Monday 4 June 2012

On same-sex marriage

A few weeks ago I was asked to look into the issues surrounding the Government's same-sex marriage proposals in light of a request to provide some information on the matter produced by the Christian Institute and to circulate a petition at our church in support of the Coalition for Marriage. The person who asked me to do this knows that I am strongly opposed to the underlying philosophy behind these organisations and so what I produced was not intended to be unbiased. Their approach is contrasted with that of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, of which my church is a member.

Here is an augmented version of the document that I submitted, with some slight corrections and clarifications. The additional part comes at the end, in the form of my own opinion on the wider issues. The sections marked "Comment" are also my own thoughts.

The Government's consultation
The proposals website is available at this link, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/, which also links to a pdf version of the full consultation document.

What is the government NOT proposing?
It is interesting that before explaining what it is proposing, the consultation document first clarifies what it is not proposing with respect to religious marriage ceremonies.

Firstly, the government only seeks to lift the ban on civil marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. No religious organisation could face successful legal challenge for refusing to perform such a ceremony because it would remain unlawful, following the proposed legislation, for same-sex couples to marry on religious premises. (2.10)

In spite of the fact that men and women have a right to be married in their local parish church, the Church of England specifically will not face successful legal challenge for refusing to marry same-sex couples. The new legislation will not extend the right that opposite-sex couples have to same-sex couples. (2.11)

Faith groups will not face successful legal challenge for hate speech or discrimination for propagating their belief in marriage as between a man and a woman as a result of this legislation. (2.12)

What is the government proposing?
When declaring their marital status to employers, public authorities or other organisations, people in civil partnerships are effectively also declaring their sexual orientation. The proposals will lift this anomaly, which is seen to be unfair. Civil partnerships are contracted simply by signing a register, and there is no necessity for words to be spoken as per a marriage. This anomaly would also be closed. (1.10)

Currently civil partnerships cannot be dissolved for reasons of non-consummation, and adultery cannot be cited as a reason for irretrievable breakdown and divorce. The government proposes to extend all the same reasons for dissolution, divorce and annulment to same-sex marriage. (2.14-2.16)

Civil partnerships will still be possible, so that same-sex couples have a choice of ceremony and how they define their relationship subsequently. (2.19). There is no intention to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. (2.20). Current civil partners will be able to convert their civil partnership into a marriage. (2.22).

It will remain possible for religious organisations to hold civil partnership ceremonies on their premises, as long as the ceremony has no religious components – e.g. no hymns or religious readings. This is and will remain a voluntary provision for those religious organisations that choose to register. (2.24-2.25)

The proposals for same-sex civil marriage will have the effect that a married person who has changed their gender by way of a Gender Recognition Certificate will no longer have to end their marriage. (2.27-2.30)

There is a whole tranche of issues including state benefits, pensions, survivor benefits, and international recognition of relationships, amongst other matters, that will require change as a result but do not affect the essence of the proposal, which is to allow same-sex partners to "marry." (2.32-2.38)

Annex A to the consultation lists the following States that already allow same-sex marriage:

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and some states of the USA. There is a very much longer list of States that allow same-sex civil partnerships or equivalent.

Without the need for petitions or other potentially objectionable material, everyone has the opportunity to respond to the consultation, either via the website or by post to:

Government Equalities Office
3rd Floor Fry
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF

Comment
The proposals appear to be directed at changing technical differences between civil partnerships and marriage. On the face of it, there seems little scope for objection on religious grounds to any of the technical changes, which seem singularly devoid of any moral implication. The one possible exception, the proposals to allow dissolution/ divorce on grounds of non-consummation/adultery would appear a very strange issue for religious organisations to get worked up about, since they are directed to the ending of the relationship that they find so offensive. Objections would seem to reduce to antagonism towards the civil partnership scheme itself, and to the use of the word "marriage" as having some mystical and timeless value attached to it.

The coalition for marriage
The website is here, http://c4m.org.uk/.

