The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Will gay marriage be the death of the Church of England?

Same-sex marriage would be a step to disestablishment, Church figures warn.

By George Eaton Published 12 June 2012 8:45

A Eucharist service at Westminster Abbey.

The Church of England warned that it would be "very doubtful" whether same-sex couples could be denied religious services. Photograph: Getty Images.

Could the introduction of gay marriage lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England? That's the extraordinary suggestion some clerics have made in response to the coalition's proposals. The government has previously ruled out making it compulsory for religious organisations to host gay marriages (indeed, even those religious groups which wish to conduct gay marriages, such as Quakers, would be absurdly prohibited from doing so) but the Church warns that this position would be open to successful challenge under European human rights law.

In its formal response to the coalition's consultation on same-sex marriage, which closes on Thursday, the Church states:

If the proposal to redefine marriage were to be implemented, it must be very doubtful whether limiting same-sex couples to non-religious forms and ceremonies could withstand a challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The distinction would become "politically unsustainable", the legal paper claims, while also allowing heterosexual couples to press for the right to have civil partnerships (to which we might reply: good). It concludes, in the suggestion that has attracted so much attention this morning, that the Church could be forced to end its role as religious registrar for the state.

The Telegraph quotes a senior figure as saying:

The canons of the Church of England are part of the law of England and have been continuously since the reformation of Henry VIII. Is it possible to have the law of the Church of England saying something different to the law of England? The question is how long we can sustain that. It raises the sort of problems that no one has had to address before.

I do believe that the European Court could make it impossible for Church of England to go on having the role that it has got at the moment in relation to conducting marriage on behalf of the state.

This, the Church implies, could ultimately lead to disestablishment.

The Home Office's lawyers are insistent that the CoE would not be compelled to officiate gay marriages and it's worth questioning its motives in raising the spectre of disestablishment. But if the secularisation of the British state turns out to be an unexpected benefit of gay marriage then we should welcome it. The more thoughtful members of the Anglican community have already recognised that the Church might benefit from such a move. In an interview with the New Statesman in 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, (who went on to famously guest-edit the magazine) commented:

I can see that it's by no means the end of the world if the establishment disappears. The strength of it is that the last vestiges of state sanction disappeared, so when you took a vote at the Welsh synod, it didn't have to be nodded through by parliament afterwards. There is a certain integrity to that.

In an increasingly atheistic and multi-faith society, a secular state, which protects all religions and privileges none, is a model to embrace. If David Cameron wants a real legacy, he could do no better than to bring home Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation".

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Gay Marriage Church of England Religion

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

43 comments

Tue, 2012-09-25 20:11 — mima (not verified)

what's going on it's written in the bible that gay people are hated by God .........what's wrong with u people

_____________________

Thu, 2012-09-13 03:50 — billn777

Once we cast aside the time-tested male-female, one-flesh-union view of marriage in favor of marriage as individuals choose to define it, we have a grab bag of possibilities. Why not consider the following “marital arrangements” as having equal protections under the law?
• Group marriage (say, five men and three women or vice versa). Why define marriage as involving two persons “committed” to each other?
• Incestuous marriage (e.g., a father and a daughter, a mother with a son, a brother and a sister).
• Bestial marriage (e.g., a human with a dog, cat, or horse). Why think that humans can’t marry nonhuman animals? This could be considered speciesism—inappropriately favoring your own species over others.
• Pedophilia (an older man marrying and having sex with a prepubescent child).
• Polygamous or polyandrous marriage (a man with multiple wives or a woman with multiple husbands).
• Marriage to self. A person may oppose “numbersism”—the prejudicial assumption that marriage must involve at least two persons.
• Marriage with non-consenting adults. Who says marriage has to involve consenting adults? Why not have a harem of sexual partners (“spouses”) who are physically restrained from leaving?
• Nonsexual marriage. Why not call university fraternities or sororities or two brothers sharing an apartment a “marriage”?
• Marriage to material objects. Perhaps we can recognize a person for being married to his money, his job, etc.
If the government doesn’t recognize any of these categories to be considered “marriages,” is that “unfair” and “discriminatory”? If marriage is just a socially constructed arrangement as a result of human choice and preference, it’s hard to see how any marital arrangement can rightly be banned.7

Fri, 2012-07-20 10:54 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

Fri, 2012-07-20 07:14 — JeremiahVaughan

I am actually against gay marriage, however they now exist in our society so we have no choice but to accept and respect their right as a human. With regards to gay marriage in the church since it is legalize by the government, this could be a disgrace unto the Lord as a Christian. http://www.squidoo.com/best-double-jogging-strollers-reviews

Thu, 2012-07-05 21:21 — ahmadnasr89

صور رمضان 2012
تحميل صور رمضان 2012
صور رمضانية 2012
نتيجة الثانوية العامة 2012

Wed, 2012-06-13 14:43 — Paul Henry (not verified)

"Could the introduction of gay marriage lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England? "

Amen to that.

