Doug Chaplin has fisked the witness statement at One law for us, one for you: the Carey-a Sharia revisited.
Afua Hirsch in the Guardian has written Lawyers reject calls for Christian-sensitive judges.
Stephen Bates at Cif belief has written Lord Carey’s bloated conscience.
Earlier yesterday on the Today BBC radio programme, Barrister Dinah Rose and Andrea Williams of Christian Legal Centre discussed the implications. (hat tip SB).
16 CommentsRuth Gledhill has the full text of the witness statement made today in the High Court by Lord Carey, in the case of Gary McFarlane.
Read it at Carey warns of ‘civil unrest’ over ‘dangerous’ anti-Christian rulings.
24 CommentsUpdated twice Thursday morning and twice Thursday afternoon
According to Andrew Alderson in the Telegraph:
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and other church leaders will urge senior judges to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings because of “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings they issued in recent religious discrimination cases.
Senior churchmen do not think they have any chance of a “fair” ruling if the latest significant hearing – due on Thursday – is heard in front of those judges who, they argue, have already shown a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs….
Lord Carey and others will this week support a formal application by lawyers acting for Gary McFarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor, that a specialist panel of five judges with a proven understanding of religious issues and headed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, should be established to hear his case and future cases involving religious rights.
See Church leaders head for showdown with top judges over bias against Christians.
Also, Laura Clark in the Mail reported that:
Lord Carey will back an application by Mr McFarlane’s lawyers for the case to be heard by a specialist panel of five judges with an understanding of religious issues.
It would be headed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice.
A spokesman for Lord Carey yesterday confirmed the former archbishop has already prepared a witness statement.
He will warn of ‘disturbing’ rulings and ‘dangerous’ reasoning in previous cases. Other senior church figures are also said to have prepared statements.
See ‘Anti-Christian’ judges should be banned from religious cases, says Lord Carey
Responses to this include:
Ruth Gledhill in The Times It can only harm Christians to bleat about persecution and be sure to watch the video version as well.
In Britain Christians cry: “We are being persecuted.” But the lions don’t exist beyond their imaginations or the arena beyond their story books. Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and his fellow victims are giving all Christians a bad name. It is time for liberals to stand up and say: “We will not be slain by this malevolent spirit, not even when the persecutors are our fellow Christians…”
Andrew Brown at Cif belief Carey’s court is an admission of defeat
…But as soon as the church, or Christianity, becomes just another pressure group fighting its corner, it has conceded the power to grant legitimacy to something else, whether this is public opinion or the political process. And from a position outside Christianity, it is absurd to demand that cases involving Christians and their tender consciences be tried by Christians, but corresponding cases involving Muslims should not be tried by Muslims.
And also there are statements from the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society.
Updates
Telegraph Peter Hutchison ‘Persecuted Christians’ join forces
The letter mentioned in this report can now be read here (scroll down) or in the comments below.
Press release from CCFON, titled (the quotation marks are theirs!) ‘Christian Victims’ of English Judicial System to Challenge Master of the Rolls – today in Court
Frances Gibb The Times Lord Carey warns of ‘unrest’ if judges continue with ‘dangerous’ rulings
Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, warned today of future “civil unrest” if judges continue with “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings in religious discrimination cases.
He intervened in a case being brought by a Bristol solicitor and relationship counsellor who wants a special panel of five senior judges to hear his appeal against being sacked for refusing to counsel homosexual couples.
Lord Carey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1991 to 2002, attacked the courts over a series of “disturbing” judgments and accused judges of being responsible for some “dangerous” reasoning which could, if taken to extremes, lead to Christians being banned from the workplace.
“Recent decisions of the courts have illuminated insensitivity to the interests and needs of the Christian community and represent disturbing judgments,” he said in a witness statement.
Lord Carey said it was “but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a “religious bar” to any employment by Christians.”
Lord Carey, who said he had the support of several other Anglican bishops and other leading churchmen, also attacked recent decisions by the Court of Appeal on the right of Christians to wear crosses in the workplace…
And also, Peter Hutchison Telegraph ‘Civil unrest’ warning over ‘un-Christian’ rulings
23 Comments…Paul Diamond, who was applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge an employment tribunal ruling which backed the sacking of Mr McFarlane, said: “There will be a collision between the established faith of this land and judicial decisions which will lead to civil unrest.”
