(In)Equality Bill

Following the House of Lords approval of amendments to the Equality Bill - allowing civil partnerships to be conducted on religious premises that are willing to perform the ceremony - there remain calls from gay rights activists concerning the level of protection offered in the legislation.

The Lords passed the amendment 95 to 21 in February, splitting the Bishops votes (with Bishop of Newcastle John Martin Wharton voting in favour of the decision). It is a step in the right direction toward a 'fairer future', or so Labour rhetoric would say.

Lady Butler-Sloss said in favour of the amendment:
"Same-sex couples can have strong and devoted relationships equal to, but different from, marriage and they may wish to have those relationships sanctified by a religious ceremony. If there are churches and synagogues prepared to do that, why should we stand in their way? They have rights to be loved and rights to have their ceremonies recognised."

Civil partnerships to be allowed on religious premises are supposed to represent a positive step toward recognising the rights of gay and lesbian couples to enjoy a spiritual ceremony. Yet as a legacy to earlier church opposition, a minister of any religion is still unable to lead a civil partnership service and no religious elements are allowed during the event in a means that join the two couples.

The amendment has also given fire to opponents of sexual orientation’s place in the Bill. As no obligation is placed on religious bodies to accept or allow civil partnerships at their premises, it is likely to cause more protest in the vein of ‘discrimination’.

The church will be in an awkward position between law and faith, and will potentially be victimised by this new amendment. Policy may have to go down the route of either making it a concrete law: religious premises MUST allow civil partnerships; or more likely, the legislation will be left stagnant in the light of inevitable discrimination cases.