Anglican Mainstream

by Benjamin L Smith, First Things

[...]  For this reason, the promulgation of law can only be justified by grave public necessity. Again, the heterosexual form of marriage passes this test, but there is no grave public necessity meriting the establishment of legally binding homosexual marriage contracts. Homosexual unions, by definition, are intrinsically incapable of producing children. The establishment of gay marriage only advances the private emotional interests of homosexual couples, and private interests do not justify the force of law.

It may be argued that failing to establish homosexual marriage contracts subverts equal protection under the law, but this kind of objection only evinces confusion. Homosexual advocates insist that they must have access to marriage contracts, but this is this already the case. There is no law against homosexual persons contracting heterosexual marriages. The equal protection of the law is only subverted when the same thing is denied to diverse groups only because of their group definition. But heterosexual marriage is not denied to homosexual persons.

This reveals that gay marriage is not the equalizing extension of an already existing contract, but the establishment of a new kind of contract. This pushes the issue back to the question of whether there is a grave and necessary public advantage in promulgating the new institution of gay marriage. The answer must be no.

Finally, it is important to be clear about what I have and have not argued. I have proposed no general theory regarding the nature of marriage or sexuality; nor developed any moral critique of homosexuality or heterosexuality. My argument is based solely on the nature and function of law and the value of self-government. Because law is coercive it may only be promulgated for the sake of grave public necessity. Gay marriage only promotes a private interest and therefore does not justify the force of law.

Read here

From the Evangelical Alliance

By Graeme Paton, Telegraph

Teachers who refuse to endorse gay marriage in the classroom could face the sack under controversial Government reforms, a legal expert has warned.

Schools will be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff that wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings, it is claimed.

Aidan O’Neill, a senior QC and expert on religious freedom and human rights, also warned that parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will have no right to withdraw their child from lessons.

In a report, he said that any decision to redefine marriage would have far-reaching consequences for schools, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.

The most serious impact is likely to be felt in the church where vicars and priests conducting religious marriage ceremonies could be taken to court for refusing to carry out a gay wedding, he said.

The conclusions – in legal advice commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage – comes amid continuing fall-out over Government plans to tear up the centuries-old law on marriage.

Ministers launched a consultation on proposals to legalise homosexual weddings earlier this year. David Cameron has said he is committed to pushing through the change by 2015.

Read here

From Christian Today

The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland has hit out at the Scottish Government for pushing ahead with plans to legalise gay marriage despite a public consultation which found that 60 per cent of Scots were opposed to the move.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Cardinal Keith O’Brien said that although the Church’s view on the issue had been “ridiculed or ignored”, there was increasing evidence to justify its concerns.

The Church has been outspoken in its criticism of the plans, warning that the institution of marriage will be eroded and that churches could face lawsuits if they refuse to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies.

He pointed to reports from Brazil of a civil partnership between three people that was officially recognised in the state of Sao Paolo.

Although the Scottish Government has promised that churches will not be forced to host gay marriage ceremonies, Cardinal O’Brien dismissed the pledge as an “empty phrase”.

He pointed to the example of Denmark, where the Danish Parliament voted earlier in the summer to force churches in the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies inside their sanctuaries. The law came into force in June, overturning the previous decision to allow churches to opt out.

Read here

From The Christian Institute

A group of protestors gathered outside Parliament today to demand more free speech by reforming Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

They say the law is being widely misused by police officers to interfere with freedom of expression, and it should be amended.

The Government has promised to look at the issue, but has been accused of dragging its feet.

Section 5 outlaws, amongst other things, “insulting” words or behaviour that might cause someone distress.

But the protestors say the word “insulting” has a very low threshold and is too easily breached. They want the word “insulting” removed from Section 5.

That would still leave the police with powers to tackle abusive and threatening words or behaviour. And police also have other powers to deal with disorder.

