Same sex marriages can be ‘open’ marriages because ‘adultery’ will not legally exist

It has long been suspected that same sex marriage is a legal can of worms.

But David Cameron's new proposed same sex marriage law may change the nature of marriage beyond even his wildest imaginings.

Currently marriage and same sex civil partnerships are dealt with under two different types of legislation.

The formalities of marriage are predominantly governed by the Marriage Act 1949, the Marriage Act 1983 and the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970.

By contrast the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) defines civil partnership as a formal legal relationship between two people of the same sex but gives same-sex couples virtually all of the rights and privileges of married couples.

The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

There are however some differences in English law, between a marriage and a civil partnership, but these differences focus not on the rights they confer, but on the genders of the partners, the procedure and place where the partnership is formed, and the roles of consummation and adultery in making and breaking the relationship.

These differences are there because they are different types of relationship. It is not ‘one size fits all’.

Currently same-sex couples cannot get married and opposite-sex couples cannot form civil partnerships.

One of the most intriguing mysteries about David Cameron’s plans to redefine marriage to include same sex couples was always therefore going to be how he would deal with ‘consummation’ and ‘adultery’.

At present a marriage can be declared void if it is not ‘consummated’. And if necessary, whether consummation has been achieved needs to be determined by medical examination. But how is a lesbian or gay marriage to be consummated? Interesting question!

In the same way adultery is grounds for divorce, but the legal definition of adultery is based on (how does one say this politely?) a certain kind of genital contact. So how exactly do lesbian or gay couples commit adultery? Or are the consummation and adultery definitions just to be dropped?

This is important because when a marriage breaks down, and the bickering over who has a right to what begins (in terms of possessions, money, children etc), then the outcome could depend, at least in part, on whether or not the marriage has been consummated and whether or not there has been adultery.

So how would Cameron deal with this problem?

Well now that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has been published we finally know.

There will be no consummation or adultery for same sex couples.

The explanatory notes are more explicit than the Bill itself on this point with respect to consummation:

‘108. Paragraph 4 [of Part 3] amends section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. The effect of this amendment is that non-consummation (either by reason of incapacity or wilful refusal) cannot be a ground on which a marriage is voidable for a same sex couple. The provisions for opposite sex couples remain unaltered.’

And adultery? Well it will simply not exist for same sex couples.

Under the Government's draft Bill only infidelity between a man and a woman constitutes adultery.

So while the law would give same-sex couples the right to marry, they would not be able to divorce their partner on the basis of adultery if their spouse went on to be unfaithful - unless they cheated with somebody of the opposite sex.

It also states that a straight person who discovered their husband or wife had a lover of the same-sex could not accuse their unfaithful partner of adultery in a divorce court.

So what does this mean?

First that this supposed equal marriage for same sex couples is not equal at all because in traditional marriage there is consummation and adultery and in same sex marriage there is not.

Second, this will mean that as soon as the ink is dry on the new law – assuming it passes – it will be ripe for attacks by people who might want, for whatever reason, to abolish consummation and adultery for traditional marriage as well on grounds of equality.

Imagine the following scenario. A man marries a wealthy heiress with no intention to consummate – she dies and the man claims his inheritance. The Estate argues that the heiress was in the process of getting an annulment for non-consummation. The man says he is being discriminated against because he is a heterosexual. If he was gay there is no requirement for consummation – what about his human rights?

According to the Daily Mail, lawyers and MPs have already argued that the distinction over adultery - which arose after Government legal experts failed to agree on what constitutes sex between same-sex couples - would cause confusion.

They warned it would create inequality between heterosexual and homosexual married couples who found themselves in the divorce courts, and said it would likely result in adultery being abolished altogether as a grounds for divorce.

Third, it means that same-sex marriages will, in effect, be legal open marriages. As long as both partners consent in a same sex marriage, each of them can have as many sexual partners as they choose, as long as they are all of the same sex, without actually ever committing adultery. This may actually suit some couples but it completely alters the meaning of marriage which is based on sexual faithfulness.

In fact since one is married without consummation, the situation might arise where a married member of a same sex couple could have sex with any number of people he is not married to (provided they are of the same sex) without ever committing adultery (because it doesn’t exist for same sex marriages) and without ever actually having sex with his or her married partner.

So for same sex couples, sex will be legally uncoupled from marriage altogether. And if there is a legal challenge on the basis of equality, the same thing may follow for traditional marriage.

I wonder if anyone has yet explained this to David Cameron?

I suspect he may be in for a few extra late night briefing before second reading on 5 February.

Please join day of prayer for marriage on 3 February as campaign reaches crucial period

The House of Commons will debate and vote on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at second reading on Tuesday 5 February.

If the bill passes that hurdle it will then proceed to committee stage and then third reading which will take place around May.

If it passes through the Commons it will then have to negotiate the House of Lords.

This week I was a joint signatory to a letter calling churches to a day of prayer on Sunday 3 February, which was signed by the CEOs of four organisations – Christian Institute, Christian Concern, CARE and CMF.

A very similar letter has been sent out to all supporters of the Evangelical Alliance.

The reasons for opposing this measure, the myths about same sex marriage, the damage it will do to civil liberties and the stories of people already punished under its legal principles have been previously documented on this blog.

The key objections from a Christian perspective have been concisely summarised this week by Archbishop Peter Smith.

The full text of the letter is below.

Dear friend,

Please will you pray earnestly as we enter a crucial period in the campaign to defend the true meaning of marriage?

And can you encourage your church to join our national day of prayer for marriage on Sunday 3 February?

Any day now, we expect the Government to introduce its Bill which seeks to redefine marriage.

But the Bill can’t become law unless it is backed by Parliament – and that is by no means a foregone conclusion.

On the day that the bill is introduced the Government may very well go on a charm offensive, telling the media that people who believe in traditional marriage have nothing to worry about.

But we know that’s not the case. European judges have recently shown that people who believe in traditional marriage can be forced out of their jobs.

On Tuesday 5 Feb, we expect MPs to have the first opportunity to debate and vote on the Bill at what’s called the ‘Second Reading’ stage.

That date may change but, whenever it comes, it may turn out to be a crucial moment in the whole campaign.

We don’t need an outright win at this stage – so don’t worry if the Bill passes this first hurdle – but it is important that as many MPs as possible vote ‘no’.