Four "reasons" to oppose the government's proposals are cited under the headings "Marriage is unique," "No need to redefine," "Profound consequences," and "Speak up."

Marriage is unique
"Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father."

No need to redefine
"Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us."

Profound consequences
"If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?"

Speak up
"People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. A public consultation on the proposals to redefine marriage has been launched. Although the Government says it is determined to press ahead regardless, the consultation provides an opportunity for members of the public to say they do not agree with redefining marriage."

The Coalition is a little coy about who it comprises of. The website says:

"The Coalition for Marriage is an umbrella group of individuals and organisations… The Coalition is backed by politicians, lawyers, academics and religious leaders."

It neglects to mention by name any particular organisations, although some high profile signatories to the petition are mentioned on the website, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, other prominent Bishops, MP's from both Labour and Conservative benches, and some academics.

At time of writing, 16 May 2012, it boasts some 516,249 signatures.

Comment
The objections are open to some criticism. The first amounts to an argument from tradition and offers no reasoned analysis why change should be opposed. It is disingenuous because it seeks to introduce evidence regarding children that is irrelevant to the matter. Women are allowed to get pregnant and raise children outside of marriage. It is wholly irrelevant to conflate this with the discussion surrounding civil marriage.

The second is addressed by the government and amounts to the technical changes the proposal will introduce. The assertion is therefore factually inaccurate. It may not be discriminatory to support traditional marriage, but arguably it is discriminatory to oppose rights for other people that do not affect you. The assertion that no one has the right to redefine is highly controversial and goes to the root of our constitution and political process. It effectively seeks to undo the Reformation.

The third is pure scare-mongering. The onus is on those objecting to point to evidence of such harm. There are countries that have recognised same-sex marriage for 10 years and more, from which ample evidence of harm would be forthcoming and doubtless trumpeted should it exist.

The essence of the assertion regarding polygamy is of course true in the literal sense, since there is "nothing" to stop subsequent redefinition. Parliament is supreme in this country: that is our constitutional settlement. Parliament, through its elected representatives, can make or unmake any law it sees fit. Nevertheless, the driving force of the changes is coming from people with a very high view of equality, which would seem to be intrinsically at odds with the idea of polygamy from a gender equality perspective. Furthermore it would still fall to objectors to adduce evidence of the harm that polygamy would cause. There are States that allow polygamy and we have plenty of precedent in the bible of people in polygamous relationships who were nevertheless blessed by God. The claim therefore seem to rest on its shock-effect rather than an objection that has been  seriously thought through and reasoned.

The final paragraph is not an objection but a call to exercise the common law and Convention right of freedom of speech. It is notable that within the last week a prominent Christian blogger who supports C4M has been supported by the National Secular Society in the wake of having been investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority for supporting C4M on his website. See, http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/05/advertising-watchdog-threatens-to-martyr-archbishop-cranmer-all-over-again.

Nevertheless, freedom of speech does not mean that every organisation must allow any free speech at any time, and a church is perfectly well within its rights to say – whether of C4M or of my or anyone else's objection to C4M: "not here and not in our name."

The Christian Institute
There is no particular CI document on the current same-sex marriage proposals, but its Spring 2012 newsletter has a piece on it and names CI as a partner organisation of C4M and recommends its readers sign up.

Similarly I was unable to find an all-encompassing summary of the issues CI campaigns on, but its website's main news section is split into categories covering "Religious liberty," "Marriage and family," "Medical ethics" and "Vice."

We are committed to the truths of historic, biblical Christianity including:

A. The existence of the one, eternal God, Creator and Lord of the universe, who in the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, both governs all things according to his will and is accomplishing his purposes in the world and in the church.

B. The inspiration of the Holy Scripture in its entirety by God’s Spirit through the human authors, and its revelation of God’s truth to humanity. The Bible is without error not only when it speaks of salvation, its own origins, values, and religious matters, but it is also without error when it speaks of history and the cosmos. Christians must, therefore, submit to its supreme authority, both individually and corporately, in every matter of belief and conduct.

