London, UK - Gay couples could soon be allowed to “marry” in church after a decision by Anglican bishops and other clergy to support a relaxation of the ban.
Senior bishops in the Lords have told The Times that they will support an amendment to the Equality Bill next month that will lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises. The amendment would remove the legislative prohibition on blessings of homosexual couples and open the door to the registration of civil partnerships in churches, synagogues, mosques and all other religious premises.
In a letter to The Times a group of Church of England clerics say today that religious denominations should be allowed to register civil partnerships on their premises if they wish.
It would be up to individual denominations whether to offer civil partnership ceremonies.
The Church of England, which along with the wider Anglican Communion is divided over gay ordinations and same-sex blessings, will maintain its official ban. But if the legislative prohibition is lifted, as seems likely, the Church’s own ban is likely to be ignored by some clergy.
The Lords amendment is expected to be tabled in the next few days by Lord Alli, the Labour peer, who is openly gay. It is likely to be backed by the Conservatives and, significantly, the Bishop of Leicester, the Right Rev Timothy Stevens, who convenes the 26 bishops in the House.
The Quakers have called for the law to be changed to give same-sex partners the same status in their ceremonies as heterosexual couples. They joined forces with Liberal Judaism and the Unitarians to support an amendment to the Equality Bill giving religious organisations the freedom to register civil partnerships.
Lord Alli’s amendment would remove the bar in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 on religious premises being used for civil partnerships — and also the prohibition on religious language being used in such ceremonies.
This would in effect end any remaining distinction between civil partnerships and marriage and increase the pressure on the established Church to take a more liberal line on same-sex relationships. It would also deepen the schism in the Anglican Communion over gay blessings and gay ordination.
When Lord Alli’s amendment was debated last month it was opposed by the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester because they felt that it would put unacceptable pressure on the Church to blur the distinction between marriage and civil partnership. Lord Alli then withdrew the amendment, but unless the Government decides to make the change itself, he is expected to try again on March 2.
Signatories to today’s letter include the Bishop of Salisbury, the Dean of Southwark and four retired bishops.
The Government has yet to decide whether to back the amendment. It wants to avoid another confrontation with church leaders, having had to back down recently over the employment of gay staff in religious organisations after an intervention by the Pope.
Stonewall, the gay rights campaign group, said: “We know this is a matter of importance to only a small number of people, but it is important nonetheless. And the amendment makes clear that the celebration of civil partnerships is permissible, not mandatory.”
The Equalities Office said that the Government was still considering the matter: “Some faith organisations are calling for the right to hold civil ceremonies in religious places, so it’s right that we discuss this with them. This is an important issue that needs to be fully explored and we need to carefully consider the implications and hear views from all perspectives.”
The amendment is expected to be strongly opposed by conservative Christians. Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “What is being advanced as an issue of religious freedom today will be used to remove religious freedom in the future.
“Homosexual activists have made clear that this is not the end. It is a step towards forcing churches to conduct same-sex unions that would go against their beliefs. Changing the law will further blur the distinction between marriage and what the Government put forward as a purely secular ceremony.”