CAMERON ACCUSED OF BETRAYING CHRISTIANS

There's plenty of coverage in the national media today of an article written by Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, published in the Daily Mail. Immediately below is how the article is promoted on the Daily Mail's website, followed by the full text of the article itself.

Cameron accused of betraying Christians: Astonishing Easter attack on the PM by former Archbishop of Canterbury

Many Christians doubt David Cameron’s sincerity in pledging to protect their freedoms, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey says today.

In an article for the Daily Mail, Lord Carey squarely accuses ministers of "aiding and abetting" discrimination against Christians.

He says he believes there is an "aggressive secularist and relativist approach" behind the Government plans to legalise gay marriage and says the Prime Minister has "done more than any other recent political leader" to "feed" Christian anxieties.

As a dramatic new poll released on the eve of Easter Sunday revealed that more than two-thirds of Christians feel they are now part of a "persecuted minority", Lord Carey insists the Government must do more to demonstrate its commitment to pledges to stand up for faith.

The survey suggests churchgoers increasingly feel religious freedoms are under assault from aggressive secularism. 

Critics say court rulings against Christians who want to wear crosses at work, and legal action preventing prayers before council meetings, have helped make people feel marginalised.

In the article, Lord Carey expresses particular alarm about apparent Government support for a campaign by Labour MP Chris Bryant to turn the 700-year-old Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi-faith prayer room so that gay couples can get married there.

But he also turns his fire on the Prime Minister, saying: "It was a bit rich to hear that the Prime Minister has told religious leaders that they should 'stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation' when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way.

"At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians’ right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity."

The ComRes poll suggests there is continuing resentment over the Government’s decision to legalise same-sex unions, even though there is special protection for the Church of England in the law. 

More than half (58 per cent) of Christians who backed the Conservatives in 2010 suggested they will ‘definitely not’ vote for the party in 2015.

The ComRes poll of 535 regular churchgoers, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage (C4M), reveals that more than two-thirds (67 per cent) of Christians feel that they are part of a ‘persecuted minority’.

The march of secularism means that if trends continue, Britain will no longer be a Christian country by 2030 when the number of non-believers will have overtaken the number of Christians.

In the past six years the number of Muslims has surged by 37 per cent to 2.6 million, Hindus by 43 per cent and Buddhists by a massive 74 per cent.

Numbers who choose to call themselves Christians fell by more than 4 million in a decade after 2001, the 2011 census showed. Fewer than six out of ten – 59.3 per cent – described themselves as Christian.

A decade ago nearly three quarters, 72 per cent, did so. Some 33.2 million people said they were Christian in 2011.

Downing Street strongly rejected Lord Carey’s attack. A spokesman said: "This government strongly backs faith and Christianity in particular, including backing the rights of people wanting to wear crosses at work and hold prayers at council meetings. Christianity plays a vital part in the Big Society."

Here's the text of Lord Carey's article in full, published in the Daily Mail today:

The PM's done more than any other leader to make Christians feel they're perescuted

I like David Cameron and believe he is genuinely sincere in his desire to make Britain a generous nation where we care for one another and where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully.

But it was a bit rich to hear that the Prime Minister has told religious leaders that they should ‘stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation’ when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way.

At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians’ right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity. According to a new ComRes poll more than two-thirds of Christians feel that they are part of a ‘persecuted minority’.

Their fears may be exaggerated because few in the UK are actually persecuted, but the Prime Minister has done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties.

He seems to have forgotten in spite of his oft-repeated support for the right of Christians to wear the cross, that lawyers acting for the Coalition argued only months ago in the Strasbourg court that those sacked for wearing a cross against their employer’s wishes should simply get another job.

More shockingly, the Equalities Minister, Helen Grant, recently gave her support to the Labour MP Chris Bryant’s campaign to turn the 700-year-old Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi-faith prayer room so that gay couples can get married there. The Speaker of the House of Commons is reported to be supportive of the move.

Now, there are many questions that we need to ask. If this means the removal of Christian symbols from the chapel to accommodate all faiths and even humanist ceremonies this would amount to changing the chapel fundamentally, even to banishing the Christian faith from the seat of political power. This would have implications for Her Majesty, the Queen, and could place her in a very difficult position as the chapel is a Royal Peculiar under her direct patronage.

As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial.

By dividing marriage into religious and civil the Government threatens the church and state link which they purport to support. But they also threaten to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.

If this is not enough, the legislation fails to provide any protection for religious believers in employment who cannot subscribe to the new meaning of marriage. There will be no exemptions for believers who are registrars. They can expect to be sacked if they cannot, in all conscience, support same-sex marriage.

Strong legal opinion also suggests that Christian teachers, who are required to teach about marriage, may face disciplinary action if they cannot express agreement with the new politically-correct orthodoxy.

The danger I believe that the Government is courting with its approach both to marriage and religious freedom, is the alienation of a large minority of people who only a few years ago would have been considered pillars of society.

Today’s ComRes poll suggests that more than three-quarters of Christians believe that the Government is not listening. More than half of Christians who backed the Conservatives in 2010 say they will ‘definitely not’ vote for the party in 2015.

This continues the breakdown in trust between politicians and the people they serve.

Among these people are very many volunteers, school governors and public servants. In their churches they provide soup kitchens and advice centres, and many other valuable initiatives. They are the ‘big society’ which David Cameron was advocating until recently.

The Government risks entrenching a very damaging division in British society by driving law-abiding Christians into the ranks of the malcontents and alienated – of whom there are already far too many. 

BBC RADIO LEICESTER: SAME SEX MARRIAGE & ASIAN FAITH COMMUNITIES

This evening I'm live on BBC Radio Leicester, discussing the response of the city's Asian faith communities to the Commons vote earlier this week on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill with Kamlesh Purohit (photo above). Kamlesh broadcasts music, entertainment, news and features of special interest to an Asian audience every Sunday between 1800 and 2000.

We're joined in the studio by Paul Fitzgerald, Equality and Inclusion Officer at Leicester LGBT Centre.

Our appearance together here this evening follows on from a chat I had with Kamlesh's producer, Dimple Patel, when we met at the Student Volunteering Fair in Leicester College earlier this week. Once we'd agreed that this had the potential to be a good feature on this evening's show, I recommended involving Paul (my counterpart at the LGBT Centre) especially as he is coordinating the new Multi-Faith Support Group there. Paul and I meet up an hour or so before the show in the Almanack at Highcross so we can have a wee chat and avoid going on air cold. When we meet there, I recognise Paul from last week's edition of The Big Questions broadcast from Leicester, on which he made a memorable contribution to the discussion on same sex marriage. Here's a transcript of the interview:

KP: And talking of dealing with issues that affect you, there was one issue this week which exercised many minds, I can tell you, and got a lot of people talking. Because this week, MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which will enable same sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies. However, no religious organisation will be forced to conduct same sex weddings. Many religious organisations, including the Church of England, are strongly opposed to gay marriage, so what support is there for Asian gay people in the Hindu, Sikh or Muslim communities who’d like to get married but feel that their faith community may not support them?

Well in Leicester, the Council of Faiths and the Leicester LGBT Centre have been working positively with people of all backgrounds, including Asians, who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender with faith communities: a very complex but very important issue. So I am delighted to say that joining me in the studio now are George Ballentyne, from the Leicester Council of Faiths, and Paul Fitzgerald, who is from the Leicester LGBT Centre.Chaps, a very good evening and thanks to you both very much indeed for joining us to talk about this very important issue. George, if I can start with you – because you work with faith communities and leaders in Leicester – we’ve spoken to you in the context of the Leicester Council of Faiths many times before. In your experience, what has been the response to the marriage bill and gay marriage, particularly within the Asian communities in Leicester.

GMB: Well it’s a very interesting topic to try and deal with just now because of course the actual parliamentary process isn’t complete yet, the bill has to go through the House of Lords, to get Royal Assent. So you could say well the dust hasn’t settled and it’s not yet time for organisations to make a complete and systematic response. Now that doesn’t mean that people don’t have opinions right now about it and certainly it’s been something which has been a topic of conversation and discussion amongst the faith communities. And, as you can imagine, the diversity of Leicester being what it is, there’s no single response really from the Hindu community or the Sikh community; there has been from the Muslim community, I think which is quite well known, but there … I think if you were looking for a consistent, systematic response, you and your audience will know that there’s not going to be a single kind of spearhead comment that will say everything for those communities.

KP: But isn’t that frightening because, like you say, you know, it’s not quite law yet because it’s go through the House of Lords as well before it’s ratified, but nonetheless, you know, progress has been made, this is the second reading of the Bill, so you would expect the faith communities at least to have got the ball rolling in some way.

GMB: I think the ball might be rolling but it’s not actually come out into the open yet. And I always say, particularly in situations like this in the studio, that I’m an employee of the Council of Faiths, I’m not a member, I’m not a Director, I can’t make policy or set the direction for the Council of Faiths, but I would stress really that over the past five years that I’ve been in post, we’ve worked very constructively, very positively and very collaboratively with the LGBT Centre. We’ve been members of the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership together. And it’s quite often an interesting event that we’ll do things together and people will automatically assume that we should not be collaborating, that faith identity and sexual orientation as an identity should be things which are mutually antagonistic – and they’re not; people have both these things going on in their lives, we recognise that and work together.

KP: That’s the reality isn’t it? That is the reality. Paul, Paul Fitzgerald, from the LGBT Centre, what do you make of what George is saying because I suppose you kind of see it from the other side, you deal with gay Asian people in Leicester all the time. [PF: We do] What is the feeling amongst that community?

PF: I think the vast majority of feeling is one of rejection, that they can’t be honest and open with either their families or certainly their leaders within their chosen faith. To do so carries great risk, you know, family honour is hugely problematic, letting the family down, feeling that, you know, they’re going to have to go along with the process of getting married to sort of prove their sort of heterosexuality. There’s so many problems on so many levels with a lot of the community, particularly with men. The women tend to be more silent if I’m honest, gay women, unless they make contact with other gay women, remain very isolated. It’s the gay men that have the bigger issue with us who come to the Centre, talk to us about the problems they’re experiencing, the sort of issues that are affecting them, from their, you know, from whatever religious background they ‘ve come from. But certainly their families are hugely problematic in sort of coming out to them, and letting them know what’s been going on.

KP: So for those people, does the marriage bill complicate the issue even further? Because at the moment you have civil partnerships, so people can coexist together and they have certain rights, the fact that there’s now this possibility of a marriage bill coming along puts added pressure on them because they may feel they want to get married but they don’t get the support from the communities – either the family or the religious communities - isn’t this just kind of putting just another, another – if you like – kind of iron in the works?

PF: I think it is. We’re a long way from, you know, a large number of religious organisations accepting same sex relationships and equality across the spectrum. I think all this does is add weight to their levels of concern, their levels of angst for want of a better term, because they can’t come out, they can’t be open, they can’t be honest with, with, about who they are. I think it will mean, in essence, very little to them because they still won’t be able to go through the process of approaching their religious leaders to help conduct a same sex marriage. We’re 25-30 years away from that happening, I think, in the UK at the present time.

KP: So in many ways, for those people who may – who are of Hindu and Sikh backgrounds and they may want to choose to get married in their religious establishment, it’s not going to happen anyway so isn’t this just a waste of time for them?

PF: No, because I think equality is very important. I think if we continue the path that we’ve chosen, to make our world, our country, human beings more aware of equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights then I think that somewhere in the future along the way we will open those doors where people can feel that they can approach their leaders, to have the opportunity to get married, if that’s the choice that they make [KP: George –] We have to start somewhere we have to start one step.

KP: Absolutely, it’s a right, in a democracy, they have a right. Do you think the faith communities, in many ways, are afraid to deal with this very difficult issue which is perhaps why we haven’t heard anything definitive from them or is it just, like you say, early days at the moment because it’s not been – it’s not gone through the House of Lords, it’s not been ratified yet.

GMB: It’s not just early days in terms of the parliamentary or the legislative procedure. This is something that’s going to play itself out, you know, like Paul said there, over the course of a generation or more. I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how the young people in the communities respond to this changing landscape, how they might ask for clarification or challenge the leaders and elders in their own community. It’s very difficult to explain to a young person why people of the same sex can’t get married in Britain today. They just look at you like you’re an idiot if you try to explain what the legal or the Canon Law reasons are for this, and it’s going to make a big change in our society and all the faith communities have to respond to a changing social environment. I cannot say, I cannot predict what that might be. I think it’s also important to remember that within the law there is protection for those organisations, they cannot be forced to conduct a religious ceremony for a same sex couple.

KP: But isn’t that something, you know, organisations can hide behind then? In other words, because they don’t want to confront this very difficult issue, they can turn around and say, we refuse to allow this to happen because it’s – you know – not allowed in the religion.

