Vicars will end up being sued and the difference between marriage and gay partnerships will be ‘fudged’ after last night’s vote in the House of Lords, the Bishop of Winchester warned. Speaking to me by telephone a few minutes ago, the Right Rev Michael Scott Joynt, who was unable to be in the House for the vote because of unbreakable prior commitments, said he believed the next step would be vicars being sued for discrimation if they obeyed Church of England law and refused to do gay weddings.
‘Having thought about it a great deal since the committee stage, I regret enormously the vote last night….I think it will make for a great many difficulties. There are two I am particularly concerned about.’
He continued: ‘Notwithstanding the bland words of a number of individuals, some of whom surprise me, I believe it does further fudge the line between civil partnerships and marriage. That is shown by some newspapers which simply speak of gay marriages in church. The second thing is, I believe that it will open, not the Church of England but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination if they solemnise marriages as they all do but refuse to host civil partnership signings in their churches. Unless the Government does something explicit about this, I believe that is the next step.’
Of course it will. The UK is determined to normalize deviant behavior and mainstream homosexuality as well as other sexual practices. It will ruthlessly crush any opposition as discriminatory or homophobic. It is all about full acceptance through any means possible.
I have noticed one glaring omission in all the coverage about this issue. Has no one asked Lord Alli about mosques? This permission would extend to them also. Will imams be sued also? Will a brave gay Muslim couple step forward for that? What does he have to say on this aspect of the issue? And why are journalists not asking these questions?
#2, Muslim marriages are not solemnized in mosques. They are contracts between the groom and the bride’s father or other male relative. The “wedding” is just a party when the couple begins living together.
The “brave gay Muslim couple” who stepped forward would find themselves in a back alley with their throats cut.
I presume this is only for CoE, not other “denominations” in England. And, that because it is the state church.
Am I correct in this?
Eugene,
I think you’re right. And, if so, disestablishment may start to look appealing.
If that obdurate low churchman Hensley Henson was willing in 1928 to abandon a lifetime of devotion to preserving the established church over the rejection by the House of Commons of the relatively high church revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and Michael Ramsey was willing to threaten disestablishment in the 1960s if Parliament blocked reform of the statutes on liturgical vestments, how much more will the present contretemps add to the pressure?
And there aren’t many voices left in secular society to argue to the contrary, unlike the situation a century ago.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Actually it will only be a problem to the C of E becuase it does not speak with one voice. Once you have voted to provide equal pensions to civil partners of clergy and your own bishops are cheering this on in debate then what leg is left to stand on?
Where the RC church gives a firm ‘sorry we cannot do this’, the Anglicans send out mixed messages and one ONE is performed the world will rightly deduce that ALL can. Why not?
If the church wants to be taken seriously it needs to resolve its problems…just another good reason to take up the Popes offer. Such reasons are coming thick and fast…….
#5 Eugene
“I presume this is only for CoE, not other “denominations†in England. And, that because it is the state church.
Am I correct in this?”
Not quite. The legislation applies to all denominations, and indeed religions in the UK. It applies to Hindoos and Musselmans, Christians and Jews, and of those Anglicans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and everyone else – indeed to anyone who wishes to hold civil partnerships on religious premises. There is no aspect which is related to the established status of the Church of England, save for the failure of the government to listen to it.
As for Christian persecution, there is already precedent for this with the Lord Devon Case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7427585.stm
The moment this is on the statute books, one can expect the screaming gay protesters and the complaints to start. Just as happened with the Sexual Orientation Regulations, also driven through with some Parliamentary subterfuge, and used against homes and hotels who take paying guests. Who drove that through? Just guess.
More here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023037/Earl-banned-holding-weddings-600-year-old-castle-refusing-allow-gay-marriage.html
– and of course it is Ben Summerskill who has already been making threats concerning churches in the future. This is what happens, a ‘plant’ from the gay activists is sent in and following the expected refusal, a complaint is made to a council or government body.
So here is the modus operandi:
1. Claim some ‘group’ requires a special exemption such as the Unitarians or Quakers.
2. Stick in an amendment to an unrelated piece of legislation.
3. Wrong foot the opponents by getting it heard unexpectedly late at night.
4. Claim that it won’t affect anyone else.
5. Try to get your provision into law.
6. Start using that legislation against the people who you have claimed will not be affected.
Utterly predictable, utterly unprincipled, utterly dishonest.
Listening process anyone?
Inadaba, baby.
[blockquote] The moment this is on the statute books, one can expect the screaming gay protesters and the complaints to start. Just as happened with the Sexual Orientation Regulations, also driven through with some Parliamentary subterfuge, and used against homes and hotels who take paying guests. Who drove that through? Just guess. [/blockquote]
Now, Pageantmaster, this is unexpected for you.
The facts do not support this rather (unusual) hysterical claim.
The facts are that there have been only a tiny number of cases in the whole of the UK that fit your description and that despite a well funded campaign by several large national law firms in the gay media.
An overview of cases shows that the small number are reasonably fairly split between gay people seeking redress for discrimination and religious people seeking remedy because they gave discriminated on religious grounds. But again the number of cases is tiny!
Again, on the registration of premises for the purposes of civil marriage and civil partnership the astonishing news is how FEW decided to withdraw their buildings when the Registrar General announced that ALL building registered for marriage would HAVE TO accommodate civil partnerships. I guess his lordship didn’t do the honest thing and deregister at that time but rather waited until he was asked by a gay couple and then waited until he was deregistered – somewhat less than honest in my view – after all this is about making money!
#11 Thanks Rev Reynolds
Notwithstanding that I see no biblical sanction for them, I have seen good practical reasons for civil partnerships in law: the ability to give a say to the partner in case of permissions needed for medical treatment, and to overcome some of the problems of inheritance legislation [the same ones which “common law” wives face]. As a Christian however, in terms of what the church is able to bless, I have not seen a convincing argument that they are in accordance with the best that God requires for us, whether in a context of commitment rather than casual relationships or not.
What is pretty clear is that in law only one case is required. Once a precedent is set, unless overturned, people take note of that and act accordingly, including getting out of the particular activity. There have been cases taken under the procedurally fixed sexual orientation regulations both in the Devon case, and also in the case of Christian hotel and B&B owners who object on religious grounds, and Christian civil registrars who have lost their jobs. Perhaps the saddest instance of this is the withdrawal of the Catholic Church from the provision of adoption services, something I believe you take an interest in. Almost the last of those remaining is currently having its case heard in court. There has been no effort made to accomodate conscientiously held religious beliefs, the secular has trumped.
Christians are faced with compromising deeply held religious views or losing their livelihoods, and this is going on at an accelerating rate, not just on gay issues, but on a series of secular attacks which seem to have swept local and national government: civil servants who wish to witness, however low key; attacks on Christian content of prayers in meetings and on the media; disciplining of nurses who pray for patients having asked if they would like this; insistence in British Airways that crosses are covered up. The list goes on.
So although I hope that your organisation does not take the same line [correct me if I am wrong], I think that one has to take Stonewall and Ben Summerskill at their word when he is reported as saying in the Lord Devon case:
[blockquote]Stonewall executive officer Ben Summerskill said: ‘If you open your premises to the public it should mean all of the public.
‘The county council have made the right decision and we hope in the fullness of time Lord Devon will come into the 21st century[/blockquote]
and in the case of the current legislation we are told:
[blockquote]Ben Summerskill, Head of Stonewall, recently said: “Right now, faiths shouldn’t be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in ten or 20 years, that may change.â€[/blockquote]
Today it looks as if the government who opposed this precipitate and badly worded amendment are considering the position carefully:
[blockquote]The Equality Minister will decide with Cabinet colleagues whether to allow the controversial amendment to her flagship anti-discrimination bill to stand when it reaches the Commons next week.