He added that laws protecting religious freedom now “counted for nothing” in the courts.
We have already reported the Archbishop of Canterbury’s participation in the BBC Radio 4 Start the Week programme last week.
The Archbishop has now published the following on his website, with links to audio files of the programme and a subsequent discussion on the BBC’s Feedback programme.
Archbishop on BBC Radio 4: Start the Week
Monday 05 April 2010
In a special Easter edition of Start the Week recorded at Lambeth Palace, Andrew Marr discusses personal faith and institutional failure with Dr Rowan Williams.
The programme also discusses atheism and the Bible with novelist Philip Pullman, on the publication of his new work ‘The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ’; whether faith can or should enter economics with Islamic scholar Professor Mona Siddiqui and cultural identity and religious jokes with David Baddiel on the release of his new film The Infidel.
Play 100405 Easter Start The Week [28Mb]
A few days after Start the Week was broadcast, Feedback, the forum show for comments, queries and criticisms of BBC radio programmes and policy asked ‘Did Radio 4 misrepresent statements made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in its news bulletins over the weekend?’
Play 100409 BBC Feedback [12Mb]
1 CommentUpdated Monday afternoon
This morning BBC Radio 4 broadcast a special edition of Start the Week recorded at Lambeth Palace. This was trailed as follows.
In a special edition of Start the Week recorded at Lambeth Palace, Andrew Marr talks to the Archbishop of Canterbury about his role combining the history and structure of the church with personal belief. They are joined by Philip Pullman who was inspired by Dr Rowan Williams to write his new book The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ about religion, truth and interpretation; by Professor Mona Siddiqui who’ll be discussing her new role trying to marry religious values with economic growth and by author and comedian David Baddiel who’ll be talking about religious identity and his new film The Infidel, a comedy about a Muslim who realises he’s Jewish.
The programme is now available to listen to online; the main interview with the archbishop is between 1min 30sec and 8min 45sec from the beginning.
Update As well as the streaming audio linked above, there is a podcast available for download.
The Guardian has a leading article: Rowan Williams: Little cause for regrets. Archbishop has said out loud something that is completely straightforward and thereby provoked an enormous row.
There have been a number of news items in the last few days anticipating what the archbishop was going to say.
The BBC itself carried this report on Saturday Williams criticises Irish Catholic Church ‘credibility’ followed by Rowan Williams expresses ‘regret’ over church remarks and then on Sunday by Archbishop of Canterbury sorry over abuse comments.
David Batty in The Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury: Irish Catholic church has lost all credibility
Ruth Gledhill in the Times Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, regrets Catholic attack
Ireland Archbishop stunned by Dr Rowan Williams’ criticism of Catholic Church
Archbishop on papal offer: ‘God bless them, I don’t’
The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued an ecumenical Easter Letter to fellow church leaders: Christians need to “witness boldly and clearly”. The press release says:
In his ecumenical Easter Letter to fellow church leaders, the Archbishop of Canterbury urges those living in politically secure environments to offer practical support as well as prayers for suffering Christians around the world, particularly in Zimbabwe, Mosul, Egypt and Nigeria.
“We need to keep our own fears in perspective. It is all too easy to become consumed with anxiety about the future of the Church and society. We need to need to witness boldly and clearly but not with anger or fear; we need to show that we believe what we say about the Lordship of the Risen Christ and his faithfulness to the world he came to redeem.”
The full text of the letter is below the fold.
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph reports this as Archbishop of Canterbury rebukes claims of ‘persecuted’ Christians in UK.
Riazat Butt in The Guardian has Archbishop of Canterbury rebukes clergy over ‘persecuted’ Christians.
Ekklesia has Archbishop of Canterbury issues challenge over ‘persecution’ claims.
6 CommentsThe answers to the questions asked at last month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod are now available.
Questions with Answers February 2010
5 CommentsFrom the Number10 website.
Monday 22 March 2010
Diocese of Chelmsford
The Queen has approved the nomination of the Right Reverend Stephen Geoffrey Cottrell, BA, Suffragan Bishop of Reading, for election as Bishop of Chelmsford in succession to the Right Reverend John Warren Gladwin, MA, on his resignation on the 31st August 2009.
Stephen Cottrell (aged 51) was born and brought up in Essex. He was educated at the Polytechnic of Central London where he took a BA in Media Studies in 1979. He then worked in the film industry and for a year at St Christopher’s Hospice in South London. He trained for ordination at St Stephen’s House, Oxford. From 1984 to 1988 he was a Curate at Christ Church Forest Hill, Southwark. From 1988 to 1993 he was Priest-in-Charge at Parklands St Wilfrid’s, Chichester and Assistant Director of Pastoral Studies, Chichester Theological College. From 1993 to 1998 he was Diocesan Missioner, in Wakefield and Bishop’s Chaplain for Evangelism. From 1998 to 2001 he was Missioner with Springboard the Archbishop’s initiative for evangelism and Consultant in Evangelism in Wakefield. From 2001 to 2004 he was Canon Residentiary at Peterborough Cathedral. Since 2004 he has been Area Bishop for Reading in the diocese of Oxford.
Stephen Cottrell is married and has three teenage children. His interests include music, he plays the guitar and tries to play the ukulele banjo, writing, he is the author of many books on evangelism, catechesis and spirituality and one book of short stories for children, cooking, poetry and film.
The diocese of Oxford has a press release: Bishop swaps Reading for Chelmsford.
And so does the diocese of Chelmsford: Next Bishop of Chelmsford comes home “hungry for us to be a Church that connects with every person and every community”.
As does the Church of England: Next Bishop of Chelmsford comes home “hungry for us to be a church that connects with every person and every community”.
First of all, the articles, letters previously listed from last week are now all available without subscription.
Second, this week’s news report written by me can be read now, see Alteration proposed for Bill.
…The effect of the amendment is to require that the approval of individual religious premises for the registration of civil partnerships needs consents from a “person specified, or a person of a description specified” in new regulations to be laid before Parliament after consultation with various religious bodies.
The present rule forbidding the use of any religious premises for civil-partnership registrations remains in force in the mean time. The amendment specifically allows for distinctions to be made, not only between religious premises and “other premises” but also between different kinds of religious premises. For example, the arrangements for Quakers might be different to those for Liberal Judaism. Nor would it be necessary for the regulations governing civil partnerships to be identical to those relating to civil marriages in the same venue.
A spokesman for the Archbishops’ Council confirmed on Wednesday that the amendment took account of discussions held with the Government. The Church of England’s concern, he said, was to ensure that the regulations provided for an opt-in or opt-out at denominational level. The C of E (and other denominations) wanted to be able to nominate a national body to declare a position on this issue, before individual applications could be made. This was what the Quakers themselves had done (Comment, 12 March)…
And the CT blog has noted that Equality Bill: Amendment allowing civil partnerships in church buildings could be lost, and linked to the letter already published here.
1 CommentTrying to celebrate civil partnerships
Sir, On February 23 you published our letter, signed also by several senior Anglicans, urging the House of Lords to support Lord Alli’s amendment to permit civil partnerships to be held on the premises of Quakers, Liberal Judaism and Unitarians. You also published a powerful leader, “Equal before God”, in support of our letter.
Lord Alli’s amendment was carried in a free vote by 95 to 21 in the face of opposition from both front benches. Several speakers quoted our letter or your leader. The Government has now accepted it, but if the Equality Bill is incomplete at the dissolution of Parliament, it goes into what politicians call “wash-up”. Only the parts acceptable to both main parties survive; the rest fall.
We hope that, as they start to campaign for the general election, they will all give an express promise to protect the amendment.
Iain McLean, FBA
Professor of Politics, University of OxfordDiarmaid Macculloch, FBA
Professor of the History of the Church, University of Oxford
Previous letter and leader article are here.
4 CommentsNew amendments have today been filed, for consideration at Third Reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday 23 March.
First, here is the main new amendment filed:
Clause 202
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 125, line 25, at end insert—
“(2B) Provision by virtue of subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, provide that applications for approval of premises may only be made with the consent (whether general or specific) of a person specified, or a person of a description specified, in the provision.
(2C) The power conferred by section 258(2), in its application to the power conferred by this section, includes in particular—
(a) power to make provision in relation to religious premises that differs from provision in relation to other premises;
(b) power to make different provision for different kinds of religious premises.”
Page 125, line 29, at end insert—
“(3B) “Civil marriage” means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
(3C) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.”