[…]

Comment
I have highlighted the pertinent parts which reveal "fundamentalist" theology. If the bible is without error in the way suggested then it would be illogical and sinful not to seek to impose its teaching universally. This is foundational to the CI position and if we do not subscribe to this foundational statement then logically we are not bound by its logical outcome.


  1. Governments exist to restrain evil
  2. Marriage is sacred
  3. Parents have a God-given authority over their children
  4. Drug taking is wrong
  5. ‘Harm reduction’ approaches are un-Christian
  6. Religious freedom must be preserved
  7. Life is sacred from conception
  8. Christianity and the state
  9. Christian beliefs on transsexualism
  10. Gambling is wrong

Documents are available that explore each of these issues.

Comment
I highlight only the negative elements of these issues, because it is important to know the ramifications of what we are being asked to accept.

Under point 1, the CI supports the notion of corporal punishment. "The punishment envisaged in the Bible clearly includes physical force." They take the general view that under a democracy it is the Christian's duty to seek to enact laws that follow their interpretation of God's morals, and to stand against 'so called "rights"' (their inverted commas around rights) that are in their view immoral.

Under point 2, a traditional defence of marriage is given, antagonism to the divorce laws, and that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Nothing unremarkable here when read on its own, but read with point 1 it is clearly a manifesto of enforcement of "God's" morals on non-believers. Statistics may well show that children thrive in families consisting of a mother and father who are married, but it is by no means self-evident that making divorce less "easy" would make for stronger happier families.

(Statistically speaking, more children from married families will thrive, and increasingly so, as more weak marriages are dissolved – so the argument becomes thoroughly self-serving over time.)

Under point 3 the CI defends the right of parents to hit their children and to the extent that pain is caused. Many Christians will agree with them. However, without Scriptural precedent it is by no means evident why it should be lawful to assault children in ways that would be clearly criminal if done to adults. Advocating such a practice would clearly sit uncomfortably with a Safe to Grow type policy. (Or perhaps Safe to Grow sits uncomfortably with Scripture?)

Under point 6 the CI is more concerned with broadcasting rights than religious liberty that extends to people who believe differently from them. True religious liberty means allowing space for believers of all or no religion to take meaningful part in society and of communicating their views, and that means being free from oppression from other people on the basis of their beliefs.

Under point 8, CI affirms the constitutional religious and Christian status of the UK. It asserts that Scripture "clearly teaches that God’s present judgment is a reality for nations which defy Jesus Christ." This explains to a great extent the CI's concern on moral issues, because it fears, and seeks to instil fear in other people, of God's judgment on the United Kingdom if it propagates laws that are at odds with CI's interpretation of the bible. "Christians are to work for the state to adopt Christian values and to implement godly laws."

Significantly:

"In promoting the Christian faith The Christian Institute seeks to affirm the universal Lordship of Christ and to challenge secular humanism, theological liberalism, universalism and other ideologies."

This effectively translates and interprets the underlying thrust of the previous points, that CI's ultimate goal is to use democratic tools to undermine democracy and install some kind of (benign?) "Christian theocracy" whereby Christianity is favoured in all areas of public life – as it has been under Christendom. The CI affirms its commitment to "freedom for, not freedom from religion," which misunderstands the concept of freedom entirely, whereby freedom from religion is merely the opposite side of the freedom of religion coin. We must be free from other people's religiously inspired precepts if we are to enjoy true religious freedom ourselves.

"There must be freedom for minority faiths and philosophies except where these plainly transgress the moral law. To fail to privilege one religion would be for the State positively to endorse either a secular humanistic philosophy (which results in atheism), or a “multifaith philosophy” (which is opposed by faithful people in all religions)."

This last assertion is the most worrying, because the religion that has the monopoly on morality effectively circumscribes everybody else's freedom. If you're not for us, you're against us, or so the saying goes.