A healthy ‘no’ vote, even if it’s not an outright majority, will put added pressure on the Government to drop its plans to redefine marriage.

So that’s why we are asking for your prayers. Please pray:

•That marriage will not be redefined, and that real marriage will be promoted in society for the good of all.

•That as many MPs as possible will vote against the Bill to redefine marriage.

•For David Burrowes MP and others, as they lead opposition to the Government’s plans in the House of Commons.

•For the Coalition for Marriage group as it campaigns to defend the true meaning of marriage.

•For politicians and others in public life to have the courage to stand up for what is right and true.

•For the news media, that they would report the issue widely, fairly, and accurately.

•That the true consequences of redefining marriage would be publicly known and properly discussed.

•That people would not face discrimination, in the workplace or elsewhere, because of their sincere beliefs about marriage.

Open prayer is encouraged, but this written prayer may also be of help:

Heavenly Father,

We thank you for the gift of marriage which you established at the dawn of time, to be a blessing for all generations throughout the earth, down through the ages.

We pray that you would fill each and every marriage with your love and grace, and that every husband and wife would know the joy that comes from sharing and giving.

We thank you for establishing marriage to be a secure and stable environment for raising children.

We pray for all those who do not enjoy those blessings, remembering that you are a father to the orphan and a husband to the widow. We pray, as you have commanded us, for those in positions of civil authority.

We pray that our Government will act with wisdom and righteousness, upholding marriage as the voluntary union of one man to one woman for life, for the good of all people.

We pray for forgiveness for our nation, as our Government seeks to redefine marriage. We pray that these plans would fail.

And we pray for ourselves, that we would speak out in support of marriage with gentleness and kindness, but also with courage and confidence.

In the name of Christ Jesus our Lord we pray.

Amen.

Yours in Christ,

Nola Leach (CEO, CARE)

Andrea Minichiello Williams (CEO, Christian Concern)

Colin Hart (CEO, The Christian Institute)

Dr Peter Saunders (CEO, Christian Medical Fellowship)

Ten myths about the redefinition of marriage

The Prime Minister David Cameron wants to redefine marriage to allow gay couples to marry.

Thus far over 600,000 people have signed a petition launched by the Coalition for Marriage(C4M) against these plans which reads simply as follows:

‘I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.’

I have previously written on this issue and have published 24 articles on all aspects of the debate. One of these, ‘Ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage in Britain’, gives an overview of the main issues.

This week, however, the Coalition for Marriage has published a new leaflet titled ‘Ten reasons why the government is wrong to redefine marriage’ which is available in pdf format on the C4M website.

It outlines ten myths about the redefinition of marriage.

I have reproduced the text below.

Ten reasons why the government is wrong to redefine marriage

Myth 1 - It will promote marriage

Evidence shows that redefining marriage actually undermines support for marriage in wider society. Neither has it delivered the promised stability for same-sex couples. In Spain, after gay marriage was introduced, marriage rates across the whole population plummeted. In the Netherlands too there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since marriage was redefined. Same-sex marriage does not promote marriage.

Myth 2 - Marriage has always evolved

Marriage between a man and a woman is not a recent social invention. Everyone knows that marriage predates law, nation and church. It goes back to the dawn of time. Yes, matrimonial law may have been tweaked over the years, but the law has never fundamentally altered the essential nature of marriage: a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. Samesex marriage would rewrite hundreds of years of British legal tradition and thousands of years of cultural heritage.

Myth 3 - It’s all about equality

Same-sex couples already have equality. All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same-sex couples through civil partnerships. Equality doesn’t mean bland uniformity or state-imposed sameness. If the Government genuinely wants to pursue equality, why is it banning heterosexual couples from entering a civil partnership? Same-sex couples have equal rights through civil partnerships, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

Myth 4 - No impact on schools

The current law requires schools to teach children about the importance of marriage. If marriage is given a new definition, it will be endorsed in schools. According to expert legal advice, any teacher who fails to endorse same-sex marriage in the classroom could be dismissed. Parents will have no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse same-sex marriage across the curriculum. Already supporters of gay marriage are recommending books (see here and here) for use in schools which undermine traditional marriage, and call on schools to get children to act out gay weddings. The effect on schools will be polarising and divisive.

Myth 5 - It won’t be a slippery slope

If we redefine marriage once, what’s to stop marriage being redefined yet further? If marriage is solely about love and commitment between consenting adults, what’s to say we shouldn’t recognise threeway relationships? It’s already happened in nations that redefined marriage. In Brazil, a three-way relationship was given marriage-like rights by a judge because of civil partnership laws. A similar situation has existed in the Netherlands for several years. In Canada after marriage was redefined, a polygamist launched a legal action to have his relationship recognised in law. When politicians meddle with marriage it all starts to unravel.

Myth 6 - Opponents are just bigots

This slur is meant to shut down debate and stop people thinking for themselves. Nick Clegg landed in hot water over a draft speech which called opponents of redefining marriage ‘bigots’. He later retracted the word, but there’s no doubt that many who support this radical agenda think anyone who disagrees is not worthy of respect. However, support for traditional marriage has come from many respected academics, lawyers, politicians of all parties, and religious leaders. They all know that redefining marriage would have a profound impact.

Myth 7 - Gay couples want to marry

Polling shows that only a minority of gay people (39 per cent) believe gay marriage is a priority. And according to the Government only 3 per cent of gay people would enter a same-sex marriage. A number of gay celebrities and journalists are themselves opposed to gay marriage. Latest official data shows that only 0.7 per cent of households are headed by a same-sex couple. Not all of them want, or will enter, a same-sex marriage. So, why is such a monumental change being imposed throughout society?

Myth 8 - The public supports it

Seven in ten people want to keep marriage as it is. Other polling which purports to show public support for gay marriage fails to tell respondents that equal rights are already available through civil partnerships. When people are told this crucial fact, most people say keep marriage as it is. MPs say their postbags have been dominated by public opposition to redefining marriage. Ordinary people want the Government to concentrate on reviving the economy and providing better public services, not meddling with marriage.