GMB: Well you could say that they are maybe hiding behind it, but the government has placed it there as a shield and as a protection for those organisations which cannot, in good conscience, conduct a ceremony like this and it would be quite interesting – I don’t, I mean, you know – your wedding day is supposed to be the best, most memorable day of your life, or the most memorable several days of your life, and it’s impossible to imagine why someone would want to force a priest to conduct the ceremony. You don’t want to be married by someone who is, as it were, biting their tongue while they’re doing the ceremony. It should be positive and loving and collaborative and supportive. And I think the situation now there – it’s just in a complete flux. We can’t really say anything meaningful about it for quite a long time to come.

KP: But in reality Paul, how does this transpire in reality, because you talked about the pressure young people are on. On the ground, because you deal with gay Asian people all the time, you know – are they under stress, you know, is it sort of putting their health at risk? What – How does it transpire?

PF: Well it’s not just young people, it’s people across the age spectrum. Of course it materialises in their physical and emotional well-being being severely compromised. High rates of suicidal ideation – which is the thought of suicide – we know there have been suicides across the UK as a direct result of trying to be something that you’re not. That happens across all communities, not just within the Asian community. But your sexual orientation , fundamentally, is a big part of who you are. It’s not the only thing, but It’s an absolutely vital component that brings the whole together, where people feel comfortable and confident in themselves. And if one part of you is having to remain hidden and you can’t be true and honest to yourself, first and foremost, let alone anybody else, that will have and does have a detrimental effect on both your physical, psychological and emotional well-being.

KP: Okay, well on a final note then Paul, if faith community leaders listening to the programme this evening, what one thing would you say to them in the context of the marriage bill?

PF: Please come and talk to us at the Centre. We take on board anyone’s values, anyone’s particular beliefs, we’re not there to sort of dictate one way or the other , what we want to do is have meaningful dialogue – and George does some amazing work with the Council of Faiths to bring that collaboration and those communities together to talk openly and honestly and move things forward. You can move mountains just with discussion. We don’t have to all agree that everything has to be absolutely perfect, but we can move things forward with genuine concern for the well-being of our community.

KP: Dialogue; dialogue is the way forward. Okay, Paul Fitzgerald from the Leicester LGBT Centre and George Ballentyne from the Leicester Council of Faiths, thank you both very much indeed for joining us this evening.

THE BIG QUESTIONS, LIVE FROM LEICESTER

BBC One's The Big Questions is broadcast live from Samworth Enterprise Academy, Leicester, this morning. I've said before that I'm no fan of this kind of show and have turned down several invitations to appear on them over the years. While I’m all in favour of honest open discussion, I favour more the statement attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, that “if two people quarrel over some religious subjects, both of them are wrong.” I make an exception for today’s broadcast and watch it for the sake of the blog. I wrote about a previous edition of the programme broadcast from the same venue. There's a change in the format this time in that there's no panel of experts out front (which I think is an improvement). Nicky Campbell hosts the programme, on which three "big questions" are discussed:

1. "Is it time for the police to favour black candidates?"
2. "Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?"
3. "Should gay couples be allowed to marry?"

I recognise several members of the audience. Leicestershire Sikh Alliance was well represented by Raj Mann (who spoke on the first topic), Harjit Singh (who spoke on the second topic), Kartar Singh (who raises his hand to speak several times, but to no avail) and Jasdeep Singh Lamaar. Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Assiatant Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, spoke on the second and third topics. Revd Canon Dr David Jennings, Vicar of Burbage, spoke on all three topics. Also in the audience is Resham Singh Sandhu, former High Sheriff of Leicestershire and former Chair of Leicester Council of Faiths. Last time I watched this show, there were several members of Leicester Secular Society in the audience. This time round, though, I don't see anyone I recognise from the Secular Society.

I don't like how shouty and bad tempered these programmes can become. That's not the best way to address religious, ethical and moral issues in the public eye. A big part of the reason why I have generally negative feelings about The Big Questions is the fact that, while it is undoubtedly worthwhile for it to travel the country and come from a different locality each week, the people who make the major contributions to the discussion and the groups they represent are not from the area. That might be considered fair enough, since the topics discussed are national or international in nature. For instance, while discussing the first question, Nicky Campbell refers to the 2011 Census results for Leicester (admittedly, in a rather "off the cuff" manner) backing up the conventional and historical argument that it's important for the police force to be representative of the community they are policing. I would say it’s not right that there's no one in the studio from Leicestershire Police, nor any statement from them or any description of the nature of diversity within Leicestershire Police (figures for which are readily available; I've got them and so has just about everyone else in Leicester and Leicestershire who is interested). There’s no one from the Jewish communities of Leicester (nor anyone from Leicester involved in the Palestinian issue) to engage with the second question. A similar argument goes for the third topic. I can say that because I know the local scene well enough to be able to spot the “well kent faces” (or those conspicuous by their absence). But the casual viewer inside or outside Leicester might be led to the conclusion that they’re getting a sense or flavour of how these issues play in Leicester, when that’s not the case.

