Since the debacle of Civil Partnerships I must confess to some doubts about the place of Bishops in the House of Lords.
You will recall that eight bishops (Chelmsford, Manchester, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, St Albans, St Eds & Ips and Truro) voted in favour of the Bill while only two bishops voted against (Chester and Southwell). In recent times they have slightly redeemed themselves with a spirited defence of religious freedom by defeating the government on the Equality Bill, but such was the seriousness of the Civil Partnerships legislation that it is not easy to forget.
Three of those bishops who voted in favour came back again like bad pennies with a letter to The Times protesting this time that the Civil Partnership Act had not gone far enough in creating a new category of civil marriage. They now want civil partnerships to have the character of religious marriage, according to the various letter writers. They complain that the original Act had prohibited civil partnerships from being registered in religious premises. Now they want this overturned for uber-liber- al Jewish and Christian bodies, effectively making civil partnerships undistinguishable from marriage.
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 service”
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!
It should be possible to see the events in the House this afternoon here before long:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5905
Thanks, Pageantmaster.
As always, your input as someone on the ground there in the UK is very valuable for those of us in the US. You’re right, the Mad Hatter seems to be in charge indeed. And the social consequences are much more serious than having an unbirthday party. Lord, have mercy.
A good article by Andrew Carey.
David Handy+