Voice, yes. Votes, no.

In this interview yesterday morning, Tim Stevens, the Bishop of Leicester was defending the place of C of E bishops in the House of Lords.  Amongst other things, he said that it was important for the church, as a representative of all faiths to have a voice in "the public square".

At the moment, there are 26 bishops who have a seat by right in the House of Lords.  Under the government's current proposals for Lords reform, that number would reduce, but then so would the overall size of the House.  In fact, under Nick Clegg's proposals, bishops would make up 3% of the new House, more than they do now. This would only exacerbate the fact that the UK is unique amongst western democracies in having any religious representation in our parliament at all.

I actually agree with Bishop Tim that faith groups are entitled to a voice in our national conversation.  Where we differ is that I don't think they're entitled to a vote.  The church, and any other religious group, could have a voice from outside parliament, just like any other interest or pressure group does.  How strong that voice is, and the extent to which it is heard by power would rightly depend on how much legitimacy the church could claim in representing the views of the people.

If the Church wants seats in the Lords, let it stand for election like any other group.  Then we'll see how much the public values its voice.

Why Cardinal Keith O'Brien is Wrong

I accept that this post might seem a teensy bit hypocritical.  I wrote last week that gay marriage was not a secular issue (it isn't), that secularism isn't about opposing religion and everything it stands for (it isn't), and that those religious figures who are opposed to gay marriage have the right to say so (they do).  What I also made clear though was that those of us who support gay marriage have that same right.  Cardinal Keith O'Brien's article in the Telegraph today was so stupid, scare-mongering, bigoted and just plain wrong that I couldn't resist opening my mouth (and my laptop) and exercising that right.

One of the points he raises is, to quote from The Simpsons, "won't somebody please think of the children?" He writes :

Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. 

Leaving aside the cheap shot that the Catholic church might not be the best institution to teach the rest of us about child protection, this is just rubbish.  For one thing (and I'm happy to be corrected on this), I am aware of no law now that says every child should have a mother and a father.  Of course it is important for children to grow up in a secure, stable, loving environment, but there is no guarantee that heterosexual marriages achieve that, and no reason to think that gay marriages would do any less well.

Second, Cardinal Keith is making a logical slip-up here.  Allowing gay people to marry will not prevent a single child who is currently growing up within the setting of a straight marriage from doing so.  All of the benefits of marriage that are currently available to the children of straight couples will still be there.    On the other hand, gay couples can already adopt children who had not enjoyed the benefits of a stable home, and provide one for them.  Allowing those couples to marry, if it makes any difference at all, can only make that home even more secure.  In other words, allowing gay people to marry will not harm a single child.


He also made some arguments based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Article 16 of the declaration says that  "Men and women ... have the right to marry" (it doesn't actually specify who should or shouldn't marry whom).  The blessed Keith thinks that this means the government's proposal to allow gay marriage "attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right".   In the interests of pith, I'll go no further on that one, assuming that readers can see for themselves how silly it is.

Finally, and this is where it does become more of a secularist issue, he goes back to the old chestnut about the desire of the religious to teach children about the world as they would like it, rather than the world as it is. He asks :

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

The answer is simple Keith - the teacher would be wrong.  If same-sex marriage is enacted into law, it will be a simple matter of fact that marriage does not only mean the union of a man and a woman.  Now if a teacher wants to tell children about his opinion, what marriage means to him personally, or what he would like it to mean to the rest of us, then fine.  He would of course be subject to the same laws that would apply now if a teacher told a class that gay people were an abomination, or black people should all go back to where they came from.  As I have said here before, secularism means that everyone is subject to the same law, and nobody's faith provides them with an exemption from that.

So, the good Cardinal has set out his view, as he is entitled to do, and I've set out why I think he's wrong.  There will no doubt be more of a national debate on this subject, and eventually parliament will have its say.  When it does, and whether it comes down on my side of the debate or Keith's, we will both have to live with it, because we live in a democracy.  That is exactly what secularism exists to protect, and long may it be so.