X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Blogs

Another reason to part ways with Strasbourg

12 June 2012

3:00 PM

12 June 2012

3:00 PM

Even for people on the same side of an argument, opinion is often wildly divided. Among those of us who believe government should support civil marriage equality, this morning’s papers (£), and specifically Church of England fears that the religious will be ‘forced’ to carry out same-sex weddings, re-opens a fundamental division of opinion.
 
The coalition’s proposals rightly only relate to civil marriage equality (that the state should make civil marriage between same-sex couples equal to civil marriage between opposite-sex couples). It has always seemed obvious to me that if the government pushes ahead with same-sex civil marriage then it should do so only if it can ensure that ‘Human Rights legislation’ will not be used to force religions to carry out religious same-sex marriages. Nevertheless there may be some who will look forward to challenging the churches (I suspect only the churches) in Strasbourg to ensure that civil marriage equality — instead of remaining civil — becomes something else, with various religious denominations getting in trouble with the law if they refuse to marry same-sex couples religiously.
 
As I have written before, here and elsewhere, the only religious same-sex marriages which should take place are those within denominations which have made the decision to perform such services themselves. The Quakers and Reform Jews have already said that they will — which means that if you are a gay Quaker or a gay member of the Reform Judaism movement then you may soon be able to marry, both civilly and religiously, in your place of worship. But it must also mean that if you are a member of a denomination which does not make this step — say a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox Jew — then you either change denomination, accept the fact you will never have your relationship blessed by that denomination (as opposed to recognised in law), or work within your religion to try to influence its collective mind. The idea that such a change could or should be forced from outside is appalling.
 
Attempting to explain the Church of England’s particular problems, the Bishop of Sheffield told the BBC this morning that for the church this ‘is not a matter of social convention but of Christian doctrine and teaching.’  Quite so — from the church’s point of view equal religious marriage would be a change because it would include a doctrinal shift (if hardly the most historic). But the beginnings of an important reciprocal principle are visible in all this. For just as religious institutions should not dictate (as opposed to argue) the principles by which people who are not members of their religion should live their lives, so people not of a particular religion should not be able to dictate (as opposed to argue) the principles by which the religious live their lives. Anybody who celebrates the opportunity to force legally a change in the way other people order their lives should at the very least be aware of how easily celebrants can become victims in these areas. If they are not then they should notice that we are witnessing just such a case now.
 
For many years the Catholic church and parts of the Anglican church, have been perfectly happy to influence the laws of this and other lands regarding the rights of people including those not of their flock. Some continue to try this now, both by blurring the lines between religious and civil marriage and by trying to claim exclusive ownership for themselves of the latter as well as the former. Yet now they are, understandably, not happy at all about the prospect that it might be their turn to be subject to the dictates of outside groups, individuals, courts and government.
 
Just because the boot now appears to be on the other foot does not mean the boot is the best way to do business. Personally, I hope the result of this current stand-off is not a tit-for-tat, but a quid-pro-quo. If the religious do not want the non-religious to have a legal veto over their conduct then they must accept they cannot have a legal (as opposed to religious) veto over the conduct of the non-religious. We now have a perfect location for some common ground. This would be the recognition that Strasbourg is not merely a mutual problem but a mutual menace. Far from protecting basic rights, in this area as in so many others, it is becoming the main instrument for violating them. I hope that withdrawal from — or at the very least serious renegotiation of — our involvement with the ECHR now becomes an issue which all of the churches take up with gusto.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close