LEICESTER LGBT CENTRE LAUNCHES MULTIFAITH SUPPORT GROUP

Leicester LGBT Centre is filling a gap in its support for its members by launching a new social and support group for LGBT people of faith in March 2013. The group is well-timed to support the needs of LGBT people who feel rejection or resistance from their faith. This has been particularly highlighted by very public opposition of many faiths towards the equalisation of marriage recently. Many LGBT people currently find themselves distrusting the support of their faith leaders and, in some cases, questioning their faith itself.

The purpose of the group is to provide a friendly meeting place for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who may feel excluded from their personal faith to come together and share experiences without prejudice.

Members, active or lapsed, of all faiths are welcomed. Its aim is to enhance understanding of its members’ spiritual and cultural similarities by acknowledging differences and identifying commonalities. This can only be done by sharing differences of opinion honestly but respectfully with an open voice.

Group facilitator Paul Fitzgerald states, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith often feel marginalised or excluded from their faith due to discriminatory practices or outdated views. We intend to provide a space where we can share ideas and values to promote good welfare among our communities and even reconnect with our personal faiths. The Leicester LGBT Centre is a perfect venue for this as it is centrally located, unattached to any particular faith and purposeful in its desire to support LGBT peoples’ differences.”

The group will start in March 2013. The Leicester LGBT Centre can be found at 15 Wellington Street, Leicester City Centre.

For further information contact Paul Fitzgerald: paul.f@leicesterlgbtcentre.org or call 01162547412.  Information will also be updated on the Centre’s website.

ARE SOME MORE EQUAL, BISHOP?

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Are some more equal, Bishop?

Heaven knows how the Bishop gets so muddled and inconsistent in his thinking! On the one hand, he bemoans the latest "no women bishops" vote in the Synod because he wants the Church to be inclusive.

And yet he's still of a mind to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Let's please remind the Bish that you can't be a little bit in favour of anti-discrimination – you're either for equality or you're not! You can't pick and choose if you want to remain credible.

Mark Sperry, Leicester

THE BISHOP OF LEICESTER EXPRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

The Bishop of Leicester expresses concerns about same-sex marriage

The Bishop of Leicester has expressed concern about proposals to allow same-sex marriage.

The Government has suggested changes to the law which would allow gay people to get married – something currently prohibited – in a civil ceremony.

The Rt Rev Tim Stevens said the Church of England wanted to see gay people further included in society but did not think this should mean redefining marriage.

The bishop also said he thought the Government's three-month consultation on the move was far too short.

He said: "The Government is seeking to meet what it perceives to be the needs of the gay community.

"I would say that the Church of England is sympathetic to those needs. 

"We want to see a society in which gay people are fully included and their needs are fully provided for.

"But this does not amount to a basis for introducing a complete redefinition of the concept of marriage based on a consultation process which is at the very least rapid."

Under the Government's proposal same-sex couples would not be allowed to be married in a religious service.

However, some in the Church of England said they expected a challenge to the ban could succeed at the European Court of Human Rights.

This, they fear, could lead to clergy being forced to conduct same-sex marriages.

If that happened, they warned, there would be an unprecedented clash between the Church's canon law – that marriage is between a man and a woman – and the state.

The outcome of this could be that it was impossible for the Church to continue as the official religious establishment of the state.

Canon Barry Naylor, the bishop's adviser on urban issues, said: "I think the fear comes from the idea that a Church of England minister could be approached by a same-sex couple asking to be married, that minister may object because it goes against their conscience and then legal action could ensue."

Canon Naylor said he was in favour of gay marriage in principle.He said: "I think the most important thing is that it is about two people who want to live in a committed relationship to each other."

Bernard Greaves, a representative of Leicester Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Centre, said he thought the Church of England was "overreacting".

