Last week, the Church Times carried this article by Linda Peace: Treat them like other couples
AS A committed, Bible-believing Christian, I am ashamed and appalled by the debate about gay marriage. My views are not those of my son, who is gay and who is now an atheist, but result from some ten years of reading, prayer, discussion, and serious thought.
My son came out at the age of 20, having spent much of his previous ten years knowing that he was not growing up to feel attracted to girls, but to boys. I don’t think he even knew the word “gay” at the beginning of this process, but he knew that he was growing up differently.
I am now convinced that homosexuality is a developmental condition that is not amenable to change at any psychological level; it is not a matter of choice; and is something that has caused many boys and girls to live in shame and fear from their early teens onwards. I know that my son had no access to other gay people through his adolescence, and that it was only at university that he was able to talk this through with heterosexual friends, finally coming to the conclusion that he was gay.
We, the Church, over centuries have perpetrated a great wickedness on these children and developing adults, forcing many to live by deceit, in failed heterosexual marriages, and even in an inability to form relationships because of their own private hell.
At least the gay-rights campaigners have had the courage to stand up and work on some sort of social change. It is a pity that the Church did not do this in the first place…
The Bishop of Norwich and his suffragans have written a letter about the consultation. See Pastoral letter on marriage to all clergy. It concludes:
…We believe it important to avoid ill-considered and bellicose reactions to the Government’s proposals and to think through how such reactions are heard by gay people themselves. It is surely to the benefit of the whole of our society if gay people live in faithful, stable and publicly recognised relationships. Indeed, some gay relationships are a model of faithfulness compared with the serial monogamy so prevalent among heterosexual people. Civil partnerships were introduced less than six years ago and seem to have won rapid acceptance in wider society. They are frequently referred to as ‘marriage’ but there is a significant distinction since the registration of a civil partnership is not accompanied by any formal promises as in marriage. The Government proposes retaining civil partnerships (but not extending them beyond same sex relationships) as well as introducing same sex marriage. The rapidity of these developments makes us wonder how well considered they are.
We are sympathetic to the full inclusion of gay people in our society and the provision of appropriate means to enable them to maintain stable and lasting relationships. We believe, however, that the redefinition of marriage itself in the law of the land raises other important issues about the nature of marriage itself. The way in which the Government is going about it appears to create a new and ill-defined phenomenon called religious marriage, a novelty liable to generate more problems than the present legislation will solve.
Elizabeth Fry wrote at the Independent that Same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church
…So we should take immense hope from the fact that some members of the Anglican church are taking the lead in embracing change for once. It seems the church is beginning to recognise that change is inevitable and that if they are to continue their good work they will have to accept the change, just as they have with contraception and divorce. Such a loud voice from such an unexpected place only emphasises how the attitudes of society towards this issue are changing…
“….appears to create a new and ill-defined phenomenon called religious marriage, a novelty liable to generate more problems than the present legislation will solve.”
No, I think we need to hear what problems they think will be created. I am keen to know.
The problem Martin is that the marital union will be watered down to merely concerning an adult relationship of commitment which, however good and noble, divorces the institution from its procreative purpose. It is unarguable that when a man marries a woman then the likelihood of children is extremely high. For this reason marriage was always understood and defined alongside the needs of children within society. For all statistics show that children flourish best when raised within a loving relationship by their biological mother and biological father. For that reason marriage has been a bedrock for all civilised societies. In… Read more »
All along the Catholic Church DOES teach there is a state called Holy Matrimony and that not all those in Legally recognised marriages are in that sacramental state. If the C of E conflates the two (and it seems that IS the legal position that there is no difference between a marriage performed by a registrar or an appropriately-licensed religious minister) then I cannot understand why Rowan Williams refused to marry Charles and Camilla in church. The logical conclusion that we can draw on the lack of distinction is that EITHER all legally recognised marriages are actually secular OR that… Read more »
“We are sympathetic to the full inclusion of gay people in our society and the provision of appropriate means to enable them to maintain stable and lasting relationships.” Bishop of Norwich
How lovely of him. But I feel a ‘BUT’ coming on…..
“We believe, however,”
And there it is.
So, not *quite* full inclusion then, for “them”.
“appears to create a new and ill-defined phenomenon called religious marriage”
To the best of my knowledge, this ill-defined phenomenon has existed in England and Wales for more than 150 years. See the enacted version of Marriage and Registration Act 1856, particularly Section 12.
