Updated Sunday evening
The amendment passed by the House of Lords earlier this week affects two sections of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. One of these sections, 6A, was itself an amendment to the Act, and came in the Civil Partnership (Amendments to Registration Provisions) Order 2005. That order also amended Section 6 itself.
Below the fold is the full text of sections 6 and 6A, as previously amended, and marked up with Lord Alli’s amendments:
(1) The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit section 6(1)(b) and section 6(2).
(3) In section 6A, after subsection (2), insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section may provide that premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships may differ from those premises approved for the registration of civil marriages.”
(4) In section 6A, after subsection (3), insert—
“( ) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”
The main, if not the only, other piece of legislation that would need to be revised to implement this change is The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005.
Clause 11 of The Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 which reads as follows, will not be amended, however.
(1) Any proceedings conducted on approved premises shall not be religious in nature.
(2) In particular, the proceedings shall not—
(a) include extracts from an authorised religious marriage service or from sacred religious texts;
(b) be led by a minister of religion or other religious leader;
(c) involve a religious ritual or series of rituals;
(d) include hymns or other religious chants; or,
(e) include any form of worship.
3) But the proceedings may include readings, songs, or music that contain an incidental reference to a god or deity in an essentially non-religious context.
4) For this purpose any material used by way of introduction to, in any interval between parts of, or by way of conclusion to the proceedings shall be treated as forming part of the proceedings.
0 CommentsDave Walker has the answer:
Cartoon: What the bishops were doing whilst civil partnerships in church were being voted on
11 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday afternoon
The amendment proposed by Lord Alli was passed in the House of Lords by a vote of 95 to 21.
News reports:
PA Civil partnership church ban lifted
The Times Peers vote for church civil partnership ceremonies
Daily Mail Gay couples now able to marry in church after House of Lords lifts ban
Telegraph Peers vote to allow homosexuals to marry in church
Ekklesia Parliament votes to recognise religious same-sex partnerships
BBC Church gay ceremonies ban lifted
The Bishop of Bradford spoke against the amendment and voted against it.
The Bishop of Newcastle voted in favour of it.
Others voting in favour included Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who also spoke.
Others voting against included Lord Eames.
Updates
Hansard report of the debate on this amendment starts here. For the PDF version go over here.
For the official news report see this page.
And for an official analysis of the voting patterns see this.
Afternoon update
Reuters Gay activists welcome vote on religious civil partnerships
Independent Gay weddings to be allowed in church
Ruth Gledhill Bishop of Winchester slams gay marriage in church ‘fudge’ headline changed to: Bishop of Winchester warns clergy could be sued over gay marriage
Andrew Brown Civil partnerships win in the Lords
George Pitcher Lords vote for “gay weddings” – so what?
Peter Ould Lord Alli’s Amendment Passes
Evangelical Alliance Churches must be free from fear of lawsuits over civil partnerships, says Evangelical Alliance
Stonewall House of Lords votes by majority of 74 for civil partnerships in religious premises
Ekklesia Same-sex partnership change highlights need to overhaul marriage law
Quakers in Britain Quakers welcome debate on equality
Christian Institute Homosexual unions allowed in churches
CCFON House of Lords vote to allow Civil Partnerships to take place in Church
28 CommentsUpdated twice
Several articles opposing the Equality Bill amendment proposed by Lord Alli have appeared.
Fulcrum has an article by Andrew Goddard Civil Partnerships and Religion:Some Cautions and Questions.
Andrew Carey has written in the CEN and republished by Anglican Mainstream Bishops facing real issues.
Peter Ould has written Blessing Civil Partnerships in Church.
All of these were written before the revised amendment text was published, although Andrew Goddard has made some changes to take account of it.
Peter has now also commented on the new amendment here.
On the other side of this debate, Colin Coward has written Civil Partnerships in religious buildings – at last, ‘moderate’ dissent among the bishops, and dishonesty from one who should know better.
Second Update
Gavin Drake has weighed in with Let’s all play ‘Pin the tail on the law’ with Lord Alli.
17 CommentsThere was a letter in the Guardian this morning from the three denominations seeking this change: Church partnerships.
