#EqualMarriage Opponents Have Undermined Their Own Case For Religious Freedom Protections

The Lords have been discussing amendments to Government's Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill this week and will continue to do so next week.

The vast majority of the amendments have been about protecting "conscientious objectors", i.e. those who don't like the gays. Unfortunately, for religious freedom, these amendments have been written prejudicially and are championed by people who (until this week) were deeply against allowing this bill through at all.

What do I mean that these amendments are prejudicial? It seems the proponents of these amendments have a very 2D view of freedom and are astonishingly short-sighted. As evidenced by the debates in the Lords, there is cross-party support for protecting religious freedom. However the amendments proposed do not support religious freedom but support a far more narrow protection only for those opposed to marriage equality. Take Amendment 23 from arch-opponent Lord Dear.

This amendment would protect teachers who voiced opposition to same-sex couples marrying. Yet it fails, spectacularly, to protect teachers who voice SUPPORT for same-sex couples marrying in religious schools. This would be something completely within the scope of the bill and would defend religious and individual liberty, but our opponents don't really care about religious liberty. It also fails to spell out why only this belief should be protected. Surely if we are to protect teachers beliefs we should support their freedom to voice concerns with/support of a whole range of highly charged political issues without fear of censure. That'd be true liberty but I think our opponents would be terrified of allowing such a scenario where teachers in religious schools had individual freedom to criticise even core religious beliefs. So it should be no surprise this amendment was withdrawn.

Or take the weasel words "relevant marriage" used when suggesting exactly what marriages people are allowed to refuse to conduct. But if this is really about religious freedom why limit it to same-sex couples? Why can't registrars refuse to marry divorcees, or Muslims, or those they deem unworthy? Again the prejudices of the proponents of these amendments are on show, the limits of their support for religious freedom are there for everyone to see and again it is no wonder they receive limited support from other peers who can see straight through their wrecking motions.

Which brings me back to my other point that these amendments prospects were severely damaged by being championed by those who actually completely oppose the bill. Does anyone believe Lord Carey or Lord Dear (who seem to have parted company somewhat) really believe in the amendments they are proposing when we know they simply want to stop this bill by whatever means necessary? No, and that remains the biggest obstacle to protecting religious liberty in this bill. Our opponents are that obstacle and any subsequent problems can be quite rightly laid at their door, just as flaws with the same-sex marriage bill's devotion to true equal marriage can be laid at the doors of its proponents in Parliament who seem unable to see these flaws at all.

Have those opposing the same-sex marriage bill actually read it?

I've not tried to hide my deep disappointment with the Government's same-sex marriage bill. Having read it, it is quite clearly not the marriage equality I, among others, had been hoping for. Don't get me wrong, this would be a great leap forward. But it'd certainly leave me unsatisfied.

You'd think that once the bill was published our opponents would have breathed a sigh of relief. This bill would, if passed, see the creation of a new concept that we can call "gay marriage" (the same approach the South Africans have taken). It would not "redefine" marriage. It'll be a separate institution.

But alas. As Lord Carey made clear in his article over the weekend, some who oppose marriage equality haven't even realised this bill is significantly different to that proposed in the Coalition's consultation document (Lord Carey still thinks the Government is trying to create a separation of "religious" and "civil" marriage, which is what was proposed originally, but that is no longer the case). Instead of grasping this compromise and laughing all the way to the wedding chapel, they are hell bent on defeating the bill in the House of Lords.

It would please me to see the Government's bill passed. But it might actually please me more to see it defeated. Why? I hear you cry...

1) Defeating the bill in the House of Lords will definitely give the pro-equality side a great cause to rally around. We'd become the "injured party" (something the anti-equality side have been desperate to show themselves as) and a new "narrative" could be weaved. And it might cause just an itsy bit more resentment towards the House of Lords which would please this reform supporter greatly.

2) It would give us a chance, regrettably delayed I know, in the next Parliament for a better marriage equality bill to be created and fix all those annoying problems a great many of us have with the current bill.

As I see it the anti-equality folk are now in a lose/lose situation. But they have a chance to put this issue to bed and come out of it with a small victory. Because the next version of this bill would be far less careful to avoid rocking the boat.

