*** DEBUG END ***

‘C of E’ gives an opinion on same-sex marriage

14 June 2012

by Madeleine Davies

What we think: on Tuesday representatives from the Coali­tion for Mar­riage, which opposes the Govern­ment’s plans, presented a petition with more than 550,000 signatures to the Home Office and Downing Street PA

What we think: on Tuesday representatives from the Coali­tion for Mar­riage, which opposes the Govern­ment’s plans, presented a petition with more tha...

GOVERNMENT plans to legalise same-sex marriage threaten to “cut one of the threads of the Establish­ment”, senior church officials have said.

On Tuesday, the officials sub­mitted a response, purportedly from the Church of England, to the Government’s consultation, which closed yesterday. The response, which is unattributed, was accom­panied by a covering letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

Within 24 hours, a petition ob­jecting to the views in the response paper had attracted more than 1000 signatures.

The paper argues that to permit same-sex marriage would “dilute” marriage for everybody. It criticises the “fallacious assumption” that religious marriage differs from civil marriage. And it warns that the Government’s promise to limit same-sex couples to non-religious ceremonies would face the “serious prospect” of a successful challenge in the European Court of Human Rights.

The paper says that it is not about “knee-jerk resistance to change”. It is, instead, a defence of an “inherited understanding of marriage” which contributes a “vast amount to the common good”, including an ac­know­ledgment of an “underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation”. To lose this definition “is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals”.

The Government has sought to reassure religious bodies that they will be unaffected by the proposals because they apply to “civil mar­riage” and not “religious marriage”. The C of E response, informed by the legal team at Church House, argues that this is “disingenous”. Marriage, as defined in English law, is a single institution, it argues.

If it were to be redefined as the Government proposes, marriage would become a new statutory con­cept that the Church would “struggle to recognise as amounting to marriage at all”. The canons of the Church of England, which are part of the law of England, would also be called into question.

The paper asserts that it is “very doubtful” whether the proposal to limit same-sex couples to non-religious ceremonies could with­stand a challenge under the Euro­pean Convention on Human Rights. It acknowledges the existence of the right to freedom of religious belief, but suggests that it is “very doubtful” that this would trump the right to equal treatment.

It concludes: “The proposals will potentially have a very significant impact on our ability to serve the people of the nation as we have always done.”

The director of Mission and Public Affairs for the Archbishops’ Council, the Revd Dr Malcolm Brown, told Channel 4 News on Tuesday that redefining marriage would not “destroy” the relationship between Church and state, but would be “damaging”.

“The relationship between Church and state is a multi-stranded cord, but this is snipping away at one bit.”

Speaking on Monday, before the paper was released, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Tim Stevens, said that many were in favour of blessing gay unions. “Some of us, I think, would be more sympathetic to the Church providing ways in which for Christian gay people their partnerships could be recognised and prayed for. Others would find that difficult, and that debate goes on.”

Ben Summerskill of the gay rights organisation Stonewall, speaking during Today on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday, said that the Church of Eng­land’s response was a “master­class in melodramatic scare­mongering”. He suggested that there was “no evidence whatsoever” that people would take the Church of England to court, and pointed out that some clergy already refuse to marry divorcees.

A human-rights lawyer, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, said in the pro­gramme that it would be the Gov­ernment rather than the Church of England that would be the subject of court cases. But she suggested that the European Court of Human Rights was “very tender towards religious sensibilities”, and that it was “in­conceivable” that the Church or any individual would be forced to solemnise a marriage.

The claim that the response represents the official view of the Church of England has already been challenged. On Tuesday, the Revd Ian Stubbs, Priest-in-Charge of All Saints’, Glossop, posted a petition dissociating himself from the official submission. “I am bitterly dis­appointed by the Church’s shameful and outdated response to the pro­posals for gay marriage.” When the Church Times went to press, it had attracted 1076 signatures.

The LGB&T Anglican Coalition criticised the “scandalous lack of con­sultation” in the preparation of the response. The failure to recognise that same-sex couples seeking mar­riage wanted “something deeply spiritual which strengthens both the couple and society” had “impover­ished” the Church’s teaching on marriage.

On Tuesday, Stonewall published a poll of of 2074 adults suggesting that 71 per cent of people, and 58 per cent of “people of faith”, in their sample supported the proposals to legalise same-sex mar­riage. The char­ity argues that the “vitriol” seen in statements by “some senior clerics” in relation to the proposals is evidence of a “deeply worrying pre­judice toward gay people”. It argues that extending the right to marry to gay people is an “appropriate remedy” to discrimina­tion.


Leader comment

Question of the Week: Does the official submission reflect your views on same-sex marriage?

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four* articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)