Gay marriage to be illegal in Church of England

 

Culture Secretary Maria Miller wanted ''fairness to be at the heart of the proposals''

Related Stories

The Church of England and Church in Wales will be banned in law from offering same-sex marriages, the government has announced.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said.

But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.

Labour said the exemption for the established Church was "disappointing".

The plans are due to be introduced before the next election, in 2015.

Labour backs the government's decision to legislate on same-sex marriages, which will apply to England and Wales, and urged ministers not to be "too reserved" in promoting the policy.

Party leader Ed Miliband suggested that Labour votes would "ensure that this measure is passed in the House of Commons".

The Church of England and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and are expected to oppose the bill, even with its caveats.

Analysis

Although Culture Secretary Maria Miller has stressed the government's determination to press ahead with this plan for gay marriage, she has unveiled a series of legal concessions.

The upshot of that, it seems to me, is that only a very small number of churches or establishments are likely to be available to same-sex couples for wedding ceremonies.

That will undoubtedly appease many of her critics, particularly on her own backbenches.

The danger with the explicit legal ban on same sex marriage in the Church of England and Church in Wales, is it will anger many supporters of gay marriage who feel she has given far too much ground.

But some religious groups, including Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism, are in favour.

In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:

  • No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
  • Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
  • Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
  • The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply

Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples".

She also said: "I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.

"European law already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional 'quadruple legal lock'. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so."

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, welcomed the announcement, saying: "We should not stop people from getting married and getting that recognition from the state on grounds of gender or sexuality.

"And we should not here in Parliament say that some loving relationships have greater value than others."

Plans to legalise same-sex marriage have divided the Conservative Party and more than 100 Tory MPs are thought to be against the idea.

Religious freedom

One of these opponents, Peter Bone, asked the Commons: "How dare the secretary of state try to redefine marriage?"

Richard Drax said: "I would like to ask the Secretary of State and the government what right have they got, other than arrogance and intolerance, to stamp their legislative boot on religious faith?"

Another, Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in Parliament, said: "For the Church of England, the uniqueness of marriage is that it does embody the distinctiveness of men and women.

"So removing from the definition of marriage this complementarity is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged."

From the Commons

Some Conservative MPs grumbled during Mrs Miller's statement that promises to "preserve" marriage had been broken.

They said that when civil partnerships became law, they had been reassured that same sex marriages would not follow.

A look back at the Commons Hansard, from the second reading of the Civil Partnership Bill, on 12 October 2004, provides some evidence for their claims.

Labour's Chris Bryant, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriages, told the Commons eight years ago that he didn't want "same-sex relationships to ape marriage in any sense".

The then equality minister, Labour's Jacqui Smith, said she recognised that people felt "very strongly about specific religious connotations of marriage". She said the government was right to take a "secular approach to resolve the specific problems of same-sex couples".

Her then Conservative shadow, Alan Duncan, who is now a minister in the coalition government, said it would be up to churches to decide what happened in future on the issue of same-sex marriages.

"The clear distinction between a civil secular partnership and the institution of marriage will, in my view, be preserved," he said.

The Catholic Church stepped up its opposition, accusing ministers of ignoring a 600,000-signature petition supporting the status quo.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, the Archbishop of Southwark, said opponents of gay marriage should lobby MPs "clearly, calmly and forcefully, and without impugning the motives of others".

In a statement, they said: "The meaning of marriage matters. It derives that meaning from its function as the foundation of the family.

"The union of one man and one woman for love and mutual support and open to procreation has over the centuries formed a stable unit we call the family."

But the Archbishop of Wales said that making it illegal for the Church in Wales to offer same-sex marriages would be a "step too far".

"In my personal opinion it's a great pity it's illegal for us not to even have the possibility to do it," said Dr Barry Morgan. "It should be left for us to opt in or opt out."

The Bishop of Leicester, the right reverend Tim Stevens, warned the issue was creating a division between the political classes and practising religious people.

He spoke out against the government's proposals in the House of Lords and said ministers needed to work towards a consensus on the matter.

But former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said in response that a "fair number" of serving bishops supported gay marriage but were unable to say so publicly.

Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that he believed same-sex marriages should be allowed in churches - but only if there was a "100%" guarantee that no church, synagogue or mosque would be forced to hold one against their wishes.

A number of other senior Tories, including Education Secretary Michael Gove, London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Prime Minister John Major, have also backed same-sex marriage by religious bodies.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights organisation Stonewall, said: "We're delighted about the government's statement today and welcome the promise to legislate for equal marriage as warmly as on the three previous occasions that this announcement has been made.

"We're particularly pleased that ministers have been persuaded to extend their original proposal in order to permit same-sex marriages for those religious denominations that wish to hold them. This is an important matter of religious freedom."

'Husband' and 'wife'

The consultation on plans for same-sex marriage received 228,000 submissions.

In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex.

Rev Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, described the proposals as "disastrous"

They also dismiss the fear that the terms "husband" and "wife" could be removed as a result of same sex marriages.

The government says: "That is not the case - on the contrary these proposals will allow more people to use those terms.

"Couples will continue to be able call each other whatever they wish in their personal life, and in legal and official documents, the terms husband and wife will continue to be used."

They also say that teachers "particularly in faith schools will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same sex-couples to get married".

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 162.

    So the CofE can decide not hold gay marriages but the owner of a B&B can't refuse a gay couple on religious grounds.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 161.

    Church membership is declining, they wonder why, I would imagine that the populace has grown weary with their endless hateful tirades, such as this. Illegal. I ask - what sane person would call for that sort of law to be re-introduced? The answer - there isn't one. We should really have moved far beyond this sort of rubbish as a species long ago. Man on the Moon, rover on Mars, but no gay marriage

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 160.

    Marriage = legal relationship between a man and a woman. Civil partnership = legal relationship between two people. Neither is better than the other. No one should / can force a church to do something which is contrary to its teachings, in the same way that no court should have to recognise a church marriage that it believes is not lawful (e.g. polygamous arrangements).

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 159.

    One interesting thing, a lot of the people on here are quick to point out that there are civil partnerships, and that allowing gay marrage would be "redefining marrage".

    I've always thought of marrage as being between two people who love each other, and gender has honestly never entered into it. Why start adding conditionals now? Or better yet only allow marrage if one partner is 6'2"+

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 158.

    Time for the CofE to leave the House of Lords.
    Particularly as they don't allow women to sit in those seats.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 157.

    The problem here is simple - there is still a law being created in this country that allows discrimination. This is the entire point of the fight to have marriage a universal right.

    @ Bill Jowett - divorce is also against the traditional idea behind marriage. Surely you can see the hypocricy in this?

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 156.

    118. teddy555
    Homosexual relationships are unnatural...
    ---
    Presumably based on the fact that homosexual behaviour have been observed in almost all mammalian species? If Gay penguins and gay dolphins are natural whats wrong with gay people?

    (Incidentally the evolutionary argument is a few extra adults who don't breed themselves but can hunt/forage/babysit is good for the pack's survival)

  • rate this
    -7

    Comment number 155.

    So the bigots and the haters win a round.
    I think this nonsense will be challenged, it is a ridiculous concept.
    This government is staffed by incompetent fools seemingly.

    That is should not be illegal to refuse to marry a gay couple is one thing, but this pig's ear is a homophobic dream!
    Government have got themselves twisted into a pretzel!
    It must be challenged in court!

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 154.

    Jesus made less fuss about being crucified than some people make about extending the sacrament of marriage to all his congregation.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 153.

    I believed that the SNP was the only party which said things first then thought about it later ..... I was wrong. After the Police Commissioner voting farce we now have oscillation time again - lurching from one crisis to the next with knee-jerk reactions all down the line. Please resign en bloc and let someone else govern. The problem is who?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 152.

    The concept of gay marriage is a legal fiction and the establishment of the Church of England is a safeguard which keeps that simple fact before our minds. Scotland's legal protection of "the true Protestant religion" will make it similarly illegal to have such contradictory unions brought about there.

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 151.

    There is a lot of talk about discrimination, but I went to my local pharmacy and asked for some contraceptive pills and they wouldn't prescribe them to me because I'm a man! I would be okay with it if they weren't free but what is this? Today it's one law for ladies another for us.

    To some people discrimination seems to mean pretty much anything that goes against something they like.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 150.

    Thank goodness common sense prevails! Tell me please, honestly how can a MAN marry a MAN and a Woman a Woman. What is this world coming to. WAKE up!

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 149.

    114.Obania

    You put it perfectly!

    Please would you go into government: we need people like you to end such idiocy and to stop certain organisations from considering themselves above the law (or having anything to do with government, for that matter e.g. the Lords)

  • rate this
    -5

    Comment number 148.

    So first of all, I'm gay. The thing is, while I want to get married someday, the thought of seeking the approval of folks' imaguinary friends is not required and given the history of religion in general, churches and what they represent give me the creeps. That said, I do want to get married and say 'We got married', not 'We got civilly partner-ified'. Same legal rights would be nice too.

  • rate this
    +62

    Comment number 147.

    There is a reason why every disparaging comment towards equal marriage is marked down. It's because the majority of people support it.
    In every poll there is overwhelming support, and even a very fierce campaign by the church still couldn't tip the numbers in their favour.

    I am a gay man, and guess what? One day, I will be MARRIED.

  • rate this
    +63

    Comment number 146.

    I can't understand anyone wanting to gtet married, gay or straight, but this isn't about me, it's about equality. We have a weird system where gay people have some equal rights and not others and this has to change. It's sad it's so slow to happen.

  • rate this
    +22

    Comment number 145.

    If you believe that man was made in Gods image, then that includes ALL of man regardless of sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. If a same sex couple believe in God, then they should be able to show their commitment to each other in Gods presence? Lets start moving out of the dark ages. If you want to blame anyone for Homosexuality, blame Hetrosexuals, they are the ones having Homosexual babies!

  • Comment number 144.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 143.

    So the government don't want laws that prevent the press from hacking into dead girls phones because it would be against freedom but they want laws so the Church can't ever perform gay marriages even if they wanted to (which they don't).

    Something is really messed up with this country at the moment. Pointless laws when we don't need them, and a lack of desire to create one when we really do.

 

Page 46 of 54

 

More Politics stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.