Now, here is the wording of Clause 202 as already amended, and showing in bold the effect of the above new amendment on that Clause:
Civil partnerships
Civil partnerships on religious premises
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows. 20
Omit section 6(1)(b) and (2). In section 6A, after subsection (2), insert—“(2A) Regulations under this section may provide that premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships may differ from those premises approved for the registration of civil marriages.” 25
(2B) Provision by virtue of subsection (2)(b) may, in particular, provide that applications for approval of premises may only be made with the consent (whether general or specific) of a person specified, or a person of a description specified, in the provision.
(2C) The power conferred by section 258(2), in its application to the power conferred by this section, includes in particular—
(a) power to make provision in relation to religious premises that differs from provision in relation to other premises;
(b) power to make different provision for different kinds of religious premises.”In section 6A, after subsection (3), insert—
“(3A) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”(3B) “Civil marriage” means marriage solemnised otherwise than according to the rites of the Church of England or any other religious usages.
(3C) “Religious premises” means premises which—
(a) are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or
(b) have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes.”
And finally, below the fold is the wording of the amended clauses of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, to show where it would end up, if this new amendment is passed.
There are two other minor amendments filed:
Clause 216
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 134, line 9, after “sections” insert
“202 (civil partnerships on religious premises),”
Schedule 27
LORD ALLI
BARONESS NOAKES
BARONESS NEUBERGER
Page 234, line 24, at end insert—
“Civil Partnership Act 2004 Section 6(1)(b) and (2)”
See earlier article here.
From Cif belief Goodbye to the bishops by Polly Toynbee:
Today an ICM poll for Power2010… shows that 74% of voters think unelected bishops should have no place in the legislature, and only 21% believe that they should. Even more persuasive is that 70% of Christians want the bishops gone, and only 26% are in favour of keeping them.
And, from Ekklesia ICM Survey of attitudes to bishops in Parliament and religion in public life:
The population of the UK is equally split over the importance of institutional religion in public life, but three-quarters believe it is wrong for bishops to have reserved places in the House of Lords.
The findings come in an ICM poll commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, as part of the Power 2010 initiative of which the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia is a member.
They are the first major survey of public opinion with regard to the place of bishops in the House of Lords. It was carried out on 10-11 March 2010.
Findings included:
- 43% of people believe it is important that institutional religion plays a role in public life, whilst 41% feel it isn’t important.
- Many more Muslims (84%) than Christians (50%) believe that it is important that ‘organised religion should play a role in public life’.
- 74% of the population – including 70% of Christians – believe it is wrong that some Church of England Bishops are given an automatic seat in the House of Lords.
- 65% say it is important that anyone who sits in the House of Commons or House of Lords and votes on laws is elected
- Support for the place of Church of England bishops in the Lords is least in Scotland, where only 20% of the population believe their presence is significant.
Read the full survey results here: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/survey_on_bishops_icm.pdf
13 CommentsThere is a leader today, Legal protection for clerical consciences.
A LITTLE historical perspective might help those who are alarmed at the consequences of the amendment to the Equality Bill passed in the House of Lords at the end of last month. The effect of it, if the Bill survives intact, would be to permit same-sex partnerships to be solemnised in Quaker meetings, Unitarian churches, and Liberal synagogues. Much attention was given last week to the fears expressed by the Bishops of Winchester and Bradford that clerics would be compelled to register civil partnerships, under threat of legal action for exercising discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Political parties are considering the possible consequences on votes in the forthcoming election. There is even a petition being got up to have the amendment thrown out.
Two points are perhaps worth bearing in mind…
The article mentioned in the leader Quakers seek liberty for gay couples is subscription-only until next Friday. So also are several letters, and a discussion of newspaper reports in the Press column.
6 CommentsThe Church of England has published a note entitled Lord Alli’s amendment – civil partnerships. I am told that this was published on 5 March.
20 CommentsKey points regarding Lord Alli’s amendment to the Equality Bill:
- the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament so may not yet be in its final form
- even once Royal Assent is achieved Ministers have to decide when each of its provisions are brought into force
- and in this case there will also have to be fresh amending regulations before there is the possibility of places of worship becoming locations for civil partnerships
- so, there is much that remains unclear for the moment and will remain so for quite some time yet.
Lord Alli’s amendment inserts a new clause into the Equality Bill that would remove provisions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 that prevent all ‘religious premises’ being approved for the registration of civil partnerships. It does not, however, mean that anyone who wishes to do so will now be able to register a civil partnership in church – the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament.
First, the Government need to consider whether the amendment, as drafted, is adequate or whether further amendments are needed to achieve what it intends; including the intention that it should not place “an obligation on religious organisation to host civil partnerships”.
Secondly, the new provision, if contained in the Bill as enacted, would not have effect until it was brought into force by order made by the Secretary of State. Given that existing Regulations make it impossible for religious premises to be approved for civil partnership registration, those Regulations would have to be amended before the new provisions could be brought into force. Amending those Regulations will, itself, require careful consideration.
As matters currently stand it remains the case that civil partnerships cannot be registered on religious premises. Precisely how that position may change remains to be seen.
The Mission and Public Affairs Division of the Church of England has updated its guidance note on “Countering far right political parties, extremist groups and racist politics”. You can read the January 2010 version here: Countering Racist Politics. (PDF also available)
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland has very comprehensive information at general election churches getting ready including two resource documents:
These can both be downloaded from here.
And there is a Find a Hustings page.
CCFON has announced that the former Bishop of Rochester, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is to host a series of General Election Hustings across England in order to help local Christians question candidates for Westminster seats.
Ekklesia has a press release, Bishops urged to play leading role in reform of House of Lords.
The religion and society think-tank Ekklesia has today teamed up with democracy campaign Power2010 in an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.
Local churches and others are being encouraged to contact bishops, and ask them to continue in their support for the ‘bottom up’ campaign to reinvigorate democracy, which saw 100,000 votes cast, many in support of a reformed Second Chamber.
Several bishops have previously spoken favourably about Power2010, which aimed to identify five key political reforms.
A public vote, which finished on 22 February 2010, saw an all elected second chamber supported as the third most popular reform…
And a further article is titled Come on board for Lords reform, bishops urged.
From today, people are able to email all the bishops with a fully customisable message set up through the Power2010 website: http://www.power2010.org.uk/faith Hundreds have done so already, say organisers.
(At the time of writing this article, over 16,000 emails have been sent.)
From the Power2010 blog, there is Join our call for Bishops to back reform of the Lords.
15 CommentsUpdated Tuesday evening
In our latest weekend round-up of opinion we linked to an address by James Jones, the bishop of Liverpool, to his diocesan synod about allowing a variety of ethical conviction in the church.
The diocese has issued a press release: Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”.
Ekklesia has reported the address as Evangelical bishop “in sympathy” with same-sex partnerships.
Colin Coward of Changing Attitude has welcomed the bishop’s address in James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”.
But Andrew Goddard at Fulcrum does not agree with most of what the bishop has written: Accepting Ethical Diversity?: A Critical Appraisal of the Bishop of Liverpool’s Presidential Address.
And Anglican Mainstream has Bishop James Jones muddies the waters again.
Update
Colin Coward has written a response to Andrew Goddard’s article: Reactions to the Bishop of Liverpool – Andrew Goddard on Fulcrum.
Lord Alli has written on the Telegraph website about the amendment passed in the House of Lords last week, and the ensuing discussion, see A victory for religious freedom. It reads in part as follows:
…There was nonetheless huge concern from the Church of England and the Catholic Church that they would be forced – against their will – to host Civil Partnerships.
But we had included a specific provision in the amendment to ensure religious freedom which stated quite plainly: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host Civil Partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”
Religious freedom means letting the Quakers, the Unitarians and the Liberal Jews host Civil Partnerships: a decision that they had considered in prayer and decided in conscience.
But religious freedom also means respecting the decision of the Church of England and the Catholic Church – decisions also made in prayer and taken in conscience – that they do not wish to do so.
That is what we agreed during the debate, and trying to pretend otherwise is to entirely misrepresent the way which this decision was taken.
I was therefore saddened by the Bishop of Winchester, who tried to characterise this debate by suggesting that Church of England vicars will be forced to host Civil Partnerships in their building.
Let’s not pretend that this amendment forces anything onto anyone. Let’s not pretend that individual clergy are going to face litigation. Let’s not pretend that churches will have to close just for obeying Church of England law.
This amendment was all about allowing religious groups to obey their own law, and the Bishop of Winchester should be above sensationalising the issue.
I was also saddened that the Bishop of Winchester was able to condemn our decision in the press, but didn’t turn up to listen to the debate, or indeed to cast a vote.
Out of the 26 bishops entitled to be there, only two made the effort to join the discussion – despite it being an otherwise well-attended debate.
