The progression of allowing civil partnerships in religious premises could be abruptly stopped by Conservative peer Detta Oâ€™Cathain after she lodged a prayer to annul in opposition of the legislation.
According to peer Elaine Murphy, â€œthis weird wording means a debate raised to protest against a negative statutory instrument (SI). Under the standard negative procedure, the SI is annulled if the prayer motion is agreed by the House within 40 days of the SI being laid.â€
If this happens, it could see the end of the legislative process to allow civil partnerships to take place at religious premises.
Detta Oâ€™Cathain is of the view that the new law will not give adequate protection to faith groups from being â€œcompelledâ€ to register civil partnerships against their beliefs.
Derek McAuley, chief officer of the Unitarians and Free Christian Churches, has issued a statement saying: â€œI am disappointed and saddened at the last minute attempt that will be made in the House of Lords on 8 December 2011 by Baroness Oâ€™Cathain to revoke the regulations to allow civil partnership registration in religious premises and would urge its clear rejection. This appears to be a cynical effort to derail the measure on rather spurious grounds.
â€œThe amendment to the Equality Bill permitting registration originated in the House of Lords and was passed with wide support. The matter of churches being â€˜compelledâ€™ to register was dealt with by Section 202 which stated that â€˜nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do soâ€™. This is reinforced in the regulations. Churches are no more obliged to enable civil partnerships to be registered on their premisesÂ than hotels or other commercial premises.
â€œBritish Unitarian and Free Christians have welcomed this opportunity to recognise in public, and support, a commitment between two individuals to each other. I am sure we will be amongst the first to register some of our premises and have registration ceremonies. This is entirely a local decision for each congregation reflecting our commitment to congregational autonomy and democratic governance as we made clear in our submission during to the consultation by the Equality Office.
â€œCompulsion in matters of religion goes against our long history of struggle for our religious freedom. We are confident that the legislation offers the protection to those churches who hold a differing view on this issue and do not wish to register their premises for this purpose. They have that freedom.
â€œUnitarian congregations must not be prevented at this late stage in seeking to take forward our own sincerely held views and to offer same sex couples the opportunity to register their civil partnershipâ€Â Â
Paul Martin, chief executive of the Lesbian & Gay Foundation said, â€œJust when we thought that same-sex couples would be enjoying their commitment to one another being legally recognised on religious premises by the end of the year, this happens, itâ€™s a real blow for lesbian, gay and bisexual equality.
â€œItâ€™s really important to highlight that this legislation does not force or compel religious establishments to offer Civil Partnerships, it simply gives religious establishments who wish to perform civil partnershipsÂ the opportunity to do so.
â€œThis move highlights that opponents of lesbian, gay and bisexual equality will use any legislation to try and derail the legislative process.
â€œWe hope this group is a minority voice in this debate, as the House of Lords becomes more diverse and the advocates of equality. Itâ€™s vital that the House of Lords vote for progress and back Civil Partnerships in religious premises.”
The Lesbian & Gay Foundation is encouraging people to write to members of the House of Lords to encourage them to vote against Detta Oâ€™Cathainâ€™s proposal. Meanwhile Anglican Mainstream are encouraging people to write to members of the House of Lords to support the proposal.
According to theyworkforyou.com Detta Oâ€™Cathain has â€œvoted very strongly against equal gay rightsâ€.Â
The notice of business for the House of Lords on this matter reads:
House of Lords Future Business
Thursday 8 December at 11.00am
â€ Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/2661) Baroness Oâ€™Cathain to move that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations, laid before the House on 8 November, be annulled on the grounds that they do not fulfil the Governmentâ€™s pledge to protect properly faith groups from being compelled to register civil partnerships where it is against their beliefs.
43rd Report from the Merits Committee.
Last month Derek McAuley was part of a delegation of religious representatives who met equalities minister Lynne Featherstone to discuss equal marriage. The other representatives were Michael Bartlet of Quaker Peace & Social Witness, Danny Rich â€“ chief rabbi of Liberal Judaism and Paul Parker â€“ recording clerk of Britain Yearly Meeting.
The Lesbian & Gay Foundation letter template can be accessed here.
4 thoughts on “Baroness aiming to stop religious civil partnerships”
Although we may not agree with Detta O’Cathain in her aim, the manner in which she is addressing what she sees as a problem merely illustrates her command of procedure in that undemocratic institution which governs us and of which she is a member. She has suffered at the hands of her own Government’s procedural experts, as can be seen from her blog at
wherer she says,
“The Government has lost in the House of Lords over its attempt in the Equality Bill to alter the law on who churches and other faith-based groups can employ.
Peers voted 216 to 178 in favour of Lady Oâ€™Cathainâ€™s amendment to keep the current law unchanged.
Then in an extraordinary move the Government broke with House of Lords convention in a bid to damage Lady Oâ€™Cathainâ€™s victory.”
She is entitled to her view and to express it in the best way available to her.
I suspect, unfortunately, that her Roman Catholic background and her known support for an Established Church, anathema to Quakers, colours her thinking on this issue.
What I find interesting is that in every House of Lords debate, such as the recent one on civil partnerships and Christian liberty (1), Baroness O’Cathain fails to mention her relevant interest as a Patron of the Christian Institute (2), despite this appearing to go against both the spirit and letter of the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords (3)and nor has she registered this interest in the ‘Register of Lords’ Interests’ (4), though the rules suggest she ought to have registered such a non-pecunary interest.
Could it be out of shame or the fear that disclosing her Patronship might raise legitimate concerns about her impartiality?
(3)’Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords’