Categories: uncategorized
Date: 01 May 2012 17:04:37
So the EA has now produced a briefing document on how Christians should respond to the governments to the consultation on the "equal civil marriage consultation". Before critiquing some aspects of this document I point you back to this post which outlines why I think full engagement with the consultation is important.
So on to the EA document - it begins by urging people not to fully engage with the full consultation but rather limit their responses to questions 1 and 2; using question 16 to add further responses. My view is that whilst I can understand their argument about there appearing to be an assumption underlying certain questions I think it is problematic. If the response of the government, based on the consultation, is to amend the law then it is important that Christians have adequately expressed their views - including their concerns - on all aspects of the possible changes to legislation. Also, whilst the government has targeted certain questions to particular groups that doesn't mean they're right to have done so. The transgender question, as I have indicated previously on this blog, is one which they have too narrowly focused - not even all those directly impacted by the current need to alter the legal relationship status upon receipt of a gender recognition certificate are able to answer in it's current form. From a personal point of view I again urge you to support this proposed change in your question 16 response - or if you cannot support it at least acknowledge and comment upon it so that transgender issues do not continue to be sidelined and marginalised to the level of apparent invisibility.
I appreciate their request that you don't drift into religious jargon - if only that skill could be taught more widely. However, together with their request you try to reword the points you wish to include into your own words I suspect they are seeking to make it look that the responses don't come from their supporters - and so come from a wider section of society than make actually be the case.
In terms of the points they raise:
Regarding the change of the meaning of marriage being changed for others - I would like to know what that actually means? On one level I don't understand how heterosexuals are going to have the meanings of their marriage changed if the legal change goes through. On another theological level I do understand and the second point addresses this - but it raises difficult questions because it shows that the theological basis of current understandings of heterosexual marriage relate to issues of procreation as well. This becomes problematic because if the line of reasoning is followed through it devalues the status of married heterosexual people who choose not to or are unable to have children.
I fully agree with 3 out of four aspects of the basis of marriage given - that it be voluntary, heterosexual, monogamous and lifelong. The reality is, however, that our legal system already facilitates the dissolution of marriage via divorce and so the reality is the EA definition is already undermined in law and our legal system does allow temporary marriages. Additionally, if the heterosexual part were removed but the other aspects remained forced marriages and polygamous marriages would not be possible.
Whilst the statement of Ben Bradshaw is generally correct a reading of the document shows there are very small differences which the legislation is seeking to address. Again I refer you to the main consultation document for full explanation and again I point out that same sex opposite gender couples will no longer be disadvantaged through being forced into dissolving their relationships upon one partners receipt of a gender recognition certificate.
I have been heterosexually married and am now in a same sex opposite gender relationship which started off as being same sex (without the recognition of the opposite gender bit) - I would love to know how they differ in nature...except of course I do know it again goes back to the potential for natural procreation and in reply to that I give my earlier argument.
The EA's point "Rather than extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, redefining marriage would introduce the instabilities and infidelities commonly associated with homosexual relationships into society’s understanding of marriage." is at best inaccurate and at worst totally offensive. This is creating a myth about both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I know many, many faithful lesbians and homosexuals and I also know a fair number of unfaithful heterosexuals. Infidelity is one of the reasons for the rising divorce rate in this country over the last 40 years and an examination of the routes into single parenting amongst people in the church indicates that the infidelity of a partner is the most common reason. (My small sample academic research in evangelical churches and anecdotal evidence backs this up). Where infidelity has seemed to be prevalent in homosexual relationships in the past it has had much to do with the way these relationships were outlawed and / or disapproved of together with the way those in committed partnerships often had to lie about their status. LGBT people want to signify their monogamous, faithful commitment to one another.
The issue around the next point regarding the raising of children is one which can be debated. I would argue the ideal is having (ideally two) loving parents with role models of both sexes involved in bringing up children. As the experiences of single parents who have good support show it is possible to have role models of both sexes involved in upbringing without this necessarily being the parents. The key is two parents of whatever sex are better than one.
The teaching of relationships is important and it is crucial that the wishes of teachers and parents are respected whilst ensuring that no child is left thinking that because of their sexuality they are inferior. This point is advocating a return to the atmosphere of clause 28 when young people were let down. What I think is crucial is that young people are taught to respect themselves, to say no to pressure to have sex and to wait until they are in committed, faithful, monogamous relationships before having sex; but also that if they are going to have sex they are fully prepared with the facts to ensure they don't end up with unwanted consequences.
Whilst throughout history heterosexual relationships have been the norm monogamy has not always been the norm and indeed the current understanding of marriage we have is relatively modern. This point is therefore invalid.
Whilst it is important to recognise that size-able numbers of people have concerns about the redefinition of marriage it has to be recognised that the samples referred to in the ComRes poll and the petition are biased in favour of members of faith communities opposed to the change, rather than the population as a whole. I know this because I am one of the participants of the regular ComRes surveys and so know who they are targeted towards.
The argument that this will lead to polygamy is misleading and the earlier point of the importance of monogamy in the modern English legal understanding of relationship law is important here. There is a difference in that polygamy relates to choice, rather than being based upon any biological aspect - as same sex relationships are. This is using a straw man argument.
I would like to see specific evidence relating to other countries and the further devaluing of marriage - because as far as I am aware this is a false claim.
Churches already have the right to refuse to remarry divorced people - the same rights would apply to same sex couples. This point is scare mongering I believe, if this were the case I think we would have seen similar arguments being made about civil partnerships being blessed in churches. The reality is the right of individual churches and denominations to say no has been respected - however difficult this is for faithful believers entering civil partnerships.
The point possible employment impact needs to be explored further. Those working in registry offices would be those impacted and I think appropriate employment protection could and should be given. It is why we need equality law relating to religious belief as well as similar employment legislation related to other employment issues.
Regarding the issue of children there are two points here; one of which I have dealt with earlier. The second point relates to children being bought up by their "natural parents" - in the case of many same sex relationships the conception is by IVF - are the EA claiming that children of childless couples who conceive via IVF are disadvantaged? I think not, the issue here is that children not bought up by "natural parents" are often adopted children and they have often experienced clear trauma.
It is interesting that the EA is claiming no party had talked about this - if it is such a surprise then why did a recent EA mailing say prior to the announcement of the proposed legislation they had joined with CARE and the Christian Institute to prepare for it? I agree with them controversial legislation should not be forced through - I think they will find that is why there is a public consultation and our elected representatives will have the chance to vote on it prior to it going to the Second Chamber where it can again be challenged. The democratic system we have is operating appropriately to ensure it is not forced through.
If the Home Office is already stating that they will change the law - which I have not managed to find evidence of then it should be challenged. As it is it seems that this consultation is being conducted fairly.
In relation to the final point it's a view, but beyond the gender issue as has previously pointed out the current system of marriage is relatively modern - if tradition and history are being quoted we have to be careful; it could lead to us going back to the relatively modern idea that women are property to be traded between their fathers and husbands without legal rights.
When I started this I didn't intend it to be one of my longest blog posts ever and I didn't expect to find myself disagreeing with so much which was being said.
My final words on the subject is I am an evangelical Christian who is proud to support the EA on many other issues - it saddens me the quality of their argument has weakened and they have simply become polemic at the expense of much reasoned argument on this issue. This briefing is not representative of their usual standard of work - even where I may disagree with the conclusion reached. I again urge you to read the consultation document and if you are concerned base reasons against on clear arguments.