Anglican Mainstream

Amendments to be moved in committee

After Clause 1

LORD DEAR

Insert the following new Clause—

“Protecting belief in traditional marriage: public authorities

(1) A public authority, or any person exercising a public function, shall have regard to the following—

(a) that prior to the coming into force of this Act, marriage was the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all
others (“traditional marriage”);

(b) that belief in traditional marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society;

(c) that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage.

(2) In this section, a public authority is a person who is specified in Schedule19 to the Equality Act 2010, and a public function is a function that is a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998

Read here

By Canon Chris Sugden, Church of England

"Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales. It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape.

The concerns of many in the Church, and in the other denominations and faiths, about the wisdom of such a move have been expressed clearly and consistently in the Parliamentary debate. For the Bishops the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith, important though it is to get that right, not least where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned. The Bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children. If this Bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace.

Our focus during Committee and Report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement."

Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester
Convenor of the Lords Spiritual

By Robert Oscar Lopez, American Thinker

People who worry about the effects of "undefining" marriage to satisfy the LGBT movement must spend a little time thinking about how to deal with the question below:
 
"How dare you conspire with homophobes?"
 
The sentence above is thrown at me quite often. Usually it comes from people who want gay marriage legalized but who cannot respond to my complex arguments in favor of civil unions and against gay marriage. (Many of these arguments are available here.)
 
My arguments address (1) the long-term impact of same-sex parenting on childrenand (2) the global impact of replacing male-female lovemaking with commercial contracts based on surrogacy, insemination, and adoption on demand.
 
Numbers 1 and 2 above are tough issues to dismiss glibly or paper over with platitudes. So the most effective retort against me is "how dare you conspire with homophobes?," as if the social context of the argument is all that counts, and the content of the debate doesn't matter.
 
Over the last three weeks, I've gotten slammed with guilt-by-association arguments.

Read here 

by Mark Regnerus, Public Discourse

The sexual permissiveness of men will emerge a winner in the contest of ideas as same-sex marital norms begin to shape the larger institution of marriage.

By Peter Ould

Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales.

 

It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape.

From The Christian Institute

A Tory MP wants David Cameron ousted as party leader because he “marched us on to the guns” over gay marriage.

Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire, says the issue has driven voters into the arms of UKIP.

He said: “I believe the Prime Minister has blundered by forcing through the gay marriage vote. 

“This was something we did not have to do. The PM marched us on to the guns over this and it has cost us a lot of support.”

By pushing ahead with issues like gay marriage, “Mr Cameron has fuelled the rise of UKIP. We have created our own nemesis,” he said.

Mr Bridgen has signed a letter calling for a vote of no confidence in Mr Cameron’s leadership of the Conservative Party.

Read here

Amendments to be moved in Committee

Read here

By Tom Geoghegan, BBC News

After France's first same-sex marriage, and a vote in the UK Parliament which puts England and Wales on course for gay weddings next summer, two US Supreme Court rulings expected soon could hasten the advance of same-sex marriage across the Atlantic. But some gay people remain opposed. Why?

"It's demonstrably not the same as heterosexual marriage – the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn't the same."

Jonathan Soroff lives in liberal Massachusetts with his male partner, Sam. He doesn't fit the common stereotype of an opponent of gay marriage.

But like half of his friends, he does not believe that couples of the same gender should marry.

"We're not going to procreate as a couple and while the desire to demonstrate commitment might be laudable, the religious traditions that have accommodated same-sex couples have had to do some fairly major contortions," says Soroff.

Until the federal government recognises and codifies the same rights for same-sex couples as straight ones, equality is the goal so why get hung up on a word, he asks.

"I'm not going to walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn wearing white in a church and throw a bouquet and do the first dance," adds Soroff, columnist for the Improper Boston.

"I've been to some lovely gay weddings but aping the traditional heterosexual wedding is weird and I don't understand why anyone wants to do that.

Read here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

Nine Church of England Bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, this week voted for Lord Dear’s amendment attempting to derail the government’s Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. Five abstained. Ten chose not to attend. The amendment was passed by a 390-148 majority.

From Christian Concern

The Church of England has announced that it will no longer fight the same sex 'marriage' Bill.
 
