And another step closer …

The possibility of same sex marriages in the UK came yet another step closer today as the House of Lords voted overwhelmingly against a motion that was intended to block the same sex marriage bill.

The Telegraph put it like this.

Prior to the vote, some people had been predicting it might be a close call. But n the event, the attempt to block the bill was defeated by 390 votes to 148. Quite a sizeable majority.

As I mentioned here I had received a letter from Care that encouraged me to write to members of the House of Lords asking them to vote against the same sex marriage bill.

On May 25th I emailed Care at mail@care.org.uk as follows:

Dear Care,

I'm writing in response to a letter that you sent regarding the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill dated May 2013.

I'm saddened by the way that you are reacting to this whole issue and have made some comments on this here: http://andrea-wright.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/caring-and-care.html

Please let me know if you feel anything that I've said is unreasonable or unfair and I'll be happy to update it accordingly.

Alternatively, it would be really lovely if you were to change your views on this topic.

So far I’ve had no reply, suggesting either that people at Care are happy that my comments are reasonable and fair or that they are  busy doing other things and don’t care.

Caring and Care

I received the following letter from Care, dated May 2013:

Making a Christian Difference for the sake of the future

By the time you read this the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will have completed its journey through the House of Commons. It now goes to the Lords.

It was important to set out arguments for MPs and maximise the vote against the Bill, but we realised that it would be very difficult to win in the Commons. However, at the Second Reading in the House of Lords on Monday 3 June there will be a vote and, if all the Peers opposed to the Bill are present, there is a real chance of defeating the Bill at this crucial stage.

I am therefore writing to ask you to act urgently by sending a letter or email to one or more of the Peers specially selected and listed overleaf. Please contact as many as you can as soon as possible, asking them to attend the debate on Monday 3 June, to consider speaking in support of traditional marriage and to vote against the Bill. You could also mention the following:

There are many constitutional irregularities in the Bill's development. There was no mandate for this fundamental policy change. It was not in any party manifesto or the Coalition Agreement. There was no

Green Paper or White Paper. It wasn't in any Queen's Speech.

Religious liberty measures in the Bill are limited to 'wedding ceremony' protections for church ministers and churches. Contrary to what the Government has said, these are far from robust. There are no free speech conscience protections for public sector employees: chaplains, teachers, registrars, and others.

Please ask others to write too and, above all, continue to pray about this issue. More information about the

Bill and its progress is at www.care.org.uk/marriage. If the Bill is passed at the Lords' Second Reading there will still be opportunities at its later stages and we will keep you informed.

Thank you so much for your ongoing support in this crucial matter. If the Government passes this Bill there will be far reaching consequences for society that will affect us and future generations.

Yours in His grace

Nola Leach

Head of Public Affairs

Nola Leach

Care

53 Romney Street

London

SW1p 3RF

mail@care.org.uk

Care is a registered charity: Charity No. 1066963

The reverse of the letter includes a list of about 40 Peers from Lord Moran to Lord Saatchi in alphabetical order. There are details of email addresses of a whole load of Peers here. There’s also information on how to contact them here.

I think it’s interesting that the letter makes no mention of the following facts:

• The vote in the House of Commons was a free vote. Each Member of Parliament was free to vote however she or he wished.
• A very large majority of the MPs that voted were in favour of the bill
• The House of Lords is an unelected body made up of these people. It even includes bishops of the Church of England. Peers in the House of Lords aren’t answerable to any electorate. Effectively they are an undemocratic body of people.

My own point of view:

• Whether there was a mandate, party manifesto commitment, coalition agreement, green paper, white paper or Queens Speech on this is irrelevant.
• I don’t see a real reason as to why public sector employees should have special treatment compared with other employees
• I believe that it is not only churches and church ministers that are “protected”. The protection talks about religion rather than churches
• It seems a shame that Care are keen to capitalise on the potential support of an unelected and undemocratic body to further their own socio-political view of how life should be

I think that the people at Care likely have good intentions. But I believe that the main reason for their opposition to this Bill is really that they believe that the Bible says that Gay relationships are sinful. They don’t want to do anything that encourages or makes it easier for people to get involved in sin. I believe that they would say that they do this because sin damages people. And so their opposition to the Bill is actually about doing the best for society and for individuals. Ultimately they believe that in opposing the Bill they are performing the will of God.

Of course, all of that depends on believing in God, believing in the Bible as the Word of God, and also believing in a particular interpretation of the meaning of the Bible.

Maybe you would like to write to Care and let them know how you feel? In a polite way, of course. There is contact information here.

As an aside, I just started to read through the Bill here. Whoever wrote it isn’t going to be getting any prizes from these people.

Tell people what you think about same sex marriage

I received another letter from Care over the issue of same sex marriages. I wrote about a similar letter here.

I’ve read the words. And there was a time when I would have agreed with them. But not any more. I guess that I’ve either seen the light or been blinded by it.

Here’s the text of the letter:

May 2012
A Call to Action

The Government Equalities Office has launched a consultation on changing the law to permit same-sex couples to marry. CARE is part of the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) and is encouraging Christians to express their views to MPs. If you share our concern about government plans to redefine marriage, the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others, we need your urgent help which can be given in the following ways:
• Please respond to the consultation. Submissions are invited from individuals and organisations by 14 June. In addition, your church leadership can submit views on behalf of your church. The best way to do this is to complete the online form, and you will find advice on how to do this overleaf.
• Please contact your MP Local MPs do pay attention to the views of their constituents — particularly if they have a slim majority! Handwritten letters are taken more seriously than emails, but both are valuable. It is also very effective to meet face to face at the MP’s surgery. You might like to take someone with you and explain why you are opposed to the redefinition of marriage.
• Please sign the Coalition for Marriage petition if you have not already done so. It currently stands at nearly 500,000 signatures but we are hoping for a million or more! Do encourage others to sign, either online at www.c4m.org.uk or by using a printed copy available from CARE.
• Please pray. Our prayer resource is available at www.care.org.uk/marriage
If nothing is done now, we are concerned that churches may be required to conduct same-sex marriages in the future. On the same day that Home Secretary Theresa May gave a reassurance that this will not happen, Equalities Minister Lynn Featherstone said she believed full gay marriage in churches may come back another day’. This is a very serious matter and now is the time to make your views known!
Thank you so much for your help in this.

Yours sincerely

Nola Leach
Chief Executive and Head of Public Affairs

Redefining Marriage
• CARE is very concerned about the Government’s intention to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. This would change something that has been at the heart of our society for centuries.
• Marriage has always been the natural context in which to raise children, as fathers and mothers give complementary role models to children. Marriage safeguards them and also supports the wider family across the generations.
• Marriage was recognised in law in 1866 as ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others’. The issue is not about equality for same-sex relationships; that has already been achieved by civil partnerships.
• Research confirms that compared with every other kind of relationship, marriage is more stable and beneficial for couples, families and the whole of society. Same-sex marriage is an unproven and experimental social model.
• Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to the birth of children. Although same-sex couples can become parents, this leads to confusion about biological, social and family identity.
• Redefining marriage was neither in the Coalition Agreement nor in either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat manifestos. Although they have no public mandate, the Government is adamant that it is a question of when and how, not if. It would be very costly and involve extensive amendments to hundreds of legal documents.
• There would be knock-on effects for educators, religious groups and parents who may be stigmatised for disagreeing with the proposals. It could lead to faith-based discrimination if same-sex couples were refused the right to ‘marry’ in church.
• As we have seen elsewhere, same-sex marriage could be followed by other relationship variations, such as polygamy.
How to get involved:
RESPOND to the Government’s Equal Civil Marriage consultation. The best way to do this is via the online form at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage  
Alternatively, you can email your response to the questions to: equalcivilmarriage@geo.gsi.gov.uk or send a letter to: Government Equalities Office, 3rd Floor Fry, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1 P 4DF.
If you are short of time, you need only answer Question 1 as well as Questions 2 and 16 which give the opportunity to state your opinions. Please respond before 14 June!
NB. Email public.affairs@care.org.uk for an expanded briefing with further in formation and statistics to help you submit an in formed response. There is also a briefing paper at www.c4m.org.uk
CONTACT your MP, either in writing or by visiting them at their constituency surgery. You will find practical advice on how to do so at www.writetothem.com
SIGN the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) petition at www.c4m.org.uk
PRAY using CARE’s new resource at www.care.org.uk/marriage
CARE
53 Romney Street Tel. 020 7233 0455 Executive Chairman: Rev Lyndon Bowring
London Fax. 020 7233 0983 Chief Executive: Nola Leach
CARE is a registered charity: Charity No.1066963;
SW1 P 3RF mail@care.org.uk Scottish Charity No. SC03891 1, and a company
www.care.org.uk limited by Guarantee No. 3481417

I’ve completed the online form at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage and have made it clear that I am in favour changes that would allow same sex marriages and have already signed the petition at http://www.c4em.org.uk/

The Home Office web page makes the following points:

The key proposals of the consultation are:

• to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
• to make no changes to religious marriages. No religious organisation will be forced to conduct same-sex religious marriages as a result of these proposals
• to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
• civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content
• individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

Current legislation allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership, but not civil marriage.

The full details of the consultation are included in the pdf version of the consultation document, which is available to download below

The consultation document (Equal civil marriage consultation (PDF file - 196kb) explicitly states the following:

We have listened to those religious organisations that raised concerns about the redefinition of religious marriage. We are aware that some religious organisations that solemnize marriages through a religious ceremony believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That is why this consultation is limited to consideration of civil marriage and makes no proposals to change the way that religious marriages are solemnized. It will not be legally possible under these proposals for religious organisations to solemnize religious marriages for same-sex couples. There will therefore be no obligation or requirement for religious organisations or ministers of religion to do this. It will also not be possible for a same-sex couple to have a civil marriage ceremony on religious premises. Marriages of any sort on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman.

…

The Government is committed to building a fairer society and ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunities for all, including people of all religions. As we are only seeking to lift the ban on same-sex couples getting married through a civil ceremony, we would ensure that any subsequent legislation on equal civil marriage is clear that marriages conducted according to religious rites and on religious premises could not be between a same-sex couple. This would mean that no religious organisation, premises, or leader would face a successful legal challenge for failing to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple, whether or not the religious organisation, premises or leader involved performs marriages for opposite-sex couples. Any changes to the legislation as a result of this consultation will not, legally, enable same-sex couples to have a marriage through a religious ceremony and on religious premises.

…

We are also aware that the doctrines of many faiths hold the view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and this belief is contained within the teachings of their faith. We are clear that no one should face successful legal action for hate speech or discrimination if they preach their belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

There are many things that I find myself in disagreement with when it comes to Government policy and proposals, but this is one that I think that they have right. And what’s worse, I believe that the letter from Care is misleading and that it misrepresents what the Government is intending. If people at Care have read the consultation document, then they seem to either be telling deliberate lies about what the Government intend to do, or are accusing the Government of telling lies.

If you have the time then please tell your Member of Parliament what you think about it. Fill out the online form. Sign the petition. But I hope that you’ll be encouraging the Government to go through with the changes rather than taking the stance suggested by Care.

Marriage, Religion and Small Minds?

In the past I used to donate to an organisation called Care.

Every so often I still receive mailings.

A few days ago I received a letter, a poster and a petition.

The letter mentions the formation of The Coalition for Marriage.

The poster says:

MARRIAGE NEEDS YOU

SIGN THE PETITION

C4M.ORG.UK

“I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.”

The letter says:

… the Government has announced that there will be a consultation in England and Wales on redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships. We are strongly opposed to this …

We are deeply concerned about this matter, and believe that this proposal to alter the nature of marriage so radically marks a decisive moment in our nation’s history. We must do all we can to oppose it.

The C4M.ORG.UK web site asserts:

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

The petition provides a place for people to assert their support for the current definition of marriage and oppose any attempt to redefine it.

The British press has been carrying a lot of stories on the issue.

Church leaders have said a lot.

I think that once upon a time I might have signed this petition.

But now I’ve grown up, or as some might say I have back-slidden and returned to the mud and vomit.

It depends on the perspective that you view me from.

I have to admit that when I read this stuff I was angered by it. Sally has quietened me somewhat.

I had stared writing a bullet pointed list of why it bothers me. But mostly it’s the sense of duplicity that I feel.

I don’t believe that the Christian church or any other religion has the right to a monopoly on defining legal terms, even in cases where the original meaning of the word had some specifically religious roots. Christians have sometimes redefined non-Christian things in Christian terms. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for the opposite to happen once in a while.

So far as I can tell, no one is planning to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they don’t want to.

The propaganda that is being promulgated seems to use arguments that are designed to appeal to religious people that  take a particularly literal view of a selection of religious texts and to secular people  with homophobic tendencies. It also seems to appeal to people’s fears and anxieties. Suggesting that changing the definition of marriage will ultimately result in all kinds of bad things happening.

I’m still not at all sure about the existence of God. But … if there is … then (s)he must surely be less small minded than all of this.

I oppose this small mindedness.