I spent Monday at home and yesterday in parliament,
listening to the Same Sex Marriage debate. It was at times infuriating, moving
and challenging. There is no doubt that this is an issue that divides opinion,
often, but not always, along religious lines. To be honest it highlights, maybe
like no other issue, the need to disestablish the church.
My view is that the most sensible way to have resolved the
differences of opinion would have been to accept the amendments proposed by
Greg Mulholland and Simon Hughes making the distinction between religious and
civil marriage clear. It would have then been far easier to have made the case
to faith groups that what they choose to do with regard to recognising same sex
marriage, or second marriages or whatever else, is their business and what the state does is the state’s business. To quote my dear pal Colin Ross (who was also quoted
by Greg in his speech):
“I
am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving
relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that – without any
religion having their opinion on it – but what is more I want to have the same
rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not
offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality
especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues
affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was
not about equality – as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not
allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well. Mr Mulholland’s
proposals would for the first time deliver equality for everyone who wanted to
spend their life in a loving relationship recognised by the state and enjoy the
rights that come with that.”
As someone who was christened a Catholic, baptised in a
Pentecostal church, and at times a member of the Church of England, Baptists
and Free churches – I spent much of my life in the same bubble that many
Christians find themselves in now. The teaching on marriage was clear and until
recently remained unchallenged. Through having the privilege of having many gay
friends some with a strong faith, some without, I have been on my own journey
in squaring the circle of church orthodoxy and my own experience.
One of the
biggest influences on my thinking has been Desmond Tutu whose position is
beautifully summed up here.
More recently the brave decision of Steve Chalke, a leading evangelical, to speak
up in favour of same sex marriage has pushed the debate on in the church.
But as the past couple of days demonstrate, and contrast Gerald Howarth’s
outrageous “aggressive homosexuals” comment with the moving speech by Katherine
McKinnell on Monday, it is clear that no uniform Christian understanding of the
nature of marriage exists any longer. Let’s
be clear, marriage is an institution that predates the church, the mosque and
the temple. And clearly is defined differently in countries where polygamy is
permitted. So the idea that there is one, universally agreed definition, is
ridiculous.
But, having said that, I would expect my fellow Liberal
Democrats to have more appreciation of just how difficult it is for those who
have grown up with the church’s understanding of marriage to square their own
circles. Simon Hughes is a good friend of mine and I know just how much he has
wrestled with this. My advice to him throughout has been that he had to do what
he believed was right, and because he couldn’t please both sides he had to
make his priority hanging on to his own integrity. However hard many fellow Lib
Dems may have found his decision yesterday, I would hope we could respect that,
for him and others, their faith came first.
Much has been made of the fact that we have party policy on
equal marriage. Yes we do, we also have lots of party policy that has been
ignored while we have been in coalition. Yesterday was a free vote because it
was seen that this was a conscience issue. To be honest I actually think issues
like the bedroom tax, attacks on welfare benefits and legal aid are conscience
issues too (!), but there was not the same furore about the fact that our MPs
were whipped against party policy in those and other cases.
So as the dust settles, credit must go to Adrian Trett and
Lynne Featherstone for all they have done to get us to this point. This is a
reason to celebrate. But we must also respect the reality that for some people
of faith balancing their religious and political values is often an
excruciatingly painful process.
