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