The statement was made by the Bishop of Leicester, who is the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual.

You can read the full statement here >
or the report in the Telegraph here >

This effectively signals the end of the Church of England's official opposition to the Bill.

Archbishop of Canterbury's speech
 
Despite voting against the Bill (by voting for Lord Dear's "fatal motion") the Archbishop's position was unclear until he made his speech in the House of Lords. However, in his speech the Archbishop referred to "the strong and welcome contribution by the Bishop of Salisbury." This is a reference to the Bishop of Salisbury's letter to Lord Alli, in which he explains why he is sympathetic to "equal marriage." (See the letter here.)

It is extremely disappointing that Archbishop Welby commended him for this contribution rather than rebuking him for advocating a position contrary to Scripture and the Church's teaching.

The Archbishop also approved of the idea of same sex relationships in his speech, contrary to the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. He said: "It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage".

A full transcript of the Archbishop's speech is available here >

Read the rest of this entry »

By John Turnbull, New Directions

This is a popular, readable and uncompromising consideration of the government’s equal-marriage legislation from a sound Evangelical perspective: traditional teaching on marriage coupled with a traditional critique of this innovation in social engineering.

Now, there are different intellectual cultures within Christianity and even within Anglicanism, some more popular and amenable than others. The one which often seems the most alien to, let us say, Oxbridge educated Anglo-Catholics, is the conservative Evangelical. Good and faithful Christians, certainly; but their manner of argument can seem as from a different planet.

There is their untrammelled love of quotation. Not only the Bible, but any and every source is mined for information, support and corroboration, or failing that supposition. And yet despite using this approach from the start, Harris is wonderfully sane and sensible, and even though his form of argument is so weird (to the non-Evangelical) one cannot help warming to him. As it happened, at much the same time, I read an article by Dr Jane Shaw, Oxford academic and Anglican cleric, on the same subject, from the opposite perspective. The forms of her writing and the progress of her argument were culturally entirely to my taste and experience.

So it was something of a surprise, and a salutary revelation, that I realized I was far more embarrassed by the learned Dean of Grace Cathedral than by the slightly naive but goodhearted Member of Mainstream. If that arrogant disparaging of history is Anglican, then I want nothing to do with it.

Read the rest of this entry »

J. Budziszewski

I propose to defend the traditional understanding of marriage, but let me be clear from the outset what kind of defense this will be. I don’t know if I can persuade you not to redefine marriage. Probably not. What I can do is point out that the redefinition of marriage would not achieve what its advo­cates think it would.

To be helpful, words must square with things. Things do not change natures just because we change the words by which we refer to them. We might decide to call dogs “cats,” but we would not thereby succeed in turn­ing dogs into cats, because dogs and cats are different kinds of realities. In the same way, we might decide to call same-sex liaisons “marriages,” but we would not thereby succeed in turning these liaisons into marriages because they too are different kinds of realities.

You might think that if what I say is true, and the characteristics of things are not changed by the words that we use for them, then it makes no difference what words we use for them. Not so. It does make a difference. Although we cannot change dogs into cats, we can confuse ourselves by calling dogs cats. In the same way, although we cannot change same-sex liaisons into marriages, we can confuse ourselves by calling them marriages. Since marriage is not just any sort of reality, but a reality into which human persons voluntarily enter, the right ordering of which is crucial to their hap­piness in this life, it is important that we not be confused —that we under­stand what kind of reality it is that we are entering so that we can care for it properly. Otherwise we will dissipate ourselves in futility and vexation, wondering why nothing hangs together.

The traditional Christian understanding of marriage is:

Read here

by Edward Malnick, Telegraph

Buckingham Palace has been caught up in a row over plans by MPs to allow same-sex weddings in Parliament.

It is being consulted after the first challenge to the Church of England’s exemption from having to carry out the ceremonies was brought by a group of MPs.

In a highly symbolic move they are demanding that Parliament’s chapel be used for gay marriages.

The demand has the support of John Bercow, the Speaker, putting him in opposition to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, who is being kept informed of the row by parliamentary officials.

The Archbishop, who warned last week that allowing gay couples to marry would damage the fabric of society, is said to understand the “potential for the issue to develop and escalate”.

The Telegraph has obtained correspondence which shows that the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, is also being consulted over the possibility of permitting same-sex marriages in St Mary Undercroft, the Anglican chapel in the Palace of Westminster.

Such a move would be highly controversial because the Church of England will be exempt from the new gay marriage legislation, with such weddings not permitted on its properties.

Allowing them to take place in the chapel would require its ties to the Church to be cut, but because the chapel is under the direct authority of the Queen, the issue now involves Buckingham Palace.

Read here

By Douglas Farrow, Touchstone

Why fight same-sex marriage? Even in America, where the outcome is not yet decided, there appear to be good reasons not to. The optics are poor and the mandate seems uncertain. Prospects for victory appear slim. Resources that might be reserved for more important fronts—abortion, for example—are squandered in defense of an institution to which our modern urban society is no longer committed. Industrial economies, reprogenetic technologies, and new ideas of autonomy—not to speak of new moralities—have called into question many of the assumptions on which that institution has always been based.

Moreover, it is perfectly plain to anyone following the fight closely that same-sex marriage is merely a proximate goal—something to be abandoned as quickly as it was invented, when its work is done. Can it really be worth fighting then?

The answer is yes, for reasons that become clear when we have taken account of the work it is meant to do. And what is that work? Positively, to normalize homosexual relationships. Negatively, to de-normalize heterosexual monogamy. (Those who claim that they want homosexual relationships to be more like monogamous heterosexual relationships may or may not be sincere, but they represent no significant constituency.)

Read here

From The Christian Institute

Lessons on gay marriage and other same-sex relationships should be compulsory in schools, according to an amendment tabled by Labour.

The party is demanding changes to the Children and Families Bill, which would make lessons on same-sex relationships mandatory.

The amendment, due to be voted on next Tuesday, would also make issues such as consent, equality and abuse a compulsory part of the national curriculum. 

Many are concerned about the damaging effects legalising gay marriage could have on civil liberties.

Leading human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill QC wrote that parents would have no right to insist their children are withdrawn from school lessons across the curriculum that approve of same-sex marriage.

He also said teachers could be forced out of their jobs if they fail to endorse gay marriage in the classroom.
 
A poll for the Coalition for Marriage showed that more than 40,000 teachers say they will probably refuse to teach about “the importance of” same-sex marriage.

Read here

From The Christian Institute

David Cameron is losing the support of voters and grassroots members over controversial issues like same-sex marriage, according to new research.

One poll, from Tory Peer Lord Ashcroft, showed only 29 per cent of voters believe the Conservatives will win the next election, compared with 32 per cent in January.

He said the poll showed “the price we have paid for spending half a year talking amongst ourselves” – on issues like same-sex marriage.
 
Lord Ashcroft’s survey shows the issue is a vote loser for the Tories, with 15 per cent saying they’re less likely to vote for a party that legalises gay marriage.

Only 12 per cent of people say they are more likely to vote for such a party. One third of people said they favour gay marriage, but it wouldn’t affect their vote.

And an ITV News survey revealed that nearly three quarters of local Conservative associations have lost members, with over half of them saying it is because of gay marriage.

Read here

From EA

On Tuesday evening, the House of Lords decisively voted to allow the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill to move forward to its next stage. This has come as a surprise to many and as a disappointment to millions of Christians and members of other faith groups who supported Lord Dear's motion to oppose giving the Bill a Second Reading. That motion was defeated by 390 votes to 148.

The significant margin of defeat was largely due to unofficial whipping of Labour peers (although the Bill was supposed to have been a freedom of conscience matter), while many peers felt it was inappropriate to defy established convention not to oppose government bills at second reading stage, preferring to subject the Bill to close scrutiny during its remaining stages.

[...] Evangelical Alliance director of advocacy Dr Dave Landrum said: "Millions of people have deep ongoing concerns about this Bill. Sadly, these concerns have been largely ignored. The government is seeking to railroad this Bill through by abusing and bypassing democratic processes.

