From the Revd Tim Storey
Sir, - The wide-ranging and some- times vitriolic discussions in
the media over recent months concerning the Marriage (Same Sex
Couples) Bill have shown that the deeply held views of both sides
of the argument are unlikely to find any genuine points of
agreement. Equally, the progress of the Bill through Parliament
means that, in a year's time, we shall enter a new reality.
It is my belief that those of us who seek to welcome those of
all sexual orientations into the life of our Church communities,
but maintain a traditional understanding of marriage and sexual
ethics, now need to accept the prospect of this new reality and
adapt accordingly.
This does not mean adapting our hermeneutical, theological,
ethical, or sociological viewpoint on the matter, but accepting the
reality that we have been unable to persuade the majority of the
validity of the traditional argument in the secular, liberal
Britain of 2013. In a democratic society, we may not like the views
of the majority, but we have a biblical imperative to accept the
law accordingly.
The so-called "quadruple lock" for the Church of England is yet
to be tested - and if it fails to meet the tests of Strasbourg,
then another, changed, reality will result. In the mean time, may I
suggest that the energy currently being engaged in the battle to
defeat the inevitability that the Bill will become law should be
redirected towards ensuring that the new reality is engaged with,
and the Church sends out a clear and positive message of
maintaining its traditional position on marriage, and yet within
the context of the new law.
It is, however, important to note another consequence of this:
if those within the Church who support the Bill, especially those
in senior clerical posts, are willing to embrace and rejoice in the
validity of the majority views in the nation, then they should also
embrace the majority views in the Synod and the wider Church which
oppose the Bill, and adapt their stance and statements
accordingly.
Forging a way forward requires all parties, both "victors" and
"losers", to embrace the new reality, and the Church's stance and
re- sponsibilities within the new law, and seek unity with
grace.
TIM STOREY
2 Portman Place, Blandford Forum
Dorset DT11 7DG
From the Revd John M. Overton
Sir, - Some of the debate in the House of Lords (News,
7 June) centred on the most significant issue, namely, the
profoundly undemocratic way in which the Government has pushed this
Bill.
We are supposed to be governed through the ballot box, and yet
no party had any such Bill in its manifesto at the last General
Election, the Government has ignored a petition endorsed by more
than 650,000 members of the public, and there is no question of a
referendum on the matter, which, some might argue, is more
significant for the future of this nation than either EU membership
or Scottish devolution.
It is a pity that this point was not taken up by a majority in
the House of Lords, and that that House did not have the courage to
take such a stand for democracy.
If the Bill had been initiated and handled in a truly democratic
manner, those who are against the content of the Bill would have no
complaint about how the outcome had been achieved, assuming that
the Bill will pass into law.
As matters stand, if the Bill does become law, it will leave a
legacy of division which could rankle for years.
JOHN M. OVERTON
6 Brown Edge Close, Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 7AS
From Mr David Leonard
Sir, - What an extraordinary letter from Mr Donald Draper (
14 June). He seems to be saying that the Queen's oath to
maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and
the Protestant faith is utterly meaningless, and, in fact, means
the exact opposite.
It is that sort of sophistry that gets the legal profession (of
which I am a retired member) a bad name.
DAVID LEONARD
Stars Cottage, 4 Mews Street, London E1W 1UG