Britain’s
only independent gay humanist organisation, the charity the Pink Triangle Trust
(PTT) – owner of this blog – has rubbished the latest attack on same-sex
marriage by the Church of England in its submission to the government’s
consultation on this issue.
Commenting on
this, PTT secretary George Broadhead said: “This is part and parcel of the
Church’s long-standing Bible-based hostility to gay rights. It is fatuous to
claim that the Church or its places of worship will be badly affected by this
progressive legislation since it concerns only civil marriages in register
offices. Moreover, as the courts are well aware of the distinction between
civil and religious institutions, it is equally fatuous to claim that these
marriages will result in legal challenges that will force any church to marry
same-sex couples.
“As usual,
the Church is out of touch with public opinion which, as polls show, is
overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage. No wonder the Church’s members
are deserting the pews in droves.”
I think I
agree, mostly, with George. However, there may, just may, be a successful
challenge in the European courts, but that would just put the Church where
other employers are at the moment, and we know that, for instance, a registrar
lost her case, as did a marriage-guidance counsellor, because each refused to
treat gay people the same as heterosexuals. One has to ask: why won’t it be the
same with a minister of religion, carrying out part of the duties for which he
receives a stipend and for which he is, in this case, licensed by the state to
carry out marriage, as is a registrar?
So I can see
that the Church may be worried, although I suspect much of its “concern” is
born out of bigotry. If you want to win an argument, you reach for all kinds of
things to bolster it.
If it does go
to a European court, it will be an interesting case to follow.
And one of
the issues the Church has raised is consummation of a marriage. On the BBC News website, the Beeb’s religion guy, Robert Pigott, writes: “For the Church, a
marriage – with its focus on procreation and the need to be consummated – is
something that is simply not available to gay couples. By creating different
understandings of marriage, it insists, the whole institution will be weakened
– something the nation should not be allowed to sleep-walk towards.
Er, how does
an opposite-sex relationship differ from a same-sex one in this respect? My Concise
Oxford defines consummation simply as “make (a marriage or relationship)
complete by having sexual intercourse”. Don’t gays do nookie? Sorry, I thought
they did. I must be missing something.
As for the
focus on procreation, well clearly the Church doesn’t say a marriage is null
and void if procreation doesn’t happen, because there are all kinds of reasons
why it might not: family planning, a woman’s infertility, husband firing
blanks. But the Church presumably doesn’t believe that childless marriage has
any less worth than one that irresponsibly produces six or seven sprogs.
And, unlike
the Catholic Church, the C of E doesn’t get uppity about people who want to use
condoms and other forms of contraception, so, by implication, it’s cool about
people who actually choose not to have kids.