Myth 9 - Just a modest change

Since we already have civil partnerships, isn’t same-sex marriage just a small logical next step? No. Rewriting the meaning of marriage will have a far-reaching impact on society. Over 3,000 laws make reference to marriage. The Government has already admitted that official documents will need to be rewritten to remove words like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. In France the Government is eradicating the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ from all official documents. The Church of England has warned that it could lead to disestablishment and a constitutional crisis.

Myth 10 - Conscience will be respected

It’s not even being respected now. A housing manager from Manchester was demoted and lost 40 per cent of his salary for stating, outside work time, that gay weddings in churches were ‘an equality too far’. Conferences and symposiums in support of traditional marriage have been thrown out of venues. Adverts in support of a 600,000-strong public petition in favour of traditional marriage have been investigated as ‘offensive’. And all this has taken place before any change to the law has taken place. What will it be like if the law does change? A leading human rights lawyer has outlined the devastating impact of redefining marriage on civil liberties.

British Muslims launch new petition to oppose same sex marriage

The Muslim Council of Britain,the umbrella body representing Britain’s Muslims, has today launched a petition opposing the government’s proposals to change the legal definition of marriage.

Based on the highly successful Coalition for Marriage petition (C4M), which has so far gathered over 500,000 signatures, ‘Muslims Defending Marriage’ is supported by key voices in the Muslim Community.

The petition reads as follows:

‘I disagree with the government’s proposed re-defining of marriage. I fully support the long-standing legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.’

The campaign website, which is modelled on that of C4M, calls on Muslims signing to spread the word, respond to the government consultation on same-sex marriage and to contact their MPs.

It carries supporting videos from Farooq Murad, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Maulana Madani, Chairman of Mosques and Imams National and Shaykh Haitham, Chairman Muslim Research and Development.

Farooq Murad, the MCB’s Secretary General said today: ‘We have launched Muslims Defending Marriage (MDM) as we felt we had a duty to defend the meaning of marriage, guard its sanctity and protect the welfare of children’.

He added, ‘Other faith communities have already taken steps to evidence the strength of feeling in favour of keeping marriage intact. It is imperative that the Muslim community does all it can to contribute to this because we have a sacred duty to stand up for marriage and to support those, of whichever faith, that are doing so. We are aiming at mass participation from the Muslim community on an issue that will have such far reaching consequences for everyone.’

The MCB says that it stands opposed to discrimination in all its forms, including homophobia. The purpose of this campaign is to stand firm for the true definition of marriage, as with other faiths, Islam recognises marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

It is calling upon concerned citizens to respond to the government’s 12-week consultation on its proposals for same-sex marriage. The deadline for submissions to the consultation is 14 June 2012.

This latest move will put more pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron to delay and possibly abandon his quest to legalise same sex marriage.

In recent days three cabinet ministers have added their voices to a growing number of back bench conservatives who have already signalled their opposition.

In response David Cameron yesterday offered a free vote on the Government's plans but Downing Street stressed again this week about the Government’s determination to get it onto the statute book before the end of the parliament.

See also

Series of 24 articles on all aspects of same sex marriage debate
Ten Reasons why same sex marriage should not be legalised

New Church of England Evangelical Council statement on marriage explodes popular modern heresy

The Church of England Evangelical Council has published a statement on marriage which is well worthy of study.

The St Matthias Day Statement (14 May 2012) is an update of the 1995 St Andrew’s Day Statement on homosexuality and seeks to help Anglicans understand their church’s teaching in the area of marriage and sexual relationships and its relevance today.

It does so by providing a five-fold summary of that teaching based in Scripture and Anglican tradition under the following headings:

1 – God’s love and call to love
2 – God’s Word and Church
3 – God’s gift of marriage
4 – God’s grace and call to holiness
5 – God’s people united in and by God’s word

As would be expected the statement takes a very high view of Scripture and is unambiguous about taking the whole of Scripture seriously.

I was particularly struck by the principles in section 2 which need far wider promulgation, especially 2b which addresses a major heresy in the church today.

The essential flaw of this heresy is that it tries to affirm ‘God is Love’ (I John 4:8) whilst ignoring ‘This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments’ (I John 5:3).

The commandment to love our neighbours (Exodus 19:18) cannot be used to justify sexual sin.

But this notion, popularised by Joseph Fletcher the founder of situation ethics in the 1960s, is now endemic in sections of the church and is doing tremendous damage.

In fact President Obama fell into a similar trap last week when he attempted to use Jesus' golden rule to justify same sex marriage.

Like most heresies it emphasises one biblical truth to the exclusion of another. This is how the St Matthias Statement handles it:

2a. The authority of the Church to decide its own actions is limited by the word of God in Holy Scripture.

2b. The Church is not free to use certain parts of the Bible, such as the commandment to love our neighbours, as a justification for setting aside teaching contained in other parts of the Bible, such as the rejection of same-sex sexual activity.

2c. The Church therefore does not have the authority to introduce any form of marriage that differs from the form of marriage authorised and commended in Holy Scripture or to commend sexual behaviour forbidden by Holy Scripture.

But don't stop here. Take time to read the whole St Matthias Statement for yourself. It is eminently worthy of study by evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike.

My shocking sex confession

I am fairly unshockable but a headline in the Daily Mail this morning took my breath away.

It reads,’“We abstained from having sex until we got married”: Ali Landry reveals startling wedding night secret'.

Ali Landry is a 38-year-old actress and former Miss USA who made the astounding confession on a talk show that she waited until her wedding night to sleep with second spouse Alejandro Monteverde (She annulled her first marriage just two weeks after the wedding because her husband had been unfaithful).

This, coupled with the equally astounding revelation in this morning’s Metro that a British man has been married to the same woman for 64 years (his name is the Duke of Edinburgh), has emboldened me to make a shocking personal confession.

My hope in doing this is that others might also feel able to ‘come out’ about their past sexual behaviour as, I'm sure you will agree, there is often strength in knowing that we are not alone in our personal experiences.

Ok so here goes. I lost my virginity aged 24 on my wedding night almost thirty years ago (to my first wife!) and have only had one sexual partner since (ie. my first wife to whom I am still married).

So there you have it. Has it all been plain-sailing? Of course not, and we have needed a huge amount of help and support along the way, surprisingly mostly coming from someone who never married and has never had sex.

But I think that is already enough information for now.

Coalition for Marriage respond to Government’s 'sham consultation' on gay marriage

The Coalition for Marriage, (C4M) has issued a statement following publication by Lynne Featherstone of Government plans to redefine marriage (PA summary here).

Colin Hart, C4M Campaign Director, said: “The Government has today launched a consultation on redefining marriage. After initially relenting and promising to include a question on the principle of introducing same sex marriage it is clear from the written statement given to both Houses of Parliament by the Equalities Minister that she will simply ignore any answers to this question.

“I always thought that a consultation was about listening to people and asking them their views, before making a decision. Not only are they redefining the meaning of marriage, they're redefining the meaning of consultation.

“This consultation is a sham. It is being pushed through despite the public never having a say on this change. None of the main political parties proposed redefining marriage in their manifestos and the impact assessment misses out many of the possible problems that could occur if this institution is redefined, for example how this change will affect our schools.

“The institution of marriage is the not the play thing of the state, it belongs to society and therefore cannot be redefined by a few politicians obsessed with appearing ‘trendy’ and ‘progressive’.

“It is also bizarre that Lynne Featherstone says that she wants to end the current two tier system’, yet wants to replace this with an even more complicated system that has two options for gays, and only one for heterosexuals. That’s equality for you.

“The plain truth is marriage is marriage and should not be redefined by politicians.

“C4M and the 200,000 people who have signed our petition believe that this change is profoundly undemocratic, will have massive consequences for society and is simply unnecessary as civil partnerships provide all the legal rights of marriage.”

C4M is a grassroots campaign representing faith groups, MPs, peers, academics, lawyers, pro-family organisations and members of the public. The petition was launched at 9am on Monday 20th February and says: “I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.”

Guardian editorial on same sex marriage – the full fisk

Earlier this week the Guardian published an editorial backing the legalisation of same sex marriage, titled ‘Gay marriage: torn asunder from reality’

Virtually every sentence in it contained claims that were inaccurate, distorted or simply false. It was, in short, a breathtakingly naïve and misleading piece of arrant nonsense.

I have reproduced it line by line below with my own comments in italics.

Gay marriage: torn asunder from reality’

It is surprisingly hard to find in the Bible a consistent endorsement of heterosexual marriage as we now understand it.
>> It is actually surprisingly easy for anyone who examines the Bible rather than reading what others with an agenda write about it. Marriage as ‘one man, one woman for life’ features from the first chapters of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation. I have outlined the biblical case elsewhere on this blog.

The Old Testament is replete with stories of men like King Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
>> No Solomon is unique in having this number of wives and concubines. Although polygamy was practised by some Old Testament characters it was nowhere commanded nor endorsed and it is difficult to find a single biblical example where it did not lead to serious family problems including jealously, favouritism, rivalry, apostasy and family breakdown.

And the New Testament is generally populated by single men and women whose domestic arrangements have little in common with the model of Christian marriage that is now being aggressively defended by Cardinal Keith O'Brien and others.
>> No again. Paul was unmarried like some New Testament leaders but this was a special (almost unique) calling. The other apostles and Jesus’ brothers were married (1 Cor 9:5). Furthermore Paul taught in the pastoral epistles that elders and deacons must be ‘husbands of one wife’ who ‘manage their families well’.

Indeed, the best that many wedding service liturgies can do to insist that Jesus himself supported the institution of marriage is to say that he once turned up at one.
>> The Gospels record that Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding (turning water into wine) but he also upheld Old Testament teaching on marriage as ‘one man, one woman, for life’ (Matthew 19:1-12). Marriage is also used throughout the New Testament to symbolise Christ’s union with his bride the church underlining the crucial importance of the covenant.

None of which is to attack the institution of marriage, which provides many with a permanent, faithful and stable context for loving relationships.
>> Here surprisingly I find myself agreeing with the Guardian but it is marriage according to the biblical pattern which has been shown to provide a permanent, faithful and stable context for loving relationships. ‘Same sex marriage’ is by contrast an untested social experiment.

Cardinal O'Brien is, however, getting completely carried away when he speaks of gay marriage as an attempt to 'redefine reality'.
>> No because Cameron’s plan is to redefine marriage ('the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’) to include same sex marriage. But same-sex marriage is an oxymoron like a four wheeled bicycle or a two storeyed bungalow. This is actually a redefinition of reality.

Traditionally, the church has explained the purpose of marriage in terms of three features: that it's the proper context for raising children, that it promotes monogamy and that it exists for the mutual comfort and society of one person for another.
>> No the church has always added that it is also the union of one man and one woman (biological complementarity) with the potential of procreation (it impossible for same sex parents to procreate without invasive technology and/or donor gametes)

How can the application of these three features to gay marriage justify the cardinal's blustering hyperbole?
>> Because these are not the only factors

Of course, the cardinal has not been alone in seeking to whip up moral panic.
>> No he has been backed by the Pope, the English and Welsh Catholic Archbishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, hundreds of other Christian leaders, over 130,000 signatories to the C4M petition and numerous other commentators of all faiths and none.

The Archbishop of York recently described David Cameron's expressed desire to extend marriage to homosexuals as something done by ‘dictators’.
>> This was a reference to the fact that he is introducing this measure without any democratic mandate, having not mentioned it in his manifesto and without carrying out a consultation as to whether it is necessary, workable or desirable. This is what dictators do.

It is good, therefore, that a younger generation of church leaders, like the recently appointed Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul's are taking a different line.
>> These two men, who should never have been given a church appointment given their heretical views, are an exception. They are also hardly young! Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury, is 56 and David Ison of St Paul’s is 57.

The argument that gay marriage undermines straight marriage is as unconvincing as it is insulting – as if the currency of marriage is devalued by extension to those who find love with members of the same sex.
>> Legalising same sex marriage is a legal can of worms and it cannot be done without changing the legal definition of real marriage and words such as husband, wife, consummation and adultery. This would have far-reaching repercussions. Marriage is also about much more than ‘finding love’. It is a life-long covenant commitment.

In fact, the reality that religious conservatives are themselves failing to face is that civil partnerships are already being understood as a form of marriage, with or without the endorsement of the church.
>> As civil partnerships already bestow all the legal rights of marriage then why is it necessary to change the definition of marriage itself?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
>> A same sex couple making a commitment does not look like marriage to anyone in their right mind. In marriage the participants are of the opposite sex.

