few small points from one of those who started this:
1. Yes, a US court would certainly find the present law unconstitutional, as violating the First Amendment which forbids Congress from interfering in the free exercise of religion. We explained this in the letter to the Times.
2. Quakers in England are in a slightly different position because under the Marriage Act 1753 we were given the same privilege as Anglican priests, to conduct our own marriages according to our own procedures. This after 100 years of persecution. But our Yearly Meeting last year, which decided (prayerfully) that we want to recognise civil partnerships in Meeting houses, did NOT ask our registrars to break the existing law, so we still want the Alli amednment…
3 … despite Terence’s very moving post in this string
4 if the Alli amendment is rejected, Quakers might think about civil disobedience but that is not for me to say!
Posted by: Iain McLean on Thursday, 25 February 2010 at 12:05pm GMT
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004258.html#comments%5B/blockquote%5D
Tsk Tsk! – very supportive of the Rule of Law and Parliamentary democracy for a politics professor I must say. Whatever is he teaching his students?
[Text corrected as requested by commenter]
Coming soon:
Quaker Oats: Dearly beloved. We are gathered here in the sight of the Registrar approved by Lewisham Borough Council to witness the Completion of the Register of Civil Partnerships by Friends United and Provident.
All: Oh Good
Quaker Oats: Will the Congregation now please open their copy of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (c. 33), ISBN 0105633046 as amended by the Equality Act 2010
All: We will
Registrar: Have ye Friends United and Provident given notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act and the regulations made thereunder by a declaration in writing containing the details set out in subsections [3] and [4]?
Bestest Friends: We have
Registrar: Shewest me thy passports please
BF’s: Here they are
Registrar: How wilt thou be paying the set fee prescribed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s regulations?
Friend Provident: Here is my credit card
Registrar: That’ll do nicely sir.
[The waiting period having been completed for the purposes of Chapter 1 of the said Act]:
Registrar: Have ye Friends United and Provident, thine Civil Partnership Schedule provided to ye in accordance with Section 14 of the Act and wilt ye now attach your signatures to the same in the presence of two witnesses who will sign in thy presence and the presence of one another and hand it back to me?
[Signing goes on – Registrar then signs the Civil Partnership Schedule and enters the details in the Register together with the information required in the regulations prescribed by the said Act]
Registrar: Thank ye Civil Partnered Friends. Thy registration under the Act is now complete.
Quaker Oats: May the Register and the Civil Partners be blessed by whoever you may believe in
All: We give thanks for the Register and this registration we have just witnessed
May Friends United and Provident be blessed.
Well, as it turns out, the amendment now published is very significantly revised from the earlier version, and you can see the new text and the differences here:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004261.html
#14 Not really. Same old shambles.
Andrew Goddard’s analysis of ‘Religious Civil Partnerships’ is spot on:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=516
He gets to the nub of the issue, that this is shoehorning a civil act into a religious context, and highlights that in the amended amendment being tabled, I think today, it is even more disfunctional. In its latest incarnation, it permits civil partnerships to be undertaken on religious premises, but keeps the previous restriction, that it may not be part of a “religious serviceâ€
Section 2[5] is kept in place:
[blockquote](5) No religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document [/blockquote]
It is badly drafted as it is not clear what is meant. As I read it, although the Civil Partnership formalities may take place in a religious building, no religious service at all may take place in connection with it at that time. Joined up drafting? I suppose they could have insisted on the reverse, that religious services may be conducted at Registry Office, but no civil partnerships may be registered at that time
How mad is that? The mad hatter has been allowed to draft parliamentary amendments.
The Civil Partnerships Act 1994
So….
Under Lord Alli’s amendment, When the Registrar turns up with his register, everybody else there for a religious service has to leave and come back another time.
LOL!
[at the risk of repeating myself, but this is high comedy]
“Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice”.
This is the same crazy crap they’re trying to spearhead in America.
Gay people can have a religious ceremony, the “choice they’re denied”, as they should be, is the “choice” to redefine the sacrament at will. If a man wants to marry a woman or a woman wants to marry a man, then I’m sure they won’t be denied their “religious ceremony”.
If “redefinition” rules the day, I’m female and really bored with one husband(not, but just play along). Maybe I could redefine the sacrament in order to have ~ three more husbands. I’m “oriented” that way, and all the rest of you are denying me the right to be myself. Plus, even the Bible makes a much better case for heterosexual polygamy than it does for same-sex “activities”.
That’s my temporary dump, now I’ll read the rest of Pageantmaster’s expose. Considering the cast of characters that he’s “outed”, why even take the letter seriously?!!
I think I’ll start punctuating my own letters with Guinness…
🙂
Pageantmaster, this time, truly you have saved the best wine ’til last. God bless you.
This was one of my comments over on SF:
Pageantmaster, thank you for your comments and work on this.
It seems to me that the UK has more strict law/procedure on what constitutes a civil partnership vs. a civil marriage or religious marriage, than some American states.
The authors of that original letter, outlined on T19, are simply trying to achieve equality by any other name. “Get the foot in the door of the Church, and then we can stay thereâ€.
I have always believed that if you put a Christian blessing on a civil marriage, it’s a Christian marriage, plain and simple.
Fact is, I think the gay Brits have been talking to their American friends, who tried to do it this same way until they figured out that there would be no punishment or discipline, from anyone, for actually “solemnizing†gay civil marriages, which is now the practice in places like DioMass…the clergy there probably use a service like that put out years ago by the Diocese of New Westminster, or they use the TEC 1979 Prayer Book Marriage Service and change all the pronouns. But, before that(in the bygone days of lip service to appease the rest of the Communion), they would perform the civil marriage in the church, and then the cleric would pronounce the blessing and celebrate the Eucharist. Read this whole thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/fashion/weddings/20vows.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
What Pageantmaster drops the dime on(and probably so does Andrew Goddard) is the attempt to get around British law, which does not permit civil ceremony/partnership in C of E churches.
The name of the game is “Ramrod the Agendaâ€, and with an Established Church and liberal bishops sitting in Parliament, it just might be successful, at least someday.
I’ve had to read Pageantmaster’s contributions very quickly, so anyone please correct me if I’m wrong here.
God bless, and thank you, Pageantmaster.
The pub works for the crazy stuff on this side of the pond, too. Come visit, and I’ll hunt all over my city for Fuller’s, bottled if not on tap. BYOB is ok around here, too…
🙂