You have to ask the question: if it was so important, if the consequences of this decision were to be so catastrophic, why were they absent from a debate which had been on the diary for weeks?
So let me assure the Bishop of Winchester and all those concerned: unless their religious organisation wants it, or unless Parliament changes the law, there is absolutely no risk of being forced to carry out any ceremony if they do not wish to…
The newspaper edition reports the story in a separate article, see Lord Alli attacks bishops in ‘gay marriage’ row.
27 CommentsUpdate
The Quaker position is admirably explained in a booklet, available starting here: We are but witnesses: same sex marriages (also there is a PDF version linked from there).
Ekklesia has two items:
Symon Hill writes about Scaremongering and religious liberty and he concludes:
…Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, has predicted (with no evidence whatsoever) that the Bill will lead to clergy being sued for refusing to carry out such ceremonies. It is frustrating that the media should pay so much attention to such an unfounded prediction, let alone that a national daily paper should lead with a headline wording this prediction as fact.
Since the vote in the Lords, those who are afraid of religious same-sex partnerships have latched on to Scott-Joynt’s wild warnings as an excuse for opposing the legislation. Knowing how mean it would appear to refuse religious liberty to others, they claim instead that it is their own religious liberty which is under threat.
It is sad that some seem to think that a thing must either be prohibited or compulsory, and cannot be optional. It says a great deal about their world view that they are unable to envisage a situation of real religious liberty, in which different groups can promote their views and values through dialogue and persuasion rather than coercion and the misuse of law.
Iain McLean A reply to Michael Scott-Joynt over religious civil partnerships and here is an extract:
11 Comments…The issues which still divide us seem to be:
Does passing the Alli amendment send us down a slippery slope? The Times and Telegraph reports on what you say about this are, I think, rather uncritical. I am surprised that the Government Equalities Office has not commented on them, since, as you know, Lord Alli and the three denominations that sought his amendment all insist that it is designed to apply only to those denominations that request it, hence the ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ clause that he added in the version that was carried in the Lords.
Neither the Quakers nor the Church of England are congregationalist. Our Yearly Meeting decided to seek what is now the Alli amendment. It is, presumably, for your Synod to discuss the same subject and come to its own view. If it does not wish to offer civil partnerships in church, how might your (and/or Lord Tebbit’s) nightmare unfold?
Case 1: an incumbent conducts a civil partnership ceremony in defiance of his/her bishop. But the ceremony would have no legal standing unless the incumbent had applied to be a ‘religious organisation’. I am sure the regulations can be drafted so as to ensure that applications to conduct civil partnerships are only entertained from the highest judicatory of the denomination.
Case 2: a militant same-sex couple apply to a church for a partnership purely in order to sue the vicar after the application is refused. First, I deplore the efforts of Ben Summerskill, Peter Tatchell and others to use the Alli amendment as a wedge to drive civil partnership into an unwilling Church of England. Nor was the letter to The Times that some of your colleagues signed so intended. I drafted it to make clear that it was not about the Church of England.
Second, I cannot see how such an action would get anywhere in a UK court in the face of the clear wording of the Alli amendment. In recent discrimination cases, the courts have been unsympathetic towards politically motivated anti-discrimination claims.
Case 3: a loving same-sex couple do the same, in sorrow rather than anger. It would be very peculiar for them to put their litigiousness ahead of their love. If they are comfortable with the usage of Friends and willing to follow the (quite onerous) requirements laid down in Quaker Faith and Practice to test their commitment, then I hope they would choose that route. I am sure the Unitarians would also welcome them.
In none of those three cases do I see any road to Strasbourg.
Maintaining the distinction between civil partnership and marriage….
Updated
First, the Church Times has this report, written by me, on this week’s debate in the House of Lords, Religious bodies can host gay ceremonies, say peers.
Last week’s report, also by me, is now available to non-subscribers, see Civil partners: call for religious option.
This morning, Martin Beckford reports in the Telegraph that Harriet Harman could kill off ‘gay marriages in church’ plan.
In the same paper, Norman Tebbit writes about Why I tried to stop Lord Alli forcing through same-sex church ‘weddings’.
Update
Church Society has a press release, Religious Ceremonies for Civil Partnerships.
Changing Attitude has Changing Attitude’s goals and bishop’s changing attitudes.
Jonathan Bartley has Gay Church blessings and a crisis of faith: Fisking Damian Thompson.
This is more like a series of popular online games than what is described above.
10 Comments