He said the adoption of gay marriage would not lead to the disestablishment of the Church, nor "undermine the notion of marriage itself".

"The traditional view of Christian view of marriage is that it is a lifelong union between one man and one woman for the procreation of children," said Mr Greaves.

"In society that view of marriage has already substantially changed."We accept divorce, we accept remarriage and we accept that people get married with no intention of having children.

"None of that has undermined marriage at all.

"Allowing a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman is a change to the law that does not impinge on the Christian view of marriage."

He said he was not in favour of religious organisations such as the Church of England being forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their will.

"It would be absolutely wrong that any religious organisation should be forced to conduct same-sex marriages," he said.

"What is important is that people are given the maximum choice and equality."

BISHOP OF LEICESTER VOICES CONCERN OVER GAY MARRIAGE PROPOSALS

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Bishop of Leicester voices concern over gay marriage proposals

The Bishop of Leicester has expressed concern over gay marriage while saying the Church of England wants an increase in support for the gay community.

The Rt Rev Tim Stevens said the Church of England had been supportive of civil partnerships when the legislation was introduced eight years ago.

In a highly critical response to the Government's consultation on gay marriage which closes on Thursday, the Church of England said several “major elements”' of the proposals had not been thought through properly and were not legally “sound”.

“We continue to be supportive of the gay community and want to see that inclusion in our society increased and developed,” said the bishop.

“I think the difficulty we have here is the substitution of equality for uniformity, that is to say that there can be no distinction at all between men and women.”

He added: “The Government is seeking to meet what it perceives to be the needs of the gay community. I would say that the Church of England is sympathetic to those needs, we want to see a society in which gay people are fully included and their needs are fully provided for.

“But this does not amount to a basis for introducing a complete redefinition of the concept of marriage based on a consultation process which is at the very least rapid.

“From a standing start within three months to arrive at a fully considered, weighed and articulated redefinition of a fundamental social institution which has been thought about in one particular way for centuries and which is broadly accepted as a social institution in the same way internationally - to change all that on the basis of a consultation like this seems to be at the very least unwise and ill considered.”

Gay marriage threatens the establishment of the Church of England and could lead to it being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, it has claimed.

The Church of England said introducing same-sex marriage would lead to an unprecedented clash between its own canon law - that marriage is between a man and a woman - and that of Parliament.

MARRIAGE WILL BE WEAKENED BY THIS CHANGE

Father Gregory Murphy's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Marriage will be weakened by this change

Fr Gregory Murphy explains the churches' opposition to same-sex marriage

Yesterday's editorial on the controversy surrounding the recent proposal to legalise same-sex marriages argued that gay couples should have the right to marry, as representing both a personal expression of their life-long commitment to each other, and the concomitant expression in law of a more tolerant society, concluding that this proposal would do no harm and would remove a manifest inequality.

This stance is opposed by most Christian churches. It is important to recognise that, in opposing this move, the Church is not intending to foster discrimination against same-sex couples (although it may be perceived as such), but rather to challenge so radical an extension of the concept of marriage as to render that concept vacuous. Given that the same legal status is applied equally to those who are in registered civil partnerships as to those who are married, the archbishops argue that our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a woman and a man for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.

Sociologically, marriage is an institution constructed to meet the needs of family and society.

General social conditions are decisively affected by married life and family life; and societies have a legitimate concern for the nurturing and socialising of their newest and weakest members. Marriage then has never been regarded just as the private business of two consenting adults, but has always been fitted into a general social context, and also into the contexts of morality and religion broadly applying in that culture. The Christian understanding of marriage views it under two aspects: as a human (social) reality that is also a saving mystery or sacrament, a locus in human lives of the action of the divine. In their lifelong commitment to each other the married couple reflect the commitment of Christ to his church, and through the creation and upbringing of children they become the source and guardians of the next generation, reflecting God's creative work.

This is spelt out especially by St Paul in the reading of the Genesis creation narrative he gives in his Letter to the Ephesians, emphasising that the relationship between man and wife is theologically set apart from all other human relationships – even that, for example, between children and parents. That is the basis of the archbishops' contention that marriage, in our current law and custom, is defined as an exclusive relationship between a woman and a man; which we can trace in the complementary historical development of both civil and ecclesiastical law. The opposition of the churches to the changes is fuelled by the concern that in so widening the concept of marriage the social and cultural values it currently supports would be weakened, to the detriment of society in general.