John Howell OBE MP
March 2013
UPDATE PAPER: Gay Civil Marriage
Introduction
The issue of same sex marriage hit the headlines in early 2012 when the Government
published a consultation paper on the subject prior to drafting legislation. From the start
the subject caused a stir invoking strong feelings amongst those in favour of,
introducing legislation to allow same sex couples to marry, and equally strong feelings
amongst those against the proposal. In order to better inform myself of the issues I
undertook some research of my own and in July last year published a paper on the
subject.
In that paper I concluded that I was not opposed in principle to the introduction of
legislation to allow same sex couples to marry. This was in the context of marriage in a
registry office or amongst those churches that wished to pursue this form of marriage.
However I am well aware that not everyone shares that view and I have continued my
exploration of the issues, listening to different views and seeking to understand the
basis for different arguments. This paper reflects my thinking in response to the further
research and dialogue.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Before I go further let me be clear as to the progress of the Bill. Following the second
reading there were reports in the media that the Bill had been passed. This is far from
so. The vote taken in the House of Commons was to send the Bill to committee stage.
The committee stage is a further opportunity to raise concerns and seek clarification on
issues. At committee the detail of each section of the draft Bill is scrutinised before it is
sent back to the House for its third reading. A number of organisations have made both
face to face and written representations to the committee.
In order to satisfy myself that the concerns raised by constituents were being addressed
prior to the debate I sought reassurance from the Attorney General on legal issues and
during the second reading debate I asked the Minister for reassurance that issues set
before the Committee would be thoroughly explored. I was content with the
reassurances given by my colleagues at that stage.
Immediately following the debate I sent a list of concerns to members of the committee
asking them to ensure that they are considered in the debate there. The issues I raised
1
related to education, employment and business, and also some religious, social and
ethical concerns. These were raised without necessarily agreeing with the issues.
On education I raised the issue as to whether teachers would be forced to endorse
same sex marriage in their teaching. In addition I have asked about consideration of the
right of parents to remove their children from lessons if they promote gay marriage and
raised the fear that legislation would curtail parent’s right to teach their children
according to their own faith.
In relation to employment or business issues I have raised the position of people
working in the public sector in such roles as NHS, university, armed forces chaplains. I
have to say though that this right is limited. The idea that registrars employed to
conduct legal marriages in a registry office can pick and chose which marriages they will
endorse is clearly wrong.
Most of the religious issues that have been raised with me relate to the situation in
relation to the Church of England. Many doubt that the quadruple lock would offer the
protection stated especially if taken to the European courts. Whilst I have raised this I
am conscious that other countries within Europe have not seen successful cases
brought to the European Court of Human Rights. I am also mindful of priests who have
expressed their disappointment at not being able to conduct marriages for same sex
couples.
Other Christian denominations and faiths have raised concerns over ‘opt-in’ and
whether there will be genuine free choice on this. Concerns raised from a religious
perspective that relate to education and employment and have been addressed in my
previous comments.
Finally I have raised some general moral/social/ethical concerns on behalf of
constituents who have raised them with me. The outcome of the committee work is
currently awaited.
Definition of marriage
This Bill is explicit in its intention to ‘extend’ the right of marriage to same sex couples.
But this is defined as being allowed in certain circumstances only. A lot of the points
raised have questioned whether the Government’s quadruple lock is sufficient to avoid
cases being brought to the European Court of Human Rights. However, this needs to
be looked at from the perspective of equalities legislation rather than changing anything
fundamental.
2
Among the concerns expressed, rather than see this as an extension of marriage, there
is an objection that Parliament is redefining marriage. Some say this is beyond its role. I
discussed the definition of marriage in my earlier paper but will pursue this a little more
here. I realise that whilst I see it as a change of extension others see it as a quantum
leap of redefinition.
Let me be clear that I do believe marriage to be one of the most important institutions
we have. The principles of long-term commitment and responsibility which underpin it
bind society together and make it stronger. This is one reason strongly in favour of
enabling same sex couples to be included. Some people have suggested that to allow
same sex marriage would undermine marriage and de-stable society. I cannot see how
a stable and faithful heterosexual marriage would be undermined in anyway by a stable
and faithful homosexual marriage. There are rather too many marriages that are
anything but stable and permanent and the consequences for all concerned are well
known. Thus if more couples want to enter into stable and permanent relationships I find
it hard to understand how this can undermine society.
Indeed, early in 2011 the then Church of England Archbishops' Council's Marriage and
Family Policy officer seemed to agree. In endorsing marriage she said ’although there
may be a growing public perception that marrying makes no difference to a relationship,
we believe the evidence shows differently. Making a positive public decision to make a
relationship permanent and exclusive does change behaviour … if nobody made that
public commitment of marriage then society would be much more fragile and
fragmented and be in danger of failing apart.’
If you distil the various thoughts that have been raised on the meaning and purpose of
marriage I think they come down to two differing views. In the end these views may not
be compatible and proponents of each view will have to agree to differ. The two views to
which I am referring are located in the religious debate but spill out into traditional
thinking and custom.
I will briefly explore the religious argument as it has been raised although fundamentally
I do not regard this as a religious issue. This is an issue which is about extending the
right to marriage in a civil context without making any changes to the religious beliefs
individuals may have. However, many people will take the debate back to the Bible and
primarily the Book of Genesis where, of course, there are two accounts of creation. In
the first account we are told that God created man (humankind) ‘in his own image…
male and female he created them.’ In the second account we are told that God said that
it was not good for man to be alone and thus created a helper for him. In both of these
3
accounts companionship was first and foremost and procreation followed. This, I think,
is at the heart of the debate.
I do very much respect those who hold a deep belief that marriage can only be between
one man and one woman. However I am clear that this is not the only view either from a
secular perspective or a religious one. It is important to remember that this legislation is
not about refuting deeply held views, religious or other. As I have already made clear at
its heart the legislation is about equality within a particular context. Thus anyone with a
deeply held view does not need to change their belief or indeed their practice. This is
precisely the reason why the legal protections are so important.
In biblical studies there are a number of approaches. We know from debates on a range
of issues that biblical scholars will interrogate the text and will often be able to support
whichever argument they seek to substantiate. Indeed as Shakespeare reminds us
even ‘the devil can cite scripture for his purpose’. I hesitate to venture too deeply into
theological waters. Indeed to do so would be beyond the scope of this paper. I am none
the less grateful to the helpful contribution to this debate from the Rev’d Steve Chalke
who drew my attention to two different approaches to biblical understanding - exegesis
and hermeneutics. The former looks at the actual structure and meaning of the text itself
whilst the latter seeks to discover what is behind the words exploring cultural and social
perceptions of both writer and hearer.
The Bible does not provide a conclusive answer to all of the questions of the twenty first
century. Indeed circumstances have evolved over the centuries and the weight of
tradition and reason is applied to help Christians live and understand their faith in their
own time. In the Church of England the importance of this contribution can be seen in
the work of Richard Hooker. We only have to look to the example of William
Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade to see the outworking of this. I doubt that
many would want to see the slave trade reintroduced but at the time Wilberforce felt the
full weight of the church against him being dismissed as abandoning the authority of
scripture.
An exploration of the history of marriage will show that it is not a static institution but one
that has evolved over many centuries. The question in relation to the biblical account of
creation is whether or not it is a normative illustration.
I realise that in seeking to discuss biblical interpretation in a short paper leaves many
opportunities for assumption and criticism. I am seeking here to explore issues in
relation to this debate and for the sake of brevity and simplicity must necessarily jump
some distance. I am taking a hermeneutical view that the Bible is the account of the
4
ongoing faith-history which culminates in the saving work of Jesus Christ. Love and
justice are at the heart of the Christian message and these should be applied in this
debate.
Just as marriage has evolved in history, so too has our general view on other moral
issues. It may be that not everyone subscribes to evolved views but in law society has
reflected a shared understanding and acceptance. Opinion polls, such as they are, still
show the majority in favour of gay marriage.
In looking at how moral views have evolved I suggest that few today would view same
sex relationships as criminal yet it was only in the 1960s that homosexuality was
decriminalised.
