The Church of England has published a note entitled Lord Alli’s amendment – civil partnerships. I am told that this was published on 5 March.
20 CommentsKey points regarding Lord Alli’s amendment to the Equality Bill:
- the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament so may not yet be in its final form
- even once Royal Assent is achieved Ministers have to decide when each of its provisions are brought into force
- and in this case there will also have to be fresh amending regulations before there is the possibility of places of worship becoming locations for civil partnerships
- so, there is much that remains unclear for the moment and will remain so for quite some time yet.
Lord Alli’s amendment inserts a new clause into the Equality Bill that would remove provisions in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 that prevent all ‘religious premises’ being approved for the registration of civil partnerships. It does not, however, mean that anyone who wishes to do so will now be able to register a civil partnership in church – the legislation has not yet completed its passage through Parliament.
First, the Government need to consider whether the amendment, as drafted, is adequate or whether further amendments are needed to achieve what it intends; including the intention that it should not place “an obligation on religious organisation to host civil partnerships”.
Secondly, the new provision, if contained in the Bill as enacted, would not have effect until it was brought into force by order made by the Secretary of State. Given that existing Regulations make it impossible for religious premises to be approved for civil partnership registration, those Regulations would have to be amended before the new provisions could be brought into force. Amending those Regulations will, itself, require careful consideration.
As matters currently stand it remains the case that civil partnerships cannot be registered on religious premises. Precisely how that position may change remains to be seen.
The Mission and Public Affairs Division of the Church of England has updated its guidance note on “Countering far right political parties, extremist groups and racist politics”. You can read the January 2010 version here: Countering Racist Politics. (PDF also available)
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland has very comprehensive information at general election churches getting ready including two resource documents:
These can both be downloaded from here.
And there is a Find a Hustings page.
CCFON has announced that the former Bishop of Rochester, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is to host a series of General Election Hustings across England in order to help local Christians question candidates for Westminster seats.
Ekklesia has a press release, Bishops urged to play leading role in reform of House of Lords.
The religion and society think-tank Ekklesia has today teamed up with democracy campaign Power2010 in an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.
Local churches and others are being encouraged to contact bishops, and ask them to continue in their support for the ‘bottom up’ campaign to reinvigorate democracy, which saw 100,000 votes cast, many in support of a reformed Second Chamber.
Several bishops have previously spoken favourably about Power2010, which aimed to identify five key political reforms.
A public vote, which finished on 22 February 2010, saw an all elected second chamber supported as the third most popular reform…
And a further article is titled Come on board for Lords reform, bishops urged.
From today, people are able to email all the bishops with a fully customisable message set up through the Power2010 website: http://www.power2010.org.uk/faith Hundreds have done so already, say organisers.
(At the time of writing this article, over 16,000 emails have been sent.)
From the Power2010 blog, there is Join our call for Bishops to back reform of the Lords.
15 CommentsFrom Los Angeles, we learn that Mary Glasspool has now received the required number of consents from standing committees of TEC dioceses. Consents from the bishops with jurisdiction are still awaited. See Los Angeles diocesan report here, and ENS report over here.
From South Carolina, there is news of resolutions to be considered at the 26 March diocesan convention. See the full text of these resolutions (also available as a PDF). ENS has a report titled Convention to consider resolutions on Episcopal identity, diocesan authority.
Hearings are due soon in lawsuits in both Fort Worth and Virginia:
In Islington registrar loses appeal we reported on the Court of Appeal decision last December.
Now, Lillian Ladele has been refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
See Martin Beckford Telegraph Christian registrar denied leave to appeal gay wedding refusal.
Other reports from the Press Association, and from the BBC.
17 CommentsUpdated Tuesday evening
In our latest weekend round-up of opinion we linked to an address by James Jones, the bishop of Liverpool, to his diocesan synod about allowing a variety of ethical conviction in the church.
The diocese has issued a press release: Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”.
Ekklesia has reported the address as Evangelical bishop “in sympathy” with same-sex partnerships.
Colin Coward of Changing Attitude has welcomed the bishop’s address in James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool calls for Anglicans to “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”.
But Andrew Goddard at Fulcrum does not agree with most of what the bishop has written: Accepting Ethical Diversity?: A Critical Appraisal of the Bishop of Liverpool’s Presidential Address.
And Anglican Mainstream has Bishop James Jones muddies the waters again.
Update
Colin Coward has written a response to Andrew Goddard’s article: Reactions to the Bishop of Liverpool – Andrew Goddard on Fulcrum.
Lord Alli has written on the Telegraph website about the amendment passed in the House of Lords last week, and the ensuing discussion, see A victory for religious freedom. It reads in part as follows:
…There was nonetheless huge concern from the Church of England and the Catholic Church that they would be forced – against their will – to host Civil Partnerships.
But we had included a specific provision in the amendment to ensure religious freedom which stated quite plainly: “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.”
Religious freedom means letting the Quakers, the Unitarians and the Liberal Jews host Civil Partnerships: a decision that they had considered in prayer and decided in conscience.
But religious freedom also means respecting the decision of the Church of England and the Catholic Church – decisions also made in prayer and taken in conscience – that they do not wish to do so.
That is what we agreed during the debate, and trying to pretend otherwise is to entirely misrepresent the way which this decision was taken.
I was therefore saddened by the Bishop of Winchester, who tried to characterise this debate by suggesting that Church of England vicars will be forced to host Civil Partnerships in their building.
Let’s not pretend that this amendment forces anything onto anyone. Let’s not pretend that individual clergy are going to face litigation. Let’s not pretend that churches will have to close just for obeying Church of England law.
This amendment was all about allowing religious groups to obey their own law, and the Bishop of Winchester should be above sensationalising the issue.
I was also saddened that the Bishop of Winchester was able to condemn our decision in the press, but didn’t turn up to listen to the debate, or indeed to cast a vote.
Out of the 26 bishops entitled to be there, only two made the effort to join the discussion – despite it being an otherwise well-attended debate.
You have to ask the question: if it was so important, if the consequences of this decision were to be so catastrophic, why were they absent from a debate which had been on the diary for weeks?
So let me assure the Bishop of Winchester and all those concerned: unless their religious organisation wants it, or unless Parliament changes the law, there is absolutely no risk of being forced to carry out any ceremony if they do not wish to…
The newspaper edition reports the story in a separate article, see Lord Alli attacks bishops in ‘gay marriage’ row.
27 CommentsLord Carey has complained that Christians are being bullied in the UK; see for example this Church Times report.
In response Riazat Butt in The Guardian asks Who’s bullying who? Lord Carey thinks Christians are being bullied by the political establishment. In reality, they enjoy many privileges.
And Frank Skinner in the Times writes Persecute me – I’m after the Brownie points. We Christians thrive as a minority. A bit of strict us-and-them keeps up the quality.
Theo Hobson writes in The Guardian about The whited sepulchres of Anglicanism
Bishops praising religious liberty are as phony as Thatcherites praising compassion
Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times that Gormley leaves a note at St Paul’s.
Richard Harries writes in the Times How could I be a Catholic, stuck in the past?
and Dwight Longenecker responds with Is there any such thing as a “Catholic-minded Anglican?”
Edward King, bishop of Lincoln, died on 8 March 1910. To mark the centenary, the archbishop of Canterbury had spoken to Crosslincs, the Lincoln diocesan magazine: Bishop of the Poor: Edward King reinvented the role of diocesan bishop.
Christopher Howse in the Telegraph asks How can God be inside us?
Peter Townley in a Times Credo column writes For human endeavour, we should read divine initiative. The key theme is power and how we use it as we journey with the Lord into the desert this Lent.
James Jones, bishop of Liverpool, gave an address to his diocesan synod today about allowing a variety of ethical conviction in the church.
14 CommentsJust as Christian pacifists and Christian soldiers profoundly disagree with one another yet in their disagreement continue to drink from the same cup because they share in the one body so too I believe the day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same gender love with the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation.
Update
The Quaker position is admirably explained in a booklet, available starting here: We are but witnesses: same sex marriages (also there is a PDF version linked from there).
Ekklesia has two items:
Symon Hill writes about Scaremongering and religious liberty and he concludes:
…Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, has predicted (with no evidence whatsoever) that the Bill will lead to clergy being sued for refusing to carry out such ceremonies. It is frustrating that the media should pay so much attention to such an unfounded prediction, let alone that a national daily paper should lead with a headline wording this prediction as fact.
Since the vote in the Lords, those who are afraid of religious same-sex partnerships have latched on to Scott-Joynt’s wild warnings as an excuse for opposing the legislation. Knowing how mean it would appear to refuse religious liberty to others, they claim instead that it is their own religious liberty which is under threat.
It is sad that some seem to think that a thing must either be prohibited or compulsory, and cannot be optional. It says a great deal about their world view that they are unable to envisage a situation of real religious liberty, in which different groups can promote their views and values through dialogue and persuasion rather than coercion and the misuse of law.
Iain McLean A reply to Michael Scott-Joynt over religious civil partnerships and here is an extract:
11 Comments…The issues which still divide us seem to be:
Does passing the Alli amendment send us down a slippery slope? The Times and Telegraph reports on what you say about this are, I think, rather uncritical. I am surprised that the Government Equalities Office has not commented on them, since, as you know, Lord Alli and the three denominations that sought his amendment all insist that it is designed to apply only to those denominations that request it, hence the ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ clause that he added in the version that was carried in the Lords.
Neither the Quakers nor the Church of England are congregationalist. Our Yearly Meeting decided to seek what is now the Alli amendment. It is, presumably, for your Synod to discuss the same subject and come to its own view. If it does not wish to offer civil partnerships in church, how might your (and/or Lord Tebbit’s) nightmare unfold?
Case 1: an incumbent conducts a civil partnership ceremony in defiance of his/her bishop. But the ceremony would have no legal standing unless the incumbent had applied to be a ‘religious organisation’. I am sure the regulations can be drafted so as to ensure that applications to conduct civil partnerships are only entertained from the highest judicatory of the denomination.
Case 2: a militant same-sex couple apply to a church for a partnership purely in order to sue the vicar after the application is refused. First, I deplore the efforts of Ben Summerskill, Peter Tatchell and others to use the Alli amendment as a wedge to drive civil partnership into an unwilling Church of England. Nor was the letter to The Times that some of your colleagues signed so intended. I drafted it to make clear that it was not about the Church of England.
Second, I cannot see how such an action would get anywhere in a UK court in the face of the clear wording of the Alli amendment. In recent discrimination cases, the courts have been unsympathetic towards politically motivated anti-discrimination claims.
Case 3: a loving same-sex couple do the same, in sorrow rather than anger. It would be very peculiar for them to put their litigiousness ahead of their love. If they are comfortable with the usage of Friends and willing to follow the (quite onerous) requirements laid down in Quaker Faith and Practice to test their commitment, then I hope they would choose that route. I am sure the Unitarians would also welcome them.
In none of those three cases do I see any road to Strasbourg.
Maintaining the distinction between civil partnership and marriage….
Updated
First, the Church Times has this report, written by me, on this week’s debate in the House of Lords, Religious bodies can host gay ceremonies, say peers.
Last week’s report, also by me, is now available to non-subscribers, see Civil partners: call for religious option.
This morning, Martin Beckford reports in the Telegraph that Harriet Harman could kill off ‘gay marriages in church’ plan.
In the same paper, Norman Tebbit writes about Why I tried to stop Lord Alli forcing through same-sex church ‘weddings’.
Update
Church Society has a press release, Religious Ceremonies for Civil Partnerships.
Changing Attitude has Changing Attitude’s goals and bishop’s changing attitudes.
Jonathan Bartley has Gay Church blessings and a crisis of faith: Fisking Damian Thompson.
This is more like a series of popular online games than what is described above.
10 CommentsThe District of Columbia in the USA recently became the sixth jurisdiction in the USA to enact a change to its civil marriage laws, to permit same-sex couples to get married. The five others are New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont.
The law went into effect this week, after the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court declined to order a delay.
The Bishop of Washington, John Chane issued this press release and these guidelines (PDF) for clergy. (The Diocese of Washington includes the District of Columbia and several counties of Maryland.)
Episcopal Bishop: Priests may preside at civil marriages in D. C.
Episcopal priests in the Diocese of Washington may preside at civil same-sex marriages in the District of Columbia under guidelines released today by Bishop John Bryson Chane. No priest is required to preside at such ceremonies.