I'm not hoping that the bill gets defeated in the Lords. I'm hoping it gets amended. But if it does get defeated I'm pretty confident that it'll only be to our benefit, and not the other sides.

Remember to get lobbying those Lords!!

Are Christians Really "Marginalised"?

Lord Carey has today written a piece for the Daily Mail which has been quite badly reported. Whilst some have reported on him suggesting Christians are "persecuted", he is pretty clear that he understand such suggestions are exaggerated (and that is putting it kindly).

The real issue he seems to be getting upset about is that Christians are being marginalised in this country. But when you read his article it becomes obvious that what is really upsetting him is the erosion of Christian influence over our Government. He's upset that the Parliamentary chapel might be converted to an all-faiths prayer room. He's mad that the Government might be dividing marriage into religious and civil parts (he is actually a bit behind there, that was their plan prior to the consultation and they are now not creating said difference). And he's upset that teachers might be sacked due to same-sex marriage (something the Government has been clear they don't want but something his colleagues over in the Catholic Church have confirmed they will do [i.e. sack those who openly support it!]).

Lord Carey isn't upset about Christians being marginalised. He's concerned we are heading towards a separation of church and state. Which shows just how kooky politics in this country is. We have an established Christian church whose head is also our head of state. We have set seats in our legislature for members of the established church but for no other religions. We have hundreds (if not thousands) of church schools educating our young people. With the end of the Liberal Democrat dream of Lords reform, none of these things are remotely threatened. In fact former leading members of our established church can say just about anything they want and be assured it'll be reported on in every news source we have (no matter how loony it might be). And yet in Lord Carey's eyes Christians are "increasingly marginalised". Oh to be marginalised!

Now that is not to say that there isn't an increasingly toxic attitude among many secularists towards Christians and certainly any look at the comments on liberal news sources on things like this particular article will show a deep, and growing, hatred held by many towards the religious. I won't attempt to deny this. But perhaps the churches need to realise that it is articles like this that help increase people's negative feelings towards them.

The trap many Christians seem to fall into is believing that having their opinions ignored (i.e. on equal marriage) is the same as being "persecuted". To them not being able to enforce their beliefs on others is worse than their beliefs being enforced on others. It is hard for those of us who regard Christians as just another breed of fanboys (like Trekkers or Whovians) to really understand that they really believe they are right. But if nothing else shows this clearly it is their absolute certainty that what they tell you to do is good for you.

Meanwhile yet another attack on my way of life is about to be unleashed from a Christian. But remember, he's not trying to "marginalise" us. No sirree. He loves us, and loves us so much that he has decided how we should live our lives.

Lord Carey And False Equivalence At Tory Party Conference

Tomorrow Lord Carey will be giving a speech at the Conservative Party Conference in which he will decry the evils of marriage equality. He will be citing examples from around the world as to the horrors that have been unleashed (such as mothers and fathers being referred to as parents in official documents, oh the humanity!) once marriage equality is brought in.

But he will use one example that is rather curious.

‘We can be sure any move away from our traditional understanding of marriage is to put our society on a slippery slope where the unintended consequences could be shocking.'

'I note, for example, that on August 28 the BBC reported that a public notary in Sao Paulo has accepted a civil union between a man and two women.

Hmm... but that is not a result of marriage equality and is to do with a civil union (i.e. a civil partnerships). Is Lord Carey stating he is against civil partnerships now? Mere months ago he was using the fact LGB people had civil partnerships as an excuse to argue against marriage equality.

Please do explain Lord Carey... do you support legal rights for same sex couples (or "friendships" as you like to refer to them)? Or are you against any such move because it'll be a slippery slope to cats sleeping with dogs and fish fingers with custard? Hmm...

In other Tory news, the Telegraph reports a Coalition for Marriage survey found a large majority of local party Tory Chairmen want the party to drop proposals for equal marriage. Putting aside that many Coalition for Marriage surveys have been quite flawed, this shows how shallow the changes David Cameron claims to have made are. Whilst he has detoxified the Tory brand to some extent, he failed to detoxify the party. 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist