In conclusion, were the state to be preventing a religious body from exercising its freedom of religion it would indeed be quite wrong for the established church to support such restrictions simply on the grounds that it did not itself wish to exercise such a freedom. That is not, however, the situation created by the Civil Partnership Act. The current legislation does not place any such limit on religious freedom. Quakers, Unitarians, liberal Jews, any other religious group, is at liberty to celebrate the formation of civil partnerships and other patterns of same-sex union within their own communities in whatever way they determine according to the laws of their religious body. The state does not claim any right to interfere in or to prevent such religious ceremonies.
No religious body has a right for its clergy to be recognised as acting as a registrar on behalf of the state or for its premises to be used for such registration – registration of births, for example, is not franchised out in order that it can be completed on religious premises by a religious minister at a service of infant baptism or thanksgiving for the birth of a child rather than by a civil registrar! Saying that such registration cannot take place in a religious ceremony is therefore not a denial of anyone’s rights.As noted above, in many European countries, there is universal civil registration of marriage and this is not held to be an infringement of religious freedom. Furthermore, in contrast to marriage law prior to 1836, it is not as if those with religious commitments who wish to enter a civil partnership are required to participate in a ceremony to which (as agnostics, atheists or non-Anglicans) they may have conscientious objections – they simply have to sign a document in the presence of a registrar and witnesses.
As some have begun to argue, it may well be time for a more wholesale review of the law in relation to marriage, including now its relationship to civil partnerships. The proposed amendment by Lord Alli is, however, not the way to proceed. The rushed, piece-meal and agenda-driven nature of his changes to the Civil Partnership Act create many more problems and confusions than they resolve and show a lack of awareness of the history and contemporary complexity of the law in relation to civil marriage, religious marriage and civil partnerships. Sadly, given the weaknesses in the arguments advanced, and the known views of many of the signatories of the letter to The Times, it is perhaps not unduly cynical to see the sudden strong lobbying of support for Lord Alli’s amendment as something of a Trojan horse. Under the flawed but powerful rhetoric of “religious freedom” and “non-discrimination”, the amendment will have two consequences. Removing the restriction of registering civil partnerships to a civil ceremony will further undermine the distinction between civil partnerships and marriage. It will also make life increasingly difficult for those people and communities of faith who in conscience object to the establishment of ‘gay marriage’and who are given no protection under the proposed amendments from charges of being discriminatory if they only offer marriages but not civil partnerships.
A well presented paper by Andrew Goddard
The debate and vote on this amendment took place this evening in the House of Lords on the Report stage of the Equality Bill.
The amendment was introduced by Lord Alli and there were principal supporting speeches by Baronesses Butler-Sloss, Campbell and Noakes. Lord Harries spoke as did Rabbi Lady Neuberger. There were a number of supportive speeches and two or three which raised concerns with the impact the amendment would have, particularly a threat from Stonewall that while permissive at this stage it might be possible in 10 or more years to use legislation to compel churches to accept civil unions in them.
The government leader in the Lords gave a prepared statement by the government which in essence said that while the government understood the aims of Lord Alli and had much sympathy that this issue warranted proper legislative consideration, needed proper drafting scrutiny and consultation with all the groups concerned, not just the supporters of the proposal. With the pressure to complete this bill before the election, there would not be time for that process to be completed and that these were issues which should be returned to and the proper amount of time spend on them. For these reasons the Government leader stated that the government could not support this amendment and asked Lord Alli to withdraw his amendment. Lord Alli ignored the wishes of the government and called for the mind of the house to be tested. The result with regard to the amendment was: contents – 95; not contents – 21; contents carried.
Only two serving Church of England bishops bothered to turn up as far as I could see and one spoke. The Bishop of Bradford made a valiant effort and raised the problems legislating would present to the churches and faiths.
You can listen to the debate in the House of Lords, which I would thoroughly recommend on the Parliament video channel from 07-17-24 to 08-34-00 here:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5905
[as far as I am aware the link should work in the US and elsewhere.]
A Hansard transcript of the speeches should be available shortly.
I am not sure of the impact of this vote at the report stage, whether it of itself includes the amendment in the Bill; or whether at the next stage, the third reading it is included in the Bill, debated and individual amendments put forward are considered on a free vote.
Good speeches, well worth listening to.
Interesting to read how the marriage and civil partnership laws differ in England and the USA. Before the Revolution the American colonies were considered part of the royal ecclesiastical prerogative and the royal governors were authorized to issue marriage licenses and deal with probate – and collect the fees – while in England these matters were handled bu the church. The shortage of ministers and the large number of dissenters in the colonies led to civil magistrates being authorized to solemnize mariages, though in many colonies clergy were authorized to officate. After the Revolution states continued to authorize clergy and judges to officiate. But as Goddard notes the solemnization of matrimony was a church responsibility before the state moved in, and I think this is not an area where we should abandon our historic rights.
Here is my best stab at the moment as to what is going on. Lord Alli’s amendment passed 95/21 last night. The video of the debate is still available above but the transcript from Hansard is not yet available.
Such information as is available and has been reported so far is:
1. BBC report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8546827.stm
2. Telegraph:
“MPs will now vote whether to go ahead with lifting the ban.
…
A Government spokesman said that a decision had yet to be taken over whether MPs would also be allowed to vote with their conscience when the Bill comes back before the Commons in the next few weeks.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7355819/Peers-vote-to-allow-homosexuals-to-marry-in-church.html
3. Ekklesia are reporting:
“The proposal, which takes the form of an amendment to the Equality Bill, was put forward by Waheed Alli, who is a gay Muslim and a Labour peer. The government have agreed to work with Alli to redraft the amendment, ensuring that the principle is incorporated into the Bill.”
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11401
4. Times
“The amendment has yet to be approved by the Commons, but it is unlikely that MPs would make any significant changes to it…
A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: “Baroness Royall made the Government’s position clear during the debate; we’re now considering our position and deciding what steps to take next.—
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7047572.ece
5. Daily Mail
“The amendment has still to be agreed by the Commons but neither of the main parties is likely to overturn the Lords decision, since it was offered as a free vote.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255030/Ban-lifted-gay-weddings-church.html
What does this mean?
1. The amendment passed 95/21.
2. The matter goes back for a third reading in the House of Commons.
3. The government is firmly opposed to the original form of this motion and it looks as if it will work to produce a varied amendment to be debated in the House of Commons. Ekklesia report that Lord Alli has agreed to work with the government on this.
4. What this means for denominations, even after the final form of the amendment appears, will depend on the regulations made under it for its operation – the most important question is how denominations are to elect to allow CP’s to take place on their premises: decision of Synod or request of local vicar?
For the CofE, the problem we will have is communicating to the local authorities and registrar who speaks for us and can request either to be licenced or to have a registrar turn up in a church. But that is our problem, not anybody else’s.
So overall we know the amendment passed, but it is still unclear what this means in terms of the final form of the Bill as it continues on its legislative route. It looks as if the government, who have the votes in the House of Commons intends to change it, and what it will mean in practice for the CofE is also hard to see.