Read here

Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, Director of Mission and Public Affairs of the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England

…The key point in our [Church of England] submission on same sex marriage is that the virtues of faithful homosexual relationships cannot embrace everything that is good about heterosexual marriage. There is an inescapable difference and complementarity between men and women that allows procreation to be an important component of a marriage between a man and a woman. Yes, of course many marriages are childless, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that a flourishing society needs some sort of social institution that celebrates and encourages having children and their upbringing in a family with their biological parents wherever possible. Our concern is emphatically not to say that same-sex relationships are wicked, but to ask what sort of a society we would have if the social meaning of marriage was stripped of any expectation at all that it involved having children. You don’t have to agree with our analysis of this, but many would surely agree that it is a question worth asking.

Unfortunately, the Coalition’s consultation on Equal Marriage is based on a profound ignorance of the current laws about marriage and, to be blunt, is a dog’s breakfast of erroneous assumptions and begged questions. The mistaken assumption that “religious marriage” and “civil marriage” are two different things in law is only the most egregious example of the GEO document’s failings. These points have nothing to do with Christian approaches to sexuality, but the church had no option but to oppose a proposal which would be based on such an utter misreading of the law and of the Church of England’s present role as a “purveyor of weddings to the nation”.

…..There’s a profound debate going on in the CofE about ethics and sexuality, and our submission on same-sex marriage does not foreclose on that debate. The issue of same-sex marriage raises wider questions about the nature of a good society, and in particular about how far societies need to balance the common good against individual freedoms. The Church of England was not likely to rewrite the law of marriage because David Cameron wanted to detoxify the Conservative Party or because Lynne Featherstone put out a confused and misleading consultation paper. But we would hope that friends in all the parties…might want to be part of a mutually respectful debate about the common institutions which might make for a better society.

Read here

From Press TV

A new survey has found that almost three fifths of British churchgoers, 58 percent, will not vote for Prime Minister David Cameron at the next general election over his plans to legalise gay marriage.
 
The poll commissioned by campaigners Coalition for Marriage (C4M) also found that about two thirds, 63 percent, of churchgoers believe the Prime Minister was “intolerant” when it came to opposition to his plans.

"This is yet another blow for these ill-thought-out and undemocratic proposals. Churchgoers simply don't believe the assurances from the government that these changes will not be forced on churches”, said C4M campaign director Colin Hart.

"The high levels of concern reflect those in the wider population”, added Colin Hart.

"This change is being pushed for by a tiny number of people. Only a minority of gay people believes that these plans are a priority”, said C4M campaign director.

"It also reveals high levels of scepticism amongst churchgoers, about Mr Cameron's motives."

Read here

By Michael Brown, Townhall.com

The Coalition for Equal Marriage (not to be confused with the Coalition for Marriage!) is keeping tally on MPs' support of their stance. At present it appears that there are over 253 in favour of gay marriage and only 62 opposed. These figures are based upon letters to constituents, news articles, tweets and blog posts demonstrating each MP's individual stance.

Although nearly 346 MPs are undecided or neutral, this is a very worrying figure.

We urge our readers to contact their MPs urgently. We are certain many MPs will not have thought this issue through, especially if they don't consider it to be particularly important. We must impress upon them that it is extremely important, both for people of faith and the nation's children.

You can see whether your MP is in favour, opposed or undecided on the Coalition for Equal Marriage website here.

AM's Dr Lisa Nolland has already written to her MP, and her letter can be read here. It is crucial that MPs should be informed about these deeply damaging threats to our children. Printouts of the links' unsavoury contents would reinforce the concerns – we feel all MPs should see these, and be asked if they think they are suitable for children to see. (Bear in mind that this is not something which might possibly happen at some unspecified time in the future – it is actually happening NOW, and will become far more widespread if gay marriage is made legal.)

Stonewall has estimated that the cost of gay marriage will be £5 billion – we feel the actual cost could be considerably higher once the fallout from gay marriage begins. The human cost, too, with young people experimenting with highly dangerous and destructive sexual practices, apparently approved by the state, could be considerable. Have MPs considered this?

Following on from Dr Nolland's letter two important studies have emerged – one on the importance of fathers to families and the other on the poorer outcomes for children of same-sex couples. Gay marriage will make it extremely likely that same-sex couples will have easier access to children, either via adoption or medical intervention, and these factors should be pointed out to MPs. In addition, homosexual support for gay marriage is at best lukewarm.

Another point which could be made is the appalling treatment of principled opponents of gay marriage in countries where it is already legal, such as parts of Canada.

In short, we should be asking gay marriage supporting MPs to explain to us – in the light of all this evidence – why they think it is a good idea, and convincing the undecided or neutral that it is not! We feel that these issues have not been covered in the mainstream media, and it is very likely that MPs are simply not aware of them, or have not given them much thought among the other pressures they have. Please contact your MP as soon as possible via this link, or by letter to The House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA – or better still, make an appointment!

UPDATE: MPs should also be told about the climate of fear being created in Quebec, where gay marriage was legalised in 2004, following the launch of a government funded 'Register of Homophobic Acts'.

Included in the definition of actions classified as “homophobic” and deemed worthy of reporting to the registry are: “any negative word or act toward a homosexual or homosexuality in general: physical abuse, verbal abuse, intimidation, harassment, offensive graffiti, abuse, injurious mockery, inappropriate media coverage and discrimination.”

We are assuming that 'negative words or acts' include passages of scripture, and denial of homosexual sex education for children. Can we be assured that the same thing will not happen in the UK?

By Julian Mann, Cranmer's Curate

The news that the established church in Denmark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, is now required by law to conduct same-sex marriage services is ominous for the Church of England. If UK government plans to redefine marriage in law come to fruition in England and Wales, a Danish model imposed on the national Church would seem an inevitable outcome.

However, there is a significant difference between the status of Danish clergy and their Church of England counterparts.

According to the website of the Lutheran Church of Denmark, its pastors are employed by the government's Ministry for Ecclesiastical Affairs.

Their status as government employees thus makes them uniquely vulnerable to a legalised same-sex marriage regime. By God's grace, British clergy in the established churches – the Church of England and the Church of Scotland – are not on the government pay-roll. So, the application of the Danish same-sex marriage regime to the British national churches is not as straightforward as might appear.

Read here

By James S Cole, MercatorNet

It does not bode well for the rule of law when the standards for determining whether a statute is constitutional change from case to case. Justices Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor of the US Supreme Court once wrote, “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” (This line opened a plurality opinion in which they refused to overrule Roe v. Wade because, they said, for 19 years women had organized their lives around Roe. Why the babies that were aborted and would in the future be aborted could not be given a chance to organize their lives around the opposite outcome was not addressed.)

by Norman Wells, Family Education Trust

Marriage is defined in law as ‘the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’. Defined in this way, marriage is an institution which has benefited couples, children and communities for centuries. It takes a man and a woman to produce a child and all the available evidence confirms that children tend to do better in terms of health, education and social development when they are raised by their natural parents in the context of a married relationship.

Instead of coming clean and admitting that the government’s plan is to change the definition of marriage – and thus to change the nature of the institution for everyone – the consultation paper engages in a piece of legal fiction. The document repeatedly refers to a non-existent distinction between ‘civil’ and ‘religious’ marriage and there are no less than 14 references to lifting a non-existent ‘ban’ on same-sex marriage. But there is no more a ban on same-sex marriage than there is a ban on two-storey bungalows or three-wheeled bicycles!

There are four key elements in the legal definition of marriage: it is voluntary, it is monogamous, it is lifelong, and it is heterosexual. All four are fundamental to the character of marriage. Parliament should no more be asked to redefine marriage so that it embraces same-sex partnerships than it should be asked to redefine it to allow forced marriages, polygamous marriages or marriage contracts of temporary duration.

Read the rest of this entry »

By James Chapman, Mailonline

Theresa May is being urged to reform a controversial law which bans ‘insulting words or behaviour’ amid mounting evidence that it is strangling free speech.

Campaigners say the Public Order Act is being abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors to arrest Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology, gay rights campaigners and even students making jokes.

Currently, Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws ‘insulting words or behaviour’, but what constitutes ‘insulting’ is unclear and has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.

Human rights campaigners, MPs, faith groups and secular organisations have joined forces to have the ‘insulting words or behaviour’ phrase removed from the legislation, arguing that it restricts freedom of speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even preachers.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis, a leading campaigner for civil liberties, said reform was ‘vital to protecting freedom of expression in Britain today’.

‘There is a growing list of examples where the law against using “insulting” language has led to heavy-handed action by police and prosecutors. It is not only distressing for the individuals concerned, it constitutes a threat to Britain’s tradition of free speech,’ he said.

Read here

By Ed Thornton, Church Times

A BILL to “reduce the burden on charities” will be introduced in the next year, the Queen announced in a speech to both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday.

Setting out the Government’s legislative agenda for the next year, which “will focus on economic growth, justice, and constitutional reform”, the Queen said: “A Bill will be introduced to reduce burdens on charities, enabling them to claim addi­tional payments on small donations.”

The Small Donations Bill allows charities to claim “top-up payments”, similar to Gift Aid, on donations of £20 or less, up to a total of £5000 a year per charity, without a need for donors to fill in forms (News, 25 March 2011). When the idea was announced by the Chancellor, George Osborne, last year, he said that 100,000 charities would benefit “to the tune of £240 million”. At the time, the Bishop of Exeter, the Rt Revd Michael Langrish, described the change as “very good news for churches”.

The Government has recently been heavily criticised for a proposed cap on tax relief on charitable giving (News, 20 April). A study published on Wednesday by the Charities Aid Foundation, suggested that the cap would result in £500 million of lost donations, leading to the loss of nearly 11,000 jobs in the charity sector.

The Queen also announced that “a Bill will be brought forward to reform the composition of the House of Lords.” The Joint Committee on the Bill — draft legislation that proposes a wholly or largely elected Second Chamber — has proposed that the number of bishops sitting as Lords Spiritual be reduced from the present 26 to 12 (News, 30 March).

Read here

By Jonathan Chaplin, Fulcrum

As the argument over gay marriage begins to generate heat if not yet light it is evident that a fundamental question in the debate is going to be whether it is within the moral authority of the state to “redefine” something like marriage at all. While so far the question has been posed mainly by Christian voices it is one that could, and should, arise from anyone concerned about the potential for the state to act in ways that undermine a flourishing social order. Opponents of gay marriage are advancing the claim that, as John Milbank sums it up, “there is something monstrous about the state even claiming to have the power by law to change the definition of a natural and cultural reality which has historically preceded the existence of the state itself”.

But this view already seems to be falling on entirely deaf ears both in government and beyond. Can any sense be made of it? What exactly would it mean for the state to “redefine” a social institution? Isn’t it the case that the state is in the business of redefining social institutions all the time? Won’t new banking regulations, for example, redefine what counts as a bank, and isn’t that exactly what the public good currently demands? Why then shouldn’t it set about redefining marriage?

Read here

by Donna Bowater, Telegraph

Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, has called for an end to "inflammatory" language by opponents of same-sex marriages, vowing gay unions would be law by 2015.

Miss Featherstone said religious leaders had a responsibility not to "fan the flames of homophobia" in their criticism of the Government's move to consult over same-sex marriages.
 
The Liberal Democrat minister, who made the comments in an interview with the Independent, launches the consultation exercise today.
 
She gave a "cast iron guarantee" that civil gay marriages would be law by the next general election despite the strength of opposition from church leaders.
 
"There is no rolling back whatsoever," she said. "The essential question is not whether we are going to introduce same-sex civil marriage but how."

Read here
 

By Alan Travis, Guardian

By Matthew J Franck, Witherspoon Institute

By Ben Johnson, LifeSite News

A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

On Thursday, administrative judge Solomon A. Metzger ruled that religious liberty did not exempt the seaside retreat, which is associated with the United Methodist Church, from renting its facilities out for purposes that violate its moral beliefs.

In March 2007, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster’s request to rent its Boardwalk Pavilion for the ceremony. The couple sued, claiming they had been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. In December 2008, the state Division on Civil Rights found the Christian campground had likely violated the state Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and joined the case.

The United Methodist Church teaches, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching,” and that “ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”

But Judge Metzger said church doctrine was irrelevant.

Read here