Anglican Perspectives

Update from the Church of England – The debate on Same-Sex Couples Bill

chris sugden

The following article by Canon Chris Sugden first appeared in the February 5, 2013 edition of the AAC’s International Update. Sign up for this free email here.

This afternoon, Maria Miller, the Media and Culture Secretary, opened the second reading of the Same-sex couples bill in Parliament. She had written in the Times on Monday that the State should not stop two people who love each other, gay or straight, from getting married. Her arguments are considered here.

The debate in Parliament revealed a number of issues and implications. First, the bill will allow same sex marriages to be carried out in British consulates and British army bases in countries like Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda. All teachers will be required to explain same-sex marriage to children in school. A distinction (without a difference) is being drawn that they will not be expected to endorse it. Are teachers required to explain (neutrally) how to smoke cigarettes (of which they might disapprove) to children without having to endorse smoking?

The bill claims to promote equality but enshrines inequality. It does not provide for consummation or adultery, which still apply to heterosexual couples. Thus it is unequal in promoting and requiring faithfulness for heterosexual couples while not requiring it for same-sex couples. This does not build up marriage but rather undermines it as the pressure for “equality” as “uniformity” will surely result in the removal of adultery from heterosexual marriage.

There will be no reasonable accommodation for any public servants, such as registrars, who would not wish to conduct same-sex marriages. And yet, such reasonable accommodation is being provided for churches on grounds of their beliefs. This is a contradiction at the heart of the bill. State employed or regulated doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, social workers, therapists, marriage counsellors, marriage registrars and youth workers will also be denied “reasonable accommodation.”

The culture secretary was challenged by David Burrowes, who is leading the opposition by up to 120 Conservative MPs, to say whether, should it be shown that the so-called “quadruple lock” protection will fail, she would withdraw the bill. She did not answer.

Sir Tony Baldry, as the Church of England’s spokesman in the Commons, put the Church of England’s position strongly. Equal does not mean the same. It would alter the institution of marriage while delivering no obvious gains. The Church of England should be left free to determine its own position.

Neither David Cameron, nor the holders of the three great offices of state, who that morning had urged that public opinion supported the bill, were in the chamber to support the opening of the second reading.

The public opinion argument is a bit thin. Significant public opinion supports renegotiating the relationships with Europe, but the Prime Minister has only promised a referendum after 2015. Significant public opinion in Scotland supports “independence” but no referendum will take place till 2014. There are issues on which there is significant public support for changing the law, but Parliament resolutely opposes it. Why is a bill which was in no party manifesto, was not in the Queen’s speech and has no mandate being rushed through like this? Why no referendum on such an important subject?

Did Mr Cameron notice that it was publicly reported that morning and was pointed out to the House of Commons by Nadine Davies MP that leading homosexual rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, has claimed that he inspired one of David Cameron’s best known lines on same-sex “marriage” proposals.

Mr Tatchell made the comments in a conversation with Dr Trevor Stammers (past Chairman of the Christian Medical Fellowship) outside Downing Street on Sunday, February 3, as a group of senior local Conservatives delivered a letter to the Prime Minister expressing deep concern about the way that same-sex “marriage” plans had been pursued and the damage that is being done to the Conservative Party.

He is reported to have said:

“I wrote David Cameron’s speech for him. That line about ‘I believe in gay marriage because I am a Conservative’ came directly from what I wrote.”

The comment echoes that made by Mr Tatchell in a briefing for his Equal Love campaign, reported on his blog in October of 2011:

“Conservatives rightly encourage and approve loving, stable relationships because enduring care and commitment are good for individuals, families and for the well-being of society as a whole. If marriage is a Conservative value, then same-sex marriage is consistent with this value. Far from undermining marriage, gay marriage strengthens it. Conservatives believe in marriage. They should therefore support same-sex marriage precisely because they are Conservatives.”

Days earlier (05 OCT 2011), David Cameron, stated in Party Conference speech that “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative”.

The Prime Minister’s comments caused consternation at the time – not only for the suggestion that “gay marriage” was a core Conservative value but also because there was no mention of plans for “same-sex marriage” in either the Conservative Manifesto or the Coalition Agreement.

The revelation will heighten concerns that the controversial move to redefine marriage is being driven by a small but vociferous “homosexual rights” lobby groups rather than by proper consideration of the nature of marriage. It will also likely be an embarrassment to Mr Cameron.

Mr. Tatchell has previously indicated that the Government’s so-called quadruple-lock may be open to challenge saying:

“Exempting the official established church sends the wrong signal. There is no reason why these churches should be treated differently from other faiths. This faith-based discrimination could be open to legal challenge. The government is treating two churches differently from all other religions. Discriminating between faith groups is probably illegal under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The full impact of argument of the “gay activist” lobby was clearly spelt out in a House of Commons Committee Room last week by Peter Tatchell and Professor Michael King, the author of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ submission to the Church of England.

They claimed that same-sex attraction is innate. This is a matter of science. Religion, morals and conscience have no place in this matter. The reason people might have unwanted same sex attraction is because of the stigma and prejudice in society around. Any attempt to provide counselling to free themselves from it is therefore an unjustified burden on them and should not be allowed. What is needed is education at all levels that homosexuality should be as acceptable as heterosexuality.

The issue is therefore an issue of freedom and of a plural society. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that no “reasonable accommodation” was to be allowed to a registrar and a counsellor who each had asked to be released from their responsibilities with same-sex couples. The last government allowed no “reasonable accommodation” to Roman Catholic adoption agencies who asked to be released from the requirement to place children with same-sex couples. They therefore closed down.

Mr Tatchell also said: ‘The overwhelming mass of scientific and medical evidence shows that homosexual orientation is the product of inheritance and hormonal influences in the womb.”

Dr Peter Saunders, the executive director of the Christian Medical Fellowship,notes that this announcement marked a huge departure from his previous stance. Rather than accept the view that people are born gay, he has actually been one of its chief opponents.

Saunders asks: “Does he really expect us to believe that in the last twelve months he has suddenly adopted the central thesis of a book he has consistently rejected for over four years? If so why has he not said so up until this week? Or is there another explanation altogether? Does Tatchell actually choose which view to hold depending on who he is talking to?”

So how much can the Prime Minister rely on the arguments provided by Peter Tatchell? And has the Prime Minister given thought to where Mr Tatchell’s arguments lead?

New Bishop of Kilmore, Church of Ireland

The Rev Ferran Glenfield, Rector of Hillsborough (Down), has been elected as Bishop of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh. He succeeds the Right Rev Ken “Fanta” Clarke, who is now Director of SAMS Ireland.

Ferran is a graduate of Queen’s University Belfast. He taught before training for the ordained ministry and completed theological studies in Trinity College Dublin and the University of Oxford. Ordained in 1991, he served for five years in Cork diocese. In 1996 he became the Rector of Kill o’the Grange Parish in South Dublin, bringing growth to an already lively parish. He was appointed Rector of Hillsborough in 2012.

Ferran has known as a clear and faithful preacher and has been instrumental in running the Irish College of Preachers conferences for many years. In addition to parish experience, he has been involved in theological education through the Church of Ireland Theological Institute. He is married to Jean, who is Head of the Preparatory Department in Wesley College, Dublin and they have three children.

The Diocese of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh is situated largely in the north west of the Republic of Ireland (Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Roscommon), although it has two parishes in Northern Ireland also. Ferran will be seen as a good successor to Ken Clarke, building on his effective ministry in this mainly rural diocese.

Share this post
Search