The Daily Telegraph reports on a judgement passed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, a lesbian couple in France who are in a "Pact of Civil Solidarity" and have not been allowed to adopt a child. The court ruled that the parties in a such a pact did not enjoy the same rights as a married couple. The court also ruled that:
"The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage."However, the ruling also made clear that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then a Church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it refuses to marry same-sex couples. This rather destroys the value of assurances given by our Government that Churches will not be obliged to conduct gay marriages. There is considerable pressure to allow Churches to conduct such ceremonies. If the gay lobby are successful in pushing this through (doubtless with the co-operation of liberal vicars and probably some Catholic clergy) then it will be a short step to penalising those clergy who refuse to conduct gay marriages.
We need to consider seriously the option of de-registering our Churches for marriage. Those who want to marry and have a civil certificate could then do so either by arranging for a registrar to come to the Church wedding, or by going to the register office at a convenient time after their wedding, to complete the civil formalities - this could be done with the shortest form of declaratory and contracting words, with two witnesses present.
When I suggested this at a recent meeting, it was put to me that we could be guilty of "simulating" a wedding. I would be interested to hear any legal opinion on whether we would fall foul of the law by conducting marriages solely according to the law of the church without involving the civil authorities.
We do need to start considering such questions as a matter of urgency.
18 comments:
It seems to me essential that the Church de-register church buildings, and thereby separate the Sacrament of Matrimony from the civil contract, principally to underline the difference in their nature.
This happens now in France, the religious service, with the sacrament union and Nuptual Mass, is wholly separate from the civil (and intensely secular) ceremony, at a different time and place. A similar position holds in Italy.
If we have (as we shall) a secular state, then it is perfectly normal to have separation of the two quite different aspects of Marriage.
This is not as big a step as it seems; currently a civil wedding between two Catholics is invalid, so the Church already defines clearly the difference between legal and sacramental marriage.
Legally, the precedent of other European countries would avoid in the European courts the accusation of "simulation" to which your friend refers.
As I understand it, Catholic parish priests can act as registrars. It wasn't long ago that this was not possible, and registrars would indeed come along to the wedding. If priests stopped being registrars we'd simply revert to that.
In France, the couple go along to the civil registrar and then the church.
There's no problem of 'simulation' in either case. The marriage is registered with the state and solemnised by the Church, either simultaneously or successively. I understand that the Church will not marry people who aren't already, or simultaneously, civilly married.
Oh dear is this a case of the liberals being hoist by their own petaird. Sorry about the spelling
Even more urgent is to fight against the same sex marriage proposals. For when is the march down Whitehall?
Catholics need to stay on top of these issues, both civil same sex unions and adoption laws. The gay agenda needs to be stopped now. And, the UK should remove itself from the EU in all ways and regain national sovereignty. The EU will only get more and more radically liberal. This seems to be inevitable.
You are right to be pursuing these options as anyone can see the legal problems coming your way. Thankfully there should be broad opposition to such action as it will impact others including the Muslims.
Any chance of getting a sacramental marriage without the toxic baggage of a legally recognised marriage? It would be nice to be able to marry without giving the other person an at whim ability to leave and take a significant portion of my current and future assets. Such incentives to break up a marriage are both terrifying and destructive.
Suspending disbelief for a moment, it is nice to imagine the government allowing Catholics to have genuine marriages alongside the new arrangements being pushed through. This would allow Catholic couples, and anyone else so desiring, to have the same legal rights and status as other married couples, but without the ability to remarry while their spouse lives and their being prevented from seizing their spouse's assets in a separation except when they can show significant fault (physical violence, abandonment and the like).
Well, it would certainly be authorized by the Church: the Church in France is doing exactly what you propose since 1804!
The spouses are requested by the French Law to be married lawfully at the city-hall by the mayor (or an appointed person in big cities) as the State doesn't recognize at all religious marriage. Then they are free to go to the Church (or mosquee, or synagogue, or anything)to get religiously married there.It should be noted that here the Law forbids any minister to marry religiously two spouses who have not been lawfully married first.
+ PAX et BONUM
I think it is a great idea to de-register churches and to have couples go to the registry as well. It would solve our problems in this situation. I grew up in a communist country and couples who had a church ceremony went to the registry first. Some made it a part of the wedding, some did not and only went with witnesses.
Catholics in Britain got used to being equal citizens and having rights. It is difficult to accept that times have changed yet again and that maybe we have to say no thank you to the honour of being able to contract valid marriages, as far as the state is concerned.
Father, does this mean you think the game is up? Is there no hope that this proposed legislation may not be enacted?
It will surely lead to the criminalisation of all of us who believe and teach our children that marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children.
I think the problem is even more serious than the question of de-registering buildings. If the civil definition of marriage is so substantially altered (away from one man and one woman, exclusive and permanent until death, open to the generation of children) can the Church still presume that non-Catholic couples contract such a marriage in a register office? I think that the Church will have to make a decision on this, and this could mean that after a certain date no register office marriages would be recognised as valid, let alone sacramental. This would have consequences for our marriage tribunals.
We need a canonist to comment on this, and surely Rome would be involved in something so momentous.
Perhaps in the mean time we should simply not use the word marriage, but Holy Matrimony.
What a can of worms this will all be!
Oh how wonderful it is to be living in a Church that is no longer a fortress Church, barricading itself inside its Syllabuses and its Pascendis! How wonderful it is to be open to the world!
Oh wait, conscience clauses, de-registering our churches as civil registrars.........
"...in Thy mercy and goodness hear our prayers for the conversion of sinners, and for ***the liberty and exaltation of the Holy Mother the Church.*** Through Christ our Lord."
Surely the Government will now have to stop the consultation and go back to the drawing board?
Even if the Church does pull out of the registration bit, the equality machine will still grind on. Eventually, it's bound to poke its nose into religious services as well. Would the Catholic Relief Act protect us? Or would the Government have to repeal the Act before it could coerce the Church to comply with its regulations? And how easy would that be?
I think some of us are falling for the Government's agenda of making a distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. We should be trying to protect ALL marriages - not just those of Catholics. (By the way civil marriage is NOT a contract but a change of status).
Further I think deregistering is not going to help. If the Church is offering a religious marriage (which is not recognised in civil law) then it will just as much be seen as a "service" which it is denying to same-sex couples. That may well be held as discriminatory.
Have no doubt that the Government, wittingly or unwittingly, is picking a major fight with the Roman Catholic Church and others. Is this really what MPs want? Write to your MP to-day to point this out.
Do not give up on the fight to stop this. Sign the petition - it went from 250,000 to 275,000 in just two days this week.
From the Catholic Herald:
“Therefore, in our [Muslim Council of Britain] view the case to change the definition of marriage, as accepted throughout time and across cultures, is strikingly weak. In common with other Abrahamic faiths, marriage in Islam is defined as “a union between a man and a woman”, he said. “So while the state has accommodated for gay couples, such unions will not be blessed as marriage by the Islamic institutions.”
The Muslims will just say no,'institutionally', collectively and individually and know that in so doing, the State won't punish them because they can't arrest them all.
So de-registering your church may be one approach, but better to refuse entry to your church, go to court and take the punishment. That would be a more fitting witness, surely?
After only a few decades of relative equality have us Catholics become unable to contemplate the 'righteousness' of persecution, which, history tells us, is the normal way of things for the Faithful?
Worth reading:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12273/
I thought that this already happened elsewhere in Europe: you get married in Church and either earlier or later it is civilly confirmed by an official of the state or local government.
Italy springs to mind,but I may be wrong.
Father
I read the judgement on the website of the court, It is in French only. I see no reference in it to marriage in church or any matter of religion.
Here is my summary of the case. I am not a lawyer and invite correction in case of misunderstanding on my part.
The case concerned a female couple in a civil partnership. One had a child using an anonymous donor in Belgium (not in France). The other wished to adopt the child using “simple” adoption.
Simple adoption is something different from full adoption and may be described as reversible adoption or a long term fostering relationship. A more precise description would be necessary for most purposes.
Under this simple adoption the adopter assumes control and responsibility for the child and the natural parent loses control and responsibility. The Civil Code envisages an exception in Article 365. This exception is where the adopter is spouse of the natural parent. In this case the two adults jointly take control and responsibility for the child. Such might arise if a parent remarries after the death of a spouse. The new spouse can become adoptive parent of the child.
In this case the French court refused the request for adoption as Article 365 would not apply (the couple were not married) and so the birth mother would lose control of the child and the court considered that this was not in the interest of the child.
A heterosexual couple in a civil partnership can marry and then the adoption process can proceed: the natural parent would not lose control and responsibility for the child. The female couple could not marry and so proceed with adoption. It was argued that the difference arose from the sexuality of the couple. (Paragraph 42)
The comparison was drawn to a heterosexual couple conceiving a child with artificial insemination. The male person would be the legal father without the need even to have any adoption process. This would enable him to act as parent for matter such as school registration and as parent in the case of death of the birth mother. By contrast a female partner of the birth mother could not be another parent to the child.
Other considerations arose as to whether the couple had exhausted all procedures in their country and whether their partnership had a family like association.
The French government argued that there is no right to adopt a child and so refusal of permission to adopt cannot be discrimination.
It notes also that marriage is an institution giving greater stability to a child than a civil partnership and has an automatic intervention of a family judge in the case of dissolution unlike the civil partnership. (Paragraph 49)
Finally it notes that any difference of treatment identified by the court is a choice of society based on sexual differences. Any change to this should be the result of a democratic decision. (Paragraph 52)
The court noted two principles. First that for different treatment of people in comparable circumstances the difference must be justified on objective and reasonable grounds and that countries have some flexibility here. Second that differences based on sexual orientation must have particularly serious justification. (Paragraphs 58-59)
The court noted that France permits adoption by single people who may be homosexual so there are no grounds here for refusing the request of the potential adopter. (Paragraph 61)
However the basis of refusing the requested adoption, that the natural mother would lose control of the child, was a good reason. (Paragraph 62)
The court considered the consequences of artificial insemination and noted that in France this was only allowed to overcome infertility or the passage of hereditary illnesses for heterosexual couples. The court noted that the couple had not challenged this legislation in France and that it covered cases not comparable to the couple in question. (Paragraph 63)
Continues in next comment....
As to the alleged discrimination about adoption the court noted that there is no obligation on countries to permit homosexual marriage and this requirement cannot be deduced by combining Articles 14 and 8 of the convention. Furthermore countries that offer homosexual couples legal recognition have the chance to decide the nature of such status. (Paragraph 66)
The couple in question were not requesting marriage but that they suffered discrimination in an analogous situation. (Paragraph 67)
The court did not accept this and noted that marriage gives a particular status to those married. The court did not consider that the couple were, for the purpose of adoption, in the same legal position as a married couple. (Paragraph 68)
Finally the court compared the circumstances of the couple to that of a heterosexual couple in a civil partnership. They also would be refused an adoption request in this case so there was no discrimination arising from sexual orientation. (Paragraph 69)
Opinion of Judge Costa supported by Judge Spielman
They support the judgement of the court and note that a heterosexual couple in a civil partnership would also be refused the adoption request so there is no discrimination in this. Were the couple married, if homosexual marriage were permitted, the same objection would not arise. The judges recommend that the French reconsider Article 135.
Opinion of Judge Villiger
The interest of the child would be best served by having two parents share responsibility and this interest overrides other considerations. (This was argued by third party interests including the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe), la British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) and the Network of European LGBT Families Associations (NELFA), Paragraphs 53 – 57) ).
Post a Comment