In society it was not so long ago that divorce was a taboo and it is even more recent
that divorcees were permitted to remarry in church. This change started with the State
deciding that people could remarry after divorce within the lifetime of their former
spouse. This effectively changed the definition of marriage from a lifelong bond and yet
it did not cause concern. It did not affect the Church’s definition of marriage nor did it
undermine the marriages of those still maintaining the lifelong bond. The church went
through a long struggle to come to terms with this in relation to biblical teaching and
contemporary understanding before agreeing that divorced people could remarry in
church.
Perhaps even more recently to have a child outside of marriage was looked down on.
Yet today many young couples choose to have a child and then marry rather than the
other way around. The families of these couples no longer feel the need to move away
to hide what might have been seen once as collective family shame. Indeed many of
these children are welcomed by the church in baptism.
The notion that marriage should only be equated with procreation had moved on too.
As the Rev’d Duncan Dormor of St John’s College Cambridge has made clear marriage
is about more than having children. He points out that in the late 19th century when the
survival rate of children increased and family sizes grew couples started to using simple
methods to limit pregnancy. This ‘silent revolution’ began the process of decoupling
procreation from marriage.
We will all have our own different views on these issues but we can still live alongside
one another and allow people to live their own lives as they see fit or as circumstances
dictate. At the same time we can hold fast to our own beliefs and moral views.
5
In the debate on marriage some explicit details have been raised such as the question
of the consummation of a marriage. In some strict religious circles a marriage is only
consummated if there is the explicit intention to conceive a child. Many couples today
deliberately delay having children or abandon it altogether. Where then does that leave
their marriage?
If you tread down the path that marriage is solely for the procreation of children what do
we say to those who marry late in life beyond child-bearing years? Are those marriages
between elderly couples that we look upon so fondly null and void?
Equality
Let me turn to issues of equality and why this matters in that arena. If nothing else the
passion that this debate has aroused shows that marriage is seen as special. It is
precisely because of this, and because of the unique importance of the institution of
marriage in society, that as a matter of equality all couples wishing to marry should be
able to do so. Whilst civil partnerships convey similar legal rights they do not express
the same universally understood commitment.
In legal situations civil partners cannot currently call themselves married. Thus when a
declaration of marital status is required by a public authority or other organisation an
individual who is either married or in a civil partnership will necessarily be declaring their
sexual orientation by making such a declaration. The law as it stands has a
discrimination implicitly built in. Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said “It is not
acceptable for us to discriminate against our brothers and sisters on the basis of sexual
orientation just as it was not acceptable for discrimination to exist on the basis of skin
colour under Apartheid." Most people of faith would support this view. Thus it is a
conundrum that those most vociferous in their opposition to the legislation are from
religious groups. As I have already made clear, opportunity within law for some is not an
obligation for all.
If we look at the progress of equalities legislation successive Governments have
gradually removed differences between married, cohabiting and same sex couples
through such measures as allowing single people and same sex couples to adopt, by
extending domestic violence legislation to all couples, and by calculating benefits by
household occupation rather than marital status. This Bill takes us one more step along
that same path.
It has been argued that if there is equality in marriage as the Bill proposes then there
will be opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage. The argument continues that it
would be better to make amendments to civil partnerships to make the two equal in the
6
eyes of the law. However if a change to civil partnerships were to be made to give them
equal legal status as marriage then this would have precisely the effect of introducing
two forms of marriage in everything but name. This may be where we end up in this
debate.
Conclusion
If we base our argument on whether same sex marriage should be legal fundamentally
on the sexual union of a man and woman with the intention to produce children we run
into mixed terrain. But if we look at this from an equalities perspective where same sex
marriage is permissible for those who want to pursue it the outcome of debate is very
different.
If we stick with the equalities debate then whilst making a situation legal for some, the
protection for those who cannot accept this as the right thing to do must also be
paramount. This is precisely why I have raised a number of concerns with the Bill
Committee as outlined earlier in this paper.
How I vote at third reading will depend on how the concerns raised have been
addressed and the protections afforded secured. Such protections should not allow for
discrimination against same sex couples but should allow for each person to live
according to their own beliefs whatever their foundation.
As always I welcome constructive debate.
7