“Through the grace of Holy Baptism, there are no second class members of the Body of Christ, “ Chane said. “We are of equal value in the eyes of God, and any one of us may be called by the Holy Spirit into holy relationships as well as Holy Orders.”
At its General Convention in July, the Episcopal Church granted bishops with jurisdiction where civil same-sex marriage is legal the discretion to “provide generous pastoral responses to meet the needs of members of this church.” Chane joins bishops in Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in permitting clergy to preside at civil same-sex marriages. Diocesan clergy in Washington have long been permitted to offer liturgical blessings to same-sex couples.
Chane’s guidelines do not specify what rites clergy may use when officiating at a civil marriage. “I would prefer to work that out in consultation with the clergy who will be performing these services,” he said…
For more background, see the ENS report by Mary Frances Schjonberg WASHINGTON: Priests may preside at civil marriages in D.C.
See Swords crossed over a crucifix for what this is about.
press release from the European Court of Human Rights:
Lautsi v. Italy (application no. 30814/06)
CRUCIFIX: THE CASE OF LAUTSI v. ITALY WILL BE EXAMINED BY THE COURT’S GRAND CHAMBER
The five-judge panel of the Grand Chamber, meeting on 1 and 2 March 2010, accepted the referral request relating to the case of Lautsi v. Italy submitted by the Italian Government on 28 January 2010. The case will therefore be examined by the Grand Chamber, which will give its ruling in a final judgment…
3 CommentsBruce Kaye, who is an Australian theologian, has published a series of articles about the Anglican Covenant. Here are some links:
The Anglican Covenant Get Ready for Trouble which points to The Anglican Covenant is coming ready or not
Why the Covenant is a bad Idea for Anglicans 1
Why the Covenant is a bad Idea for Anglicans 2. Ecclesiology.
3. It will complicate and confuse Institutional Relations
4. Covenant still an inadequate response for Anglicans
5. Covenant and fundamental issues for Anglicans
14 CommentsThere’s some more writing about this. Earlier items here.
Ruth Gledhill Gay marriage plan threatens churches says Bishop of Winchester
Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear and later version Vicars could be sued if they refuse to carry out gay marriages
Bradford Argus Kathie Griffiths Concerns are expressed over gay partnership debate in Lords
ENS House of Lords backs civil partnership ceremonies in churches
Ekklesia Campaigners and faith groups welcome same-sex partnerships vote and Simon Beard How can I keep from singing? and Jonathan Bartley “It’s all about us”: Ethnocentrism over religious civil partnerships
Christian Institute Clergy may face court over civil partnerships
18 CommentsUpdated 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 CommentsThe American Anglican Council (a body which is closely associated with ACNA) has published a document entitled COMMUNION GOVERNANCE The Role and Future of the Historic Episcopate and the Anglican Communion Covenant by Stephen Noll.
The document itself is a PDF file available here or as web pages here.
There is an introduction and explanation of it by Phil Ashey which can be found at Introduction to “Communion Governance”. The key summary is:
23 Comments1. The conclusion of this essay is that the one matter of principle that cannot be abandoned without abandoning our particular catholic and Anglican heritage is the responsibility of the ordained and bishops in council in particular, to rule and adjudicate matters of Communion doctrine and discipline.
2. If this is true, then the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting (with the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding as primus inter pares) must be seen as the primary organs to deal with articulation of the faith, as happened at Lambeth 1998, and with breaches of the faith, as has not happened since then.
3. There must be only one track: those who adopt the Covenant are members of the Communion; those who do not adopt it are not. Bp. Mouneer Anis is right: when a sufficient number of Provinces have adopted the Covenant, the ACC and its Standing Committee should stand down and be constituted solely from Covenant-keeping Provinces. (pp. 48-49)
Updated 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 CommentsFrom a press release by the Los Angeles diocese:
The U.S. Supreme Court today announced that it has denied a petition to hear an appeal from a breakaway congregation seeking claim to the property of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church of La Crescenta, California. The court posted its action, together with dozens of other petitions denied, on its web site.
Meeting in conference on Feb. 26, the high court declined to hear the petition filed by St. Luke’s Anglican Church of La Crescenta, whose members voted in 2006 to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Los Angeles.
Go here to read a statement by the Bishop of Los Angeles.
ENS report: LOS ANGELES: U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear La Crescenta petition on property case
12 Comments