Following the statement by the Evangelical Alliance Ireland about the Civil Partnership Bill, VOX magazine has offered our Conversation blog as a forum where Christians can share their views on this issue. Below is a copy of the statement. Please join in The Conversation and post your views below.
Statement by Sean Mullan, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance Ireland
The Irish Government has published a Bill that will establish Civil Partnerships for same sex couples to give them rights, obligations and protections once they are registered with the state. Many of the rights are similar to those currently offered to married couples under Irish Law.
What is the Civil Partnership Bill 2009?
The Bill
The Bill is the Government’s response to the fact that same-sex couples are now a part of life in Ireland and to political pressure to legislate for gay marriage. The Bill’s aim is to provide rights, obligations and protections for same sex couples that are, in many ways equivalent to those which are provided under law for married couples. In addition the Bill provides some protection for other cohabiting relationships but this protection is limited compared to what the Bill provides for same-sex couples who register as civil partners. (Full details of the Bill are available at http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2009/4409/b4409d-memo.pdf )
The Context of the Bill
The context in which the Bill arises is that of a radically changed Irish society. While by international standards Irish marriages are reasonably robust there are huge changes taking place. Co-habiting couples are now the fastest growing type of household in Ireland and less than one in five households in Dublin are “traditional” families i.e. a married couple with children. One third of all births are outside marriage and marital breakdown is approaching 10% (all based on Census 2006 figures). Same-sex couples have become a part of Ireland’s social fabric and there has been a growing pressure both from within Ireland and outside to provide legislative protection for same-sex couples.
Responses to the Bill
The Bill is opposed by people on numerous sides of the social cultural debate.
1) It is opposed by those who want homosexual couples to be allowed marry because the Bill doesn’t include the word “marriage” and does not confer rights to adopt children. They see this as being unfair and treating homosexuals as second class citizens.
2) It is opposed on the other side by those who believe that the Government is actually legislating for homosexual “marriage” and believe that this will undermine the commonly held view of marriage which, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1995, means “the voluntary and permanent union of a one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life”.
3) The Bill is also opposed by those who believe it will infringe on the freedom of conscience of those who disagree with same-sex civil partnerships. They believe that the Bill will be used to punish those who refuse to facilitate civil partnership ceremonies. Some people in this group are willing to support the Bill if an opt-out clause is added for those who do not wish to facilitate such ceremonies for conscientious reasons.
Despite the variety of opposition it appears that the Bill would have the support of a majority of people in the State who now see providing legal protection for same-sex couples as a human rights issue.
What the Bill does and does not do
The Bill is 118 pages long and is a complex piece of legislation. One expert says it is “the most far-reaching reform of family law in a generation.” But the Bill does not redefine marriage. This would require a Constitutional Referendum. What it does is legislate for relationships outside of marriage.
The Bill offers to same-sex couples the opportunity to have their relationship legally recognised and registered by the State. The registration of the partnership would take place before a State-appointed Registrar. The Bill provides for a ceremony to take place should the couple choose it but this would only be a civil ceremony. There is no legal provision for a religious ceremony.
The Bill provides for rights and protections for same-sex couples in areas such as
1) Protection of the couple’s home
2) Tax
3) Inheritance rights
4) Hospital visitation rights
5) Pensions
6) Maintenance payments
7) Separation and dissolution of the partnership
There is no provision in the Bill for same sex couples to adopt children. Nor is there any provision in the Bill for the protection of children in the event of a civil partnership being dissolved.
The Bill does not directly challenge the traditional understanding of marriage in Ireland. It is a piece of civil legislation that establishes a new form of civil relationship under law. The Bill does not deal with religious matters.
How should evangelical Christians respond?
We suggest that evangelical Christians should support the basic thrust of the Bill. The Government is seeking to legislate for greater justice and fairness for co-habiting couples, both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. As Christians we should support that stance. Co-habiting couples are a reality – this legislation seeks to deal with that reality from a legal perspective. We may disagree on the detail of the legislation but as followers of a just and compassionate God we can recognise the justice and fairness of providing some legal protection for the reality of both same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitating relationships.
