Follow this link to read Chapter 3
Chapter 4
The Chapel of Love
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. St Paul to the Corinthians, New King James Bible, Corinthians 13:1–13
When my partner and I came out as a couple in 1996, the Observer newspaper sent a reporter to my village to question a representative from our local church. In his statement, the vicar proclaimed that he would be “happy to bury Rena”. By which I believe he meant not that he held any murderous intentions toward her but that when Rena died, he would agree to bury her – unlike the 2012 case of a Danish vicar who refused to inter a deceased women because she had been in a same-sex partnership for 20 years.
The media sought our vicar’s views, not because Rena and I were regular visitors to his church, but because we were his parishioners and, as one of the few nations in the world that maintains an established Church, the opinions of the clergy still matter in England in the 21st century. The Church of England holds great influence on the private lives of English citizens, with holidays and rituals, historical and geographical landmarks, and in matters of political importance, such as fertility rights and marital rights. While Christianity has such an influence in our schools, our governments, our media and our culture, we are all affected by the policy of the Church. In our case that means births, deaths, but no marriages.
The principle objection to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, was offered by the Church of England. In their response to the government consultations on equal civil marriage, the Church offered objections based on traditional understandings of marriage as well as doctrine and possible legal challenges. Other religious organisations in England may also object to equal marriage but since their faiths are not established as the state religion, they are not considered so vulnerable to legal challenges from same-sex couples wanting to marry in church.
The canon law of the Church of England and the civil laws of England have so far been in accordance and canon law defines marriage as between one man and one woman. But as Right Reverend Tim Stevens points out, “[when] the civil law of the state redefines [marriage] you have got a situation in which civil law and canon law are at odds.”
The possibility that the new marriage law would cause a constitutional crisis and challenge the establishment of the Church of England was a consideration in the consultation process in 2013 and will continue to be of concern while canon law and the law of the land are out of sync. It is possible to change canon law and the process by which this can be done is documented by the UK Human Rights Blog; indeed the Church of England was founded during the reign of Henry VIII in response to the king’s frustration with the dominance of Rome over his own leadership. Part of his frustration was the Catholic Church’s refusal to annul his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. Henry separated from the Catholic Church and married Anne. Without the change in law, the king would have been considered an adulterer as Matthew (5:32) makes clear: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
There are many references in the bible to the sin of adultery, and divorce is consistently included as adulterous in and of itself. But by 1857, the Matrimonial Causes Act made provision for ordinary people to divorce and in 2005, the divorced heir to the throne (and possible future Supreme Governor of the Church of England), Prince Charles, married the divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles. Although their adultery had been ruled by the Church as a contributory factor in her divorce, and they were consequently not allowed to marry in church, they had a civil service instead and were nevertheless later blessed by the Church with the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding.
The Church of England has proved itself practical in matters of divorce and remarriage. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, publically supported the marriage between Prince Charles and Mrs Parker-Bowles saying, ‘He is the heir to the throne, and he loves her. The natural thing is that they should get married.’
Put like this, it is tempting to wonder if it would take a homosexual heir to change the current position of the Church of England on same sex marriage.
As it is, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill had to go through considerable scrutiny by the Church of England and apply a “quadruple lock” system to ensure that no one in the Anglican Church would be forced to perform a same sex marriage service. Not one of the (all male) bishops in the unelected House of Lords voted for same sex marriage at the Bill’s final stage in 2013. How could they? Existing canon law does not allow for same sex marriages and the provisions for the exemption of the Church may be insufficient.
Anglican Church leaders worry that the Human Rights Act of 1998, which came into force in Britain in 2000, could be used to pursue a claim of discrimination against the Church on behalf of same sex couples. Certain human rights, such as slavery, have already been seen to supersede the lessons of the Bible. These teachings are now seen not just as inconvenient to modern life, but as barbaric practices and so rightly rejected.[1] When reformers are criticised for picking and choosing which biblical traditions should still be observed, it is important to remember that our society has already chosen not to stone adulterers, sell our daughters, or put to death those who work on the Sabbath and we consider our choices absolute standards of civilised development.
Not all religions find the issue of equal marriage problematic. Several different religious denominations have expressed their desire to conduct equal marriages. Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal Judaism and the Movement for Reform Judaism want to be able to marry same sex couples at their places of worship. Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner wrote: “A recognition of equality of marriage for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can only strengthen society and the institution of marriage. We welcome moves to legislate to this end. We are all made in God’s image, an image that has a wide prism of characteristics and believe therefore that same-sex partnerships based on the same stability, faithfulness, love and mutual support as heterosexual relationships should be seen as fully equal in the eyes of the law.”
Prohibiting same sex couples from marrying in church is not just a theoretical moral ban for many gay Christians; it effectively removes their ability to incorporate their personal beliefs into their union. Civil services are prohibited from including any religious content, including hymns and biblical readings. Same sex couples that wish to celebrate their commitment to their faith and their partners may not be married by any ordained minister from the Church of England and even with the introduction of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, same sex partners can be married in any religious building except for those belonging to the Church of England. While marriage services are specifically forbidden in Anglican Churches, no religious representative of any denomination will be allowed to conduct marriages unless their governing body has consented. To date, the Muslim Council of Great Britain and the Network of Sikh Organisations have stated their opposition to same sex marriages. They may allow for equal marriage in the future if they choose but the Church of England is expressly forbidden to conduct same sex marriages.
Same sex marriage, along with the role of women in the Church, has the potential to threaten the unity of a faith that is practiced worldwide. It is the history of our Church to adapt either by immediate pressure (the dictates of the monarch) or by slowly adjusting to social change (the role of women, the immorality of slavery). It would be a brave church that would take the lead and be at the vanguard of moral reform. Perhaps it is not in the nature of such a monolithic structure to facilitate change but for those of us who are gay and have some residual faith we would welcome a chance to belong to a Church that would have us for its members. From birth to death and the love in between.
And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. St Paul to the Corinthians, New King James Bible, Corinthians 13:1–13
[1] For an enlightening and humorous look at some of these lessons, read ‘Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?’ on the Humanists of Utah website.
If you would like to read the A Marriage Proposal in full now, you can purchase the ebook via the links on the Guardian Shorts website, prices from £1.99.