These points go a long way to explaining why the CI is able to make bald assertions, where non-religious folk and what I will call "thinking believers" would call for objective evidence. If something is against CI's interpretation of God's moral law, it is indeed self-evidently wrong and requires no further support from evidence. We notice the same unsupported assertions from Catholic Archbishops who have asserted the harm that civil gay marriage will cause to society.

A nation under the law according to the CI would, in my humble opinion, be a scary place to live for anyone of a dissenting nature.

The Baptist Union


The Basis of the Baptist Union is:

1.  That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.

[…]


The authority of the Bible: The Bible is described as the 'Word of God' because Baptists believe that its writers were inspired by God's Spirit. As such, it has authority to guide both what we believe and how we live our lives.

Religious Freedom: Religious freedom for all has always been a keystone of Baptist understanding. Acceptance of differences of outlook and diversity of practice is encouraged within Baptist churches, as well as in our wider world.

Comment
The difference is very clear. We follow a living Lord as our supreme authority, not a dead and dogmatic letter. The 'Word of God' is instead described as a "guide." By implication it is therefore open to interpretation, but not on the basis of human logic and reason but through the example of Jesus Christ as revealed in its pages. This is not circular logic, but a matter of emphasis, priority and reading the direction of scripture and the development of God's message in a particular context.

Our notion of religious freedom is not hedged around with exceptions. This is to be expected of a denomination born out of dissension and persecution. It is possible to defend the rights of people who believe differently from us while maintaining our own integrity.

Baptist Union Faith & Unity department
Faith & Unity have not produced anything to my knowledge on civil gay marriage. However, there was a government consultation on whether or not to allow religious establishments to administer civil partnerships, and F&U did respond to that. See link at the bottom of this page, http://www.baptist.org.uk/social-and-political-issues.html.

In the summary comments we find the following assertions:

As Baptists we have a fundamental commitment to religious freedom. We therefore give a general welcome to the proposals contained in this consultation document for two reasons:

a) The proposals give freedom to faith groups to register civil partnerships on religious premises if they wish to do so. We are aware that certain religious traditions do want to be able to carry out such ceremonies, and we believe they should have the right to do so.

b) The proposals give freedom to faith groups to refuse to register civil partnerships on their premises if they so wish. This freedom to withhold consent without fear of legal action is just as important, and one we believe should be consistently upheld.

In answer to the question: "Do you agree with our proposals for enabling faith groups to decide who should be able to register civil partnerships of their premises?"

"We believe the commitment to religious freedom expressed in the proposals is of fundamental importance. No faith group should be obliged to register civil partnerships on their premises. Further, they must be free to decide who to register.

"Any registration will almost certainly take place within the context of an act of worship, and faith communities will want to be assured that those participating have a commitment to, and understanding of, the significance of such worship. Thus, the freedom to refuse to register must be clearly protected, as it is already for marriages."

Furthermore in answering whether or not it agrees with the ban on religious elements to a civil partnership ceremony, the following answer is given:

"Whilst we understand that Section 202 of the Act does not remove the prohibition on an act of worship during registration of a civil partnership, the maintenance of such a rigid ban as is suggested in the proposals appears to us strange and contradictory. The reason for allowing religious premises to be used for registering civil partnerships is to enable a faith commitment to be reflected in the ceremony that takes place. Thus, while it may be appropriate to keep the actual act of registration free from any religious content, the strict lines of delineation suggested appear to us to be at odds with the general intentions behind these proposals.

"We see no reason why the regulations should not show greater flexibility, allowing worship to be the overall context instead of a separate act following after registration."

On whether religious groups are sufficiently protected from litigation:

"This is a matter of major concern to faith communities, and it is vital that every protection is offered to those faith groups and ministers who do not want to register civil partnerships. There must be no possibility of legal action against someone who refuses to participate in such ceremonies.

"The proposals are very clear on this matter. However, the Impact Assessment Annex 3 does note the small risk of legal action (p78). We would want government to do everything possible to eliminate such risks."

Comment
This reply to the previous consultation seems to me a good example of the defence of true religious freedom – persuasively arguing for religious groups to be allowed to administer civil partnerships while equally strongly arguing that there must be no compulsion.

There is no hint of moralising, or of attempting to limit other people's freedoms. This is a principled response against which it would be difficult for non-faith groups to object.

Clearly it does not address the issue of same-sex marriage, but it does seem to indicate the spirit in which the BU might approach this question.

I would suggest this is the spirit that we should be seeking to encourage in the Baptist churches.

[That is where my submission ended. However, since writing, the Faith & Unity Department has come out with a short statement about civil gay marriage, in the following terms:

"We believe that the appropriate place for debate to take place is in the local church and we encourage churches to make their own response to this consultation."



Overall comment (not included in original submission)
In my opinion the whole issue of gay marriage is a harmful distraction. What the government proposes is supremely irrelevant to religious organisations that do not have designs on power or of inflicting their practices on others.

The Coalition for Marriage has every right in a democratic country to present its wares and make its arguments. It is, and should not be, of any concern to us, unless we take the view that by its antagonism of non-believers it is an obstacle to the Gospel and should be refuted. In my opinion it should be ignored and only openly refuted if it becomes an issue, but it has no place in the church.

The Christian Institute is a parody of its own name. It has fallen into the same trap as the Pharisees of Jesus' day, that technical obedience to the law is the way to appease God, to maintain the status quo (the Christendom settlement) and to prevent God from smiting the nation. It is in effect giving in to the devil, by admitting that as we cannot persuade people of the efficacy of the Gospel we will make them on pain of punishment obey "God's" law anyway.

CI interests itself in many different issues on which reasonable believers may differ. However, its dogmatic and autocratic tone and objectives should be kept out of the church. Under the guise of pseudo-Christian beliefs it peddles something very different from the Gospel and Christ's invitation to "follow me."

We can only ever legislate for the appearance of Godliness. God himself legislated for righteousness in the Old Covenant and we know how that turned out. God has offered a new way through Christ of freedom from the law, because as believers we don't need the law since it is written on our hearts. We offer something that intrinsically cannot be legislated – neither for nor against.

Nevertheless, the lure of legalism is strong, and many of the issues the CI presents will be very attractive. Not least it lends its support to the B&B owners who are subject to litigation from the gay patrons they refused to rent a double room to. Sadly some people will wholeheartedly support the notion of legislating for morality, whether the subject matter affects them personally or not and irrespective of if there is any objective evidence of harm.

My fear is that if material like this takes root in the church it will be seen as sinful, un-Godly and anti-Christian to subsequently remove it. That battle would be much harder than nipping it in the bud now.

The antidote that I suggest is to counter with teaching on freedom, of living as dissenters in a secular world, that showing compassion to people who are different is a Christ-like thing to do, and to recognise that the decision to follow Christ is a genuine choice, can only be a genuine choice, and that to legislate for some notion of Christian morality, and to support those who are trying, would present a mammoth obstacle to the exercise of that choice.

The final point that I will make is that the marriage and divorce laws are all about regulating relationships and protecting weaker parties – mostly when things go wrong. So we find spouses and children protected during divorce proceedings, and much clearer and more equitable rules for splitting property and resources when these relationships end than with informal partnerships. We also find that spouses have "rights to know" and be consulted in severe health matters, and the whole panoply of responsibilities that come with being next of kin.

Very few of those issues actually strengthen the institution of marriage in terms of the vows made to each other, but they do make it a desirable state in a fallen world where relationships sometimes don't prevail, precisely because the separation and aftermath have some regulation to them.

But these are technical issues, and do not speak to the morals of the situation. If the churches truly wanted to be radical, they would campaign for civil partnership rights for all, gay or straight, so that anyone could avail themselves of the legal protections, and re-appropriate marriage as a wholly religious institution that could be as different across the faiths and denominations as adherents wished them to be – without affecting the civil nature of the legal rights and responsibilities that accrue to civil partners.

That would be a truly dissenting position to take, and would fit with our concepts of religious freedom and baptism only of confessing believers.

No comments:

Post a Comment