Mon 20th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Sun 19th Oct 2014 at 21:53pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Bishops’ briefing on same-sex marriage Bill: full text

By on Tuesday, 29 January 2013

MPs will debate the Bill at its second reading next Tuesday (Photo: PA)

MPs will debate the Bill at its second reading next Tuesday (Photo: PA)

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales Briefing to Members of Parliament on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Tuesday 29th January 2013

We urge Members to oppose this legislation at Second Reading for the following reasons:

1. THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE MATTERS

This Bill, for the first time in British history, fundamentally seeks to break the existing legal link between the institution of marriage and sexual exclusivity, loyalty, and responsibility for the children of the marriage. If the Bill passes, several previously foundational aspects of the law of marriage will be changed to accommodate same sex
couples: the common law presumption that a child born to a mother during her marriage is also the child of her partner will not apply in same sex marriages (Schedule 4, para. 2); the existing provisions on divorce will be altered so that sexual infidelity by one of the parties in a same sex marriage with another same sex partner will not constitute adultery (Schedule 4, para. 3); and nonconsummation will not be a ground on which a same sex marriage is voidable (Schedule 4, para. 4).

Marriage thus becomes an institution in which openness to children, and with it the responsibility on fathers and mothers to remain together to care for children born into their family unit, is no longer central to society’s understanding of that institution (as reflected in the law). The fundamental problem with the Bill is that changing the legal understanding of marriage to accommodate same sex partnerships threatens subtly, but radically, to alter the meaning of marriage over time for everyone. This is the heart of our argument in principle against same sex marriage.

The existing approach to marriage in British law encourages a particular understanding of marriage and the obligations taken on by those who marry. British law currently provides, for example, that a marriage is between two, rather than several, individuals; that the commitment of husband and wife is meant to last for their lifetime; that there is a sexual aspect to the relationship (in the requirement of consummation for there to be a valid marriage); that the husband is presumed to be the father of the child carried by his wife; and that the partners to the marriage will remain loyal to the relationship to the exclusion of all other sexual partners.

Those elements of the law of marriage are not arbitrary, archaic, or reactionary; they serve to show that marriage has an important and unique function.

These provisions cannot be understood unless they are seen as intimately related to the conception and rearing of children. This view is one held particularly strongly by the Catholic Church, but it is not a uniquely religious view.2 As Bertrand Russell said: ‘But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex …. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.’

We recognise that there is an alternative view of what constitutes the ‘good’ of marriage, and we understand that proponents of same sex marriage often adopt this alternative view, in good faith.

Under this alternative view, the ‘good’ of marriage is that it fosters intimacy and care-giving for dependants, builds trust, and encourages openness, and shared responsibilities.3 We accept, of course, that these are, indeed, important aspects of marriage. But we believe that marriage is not only the institutional recognition of love and commitment. Marriage, as legally recognised in this country, is also the institutional recognition of a unique kind of relationship in which children are raised by their birth-parents. Even if this is not always possible in practice, the law, by recognising this core understanding of marriage, sends a vital signal to society of an ideal.

We recognise, of course, that British law does not limit marriage to those who intend to have children; nor does it deny marriage to those who are infertile. We also recognise that many same sex couples raise children in loving and caring homes. Nevertheless, marriage has an identity that at its core is distinct from any other legally recognised relationship, no matter how much love or commitment may be involved in these other relationships. Marriage has,
over the centuries, been the enduring public recognition of this commitment to provide a stable institution for the care and protection of children, and it has rightly been recognised as unique and worthy of legal protection for this reason. Marriage furthers the common good of society because it promotes a unique relationship within which children are conceived, born and reared, an institution that we believe benefits children.

2. RETAINING MARRIAGE SOLELY FOR OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY

We believe, along with those who support same sex marriage, that the law matters both in terms of the
signals that it sends and the effects of those signals on future behaviour. We disagree that the signal that
is sent currently, by restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, is one of disparagement of same sex
relationships.

The basic argument that is advanced in favour of same sex marriage is one of equality and fairness. But we suggest that this intuitively appealing argument is fundamentally flawed. Those who argue for same sex marriage do so on the basis that it is unjust to treat same sex and heterosexual relationships differently in allowing only heterosexual couples access to marriage. Our principal argument against this is that it is not unequal or unfair to treat those in different
circumstances differently. Indeed, to treat them the same would itself be unjust.

The Government, in proposing this change to the law and definition of marriage, has itself not sought complete equivalence between same sex couples and heterosexual couples. We have already shown how significantly the Bill distinguishes between same sex and opposite sex marriages (there is no consummation requirement, there is no common law presumption as to the parenthood of any children, and adultery will not be a ground for divorce). What results in the Bill is a distinct set of differences between opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage. In addition to these differences incorporated in the Bill, civil partnerships will remain an option for same sex couples, but heterosexual couples will not be given access to civil partnerships and the Government has made this decision against the views of the majority in the consultation.

The Government itself recognises, therefore, that it is not necessarily unfair discrimination or a breach of the principle of equality to treat different people differently, if they are different in a relevant way. So too, retaining different institutions in order to serve differing functions is not unfair, but a recognition of relevant differences in the functions served by those institutions.

Catholic teaching, whilst it does not condone same sex sexual activity, condemns unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We note that same sex couples already effectively enjoy equivalent legal rights as heterosexual couples by virtue of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. A Civil Partnership in essence entitles a same sex couple to equivalent legal benefits, advantages and rights as heterosexual couples6 . Therefore the changes proposed in the Bill
are not needed in order to provide legal recognition to and protection for same sex relationships. Our opposition to same sex marriage is not based in discrimination or prejudice; it is based in a positive effort to ensure that the unique social values currently served by marriage carry on being served by that institution in the future.

3. THERE IS NO MANDATE FOR THIS CHANGE AND THE VIEWS OF MANY HAVE BEEN IGNORED

Fundamentally changing the definition of marriage is a major constitutional change and Parliament should not be rushed into making a decision that will have far reaching long-term consequences, many of them unintended. Once this understanding of marriage is fundamentally weakened, its unique value will be lost. The risk, if this Bill becomes law, is that the true meaning of marriage will gradually, over time, be lost, to the detriment of future generations. This Bill, we repeat, will change the meaning of marriage for everyone.

The British public, as a whole, did not seek this change; none of the mainstream political parties promised it in their last election manifestos; there has been no referendum; there was no Green or White Paper; and when the Government launched its consultation it did not ask whether the law should be changed, but how the law should be changed. There is no clear mandate for this change.

In pressing forward with this Bill the Government has set aside the views of over 625,000 people who signed a petition opposing the change, and effectively ignored the submissions of many others to the Equal Civil Marriage Consultation who also opposed the change. Whilst we accept that there is support for this change among a section of the British public, we believe that such a major constitutional change should not be decided on the basis of simple head counts. In short, we suggest that that there is no public consensus on this issue and that there is not sufficient public demand for so
fundamental a change to the definition of marriage.

It is essential that Parliament proceeds with extreme caution before fundamental alterations are made to an institution that provides the primary tried and trusted context in which children are born and raised. We have made it clear that there are major arguments in principle against this change, but even leaving these to one side, any such changes should await considerably more evidence about child bearing and child rearing in the context of same sex unions.

4. THE BILL PAVES THE WAY FOR YET MORE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE

By fundamentally altering the definition of marriage, the Government will leave the law on marriage vulnerable to even more radical change in the near future, however much the Government protests that this is not its intention. Over the last two decades, the laws have changed continually, despite assurances at each stage that the law would change no further. In 2004, for example, the Civil Partnerships Act was passed and religious organisations were excluded, but this was later changed (after assurances that it would not be) to allow civil partnership ceremonies to be conducted on religious premises. At the time the Civil Partnerships Act was debated there were also assurances that the definition of marriage would not be affected but, only a few years later, the Bill now before Parliament seeks to alter the fundamental meaning of marriage.

If the law is changed and the existing core understanding of marriage is lost, further changes both in Parliament and through the courts can be expected. Previous experience shows that statutory changes to fundamental institutions pave the way for further changes going well beyond what the drafters of the original measure considered desirable, or even conceivable. Slippery slope arguments are often overused, but in this case the evidence is clear: by making these changes, it is more likely that the law and core understanding of marriage will be altered further in the coming
years.

5. THE PROPOSED ‘SAFEGUARDS’ ARE INADEQUATE

The Government’s safeguards, although well intentioned, will not provide adequate protection for individuals or religious organisations with conscientious objections to same sex marriage.

(a) The Religious Protection Provision Inadequately Protects Individuals:

The Bill is likely to generate further difficulties and barriers for individuals with conscientious objections to same sex marriage both inside and outside the work place.

The government purports, in Clause 2, to protect individuals from being ‘compelled’ to conduct same sex marriages even if their religious organisations have opted-in; but it has failed to protect individuals in other circumstances, where the state is involved. Carefully tailored protections are needed for individuals who have a conscientious objection to same sex marriage in several other contexts.

For example, such individuals should be able reasonably to express views that relate to same sex marriage without fear of criminal prosecution under public order legislation. Freedom of expression is one of the hallmarks of a democratic society and it is central to achieving individual freedoms. It deserves to be protected explicitly.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of employees may also be limited as a result of the Bill. Protection should be accorded to those working in the public and religious sectors. Individuals should be able reasonably to excuse themselves from activities, or be able reasonably to express views, that relate to same sex marriage without fear of being reprimanded or losing their jobs.