I think if we were to look a little more closely at the historical record, we would see that marriage has been an ill-defined phenomenon for 5000 years at least. It is a very mutable institution shaped and reshaped over and over again down through the centuries by changing human needs and desires, and by ever-changing circumstances. I can remember a time when interracial marriage was an unspeakable taboo. In much of the world beyond the West, marriages are still arranged between families, sometimes while the prospective bride and groom are still small children. The point of marriage for much… Read more »
“….appears to create a new and ill-defined phenomenon called religious marriage, a novelty liable to generate more problems than the present legislation will solve.” The Catholic church has also made that distinction for a long long time. They recognise marriages between couples of different faiths, for example, as licit but not as sacramental. The Catholic definition of marriage does not seem to have torn the realm asunder, I doubt that this would happen if the CoE decided to treat same sex marriages in the same way as it already treats marriages between divorcees. And if it doesn’t want to extend… Read more »
Ed
“If homosexual sex is as sacred as heterosexual sex in the eyes of God then why did God deprive such unions of children”
This comment comes dangerously close to considering infertile couples to be somehow deliberately not blessed by God.
There has always been a group of couples who could not procreate. Gay people just happen to be part of that group.
That’s about the extent of how big a deal it is.
Or ‘because God sees that some couples are called to bless society in other ways than by having children. That is not his only priority.’
I trust that the Lord Bishop of Norwich was actually referring to polygamy when he used the phrase ‘serial monogamy.’
Throughout human history, Ed T, there have many fertility cults. Christianity is not one of them. Blessedness =/= fecundity!
Is it not the case that prior to the creation of the Registry office there existed, of necessity for those who did not wish to marry in a Church of England service, a vibrant and socially accepted concept of common law marriage? As to E Tomlinson’s thesis that marriage exists for procreation; it is the contrary that is the case — procreation not only exists apart from marriage, but marriages can flourish in cases where procreation is impossible. There is no necessary connection. Nor is there in the marriage liturgy any vow to procreate; the marriage vows are all about… Read more »
“If homosexual sex is as sacred as heterosexual sex in the eyes of God then why did God deprive such unions of children” This strikes me as a very odd way of viewing both sacredness and sex, as if reproduction were the only redeeming facet of the sex act, or that pregnancy represented God’s stamp of approval on sexual intercourse. “Heterosexual sex” includes all sorts of scenarios that could result in children, including rape, prostitution, concubinage, and incest. None of those instances of intercourse strike me as particularly “sacred,” no matter how many babies they produce. It also strikes me… Read more »
I found Bill Dilworth’s post highly erudite and informative.
(( kudos)) *
* as the Americans say (I understand).
“If homosexual sex is as sacred as heterosexual sex in the eyes of God then why did God deprive such unions of children by creating us male and female with bodies that compliment each other to bring about life?” – Ed Tomlinson – This presumes that God was only interested in procreation as the intentional end of sexuality. If you can keep a straight face and tell us that every Christian heterosexual act of congress is intentionally procreative (non-contraceptive), I might begin to understand your objection to the loving relationship between same-sex partners, whose regard for their mate is a… Read more »
Always lovely to hear from an RC minister here. Though the silencing of Brian d’Arcy by the vatican is a disgrace.(Missing him on the radio 2 Sunday Half Hour radio2 8.30pm terribly).
Procreative means many things, like ‘increase’.
Lgbt are hugely creative and pro-creative in myriad ways- we also spend years of our lives LOOKING AFTER OTHER PEOPLE’s Children – and also elderly, ill, disadvantaged or dying people in the caring professions; and in millions of informal arrangements for friends, family and neighbourhoods. Lgbt use our energies for the commonweal.
No thanks necessary Ed.
PS When I said mean and snide this is the kind of thing I mean :
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/29/reports-tory-chief-whip-says-equal-marriage-proposals-will-not-come-to-a-vote/
A valid marriage involves genuine consent and sexual union. The legal requirement for such a lifelong union is that both parties consent to enter that marriage in a manner that is not voidable by either party. Marriage is consummated by neither a handshake, nor a hug promised to only one’s spouse. Those acts may signal an intense emotional connection, but not the intent to form marriage: affinity by which the parties become physically surrendered to each other, responsible for shared offspring and joined for life. Affinity is the font from which all the other biological rights of family descent flow.… Read more »
Bill,
I very much like the first sentence of your third paragraph. And this is a ‘position’ (hard to avoid doubles entendres) which Ed is presumably now committed to. It’s all baloney. Funnily enough, I’m pretty sure that Ed knows it’s all baloney and he’s only going through the motions (as couple who can’t have children sometimes describe their activities).
I have read and re-read the letter from these clerics and feel it lacks accuracy, clarity and real generosity. It looks very ill indeed when compared to the address Archbishop Barry Morgan gave to the Governing Body recently. These men have obviously not talked to any gay person who wants to get married – and who already sees themselves as married. The failure of the bishops to recognise what the civil authorities are willing to legislate for, that gay people have a vocation to marriage – is deeply depressing. In fact they seem to fail to recognise that marriage is… Read more »
What is the jurisprudence on same-sex sexual activity? Is it anywhere regarded as sexual intercourse in English law? Rabbinic law is very clear in its understanding of sexual intercourse as based on “penetration” (including how far) — and on this grounds declares that at least some forms of “sexual” acts between women do not constitute “sexual intercourse.” But I can certainly declare that it is not, at least in a number of jurisdictions in the US, including New York, “the expectation of all those who enter into marriage” that it be “a biological union between the male and the female.”… Read more »
David Shepherd:
Are you saying, then, that a marriage between a healthy woman and a paraplegic man incapable of sexual intercourse is, by its very nature, not legitimate, because consummation is impossible?
“The Roman Church remains implacably opposed to ALL forms of legal recognition of same sex families.”
Absolutely correct. Our local, benighted RC bishop, the Most Reverend Thomas Tobin, has publicly stated that God will punish the state of Rhode Island for passing an extremely watered-down civil union bill – one with large exemptions for religious hospitals and other entities, which do not have to recognize the relationships formed under the bill:
http://www.dioceseofprovidence.org/?id=14&uudis=229
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/06/rhode-island-civil-union-religious-exemptions-include-civil-union-status-.html
“Are you saying, then, that a marriage between a healthy woman and a paraplegic man incapable of sexual intercourse is, by its very nature, not legitimate, because consummation is impossible?”
Oh, Pat! Now you’ll get the “but they are *open* to the *possibility* of children!” argument.
Of course, if we’re talking Miracle-Max god, then gays are equally open to that possibility. Besides, of course, in vitro, surrogates, and the option that seems to be outside the comprehension of the right-wing “christians,” adoption of the children that so many “blessed” heterosexuals simply abandon.
Simplistic thinking + fairy-tale magic = conservative “christianity.”
Tobias, Jurisprudence does not consist of mere definitions, but the outcome of centuries of case law, some of which has become enshrined in statute law, such as the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. We are discussing proposals for a change to English law, rather than any other jurisdiction in the world. Furthermore, concerning the impact of other jurisdictions on marital laws in the UK, I would refer you to the petition of Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson for their Canadian marriage to be recognised as a valid UK marriage. It was denied by the High Court in 2006. Pat, There is… Read more »
Regarding the paraplegic man and marriage, it appears that not only he but anyone else in a similar state is S.O.L., as we used to say in the Navy. The RC Code of Canon Law reads in part: “Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.” There was a case in Brazil in the recent past in which a paraplegic man was forbidden marriage in the RCC under this very canon. There is a documentary film on the… Read more »
“It was denied by the High Court in 2006.” David Shepherd on Tuesday, 1 May While that is perfectly true and a nasty vindictive piece of work it was too – the allocation of costs was punitive, there is a fairly universal view that there will be a different outcome next time. Baroness Deech (not a friend!) says: “In the passage of the few years since this judgment, it is possible that societal views have shifted sufficiently so that an appeal on the same grounds might have a different outcome. “Whatever might be held, one still concludes that English law… Read more »
“Lady Deech in the same 2010 lecture also quotes the famous definition of marriage as a:
‘voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
“‘Such is the transformation of family law and family life that not one word of this remains true.’
Did Lady Deech think that someone was out to make marriage a *compulsory* union?
Very nice Bill!
OK, David: postcard-sized: “Consummation is accomplished by the sexual union of the couple.” Is that simple enough? It is not the current standard, but that is the standard we are talking about changing. (I prefer “sexual” to “biological” union for the reason I explained above — there is no “biological union apart from conception. The prudish could say “physical union” I suppose.) If there is any doubt about what constitutes sexual union, as I also noted, reference could be made to many other statutes and cases. It should also be noted that the high middles ages saw a great deal… Read more »
Bill:
Very funny!
Tobias: The actual proposals state: ‘Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.’ Although it betrays a fudge, there are clearly no plans to dispense with the consummation requirement. Current statutes do refer to non-consummation and adultery, their definitions are underpinned… Read more »
“Did Lady Deech think that someone was out to make marriage a *compulsory* union?”
My Arkansas relatives called that a “shotgun wedding.”
David Shepherd worries far too much. The matter being defined in case law will no doubt continue to develop in cases that come before the courts. I see an intellectual curiosity here not a problem.
Rabbinic law holds that only anal intercourse violates the commandment not to “lie with man as you lie with a woman.” Other acts may still be sinful, but don’t violate that commandment.
