David Burrowes MP on where we are a year on from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act being voted through Parliament
The consequences of the Act are only now beginning to come to light.
No doubt there have been political consequences, as shown in May’s election results. In correspondence my own constituents have made it clear that the deep upset about the redefinition of marriage is still felt.
When I first put my head above the parapet, I was mocked for suggesting that around 100 MPs would oppose the legislation. As it turned out, substantially more did so, including two-thirds of all Conservative MPs. Christian constituents played a key part in that by holding their MPs to account over this issue. It is important that Christians also recognise those supporters of traditional marriage at the ballot box.
Once it was clear that the Bill was likely to pass, my main concern was to see that adequate safeguards be in place to protect those who hold a traditional view of marriage – namely that marriage is between one man and one woman. Therefore, back in July of last year, I wrote to the then Culture Secretary, Rt Hon. Maria Miller MP, setting out all the ministerial assurances that had been made in both Bill Committee and on the floor of the House in relation to religious liberty and freedom of expression during the passage of the Bill. I was assured that the government’s commitment to protect freedom of expression would extend to supporters of traditional marriage. The minister, Hugh Robertson MP, said: ‘Those who feel that marriage is an institution created for one man and one woman are free to continue to hold that view... . Nothing – absolutely nothing – in the Bill affects how religious organisations view marriage. They are free to continue defining marriage as they wish, in line with their beliefs. The fact that the law will allow some same-sex couples to marry does not affect anybody’s ability to hold that view’ (Hansard, 26 February, cols.185-186).
Casting doubts
Hardly has the ink been dry on the Marriage Act's Royal Assent when guidelines were published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which cast doubt on these assurances. It did not take misleading information from Colchester register office (see June EN) demanding churches register to conduct same sex marriages to raise fears of marginalisation, legal challenge and unfavourable treatment of those who hold a traditional view of marriage.
A major area of concern is the impact that this legislation could have on commercial business owners and non-religious organisations who do not agree with same sex marriage. For example, the EHRC have stated in their guidance that ‘A refusal to provide services to customers because of sexual orientation constitutes unlawful sexual orientation discrimination under the Equality Act… This could arise, for example, in the context of a marriage of a same sex couple where the services of a commercial florist or photographer are sought for the marriage and where the service provider would be prepared to provide that service for an opposite sex couple’ (Workplaces and Service Delivery, p.8).
Chaplains and others
Even religious workers, such as chaplains, who operate in non-religious settings could face unfavourable treatment. The EHRC guidance states that, ‘When working in non-religious settings such as prisons, education establishments and hospitals, chaplains are expected to follow dignity at work and equality and diversity workplace policies and practices of the non-religious employer. A chaplain cannot refuse to provide chaplaincy services based on sexual orientation when working in non-religious settings as this would be unlawful discrimination. A chaplain cannot use compliance with religious doctrine as a defence to discriminatory conduct in these circumstances’ (Quick Guide, p.10).
This conflicts with the government’s assurances that ‘[The]Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against somebody because of their religion or belief. If a chaplain was punished or treated less favourably than another employee because of his or her particular belief about the nature of marriage, that would be unlawful discrimination’ (Hugh Robertson, Hansard, 12 March, col.495).
Impact on churches
One of the most controversial discussions around same sex marriage, both in Parliament and in Christian circles. was the impact on churches and the possibility they could be forced to conduct same sex marriages on their premises or face legal challenge. The government made clear that, ‘[The] protections provided to religious organisations and individuals under the Bill as drafted mean that any challenge against a religious organisation or governing body for not opting into conducting same-sex marriages would be bound to fail… The question is whether such a case would succeed. In this case, we are absolutely confident that it would not’ (Hugh Robertson, Hansard, 28 February, col.280).
I am pleased to say that the EHRC have upheld this stance in their guidelines stating that, ‘[A] decision [by a church] not to undertake marriages of same sex couples should not engage human rights law and is explicitly permitted by equality law. Even if a case is brought to court to argue that a religious organisation should be compelled to undertake marriages of same sex couples, it is extremely unlikely that such a case would be successful’ (Quick Guide, p.6). We just need to make sure register offices like Colchester read the law and guidance before they send out their letters to churches.
Upholding previous assurances?
Given the above, I have written to the new Culture Secretary, with responsibility for Equalities, Rt Hon. Sajid Javid MP, to ask that the government uphold previous assurances, address apparent conflicts with the EHRC and look to increase protections for workers and businesses within the public sphere. We do not want to have a repeat here in the UK of the recent story of the Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich, who was forced to resign from the company which he co-founded, because he supported the anti-same sex marriage campaign in California in 2008.
As an MP I have been able, despite some hateful communication, to express strong opinions on this issue without fear of being sacked. However, the chaplain who stands up for what he believes in or the wedding planner who does not want to offer their services for a same sex marriage may not be so lucky – they could face losing their job and their reputation.
Will we be respected?
The EHRC guidance repeats the following a number of times: ‘The belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society’. It is this belief which we together fought hard to be at least ‘worthy of respect’. We need to continue to be vigilant to ensure that this respect is applied in schools, town halls and workplaces.
The problem with the guidance touches upon a wider issue for Christianity in public life. The tendency of government ministers and commentators is to view faith and marriage as a private affair which can be closeted in a church ceremony and given the necessary protections. The reality of course is that marriage, like Christianity, is not just of benefit for individuals and families, but society as a whole. The manifestation of our faith cannot be limited to church and involves expression which leads to involvement and interaction in public life. Our belief in marriage is one such expression which cannot and will not be redefined or constrained by legislation or guidance.