(b) The Religious Protection Provision Inadequately Protects Religious Organisations:

The Prime Minister personally, and the Government in general, have also sought to reassure religious organisations that they will not be required under any circumstances to conduct same sex marriages if they object to them. Clause 2
of the Bill seeks to protect religious organisations in two ways: by providing that religious organisations may not be ‘compelled’ to opt-in, and by providing that religious organisations may not be ‘compelled’ to conduct same sex marriages.

Whilst we welcome the recognition that protections are necessary, we do not consider that these provisions adequately address the problem, because it is entirely unclear what the protection from being ‘compelled’ in law means in these circumstances.

As regards Clause 2(1), there remains a significant risk that religious organisations that conduct legally recognised opposite sex marriages (in the civil and religious sense) will be regarded as ‘public bodies’ for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and judicial review. This could result in legal challenge to a decision not to ‘opt in’, thus limiting the breadth of the discretion of those religious organisations. This is a significant threat and even if such litigation may ultimately be successfully resisted, it would only be after significant costs had been incurred. Religious organisations should not be exposed to such costs, and more explicit protections are therefore
needed.

(c) The Implications of the Public Sector Equality Duty Have Not Been Addressed:

A similar problem arises under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Most public authorities, such as local authorities, are under a duty to have ‘due regard’ to the need to ‘advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.’ In particular, public authorities must have ‘due regard’ to the need to ‘remove or minimize disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected
characteristic that are connected to that characteristic’.

The Bill does nothing to prevent public authorities from taking into account a decision by a religious organisation not to opt-in to same sex marriage. The Bill does nothing to prevent religious organisations which do not opt-in to same sex marriage from being treated less favourably by public authorities, for example by refusing to award public contracts or grants to religious organisations. It is not at all clear that Clause 2(1) protects religious organisations from such less favourable treatment.

(d) Interference with the autonomy of other Churches establishes a dangerous precedent:

We have made it clear that the Catholic Church will not be conducting same sex marriages. But our concerns extend beyond the effect of the Bill on the Catholic Church. We are concerned also about the significant inroads that the Bill makes on the internal affairs of other religious organisations, in two respects.

First, Clause 2(3) makes it unlawful for the Church of England to conduct same sex marriages. Whether or not religious organisations wish to provide same sex marriage ceremonies is a decision that must be made by the religious organisations alone. The Bill establishes a dangerous precedent for government interference with other religious organisations. Second, there is a further problem of principle.

Clause 2(2) seeks to allow individuals, connected to a religious organisation which has opted-in to same sex marriages, to refuse to conduct or be present at a same sex marriage ceremony. This will undoubtedly generate conflict and the religious freedom of individuals will (under the Bill) be accorded greater weight than the institutional autonomy of religious organisations. The major effect of this safeguard will be to undermine the traditional institutional autonomy of religious organisations, providing scope for further dispute and division between religious organisations and their members. Were this protection to be accorded to individuals outside the religious sector as well, this interference would be justified. The fact that this is directed only at religious organisations is disturbing.

(e) Sharing Religious Buildings – Creating Future Friction Between Religious Organisations:

Clauses 44 A-D of Schedule 1 will generate friction between religious organisations and damage interfaith relations. This provision is likely to lead to division between religious organisations that share buildings but have opposing views on same sex marriage. It will result in disputes over whether or not one religious organisation has the right to veto the use of shared religious buildings, and it will hinder inter-faith relations by engendering a reluctance to share buildings and resources in the future.

(f) Recourse to the ECHR renders the ‘safeguards’ questionable in any event:

Parliament may seek to provide protections for religious individuals or religious organisations under domestic law but it cannot ensure that these protections themselves will withstand complaints against them to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

There is a risk that the ECtHR will find that the protections provided by the Bill are incompatible with the Convention under Article 89 alone, or Articles 8 and 1210, read with Article 14,11 on the ground that the Bill adopts a discriminatory regime by enabling some religious organisations to refuse to perform same sex marriage ceremonies.

A key reason for this increased risk is that Britain, by changing the law on ‘marriage’ as such would open up the prospect that a discrimination claim could succeed because the claimed discrimination would then come ‘within the ambit’ of Article 12. It is clear that a challenge directly under Article 12 would be unlikely to succeed (because the ECtHR has held there is no right to same sex marriage under Article 12) but a claim under Article 14 read with Article 12 is a different matter.

The Government has argued that the chance of a successful challenge to the protections in the ECtHR is low on the basis that Article 9 (protecting freedom of religion) would protect the safeguards. But the recent judgment by a Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Eweida and Others v The United Kingdom [2013] (Application nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10)12 illustrates that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9) does not
provide adequate protection when there is a clash between it and other competing rights and interests. The Government cannot therefore guarantee that the ECtHR would accept the safeguards put in place to protect the position of individuals and organisations that have a conscientious objection to same sex marriage, should a challenge be brought.

There is no precedent from the ECtHR on the acceptability under the Convention of balancing religious protections with sexual orientation in the context of a same sex marriage law that has been introduced by a Member State.13 Previous case law has involved the question whether Member States should introduce same sex marriage, not on how it legislates for same sex marriage. What we know from case law, however, is that the Court often accords Article 9 rights relatively little weight, and accords a Member State a considerable margin of appreciation in deciding how to protect that right.
Much greater weight is given to equality on the basis of sexual orientation, meaning the margin of appreciation is correspondingly reduced. Differences in treatment based on sexual orientation can be justified only with very considerable difficulty, as indicated by the case law of the ECtHR.

It is also likely that challenges will be made under the Human Rights Act in domestic courts, where, of course, the margin of appreciation does not apply. The proposed ‘safeguards’ may turn out not to be safeguards at all.

6. THE WIDER CONSEQUENCES OF THE BILL HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED

The consequences of the Bill will be wide-ranging. The Government has not identified all these consequences and they certainly have not all been addressed. Three of the wider potential repercussions are explored below, but there are and will be many others.

(a) Unknown Implications For Public And Private Law:

Clause 11(1) is extremely broad and its implications cannot possibly be known in advance. It states: ‘In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples.’ The intention is to ensure, as the default position, that same sex marriage is for all legal effects the same as opposite sex marriage. To incorporate such a broad provision is a dangerous substitute for the detailed (and extensive) inquiry that is necessary. Inadequate thought has been given to the repercussions of such a significant change, no doubt because of the rushed way in which the legislation was prepared. This provision is likely to lead to costly litigation, the need for continuing ad hoc parliamentary engagement, or both.

Given the constitutional importance of this proposed change of law, such a clause (with extensive and unknown consequences that may detrimentally affect a number of people and institutions) is unacceptable.

(b) Education – Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion:

A change in the definition of marriage will have an adverse impact on schools because the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to issue guidance on ‘the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’ under s.403 of the Education Act 1996. A statutory change may therefore result in religious schools being compelled to teach a definition of marriage contrary to their own understanding and thus impact on previously accepted and protected religious freedoms.

There is also a danger that teachers will be limited in their freedom of expression both inside and outside school as far as same sex marriage is concerned. It is imperative that freedom of expression and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, are protected in the school curriculum, when individuals are teaching, or where teachers publicly express dissenting views in other contexts. The Bill fails to do this.

(c) An emerging gulf between religious and secular conceptions of marriage:

In marriage, legal and religious institutions are thoroughly intertwined. It is one of the central examples in Britain where there is, at present, no clear separation of church and state. This is true not just with regard to the special role of the Church of England, but more generally. Britain, unlike most continental European countries, provides that ‘religious’ marriages are also valid ‘civil’ marriages.

The effect of the Bill, if it is passed, will be to make a more complete separation of church and state in the area of marriage almost inevitable. ‘Civil’ marriages will be performed by state officials only and the state will determine the legal benefits, rights and duties that accompany marriage, but these will not be regarded as marriages in the eyes of many Churches. ‘Religious marriages’ will be performed by religious institutions according to their own doctrine and rites, and will have no effect on legal relations. Over time, civil and religious marriages will become fundamentally
distinct institutions.

Some will welcome that development; some will not. But either way it is important that Members of Parliament are fully aware of the longer-term effects of the Bill in this respect. The choices that Parliament is being called to make will have profound implications for the future architecture of relations between church and state in Britain.

  • JabbaPapa

    proof positive of everything I’ve been saying

    No, that’s a notorious troll who deliberately creates sockpuppets that hold all sorts of bizarre anti-Catholic views in order to support various sorts of anti-Catholics online.

    His antics have already destroyed at least one discussion forum. He occasionally holds “conversations” with himself via these sockpuppets.

  • Nick

    The arguments raised by the Bishops are the same ones raised a decade ago at the time of Civil Partnerships are are nothing new.

    As regards taking the time, Gay people have been waiting centuries for this moment – isn’t that time enough?!

  • JabbaPapa

    Your opinions are religiophobic. Why should anyone look up to them ?

  • JabbaPapa

    What does homosexuality have to do with marriage ?

    Stop your tiresome pretense that anyone disagreeing with these proposals is by definition a “homophobe”. That vocabulary is just a part of your own “moral purity code”.

  • JabbaPapa

    “allowed” — says it all really.