"However, opposition to these proposals will not diminish in the approach to the general election in 2015 where marriage is sure to feature as a prominent issue. Marriage as we know it, and as God intended it, must be protected. Our commitment to future generations compels us speak and act to support it. So that's what we will continue to do."

The Alliance will shortly be producing detailed briefing material on this issue for each nation of the UK.

Read here

From NOM

The following speech was given by Ludovine de la Rochère, president of La Manif Pour Tous, the movement opposed to France’s recently passed same-sex marriage law. This speech was delivered at a mass rally on May 26, 2013—France’s Mother’s Day—before hundreds of thousands of supporters.

Here are some highlights but we urge you to read the whole speech here at First Things!

"…We are here, all so numerous, because our fundamental and universal values unite us.
 
The truth is that we do not have the same notion of equality as our opponents do. Our belief, held by most of the country, rests first on the equality of children, equality before the right to have a father and mother, that is to say, an origin and real heritage, rather than a false heritage. Based on that we have come together as atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, right, left, straight, gay. For all, the truth that we owe to the child is sacred. We do not want children’s lives to be woven around lies, nor do we want gender studies ideology to triumph.

Then, as our opponents do not understand us, they refuse to debate us, they mock us, and they libel us.

But this time, it is you who are facing the wind, at the failure of the meaning of history. For we do not search for a false sense of History; rather, we shall write it!

All the generations are here, and among them, fathers and mothers and youths, each one keeping watch over us, over all of France, in silence, peaceful.

Yes, we turn now to face the future: yes, we have faith in the future; yes, we build the future and that is why we protest. We want a better world, rather than a brave new world.

What have we discovered along this long road? We are not alone! We are no longer alone, isolated, considered old fuddy duddies, losers, or conservatives—rather, the others will be revealed as those who live outside of reality.

Yes, France has awoken!"
 

From The Church of England website

"Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales. It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape.

The concerns of many in the Church, and in the other denominations and faiths, about the wisdom of such a move have been expressed clearly and consistently in the Parliamentary debate. For the Bishops the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith, important though it is to get that right, not least where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned. The Bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children. If this Bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace.

Our focus during Committee and Report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement."

Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester
Convenor of the Lords Spiritual

By Andrew Lilico, courtesy of Cranmer

Here is a sine qua non for a religion’s being de facto the state religion: conduct in accordance with the orthodox requirements of that religion must be at the very least presumed legal. For example, Roman Catholicism could not truly be the state religion if it were illegal to teach your children the doctrine of transubstantiation, or illegal to attend confession. Sunni Islam could not be the state religion if it were legally mandatory to worship the King as a god, or mandatory for all schoolchildren to submit drawings of Mohammed in an annual art competition. We could perhaps imagine some conduct required by the state religion to be accidentally prohibited by law, but when that was pointed out the law would have to be changed so that that conduct became permitted or the requirements of the state religion would have to be changed so that conduct was not required — otherwise there would be no content to the claim that this religion was actually the state religion.

Here is a fact: conduct in accordance with the orthodox requirements of Anglican Christianity is not presumed legal. That is the clear and explicit statement in a number of recent legal cases. I shall quote you from the judges statements in two such cases. First, consider McFarlane vs Relate Avon Limited (Case No: A2/2009/2733 in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 29/04/2010). In his judgement, Lord Justice Laws stated (paragraph 23ff):

…the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled…The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified…The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other…So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials.

To assure you that this is not simply the eccentric view of one isolated judge, here is another case: Hall & Preddy vs Bull & Bull (Case No 9BS02095 & 9BS02096 in the Bristol County Court, 18/01/2011). The judgement stated (paragraph 8ff):

Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judaeo- Christian position.

The judge went on to observe that the conduct under question in the case arose because of what the defendants understood to be the conduct required of Christians:

I have no doubt, and the point was not seriously pursued by the claimants, that the defendants genuinely hold a perfectly orthodox Christian belief…

I want to emphasize here that the key point at issue is not whether this or that specific conduct should or should not be legal. The key point is whether, as a matter of law, conduct which the judges accept to be in accordance with the requirements of Christianity (and Anglicanism in particular) is to be presumed legal. The judges are absolutely clear and explicit that that is not so.

Read here