Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, has urged Catholics to write to our members of parliament in opposition to British government plans for equal marriage legislation. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the archbishop on a number of matters, but on this one, I fear he and his colleagues are wrong.
Nevertheless, I have taken up his suggestion to write to my MP - but not in the way he suggested. This is what I wrote this morning to Jeremy Hunt, MP:
Dear Mr Hunt,
Proposed Legislation for Equal Marriage
Vincent Nichols, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, has urged the Catholics of England and Wales to write to our Members of Parliament on the subject of gay marriage, and the government’s proposed legislation. As a committed Catholic, active in two parishes (one in Haslemere in your constituency, the other in London’s Soho, in the heart of Archbishop Nichols’ diocese), and as a father and grandfather, I am delighted to comply. I strongly urge you to disregard the objections of Archbishop Nichols and the other bishops, and instead to support the proposals of your colleagues in government, to introduce equal marriage, as soon as reasonably feasible. Many of the claims made in opposition to government proposals, are simply false, or misleading.
It is claimed that as these plans were not included in party manifestos, the government has “no mandate”. This is a half – truth at best: if not included in the formal manifestos, the subject was widely discussed and supported by several leading politicians. Mr Cameron himself specifically promised to “look into” the subject. Since then, every opinion poll that has specifically asked about equal marriage and the law has shown strong public support. The most recent of these furthermore showed a dramatic increase in support since the public consultation began. The opposition has made their case – and decisively lost the argument, in the court of public opinion.
It is not the government that lacks a mandate, but the Catholic bishops themselves, who are not elected by British Catholics, but appointed from Rome. They may lead the Catholic Church, but do not in any sense represent it. This is particularly true in matters of sex and marriage. As priests who have chosen voluntary celibacy for themselves, their pronouncements on the subject have no basis whatsoever in any real life experience. Catholic doctrine includes numerous prohibitions on a wide range of sexual matters – which are routinely ignored by most Catholics, from contraception to cohabitation before marriage. In the USA, where public opinion polls are frequent, these have routinely shown that Catholics in general support marriage equality, to a greater degree than the public at large. There is no reason to suppose that British Catholics are any different in this respect.
It is claimed that government has no right to “redefine” marriage. This ignores the historical facts that the Christian church for over half its history had no interest in marriage, leaving its regulation entirely to secular authority, and that the Church’s own understanding of marriage has been constantly redefined. It also ignores the fact that from historical and cross-cultural perspectives, there is not and never has been any single definition of marriage which is universally applicable.
It is claimed that the “purpose” of marriage is the procreation of children, and so should be reserved to opposite – sex couples. But this is contradicted by the facts: in the UK today, the majority of marriages are contracted after conception of the first child – but before the birth. The value of marriage is not in making children, but in protecting them and providing for them after birth. The hundreds of thousands of British children currently being raised by same –sex couples also deserve the protections that marriage brings to families.
It is claimed that same – sex couples do not “need” marriage, because the civil partnership laws already provide all the legal benefits of marriage. But marriage is much more than a simple matter of a legal contract. Words matter, and separate is not equal.
It is claimed that same – sex marriage is contrary to Catholic and Christian belief. This is contradicted by some Catholic theologians and groups, individual Church of England bishops, and entire religious denominations that argue that there exists a strong religious case in support of equal marriage, required by the Gospel insistence on equality and inclusion for all.
It is claimed that introducing equal marriage will somehow interfere with religious freedom. This is nonsense, and has been adequately covered by your colleague, Minister Maria Miller, with her “quadruple lock” to protect such freedom. The interests of religious freedom require that equal marriage should be possible for those denominations that see it as a religious obligation – and for those outside the faith communities, who do not wish to be constrained by the religious beliefs of particular groups.
It is claimed, on the basis of a single Comres poll, that 70% of voters believe that marriage “should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between one man and one woman”. But this proposition concerns an ideal about marriage, not its treatment in law. The same finding could equally be used to argue for and end to legal divorce, or to the criminalization of adultery. If it is not appropriate to apply it to divorce or adultery, it is also inappropriate to apply it to equal marriage.
Mr Hunt, I urge you to support your colleagues in government in the introduction of equal marriage.
Yours,
Terence Weldon
Related articles
- Catholic, CoE Bishops Diverge in Response to Gay Marriage Proposals. (queeringthechurch.com)
Dear Terry,
thank you for sharing an excellent letter. I wonder if you’d be willing for people to edit your letter as a ‘format’ to follow . You write in a clear and compelling manner.
with thanks and respect
Billy
With great pleasure, Billy. I would be delighted for others to adopt the format and content, as they feel moved to do. (I was rather hoping this might be the case). If you like it, by all means use it yourself- and encourage many others to do the same.
Terence which would you have preferred not to havehad - Your mother or your father? I ask the question as your stringent plea for the rights of children in gay households for parents to be ‘married’ is really a bit ofa red herring.
I presume that you prefer not to see the clear contradiction in your terms that marriage is about protecting children when you endorse children being disallowed their own parent in a gay family. they may well be loved, chrished and cared for, but they are denied. Just because there are many children of same sex relationships living anf growing in our communities (two are in my own family) does not mean the natural guiding principle for procreation should change, nor the institution of marriage. By changing the definition of marriage you take everybody else’s choices away from them just as uou take the choice of a baby away from them even before they are born. That does not mean equality, that means pretense and extreme cruelty.
What a peculiar and irrelevant question! I deeply , and of course, I loved loved them both. Trying to choose between them is impossible, just as I do not attempt to choose between my own children, or between my three grandchildren (soon to be four).
Recognising the plain fact that there are probably at present hundreds of thousands of British children, and many more elsewhere, currently being raised by two moms or two dads does not in any way mean that these kids are being “disallowed” their “own” parents (whatever that means - but I assume you are referring to biological parents). There are numerous ways in which these family situations can arise. In some cases (especially with two mothers), the children can be the biological offspring of one or both parents, following divorce or the breakdown of a prior marriage, or by deliberate planning with a sperm donor. Or, as it was in my own family, my daughters lived with my partner and myself for part of their childhood after my marriage broke down - at a time when for very personal reasons, it became for a time simply not feasible for them to continue living with their mother.
In many more cases, children have been placed with same - sex adoptive or foster parents by adoption or fostering agencies, because in the considered judgement of child care professionals, these couples were the best suited of all those available for those particular children. (In some cases, sadly, notably those with disabled or otherwise difficult children, it may be that same - sex couples are the only prospective parents available). In the case of adopted children, their placement with adoptive parents emphatically is not because they have been “disallowed” the opportunity to be raised by their biological parents, but because for one or other reason (death, incapacity or other), their biological parents are simply incapable of adequately caring for them.
Further, your complaint that allowing two men or two women to marry ” take(s) everybody else’s choices away from them” is simply bizarre, and does not merit a proper answer - and nor your peculiar in incomprehensible claims about supposed cruelty.
I question the accuracy of your statement that ‘hundreds of thousands of British children are currently being raised by same sex couples’ - where do these figures come from? Also opinion polls have not shown that the British public want same sex marriage. The government manipulated the findings - including ignoring over 600,000 legitimate and authenticated internet votes against same-sex marriage. Dishonesty, deceit, and manipulation, are manifestedly apparent in the campaign of the same-sex marriage proponents.
Question as much as you like - I stand by the statement. I do not have an exact figure to hand, but I have seen one of that order of magnitude on the website of the government statistical office. For the figures on public support for equal marriage, see the website of the respected professional pollster, Anthony Wells, who has written extensively on this subject at his highly regarded bipartisan blog, UK Polling Report in November, or this one earlier, from March, or the more recent newspaper reports I linked to in my original post.
It’s not the government that “manipulated” the figures, but the opponents, who tried to do so by artificially inflating the number of negative responses to the consultation with pre-printed postcards, and petitions for completion in churches. The facts are clear: of the personal responses submitted directly by individuals, most were in favour — and it was precisely because of the submissions by some faith groups, that government amended its earlier intention to exclude church weddings from the legislation.
To pretend that the process was flawed, or that properly conducted scientific polls are wildly incorrect, is no more than severely sour grapes by the opposition.
Terrific letter, Terence. I hope more British Catholic supporters of LGBT rights will heed the Archbishop’s request as you have!
Thanks, Prickly. I know for a fact that some others will be taking it up: I’ve had a request here, in this comments thread, for permission to use it as a template.
As soon as the frenzy over Soho Masses dies down, I will also be taking this up again, and recommending to the Catholics of Illinois that they do something similar, in response to Cardinal George’s request that they too, write their state legislators.
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx