Cranmer: The failures of Committee Stage of Marriage (Same Sex ...

The CARE Public Policy Team have produced a helpful document summarising the shortcomings of the Committee Stage of the Government's 'Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill':

Key Facts:
? Report Stage of the Marriage Bill is now only days away
? Considerable problems with the Bill remain
? Committee stage achieved very little
? Not one word of the Bill was amended despite the fact that numerous amendments were put down
? Of the 19 MPs on the committee only four were against the Bill
? There were no dissenters in the Labour ranks

Commenting on the Committee stage Mark D?Arcy, BBC Parliamentary Correspondent said, ?In short, it's all a bit of a ritual. The dissenters dissent and the supporters support, and the whole thing is as mannered as a minuet danced at the court of Louis XVI.?

A range of concerns were not properly addressed by the Government. Here are four:

1) Failure to put same sex relationships into same legal framework as opposite sex marriage

The Government?s Position

? The Government Minister, Hugh Robertson MP, supported the Bill?s position that adultery is only a ground for divorce in a marriage between two people of the opposite sex.
? The Minister noted that introducing homosexual adultery would bring ?significant uncertainty for couples. It could lead to divorce applications failing, and adultery would be difficult to prove.?

Critique by MPs

? Tim Loughton asked: ?Why should a same-sex couple who want to get married not be subject to the same obligations and rules as an opposite-sex couple who want to get married??
? He added: ?One could logically make the case for legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but if the standards of commitment required are different from those required in a marriage, it would be completely wrong to categorise such relationships as marriage.?
? David Burrowes remarked that debate on this issue exposed ?the flawed notion of equal marriage as a concept.?

VERDICT: The notion of equal marriage is a flawed concept.

2) Failure to address inequality

The Government?s Position

? The Minister made clear, in accordance with the Bill, that couples already in a civil partnership who wish to marry will not be required to have a same sex marriage ceremony, unlike every other couple.
? He said: ?a couple in a civil partnership will have already gone through a civil partnership registration, demonstrating a level of commitment not unlike-different, but not unlike-that required for a marriage ceremony.?
? He added that the conversion from a civil partnership to a marriage ?will simply involve a straightforward administrative process for those who prefer that, while those who want a more public ceremony will be able to hold that at a place of their choosing.?

Critique by MPs

? David Burrowes responded: ?How can I set out the Government?s case that the Bill is all about equality for same-sex couples to be married like opposite-sex couples, when only same-sex couples can be civil partners and have this conversion - perhaps this paper upgrade - to marriage, so skipping the other formal requirements of the Marriage Act??

VERDICT: The Minister failed to address the fundamental subject of inequality.

3) Failure to address religious freedom for registrars

The Government?s Position

? The Minister argued, in accordance with the Bill, that registrars should be compelled to perform same sex marriages even if it is against their conscience or religious belief.
? The Minister responded to Tim Loughton?s question about freedom of conscience by saying: ?They are different functions. One is an abortion; the other is a same-sex marriage.?

Critique by MPs

? David Burrowes and Tim Loughton pointed out that the law has long accommodated atheist teachers who do not wish to teach religion in schools and pro-life doctors who do not want to perform abortions. There is no reason why this principle should not be extended to registrars who do not wish to conduct marriage between two people of the same sex.
? The Minister was asked by Tim Loughton: ?Why is it the principle that a surgeon who has strong Catholic views is allowed to pick and choose whether to perform abortions or other surgery, if the same principle cannot be applied to a Catholic registrar with strong views, allowing them to pick and choose whether to perform that other public service? What is so essentially different that we protect one but not the other??

VERDICT: There is inconsistency in the Government?s position. In both cases public servants perform a public function for which the public pay. Merely saying that they are different functions is not justification for treating them differently.

4) Failure to address protection for schools

The Government?s Position

? The Minister asserted that ?no teacher is under any duty to promote or endorse a particular view of marriage, and neither would they as a result of any revised guidance in the future.? However, he was unprepared to allow this to be written into the Bill.
? He further commented ?teachers are entirely free to express their views in any reasonable way that they wish, but not in an offensive or discriminatory fashion.? But what constitutes an ?offensive or discriminatory fashion? was not clarified.

Critique by MPs

? Tim Loughton quoted John Bowers QC ? Employment Silk of the Year 2010 ? who, in his legal opinion, says that teaching that one form of marriage is ?better than another? would likely ?amount to unlawful direct or indirect discrimination.?

VERDICT: The Minister was unable to address the major concern of protection for teachers who do not feel able to endorse the new definition of marriage.

Source: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-failures-of-committee-stage-of.html

Christmas Story after christmas sales case mccoy case mccoy UFC 155 Jack Klugman merry Christmas