"IT'S DISCRIMINATION...."

From the Times:

Sir, 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.

Above is a letter submitted by leading scholars, bishops, and clergy in support of an amendment to the Equality Bill pending before the English Parliament to permit ministers of religious bodies who so choose to officiate at civil partnerships between same-sex persons. No minister or rabbi would be forced to register civil partnerships between persons of the same sex. The list of those who signed the letter may be found at the Times link.

The relationship between the state and the Church of England is puzzling to me, and I believe that both church and state would be the better for disestablishment. On the matter of clergy performing civil duties such as marriages and civil partnerships, in my opinion, clergy would be well advised to work to remove themselves from the marriage/civil partnership business, thus opting out of performing the duties of the civil authorities. If a couple - same sex or opposite sex - wants a blessing on their pledge to commit themselves to fidelity to one another after a civil ceremony, then it would fall to the church community to decide whether to perform a blessing ceremony.

However, in the case of the English law, it's not fair that clergy are permitted to register marriages between persons of the opposite sex and forbidden to register civil partnerships between same-sex persons, so the amendment seems like a good thing.

Again from the Times:

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.

What a surprise! And doesn't your heart bleed for the intolerable "pressure on the C of E to follow suit". "It is a feeble argument." Indeed!

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead for the links to the articles.