As a law to allow equal marriage in England and Wales reaches committee stage in the House of Lords, those most strongly opposed are still trying to weaken or block it. Despite large majorities for the Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Bill in the Lords and earlier House of Commons, some peers have put forward amendments which would delay or undermine marriage equality.
As a law to allow equal marriage in England and Wales reaches committee stage in the House of Lords, those most strongly opposed are still trying to weaken or block it. Despite large majorities for the Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Bill in the Lords and earlier House of Commons, some peers have put forward amendments which would delay or undermine marriage equality.
From 17 June 2013, peers will consider the Bill’s wording in detail. Some of those unhappy with legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples have given way but others are still resisting this change.
Lord Anderson of Swansea, Lord Cormack and Lord Singh of Wimbledon want to stop the law from taking effect until after a referendum in May 2015 or later. Opinion polls suggest that those in favour of marriage equality would win comfortably but the delay might give opponents time to seek further ways to scupper the process. Other peers may feel this attempt undermines the democratic process.
Lord Carey of Clifton along with Lord Dear, whose wrecking motion was heavily defeated, want a separate register for “traditional marriage”, defined as “one where the basis of the marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others”.
This strange idea is likely to offend many heterosexuals as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people. It would perpetuate inequality, be insulting to same-sex couples and might put off male-female couples who do not want their marriage to be labelled as ‘traditional”. For some, this concept is linked with wives obeying husbands or practices such as families haggling over a dowry or bride-price.
The amendment may be embarrassing to the Church of England since George Carey was at one time Archbishop of Canterbury. Many in the church would like to see a more welcoming attitude to LGBT people, though opinion on marriage equality is divided.
Lord Dear also wants the new law to state “that belief in traditional marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society” and “that no person should suffer any detriment because of their belief in traditional marriage.” Several other amendments try to protect registrars, teachers and other public servants from being penalised for opposing marriage between same-sex couples.
Freedom of religion and belief is indeed important, including the right to believe that same-sex partners or indeed divorced persons should not marry. Existing laws, and flexibility on the part of employees as well as employers, should be able to cover the vast majority of problems that might arise under the new law.
Blanket exemptions from ordinary responsibilities risk undermining the principles of equality and impartial public service. For instance a doctor who refused to consult a critically ill patient’s husband on possible withdrawal of treatment, or a teacher who told a five-year-old excited by her mothers’ forthcoming wedding that they would not be really married, would deserve to be disciplined.
Expressing a personal opinion respectfully yet honestly in an appropriate setting is completely different.
With regard to marriage registrars, I have some sympathy with those who were appointed before there was any hint of a change in the law. Yet allowing them, let alone new applicants, a right to opt out of key duties could cause major practical problems, especially in a small registry office with few staff, as well as undermining the notion that all sections of the public should be served without fear or favour. This protects not just LGBT people but many others.
Overall the Bill offers opportunities to strengthen justice and human rights. Constructive amendments may make it stronger, but Parliament should reject ongoing attempts to undermine marriage equality.
* More on equal marriage from Ekklesia: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/equalmarriage
————-
(c) Savitri Hensman is a regular Christian commentator on politics, social justice, welfare and religion. She was written extensively on the theological and religious issues involved in debates about sexuality and marriage equality. She works in the care and equalities sector and is an Ekklesia associate.