David, I don’t have ready access to the English statutes, but I’m sure there are definitions of what constitute “sexual acts” between persons. I would offer as a very basic element, “genital contact” and leave it at that. So, “A marriage is consummated by genital contact between the parties.” I don’t think more need be said. I think it also very important to note that consummation does not make the marriage; though non-consummation can be grounds for a finding of nullity. The marriage exists from the time of consent, exchange of vows, etc. The whole issue of consummation only arises… Read more »
While you may feel that ‘genital contact’ broadly describes sexual union, it will not suffice as an orientation-free definition of consummation or adultery. Despite the need for coyness, it does not begin to resonate with the actual cases from which the legal definitions of consummation and adultery were developed, such as D-E v A-G (1845) 163 ER 1039. In Pat’s paraplegic marriage example, genital contact might even result in an innocent wash nurse being named as co-respondent in his divorce proceedings! This exercise proves that, in law, a genuine equivlence, rather than one enforced by statute is a lot easier… Read more »
Perhaps I should also add that Jesus said adultery could take place without any genital contact, by means of the eye and the heart… It is understandable that the Law wants a more objective standard; but I think one can be objective in describing same-sex consummation — and infidelity — in legally cognizable forms of physical activity.
“The problem Martin is that the marital union will be watered down to merely concerning an adult relationship of commitment which, however good and noble, divorces the institution from its procreative purpose.” Ed Tomlinson – I’ve only just got back and noticed this comment. It sounds rather out of touch with the current understanding that marriage may be undertaken, by both civil and church authority, in cases where the couple are not capable of, or disposed to, the prospect of procreation. It is seen as the legal bonding of two souls who ‘love one another’ and want to commit themselves… Read more »
Fr Ron “It sounds rather out of touch with the current understanding that marriage may be undertaken, by both civil and church authority, in cases where the couple are not capable of, or disposed to, the prospect of procreation.” Do you know, when I first got married there were a lot of debates among my peers whether it was moral to have children at all, looking at the over population in the world and at the large number of children in our own country needing foster parents or adoptive parents. It was a real moral issue people wrestled with and… Read more »
David, you may assert that “genital contact” is inusfficient to constitute adultery — and that may be true in current law. But that does not mean that this must always be the standard. As noted above, both statute and case law change over time. I was able to check on the English Statute on Sexual Offenses 2003. It gives a broad definition of “sexual” that is reasonable and actionable. My point here is that an act which, absent consent, constitutes an offence under law, could well be held to qualify — with consent — as either adultery or consummation. Otherwise… Read more »
David, since I had understood Tobias’ “genital contact” to mean “mutual contact of the couple’s genitals,” your wash nurse example initially gave me a start.
Am I the only one who is finding this discussion about how to define sex rather sadly obsessive and beside the point? One could almost think that for some people marriage boils down to sex and in particular to one precisely defined sex act. How sadly limiting!
We all know what we mean by a sexual relationship. After all, those of us who are gay have been criticised and damned often enough for ours.
If it really still matters, then I’m sure the legal brains of the country will come up with a definition for it.
Shall we move on?
Interestingly (to me, at least), from what I’ve been able to find on-line it seems that most US states do not address the topic of consummation in their marriage statutes. At the end of the ceremony, you’re married. Period.
Since most US states’ laws do not address the issue of consummation, definitions of “sexual intercourse” are found in statutes dealing with sexual assault. This extract from the laws of Connecticut echo language I’ve also read in several university sexual assault policies:
“Sexual intercourse” means vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, fellatio or cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex.”
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-70b.htm
That seems to cover all the bases; maybe it could also serve as a working definition of “consummation.”
Precisely, Erika. And this is why the Vatican will be feeling the weight of responsibility for the increase of the world’s population – through its ongoing policy of banning contraception in the Third World countries, which are currently unable to sustain population growth because of a lack of natural resources. Where is the morality in that?
I agree with Erika. I think we have all had quite enough discussion on consummation now. Let’s move on…
Simon:
My point has been established. The proposals involve a dumbing down of the legal understanding of the common intent of parties to a marriage to the point of ignoring authoritative and codified precedents.
“Am I the only one who is finding this discussion about how to define sex rather sadly obsessive and beside the point?”
No you are not, though I don’t find this to be quite so sad. All this lawyerly talk about defining sex acts is indeed obsessive and it’s also howlingly funny. I can think of few things less appropriate for the magniloquent language of legal procedure than sex.
It was most refreshing to hear of President Obama’s personal movement towards the approval of ‘Gay Marriage’ – after an extended period of his own ‘Listening Process’ – something lacking even in the highest echelons of the Anglican Communion.