If the move to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises becomes law, having been agreed to by peers, it will raise “a number of problems” for faith groups, priests, registrars and civil marriages for men and women.[/blockquote]
This is a badly drafted and ill-considered amendment bounced on the Lords at the last minute, and debated in what looks like a deliberately engineered late night session to wrong-foot the opposition. This is no way to deal with legislation on important matters. And whatever happens in this case, past evidence is that things brought in on arguments based on the permissive, are on enactment, used to demand compulsion.
Hysterical? I wish I were.
It is also worth noting that Mr Summerskill claimed:
‘If you open your premises to the public it should mean all of the public’
The Lord Alli amendment means that as amended the Civil Partnership Act still has such a requirement of public access which would be applicable to churches, as with everywhere else.
Clause 6[3][a] states that the place of registration —
“(a)must be one which is open to any person wishing to attend the registration”
So you have a parallel to the “open to the public” hook applied to the Lord Devon case by Ben Summerskill.
This is yet another example of the ill-considered [or perhaps considered if you are suspicious] dangers of doing legislation this way without proper consideration and scrutiny. It is pretty likely that we will end up with legislation which is contradictory and which does indeed have unintended consequences.
And it is not just me who sees the problems:
[blockquote]Neil Addison, a barrister specialising in religious discrimination cases, said: “As the Law now stands Churches and Synangogues that are registered to conduct Marriages could easily find themselves being sued for discrimination if they do not register to conduct Civil Partnerships.
“Local Authorities could also refuse to grant or renew marriage authorisation to Churches and Synangogues that do not also apply for Civil Partnership authorisation. The Government should add a new amendment to the Equality Act to make it crystal clear that there is no legal requirement for religious organisations or officials who perform mariages to perform civil partnerships also.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7361378/Clergy-could-be-sued-if-they-refuse-to-carry-out-gay-marriages-traditionalists-fear.html
[/blockquote]
And here is another example of what is going on: Labour Deselect Methodist Coucillor”.
Pageantmaster, it looks to me like the government are setting themselves up to be tossed out of office at the next election if the Lords’ decision is allowed to stand.
Cennydd (#14)
I suspect there’s an element of “Après moi le déluge.”
It really is hard to know where to start with this catalogue of misunderstandings and rather wild speculations, not all from you dear Pageantmaster, but some!
I note your approval for CPs. Now the question is do the Quakers and others wait for you to hear “a convincing argument†or do they proceed to conduct CPs based on the fact that they are already convinced? Rowan is fighting a loosing battle trying to say that within the Anglican tradition there should be bodies that make decisions and that the majority view should prevail on subjects like sexuality, I don’t think there is any realistic expectation of all denomination and religious groups agreeing here. I am not sure that these groups would be interested in what a member of the CofE thought they should bless.
Case law often produces decision which come to opposite conclusions due to some minor difference of fact or some major judicial reinterpretation of the will of Parliament or other competent authorities. None of the cases you quote were in doubt, the regulations haven’t been challenged. If you want to hire out your stately pile or hotel for Civil Weddings then you must also allow Civil Partnerships. As far as I know the Registrar General and Local Authority have no discretion to vary this, so this is hardly a matter that required legal precedent. Again I reiterate, despite cataclysmic predictions from lobbyist in the Christian Lawyers Federation and others, what has been amazing has been the TINY number of owners who withdrew their buildings when the law insisted they accept CPs, it is barely a handful who have suffered any financial penalty for their views.
Again you claim that Christians are finding things not working their way. I agree there have been some changes from the days when I as chaplain to the Mayor of Cardiff could confidently introduce every meeting with Christian Prayer, and those changes have left Christianity no longer able to assume mastery. I also agree that the aggressive secularists are winning many hearts and are making every effort to push faith to the margins and there is no doubt that when pursuing their secular agenda Christians’ negative attitude to homosexuality is a major weapon they employ to convince reasonable people.
