Giles Fraser comes across as unfamiliar with the details of the issue of marriage equality when he admits he does not know the term "civil partnerships." His forgetting of the term shows why "marriage" is the only term that will work. Unfortunately, he speaks of "gay marriage" rather than framing the issue as about the access of same-sex couples to the institutions of civil and religious marriage. He says the Church of England should not be forced to follow civil law but he does not address the way the Church of England seems to want establishment without responsibility. A state church which becomes very much out of step with Parliament should be disestablished because it is clear it does not wish to serve the entire nation.

Still, one could do worse than his muddled approach. But one could also do much better.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I have poked in over at TA with a comment or two over the past few days, so I'll give Simon a break and poke in here now instead.

What is it that our English cousins are finding so hard to understand? Over here it's quite simple: the state says that the church (any religious group, with some broad definitions and in many states registration requirements) MAY solemnize marriages if a marriage license has been issued and is appropriately signed and returned. The state does not say that any church MUST solemnize any marriage. Yet the CofE persists in the delusion that Establishment is a Good Thing (despite all objective evidence to the contrary), and then they whine because it is causing them problems. They cannot have it both ways.

(The CofE also persists in the delusion that the Anglican Covenant is a good thing, but that's another issue for another time....)

What the state says in England is perhaps not what you think.

Here's a Q and A found on many a diocesan website in England:

Is a Church of England priest obliged to marry a parishioner [which means a person resident in his geographical parish]?

A: Yes, unless either (a) one of the parties is divorced and the former spouse is still living, or (b) the marriage is prohibited by law owing to the relationship of the parties, or (c) one of the parties is a minor and the appropriate consent or consents have not been given.

Perhaps I'm really out of touch, or living on my own planet, but considering where the C of E is, I thought Cn. Fraser gave very thoughtful answers to the questions posed.

He clearly has an opinion formulated from where he and society are, and what scripture says. And, he is balancing that with what the Church currently says. This is something all clergy have to do.

I do disagree with some of his thoughts on biblical interpretation, but I do think he approached this very thoughtfully.

Thank you Simon. Many Americans may be unaware that there was a time in England (and not so long ago!) when the church was the only place legal marriages took place. The establishment of civil marriage in 1836 was a major step, but there are still many marriage regulations on the books that would seem very foreign --- as indeed they are --- to Americans. And let's face it, there are some very odd things in American law, and it varies from state to state!

The Marriage Act of 1949 and the Marriage Act of 1953 make clear the privileged position of the the Church of England by listing getting married in the C of E from the start. The established church continues to play the role of city hall, even after the Marriage Act of 1836 provided for civil marriage, which does not require the ceremony take place in a church. The nominal state church has been privileged for weddings since the Marriage Act of 1836, which required that all weddings take place in the Church of England, Quakers and Jews exempted with the legal status of their marriages being made ambiguous.

The Church of England follows the restrictions set out in the marriage acts. The Marriage Act of 1949 lists the restrictions on who may marry, which is what the church follows.

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/part/I)

If Parliament had given same-sex couples access to marriage, the Church of England, in its traditional role to register marriages, would have had to accept them. Civil partnerships are an unequal institution designed to keep same-sex couples in an inferior status.

I don't feel sorry for the Church of England, with its history of privilege in marriage going back to the days when they forced people to marry in the C of E. What we may be seeing is the collapse of establishment because the institution cannot get over its homophobia. Gays are seen as something special which can eventually be dealt with but they are not viewed as the same as everyone else.

Giles Fraser as Canon Chancellor of the Cathedral of Saint Paul has a vested interest. He must serve two masters and in this case it seems the institution has won out. His forgetting of the term "civil partnership" gave the impression he has not thought seriously about these issues and it is doubtful he has read the Civil Partnership Act.

Quakers, Reform Jews, and Unitarians are in a much better position to advocate for full equality, as they have done on this question of allowing the place of registration of a civil partnership to be a religious site. The Civil Parntership Act of 2004, pushed by the C of E, says

The place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other—

(b)must not be in religious premises, and

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/section/6

Gary Paul Gilbert

I think it is both erroneous and uncharitable to suggest that Giles Fraser has not thought seriously about the issues of civil partnerships and same-sex marriage, and that anyone who knows anything about him knows that.

