by Scot Peterson, Lecturer, Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Scot’s research focuses on issues of constitutional history, including particularly the relationship between religion and the state
Now that Eastertide has commenced, Living in Love and Faith approaches the end of its initial stage, and a decision about church policy has become inevitable. The outcome will be a policy with widespread impact. The Church of England’s leaders have sheltered behind an invalid understanding of marriage as an unchanging institution and have resisted change through a sequence of conversations and study groups. But change is coming.
The Debate over Same-Sex Marriage
In 2013 my co-author Iain McLean and I published a book intended to inform a broader debate about same-sex marriage. In it, we argued that marriage is a legal institution that structures human relationships, allowing, for example, the partners to inherit without a will. It is also a religious institution (considered a sacrament by some), which has historically involved more or less consent by women. Its religious aspect has sometimes treated spouses equally but has also at times treated women as subordinate to men, even to the extent that they became property. Despite arguments to the contrary, over its centuries of development marriage has never been a fixed relationship or a static institution, and it continues to change.
The broader discussion about same-sex civil marriage, which we wanted to address, began with a ‘listening exercise’ by the coalition government in 2010. Then, in March 2012, the Home Secretary (Theresa May) and the Minister for Equality (Lynne Featherstone) launched a twelve-week consultation about how (not whether) to afford same-sex couples access to civil marriage. The government issued its response to the consultation in December of that year, and parliament enacted legislation on 17 July 2013. The first same-sex marriages took place in March 2014.
Church and State
In the 2012 consultation the government responded to the Church of England’s argument that by permitting same-sex civil marriage the government would weaken the religious establishment.?A change in who could be married for civil purposes would, the church claimed, complicate the meaning of marriage (which it claimed had been fixed for centuries). The Church of England was also somewhat misleading in arguing it had supported civil partnerships, when in fact most bishops had opposed them even when they were celebrated by members of other religious denominations. In response to the church’s objections to same-sex marriage, the government imposed a quadruple lock: (1) ensuring that no minister or religious organization would be required to perform or recognize same-sex marriages; (2) requiring religious organizations to affirmatively seek authorization to solemnize such marriages; (3) barring discrimination claims against religions or individuals who refused to perform such marriages; and (4) making a change in the Church of England’s canons, which must be initiated by the church, a prerequisite for any change in church practice. The quadruple lock remains in place: only the church can change it, and it puts the church firmly outside the centre of the legal marriage regime, as one participant in a broader process, rather than as the one defining it.
The current consultative process in the Church of England on these matters, Living in Love and Faith, follows a series of Shared Conversations launched at the time of the first same-sex weddings in 2014. After the Shared Conversations, which lasted for two years, Synod rejected a report recommending that the church not re-visit its position on same-sex marriage (the House of Clergy voting against, 100-93). In response, the bishops appointed another study group, which developed a curriculum of podcasts, training materials, videos and even a book, to encourage conversation on the issues of marriage, faith and sexuality in an even-handed way. The curriculum was released in November 2020 (during the pandemic). Groups have been meeting, including virtually, to discuss those materials, and feedback from participants is due to close at the end of April. Further reflection will take place, with the House of Bishops (once again) offering options on how to proceed at General Synod in February 2023, nine years after the first Shared Conversations launched.
Choosing Policy
A decision has become inevitable, and the outcome will be public policy. It will not necessarily affect all of the public, but the Church of England, as the established church in England, retains special status in matters such as baptisms, funerals, and marriages. Political science distinguishes between ways of making these kinds of ‘political’ decisions.
One way is not to decide at all: to leave a matter to the market or to individual preferences. We call this spontaneous ordering. Not deciding is not an option in the current process; however, because the quadruple lock remains in place, even this is a decision. A second way of making decisions is through consensus. The UK cabinet makes decisions in this way, with a full discussion, after which all members come to agreement. This happens after a prime ministerial ‘summing up,’ in which he or she articulates the sense of the meeting. (Arm-twisting may be involved.) So far arm-twisting has not worked in this matter. Finally, there is voting, which always fails to seamlessly aggregate preferences and which necessarily leads to one side feeling it is the loser, perhaps quite acutely.
Living in Love and Faith seems aimed at achieving some form of consensus. This is highly unlikely given the response rates that are currently available, and the intensity of preferences on both sides, which can lead to unrepresentative results (in both directions!). Moreover, the pandemic has made it possible for the losing side to claim it was unfairly disadvantaged. However, spontaneous ordering remains an option. While it is a temptation for the central church to decide important questions like these, local congregations may be better placed to understand the nuances of their members’ preferences. Indeed, the Living in Love and Faith conversations may have greatly improved that understanding, irrespective of the responses. Thus, the best option may be for the church to allow variation among congregations, with many not performing same-sex wedding celebrations but with others doing so, when their members, clergy and PCC agree. In this way the church may preserve unity by allowing for diversity of belief within the structure of the national church.
Any thoughts?