A row over plans to let gay couples marry inchurch
同性伴侣可在教堂举行婚礼这一法案争议不断
Pity the prime minister. With most news bleakly austere these days, changing the law to letgay couples marry must have seemed a sure way to spread crowd-pleasing sweetness andlight. Countries around the world are giving homosexuals full marriage rights. More than half ofBritish respondents usually tell pollsters they favour gay marriage. Besides, David Camerontruly believes in it, as he told the Conservative Party conference in October 2011.
But government plans to let same-sex couples not only marry but marry in church, detailed onDecember 11th, have startled the ecclesiastical horses and divided the already fissiparousConservatives. The Anglican and Catholic churches, along with the Muslim Council of Britain andLord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, oppose the move, which contravenes their belief that marriage isbetween a woman and a man. High-profile Tories including Michael Gove, the educationsecretary, and Boris Johnson, London’s mayor, are for the change, but over 100 ConservativeMPs are believed to oppose it. That will not put the outcome in doubt, as Labour and theLiberal Democrats support the shift, but it guarantees a continuing row.
At issue is how to balance competing rights—to freedom of religious expression and freedomfrom discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This clash last hit the headlines in2007, when a Catholic adoption agency was required to consider gay couples as adoptiveparents, and the religiously minded owners of a small hotel were told they could not refuse torent a double bedroom to a gay couple. This time, the dispute is over core religious activities,not charitable or commercial services. But once same-sex marriages are permitted, and onreligious premises at that, some fear that churches, mosques and temples could be forced intosolemnising relationships of which they disapprove profoundly. Are they right to worry?
The government assures them they need not. All same-sex couples will be entitled to civilmarriage, not just the civil partnership they have been allowed since 2005. Those who wish tomarry religiously may do so, if a church is willing. A “quadruple lock” has been designed toprotect churches that are not against suits for discrimination or breaching human rights.
The new law (which should be on the statute books in 2015) will state that no religiousorganisation or minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples. There will be a formal“opt-in” system for those that are interested. The Equality Act of 2010 will be amended. TheChurch of England, whose canon law is intertwined with the law of the land and normally has aduty to marry people, will not, at its own request, splice same-sex couples, unless canon lawand legislation are changed.
That still leaves Strasbourg, which has cheerfully overlooked Parliament’s declared wish and toldBritain to let at least some convicted prisoners vote. “There’s no way you can stop a couplegoing to the European Court of Human Rights and arguing that the fact British law does notoblige religious organisations to marry them is a violation of their rights,” says RobertWintamute, a barrister who teaches at Kings College London. But they won’t get far, hereckons. Others agree. The European Convention is a touch ambiguous. The court does notrequire governments to let gay couples marry, still less churches.
But debate over the limits of religious freedom is lively. The hotel owners lost in the Court ofAppeals in February, but Lady Justice Rafferty had this to say: “It would be unfortunate toreplace legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression ofanother (those sharing the Appellants’ beliefs)” The Supreme Court has accepted their case.
Strasbourg too has seen action. Four British people who say their employers denied themreligious expression—including Nadia Eweida, initially refused permission by British Airways towear a visible cross—were heard by the court there in September. A judgment may emerge inJanuary. All of which suggests that politicians may enact as many “locks” as they please, but inthe end courts hold the keys.