The Government announced this week that it plans to allow religious buildings to be used to host the registration of civil partnerships for same-sex couples.
The proposals, from the GovernÂment Equalities Office (GEO), emphasised that any changes would be “entirely voluntary”, and would not “force any religious group to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do so”.
But the announcement received mixed reactions from Churches. The Church of England warned that such changes could lead to “inconsistÂencies with civil marriage, have unexÂplored impacts, and lead to confuÂsion”. The Bishops had “consistentÂly been clear that the Church of EnÂgland should not provide services of blessing for those who register civil partnerships”.
…And we wouldn’t want anything leading to confusion in the Anglican Communion, now would we. oh, no.
We know where “it’s only voluntary” leads to – and it ain’t pretty.
Those conscience clauses (anyone remember 1976?) are quite wonderful for keeping traditionally minded people safe.
As we seen in the past, conscience clauses evaporate, this will be no different. The GLBT cause can only be ultimately be sustained and made legitimate through coercion of the most totalitarian sort.
Br. Michael, for the most part it’s the people with the consciences that have disappeared from ECUSA. The consciences went with them. What’s left is much more flexible.
A number of groups in the Church of England have commented on this proposal:
Fulcrum has made a statement:
[blockquote]On the Use of Religious Buildings for Registration of Civil Partnerships
Fulcrum notes with appreciation undertakings given by the Church of England and the Catholic Church that they will not allow their churches to be used for ceremonies registering or celebrating same-sex unions. It means that a clear demarcation exists between these churches and other traditions wishing to offer such ceremonies.
Fulcrum welcomes the assurance by the Home Secretary that “No religious group will be forced to host a civil partnership registration.†We believe however that where a religious group does proceed, the rights of those believers who object to hosting such registration need to be safeguarded.
Fulcrum remains concerned that these unions are regularly being labelled as ‘marriages’ and that steps may be taken to further erode the distinction between marriage and civil partnerships. Scripture, tradition and the teaching of the Church affirm that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Both Christian and non-Christian cultures have recognised the unique and central place such a union has for human flourishing and the common good of society.[/blockquote]
Anglican Mainstream has made a statement
[blockquote]Statement from Anglican Mainstream on proposals for civil partnerships to be contracted in churches
“Civil partnerships are not marriage. The legal protections available to civil partnerships should not be confused with marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is God’s provision for human flourishing. Research has shown that it offers the best environment for the care and nurture of children and family stability which our society needs today.”
Dr Philip Giddings Convenor
Canon Dr Chris Sugden Executive Secretary
Anglican Mainstream[/blockquote]
Reform, The Christian Institute and others have issued a joint statement:
[blockquote] Homosexual marriage and the registration of civil partnerships in churches: Joint Statement by Affinity, The Christian Institute, Christian Concern, Reform and the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
There has been speculation in the press about the Government’s proposals for civil partnerships to be registered in places of worship. There has also been speculation, and indeed confusion, over the separate issue of scrapping the definition of marriage in order to allow two people of the same sex to hold a marriage certificate.
Government proposals to allow civil partnerships in churches implement changes made in the 2010 Equality Act. However, there has been no announcement from the Government that it has any plans to introduce full same-sex marriage.
The definition of marriage
The thousands of churches that our organizations represent hold firmly to the clear teaching of the Bible that marriage is the lifelong, exclusive union of one man and one woman. This is the definition that has long been recognized in English law and, indeed, by almost all cultures for all of human history.
Marriage was ordained by God for the good of all people and is a holy institution. It was also designed to represent something of the relationship between Christ and his church. There are two partners to a marriage because there are two sexes. Marriage is a complementary covenant involving the bringing together of the two sexes not only for the purposes of procreation but also to reflect more fully the image of God.
We are also concerned about the effect of declaring that the institution in which children are raised does not require both a mother and a father.
For all these reasons we, and many others, would firmly oppose any efforts to eradicate the definition of marriage and impose a new definition on everyone in order to satisfy the demands of gay rights groups.
Civil partnerships in churches
We reiterate our long-held opposition to allowing civil partnerships to be registered in churches. It is a breach of undertakings made by Government ministers during debates on the Civil Partnership Bill. Parliament was persuaded to pass that Bill, in part, because it was made clear that civil partnership was a civil rather than a religious institution and would not take place in religious premises.
However, there are a small number of religious groups who are not content with being able to carry out civil partnership blessing ceremonies, as they currently do, but who want the legal registration itself to take place in their premises. In response to the demands of these groups, the Government is embarking on a course of action that is bringing it into conflict with thousands of evangelical churches and the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.
