Bishops facing real issues
Andrew Carey Lambeth Notes
Since the debacle of Civil Partnerships I must confess to some doubts about the place of Bishops in the House of Lords.
You will recall that eight bishops (Chelmsford, Manchester, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, St Albans, St Eds & Ips and Truro) voted in favour of the Bill while only two bishops voted against (Chester and Southwell). In recent times they have slightly redeemed themselves with a spirited defence of religious freedom by defeating the government on the Equality Bill, but such was the seriousness of the Civil Partnerships legislation that it is not easy to forget.
Three of those bishops who voted in favour came back again like bad pennies with a letter to The Times protesting this time that the Civil Partnership Act had not gone far enough in creating a new category of civil marriage. They now want civil partnerships to have the character of religious marriage, according to the various letter writers. They complain that the original Act had prohibited civil partnerships from being registered in religious premises. Now they want this overturned for uber-liber- al Jewish and Christian bodies, effectively making civil partnerships undistinguishable from marriage.
You will recall of course that one of the signatories the former Bishop of Chelmsford, John Gladwin, acted as a cheerleader for Civil Partnerships back in 2004 and seemed to pop up as a government spokesperson reassuring his fellow peers and the General Synod about the innocent intentions of the Bill. In fact the Government’s spokesperson, Baroness Scotland, was thrilled by his support, “The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is absolutely right when he says that there is a clear distinction between these provisions and those of marriage. Marriage is not affected in any way by the Bill.”
With the support of the ‘lead’ bishop on Civil Partnerships, the government had Episcopal approval and could announce in a later press release that ‘wedding bells’ would ring forth at the first wave of civil partnerships.
Of course, the government was more than happy to promise the Church of England that it wouldn’t permit marriage and civil partnerships to be confused. It did so by clearly removing any religious recognition for such ceremonies. But even this was a fudge and a piece of confusion because it was clear that civil partnerships are equivalent to non-religious civil marriage in this respect. Yet supporters of civil partnerships, including those bishops who were so clear that this was a completely different thing, want civil partnerships to be the same as religious marriages in all but name.
Furthermore, it is aimed at a sweeping redefinition of marriage. Let us not forget that David Cameron referred to Civil Partnerships as ‘marriage’ in a recent speech. There is now a cross- party consensus on the most significant social engineering exercise we’re ever likely to see. Civil Partnerships have changed everything but we haven’t realised it yet.
Even in the Church of England the advent and acceptance of civil partners among the clergy, and the extension of pension provisions beyond the statutory limit, have bypassed any proper theolog- ical debate and exploration of these issues. The State has presented the Church with a fait accompli and now says, ‘Deal with it’.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
