The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable “all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony”.
Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history. Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.
We have supported various legal changes in recent years to remove unjustified discrimination and create greater legal rights for same sex couples and we welcome that fact that previous legal and material inequities between heterosexual and same-sex partnerships have now been satisfactorily addressed. To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships. We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.
The consultation paper wrongly implies that there are two categories of marriage, “civil” and “religious”. This is to mistake the wedding ceremony for the institution of marriage. The assertion that “religious” marriage will be unaffected by the proposals is therefore untrue, since fundamentally changing the state”˜s understanding of marriage means that the nature of marriages solemnized in churches and other places of worship would also be changed.
Read it all (13 Page pdf).
Well, it is perhaps worth reading this all carefully according to Cranmer rather than relying on the rather lurid and according to him misleading reports in the UK newsmedia including ‘The Times’.
There is a rather important legal point in the Church’s submission; and we have already seen how real it is in the disregard for Churches in the actions of the Danish legislature just over the water from us. The state Lutheran church will now be required to conduct same sex marriages and a bishop must provide a priest to do so under the new Danish law.
Meanwhile in the UK the second largest petition ever against the Government’s proposals stands at over 550,000 signatures [the largest was against imposition of a rise in fuel duty at around 750,000]. Time for responding the Government ‘consultation’ expires on 16th June, but notwithstanding Conservative voters abandoning voting for their party at the latest Council elections, all the signs are that the intention is to drive this through, according to the ‘Equalities Minister’ overseeing the ‘Consultation’ with all the impartiality of Jeremy Hunt and with a knowledge of the British Constitution which would embarrass a schoolchild or asylum seeker. This is irrespective of the abandonment of the ‘un-Conservative Party’ vote it will produce.
There is considerable opposition from Church groups, but the really sad thing is that almost no consideration has been given by the Government to whether the traditional definition of marriage in which so many children have been successfully reared and which has been a cornerstone of our society has a value to people and to society. That is what has been lost in all this.
But we are run by schoolkids in the ‘Government of the here and now’ ….. until the next u-turn comes along, or the voters give them another hammering. We voted them in to sort our the Financial Crisis, but they spend their time doing anything but that.
This makes for heartening reading, but I’d be more heartened, in the light of this:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005531.html
to learn whether and when the Church of England will break communion with those members of the “Porvoo Communion” that have embraced “marriage equality” (i.e., treating homosexual [slightly edited] as though it could constitute “an holy estate”), like the Church of Sweden, or that are are currently embracing it, like the Church of Denmark, or that are well along on the road to embrace it, like the church of Norway. Do you think it will happen soon, Pageantmaster?
“There is considerable opposition from Church groups, but the really sad thing is that almost no consideration has been given by the Government to whether the traditional definition of marriage in which so many children have been successfully reared and which has been a cornerstone of our society has a value to people and to society. That is what has been lost in all this.”
There must be silence on this point because to examine it is to show that it did not develop as a force of law but that law developed to protect it because it is grounded in our very natures. It is what works best for children and for societies and for civilization.
It really is too bad that the CofE doesn’t have a real Archbishop that they could count on to take a firm stand. A good ABC would tell rally persons of all major religious groups against this. And if that did not move the government he would warn Mr. Cameron that should the contemplated legislation pass that he would be obliged as the first hierarch of the church to advise The Queen in her capacity as “defender of the faith” and supreme head of the Church of England to exercise Her constitutional prerogative and refuse the Royal Assent. The mere threat should be enough to raise fears of a constitutional crisis.
Interesting that a number of articles are coming out about this. CofE has been rather ineffectual in many areas but it really seems to be mounting the barricades on this one. Good on them.
I agree with Ad Orientem though: a leader in the mould of ++Jonah or Pope Benedict (or many of the foreign Anglican Primates) would have made strong public statements already. Combined with the non-Christian community sentiment against gay “marriage” (which is proving to be significant), it would have killed this idea stone dead.
#2 Dr Tighe
[blockquote]Do you think it will happen soon, Pageantmaster?[/blockquote]
I have no idea. I expect the issue is in someone’s inbox, but there are other issues taking priority in the CofE as you can imagine. I expect the relevant committee [Bishops Hill and Forster as far as I can recollect were issuing statements on Sweden some time back] will get round to it in due course when the dust has settled. It still remains to be seen what will happen in the Church of Denmark itself as ministers are faced with Caesar’s ruling on their faith.
But it is good to see the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church here acting in concert and with other churches I hope you will agree.
#4 Ad Orientem
[blockquote]It really is too bad that the CofE doesn’t have a real Archbishop that they could count on to take a firm stand[/blockquote]
This statement was issued by the two archbishops on behalf of the Church of England.
[blockquote]The mere threat should be enough to raise fears of a constitutional crisis[/blockquote]
One should always think about whether one can live with the consequences if one’s threat leads to a bluff being called. Waiving one’s arms about in an Eastern Mediterranean sort of way and threatening this and that is not always the best way of getting your point across in England even if it is common among the Orthodox. Autre temps autre moeurs.