Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted on Jul 19, 2013 |

UK Bishops on Marriage (SSC) Act

UK Bishops on Marriage (SSC) Act

Queen Elizabeth II signed the awkwardly named Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act into law Wednesday. Photo source: CNN.

Queen Elizabeth II signed the awkwardly named Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act into law Wednesday. Photo source: CNN.

This statement by the President and Vice-President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales was released after “same sex marriage” was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth Wednesday. Expected to take effect in January, the “Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act” affects England and Wales and was supported by Prime Minister David Cameron despite opposition from the Conservative Party, which he represents. The law is written so that religious organizations must “opt in” to perform legal ceremonies (instead of, as now, many of them being able to perform legal weddings by default) and provisions are made to prevent “religious organizations and their representatives” from being sued. Other provisions allow civil unions (legal since 2004) to be “converted” into marriages, and allow married people who want to “change their gender” to do so without divorcing first. British spellings are maintained below.

In receiving Royal Assent, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act marks a watershed in English law and heralds a profound social change. This fact is acknowledged by both advocates and opponents of the Act.

Marriage has, over the centuries, been publicly recognised as a stable institution which establishes a legal framework for the committed relationship between a man and a woman and for the upbringing and care of their children. It has, for this reason, rightly been recognised as unique and worthy of legal protection.

The new Act breaks the existing legal links between the institution of marriage and sexual complementarity. With this new legislation, marriage has now become 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, are no longer central. That is why we were opposed to this legislation on principle.

Along with others, we have expressed real concern about the deficiencies in the process by which this legislation came to Parliament, and the speed with which it has been rushed through. We are grateful particularly therefore to those Parliamentarians in both Houses who have sought to improve the Bill during its passage, so that it enshrines more effective protection for religious freedom.

A particular concern for us has also been the lack of effective protection for Churches which decide not to opt-in to conducting same sex marriages. Amendments made in the House of Lords though have significantly strengthened the legal protections in the Act for the Churches. We also welcome the Government’s amendment to the Public Order Act which makes it clear beyond doubt that “discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to the marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”. Individuals are therefore protected from criminal sanction under the Public Order Act when discussing or expressing disagreement with same sex marriage.

In other respects, however, the amendments we suggested have not been accepted. We were concerned to provide legislative clarity for schools with a religious character. This was in order to ensure that these schools will be able to continue to teach in accordance with their religious tenets. Given the potential risk that future guidance given by a Secretary of State for education regarding sex and relationships education could now conflict with Church teaching on marriage, we were disappointed that an amendment to provide this clarity was not accepted. The Minister made clear in the House of Lords, however, that in “having regard” to such guidance now or in the future schools with a religious character can “take into account other matters, including in particular relevant religious tenets”, and that “having regard to a provision does not mean that it must be followed assiduously should there be good reason for not doing so”. These assurances go some way to meeting the concerns we and others expressed.

We were disappointed that a number of other amendments to safeguard freedom of speech and the rights of civil registrars to conscientious objection were not passed. But Ministerial assurances have been made that no one can suffer detriment or unfavourable treatment in employment because she or he holds the belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

The legal and political traditions of this country are founded on a firm conviction concerning the rights of people to hold and express their beliefs and views, at the same time as respecting those who differ from them. It is important, at this moment in which deeply held and irreconcilable views of marriage have been contested, to affirm and strengthen this tradition.

For more on the implications of this change and how it may affect British Catholics, see our January story Letter from 1000 British Clergy Warns of Persecution.

For more on religious freedom, click here for our Religious Liberty resources page. Click here to see all our previous stories and guest posts on religious liberty issues. Click here for the USCCB’s resource page on the Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty — or click on the “Join the Movement” graphic on our site any time.

Click here to see all our current stories.

If you’ve enjoyed this story, please use the “share” buttons to forward it to friends — and please subscribe at the box at the top of the page to get our stories daily in your inbox.