Are The Drewitt-Barlow's Striking A Blow For Equality Or Fighting Against Religious Liberty?

Though they have mentioned this before it would appear that the Drewitt-Barlow's, regulars on day time television and same-sex parenting pioneers, really are going to sue the Church of England in order to enable them to marry in a CofE church.

Among a certain kind of Twitter user this has already evoked the reaction one would expect. Not only are there grumpy statements of "we knew this would happen" but some are already acting as if the Drewitt-Barlow's have won the case and churches all over the country are now being forced to marry people they don't want to.

To them I'd say: hold your horses! One lawsuit doesn't make a persecution. Maybe express your opposition and wait and see the outcome before becoming convinced the world is out to get you. Some Christians don't just wear a cross, they carry it on their back and act like they are being marched off to their crucifixion. Do they want to build a coalition with those who want to protect them or just be all self-pitying? I'm guessing the latter.

Meanwhile back in the real world. I've no doubt that Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sincerely wish to get married in their local church. And I've no doubt they sincerely believe it is their right, especially given the onerous fact that we have an established church in this country who previously had the requirement of marrying anyone in their parish (within reason). But I also believe they are wrong to be pursuing change within the Church of England in this manner.

Forcing people to do things against their wishes (unless they are taking our money without our own free choice of who gets it, i.e. Government employees) goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement has worked for throughout its life. And if you don't agree with that then try: I personally think it goes against the spirit of what the LGBT rights movement should have been working for. The right to choose freely, the right to be true to yourself, the right to live in peace. These are cherished things all reasonable people should support.

Change must come from within anti-LGBT religious organisations. As an atheist I've little interest in changing what a church supports. But I'd hope that if you were interested in that sort of thing, you'd do so from the inside. The Church of England has procedures for change, though these work at a similar speed to cooling lava I accept, and it is through these procedures (as the Government has suggested) that changes such as supporting same-sex marriage should be made.

Forcing an organisation to accept something they don't wish to risks creating a martyr complex, and many Christians have a big enough one of those already. Suing the church is bad for the church (as it doesn't come to terms with the change through internal debate), bad for LGBT rights (as we become the bad guys) and bad for freedom in general. If we are to have the freedom to love who we wish, then we must allow others the freedom to worship as they wish.

Have we not learnt anything from those who despise us on how to be better people than them?

The Muslim Council of Britain: What Do They Want? Government Control!

Farooq Murad made some remarks overnight that left me feeling rather angry this morning. I found them to be so misleading that I just couldn't believe a man who is secretary-general of an organisation as the Muslim Council of Britain could have man them. But make them he did:

Muslim leaders have demanded the same legal exemptions as the Church of England in legislation to introduce gay marriages. 

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), with more than 500 affiliated mosques, charities and schools, said it was "appalled" by "utterly discriminatory" legislation on same-sex marriage set out by the government. 

The proposals would allow faith groups to conduct gay marriages but would ban the CofE and the Church in Wales from doing so.  

The MCB secretary-general, Farooq Murad, said his organisation had strongly opposed gay marriage alongside other religions and was seeking an urgent meeting with culture secretary, Maria Miller, to express the concerns of many Muslims over the proposals. "No one in their right mind should accept such a discriminatory law," he said. "It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions." 

The Guardian itself is still a tad confused over the proposals (which really aren't that difficult to understand) and it's suggestion that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are "banned" is a little misleading in itself. Maria Miller explained how it would really work in this DCMS blog.

But if we ignore that, I can barely understand what Murad is trying to say. He appears not to understand the unique relationship the Church of England has with the state nor the responsibilities it carries out for the state. It is an established church and this press release from the Church of England explains why it isn't getting "special privileges" but just sensible protection.

This call of "discrimination" seems bizarre. No religion will be forced to perform same-sex marriages. All religions will be able to opt-in to doing so if they want (yes, even the Church of England). What exactly does Murad means when he says "It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions."? Does he mean all religions, whether they like it or not, should be banned from perform same-sex marriages? Does he not understand the triple lock which protects mosques from having to do anything that they don't want to do?