Some in the church continue to fight a rearguard action for the extension of civil partnership rights to siblings. In this way they hope to drive a wedge between marriage and civil partnership. But that ship has sailed.
>> This is perhaps true which underlines the fact that the government in legalising civil partnerships were primarily concerned with legitimising same sex sexual relationships and not concerned primarily with personal commitment, faithfulness or societal stability.

The language of marriage and of husband or wife is increasingly common parlance among those who have entered into civil partnerships.
>> Only by those who back gay marriage and as part of a campaign (‘they would say that wouldn’t they’) but most people still feel very uncomfortable about a man calling another man his husband as this changes the meaning of the word. Husband and wife are complementary terms which have meaning only in relation to their opposites.

And while some in the gay community worry about the use of what they take to be a heterosexual paradigm, this anxiety is also diminishing. Gay marriage is effectively already a reality. And Mr Cameron is right that the law needs to catch up with where people are.
>> The C4M petition by the end of next week may well have more signatures than the ‘drop the health bill’, the largest live petition in existence in Britain. It has already amassed 130,000 in less than three weeks. 51% of people oppose same-sex marriage given that civil partnerships already grant all the legal rights and 88% of conservative voters do not regard changing the law a matter of any urgency. The campaign to legalise same sex marriage is being pushed by a small group of politically correct activists. Cameron is already getting cold feet as revealed by his removing the same sex marriage bill from the Queen’s speech and introducing a question into the consultation asking whether it should be done. The pro same sex marriage lobby should not be counting its chickens.

New C4EM online petition supports incest, bigamy and marriage of minors. Oops!!!

The Coalition for marriage (C4M) launched an on-line petition two days ago to support the current legal definition of marriage.

In just over 40 hours it has gathered over 25,000 signatures and numbers are continuing to rise rapidly.

It reads as follows:

'I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.'

Obviously miffed by this the gay rights lobby have been working hard behind the scenes since Monday to produce a similar petition backing same sex marriage.

It has been launched this morning and at the time of writing carries 325 signatures.

It looks almost identical in layout to that of C4M (except in pink!) and is titled the 'Coalition for Equal marriage' abbreviated to C4EM.

The web address is c4em.org.uk

A clever idea? Most definitely!

The only problem is that they have drafted their petition without thinking very carefully about the wording.

It reads as follows:

'I support the right of two people in love to get married, regardless of gender. It's only fair.'

The problem of course is that 'two people in love' covers a whole variety of possible combinations which are excluded by the current legal definition of marriage.

Marriage between close relatives who love each other - otherwise known as 'incest'
Marriage between two people who are already married to other people - aka 'bigamy'
Marriage between minors who love each other - call it what you will

And that's just for starters!

Rather embarrassing especially as a leading journalist on the Telegraph has already put his name down.

Now I'm sure that all of these good people signed this petition 'in good faith' but it shows you just how careful you need to be!

Time for some editing?

I wonder if they will change the wording now that it is launched?

I have saved a copy just in case they do! Should make quite a funny news story!

Some of C4EM's other red-faced (or should I say 'pink-faced) signatories are listed on their site.

Sarkozy opposes same sex marriage as Cameron backs it

At the same time as David Cameron is actively backing the legalization of same-sex marriage French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is actively opposing it.

He has explained why in a wide-ranging interview in the leading newspaper Le Figaro.

When asked ‘Do you support gay marriage?’ the French President replied as follows:

‘I'm not in favour of it. I proposed in 2007 civil unions. We have not implemented it because we realized that it was unconstitutional to open this contract only to homosexuals. The civil union would have undermined the institution of marriage. However, I made sure that homosexuals were guaranteed the same benefits in terms of inheritance and taxation as married couples, but as part of the Pacte Civil de Solidarité. In these troubled times when our society needs benchmarks, I do not think we should blur the image of this vital social institution of marriage.’

Sarkozy is right!

Legalising same sex marriage is first unnecessary. All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same sex couples through civil partnerships so there is no need to redefine marriage to include them. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’. Such a move would also inevitably lead to calls to open civil partnerships to opposite sex couples on the basis of ‘equality’. But marriage and civil partnerships have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct. It is not, and should not, be ‘one size fits all’.

Redefining marriage is also undemocratic. None of the political leaders who are supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage, including Cameron, announced it as a priority in their election manifestos. There is already a huge amount of opposition to the move and pressing ahead with legalisation will lead to considerable dissension and division. Legalising same sex marriage to appease a small minority is wrong and it should not be foisted on the British people without proper consultation about whether rather than how it should be done.

Same-sex marriage - 24 articles on all aspects of the UK debate

Britain is coming under increasing pressure to legalise same-sex marriage and Prime Minister David Cameron is determined to drive it through.

A consultation on same-sex marriage closed in Scotland in December 2011 and a new consultation is being launched next month in Westminster to consider how (not if!) legalisation should proceed in England and Wales.

Over the last few months I have published 24 articles on all aspects of this debate which are now grouped together on this page to provide a resource for those interested in engaging with the issues and arguments. I have listed them under six headings.

The legalization of same-sex marriage

1.Ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage in Britain
Many people, including Christians, are asking ‘why not?’ An outline of the main arguments

2.Marriage – let’s be clear on the biblical and legal definitions – and fight to retain them
A historical and legal guide to what marriage actually is

3.Why legalizing same-sex marriage will weaken marriage as a social institution
David Blankenhorn’s analysis of current scholarship and research

4.Same sex marriage is a legal can of worms
Why changing the law is not at all straight-forward

5.Draft same sex marriage bill abolishes the terms ‘husband and wife’
The real implications of Stonewall’s proposed law reform

The campaign against the redefinition of marriage

6.Coalition for Marriage Launch - Please sign the petition
A brief outline of the England and Wales campaign with links to launch speech and news debate

7.Please support the current definition of marriage in Scotland
Report on the Scottish campaign against the legalisation of same sex marriage

The benefits of marriage for families and society

8.The blessings of marriage
The real benefits of marriage for families and society

9.New study highlights positive benefits of marriage
The findings of a study of over 250 peer-reviewed journal articles

10.Sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually
The real economic cost of marriage breakdown to Britain

11.Couples who cohabit before marriage 45 per cent more likely to split up
The cost of family breakdown is now £41.7 billion

Political and Media interests

12.David Cameron owes the public an explanation as to why he thinks legalising same sex marriage is necessary
The question that our Prime Minister is yet to answer

13.David Cameron’s promotion of the gay rights agenda is based on a false presupposition
The Prime Minister’s agenda and fundamental misunderstandings on this issue

14.David Cameron, by his comments about homosexuality, demonstrates that he does not understand what true tolerance actually is
An evaluation of the Prime Minister’s position on this issue

15.Over half of British Christians would not back Tories if they push for same-sex marriage
Why the government is shooting itself in the foot politically

16.BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and selective reporting to promote gay rights agenda
How our national broadcaster takes sides in this debate

17.Legalisation of same-sex marriage – an orchestrated international campaign funded by national governments
The money and the movements behind this social change

Homosexuality and Bisexuality

18.Do you object to being labelled 'homophobic' when you are actually just 'homosceptic'?
Slogans and category errors - How language can create and perpetuate misunderstandings and stifle debate

19.LGBT community and church at sixes and sevens over bisexuality
Why the popular understanding of gay/straight is fatally flawed

20.Peter Tatchell comes clean that homosexuality is neither biologically determined nor fixed
Leading Gay Rights activist puts a common misconception at the heart of the same sex marriage debate to bed

21.Monty Python, the Australian Open and same-sex marriage
The Gay Rights Movement’s 'struggle against reality'

22.Should ‘gay’ Christians be true to their feelings?
The key differences between homosexual feelings, orientation, identity and behaviour

The church and same sex marriage

23.Deep divisions in church over same-sex marriage going into ‘Marriage Week’
How the battle lines have fallen within the Church of England

24.Faith leaders say marriage and religious freedom are intricately linked
The perspective of American Christian leaders

Coalition for Marriage Launch - Please sign the petition

Don't play politics with marriage

I have signed the Coalition for Marriage petition and Christian Medical Fellowship is supporting the campaign.

There are over 30,000 signatures so far – please add yours and encourage others

Marriage is unique

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.

No need to redefine

Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Profound consequences

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

Speak up

People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. The Government will be launching a public consultation on proposals to redefine marriage. This will provide an opportunity for members of the public to make their views known.

SIGN PETITION HERE

Marriage: ‘the most successful partnership in history’ (Opening Address)

Sky News Debate - Sharon James and Peter Tatchell

Christian Institute Report

Same-sex marriage - 24 articles on all aspects of the UK debate

Ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage in Britain

Britain is coming under increasing pressure to legalise same-sex marriage and Prime Minister David Cameron is determined to drive it through.

A consultation on same-sex marriage closed in Scotland in December 2011 and a new consultation is being launched next month in Westminster to consider how (not if!) legalisation should proceed in England and Wales.

Many people are asking 'Why not?'

Here are ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage.

1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman

Throughout history in virtually all cultures and faiths throughout the world, marriage has been held to be the union of one man and one woman. Marriage existed thousands of years before our nation began and has been recognised in our laws as the ‘voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde v Hyde 1866). The UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) recognises that the family, headed by a man and a woman, ‘is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’. It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to promote and protect it as a unique institution.

2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships

All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same sex couples through civil partnerships so there is no need to redefine marriage to include them. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’. Such a move would also inevitably lead to calls to open civil partnerships to opposite sex couples on the basis of ‘equality’. But marriage and civil partnerships have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct. It is not and should not be ‘one size fits all’.

3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic

None of the political leaders who are supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage announced it as a priority in their election manifestos. There is already a huge amount of opposition to the move and pressing ahead with legalisation will lead to considerable dissension and division. Legalising same sex marriage to appease a small minority is wrong and it should not be foisted on the British people without proper consultation about whether rather than how it should be done.

4.Equality does not mean uniformity

In a free democratic society we accept that many human activities are not open to everybody. Not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, cast a vote, own a firearm, attend university, visit Buckingham Palace or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. This does not mean that those who are not eligible for these activities are in any way denigrated or demeaned, but just that there are eligibility criteria. Same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, which should be reserved for the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life.

5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society

Stable marriages and families headed by a mother and a father are the bedrock of society and the state has a duty to protect the uniqueness of these key institutions. Though death and divorce may prevent it, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. Whilst single parents or same sex couples may do a good job in raising children, social policy has to be concerned with what is normally the case, and children have a right if at all possible to have a married mother and a father involved in their upbringing. In general the evidence shows that marriage provides a stability for adults and children which is hard to beat in terms of outcomes. There is considerable evidence to show that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence. By contrast sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually and other models of the family have not been shown to have the same stability as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage, in comparison with marriage, is an unproven and experimental social model.

6.Marriage is a unique biologically complementary relationship

Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to children. It takes both a man and a woman to produce a baby. The fact that there is a natural link between sexual intimacy and procreation is what makes marriage distinctive and different. Redefining marriage will undermine this distinctness and difference and risks normalising the technological instrumentalisation of reproduction and increasing the number of families where there is confusion of biological, social and family identity.

7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive

Redefining marriage could cost billions and involve amending hundreds of pieces of government legislation. The word 'marriage' appears 3,258 times in UK legislation, which underlines the central role the institution plays in national law. Introducing same sex marriage is a legal can of worms which cannot be achieved without changing the common and legal definition of the word marriage and other words which define it(eg. ‘husband and wife’, ‘consummation’ and ‘adultery’). These changes will inevitably change the definition and nature of marriage for opposite sex couples by trying to accommodate these two very different kinds of relationship under one legal umbrella. According to an assessment done for gay rights group Stonewall by a former civil servant, the cost of implementing one favoured option would be around £5 billion. This figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock-on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits. This is simply not a priority for government at a time of economic recession as it will confer no new rights.

8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage

Under existing education law schools will be required to teach children that marriage can be between a man and a woman, between two men or between two women. This will confuse children whose parents may wish to teach them according to their own values and worldview. Those parents who object could be undermined in their children’s eyes, stigmatised as homophobics and bigots and prevented from full involvement in schools.

9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage

In Mexico same sex marriage was followed by two year fixed term marriage. In Canada legalising same sex marriage has led to supporters of polygamy demanding in the courts for their unions to be recognised. If the legal definition is changed to accommodate same sex couples other minority groups with a vested interest (eg. Muslims, Mormons, Bisexuals and Polyamorists) will have a much stronger case to argue for the legalisation of polygamy and group marriages. The best defence against this is to keep the legal definition of marriage unique and distinct – ‘one man, one woman, for life’.

10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination

We have already seen a rising tide of discrimination against people who support traditional marriage as a result of the legalisation of civil partnerships coupled with new equality legislation.. If same sex marriage is legalised faith-based employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex ‘spouses’. They would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action - no matter how modest - against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil ‘marriage’ with a member of the same sex. Faith-based adoption and fostering services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly ‘married’. Marriage counsellors from faith backgrounds would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counselling in support of same-sex ‘married’ relationships. All these moves would place faith groups in the invidious position of being forced to act against their consciences or face marginalisation, exclusion and litigation and would further fuel social fragmentation, sectarianism, antagonism and civil unrest.

Draft same sex marriage bill abolishes the terms ‘husband and wife’

Fifteen months ago Gay Rights activist group Stonewall did not have a position on same sex marriage but this week they have published a bill calling for its full legalisation just weeks before the government issues a consultation paper on how it should be done.

The two-page bill lists five legislative steps it says are necessary and Stonewall is calling upon the government to publish a White Paper, consulting on the detail of how to implement its proposal, and not a Green Paper which would simply consult on the wider principle.

The draft bill (see full text) includes exemptions for religious institutions, and seeks to retain civil partnerships for same sex couples, but not to introduce them for heterosexual couples. This would leave same sex couples with two options - civil partnership or marriage - but opposite sex couples with only one - marriage.

This places Stonewall at loggerheads with gay rights activist Peter Tatchell whose ‘Valentine’s Day wish’ is for ‘Equal Love’: that is an end to what he calls the ‘twin legal bans’ on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships.

The Stonewall draft bill also amends the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to remove the terms ‘husband and wife’ and replace them with ‘parties to a marriage’.

It amends the Marriage Act 1949 to stipulate that ‘a clergyman is not obliged to solemnise a marriage between two persons of the same sex’ and that the ‘Registrar General must provide a system for parties to a valid civil partnership to have their civil partnership registered as a marriage where both parties to the civil partnership consent’.

Finally it contains a clause allowing government ministers to extend its provisions at a later date, suggesting that these initial proposals are simply a first step towards more radical changes later on.

The bill also does not address the legal difficulties of how consummation and adultery are to be legally defined.

Meanwhile the battle lines over same sex marriage have become more tightly drawn in the last week.

Tory MP, David Burrowes, is facing an ‘intolerant’ campaign against him because of his opposition to homosexual marriage. The campaign is led by the treasurer of his local Conservative association, Phillip Dawson, who is homosexual.

Dawson says it is not acceptable for David Burrowes to vote against same-sex marriage and lead MPs in an effort to retain traditional marriage.and has launched a campaign on Facebook and Twitter against him.

David Burrowes, the Tory MP for Enfield, Southgate and head of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, is the latest of a number of public figures who have recently faced intolerance because of their support for traditional marriage.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, received racist hate mail following his comments that marriage is between one man and one woman. Police are investigating the incidents.

Meanwhile, a Roman Catholic Bishop has urged MPs ‘of Christian conscience’ to rebel against their party leaderships and vote down plans to legalise same-sex marriage.

The Rt Rev Mark Davies, Bishop of Shrewsbury, who is thus far the most senior Roman Catholic figure in England and Wales to speak out, has urged politicians to help protect the ‘God-given meaning of marriage for the sake of all generations to come’.

The Bishop’s intervention comes just weeks after reports that more than 100 Conservative MPs could vote against David Cameron’s proposals on same-sex unions.

Marriage is a human institution recognized by virtually all societies and bound by legal contract – with a specific legal definition, ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde vs Hyde;1866).

Calling something ‘marriage’ that is not marriage, in order to appease a vocal minority, does not make any sense, and as we have seen above, cannot be done without changing the nature of marriage itself.

Equality under the law does not mean uniformity and same sex couples already have the legal option of forming civil partnerships which grant them virtually all the rights of married couples. A same sex relationship, however committed or permanent, is not marriage and should not be called marriage.

It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it, to accept that it is not open to everybody, and to seek to protect it and promote it as the bedrock of society that it is.

Same sex marriage is a legal can of worms

The Prime Minister intends to legalise same sex marriage and is launching a consultation in March to ask how.

But very little has so far been written about by what means it could actually be done.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution practised by virtually all societies and cultures.

This definition of marriage has long been recognised in British law and was originally based on biblical teaching (Genesis 2:24).

Marriage was then formally defined in a famous court case late in the 19th century. Lord Penzance, in Hyde v Hyde in 1866, called it:

'… the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

So there are, in other words, four conditions for a marriage:

•it must be voluntary
•it must be for life, ie the parties’ intention at the time of the marriage
•the union must be heterosexual
•it must be monogamous

In addition, the parties must be of marriageable age.

The formalities of marriage are predominantly governed by the Marriage Act 1949, the Marriage Act 1983 and the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970.

By contrast the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) defines civil partnership as a formal legal relationship between two people of the same sex. It gives same-sex couples virtually all of the rights and privileges of married couples.

The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

There are some differences in English law, between a marriage and a civil partnership, but these differences focus not on the rights they confer, but on the genders of the partners, the procedure and place where the partnership is formed, and the roles of consummation and adultery in making and breaking the relationship.

These differences are there because they are different types of relationship. It is not ‘one size fits all’. Currently same-sex couples cannot get married and opposite-sex couples cannot form civil partnerships.

So how might same sex marriage actually be legalized?

There are essentially three options.

1.Upgrade all civil partnerships to marriages
2.Open both marriage and civil partnerships to both gay and straight couples
3.Rename civil partnerships as same sex marriages

Option 1 would involve upgrading the Marriage Act and scrapping the Civil Partnership Act. It would also involve rewriting a lot of legislation (because of the number of other Acts of Parliament which refer either to marriage or civil partnership).

But it would also require some redefinition of marriage. At present a marriage can be declared void if it is not ‘consummated’. And if necessary, whether consummation has been achieved needs to be determined by medical examination. But how is a lesbian or gay marriage to be consummated? Interesting question!

In the same way adultery is grounds for divorce, but the legal definition of adultery is based on (how does one say this politely?) a certain kind of genital contact. So how exactly do lesbian or gay couples commit adultery? Or are the consummation and adultery definitions just to be dropped?

But the biggest problem with Option 1 is that many gay and lesbian couples might not want their relationships upgraded and may protest vehemently should civil partnerships be scrapped… which brings us to Option 2.

Option 2, that favoured by gay activist Peter Tatchell, is called the ‘Equal Love’ Option. This option is based on the assumption that ‘everyone should be equal before the law’ and would require opening up both civil partnership and marriage ‘to all couples, gay and heterosexual, without discrimination’. This would enable homosexual couples to stay in civil partnerships if they so chose or upgrade to marriage. Similarly heterosexual couples might opt for civil partnerships rather than marriage.

But, according to an assessment done for Stonewall by a former civil servant, the cost of implementing this option would be around £5 billion. The figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock-on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits.

One would have thought this is not something the government would be keen to contemplate at a time of economic recession in order to appease a small minority interest. Also it still leaves us with the definition problems described above around consummation and adultery.

Option 3 is the simplest of all administratively. It simply involves renaming civil partnerships as same sex marriages. So, essentially, the Marriage Act would be left as is, and a ‘find and replace’ done on the term ‘civil partnership’ in the Civil Partnership Act. Cheap and simple perhaps, but the problem is that it is simply a semantic trick that will not satisfy those who want ‘real equality’. Gay activists do not want ‘same sex marriage’, they want ‘marriage’.

So legalising same sex marriage is not as simple as one might think. Given that civil partnerships are already ‘marriage in all but name’, is it really worth the hassle and the huge political fight that will be necessary to achieve it?

Another reason I would have thought for leaving the whole thing well alone.

Deep divisions in church over same-sex marriage going into ‘Marriage Week’

Next week, 7-14 February, is marriage week, when all around the country churches and community groups will encourage married couples to focus on actively nurturing their relationships.

More than two thirds of Britain’s families are headed by a married couple and statistics show that these twelve million couples are more likely to stay together because of, not in spite of, being married.

To launch Marriage Week 2012, Sir Paul Coleridge, Rabbi Mirvis and Professor Scott Stanley will speak at an event in the Houses of Parliament on 6 February.

The website tells us that Marriage Week ‘celebrates healthy marriages – the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, primarily though not exclusively, with the intent of procreation and the raising of children.’

It adds that ‘this social institution has been enshrined in the history of civilization providing vital inter-generational links and stability’.

And yet this event is taking place in the middle of moves, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, to redefine marriage altogether.

Next month the government will launch a consultation on legalising same-sex marriage. They will not be asking whether to do so, but how.

And yet introducing ‘same-sex marriage’ would confer almost no additional legal rights: same-sex couples have these already thanks to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

When asked last month by Archbishop Peter Smith what additional rights marriage would give same sex couples that they did not have already under the Civil Partnership Act, Home Secretary Theresa May was not surprisingly unable to give an answer.

The first shots in the battle have already been fired.

Labour’s Jim Dobbin warned that David Cameron’s plans to rewrite the definition of marriage could be opposed by more than 100 MPs.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, said last month that marriage is still the bedrock of society which promotes love, care and forgiveness in relationships.

Last week, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, he warned ministers not to ride roughshod over centuries of tradition by changing the definition of marriage and cautioned that such a move would face fierce opposition from bishops and parliamentarians.

He said: ‘I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.’

He has now been joined by the former Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who has said: ‘Marriage is a special kind of relationship and should not be confused with other relationships which have their own integrity.’

They join 39 American church leaders who recently spoke out in support of marriage, warned of the dangers of attempts to redefine marriage and gave specific examples of religious freedoms that will be threatened if same sex marriage is legalised.

However, there is division in the Church of England over the issue in advance of the General Synod meeting, also next week.

The Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, has now become the most senior cleric to say that same-sex couples should be allowed to wed. And over 100 clergy have written to the Times asking for the 'right' for civil partnerships to be held in Anglican churches.

Earlier, the Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, said he would consider suing the Church over its decisions not to promote him to bishop. The 58-year-old, was required to give up his appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003 due to his relationship with another priest and was blocked from the post Bishop of Southwark in 2010, a position Bishop Holtam was also considered for.

In January, the Telegraph reported that senior High Court judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, had launched a campaign to promote marriage and fight family breakdown. Sir Paul, 62, who has been married for almost 40 years, said that he was ‘unashamedly advocating marriage as the gold standard for couples where children are involved’.

Previously on this blog I presented evidence that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence.

The findings of the landmark 2006 report 'Breakdown Britain' were similar. Based on an extensive evidence-based analysis by the Centre for Social Justice it found that the breakdown of marriage and the family was the key driver of Britain's collapse, strongly correlated with the five 'pathways to poverty': family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness, and addiction.

Not surprising then that a recent paper from the Jubilee Centre calculates the annual cost of relationship breakdown in Britain at around £100 billion, about twice as much as alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity combined.

Marriage is a virtually universal human institution because it was originally God’s idea. It was God who first said that it was not good for man to be alone and who created the unique complementarity of the marriage relationship for companionship, pleasure, procreation and the raising of children – one man, one woman, united for life (Genesis 2:24).

Marriage is also in this way illustrative of Christ's own self-giving abandonment to his bride the church (Ephesians 5:31, 32) and points to a greater richness of human relationships beyond the grave of which the very best on earth are but a pale shadow.(1 Corinthians 2:9, 10).

Marriage is practised by virtually all societies and cultures and this was God’s clear intention. Marriage is not just something for Christians but for all mankind. It was given as a creation ordinance in the second chapter of Genesis long before the calling of Abraham, the establishment of Israel or the birth of the church.

The very same biblical definition of marriage has been part of British law for centuries and was formally defined in a famous court case late in the 19th century. The classic legal definition of marriage dates back to that given by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde in 1866:

'… the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

Some same sex couples may choose to live in civil partnerships, and under present law this is now legal (although I would argue not moral!). But no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Let's do everything possible to make sure they don’t.

Marriage is special and unique. Marriage is marriage – one man, one woman, for life. It is not for governments to redefine - but simply to recognise.