    What would be your reaction to someone telling you “you’re still allowed to be homosexual” ???

    Your idea of what this fight is all about is detached from reality.

    This is a resistance against the imposition of secularist ideologies into the religious sphere.

  • Peter

    Because, Nick, I suppose they are running scared that they might appear just the teensiest bit homophobic…and they know the worst homophobes often hate most what they see deep inside themselves?

  • JabbaPapa

    No one, including muslims is calling for polygamy to be legalised

    This is false.

    http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

    Quote : “Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed POLYGAMY is the next civil rights battle.”

    In civilised society and particularly western civilised society, people form relationships in couples.

    Good old double standards, eh ?

    How about : “In civilised society and particularly western civilised society, marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.”

  • scary goat

     Don’t know why I got a mental image of Rumplestiltskin then. :-s

  • JabbaPapa

    … you’re obsessed with what they do or don’t do in bed!
    As ever with Catholics, it comes back to sex.

    Good grief !!!

    WHY do you keep bringing sex into the discussion, and then accusing others of being “obsessed” with it ??? You’re the one who seems to be unable to stop ranting on about it.

  • scary goat

     Really????? Oldmeena said homosexuality evolved to counter over-population.  I’m sure she did?

  • scary goat

    How so? Even if he was real and Jabba is wrong about who he is, he is a dissenter.  So what?  Maybe you missed the article on Fr. Flannery?  We know there are dissenters.  That doesn’t alter Catholic teaching.  

  • R.

    Hi Scary Goat (I love your name by the way!)

    There is no point in taking that particular direction. Been there and bought the t-shirt. Thinking will never change for the next 2–30 years at least. My point is simply that we are all God’s children and the Church must accept that society has moved on and developed, and keep up and modernise. We are not very tolerant of homosexuals, whereas society now is. The Church must be representative of Society. In my own Church the average age of the congregation is 74. When God calls them the Church will close as we are seen and out of touch and old fashioned. That asideIi do know that the power of prayer is amazing, so the Holy Spirit will fix this if we ask him enough Peace and God bless us all.

  • scary goat

     I don’t think frank was actually agreeing with you.

  • Adam

    Face up to the fact that any argument past or present, is without any grounding. Marriage even now is not being “overthrown”

    Time moves on, stop living in the dark ages. The mind boggles at the Churches ability to remain so distant from reality, all you are doing is distancing yourself from society and losing any relevance in the modern world.  It’s not atheists, homosexuals or any other agenda that’s threatening the Church.  They have no need to, you’re doing a fine job yourselves.

    The Church still plays a role in society, but by holding such misguided old world views you yourselves are threatening to consign your faith to the history books, but fail to see this. Generations are approximately 22 years apart, looking at how opinion has changed over the since the 1970′s (2 generations) I’d give you about 40 years or so without making any change before no one at all wants to listen.

    Accept change, stay relevant and play a positive role to society. 

  • majorcalamity

    I will leave others to judge who’s arguments stand on their head, because your reply is more worthy of the playground than a serious debate. 

    Making alliances between existing family units does NOT mean that marriage was always about families. The alliances were the primary motivation. There is a great deal of information available to support this. If you really want to understand then do your research and learn something. I suspect though that you are happy in your religious bubble and will go on simply looking for anything which you can garner to support your pre-conceived position. 

    Catholics claim that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because it’s purpose is pro-creation. Sex outside of marriage, or effective contraception, is not permitted. That is regulating how and when children can be born. Understand now?

  • JabbaPapa

    Thank you for confirming that your views on religion are replete of the usual clichés and secularist/atheist indoctrination.

    FYI the Church is not a UK organisation only.

    Accept change, stay relevant and play a positive role to society.

    Relevance and positivity are not conditioned by change.

  • JabbaPapa

    Making alliances between existing family units does NOT mean that marriage was always about families.

    ???

    I see — so by the same token, commercial alliances between sausage manufacturers would not concern sausage manufacturing ?

    You’re very confused — you are falsely assuming that marriage contracts between the wealthy and powerful constituted the norm for *all* marriages in whichever time and place.

    Most, in fact virtually ALL, marriages prior to the 19th century were either ad hoc arrangements not formalised in any way whatsoever by Law or formalised by religious ceremonies ONLY.

    The average degree of formalised marriage versus ad hoc arrangements assimilated to marriage would vary from place to place, but the main means of recognising the existence of a marriage simply existed with each local community’s marriage celebrations or simple recognition of the existence of the relationship.

    The alliances were the primary motivation.

    This, then, is easily understood to be rubbish.

    The primary motivation of marriage has ALWAYS been the creation of a family, for various different purposes — but centred necessarily around the raising of children.