In any legislation, churches must be protected against the possibility, now and in the future, of any kind of legal action being brought against churches which conscientiously disagree with civil partnerships.
When it comes to equality legislation, permission often turns rapidly into coercion. In a country where faith-based adoption agencies have been forced to close or cut their religious ties by equality law, where Christian marriage registrars can be dismissed for their religious views on marriage and where Christian B & B owners are forced to pay compensation to same-sex couples, Christians will need a great deal of reassurance that the Government is not about to do something that will make their situation even worse.
Issued on behalf of:
Affinity
The Christian Institute
Christian Concern
Reform
The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches[/blockquote]
The Official Response of the Church of England so far is:
[blockquote]We have yet to see the proposals, so cannot comment in detail. Given the Church’s view on the nature of marriage, the House of Bishops has consistently been clear that the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register civil partnerships. The proposal as reported could also lead to inconsistencies with civil marriage, have unexplored impacts, and lead to confusion, with a number of difficult and unintended consequences for churches and faiths. Any change could therefore only be brought after proper and careful consideration of all the issues involved, to ensure that the intended freedom for all denominations over these matters is genuinely secured.[/blockquote]
Two further items:
First, Edward Leigh MP is the first Conservative to comment and his view is reported by Tim Ross in the Telegraph here
[blockquote]Mr Leigh warned that “sooner rather than later†a priest will be sued “for refusing to conduct a gay marriage†in church.
“Even if our own courts stand firm, we can place little faith in the European Court of Human Rights,†he said. “It will be argued, with some justification, that it is irrational and confusing for some churches to permit this and others not.â€
The MP for Gainsborough, a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, stressed that he was not criticising the rights of homosexual couples to “get on with their livesâ€.
But he continued: “This does not extend to mangling the language of marriage so that, for the sake of the tiny number of gay people who prefer marriage to civil partnership, everyone else in society must have the definition of their own marriage altered forever.
“I am astonished and disappointed that a Conservative Government, albeit a coalition one, has announced it is consulting on whether to do away with traditional marriage which has always been between a man and a woman.
“Once we have departed from the universally understood framework of marriage, there is no logical reason why the new alternative institution should be limited to two people. Why not three? Or thirty-three?
“Same-sex couples already have all the rights of marriage in the form of civil partnership. Why must they also have the language of marriage?
“No doubt because it is an important symbol to them. But it is also an important symbol to many other people. Must the religious and cultural heritage of the whole nation be overturned to suit the demands of a minority even of the gay community itself?â€[/blockquote]
Second, Peter Ould has a helpful analysis of some of the issues here
My own reaction is one of dismay:
1. At the way we are governed, less by a government, than by a franchise of amateurs with pet subjects and views which they expound independently of one another. Legislation is not discussed or thought out, but plucked out of thin air; interested parties are not consulted but are bounced into things; important changes are tacked onto the end of other bills at the last minute, and policy changes are announced precipitately by a variety of oddballs, and then have to be climbed down from.
We have seen a succession of such shoot from the hip announcements of which this is only the latest:
– a panicked and badly managed defence ‘review’ [although that is a bad description of it] means that this country will have two new aircraft carriers, and meantime we have no aircraft to put on them or anything else with the scrapping of all of our harrier jump jets;
– servicemen [including one on active service in Afghanistan] were advised by email that they were being made redundant; a new policy has been decided to kick those who are recovering from injuries out of the military rather than into the desk jobs they have been told they would be given while recovering from the price they have paid for this country.
– last week the government had to climb down from another hastily put forward without consultation decision to sell off the national forests;
– cuts in funding for services are being announced with no time for those services to make arrangements for alternative funding and restructuring meaning that they will be closed;
– and now an ‘Equalities Minister’ without consultation brings up this proposal which has not been thought out and which no one has been consulted on except some very tiny and collapsing religious groups:
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].
[ from the last time this came up]
2. At the Church of England, which appears officially to have given up its role of speaking to the nation as its conscience and guide, and whose only response has been to look at this proposed legislation in terms of the effect on itself, instead of the effect on society. The only bodies who have looked at the impact on society and the message to our young people about the importance of marriage and its purposes as well as of living a life honouring to God have been the ones in the above comment. The Archbishop of York has spoken out about the impact on the CofE, but from the Primate of All England, Dr Williams, we have complete silence, indicative of the failure of spiritual and moral leadership at the heart of our church, and its loss of confidence in its Biblical message, for us as well as for the nation. There is still time, but I won’t be holding my breath.
It is worth rereading Andrew Goddard’s previous analysis here for a thoughtful and Christian response.
What difference will it make if such “marriages” agree forced or not? That such fraudulent practices are allowed at all in any church, and government certified and sanctioned, is a guarantee that simple social pressure – espec. given the ABC – will coerce the rest into line. Once begun, it is then only a matter of time.
I wish it were possible for a national plebiscite on this issue, because I would really like to know what the real people of England think. If the government’s decisions are simply a reflection of what the country wants, then all resistence is doomed from the outset, and the country is lost.
I wish someone could tell me why homosexuality has gained such gloss, such preeminence, such favor both here and abroad. This doesn’t seem to make sense. Larry
The Evangelical Alliance representing evangelicals across the denominations in Britain has issued a statement:
[blockquote] Religious liberty must be guaranteed – Alliance responds to proposals to enact section 202 of Equality Act 2010
17 February 2011
Churches must be guaranteed protection, now and in the future, from the possibility of legal action or discrimination if they refuse to carry out civil partnership ceremonies, the Evangelical Alliance has said.
In response to the announcement by Home Secretary Theresa May, the Evangelical Alliance recognises that everyone is entitled to their civil liberties and holds that all human beings are inherently worthy of respect, regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation.
The Alliance accepts that a very small number of religious groups have said they want to host civil partnership ceremonies. However, the many tens of thousands of churches in this country, as well as other places of worship, are steadfastly united in agreeing that practising homosexual relationships are incompatible with their beliefs and practice.
Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the Evangelical Alliance, said: “History shows that when new rights are given today, they can often lead to laws being imposed tomorrow.
“If the Government wishes to advance equality for LGBT people, who represent less than 1.5 per cent of the population, they must show they are at least as committed to the religious liberties of the vast majority of people who want to be sure that a minority right can never become an obligation.
“It would have been helpful if the Government statement had referred to the equally important views and concerns of the religious sector rather than appearing to privilege one set of rights against another.”
The Alliance is also clear on the distinction between civil partnerships and marriage, emphasising that the two are self-evidently not the same.
Dr Horrocks adds: “We believe that marriage is uniquely between one man and one woman. Most research confirms that marriage benefits society for the raising of children, fostering a sense of identity across generations and social stability. However, we recognise that there are different views in society and a Christian perspective does not imply that people with alternative lifestyles should be discriminated against.
“Arguing for same-sex marriage on equality grounds is futile because there are fundamental differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. So, for example, such logic would also mean civil partnerships should also be open to heterosexual partners and friends. The costs of implementing such a fundamental change would be enormous in every way.”
In a 2006 High Court case in which the Government strongly supported the traditional view of marriage, Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division, said: “It is apparent that the majority of people, or at least governments, not only in England but Europe-wide, regard marriage as an age-old institution, valued and valuable, respectable and respected, as a means not only of encouraging monogamy but also for the procreation of children and their development and nurture in a family unit in which both maternal and paternal influences are available in respect of their nurture and upbringing.
“The belief that this form of relationship is the one which best encourages stability in a well regulated society is not a disreputable or outmoded notion based upon ideas of exclusivity, marginalisation, disapproval or discrimination against homosexuals or any other persons who by reason of their sexual orientation or for other reasons prefer to form a same-sex union.”[/blockquote]
The Evangelical Alliance also has a press release:
[blockquote]Churches should not be forced to host civil partnerships against their will, the Evangelical Alliance has said in response to proposals to allow civil partnerships to take place in religious settings, set to be unveiled by the coalition government later this week.
The new proposals would not make holding these ceremonies compulsory, but the Alliance wants to be assured this could not happen in the future.
Dr Don Horrocks, head of public affairs at the Evangelical Alliance, said: “Because we believe religious freedom should be available to all, those who want to hold these services should clearly be free to do so.
“However, history shows that when new rights are given today, they can lead to laws being imposed tomorrow. We don’t want to find ourselves in a position where Christians are forced to hold these ceremonies against their will – and against mainstream church beliefs.”
Religious groups are expected to be invited to comment on the forthcoming proposals.
Earlier in February the Evangelical Alliance backed the National Marriage Week UK that started in 1997 to celebrate the diversity and vibrancy of marriage as the basis for family life. The week-long campaign is supported by several Christian organisations who hope that events will propel churches to offer more support to married and engaged couples.[/blockquote]