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 1062.

    Let's just be clear here: Christians who oppose gay marriage are not bigots. They have beliefs that they are legally entitled to have and which come out of deep theological reasoning and conviction. You do not have to agree with them. To be so disrespectful on here to people of faith makes you seem equally bigoted. V few Christians are as these comments suggest.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1061.

    Respect to the CofE for taking a strong stance. Marriage should be between a man and a women!!! Many of my gay friends agree!

  • Comment number 1060.

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

  • rate this

    Comment number 1059.

    I'm not gay myself, but have grown up to beleave that we are supposed to of descended from the apes, So if this is true then there should be no problems with gay marriages as apes are bisexual?

  • rate this

    Comment number 1058.

    All the opponents of this bill are saying things like:

    'what right have they got to stamp their legislative boot on religious faith'

    What the government is doing is removing their legislative boot on religious faiths and giving each institution freedom to define marriage how they choose to themselves.

    It seems that these institutions are afraid of public reaction to the choices they will make

  • rate this

    Comment number 1057.

    If you think that the lord will love you more for standing in the way of people in love getting married, then you are wrong.

    Don't spend your time being bitter - Live and let live!!
    .. Or should we wait for a homosexual monarch to create a new church!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 1056.

    True religious freedom will be to deny that 'gay' marriage is marriage, not to be allowed not to marry.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1055.

    @988 bob

    One man one woman is the only natural relationship? Really? Do you know that homosexuality happens in over 200 species?

  • rate this

    Comment number 1054.

    If two consenting people of the same sex wish to live together than I can see no reason why they should not. However marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman and as such it should remain so.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1053.

    Am I right? An unelected public body ie the church are influencing to a large degree the elected body?

  • rate this

    Comment number 1052.

    If, for example, the Roman Catholic Church is allowed to sack the celebrants they employ who do not share their beliefs on marriage then why should religions such as Liberal Judaism, Unitarianism, and Methodism not also be allowed to sack the celebrants they employ who do not share their beliefs on marriage?

  • rate this

    Comment number 1051.

    The "traditional" or "orthodox" Christian view is that humanity was created heterosexual - that homosexuality is a distortion of God's original creation in which man and woman were created to be sexual partners. Homosexuality is therefore a distortion of nature, like many other things. You din't have to agree of course, but this explains resistance to gay marriage within the church.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1050.

    Thanks to Church of England for this brave decision. I know many people will say that no, Gays marry should be allowed because 2 people love each other and they want to share their life together so what wrong here!! but if I asked them, can please accept that a man could get marry with 4 women. the ans. will be NO its not allowed at least not in UK.but they also want to share their life together!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 1049.

    @ 877.Minerve


    To paraphrase Steven fry, same sex relationships/activities have been observed in at least 150 animal species. Homophobia has been observed in one. You tell me which is unnatural.

    Oh and by the way, using a condom or any form of birth control is "unnatural". So is flying. I'll assume you've never done those.

    I'm straight by the way.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1048.

    Geordie 889, marriage did not start as a religious ceremony, and has evolved over time as cultures have changed.

    I think this is a fair compromise. Its a shame that the CofE will deny many gay christians their right to be married by them though. I know many think the bible is against homosexuality, but there are more commandments aimed at straight people than gay in the bible.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1047.

    The bible is clear homosexuality is not acceptable to God and marraige is between a man and woman. So any christian religion should not even be debating this IT IS WRONG.

  • Comment number 1046.

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

  • rate this

    Comment number 1045.

    I don't understand why we don't have gay marriage
    If two people love each other why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?
    It's ridiculous that in this day and age gay people don't have the same rights as straight people

  • rate this

    Comment number 1044.

    It seems to be a very back-to-front way of doing it. I agree that the government has no place defining what goes on in a church, but the same is true for banning it. Just introduce equal marriage and leave it up to the churches to decide what to do. The ECHR will not violate the freedom of religious institutions to practice their faith (when has it ever done that?).

  • rate this

    Comment number 1043.

    Can somebody please tell me why some people think they have the right to prevent other people from marrying?


Page 1 of 54


More Politics stories



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.