    If you really want to understand then do your research

    I already have done.

    to support your pre-conceived position

    Don’t confuse your own interpretative strategies with other people’s.

    Catholics claim that marriage can only be between a man and a woman because it’s purpose is pro-creation. Sex outside of marriage, or effective contraception, is not permitted.

    No — sex outside of marriage is sinful, as is contraception.

    Do you understand the difference between a moral teaching and each person’s individual freedom ?

    That is regulating how and when children can be born.

    No, you seem to be confusing Catholicism with contraception.

    Catholicism teaches that seeking to control childbirth by any other than natural means is sinful.

    Again — do you understand the difference between a moral teaching and each person’s individual freedom ?

  • JabbaPapa

    Are you going to be dragging out the entire array of your fake sockpuppet “priests” Farver Arfur ?

  • majorcalamity

    ME confused!!!!! My
    goodness my friend, I suggest that you go take a long hard look in the mirror.

    I see — so by the same token,
    commercial alliances between sausage manufacturers would not concern sausage
    manufacturing ?

    Actually yes, as it
    would have nothing to do with making sausages! It concerns commercial issues,
    such as agreements on marketing.

    You’re very confused — you are falsely
    assuming that marriage contracts between the wealthy and powerful constituted
    the norm for *all* marriages in whichever time and place.

    No I don’t. It is
    you (and the Church) which tries to suggest that every marriage, from the start
    of time, was solely for the procreation and nurture of children, when there
    were many motives involved.  

    Most, in fact virtually ALL, marriages
    prior to the 19th century were either ad hoc arrangements not formalised in any
    way whatsoever by Law or formalised by religious ceremonies ONLY.

    Of course! Until
    civil ceremonies were permitted there were no other possibilities.

    The average degree of formalised
    marriage versus ad hoc arrangements assimilated to marriage would vary from
    place to place, but the main means of recognising the existence of a marriage
    simply existed with each local community’s marriage celebrations or simple
    recognition of the existence of the relationship.

    The alliances were the primary motivation.

    This, then, is easily understood to be
    rubbish.

    Read the context,
    which referred to some ancient marriages. Not all. Not recent.

    The primary motivation of marriage has
    ALWAYS been the creation of a family, for various different purposes — but
    centred necessarily around the raising of children.

    That is simply
    untrue, although you really need to study the subject objectively and with an
    open mind to understand why. The reasons why people got married varied greatly
    and it was not always for the raising of children. As you have yourself
    identified it does not take a marriage for children to arrive, or for a family
    to be created. Logic says that there must be other reasons for many people. For
    the religious amongst us, maybe it’s true, but that is a small proportion.   

    If you really want to understand then do your research

    I already have done.

    It really doesn’t show.

    Don’t confuse your own interpretative
    strategies with other people’s.

    Oh I don’t. I have
    read almost identical nonsense on other Catholic sites. You seem all to have
    been given a briefing paper the arguments are so similar. 

    Catholics claim that marriage can only be between a man and a
    woman because it’s purpose is pro-creation. Sex outside of marriage, or
    effective contraception, is not permitted.

    No — sex outside of marriage is sinful,
    as is contraception.

    Personal opinions,
    to which you are as entitled as I am to mine. Which is that neither are sinful,
    and that to base a policy upon religious belief is, of itself, sinful.

    Do you understand the difference
    between a moral teaching and each person’s individual freedom ?

    It would seem that I
    have a much better grasp than you have so far displayed.

    No, you seem to be confusing
    Catholicism with contraception.

    That’s just
    silly. 

    Catholicism
    teaches that seeking to control childbirth by any other than natural means is
    sinful.

    I know, but as most
    of us don’t agree it really doesn’t matter too much.  

  • Jonathan

    Heterosexual couples beyond child-bearing age, and others for a variety of medical reasons *are* “totally and completely incapable of producing offspring between themselves”.  In what sense are they *capable* of producing offspring?  Only in your odd counterfactual sense.  

    I may as well argue that “if only things were different, gay couples would be able to produce offspring between themselves too”.  It doesn’t make it true, any more than your “natural law” argument makes it true that an infertile couple can produce offspring.

    The reason you distinguish between the two cases is that you have already determined that heterosexuals should marry and homosexuals should not.

  • thomasthebishop

    Phil, my son, you are not a Catholic priest. Please stop contaminating blogs with yoiur sockpuppets.

  • Jonathan

    That’s good to know… the house of peers is where the battle will be more fiercely fought, I suspect.  George Carey and Detta O’Cathain will, no doubt, make for fascinating hearing.  And poor old Tim Stevens will have to make the Church of England’s sorry case.  

  • frere_R

    You are not a priest, you nasty lying scum! You are the anti-Catholic friend of atheists on the Damian Thompson blog who we all know as Phil Evans.  You are a Quisling and a shit.

  • Michael Turner

    I have been waiting for this article for some time now.whilst it raises the spirits a good deal. I fear sadly that it will have little effect on our ‘ here today gone tomorrow’ politicians who are not supporting gay marriage for reasons of conscience or intellectual foresight but rather weak and suspect reasons such as. losing the gay vote, towing the party line, not wishing to be labelled homophobic or worse bigotted.
    copying USA culture. ( one of our greatest downfalls ) the desire to appear progressive etc etc.
    What we need to push for is a secret vote of MPs then we might be much more likely to get a true vote.
    Hopefully some MPs will take on board the very well argued position of our church. It would be pleasing at least to receive an intelligent response from government to the communication instead of the usual ” We are seeking equality tosh “.

  • Michael Turner

    Then go seek their reasons and come back with sound argument as support, don’t just join the lemmings. 

  • Michael Turner

    If by some incredible error of judgement this bill were to get through. I for one would not recognise
    such unions as marriage, regardless of legislation. Thank God it will be turfed out of the Lords. delaying any legislation for at least ten years.

  • frere_R

    You are not a priest, you nasty lying scum! You are the anti-Catholic friend of atheists on the Damian Thompson blog who we all know as Phil Evans.  You are a Quisling and a shit.

  • Jonathan

    Do you also not recognise as marriages the unions of those where one or more partner in the marriage is divorced?  Or where somebody claims marriage to his deceased wife’s sister?  

    If so, how do you manifest this?  If not, why single out same-sex unions for attention?

  • scary goat

     Ok, now I definitely believe you!  :-)

    I think I prefered bishop dierdre barking.  :-)

  • frere_R

    You are not a priest, you nasty lying scum! You are the anti-Catholic friend of atheists on the Damian Thompson blog who we all know as Phil Evans.  You are a Quisling and a shit.

  • scary goat

     Will reply to this and any of your other comments that need a reply in one place further down the thread because it is all connected. 

  • Jonathan

    In which case, *only* hetero-sexual sex *that is successfully procreative* should be considered relevant to the married state.

    Otherwise, you’re divorcing the procreative act from marriage.  The fact that you’re happy to do this in the cases of infertile heterosexual couples, but not consider setting aside the requirement for homosexual couples shows the true root of your issue.

    For you, It’s not about procreation.  It’s about sexuality.  Be honest about it.

  • scary goat

     Ok, fair enough……except that all along you have been insisting that our religious freedoms will not be infringed. If you are not quite so sure about that, can you at least bear in mind that we might have a legitimate concern.

  • Jonathan

    Thanks for calling “phil” out, JabbaPappa and others.

    And whoever it was who called him a “Quisling and a shit”.  You’ve gotta laugh.  A wonderful insult.

  • scary goat

     Sorry Sweet, you did bodge that one a bit.  Nick of course has a point here.  However, Nick, Sweet is definitely correct that your existence is down to the union of a man and a woman. 

  • scary goat

     Sorry Major, I don’t always agree with everything Jabba says…..I don’t always even understand everything Jabba says….but I’ve got to vote for the logic of his argument here.  I’m guessing you will think that is because I share his pre-conceived ideas.  You may not be aware of how “un-pre-conceived” and “un-indoctrinated” both his ideas and mine are.

  • Jonathan

    I don’t agree with much of that, Sweetjae, but I do agree that “it’s not homophobic”.  At least, it’s not *necessarily* homophobic to disagree with equal marriage.

    It’s bonkers, it seems to me, to suggest that to believe today what is actuality today (that same sex couples cannot marry) is necessarily homophobic.  Neither shall it suddenly become necessarily homophobic if and when equal marriage here becomes possible.

    As is obvious from my other posts, I support equal marriage.  I do believe that contrary positions are usually held in good conscience and without being motivated by homophobia.  (I’m not blind to the genuine homophobia, either, of course).

  • scary goat

     ” – that married same sex couples provide the best basis for raising children in loving and caring homes!”

    This and a few of your other comments about “straights” messing up marriage could be taken as being just a tad “heterophobic”.  Just one snag….without those pesky heteros, I doubt whether you will find any children to adopt.

    Although, actually I don’t entirely disagree with you about marriage already being messed up.  Where we would differ is that I see liberal views as the culprit in messing it up.

  • scary goat

     Oops, I forgot to reply to your second paragraph.
    No, it’s not a red herring, Nick.  The point is heterosexuals CAN do what homosexuals do, but they are not supposed to and it is a sin if they do. They can also have “normal” sex which is what they are supposed to be doing.  Homosexuals CAN’T. They are either having sinful types of sex or no sex.  If they are having no sex, then they are close friends not homosexuals. I know you may not consider things sinful as we do, that’s a different subject, a difference of opinion, but that’s not the same as saying our argument is a red herring.

  • Frank

    The proposals have two definitions.
    One where adultery applies and one where it doesn’t so why is that? Surely the wordsmith’s could have come up with something?
    Without sexual exclusivity how is it a marriage rather than any other friendship and how is it monogamous?
    Can you say for certain that the same equality and human rights legislation won’t be used to take advantage of this situation and if so will it undermine married women and children?
    If politicians do not want to hide the issues why is this being pursued with such haste?
    Two people can bring out the worst as well as the best so surely the nature of the love and commitment does matter?
    Do we care if the words mother and father no longer have any meaning?
    We have plenty of evidence from the 50s and 60s generations to know the most likely answers.
    Marriage as we understand it is the basis of the family and the most supportive environment for a woman to have children. Marriage as currently understood is the safest place for unborn children and the best and safest place for children.  Why do you want to risk changing that?

  • majorcalamity

    That’s OK, we can agree to disagree politely and I suspect that “Jabba” needs his friends. It is strange though how the opponents to any change to the meaning of marriage seem to use the same arguments, and often the same words, to voice their opinions. If you are not drawing inspiration from your Bishops and the Catholic press I would be very surprised. By way of contrast I get my information by myself and from a wide variety of sources. As I don’t belong to any organisation I don’t need to align my position with anyone else, so come to my own conclusions.

  • Jonathan

    Lots of questions.  I’ll try to answer your final question: “Marriage as currently understood is the safest place for unborn children and the best and safest place for children.  Why do you want to risk changing that?”

    Nobody is trying to change your understanding of where the safest place is for children – born and unborn.

    Gay couples may already adopt.  Extending marriage to same-sex couples does not change this.

    I’m still interested to understand the view that the same-sex issue is much more important than the divorce-and-remarried issue…

  • Nick

    No JabbaJabba, that isn’t what’s happening…
    Marriage isn’t being overthrown – its being strengthened…
    Your replies are getting ever more bizarre and desperate…

  • majorcalamity

    It will go through and is not an error of judgement. It is a triumph of reason over intolerance. A recognition that evolution applies to everything, including marriage. The only possible exception seems to be the Catholic Church which seems to see staying unchanged in every circumstances as a great virtue. As the ultimate destination for anything which fails to adapt to a changing environment is extinction there ought to be a lesson for the Church.

    As to the Lords delaying the measure? They might well try, because there are still far too many there who are either part of the religious lobby, or closely connected to it. If they do they will fail because the Government will keep returning it for sure and this might well force a long over due reform of the second chamber. Removing the Bishops would be a very good start.

  • Nick

    That’s fine JabbaJabba, you continue on your set course – and consgn your church to the history books. Other branches of the Christian faith will fare far better. 

  • Jonathan

    For what it’s worth, I believe that your concern is legitimate.

    We don’t seem very good yet – as a society, and legally – at accommodating a variety of views, especially whilst some reasonably rapid changes are going on.

    We seem too quick to leap from black to white and expecting everybody to come with us at the same time.

  • Nick Jones

    Yes JabbaJabba, marriage is about families – what you still haven’t cottoned onto is that Gay people also form families.

  • scary goat

     Well, that rather depends on how we define discriminate, as Sweet keeps trying to explain.  No, of course I don’t think gay people should be discriminated against….as in I don’t ride the bus which says “straights only”.  Dignity of each human person and all that. On the other hand I don’t consider it to be discrimination if all I am saying is that by redefining a word to suit your own views you may be treading on other peoples toes. Am I being discriminated against because they wouldn’t give me an ‘A’ level certificate in maths/sciences?  I am just as clever…..but I studied languages. Am I discriminating in favour of my daughter because I don’t buy my son sanitary towels? Equality doesn’t mean “sameness” and nature is nature.

    I really don’t even know why you are asking me if I think it’s ok to discriminate against gays.  I don’t know how many times I have said I don’t mind as long as it doesn’t trump our rights.  As far as I am concerned secular marriage these days is hardly worth the paper it’s written on anyway.  What worries me is the lethal combination of “gay marriage” and equality/discrimination laws which could pose a threat to our religious freedoms.

  • Nick

    “No — sex outside of marriage is sinful, as is contraception.” – If you believe that JabbaJabba, that’s up to you – virtually no one else does. No one.

  • Jonathan

    I don’t mean to indulge in nit-pickery, but positive and negative signs work against each other (additively) and result always in the negative (when factored).  Not sure how they “complement each other”.  They seem more likely to “cancel each other out”.

    Negatives and negatives result in a reinforced, strengthened negative (when added) and a transformation: a positive! if factored.  

    Or did you have something else in mind?