Reactions to Dr Sentamu's response on Marriage and Civil ...

Reactions to Dr Sentamu's response on Marriage and Civil Partnerships

The original article was reported here.

A shorter version was published by the Guardian as Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would benefit nobody.

Both of those contain a number of reader comments. In addition:

The Guardian published a number of letters on the topic on Monday under the headline Sentamu?s flaws over gay marriage. Authors include Richard Harries, Mark Oakley and Iain McLean.

From Richard Harries:

The archbishop of York wants to keep marriage as a separate category but regards civil partnerships as an honourable expression of a committed relationship; that marriage and civil partnerships are in fact complementary, equal but different (Not equality but justice, 18 May). He pleads for time for civil partnerships to gain greater public understanding.

The great flaw in his argument is that he does not urge the church to bless such partnerships. This would do more than anything to obtain that greater public understanding he says he wants. Now that the government appears to have dropped its idea of legalising gay marriages, it is a chance for the Church of England to make amends for the reluctance with which it accepted civil partnerships in the first place, and to take the lead in declaring unequivocally that such committed relationships are to be warmly celebrated before God.

Richard Harries
Crossbench, House of Lords

Cif Belief has published an article by Iain McLean John Sentamu?s claims on civil partnerships are false.

John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, recently posted a long statement explaining his opposition to same-sex marriage. Some of it appeared in the Guardian and on Comment is Free. In it he referenced an interview he recently gave to the Daily Telegraph, which contains the following statement: ?We [the bishops in the House of Lords] supported civil partnerships, because we believe that friendships are good for everybody.?

Like other religious opponents of same-sex marriage, he goes on to argue that civil partnership is ?in every respect in ethical terms an honourable contract of a committed relationship?. Same-sex couples, he therefore says, should not press for marriage.

But his factual claim is false. The main Lords debate on the civil partnership bill took place in June 2004. Richard Harries, then bishop of Oxford, did indeed signal Church of England support for civil partnerships. But his efforts were contradicted by the five conservative bishops who spoke on the other side. Going by the bishops? contributions to debate, the score is 5/3 against. Going by the bishops? votes, it is 6/1 against. Six bishops voted for a successful wrecking amendment in the name of Lady O?Cathain, which made the bill unworkable. Only the Commons? insistence on rejecting the O?Cathain amendment made it possible to enact civil partnerships?

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 9:22am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England

Can I ask about Richard Harries' comment that the Government seems to have dropped its idea of legalising gay marriage?

I thought the proposal is still in its consultation phase and could therefore not have been included this year's Queen's Speech - which is what most people seem to hang their belief on that the proposal has been dropped.

The question is what will happen after the consultation phase and David Cameron answered pre-Queen Speech suggestions that the proposal would be kicked into the long grass with an affirmation of his plans to legalise gay marriage.

Can anyone confirm or correct this interpretation?

In response to Erika.

They haven't said it has been dropped ad they are still consulting on it. However there was a front page article in the Sunday Times following heavy government losses in council seats that it had been dropped.

The story obviously came from a reliable source or the Sunday Times would not have lead with the story. In ,response no minister apart from Lynn Featherstone has denied it, and on her own blog, not a government website (she's evidently 'keeping hope alive' - which you have to admire).

People outside the govt are going around saying it's been dropped and no-one from the govt's press officers contradicts them - thus does the govt communicate with its subjects.

When announcing the policy the Tories didn't want this to be a Lib Dem policy and stated it was being 'driven forwards' by the PM. I guess he's stopped driving in this instance.

Basically the Tories were just playing with the issue. Maybe they'll resurrect the issue, maybe not.

Another error in the Sentamu analysis is his suggestion (also made by other opponents of equal marriage) that, if equal marriage is not forced on religious celebrants, this creates ?two kinds of marriage? which would be different from ?hitherto?.

In fact, however, there would only be two different kinds of marriage *ceremony* (only opposite sex couples being allowed a marriage ceremony in church, just as divorcees were formerly excluded), there would not be two kinds of *marriage* (the relationship of marriage being the same whether formalised in a civil ceremony or in church).

This variety of ceremony, but with only one status of marriage resulting, has been the case for many generations.

As long ago as 1973, the Law Commission wrote:

"The present law is the product of history. Although most of it is now to be found in the Marriage Act 1949, that was merely a consolidating (not a reforming) Act which re-enacted the substance of provisions dating back to 1823 (which in turn were based on still earlier legislation). There are now two main forms of solemnisation of marriage - civil and religious. The former is relatively straightforward... In the case of ecclesiastical marriages there is a bewildering mixture of civil and religious administration at all stages... With this proliferation of procedures it is hardly surprising that the law is not understood by members of the public or even by those who have to administer it ..."
(Paragraph 6 of Report of Joint Working Party of the Law Commission and the Registrar General in the Annex to the Law Commission "Report on solemnisation of marriage in England and Wales." (1973) No 53.)

It's very confused, Erica.

There was at least one journalist claiming the day after the local elections a someone at No 10 was briefing that gay marriage was a dead duck, at least pro tem.

Yet last week I was holding forth on the legal complexities as part of the government road-show here in Cardiff and the civil servants (middle rank) were saying that the No 10 briefing was a rogue commentator (or never happened!) and that, quite the contrary the government were determined to see this IN PLACE by 2014!

Robert Ian Williams has an interesting take on the view expressed by pundits that gay marriage was a vote loser for the Tories. He stood for Labour in a Tory seat held by a partnered gay man and lost. Robert admits the sitting candidate was a good councillor and well respected, but even more he says that NOT ONCE in all the weeks of door stepping throughout the constituency did someone raise gay marriage! He was rather disappointed!!

Still, on the question you ask. Is it on - or is it off? I think Richard Harries gets the inside track so I would be surprised if he hasn't got this right.

postsecret ufc on fox 2 supercross christina aguilera etta james funeral sundance film festival victoria azarenka the flintstones