What he is asking for is for the Government to take the choice away from the mosques (and everyone else!). Not only does he claim to speak as the religious leader of Islam (which, quite plainly, he isn't) but he seeks to speak for every religious organisation. How very presumptuous  It was at that point I realised he probably hadn't a clue what the Government was proposing. That was when my anger disappeared and was replaced by glee.

I was gleeful because there are two scenarios here:

1) Either he hasn't got a clue. Which would be amusing and make me more confident that we can easily defeat people who don't know what they are talking about

or

2) He knows very well what the proposals mean and is trying to add fuel to the flames of "Church in Walesgate" with some hijinx. If this is the case, I think it shows our opponents have so exhausted their supply of arguments that they are down to silly political machinations to try and derail marriage equality.

So I take heart that we can win against such people as this. And that cheered me up after a week of silliness.

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

Am I Becoming An Apologist For The Government On #EqualMarriage?

You, Dear Constant Reader, know just how eager I am to get marriage equality into the United Kingdom (yes, even in Northern Ireland). Am I, however, so eager to get it into law that I'm failing to see the wood for the trees?

I think it hit me this week just how different my views on marriage equality are to most of those who support it. When the Church in Wales, and then the Church of England, announced their "shock" at the Government's plans for a "quadruple lock" my first thought was not "What was the Government thinking?" but "What are the churches on about?"

I would argue that this had more to do with the fact that I'd read the Church of England and Church in Wales's submissions to the marriage equality consultation (and the Church of England's was pretty heavy-handed and quite clear it needed special treatment above and beyond other churches) and that this coloured my response.

Whilst others were aghast at what the Government had "done" (these are proposals folks, not even a bill!), I was a little put out by their own reaction.

Upon reflection, I could have been a little more understanding. The Church in Wales shouldn't have reacted in the way it did, given what it had said in its consultation, but the Archbishop of Cardiff does have a point. The Government should certainly reconsider if the Church in Wales truly doesn't mind only having a "triple lock".

The Church of England's situation is more complicated. Beyond a positive press release, we have yet to hear an official response from the church. Right now what we have instead is political powerplays by the liberal section of the church. I'd rather wait and see what the church actually says than rely on them (and I truly wish Yvette Cooper had had the good sense to do the same before allowing herself to be quoted as calling marriage equality a mess!).

Here is the problem: the Church of England remains divided (as was clearly seen during the women bishops debacle a few weeks ago). Marriage equality is another one of those issues that can be used as a battleground between the liberals and the traditionalists. What saddens me is that, whereas women bishops was more of an internal battle with limited affect upon non-members, this battle will have consequences for people who aren't members. It is already detrimentally dominating the debate on marriage equality.

And that is why I'm mad. I'm not really mad because they are attacking the Government, I'm mad because not only is this silliness a possible cause for delay or derailment of marriage equality but it is overshadowing far more important problems.

What the Government have released is, again upon reflection in the cold light of day, simply a renaming of civil partnerships. It solves the superficial issues regarding the semantic difference, it solves some of the problems for trans people and it resolves our concerns on international recognition. But if does not resolve the status of civil partnerships as it is not offering mixed-sex civil partnerships (which means that trans people in a civil partnership will be forced into a marriage if one of couple transitions), it does not resolve the outstanding pension problems and it does not make any move to reinstate the marriages people were forced to dissolve when they transitioned in the past.

Yes it'd be lovely if the Church of England was to start holding same-sex marriages but that is an issue for them to deal with internally. It is not something that should concern the rest of us. The Anglican vicars threatening to bless same-sex marriages need to think about the bigger picture (and perhaps reconsider their membership of the church!) rather than selfishly use our prospective marriages as fodder for their civil war.

So no I'm not an apologist for the Government, I'd rather like to be a thorn in their side. I'd love to stop having to defend them against ridiculous attacks from other marriage equality campaigners and instead join forces with like-minded folk to get this marriage equality done properly. Who is with me?

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

The Church of England, #equalmarriage And The Truth

The media narrative: The Government has, without consulting the Church of England, unnecessarily banned them from performing same-sex marriages. The Church of England is outraged at being told they will be banned. Omnishambles all round. 

