The recent Royal Wedding in Westminster Abbey may have appeared reasonably straight forward to the adoring billion fans. Not so the wedding I was recently involved in.
The civil ceremony took place in a theatre. I had thought the bride and groom, dear longstanding friends, had invited me to take part in their “service” as they insisted on calling it because I was a “minister of religion.” I had after all history: I had preached at the bride’s sister’s church wedding and baptised one of her babies. However on checking with the local registrars I was informed by the presiding official that bible readings, prayers, religious symbols of any kind including candles were not allowed and strictly prohibited. I had to settle for reading a non-religious poem.
I was rather taken aback; I could imagine there may well have been “God” difficulties in a civil ceremony I attended a couple of years ago when dear friends, a Christian and a Muslim, had married, but the idea that the church has a monopoly on light appeared to me, at least on Easter Saturday, Easter Eve, an interesting one - “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the church there is no salvation). That, it seems, is the present view of the state, as well of the church, when it comes to state/civil weddings – and civil partnerships too.
But to all this, the Government is threatening to add yet more confusion. We can have church wedding with God; state weddings without God: same sex civil partnerships without God – to which may soon be added same- sex civil partnerships with God; and perhaps more?
The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnership Act took place in December 2005, Elton John and David Furnish paved the way on December 21, 2005 at the historic Guildhall, Windsor. The act accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples. However, the current law on state weddings as well as same-sex civil partnerships, as I discovered on Easter Saturday, prohibits religious elements. Campaigners point out that this means that whereas a mixed-sex couple can choose between a civil or religious wedding, same-sex couples are denied this choice.
The Coalition Government has admitted that there is an imbalance between civil partnerships and civil marriage and are currently seeking ways to address this anomaly. It is proposed that religious civil partnerships be permitted and those who wish to do so can have their same-sex civil partnerships performed in religious buildings. Naturally faith groups are split about the proposal. Unitarians, Quakers and Liberal Jews are up for it while the Church of England and Roman Catholics are opposed. Last February, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg stated “I support gay marriage. Love is the same, straight or gay, so the civil institution should be the same, too. All couples should be able to make that commitment to one another.” Marriage equality, I understand, is now adopted official party policy.
But if all this current legislation appears confusing then there is yet further complications – the religious press has in recent weeks reported the journeys of eight British couples who have submitted cases to the European Court of Human Rights: Four gay couples want to get married; four heterosexual couples want to enter civil partnerships. Their present inability to do these things, they say, is sexual apartheid – arguing that there is one law for heterosexual partners, another for gay couples.
Still confused? In a dramatic development on 2nd March last year, the House of Lords voted to allow the use of religious premises and religious language in same-sex partnerships. Peers voted in favour of the proposal by 95 votes to 21, despite opposition from the government and several Church of England bishops. The proposal, which takes the form of an amendment to the Equality Bill, was put forward by Waheed Alli, who is a gay Muslim and a Labour peer. The move will result in an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would allow, though not compel, religious organisations to host civil partnerships. Religious language would also be permitted within the ceremonies. The amendment has yet to be approved by the House of Commons, but it is predicted that it is unlikely that MPs would make any significant changes to it.
How are we to pick our way through this minefield of religious and political correctness when religious people are divided in so many different and complex ways? To reconcile issues of justice and freedom here, it is probably best, says Paul Vallely, associate editor of The Independent and a leading British writer on ethical, cultural and political issues, to resort to the principle that “any changes should be permissive, not compulsory.” I suspect the vocabulary may be the easy part.
A permissive approach might suggest that straight and gay couples should be allowed to use the Bible, hymns and prayers in their civil ceremonies. The word of God is not copyright and people should be encouraged to use it. And should same- sex ceremonies be allowed in church? If a minister and congregation are happy -, then certainly.
But while we wait for the Equality Bill to be considered and amended a possible permissive approach will have to be put on hold before my other four weddings later this year. The wedding of two Roman Catholic friends on the eve of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge together with my eldest son’s summer wedding seem reasonably straightforward, but not so the other two weddings: two Christian friends have surprisingly opted for a civil ceremony thereby omitting God; while the other consists of a fascinating authorised Church of England Betrothal Ceremony, prior to a Japanese wedding between a Christian and a member of the Shinto faith.
Ray Anglesea is a self supporting minister currently working across synod church partnerships. May 2011