Why do we say this?
There are a number of important Biblical and practical principles that have led us to this conclusion. As evangelical Christians our response to any situation should be shaped firstly by our understanding of who God is and how he acts in the world. The Scriptures are our foundation for this understanding. Jesus has come to the world, has died for love of all people in the world, has risen and will return to judge and rule the world. These realities must shape all we think and say and do.
The Christian Scriptures make it clear that God’s purpose for his gift of sex is that it would be the ultimate physical expression of love between a man and a woman in the context of the covenant of marriage. However, the Gospel requires of us that we show grace to those who fundamentally disagree with our convictions and who do not shape their lives according to what we believe is good for them. Jesus requires of his followers that they love and do good to those who oppose them or who hold to different ethical standards than they do.
The question we face is how followers of Jesus Christ are to live in a society that does not believe as they do and may even oppose principles we hold to, seeing them as out-dated, illiberal and even oppressive.
How do we move forward?
Some will criticize such a stance as a “cop out.” But the challenge to incarnate and commend an alternative way of living as followers of Jesus is no cop out. We face this challenge of showing the power and beauty of marriage as God’s intended context for sex, for the raising of children and for the thriving of society. We face the challenge of showing the strength of friendships, both same gender and opposite gender, that are based on loving as Jesus has loved us. Facing these challenges is no cop out. It is the essence of Christian discipleship.
The freedom of conscience issue
Churches or individual Christians may be fearful that the new Bill will be used to force them to co-operate with ceremonies to which they have a conscientious objection. It does seem from the text of the Bill that this is a possibility, however unlikely it may be in reality.
On a legal level, such enforcement would seem to clearly contradict the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000 which guarantees “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” However as followers of Jesus we can remember that he envisages such difficulties for his followers and prepares us for how we should respond to them.
Fighting for our rights on this one emotive and controversial issue is likely to be misunderstood and unproductive. However, given the importance of the freedom of conscience issue it may be wise to begin engagement on the issue with government and other interested bodies without narrowing it down to this one Bill.
Evangelical Christians should be the foremost advocates of freedom of conscience and religious liberty. It is the essence of the Christian faith that it is freely chosen, never imposed. It is a tragedy of church history that the church ever thought it could use the power of the state to impose Christianity on people. With that power now almost completely gone we live in different times.
As Canadian theologian John Stackhouse cautions us:
“Indeed we should use what influence we have left to help construct the sort of society in which we ourselves would like to live once our power to affect it has disappeared. ... How unseemly it is for Christians to fight in the courts and legislatures for what remains of the dubious honors and advantages of Christendom. There is no more prudent time to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World p 346.
Conclusion
Evangelical Christians have no automatic right to have their views preferred to those of others. Nor do we have a duty to try and impose Biblical morality on public life by force of law. We are in a new social situation in which the religious identity markers are losing their meaning in non-religious society. But why should we be afraid? If we are called to live as a minority in a society that no longer pays Christianity any particular respect then so be it. The early church lived in such a society and flourished. Christian churches live in such societies today and thrive.
It is possible to both articulate and live Christian values in a way that contributes to the debate on the lost point of moral reference in public life. In doing this we can and should support the notion of a public square in which all voices are free to present their case and argue for it in public life, including religious voices. In that arena it is up to us to argue and show that the way of following Jesus is the most attractive, the most intellectually coherent and the most life-giving way of all.
I wish to thank all those in the advisory group who helped me with the drafting of this statement. Sean Mullan
It has taken me sometime to consider the implications of the civil partnership bill particularly in the light of the recent document produced by the Evangelical Alliance Ireland, which presents the issues involved. One of the points that Sean makes is that the bill does not re-define marriage under Irish Law, which would require a referendum. But what struck me as I reflected on it is, is to ask myself is what is essential for a marriage to be valid. In a typical marriage ceremony, two people of the opposite sex, make a lifelong commitment to each other, witnessed by one other person, recognised by the state to be a valid witness of a marriage, and to register it as a legal ceremony. The civil partnership bill provides for a ceremony where two people of the same sex make a lifelong commitment to each other, witnessed by a civil registrar. “Section 59D requires, in subsection (1), that the declarations to be made by civil partners shall be made by the civil partners in the presence of each other, the registrar and witnesses in a place open to the public ……..”The only difference is the name the ceremony given, a civil partnership. Which of the two is undermined and redefined, the one which has always existed through the centuries and across cultures and across various religions or the one that has not existed fundamentally till this century. So should our concern be not that civil partnership would be redefined as marriage, but rather that marriage will be redefined as simply as a civil partnership.
ReplyDeleteI agree ...what is the difference.... A woman and a man get married in a civil ceremony...and same sex couples have a cival ceremony....no difference
DeleteThe following comment is posted by request on behalf of Seamus O'Callaghan:
ReplyDeleteThe definition of marriage is simple and clear and involves a man and a woman who become husband and wife. This is the definition used by Jesus (Matt 19:4-6), by the English dictionary, by the Irish Supreme Court, by the Minister for Justice and by EAI. The difference is one of chemistry rather than equality. Combining hydrogen and oxygen together gives water. A husband and wife may combine together and have a baby. Combining two hydrogen or two oxygen molecules together doesn't result in anything different. Our job is to explain our concepts rather than allowing anyone else to redefine them against our wishes. We need to be concerned that marriage is held in honour by all (Heb 13:4) and that we don't mix up our terminology or buy into the notion that man and woman are fully replaceable by someone of the same sex.
They are very different in their physical and emotional make up and yet equal in God's sight. It is a chemistry, biology, psychology and spiritual issue. We won't be passive about someone trying to steal the marriage word.
Tim makes a good point. No doubt many will see civil partnership as marriage by another name. Interestingly enough the homosexual community by and large do not seem to think so - they oppose the bill because it is not marriage and they claim they are still second-class citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe Scriptures don't seem to attach any significance to a marriage ceremony - they do not prescribe a ceremony. So the fact that another ceremony in some way mimics the marriage ceremony may not be the most important issue. What they do emphasise over and over again is man, woman, lifelong fideilty in covenant. This is the picture we are challenged to live. So Paul's challenge to mutual submission and to loving as Christ loved is a challenge to us. Christian marriage is intended to be a radically different relationship because of the shared understanding and experience of Christ's love. It may be that in an era when government enforced Christian standards on all we have lost sight of this challenge. Now as we move to an era when the "norm" is distinctly unChristian are we able to present an alternative by modelling something that looks more like the real thing?
Dear EAI 27th Nov. 2009
ReplyDeleteI was very disappointed with the EAI’s assessment of the Civil Partnership Bill and its watering down of the need to have the principle of conscience respected in this Bill. For EAI to rely on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000 guarantee of “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” is in my opinion naive.
The proposed Civil Partnership Bill is very liberal and needs to be urgently amended. Recently Cardinal Brady highlighted the fundamental lack of the principle of freedom of conscience in the proposed Bill and I would have hoped that EAI would back this.
If this Bill is passed into law, it may well lead to anti-discrimination cases being taken against organisations and individuals who espouse traditional marriage. In other jurisdictions the introduction of same-sex civil partnerships or marriage has had a severe effect on Christian organisations. Anti-discrimination cases are being taken against organisations that believe marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Here are 2 examples:
1. In New Jersey, a Methodist church was successfully sued when it refused to hire out its hall to a lesbian couple for the reception following registration of their civil partnership.
2. In the UK, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close rather than accept same-sex couples as prospective adoptive parents.
When it is enacted, the Civil Partnerships Bill will change a number of other Acts, for example the Pensions Act, Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Act. Each of these Acts will be amended so that the words ‘marital status’ will be replaced with ‘civil status’, with the intention to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of civil status.
For example, the Equal Status Act outlaws discrimination in the provisions of goods and services, including hiring of facilities. If a parish refuses to hire out its hall to a gay or lesbian couple it could be in breach of the law, as could a Christian printer or photographer who conscientiously objects to printing, say, the invitations to a same-sex civil ceremony, or photographing the ceremony.
In addition, the Bill allows for a civil registrar who conscientiously objects to facilitating a same-sex civil union to be found guilty of an offence. This goes even further than the equivalent British law and completely suppresses freedom of conscience.
Currently, five US states have laws permitting same-sex marriage, including Maine, Vermont and Connecticut but they protect religious freedom. If these liberal states have a conscience clause in their legislation, Ireland should definitely have one too.
I would urge EAI to think again and highlight the lack of freedom of conscience provision in this Bill and urge its members to lobby our TDs before this Bill becomes law.
Paddy Monaghan
Hi Paddy,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments on the Civil Partnership Bill and the area of freedom of religion.
I do think that the situation is much more complex than you make it appear.
The States you list (Vermont, Maine and Connecticut) do not "protect religious freedom" in the way you are implying. They only do so in a limited way, most of which is already covered in our Civil Partnership Bill which deals with civil ceremonies. They may cover clergy not performing gay marriages (not relevant to our situation) or the the provision of services by religious organisations. Certainly none of the States allow individual business men or women to discriminate in the way that is being asked for by some in Ireland and I do not know of any jurisdiction in the world that does. What is being asked for seems to be unprecendented and I think this should be noted.
One of the reasons for this is that in order to allow a business to discriminate in providing goods and services that are not actually involved in the legal ceremony (Remember photos, invitations, bedrooms, disco lights and food are not necessary for the legal ceremony to proceed,they are extra to it) you would have to allow a whole pile of other discrimnatory actions to take place such as a religious run hospital refusing a civil partner certain visitation rights. Dermot Ahern TD our Minister for Justice has described these as "serious unintended consequences" of a religious freedom exemption and this is why he is refusing to countenance such a clause.
Another reason for this is that the Dept of Justice have stated that the relevant ground for discrimination may not be the new "civil status" but the long established ground of sexual orientation. This would make sense as the often referenced Christian photographer from New Mexico was found guilty because she discriminated on sexual orientation and not civil status or anything like it. We have been living with legal protection on this ground for the last 9 years or so. In that time it has been illegal for a Christian organisation or individual to refuse to offer services to a gay individual, couple or other organisation in relation to a community event, party, "home celebration" of an overseas (or Northern Ireland)ceremony or large international festivals in which public buildings are used. All of these events have taken place in Ireland in the last few years and we seem to have been happy to live with them so your analysis that the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill will lead to "severe" changes may be misplaced.
For Part 2 see below
Part 2
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the role of a civil registrar (of which there are about 90 in Ireland) the situation is also a little complex. TDs including Dermot Ahern have said that since we already have a clash between religious expression and civic function (in the area of divorce) which everyone seems happy to live with then it would be very difficult to legislate for this one particular area. Cardinal Brady has been criticised in some circles for looking for a religious freedom clause as civil registrars already have no difficulty in perfoming marriage ceremonies with "no-fault" divorcees which would seem to contradict official Roman Catholic teaching. Therefore a Roman Catholic civil registrar who refused to facilitate a civil partnership ceremony may be open to accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistency.
The New Jersey Methodist church case you cite is also a little more complex than you make it appear. This was not your typical parish hall but a mixed use Beach Pavilion which the church
owned and for which it had obtained a tax exemption so that it could be open to the general public. Following the ruling, which was complex, they had to give back the tax exemption on the basis that by refusing to allow a ceremony they were not allowing public access.
None of this means that a religious freedom clause is impossible it just shows that we must approach this area with caution, recognising that equality legislation is a two-way street and not something we can demand on our own terms. I think this reflects the approach of EAI. It could be that the only tanglible outcome of a freedom clause is that other hate-driven people motivated by some expression of religion (as all religions are treated equally under the Equal Status Act which does not measure politeness or motivations) get to discriminate against gay people. This would be disastrous for community relations and for all who supported such a clause. Again, I am not saying a freedom clause is impossible or shouldn't be persued but questions to consider at this point are:
Are you comfortable in seeking certain rights to refuse to offer services when motivated by a Christian understanding of love while also offering those same rights to different people who may be motivated by a religious understanding of hate?
Is it appropriate to proceed in campaigning for an exemption while one of the highest authorities in the land has stated that to do so would result in “serious unintended consequences”?
Best Regards,
Richard Carson
Some of the issues we have to grapple with here are a) the fact that God gives people a free choice on whether to do right or wrong, b) that He constantly sees those who break His commands and that he is able to judge them for their actions, c) that the Lord's servants need to behave in a kind and considerate manner to those who oppose them (details as in 2 Tim 2:24-26 below), d) that the problem about property is not related to the Civil Partnership Bill at all, e) that Christians still have freedom of conscience to do what is right and yes, it might mean loosing a job or being thrown to the lions (but that is something Christians have always had to deal with) and f) that God does completely forgive and transform gay people who give their lives to Him and who depend on Him to live a righeous life. The actions of Christians may well lead to this result.
ReplyDelete2 Timothy 2:24-26 (NIV)
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Congratulations to the leadership of EAI for producing an intelligent and compassionate response. As Evangelicals we need to affirm that homosexual acts are sinful and incompatible with Christian faith and practice. But we also have no biblical mandate to force our Christian values onto the unbeliever. We are the Church, not the Taliban.
ReplyDeleteNick Park
Well as a gay person who seems to be on the end of a never-ending barrage of abuse, judgement or misunderstanding from people of various religious backgrounds, I welcome the EAI's stance on this. As Evangelicals in Ireland, I have no doubt you too have an intimate understanding of what it means to be a minority here, and the challenges such status brings to your community. An Ireland where all minorities are given protection and equality is an Ireland we can all be proud of.
ReplyDeleteThanks for not standing in the way of this Bill, and I hope that the fears of those still opposed to it are answered by the results it bears going into the future.
Kind regards,
Mark.
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeletethanks for this. We experienced some discrimination at the start of the 1980's: family and friends loosing teaching jobs, the Minister for Defence branding us a cult who were turning army officers into pacifists and parents refusing to come to weddings.
But if we are actively seeking to love and follow someone who is invisible, a certain amount of ridicule and mocking is to be expected. It's no big deal when you know who you are and what God can do on your behalf.
We believe that God has already created everyone equal and in His image and likeness. Consequently we are not struggling to attain equality as this is something we already have from God, regardless of who agrees or disagrees with us.
We are following Jesus .. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! (Phil 2:6-8). Christmas is all about Christ leaving behind his rights and privileges to come to help and rescue people.
I'm sure such an approach would not go down well with an Equality Authority or with the present rights-demanding culture in which people judge themselves in comparison with what other people have. Perhaps it's all the benchmarking that has got the country into such a mess. It doesn't mean there are not struggles but there is a peace of mind that comes from doing what is right regardless of who takes offence or opposes us.
Regards
Seamus
Hi All
ReplyDeletemaybe this DVD called
"The question of Homosexuality"
by Scott Davis
www.truthandtolerance.org
Might help Christians to Love and understand
Homosexuals
God Bless
Kevin
You seem to think that we should allow homosexuality simply because it is part of the society we live in.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you are being led by God in this decision?
Lets change homosexuality to, lets say, deceit. Should we allow deceit simply because society does? I think not. God calls us to proclaim his Word. We should not stand idle as people tear his Word down.
I want to specify that as much as I am against homosexuality, do not take this to mean I am against homosexual people. It is the difference in being against murder and being against murderers. God calls me to love everyone - I can't judge others when I have also sinned. But I can still say they are wrong and that God does not agree with what they are doing, and so neither do I. At the same time, I must be kind to my neighbour - homosexual or not.
So I have to disagree with your idea that the Christian stance is accepting. Society today is tolerant - which is both a good and a bad thing. God is not ever tolerant of sin. So why do you feel we should accept it?