The truth is a little more complex. Let us follow the chain of events (ignoring the Church in Wales stuff, I feel that needs its own blog post which I'll do later).

Between March and June 2012, the Government began a consultation regarding how to implement civil equal marriage. They received many responses, including a thoughtful one from the Church of England with a rather detailed legal opinion as well.

Sadly, for the Church of England, the Government did listen to them. They complained that the Government was only focussing on civil marriage and this was legally dubious. So the Government has included religious marriages in the proposals issued this week. They ignored the Church of England's absolutely clear opposition to any marriage equality for anyone, and decided to focus on protecting the Church of England from the legal attacks it was so worried about. I feel that is a compromise worth making to protect religious freedom and individual liberty.

The Government intends to introduce a "Quadruple Lock" to protect religions who don't want to perform same-sex marriages. A triple lock for most, and the "Quadruple Lock" for the Church of England and the Church in Wales:

• Ensure that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.
• Provide an opt-in system for religious organisation who wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples.
• Amend the Equality Act 2010 to reflect that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple.
• Ensure that legislation will not affect the canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales. As a result, if either church wanted to conduct a same-sex marriage, it would require a change to primary legislation at a later date and a change to canon law.

So only consenting representatives of a consenting religious organisation will be able to perform same-sex marriages which seems quite reasonable to me. Thus Catholic priests are just as unable to perform these marriages as are Church of England clergy.

The Church of England was quick to explain that the Government was not giving them any extra protections but respecting their right to opt-in constitutionally if they so wished. Their press release is here (it is their second version. The first was entitled "Equal Marriage and the Church of England". Obviously that couldn't stand, so it has been changed to "Same-sex Marriage and the Church of England. Note the "Same Same Marriage" reference in the left hand sidebar which I like to think suggests someone at the press office wasn't happy with the need to change the title! *EDIT* They have changed it again now to "Same-sex marriage". Sneaky.). An excellent explanation of the Quadruple Lock and the Church of England's position can be found here. But let us quote from the press release.

For Parliament to give the Church of England an opt-in to conduct same sex marriages that it hasn't sought would be unnecessary, of doubtful constitutional propriety and introduce wholly avoidable confusion.

The Church of England, on the 11th, was extremely clear they didn't want an opt-in as they already had one.

There was a great deal of confusion over all of this which I discussed in my blog post here.

Sadly it would appear that some within the media, in the opposition to the current Government and within the Church of England have decided to use the issue of marriage equality to further their own agenda rather than debate the facts.

This Guardian article is an example of all three groups meeting together and spinning things into an omnishambles.

Now the main issue the Church of England representatives have is that they were not consulted on the details of the proposals. Given their initial press release afterwards (where they expressed satisfaction with what the Government was proposing in terms of legal protections) I find this very disingenuous. Do these representatives want marriage equality in the church? The Bishop of Leicester, quoted in the story, certainly doesn't.

Let us be clear: the Government is not "banning" the Church of England from conducting same-sex weddings. It is simply putting the ball firmly in their court. If they want it, then (just as with women bishops) they will need to internally vote for it and put it into Canon Law and send this to Parliament for rubber stamping. 

Ben Bradshaw, no friend of this blog or equal marriage, then decides to put the boot into the Government.

The Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, who was at the Lords meeting, said Stevens' revelation that the church had not been informed had drawn "audible gasps" from members of all parties.  

"It's absolutely extraordinary," he said. "The government gave the clear impression that this had been done at the request of the Church of England … but the bishop of Leicester said: 'We didn't ask for it' … and was very upset about it because it gave the impression that the Church of England were unfriendly towards gays."  

Asked why the government had chosen to propose the "quadruple-lock" guarantee, Bradshaw said: "The only explanation I can think of was that they thought it would help placate some of their homophobic backbenchers. But it seems to have backfired massively because the rightwing homophobes were out in force anyway and the Church of England now appears to be extremely upset that not only was it not asked, but it's added to [the] general misery over women bishops and now this. It makes the Church of England look much more reactionary and unreasonable than it actually is," he said.

It really isn't hard to make a church that is opposing an issue of equality look reactionary. And even less hard to make them seem unreasonable when you give them what they want and then members of the church still moan.

Ben Bradshaw's comments seem almost gleeful at the prospect of the Government screwing up equal marriage and, I'll admit, left me even more angry with him than I was earlier this year!

Rather than allowing the Church of England's civil war between liberals and traditionalists to destroy the prospects of marriage equality, perhaps we can get some clarification from the Church of England. Do they want the protections or do they not? What would they prefer? I can't lambast the Government for destroying their religious liberty if officially the church says they agree and unofficially they moan about it.

I have to think the Church of England is just trying to undermine marriage equality by making the Government look bad! Heaven forbid.

Right now it is not the Government's proposals that are an omnishambles but the Church of England's response!

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

My Response To The Coalition's #EqualMarriage Consultation Response

Just as summer follows spring and Catholics follow the Pope, it is inevitable that upon the release of any Government proposals on marriage equality there will be a grumpy blog post from Jae. It is a tradition I refuse to break with but, you'll be pleased to know, part of my grumpiness is directed at those attacking the Government for once.

The Government's response to their consultation can be found here.

Before I moan about the problems I have with the proposals, I must firstly get something off my chest. These proposals, to allow religious as well as civil marriage equality, are far more than I was expecting. I must say I am extremely pleased with how far the Government has come since it initially set out its plans for civil marriage equality. David Cameron, Maria Miller and the other Tories championing this policy deserve special praise for being so brave! And of course I have no doubt that wise words came from the Lib Dems involved (such as Lynne Featherstone) which helped push them in the right direction! Thank you to all those who have worked hard on this consultation response.

Now, there are a few things I hope we can persuade them to consider further...

1) I've made it clear before that one of my major issues with the civil partnership/marriage divide was its impact on transgendered people and their significant others. Whilst it is good to see that those in marriages will no longer need to divorce to get a GRC, and those in a civil partnership can "convert" to a marriage, there is the problem that those who have had to divorce in the past get no restitution under these proposals. This is a significant slap in the face to those mistreated for so many years. Zoe blogs on this is a little more detail.

2) My number 2 problem with the current situation was with the pensions disparity explained so simply in this video:



Sadly it does not appear that these proposals will fix this either.

Policy on public service pension scheme in the UK is reserved to the UK Government. Those schemes where policy is reserved will treat same-sex married couples as civil partners. This means, that for the majority of schemes, survivor benefits for same-sex married couples will apply from 6 April 1988

Thanks to Mark Collyer for keeping an eye on this one.

3. Mixed-sex civil partnerships are still off the agenda. This has some affect on transgender rights and, quite frankly, also seems bizarre. Why allow same-sex civil partnerships AND equal marriage but no civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples? It gives same-sex couples a greater choice than mixed couples!! That is discrimination, and I hope it is challenged in court.

4. Consummation and adultery as legal concepts remain completely unchanged. Same-sex married couples will not be the same as mixed-sex married couples.

So whilst we have marriage equality in name, I feel what we are getting is just civil partnerships renamed as marriage. It is hardly radical and certainly not something our opponents should be at all worried about. Why they are is beyond me... oh wait no it isn't. They are mostly stupid.

Yes, there is plenty I feel the Government should change and I hope greater minds than mine are currently working on proposing suitable amendments to do just that during the Parliamentary process.

In other grumpy news...

The Government has made it quite clear that they wish to defend religious liberty. They have called these protections a "quadruple lock".

Key protections  

we will make it explicitly clear in the legislation that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit their premises to be used for this purpose  

we will devise an 'opt-in' system where same-sex couples can only marry according to religious rites on religious premises where the governing religious body has expressly consented; and the legislation will make it clear that no law requires any religious organisations to opt in to that system  

we will also amend the Equality Act 2010 so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple or allowing their premises to be used for this purpose  

the legislation will not apply to the Church of England (or Church in Wales) so that they will not be able in law to marry same-sex couples and will not be able to opt in to do so without further changes to primary legislation. Therefore, there will be no interference with the Church of England's Canon law

This has done little to appease the bug-eyed loons on the opposing side, which is understandable given that they won't be appeased until LGBT folk are kept away from the "normal" folk. But it has caused a small Twitterstorm from people on the supportive side too.

Much has been said about the Government's plan to make Church of England same-sex marriages illegal. Many have complained this flies in the face of religious liberty. I have sympathy for that position however in practical terms I just don't see how it matters. Even without it the other protections would forbid any Anglican priest marrying a same-sex couple on Anglican property without the Church of England expressly endorsing the practice. I feel it is more important to focus on disestablishing the church rather than attempting to defend their religious freedom on the micro level. True religious freedom is for those who aren't in an established church.

On the Church in Wales front, that seems more complicated and needs some thought as they are disestablished but are they seriously going to be allowed same-sex marriages any time soon?

Other myths that appear to be developing on Twitter include:

• A ban on marriages in the Church of England is a ban on all religious marriage equality. That is just not true at all. 
• A ban on marriages in the Church of England means the Government is not allowing marriage equality at all. This is one I've seen particularly stupid opponents stating. This appears to flow from them making the mistake above at the same time as believing civil marriages and civil partnerships are the same thing. Dumb. 
• That those angry at Church of England ban are trying to force equal marriage upon the Church of England. I've seen some UKIPpers and people like Guido Fawkes try this one. Mostly these angry people are defending the Church of England's right to choose. That is about religious freedom, and UKIP and Guido Fawkes are supposed to be concerned about that sort of thing. Alas, only when it is politically expedient it would seem. 

More concerning than these myths are the few people I've noticed declaring that churches, especially the Church of England, should be forced to marry same-sex couples. This is completely against the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and I would urge those proposing such authoritarian things to think very careful about that sort of move. We are meant to be better than that. 

So... yes I am of course delighted that we have reached the point where legislation on marriage equality is going to be debated in the House of Commons. However I have some serious concerns about what is missing, about what some well-meaning "allies" are saying and on what effect some of the nastier opponents publicly views (such as that parents don't want their gay children) will have on LGBT young people.

I know, I know. I'm never satisfied! 

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

Will Religious Organisations Be Forced To Perform Same-Sex Marriages? No.

Below I address several similar questions regarding whether churches and other religious organisations will be forced to carry out same-sex marriages against their conscience.

Will the ECHR force religious bodies to conduct same-sex marriages?

During the recent Government consultation on introducing civil equal marriage the Church of England and the campaigning group Liberty gave responses. Given one was against and one was for, I thought it'd be interesting to look at what the legal opinions they relied upon in their decision actually said about the ECHR. Let us start with the Church of England, whose response and legal opinion can be found in full here.

If the proposal to redefine marriage were to be implemented, it must be very doubtful whether limiting same-sex couples to non-religious forms and ceremonies could withstand a challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. Page 10

I feel this paragraph is the cause of a great deal of confusion. It is clarified in depth on the link above. The Church has quite a problem, and I very much share their concerns, with the Government proposing to create two-tiers of marriage in separating the legal concept of religious and civil marriages. Their concern shown above relates to this problem and what they are suggesting is that IF the Government only legislates on civil marriage equality they will leave that law open to challenge (the success of the challenge remains questionable).

If opposite-sex couples were able to enter into the (newly-defined) legal institution of marriage in accordance with either religious or civil forms and ceremonies but same-sex couples were able to enter into that institution only in accordance with civil forms and ceremonies that, of itself, would be unlikely to amount to a breach of article 12 because such an arrangement would not deprive same-sex couples of the substance of the right to marry.   

But there would be a serious prospect of a successful challenge to that arrangement under article 14 taken in conjunction with article 12, on the basis that same-sex couples were being discriminated against in relation to matter that was within the ambit of article 12.

No, they don't provide much evidence for the "serious prospect of a successful challenge" but I think their legal reasoning is pretty good here. Clearly the Government should pursue full equal marriage (religious and civil) rather than focus on civil marriage alone. I hope their legal opinion has influenced the Government into expanding its proposals accordingly.

But these are NOT arguments stating churches will be forced to perform equal marriage. The Church then moves on to arguing over if the Government allows religious marriage how this might affect them but that is more an issue of domestic legislation and I'll look at it in its own section below.

So the Church of England's legal opinion seems to be that the ECHR may well not be amenable to denying same-sex couples, and the religious organisations that support them, religious equal marriage. But nowhere do they suggest the ECHR might force religious organisations opposed to equal marriage to perform same-sex marriages.

Liberty, fairly predictably, offer a robust defence of the proposals here. Karon Monaghan QC summarises her opinion here:

In my view, therefore, any requirement upon a church or religious organisation to conduct same-sex marriages, contrary to the religious convictions of its members’, would violate their Article 9 rights (and those of any person compelled to take part, for example a minister).  

Merely permitting the solemnisation of same-sex marriages on religious premises, as with opposite–sex marriages, would not, of course, intrude upon the Article 9 rights of any religious organisation.

Ergo, the European Convention on Human Rights should protect the rights of those who oppose equal marriage rather than force them to do things against their will.

The ECHR covers many countries that offer marriage equality and some of those have established churches. I've done lengthy searches through sources in both English and in the native tongues of the countries concerned, but have yet to find one case of the ECHR becoming involved with this question once equal marriage has been legislated for by a national Government. 

Will domestic laws force churches to carry out equal marriage?

It is extremely difficult to argue one way or another on this as the relevant legislation has not even been proposed yet. However some have raised this as a concern as well. My main argument would be that any domestic law can be amended by the new marriage equality bill so as long as this is dealt with properly there should be nothing for opponents to worry about.

Karon Monaghan QC, on behalf of Liberty, looked at this in some detail.

In particular, I am asked to consider the following questions:  

a. Were Parliament to enact provisions that would allow religious bodies willing to do so to conduct legally binding marriages in the same way that they can currently conduct marriages under Part III, Marriage Act 1949, would the decision of a body opposed to same-sex marriage not to do so, or the refusal of an individual minister not to conduct such a ceremony, be challengeable under the Equality Act 2010, under another antidiscrimination provision or on human rights grounds?  

b. If so, would a provision similar to section 6A(3A) Civil Partnership Act 2004 be sufficient to protect a religious body and/or individual members of the clergy from such legal challenges?  

c. Are there any additional safeguards that could be built into the legislation to forestall such a risk?  

d. Would provisions similar to those in the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 be adequate to prevent a maverick clergy member conducting a same-sex marriage that might arguably be legally binding?  

e. Again, are there any additional safeguards that could be built into the legislation to mitigate the risk?  

f. Would the Article 9 rights of religious bodies that do not wish to conduct same-sex marriages on doctrinal grounds reinforce any safeguards built into the legislation?

She then summarises her responses here:

a. A refusal by a minister or a body opposed to same-sex marriage to conduct same - sex marriages would not violate the Equality Act 2010 so long as they could demonstrate that to do so would be in conflict with the strongly held convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers. Further, it is very unlikely that a refusal to conduct a same-sex marriage in such circumstances would unjustifiably violate the Convention rights of any other person, in particular those of a same-sex couple seeking to marry. 

b. For the avoidance of doubt, provision could be made in any legislation (permitting same-sex marriage) analogous to that seen in s6A(3A), Civil Partnership Act 2004. 

c. Again for the absolute avoidance of any doubt, the Equality Act 2010 could be amended so as to add a clause to Schedule 23 (paragraph 2(14)) making it clear that nothing in the Equality Act 2010 “should be taken to require a religious organisation or minister to solemnise a same-sex marriage if they do not wish to do” or similar. 

d. Provisions similar to those in the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 would be adequate to prevent a maverick clergy member conducting a legally sanctioned same-sex marriage. 

e. No further safeguards are required to address the “maverick clergyman” other than those described above (requiring or dispensing with consent in each case at the behest of the governing authority) and those that are ordinarily and already found in this context. 

f. The Article 9 protection afforded religious organisations is strong. This too would provide real safeguards to a religious organisation that did not wish to conduct same-sex marriages on doctrinal grounds.

The Church of England looks at this area too, being that it is important to them due to the complex legislation covering our established church and its duties.

These assurances are all based on the position being as proposed in the consultation paper: i.e. the limitation of same-sex couples to non-religious forms and ceremonies. If, however, that position were not upheld – either because it was held to be unlawful by the courts or as a result of changes to the applicable legislation during its passage through Parliament or by way of subsequent amendment – the basis for those assurances would fall away.  

In that scenario a considerable amount of further legislative provision would be required in order to protect the position of the Church of England and other religious bodies. In particular the whole range of rights and duties that exist in relation to marriage and the Church of England would have to be reexamined. 

Even if a mutually acceptable legislative solution could be found by way of limiting such rights and duties, it cannot be assumed that any such solution would itself withstand subsequent challenge, whether in our domestic courts or in Strasbourg. The ultimate outcome for both Church and State would be quite uncertain.

The Church of England's considered response to this then is that it'll be a difficult process in ensuring their rights are protected but possible. 

Doesn't the Church of England have a legal responsibility to marry any eligible couple in their own parish?

Much has been made of this responsibility by those opposed to equal marriage and the Church of England's legal opinion mentions it too.

Anyone who is resident in England has a legal right to marry in his or her parish church irrespective of his or her religious affiliation and the minister of the parish (the rector, vicar or priest in charge) is under a legal duty to conduct the marriage. 2 The existence of this right is recognised by the Marriage Act 1949 (which governs the procedure for all marriages in England and Wales).

I have a question regarding this however. If they have a legal right, how can the Church of England legally turn away divorcees (at the discretion of the minister involved)? I feel the situation is a little more complex than is being presented and that the pertinent laws covering the Church of England in this regard can be amended if necessary.

Feel free to fire back examples that show I'm wrong. I've written this post mainly out of a sense of frustration with opponents failing to provide proof for their claims. I decided to seek out the evidence myself and, after so doing, feel a lot more confident that they are wrong. However, I will be very happy to hear considered opposition to what I've presented here!

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

Thank You Church Of England; You're Really Helping Marriage Equality!

Last month I wrote a piece thanking the opponents of marriage equality for helping push forward marriage equality. Today I think we saw a rather grand example of this in the current controversy caused by the Church of England's response to the Government's marriage equality consultation.

The Church of England has been trending all day on Twitter and the vast majority of tweets have been negative towards the position they have taken. Various people have used the opportunity to spread the link to the consultation which finishes on Thursday, and I've seen a great number of people announcing they have completed the survey just to counter what the Church of England have said.

Meanwhile my blog hits on my marriage equality posts have gone right up as people have been searching to answer their questions about the differences between marriage and civil partnerships.

It's been an exercise in how to rile up even more hitherto neutral people against the position you are trying to promote. Thank you Church of England, you've really helped us get our message out there and kept our supporters angry enough to keep on pushing this forward.

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

Despite Church of England scaremongering, there are important legal implications caused by marriage equality

The Church of England is up to it's usual game of playing up being an established church yet undermining Her Majesty's Government whenever they can. Seriously, if you are going to be a state church then you have to toe the line. If you want, quite reasonably, to be able to criticise the Government then perhaps disestablishment isn't a risk but an opportunity?

Regardless of their less than sensitive or subtle way of making their case, we must accept there are important implications, to them and others, from the legalisation of equal marriage. Right now, as the current plans stand, legislation shall be written undermining religious freedom (not that the big churches care as it only undermines other people's religious freedom) by denying religious organisations the right to hold legally valid same-sex marriage ceremonies. However, it is unclear how the Government plans to work around the fact that we have an established church who currently has a duty to marry any Anglican (and often anyone in general) within a parish who wants it.

I've expressed before my concerns that the way the Government is pursuing marriage equality risks not only leaving both sides of the debate unhappy but creating a legal fudge that may leave religious organisations open to being forced to marry people the organisation doesn't want to.

As disestablishment, my preferred option that would make the task of introducing marriage equality far easier, is unlikely in the extreme it is clear we need to look at other examples of how to move forward.

The consensus on Twitter seems to be a rather radical (for our conservative isles) move of removing the function of civil marriages from all religious bodies. Akin to France, or some American states, the civil component would be performed in a registry office and then any religious element would be up to the couple and religious organisations as a completely private matter.Whilst I think this would be a huge step in the right direction I still don't think it addresses the fact that we have a state church.

The other option is to follow what Denmark has very recently done. Denmark, like us, has an established church (one in full communion with the Church of England!). There no priest will be forced to marry a same-sex couple. However, as it is a state church and one that actually appears to understand it's place, same-sex couples have the right to a marriage in their local church but a supportive priest would need to be found (with the help of the unwilling one!) to carry out the service. This seems more in keeping with the Church of England's position in our society, and whilst it's not one I like I think it's the way forward. If the Church of England really wants to remain as an established church then it needs to start acting like one. They won't like this idea, of course, as the Church of England is far too independently minded to really remain as our state church any longer. But perhaps this idea might make them reconsider their role once and for all.

Then other churches will be free to decide whether or not they want to perform such ceremonies, which would be a huge win for religious freedom in our country.

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

Daily Mail's Disingenuous Spin On Marriage Equality

There was some late, but good, news last night on the current religious freedom question regarding religious civil partnerships. 

Further to attempts in the Lords, and then in the Commons, to overturn the new religious civil partnership regulations the Church of England made an announcement. The premise of the criticism of their Lordships to the proposals was the possibility that provisions in the Equality Act might force all organisations carrying out marriages to also carry out civil partnerships regardless of whether they wish to or not. 

Groups including the Christian Institute, CARE and the Evangelical Alliance have made submissions to the Committee which suggest organisations will be required to register under a broader obligation on public authorities to eliminate discrimination, despite a specific provision in the regulations and the Equality Act 2010 designed to prevent this. 

The Committee published an opinion given by Mark Hill QC, an honorary professor at the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University, which said the new regulations may fail in their aim to avoid obligation by not providing protection from the “all-pervading public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010″.

However lawyers working on behalf of the Church of England last night stated that this was not a concern and based on this advice have today said they will not be sanctioning religious civil partnerships in any of their churches. (Whilst also giving a nod to fact civil partnerships and marriages AREN'T the same thing, thanks CoE!)

An analysis distributed by the Church says because civil partnerships and marriages are separate legal concepts, it is “clear” the Equality Act 2010 cannot be invoked to force a religious institution to perform both. 

The Church says: “A gentlemen’s outfitter is not required to supply women’s clothes. A children’s book shop is not required to stock books that are intended for adults. 

“And a Church that provides a facility to marry is not required to provide a facility to same-sex couples for registering civil partnerships.”

This should take the wind out of the sails of the Westminister politicians trying to derail the civil partnership regulations by foul means. 

However it bodes ill for the prospects for religious marriage equality in the future. The Equality Act could be used to force unwilling ministers to perform same-sex marriage if religious marriage equality ever came into being. This is a very serious matter and obviously clearly puts a hurdle in the way of future reform unless the Equality Act can be reformed to protect religious freedom whilst ensuring liberty for religious organisations wanting to perform such marriages. 

And this is where we come to the Daily Mail's rather disingenuous spin on the news. Let's get one thing straight; the upcoming consultation on marriage equality is not about whether religious marriage equality should be brought in. Nor is it about whether civil marriage equality should be brought it. It's rather pathetic remit is simply to discuss how CIVIL marriage equality should be implemented. 

The Daily Mail choose to state, based on a small note about the dangers of marriage equality overriding religious freedom by the Church of England's lawyers,  

"Church 'may have to offer gay weddings' if Cameron's plans given go-ahead"  

David Cameron and his Coalition Government currently have no plans whatsoever regarding religious marriage equality.  This claim by the Daily Mail, based on quite understandable concerns regarding religious freedom, is nothing but a lie. Not a misunderstanding, but a lie. And it's all done to scaremonger among the religious thus harming the chances of constructive debate between religious organisations and LGBT campaigners in the hopes of ensuring neither must give up their liberties for the other.

I'm not going to say there aren't LGBT campaigners out there looking to force churches to marry them. There are. There's even a Tory MP who thinks the same! But that's not the majority opinion and even we are to regard religions as private clubs I've no problem defending their right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple. The rhetoric on this from the right wing MPs, Lords and anti-marriage campaigners is not helping defend religious freedom but serving only to stop some much needed discussion on these important matters.
 
Poor show from the Daily Mail. As always.

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