Anglican Mainstream

By Andrew Carey, CEN

The headlines have said it all over the past few weeks as speculation has mounted about the government’s plans for allowing civil partnerships to be conducted in places of worship.

They have almost universally trumpeted the line ‘Gays to be given the right to marry in church’. It is not only in the mind of the headline writers, but for the vast majority of people there is no distinction between a civil partnership and a marriage. That is why it will ultimately be impossible to halt a gay rights juggernaut heading towards the entire redefinition of marriage. And this is to the ultimate detriment of one of mankind’s oldest institutions.

How has it happened so quickly? Only a decade ago it could not even have been envisaged that the ground would shift so far. The fact is that under the past two governments the equal opportunities agenda has been a flag of convenience rather than principle. New Labour were able to appease their leftwing by throwing in a number of pieces of progressive legislation. For David Cameron it is a means of ‘decontaminating’ the ‘nasty’ Tory brand and allowing Liberal Democrats to tick against their own manifesto commitments.

There is no real popular groundswell of opinion driving these developments. In fact, most people seem to be either unconcerned or quietly bemoan ‘political correctness gone mad’.

When legislation creating civil partnerships was passing through Parliament the government was at pains to give reassurances that these were distinct from marriage. They undoubtedly righted an injustice that many dependent couples, not married, could face great hardship when partners died or were ill. Yet because they were limited to same-sex partners, rather than maiden aunts and siblings, they were a nod in the direction of a quasi-homosexual marriage. This was confirmed later when a Home Office press release, announcing the date on which the legislation would become law, stated that wedding bells would be ringing for
same-sex couples.

And now by allowing religious elements to be incorporated into civil partnerships in contrast it is clear that the government is pushing these civil partnerships to their limits as a form of marriage between homosexuals. And there is absolutely no doubt that the remaining distinctions between civil partnerships and matrimony, despite the usual empty government reassurances, will be tested in the years ahead. Firstly, when the dust has settled a legal test case will be brought against a church which has opted out of allowing a gay couple to use their premises for a civil partnership.

But whether or not such a case wins or loses, the pressure is already building for gay civil marriage, which will eventually become gay religious marriage. And before we know it, what was permissive will become coercive and compulsory.

Who defines marriage?

One of the problems we rub up against in the debate on marriage is who gets to define it?

While most people can agree that historically it is ordinarily a relationship between a man and a woman for the upbringing of children, we are constantly being told that marriage has come in many forms over centuries and millennia and that if it has changed in the past, why can’t it change now?

Furthermore, in a democratic society, surely it is a matter of a democratic vote as to how we define any institution?

Christians will often respond that it is a uniquely God-given institution blessed by God, or that it is a uniquely human institution blessed by God, or that it is both. Therefore it cannot be changed.

This is an argument unlikely to appeal outside the church. Nevertheless, aspects of the theological vision of marriage, and the tradition which has surrounded it for centuries, are communicable to an unchurched society.

The essential nature of marriage as complementary union of a man and a woman, and the stable nature of marriage for children remain appealing. The need for both a mother and a father still strikes most people as elementary common sense. So all is not lost.

The Church must argue passionately and compassionately for the ideal of marriage. It is good for the whole of society,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.