Opinion: Homophobic churches and liberal states make for unhappy bedfellows

Overlooked No More: Alan Turing, Condemned Code Breaker and Computer Visionary

From the National Secular Society, March 27, 2023

A recent exchange in parliament revealed the incongruity of a state church in a liberal democracy. 

Last week, a group of respected parliamentarians brought forward a bill to allow for same sex marriage in the Church of England. Unlike other religious organisations, the Church of England is explicitly banned from holding same sex marriages by parliament. This arrangement was part of a ‘quadruple lock’ to protect the Church from potential legal challenges when same sex marriage was legalised. This was felt necessary because, again, unlike other religious organisations, the CofE is legally obliged to marry all those who reside within a parish. There was clearly a tension between this duty and its opposition to same sex marriage.

The Same Sex Marriage (Church of England) Bill would simply enable CofE clergy to conduct same sex marriages on Church of England premises, if they choose to do so, without breaking the law of the land. This would clearly advance the religious freedom of Anglicans who support same sex marriage and see no conflict between that and their faith. The CofE’s official doctrine would remain its own affair. On that basis, this is a bill worthy of support.

But by Ben Bradshaw’s own admission, the intent behind the legislation is to nudge the CofE in the direction that the bills proposers want it to go. The Church’s established status is being used as leverage to get the Church to adopt a more inclusive doctrine, consistent with the parliamentarians’ own worldview.                                                                                                                                        

Prejudice against homosexuals is no longer socially acceptable in modern Britain. Religious organisations that display such prejudice are increasingly experiencing pushback when they interact with the state, through public funding or service provision such as the running of schools. Quite right, too. Attempts to impose homophobic doctrine with public money shouldn’t be tolerated.

. . . 

darryll jones