Richard Harries has written an article, now available at Cif belief Commitment we should encourage. Here is part of what he says:
18 Comments…Some Church of England bishops, who were hardly enthusiastic about civil partnerships in the first place, fear that if this is allowed it would blur the distinction [between] them and marriage. But this is a fundamental issue of religious freedom. On what grounds can any body claim religious freedom for itself but deny it to others? The bishops may or may not approve of what Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians want, but that is beside the point. What these bodies want would harm no one, and it accords with their deepest religious convictions. Religious freedom is indivisible. The only reason for denying it must be that of John Stuart Mill, namely if some public harm would result.
The harm to be taken into account need not be only physical, as race relations legislation shows. So it could be argued that allowing some faith communities to perform civil ceremonies on their premises was harmful in the sense that it undermines the institution of marriage in our society. But just the opposite is true. If we accept the argument that we need to retain both the term marriage and the term civil partnership, and that they are not identical, it seems to me clear from a Christian point of view that a ceremony in which two people commit themselves to a faithful, lifelong relationship before witnesses, partakes of the nature of a marriage. As such, from a Christian point of view, it can also express the biblical truth that such a relationship reflects the undeviating faithfulness of God towards us and which, according to St Paul, has its prototype in the relationship of christ to his church…
LORD ALLI
BARONESS BUTLER-SLOSS
BARONESS CAMPBELL OF SURBITON
53* Insert the following new Clause—Civil partnerships
Civil partnerships on religious premises
(1) The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit section 6(1)(b) and section 6(2).
(3) In section 6A, after subsection (2), insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section may provide that premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships may differ from those premises approved for the registration of civil marriages.”
(4) In section 6A, after subsection (3), insert—
“( ) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”
Analysis:
This is a substantially changed amendment. The original version read (changes marked by lining through):
(a) section 2(5) is omitted;
(b) section 6(1)(b) is omitted;
(c) section 6(2) is omitted;
(d) section 93(3) is omitted;
(e) section 137(5) is omitted.
The main effect of the changes is to retain the requirement that “No religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document”. Also the scope is now limited to England & Wales.
11 CommentsUpdated further on Thursday morning
Back on 5 February, Iain McLean who is Professor of Politics at Oxford University, wrote An open letter to the Bishop of Winchester at the Open Democracy website.
Stuart White wrote a follow-up to this What about my freedom of religion? at Next Left.
This led to today’s letter which you can find via here.
Today, Ruth Gledhill reports all this, and a lot more, on her blog at Gays could soon ‘marry’ in churches, synagogues.
See also the two articles in The Times
Anglican bishops back end to ban on gay civil partnerships in church by Ruth Gledhill and Rosemary Bennett
Civil partnerships have made gay couples just like everyone else by Rosemary Bennett
Ekklesia also has a roundup of these events, which notes that:
Hardline religious activists opposed to any extension of rights for LGBT people are already lobbying vocally against the change.
Updates
Other media have repeated the story, see
BBC Clerics call for gay ceremonies at religious venues
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Liberal bishops call for gay couples to be allowed to marry in church
Telegraph Heidi Blake Senior bishops want gay weddings in churches
CIf belief has an article by Andrew Pakula Bishops shouldn’t block equality.
And Diarmaid MacCulloch has also written there, see Bishops act the bully in parliament.
Aaron Goldstein Why equality matters to us
From the other end of the spectrum, ex-CofE minister Charles Raven writes about this, When will Gay Couples be able to take vows in the Church of England?
70 CommentsThe following letter will appear in The Times tomorrow. It is on the newspaper’s website now.
It’s discrimination to stop gay couples taking vows in church
It is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the CofE but also deny the spiritual independence of three small communitiesSir, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. An amendment to the Equality Bill, to allow this, was debated in the House of Lords on January 25. It was opposed by the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester on the grounds that, if passed, it would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. The former said that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership.
In the same debate, the bishops were crucial in defeating government proposals to limit the space within which religious bodies are exempt from anti-discrimination law. They see that as a fundamental matter of conscience. But it is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the Church of England and simultaneously to deny the spiritual independence of the three small communities who seek this change for themselves (and not for anybody else).
The bishops’ “slippery slope” argument is invalid. Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice. To deny people of faith the opportunity of registering the most important promise of their lives in their willing church or synagogue, according to its liturgy, is plainly discriminatory. In the US it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise . . . of religion.
The amendment will be re-presented by Lord Alli on March 2. We urge every peer who believes in spiritual independence, or in non-discrimination, to support it.
Iain McLean, Professor of Politics, Oxford
Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church, Oxford
The Right Rev David Stancliffe, Bishop of Salisbury
The Right Rev John Gladwin, Former Bishop of Chelmsford
Lord Harries of Pentregarth, Former Bishop of Oxford
The Right Rev Bill Ind, Former Bishop of Truro
The Right Rev Peter Selby, Former Bishop of Worcester
The Right Rev Kenneth Stevenson, Former Bishop of Portsmouth
The Very Rev Nick Bury, Dean of Gloucester
The Rev Jeremy Caddick, Dean, Emmanuel College, Cambridge
The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans
The Very Rev Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark
Canon Dr Judith Maltby, Chaplain, Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Canon Brian Mountford, Vicar of the University Church, Oxford
Canon Jane Shaw, Dean of Divinity, New College, Oxford
The Rev Sarah Coakley, Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity, Cambridge
Sarah Foot, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History
Alec Ryrie, Professor of the History of Christianity, Durham
Stuart White, Director of the Public Policy Unit, Oxford
Jill Green, Quakers
There is also a leading article, Equal before God.
32 CommentsThis Government has done much to bring the law into line with modern attitudes towards homosexuality. It scrapped Section 28 , equalised the age of consent and ended the ban on gays in the Armed Forces.
Now it must resolve the legal asymmetry that prevents homosexual civil partnerships from taking place on religious premises. In a letter to The Times today, a distinguished group of mostly Anglican clergy correctly point out that “straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice”. That clearly discriminates against homosexuals who are also believers, and three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers and the Unitarians — now wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. A legal amendment permitting them to do so is expected to be debated in the House of Lords next month.
The Church of England has so far resisted change, arguing that if some religious groups are allowed to hold civil partnerships then the pressure on the C of E to follow suit will become intolerable. It is a feeble argument. No one is arguing that any church should be forced to conduct a civil partnership. But willing churches should not be precluded from doing so.
Benjamin Disraeli believed the Church of England to be “a part of our liberties, a part of our national character”. If it has any hope of continuing in that role, the Church — and the Government — must recognise that our liberties today should include the right of homosexuals to register the most important promise of their lives in a church.
This happened last Tuesday, 9 February.
The Hansard record starts here, or the PDF is over here.
The Archbishop of York took part in the debate. On this occasion, and in a different context to the previous one, he was in favour of the concept of proportionality.
His contributions are here, here, and here.
The Bill now moves to the Report stage, which will occur on Tuesday 2 March.
0 CommentsLast week’s issue of The Tablet had several articles on this subject, including:
Elena Curti Parliament in his sights – The Pope and the Equality Bill
An editorial: Deepest Human desire
and an article by Clifford Longley reproduced here below the fold, with the express permission of the editor.
8 CommentsAt Ekklesia there is some analysis of what Rowan Williams said on Tuesday, in Archbishop says sorry to gays but defends Church’s discrimination.
In Cif: belief Savi Hensman gets more explicit: Rowan’s apology falls short.
And, I wrote a piece for Cif:belief which is headlined Rowan’s speech and the equality bill.
Also, Kelvin Holdsworth has written Still Shocking.
4 CommentsSome exchanges from the House of Commons last Thursday:
Kitty Ussher (Burnley) (Lab): … I know that my right hon. and learned Friend shares my view that it is wrong that religious organisations should be able to discriminate against, for example, gay people or women who apply for non-religious posts in those organisations. She will also know that a Government amendment on that subject was defeated recently in the other place. Will she therefore take this opportunity to clarify for hon. Members whether she will reintroduce such an amendment when the Equality Bill returns to the Commons?
Ms Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Government’s policy is clear and has not changed. Our view remains that religious organisations employing people should comply with the law that applies to all other employers, whether that is the requirement to have written contracts, pay sick pay or the minimum wage, or the requirement not to sack people unfairly or discriminate against them. However, our position has always been that for specifically religious work—as a vicar, priest, rabbi or imam—religious organisations would be exempt from non-discrimination law. A religious organisation cannot discriminate against gay people or women when it hires a bookkeeper, but it can when choosing a minister of religion.
The amendment that we proposed in the House of Lords did not intend to change that policy position. What it sought to do was make the distinction between religious and non-religious jobs clearer. The Lords did not regard our amendment as helpful. We will therefore leave the law as it is, and not bring the amendment back to this House. The law will remain as it was: in anti-discrimination law there is an exemption for religious jobs but not for non-religious jobs.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): With regard to what the Leader of the House said earlier about the Equality Bill, she will know that concern was expressed in the other place that her amendments were so tightly drawn that they could have encompassed even the Archbishop of York, because he spends a lot of his time working in the community, not just proclaiming the liturgy. Being positive, and now that the Government are not overturning their defeats, can we take it that the Government now accept the principle that the Churches must be allowed to regulate their own clergy according to their own conscience?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests. In the 2003 non-discrimination employment regulations, we explicitly allowed for an exemption for those involved in religious ministry, so I am sorry that he has taken the opportunity to spread a misapprehension. There was never an intention—and nor is there an intention—to apply the provisions to those involved in religious ministry. However, if a church, synagogue or mosque is hiring a cleaner, bookkeeper or finance officer, it will have to comply with the normal, non-discrimination provisions of employment, like all others. I hope that, instead of spreading misapprehension, he will reassure those who raised that concern with him that it never was the Government’s intention to make that change. The amendment simply clarified the difference between a religious and non-religious job, and whatever the criticisms of the drafting, which I do not accept, nobody could think that it would say that being Archbishop of Canterbury was not a religious job.
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): Given that the right hon. and learned Lady clearly believes in its continued importance and relevance in today’s world, may we have a debate in Government time on papal infallibility?
Ms Harman: That is not a matter for the House. What are matters for the House are public policy and legislative scrutiny, and what is a matter for the Government is to ensure that, although we respect the fact that some areas of religion must be subject to the control and decisions of those religions, for the rest, religious organisations, like everyone else, obey the law.
The Church Times today carries my report of recent events under the headline: Churches to keep their exemption from equality law, Harman confirms.
THE LAW covering church employment will stay as it is, the Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman, said on Tuesday. She was speaking after the defeat in the Lords of an amendment to the Equality Bill (News, 29 January), which sought to clarify the exemption for religious bodies from the existing legislation, to ensure that it applied only to church ministers…
This report also includes two sections on more of the House of Lords debates from Monday and Wednesday of last week, including the one on Civil Partnerships venues.
Earlier on Monday of last week, the House considered a proposal from Lord Alli to to amend the Civil Partnerships Act to allow religious venues to be used.
Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, spoke in support. He said: “The Government were absolutely right to respect the religious sensitivities of the Church of England when the Civil Partnership Bill went through Parliament, but since that time a new situation has emerged. The Quakers, liberal Jews, and other religious bodies have made it quite clear that they want permission to conduct these ceremonies in a religious context with religious language. This is a fundamental issue of religious freedom…”
Cif: belief yesterday carried a comment article by Riazat Butt headlined More Catholic than the pope.
There is still much anger over the pope’s comments about UK equality laws. Part of me wonders why people are surprised by the nature of his observations – they are exactly what one would expect – and part of me also wonders why people are focusing on the equality bill, which was more about Anglicans than Catholics. The Catholic bishops did not turn a blind eye to the proposed legislation, but it was the Lords Spiritual who went to war over it. They won. Well done them. That the established church is trying to shut out people whose lifestyle is at odds with Christian ethos brings the words “stable”, “door” and “bolted” to mind. Their attempts to legitimise “sexual cleansing” also reminds me of the time that Katharine Jefferts Schori accused the C of E of double standards…
and she concludes:
4 CommentsWhile I accept the pope was out of order for passing judgment on equality legislation and UK attitudes towards homosexuality, the same level of anger and outrage must be directed at those Church of England bishops who fought tooth and nail to keep the status quo, to preserve their right to discriminate against gays and lesbians and to institutionalise and legitimise prejudice against anyone they deemed to be unfit for purpose because of their lifestyle.
