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.


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


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 202.

    If 2 people love each other they should be allowed to get married, no question about their status, will that mean I should be allowed to marry my sister or brother? Surely it does, this could be a possibility in the future but then that's equality for you.

  • rate this

    Comment number 201.

    If you give equal rights to Gay people ...

    Everyone will want them!

  • rate this

    Comment number 200.

    I have no problem with people being heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or transgender. Civil partnerships were brought in so everyone can have equal rights in relationshipsl.

    When it comes to biblical marriage, however, it is clear in the Bible that marriage is between a Man and a Woman. Therefore, no same sex couple can ever be "Biblically Married" in a Christian Bible Believing Church.

  • rate this

    Comment number 199.

    Ah, the hypocritical Brits, who have so much to say about gay rights in America but themselves remain one of the most gay-unfriendly people in the world. If they're not proscribing gay marriage they're hounding Alan Turing to an early death or refusing to serve gay guests at hotels. Simply pitiful.

  • rate this

    Comment number 198.

    Mira: wrong word: homophobia, fear of homosexuals, how are you going to stop people being frightened of some thing. (I think you meant hate of some thing, but used the wrong word), they all do. Religions are not lightweight postmodern modern touchy-feely trendy things, they are based on dogma, difference, hate, those things that wars and murder come from. Believe, and your stuck with the dogma,

  • rate this

    Comment number 197.

    Why in 2012 do people still hold marriage in such esteem? Multiple divorces, people marrying after a week and divorcing not much later or just doing it for the Hello spread is an issue but not gay people who want to make a life time commitment. I am sick of discrimination in the name of religion.

  • rate this

    Comment number 196.

    Huge distraction measures are working, pretending religion is the issue. The word married means man and woman end of story, no religion required. No homosexual gains anything by hijacking the word married as they hijacked 'gay' such that it is now a playground insult.

    This is a disgusting campaign just to steal and corrupt the meaning of another word. Nothing else is gained at all.

  • rate this

    Comment number 195.

    It is a triumph for common sense that marriage certificates will retain the usage of the terms husband and wife. Whatever a homosexual "partner" might be, they are not a husband or a wife. The preservation of the established religion and its biblical foundations is one small mercy in this ungodly legislation.

  • rate this

    Comment number 194.

    133. Lord President "Like it or not, same sex relationships aren't actually what our bodies are designed for"

    You have to be joking! Women's bodies are absolutely and perfectly designed for lesbianism. It is a perfect and natural fit.

  • rate this

    Comment number 193.

    To those asking why civil partnerships arent enough or advocating calling it a different name, ask yourself why it wasn't enough for black people to be allowed to sit in different places on the bus. Ask yourself why it wasn't enough for women to just be allowed to vote.

    We are all people and all deserve the same rights.

  • rate this

    Comment number 192.

    Can anyone explain what a gay couple would gain by calling their relationship a "marriage" rather than a "civil partnership"? It really does seem like little more than endless time spent discussing what's little more than semantics. Unless I missed something a civil partnership offers the same benefits as a marriage, so why is this even an issue?

  • rate this

    Comment number 191.

    Why does the CofE actually get a say in anything? Especially concerning social matters? It is an institution that shouldnt be taken seriously at all!! This is bigotry, and like everything else in british society this should not be tolorated.

  • rate this

    Comment number 190.

    Surely the church now has to be disestablished? How can a state allow it's establishment church to discriminate against a section of its society?
    We MUST now enter the modern world and divorce state from personal belief codes.

  • rate this

    Comment number 189.

    109. Mr Mouse
    If gays wish to marry do it outside of the Church, it is an abomination in the eyes of God.

    No it is an abomination in the eyes of God when people preach hatred in His name.

  • rate this

    Comment number 188.

    Why the fuss?
    Probably more chance of being 'blessed' by an alien in reality.

  • rate this

    Comment number 187.

    The UK Government, more precisely the Government of England and Wales has had a say in who can get married and what constitutes a legal marriage since The Marriage Duty Acts of 1694 and 1695. Therefore marriage from then onwards became an issue of the state and not the church.

    So why on earth are we still allowing the church to dictate who can get married in the 21st Century?

  • rate this

    Comment number 186.

    Gay people can keep their 'gay pride' and march about the streets in their underwear every so often and straight people can keep marriage ...seems fair to me :-)

  • rate this

    Comment number 185.

    I am not gay, so have no vested interest in the matter. Nor am I a member of any church, nor do I wish to be. I care not what religious scripture says - it's not the word of God anyway.

    What I do care about is that if two people love each other and wish to share their lives, they should be afforded equal rights irrespective of their gender. Any church denying them that is unfit for purpose.

  • rate this

    Comment number 184.

    Apart from 3 religious that I am aware of, all other religions say that marriage is between a man and a woman. One religion, which may eventually take over all religions, condemns any other form of marriage & they will remove those forms which do not apply. Just maybe we are not doing enough comply.

  • rate this

    Comment number 183.

    For Christians, marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. Whilst the church is welcoming to all, it cannot change its view to suit everyone, that's simply impossible. It's like joining a math club and demanding they discuss Shakespeare. If they don't like it, they can get married elsewhere.


Page 44 of 54


More Politics stories



  • Peaky Blinders publicity shotBrum do

    Why is the Birmingham accent so difficult to mimic?

  • Oliver CromwellA brief history

    The 900 year story behind the creation of a UK parliament

  • Image of Ankor Wat using lidarJungle Atlantis

    How lasers have revealed an ancient city beneath the forest

  • TheatreBard taste? Watch

    Are trailer videos on social media spoiling theatre?

  • Agents with the US Secret Service, such as this one, are responsible for guarding the presidentHard at work

    White House break-in adds to Secret Service woes

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.