Response to Government’s Consultation on Same Sex Marriage
15th June 2012
As Chairman of the Conservative Christian Fellowship David Burrowes MP has responded to the Government's consultation about same sex marriage. Whilst the CCF does not adopt collective views on policy, the scale of concerns from a majority of members of CCF has required a formal response to oppose the proposals.
The response was as follows:
The foundation of the institution of marriage is the union of a man and woman. If the Government removes this foundation it risks undermining the institution.
Marriage has always existed for the mutual benefit of a man and woman, for children and for society. This has been reflected by the State and Church, in statute, canon law and case law, with a united definition of marriage. The proposal is divisive, by splitting the definition of marriage between "civil marriage" and "religious marriage". I wholly endorse the submission made by the Church of England. The institution of marriage is woven into the institution of the established Church and should not be unpicked.
Loving and committed relationships, regardless of gender, should be supported and civil partnerships properly give legal recognition to same sex couples. The proposal dilutes the purpose of marriage to just love and commitment and ignores the particular distinctive complementarity of a man and woman. The evidence of this union of a man and woman is provided in law by consummation and in fact by the possibility of procreation. Such formal requirements of a sexual union are sidestepped in the consultation document.
The proposal is both wrong and unnecessary.
David Burrowes MP also highlighted that the Government's proposal lack "clarity in relation to the application of legislation in relation to issues of consummation and adultery.
These matters should be considered in any primary legislation and not left to case law to determine.
The issue of protection of religious liberty is raised by the proposals.
It needs to be considered beyond the matter of access to a religious ceremony. For example, will the freedom to express support for the traditional definition of marriage in places like schools be protected?"
