The Coalition government’s response in its proposals for same sex marriage in churches most definitely took the majority of people by surprise. Amongst the most surprised were the Tory backbenchers, the C of E, and the Church in Wales.
No one expected these two churches to be placed in a legally ring-fenced form of limbo on this important issue. For sure the Church in Wales seemed to actually get what it stated it wanted in its submission. Whether or not it now wishes to live with what the government intends remains to be seen.
The two Anglican churches will have to cope with those within its membership and without who feel that the position the government has placed them in is the worst of all worlds. That their ability to be in control of their own business has been shown to be ephemeral on such a key issue is somewhat undeniable. It certainly is a high price to pay for a safeguard. Any determination of how much the reaction in the church and in society at large to the C of E Synod’s decision on women bishops stiffened the resolve of the government to pursue this particular course, will have to await the availability of access to government records which as is customary will be restricted for the statutory period.
Those who feel that the C of E is protected by law from applying equal opportunity legislation – in respect of women as bishops and in recognising same sex marriage partners – have a most valid objection. European legislation is irrelevant here. It does not even provide the smallest of fig leafs for those who have used European Human Rights to scaremonger. The Synod’s attitude to women bishops and the reluctance to bless and recognise same sex marriages in church premises does not put the church in a good place from which to comment upon discrimination and rights abuse elsewhere.
These government proposals may have greater impact upon the Conservative party than upon the C of E. The real opposition in the Commons was not seated on the opposition benches. Rather, the vociferous and articulate criticisms were from the Tories seated behind the Minister. Their objections were valid. None of the parties had included a policy to facilitate marriages for same sex partners in their electoral manifestos. More objectionable was the abuse of the so-called consultation exercise conducted by the government. It lacked integrity. One may not be in sympathy with the mainly evangelical groups which organised petitions against the proposal to facilitate same sex marriage, but the size of the objections recorded and presented as a petition on behalf of over six hundred thousand, should not have been ignored by the government in such a dismissive manner. Such a response by government is difficult to align with the standards of a healthy democracy or with the Prime Minister’s theme that the Tories are a truly concerned party in government.
There is every possibility that this issue and the manner of the government’s handling of it will come back to haunt the Tories at best, and in a chain of consequences may well lead to their defeat in a General Election. There are a number of other areas in which the insensitivity of the Tories will cost that party support in bye-elections and indeed in a general election. These issues include membership of the European Union, inward migration, and defence cuts. UKIP has already picked up a significant number of Tories disaffected on the failure to deliver on a referendum on Europe and it was quite remarkable how UKIP provided a clear political voice disagreeing with the government on the same sex marriage proposals. The swingeing cuts reducing the army to its smallest size since before the Napoleonic wars is likewise an issue causing great concern to those Tories who have been traditionally in the vanguard of support for the defence of the realm.
Furthermore, the government’s proposals will not quell disagreement within the C of E. The case presented by Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, in the House of Lords, is valid. We will hear much more on this. Any attempt to assess the impact the current church disputes on the mission of the church to communicate the love of God is being avoided. However, the dramatic fall in the number of people who indicated in the recent census that they no longer worshipped should surely serve notice on a church that the issues its interest groups may be prepared to concentrate on are not the way to promote the evangelisation of society at large or attract interest in its worship and witness.
Houston McKelvey