Newspaper headlines on Wednesday were confusing:
Independent Jerome Taylor Harriet Harman defends equality legislation following Pope’s criticism
Telegraph Andrew Porter and Martin Beckford Victory for religious groups as Labour gives up on Equality Bill clause condemned by Pope
The Times Rosemary Bennett and Ruth Gledhill Harriet Harman backs down over employment equality for churches
The Independent also had The Big Question: What is equality legislation, and why is the Pope so concerned about it? by Andy McSmith
Andrew Brown interpreted all this as Harman retreats.
So what actually happened?
First, on Thursday last week, long before the Pope spoke, Harriet Harman answered a question in the House of Commons. You can read the Hansard record of it here. The relevant bit is also copied below the fold.
Second, this week the following statement was issued by the GEO on Tuesday:
6 CommentsHarriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, said:
“There are religious jobs and non-religious jobs within organised religion. For example, a pensions assistant ensuring that the records database is kept up to date is not doing a religious job. Issuing and processing invoices, even if it is done in the employment of a church or other religious organisation is not a religious job.
“Employment and non-discrimination law applies to religious organisations when they employ people in non-religious jobs in the same way that it does to all other employers. We have never insisted on non-discrimination legislation applying to religious jobs such as being a vicar, a bishop, an imam or a rabbi.
“Religious organisations can decide themselves how to do that. However, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law. We thought that it would be helpful for everyone involved to clarify the law, and that is what the amendment that we brought forward aimed to do. That amendment was rejected. So the law remains as it was.”
Steve Bell in the Guardian had a cartoon, see Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit.
Listen to Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff, speaking on Vatican Radio in Rome on Tuesday.
The Guardian published this editorial comment on Wednesday: Equalities legislation: The pope protests.
The Question of the Week at Cif:belief has been Does faith trump equality? (This was started on Monday, before the Pope spoke.)
In response to the Pope incident, Martin Pendergast wrote at Cif: belief All of us deserve equality.
And Simon Jenkins wrote An odious view, indeed. But I’m with Pope Benedict on this one.
The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks wrote in The Times The Pope is right about the threat to freedom.
The Archbishop of York gave a lecture, in Newcastle, titled Gracious Magnanimity vs. Tolerance. You can read the full text of that here.
8 CommentsUpdated again Tuesday morning
The Pope has commented on British equality legislation.
Cif belief has republished an address delivered to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales by Pope Benedict on 1 February 2010.
The key paragraph is this:
Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth. Continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society. In doing so, you are not only maintaining long-standing British traditions of freedom of expression and honest exchange of opinion, but you are actually giving voice to the convictions of many people who lack the means to express them: when so many of the population claim to be Christian, how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?
There has been a speedy British media reaction to this:
Telegraph Damian Thompson Pope tells English and Welsh bishops to get their act together and Has the Pope declared war on Labour?
Martin Beckford Pope Benedict XVI criticises ‘unjust’ effects of Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill
Press Association Pope confirms he will visit Britain Headline changed to Pope attacks equality laws in UK
The Times Ruth Gledhill Pope Benedict XVI confirms first state visit to UK and Pope: Britain’s equal rights legislation ‘violates’ natural law and Pope Benedict XVI attacks Labour’s equality push
BBC Pope Benedict confirms first papal UK visit since 1982
Guardian Riazat Butt Pope condemns gay equality laws ahead of first UK visit
Independent Jerome Taylor Pope: I’ll visit but I don’t like your equality laws
Monday evening additions
Government Equalities Office press statement:
“The Pope acknowledges our country’s firm commitment to equality for all members of society. We believe everyone should have a fair chance in life and not be discriminated against. The Equality Bill will make Britain a fairer and more equal place.”
Telegraph Editorial Opinion Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill should be laid to rest headline changed to The Pope, Labour and religious freedom.
The Times Ruth Gledhill Pope Benedict XVI misses the point in his attack on UK equality law
Guardian Andrew Brown Papal aggression
Catholic Herald Mark Greaves Pope Benedict condemns Equality Bill
Reuters Philip Pullella Pope confirms Britain visit, attacks equality bill and second version of this story
Telegraph Martin Beckford Pope Benedict XVI attacks Labour’s ‘unjust’ equality laws ahead of UK visit and later version Pope attacks Labour laws on equality
Tuesday morning updates
Daily Mail Simon Caldwell Pope condemns Harman equality drive as ‘violation of natural law’
Mirror POPE SLAMS RIGHTS BILL
BBC Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill
Herald (Scotland) Outrage as Pope attacks UK equality laws ahead of state visit
Press Association Anger as Pope slams UK equality law
Also Martha Linden of PA, via Independent Anger after Pope slams ‘unjust’ UK equality laws
Guardian Riazat Butt Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before visit
65 CommentsMonday was revision day 4. Wednesday was day 5 and this was originally supposed to be the final day, but now an additional day has been scheduled for Tuesday 9 February (during General Synod, so not so convenient for bishops, perhaps.)
On Monday, following the previously reported debates on Clause 2, amendments to Clause 3 were also considered. Both the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Winchester took part in this debate.
The Hansard report of that starts here. Monday’s PDF is here.
Then, on day 5, the Hansard report of the debate starts here. The PDF file for the day is over here.
Official news report of Day 5.
The day began by consideration of the mandatory retirement age. The Bishop of Chester spoke on that.
Then, amendments relating to faith schools were considered. That part of the debate starts here.
And there was a debate on amendments relating to whether or not the public equality duty should be extended to cover Religion or Belief. That debates starts here.
The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Liverpool both spoke in these debates. No votes were taken on anything.
4 CommentsToday’s Church Times has three mentions of the bill.
There is a full news report of Monday’s debate, written by me, Bishops win in Equality Bill fight.
There is a leader, titled Opportunities not yet equal.
And there is comment on the secular press coverage of it in the Press Column (subscriber only until next week) by Andrew Brown.
THE Government’s defeat in the Lords over the Equality Bill was covered on remarkably simple left/right lines: for the right-wing papers, the issue was simply one of the freedom of the Churches from the oppressions of Harriet Harman and the European Union; for the Left, it was just as simply the freedom of gays to be employed…
The Church of England Newspaper devoted its entire front page to the bill. The main news story is reproduced over here.
Catholic Herald Anna Arco Government suffers Equality Bill defeat
More to follow.
3 CommentsUpdated Wednesday evening
Telegraph Martin Beckford Gay couples should be allowed to ‘marry’ in church, Government minister says
George Pitcher The Church should bless civil partnerships – but they’re not weddings
At Cif:belief
Andrew Brown Secularism and bigotry and May church press officers be gay?
Savi Hensman Church leaders are wrong on equality
Terry Sanderson Let’s fight the church on equality
At Ekklesia
Lords vote to reduce protection for religious groups’ staff and Government to consider legal status for religious same-sex partnerships
Equality Bill and religious discrimination and Misrepresenting equality… and Christianity
What’s so civil about a civil partnership?
Also (this topic should be reached this afternoon):
Equality and employment in faith schools and Public bodies seek an end to religious discrimination against teachers
CARE Religious Liberty upheld in Lords vote on Equality
CCFON Praise God for the victory in the House of Lords!
Christian Institute Lords defeat Govt over church staff
Catholic News Service Britain’s House of Lords backs church arguments on Equality Bill
Catholic News Agency Religious freedom safeguards preserved by defeat of UK Equality Bill
20 CommentsUpdated twice Tuesday morning
All of the amendments proposed by Baroness O’Cathain and others were agreed today.
See here for what each amendment says.
Amendment 98 216-178 agreed by 38 votes
Amendment 99 agreed
Amendment 99A 174-195 disagreed by 21 votes (government amendment)
Amendment 100 177- 172 agreed by 5 votes
More details tomorrow. Eight bishops participated in these votes.
Updates
The Hansard record of the debate on the amendments of Baroness O’Cathain listed above starts here. The PDF version is over here.
Slightly earlier, the amendments of Lord Alli had been debated. That record begins here.
Voting details:
Amendment 98
Amendment 99 – no division
Amendment 99A
Amendment 100
Press reports on all this are sometimes inaccurate on the voting figures. But here they are:
Telegraph Equalities Bill: Church leaders defeat Government over gay staff
BBC Government defeated three times over church gay plan
Reuters Government loses its Equality Bill faith proposals
Daily Mail Lords defeat for Harman over forcing churches to hire gays
Independent Peers defeat Government on church gay ban
45 Comments