Wed, 2012-06-13 11:22 — Hikaru22

George Eaton:

"But if the secularisation of the British state turns out to be an unexpected benefit of gay marriage then we should welcome it."

In the long run, driving the Church of England towards schism and disestablishment will only benefit the Church of Rome. And that is in nobody's best interests - least of all those of gay people themselves.

Wed, 2012-06-13 05:24 — jesidark12 (not verified)

kanker serviks

Wed, 2012-06-13 03:05 — MarkE (not verified)

college laptop

Tue, 2012-06-12 20:33 — McMac

The Church is very much the author of it's own 'demise'.

As religious belief and observance has declined in the UK, the Church took the decision to turn a blind eye to the religious beliefs of those wanting to use the big impressive building to hold their wedding. In effect they turned church weddings into a secular consumer item.

At the same time the church has drifted away from religious tenets to become a liberal, inclusive pastoral organisation.

Too late start claiming a special dispensation from society now, the CofE sold that right for a million faux religious wedding ceremonies.

Wed, 2012-06-13 10:27 — jankaas (not verified)

ouch, good post.

Tue, 2012-06-12 20:24 — simoned

The Church exists because people still believe in it, I don't see how gay marriage would affect that belief. jocur on

Tue, 2012-06-12 18:39 — Harold Stassen (not verified)

Is the Church of England Established because it's important or important only because it's Established? Which needs the other more, Church or State/Government?

Tue, 2012-06-12 18:38 — Harold Stassen (not verified)

Is the Church of England Established because it's important or important only because it's Established? Which needs the other more, Church or State/Government?

Tue, 2012-06-12 15:12 — peter jonson (not verified)

Gay Marriage ! what ever next? a Black man Marring a white women !
this is 1967 after-all isn't it?

Tue, 2012-06-12 16:21 — Davidaslindsay (not verified)

Interracial marriage has never been illegal in this or most other countries. Marriage between persons of the same sex has only ever been legal anywhere, though hardly anywhere, and even then only extremely recently, by specific legislation to that effect. There is all the difference in the world.

Tue, 2012-06-12 17:19 — jankaas (not verified)

i think you missed the attempt at levity by that poster to make his point.
but since you appear in a serious mood perhaps you can answer the thing i simply don't understand as a heterosexual man who has been faithfully married for 15 years and has 2 kids (i.e., pretty conventional by all accounts); how is gay marriage going to detrimentally impact my marriage?

do you know David?

Tue, 2012-06-12 17:34 — Davidaslindsay (not verified)

It will redefine it. It will necessarily abolish the legally distinct categories of husband and wife, with their different property rights, rights over children, and so on. Without ever having been put to the electorate, lest we forget.

Graham James of Norwich is as liberal as you could possible imagine. When even he is against this, then they really ought to take notice. But they won't.

Ed Miliband will, though. Never having threatened to whip this, he should now undertake not to include it in Labour's manifesto, either. It was in no one's last time. But both Coalition parties pretty much have to have it in 2015.

Labour does not, so it should not. Instead, it should simply make it clear that if anyone tried to bring this back as a Private Member's Bill, then Labour MPs would continue to have a free vote on it, as has always been the case.

Wed, 2012-06-13 09:21 — McMac

Husbands and wives don't have different property rights and so on. The fmaily courts are supposed to treat both as equal, they don't , but that's the theory.

Now that you know the truth about the law, does this mean that you don't have a problem with gay weddings.

Tue, 2012-06-12 17:53 — jankaas (not verified)

thanks for that, but i still don't see how these same legal rights being extended to gay couples impact my marriage. and thsat is after all the claim; gay mariage will adversely affect 'traditional' marriages. can you explain how that is supposed to work in practice?

and why do you believe that the electorate have any qualms voting in favour, should it become an election issue where the 3 parties have different positions? all polling suggests that for the majority of people there is no resistance to treating gay couples the same as hetero ones.

over to you? pls note that i do take notice of opinions that run against mine, but so far i simply don't see the 'problems' that you clearly do.

Tue, 2012-06-12 18:08 — Davidaslindsay (not verified)

Who is to be the husband, with the legal rights and responsibilities of the husband? Who is to be the wife, with the legal rights and responsibilities of the wife? If (and I don't entirely see how this could be done, but if) the two were to be made interchangeable, then that would redefine everyone's marriage, including yours. You would no longer be the lawful wedded husband or wife of a lawful wedded wife or husband.

At the next General Election, Labour will be, as it already is, the only party articulating any concept of English identity while also the only party defending the Union as a first principle, a universal postal service bound up with the monarchy, the Queen's Highways rather than toll roads owned by faraway petrostates, Her Majesty's Constabulary rather than the hatchet of Tom Winsor and the creepy activities of the "National Crime Agency", the National Health Service rather than a piecemeal sell-off to the American healthcare companies, keeping Sunday special, aircraft carriers with aircraft on them, the historic regimental system, the State action necessary in order to maintain the work of charities and of churches, and the State action necessary in order to maintain a large and thriving middle class, together with a free vote on the redefinition of marriage, and together with a referendum on continued membership of the EU.

No wonder that it is so far ahead in the polls that the Conservatives would still be five points behind even if they picked up the entire UKIP vote.

If certain newspapers still support the Liberal Conservative Party against the vehicle of conservative and Tory Britain, then it will be time to end the blind eye turning that has hitherto prevented their being counted as what they are: campaign arms of the Conservative Party, to be included when calculating that party's election expenditure. Since Labour is now guaranteed to win in 2015, expect that to happen. Not before time.

But I digress. Or do I? The promise that same-sex marriage would be nothing more than a free vote on any Private Member's Bill that might seek to introduce it, and never either a whipped vote or a Government Bill, is an integral and important part of this winning strategy.

Tue, 2012-06-12 20:05 — jankaas (not verified)

erm, yes that is an awful lot of digressing, which i will ignore purely because it seems irrelevant.

so back to the claim that gay marriage will negatively impact my hetero marriage of 15 years. you appear to make a case that there a husband's and a wife's role are defined under UK law. this i think is fantasy, but if there is such a law can you please name it?
as for the problem of how to label each half of a marriage, again i don't see this as negatively impacting my marriage. my wife and i both work, we both look after the children, we both do the housekeeping though i am the better cook, we share the finances etc etc. we are absolutely and totally in this together. that is what marriage means to us.
what are we doing wrong exactly?
or, how would stopping gay people from also getting married make my marriage right?

this is the issue at the heart of this change in our society that you still haven't managed to cover off convincingly. that you don't like it i appreciate, but still i don't understand why.

Tue, 2012-06-12 13:09 — John Baxendale (not verified)

The arrogance of the C of E is once again breathtaking. This would not surprise my Nonconformist forbears. My marriage (and those of my parents and my children) had nothing whatever to do with this church or any other, and yet these bishops presume to tell me what marriage is and who can and cannot get married - in a non-religious ceremony under the auspices of the state. None of my ancestors that I know about were in the C of E - they were all either Methodists or atheists like me. Yet these bishops presume to pose as THE national church, with a special authority on matters that concern everyone. In this the BBC and most of the other media collude, seemingly unaware of the existence of non-Anglican Christianity in this country, or how few of the population, even the Christians among them, are actually full members of the C of E. If there needed to be an argument for disestablishment these clowns have made it. Bring it on! (First step: Charles converts to Hinduism?)

Tue, 2012-06-12 12:32 — Liz K (@oneoflokis) (not verified)

That's pretty interesting!

Well - whichever way Williams/successor takes it: here's to more equality all around for all!

Tue, 2012-06-12 11:52 — Keir

Ok, so homosexuals campaign for the right to divorce.

Tue, 2012-06-12 12:20 — AndrewR

So Keir, we're all dying to know. Are you for or against Gay Marriage? :-)

Tue, 2012-06-12 11:07 — Steve AM (not verified)

The disestablishment of the CofE and State will happen at some point anyway, whether gay marriage comes into law or not.

Tue, 2012-06-12 10:54 — jankaas (not verified)

i can literally feel my own heterosexual marriage unravelling as a direct consequence of the decision to allow gay marriage. thanks Goverment, thanks to you the divorce rate will probably sky rocket to something like 1 in 3, mark my words!!!!

Tue, 2012-06-12 11:25 — Rational Libertarian (not verified)

Either you're being facetious (which I hope) or you have a VERY unstable marriage. If two guys or gals, who you've never met and will probably never see ever in your entire life, getting married affects your marriage so much, you have a pretty crappy marriage.

Tue, 2012-06-12 11:25 — Rational Libertarian (not verified)

Tue, 2012-06-12 11:44 — AndrewR

Don't panic Rational Libertarian, he's being facetious. I thought the sarcasm was acute but maybe not to all. The point was made anyway so....all clear. You're mischevious Jankaas! :-)

Tue, 2012-06-12 11:55 — Rational Libertarian (not verified)

Good to know. Sarcasm can be hard to detect in text and let's face it, there are millions of people out there with that kind of reasoning.

Tue, 2012-06-12 12:18 — AndrewR

Quite.

Tue, 2012-06-12 12:48 — jankaas (not verified)

dagnabbit been rumbled....
...and just as i was about to post that my marriage needs to be nourished by the tears heartbroken lesbians and gay men cry themselves to sleep with night after night....
(all shamelessly lifted from Stephen Colbert btw)

but in all seriousness, i have yet to hear a coherent argument exactly how a gay marriage is supposed to undermine my own. on Radio 4 this morning the Bishop of wherever failed spectaculary, but if there is an evidenced argument i've not seen it. ever.

Tue, 2012-06-12 10:31 — Barrie J (not verified)

I understood that when a couple who were: baptised, regular churchgoers, worshippers and members of a Christian congregation sought to marry in a church, they did so to solemnise their vows before God and seek his blessing on their union. (It also allowed their friends and families to witness their commitment to each other.)
See Hebrews 13:4, for what the C of E think of it.
That's it, that's the reason for doing it there.
If you are a member of that 'club', then presumably you are content with the rules and there's nothing wrong with that.
I have known vicars refuse to marry a couple because one or both were not compliant with the above and I have seen the hypocrisy of couples who briefly attended the parish church solely to qualify for marriage there, even pretending to be baptised/christened.
It was after all a very pretty church and convenient for the Reception.
If a same sex couple wish God's blessing on their union, are baptised, members of a Congregation and are regular worshippers, surely it would be churlish of a vicar to deny them access to their own God's confirmation of their vows.
They do after all worship Him/Her.
One might ask: If they are not regular members of the 'club', then why should they expect to participate in its rituals?
Yet I have attended dozens of funerals where a Christian Minister has officiated, where more often than not the deceased is a complete stranger both to the minister and to any place of formal worship, Christian or otherwise.
To be able to debate this issue more effectively we would need to know how many same sex couples are regular churchgoers and members of a church congregation and how many are pursuing access to a Christian ritual that they do not qualify for on grounds other than their choice of sexual partners.
Apart from the 'charismatic churches', most C of E churches are very poorly attended, with vicars ministering to several parishes.
It would be interesting to know how many candidates for a Christian marriage service come from these ever diminishing congregations.

It seems unless marrying or dieing a very different God now demands the worship of our selfish and greedy neoliberal society.
The Bible would probably recognise him as Mammon (Mathew 6:24).

Tue, 2012-06-12 10:39 — Rational Libertarian (not verified)

Don't kid yourself, the world would end tomorrow if people stopped being greedy and selfish. Greed and selfishness are probably the two main driving forces in human ambition.

Tue, 2012-06-12 10:27 — Will Slater (not verified)

When the Church doesn't like something. Threaten people with something.

Also, I will NEVER get married in a Church, why the hell would I want too? I'd rather have a Game of Thrones service, in the sigh of Men and Gods. Would be just as realistic as in a Christian church...

Tue, 2012-06-12 10:19 — MadMan (not verified)

I'm tolerant man but gay marriage in that church? Church of England? hmm.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
check great Free Online Games

Tue, 2012-06-12 09:52 — JWDT (not verified)

Why, exactly, have you chosen to illustrate an article on the Church of England with a photo of a Catholic cathedral?

Tue, 2012-06-12 11:45 — DMyers

That's definitely not a Catholic church. There would be a red candle burning in the background if it were Catholic. And that's Williams and Sentamu standing there, with Liz on the right-hand side.

Tue, 2012-06-12 10:48 — Roger Moss (not verified)

Looks like the Archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey to me. "Catholic" in the sense of "One Catholic & Apostolic Church" maybe, but not otherwise. Unless you're suggesting a very deep conspiracy theory indeed.

Tue, 2012-06-12 10:48 — Roger Moss (not verified)

Tue, 2012-06-12 09:19 — Rational Libertarian (not verified)

Disestablishment; I'm literally salivating. Now all we need is for the monarchy and income taxes to be abolished, then I'll be an incredibly happy man.