I hate to say this, but…

It pains me to say it, but it seems that this government might have had an unexpected bout of common sense over its consultation on Equal Civil Marriage.

Behind that common sense sounding title lurks the issue that has had some religious leaders up in arms, of course, that of same-sex marriage and whether the proposals somehow undermine the entire fabric of society.

But when the announcement finally came from Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone, this week seem eminently sensible. The key points are:

  • to allow same-sex couples to marry in a register office or other civil ceremony
  • to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert it into a marriage
  • to allow people to stay married and legally change their gender
  • to maintain the legal ban on same-sex couples marrying in a religious service

My main reservation is on the last point. Is it right for any government to ban any religious practice?

I don’t believe that any religion should be forced by law to recognise same-sex marriage, but I also don’t believe they should be prevented from doing so if that is what they want to do. The state has no part to play in religion and vice versa.

Where the state does play a part is in the legal implications of the proposals. A same-sex couple should have the same rights and responsibilities in law as any other couple when it comes to divorce, inheritance etc, but that throws up other issues.

For example, what about siblings who choose to live together? Should they enjoy similar protection, tax allowances etc?

Any that brings me to my final concern – is this the final destination? I suspect not.

We’ve seen it in the past with things like the ban on smoking in public places. Sensible demands, the politicians and campaigners told us, but flushed with success, they now want to outlaw smoking in personal space and point of sale tobacco displays in shops.

Both might be ‘sensible’ in the same that the ban in public places was, but you have to ask yourself if this was always the agenda, but the state didn’t think we were grown-up enough to swallow their plan at one sitting.

And that brings me back to the present proposals and the fourth bullet point above. Is the end game to force different faiths to accept and perform same-sex marriages whether they like it or not in the name of equality? That would be a mistake.

Nobody’s prefect. If you find any spelling mistakes or other errors in this post, please let me know by highlighting the text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

4 comments… Add yours
  • Roger Green 18th March 2012

    It’d make more sense not to FORCE a church to marry. in fact, in the Presbyterian Church USA, assuming it passes through administrative hoops, I dare say it may that some churches even within the same Presbytery will say yes, and others will say no, in states (such as NY) where gay marriage is legal.

  • john 18th March 2012

    I think that gay christians SHOULD have the right to marry in a church…
    as long as I have the same rights as any heterosexual couple, a non religious ceremony would do me just fine…

  • Trevor Rowley 18th March 2012

    There are Christian denominations who have felt the need, in recent years, to change their own rules and jettison their principles – largely to pacify the critics. The Church of England is an excellent example of this as they continue to go out of their way to be “everybody’s friend” and Rowan Williams now gets out while the going’s good. Either he wants even more changes but nobody else does or he realises that you can only take a rudderless ship so far.

  • Shooting Parrots 19th March 2012

    It is the religious bit that is the difficult issue. As I understand it, no-one has a right to be married in church, synagogue, mosque etc – there are considerations about the person’s faith for one thing. But if a particular church or denomination wants allow marriage of whoever then it should be okay to do so, so long as it’s legal.

    It might have been better had they started with the disestablishment of church and state.


Your email will not be published on this site, but note that this and any other personal data you choose to share is stored here. Please see the Privacy Policy for more information.

Spelling error report

The following text will be sent to our editors: