The Church voice...

For those who expect the Church of England to either embrace the spirit of the age or to respond to any issue of controversy by straddling the nearest fence, there has been something heartening and reassuring about its statements on same-sex marriage.

When the bill was published last Friday the Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, reiterated the Church of England’s view “set out in doctrine and canon law, that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.”

It has been interesting to observe some liberal Anglicans squirm about the official Anglican response. In particular, those who hang around at that strange place on the internet known oxymoronically as Thinking Anglicans (www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk) have been complaining that the official response ignores a range of views on the subject. They themselves entirely ignore the fact that canon law’s definition of marriage insists that it is only entered into by one man and one woman.

Marriage viewed as an entirely heterosexual union is the indisputable position of the Church of England. Even that ultra-liberal Anglican institution, the Episcopal Church of the USA, has not changed the definition of marriage.

Yet in spite of the unambivalent Anglican attitude to marriage, there remain one of two difficulties and obstacles for the Church of England to confront as the government’s bill for same-sex marriage is debated. Firstly, the bishops must reject that this idea of a quadruple lock that has been touted by the government’s spin machinery has any reality. A quadruple lock is nothing of the kind. The government has not enacted a ban on the Church of England conducting same-sex marriages. This is the kind of weaselly language that gives politics a bad name. The government has merely been forced to confront the reality that canon law and the law of the land will be in opposition if the same-sex marriage bill passes into law. Far from being a ban on the Church of England conducting same-sex marriage the government is merely acknowledging that its legislation has no impact on canon law. The Church of England has its own structures to bring forward primary legislation to change canon law, and Parliament should have no part in initiating that legislation.

The main obstacle for the Church of England is the provision that will allow civil partners a marriage licence, for only a small fee, with no further ceremony. This will place facts on the ground unless Bishops act quickly. The fact is that clergy in civil partnerships will easily be able to take advantage of these provisions and become ‘married’ unless the Bishops are prepared to deliver a pre-emptive strike. They must promise en bloc to discipline such clergy and must follow this through. I have my doubts as to whether the Church of England would survive a human challenge in the courts but the effort must be made to plug this unintended consequence of the government’s proposals.

Sadly, though the leadership of the Church of England has largely been robust in its defensive of traditional marriage, the Roman Catholic Church has played a much more powerful role in its attempt to mobilise the laity. Anglican campaigning has been muted, with most of the bishops barely uttering a word about the issue. It is as if the bishops were divided over same-sex marriage. It is also as if those in the hierarchy who support same-sex marriage are too cowardly to name their opposition to the Church of England’s policy. And those who claim to support the traditional Christian definition of marriage are too embarrassed to campaign openly and enthusiastically for it.

I have far more confidence that my own MP will speak against same-sex marriage than I have that the Bishops in the House of Lords will offer clear leadership on the issue.

I’d suggest a letter to the bishops to give power to their elbow. It is time that we, the laity of the Church of England, held the bishops to account.