Ministers are expected to publish plans to enable same-sex couples to "marry" in church, the BBC has learned.
Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is to propose lifting the ban on civil partnerships taking place in religious settings in England and Wales.
There are no plans to compel religious organisations to hold ceremonies and the Church of England has said it would not allow its churches to be used.
Further to this assault on liberty I could agree with the apprehension.
But, as is suggested by Karthik Reddy at the Adam Smith Blog, all it really represents is an equalisation in the eyes of the law for anyone making a social contract.
We are starting from a running block which saw homosexuality banned and practitioners jailed; you don't have to be pro-gay or like the act itself to realise this is. A. Bad. Thing.
And it's a good thing that their is greater equality; however, the worry is still there that because this doesn't deal with the underlying problem - law where none need exist - in such cases the scales of justice inevitably fall in the opposite direction under the momentum of good intentions; how long will it be before a homosexual couple take umbridge at a church telling them to piss off, it's not biblical to marry them, and find themselves facing a hefty fine?
Do we really believe this won't be tried?
I follow your blog, and often agree with what you say.
ReplyDeleteOn this issue, I feel a crucial point is missed.
A marriage (or civil partnership, or whatever you wish to call it) is a contract before the state. The fact that a straight couple have one type, and a gay couple have a different type is, inherently, illiberal.
The state should recognise a contract of union between two people (regardless of gender of sexual intent). Or between more than two people. Any religious component is for those signing the contract to decide.