One of the difficulties is raising good cases wher Christians suffer and those you mention are rather poor. I spoke with the nurse you mentioned and it seems she was reported by one of her patients and that other patients had complained before and she had been both privately and officially asked to be more careful ….. Very different from my day when I worked hand in glove with the community nurses all of whom were leading members of the congregation …. But while I regret that change I have to (perhaps grudgingly) honour at least some of the spirit behind it.
As to the wearing of crosses, that I think is turning everything on its head! When I was a lad the RC high school did not allow any jewellery to be worn in a way where it could be seen. There has never been any Christian claim that our faith required an eternal distinctive mark – our marks (baptism) are deliberately invisible! Indeed the early Popes forbad Christians from wearing distinctive clothing and there were severe penalties for clergy who wore uniforms to distinguish their office! If that puts Christianity at a distinctive disadvantage to say the Sikhs, well I think that this was intended.
“My organisation“ (I guess you mean LGCM – I have retired over a year ago from any official role there) held with gay marriage and was rather annoyed with Ben Summerskill, Waheed Alli and others for allowing the creation of a gay ghetto called civil partnership. And then we were angry at the secularist agenda that excluded them from religious premises, but were opposed by the internal secular machine and Secular Society etc, though it is important to note that on the day, when the CP Bill was first debated (a lifetime ago!), the lead bishop in the House of Lords was appalled THEN that this major advance in human rights denied the importance of faith communities and was so forbidden ONLY to places of worship.
I am not very fond of Ben, Pageantmaster – but I agree in general terms when he says that something open to the public must be open to ALL the public – without discrimination. Though if he meant that in 20 years churches would be coerced into holding CPs then I fiercely would not agree, what I am told he meant, that in 20-30 years the churches would be over their gay thing, well I think he is a few decades out, but probably in the right direction..
[blockquote] “past evidence is that things brought in on arguments based on the permissive, are on enactment, used to demand compulsion.
Hysterical? I wish I were.†[/blockquote]
Well, Pageantmaster I have heard this oft repeated and without a single piece of evidence. Lady Butler-Sloss (a very conservative and brilliant mind) does not recognise the validity of this “slippery slope†fear mongering, and to be frank, I am surprised you do. I do not agree with Mr Addison, I am always surprised when I see sensible Christian groups have instructed him – I do not think he is a good lawyer and what he says here is evidence of that.
I happen to think this amendment was not the way forward and will cause considerable difficulties, needing the government to lay new Instruments before Parliament to knock some sense into it. I think the government were ill prepared and should have offered the Lords an alternative amendment that would achieved Alli’s goal without the need for major meddling by Orders in Council. As to the decision to sit ‘till late – mentioned by others as a way of “sneeking†the amendment through – well I (in Wales) knew of that intention the night before and so did anyone interested. Staying up late is not a prerogative of the liberal – and “fast trains too Waterloo†would have brought any to the vote in a trice. Just more propaganda and nonsense.
Rev Reynolds
Many thanks for your input and perspective and the time you have put in. Very helpful.
#17 Rev Reynolds
Thinking about your responses, perhaps the particular thing we are both agreed on is that this amendment, as drafted, is not the way forward.
For your part you believe that it would take considerable work to provide a framework for it which might work, which I suspect is a tall order in the remaining time this Parliament has to run.
For my part I anticipate that the drafting inadequacies, and the potential interactions with other pieces of equality legislation could well lead to unintended consequences particularly for churches who hold licenses for marriages.
I suppose the thing that gives me most concern legally, is I just don’t believe that this is the way that important legislation should be enacted, bypassing all the usual processes worked out over the years to provide good, consistent and well crafted laws. Listening to the leader in the Lords, I got the impression that similar concerns are held by the government, notwithstanding their hell for leather attempts to get the Equality Bill into law during this session.
Thank you for engaging.