Jim, The issue is marriage equality and not same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are excluded from the equal protection of the law. They are not a special category requiring special treatment.

I should have restricted my comments to Giles Fraser's performance in the interview, in which he failed to reframe the question as about equality rather than as "gay marriage." I should have stressed the undecidability in his forgetting the word "partnership" in "civil partnership," after which he laughed. His laughter is hard to read. It could mean he doesn't use the silly official term or it could be a silly laughter, betraying nervousness over a hot topic for the established church. In any case, his performance in the interview does not inspire confidence. There is also the question of his conflict of interest in that he works for the Church of England and would be under pressure not to answer certain questions.

This is not simply an academic issue for me but my life. I don't do stoicism. I am impatient because his interview does not advance the cause.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I am all for advancing the cause. Are you under the impression that treating valuable allies as though they were school children and you their master does so?

I am sorry, Jim, but I don't see how Fraser is an ally and what exactly he can do for the American church. He has written some pretty horrific comments about how secular philosophy cannot measure up to religious discourses.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary, just so we are clear here, are you saying that the guy who gave Gene Robinson his first pulpit in England in the lead up to the last Lambeth Conference and who founded Inclusive Church in the wake of the Jeffrey John fiasco has nothing to offer us?

Jim, Gary is off this evening working on a lobbying day in the state capital next month. I'm sure he'll respond to you later.

The thing is, Fraser, though a friend, went to an interview with an influential journalist and flubbed basic terminology. He's thought about the topic, but he doesn't command the specifics. He's stuck defending the institutional church, where progress is slow and incremental. Outside, in the political realm, the church has been left far behind. Whole countries recognize same-sex relationships, and the church is balking at blessings. Admirable people like TEC's Presiding Bishop feel free to casually dismiss gay concerns in pursuit of things more central to their visions. The careful balancing act of supposedly friendly church people becomes frustrating.

You're right to caution against alienating would-be friends, but we've found in five years of working toward marriage equality with New York politicians, even the good ones need a lot of coaching on nuance and emphasis to speak effectively because the issues don't affect them personally. It helps that their company includes several openly gay officials who know whereof they speak. Good will often isn't enough.

Jim, That an ally speaks off message in an interview is all the more lamentable.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Murdoch, we aren't talking about good intentions. We are talking about specific actions that someone took at some risk to himself. You guys are unwilling to give him credit for that, choosing to focus instead on words you wish he had said differently. This is ungenerous.

As far as your coaching, good luck, but I think you are laboring under a misapprehension. Effective political communication has nothing to do with teaching people to emit a dog whistle pleasing to the ears to a class of people already in the know. Quite the opposite.

Gary, just moments ago, you weren't admitting he was an ally. Again, you are being extremely ungenerous, and I'd ask you to consider that before you post again.

Yes, Jim, I agree there is a danger in posting too quickly. The question of when, if, and where to post is complex. If and how to express ambivalence about an institution is even more undecidable.

I think you misunderstand Murdoch's response. Certain words work better in making a case to elected officials and others. The goal is not to speak to people in the know but rather appeal to general values of fairness and equality.

The use of particular language is not innocent.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I'm sorry that Gary and I didn't confine our criticism of Giles Fraser to his performance with Ruth Gledhill. I think we were influenced by disapproval of the institution he serves so faithfully (he declares that he "will be obedient to the rule of the Church on this") and by the irrelevance, to us, of many of his weekly columns in Church Times. But as Jim Naughton insists, Fraser has long pushed for the church to serve the world as we now know it, and not to cling to medieval views. In a 2007 essay Fraser excoriates the Constantinian church as thoroughly as I could wish:

Although Christendom has held Christianity captive for several centuries, there may be hope for a more radical Christianity in the whole process of secularisation. Secularisation specifically attacks state religion, the religion of Christendom. Post-Christendom provides an opportunity for a very different Christian voice to emerge. A Christianity whose priorities are much more those of the prophetic Jesus’s good news to the poor, freedom to the captive, sight to the blind.

And, as Jim Naughton points out, Fraser not only speaks, but has acted, giving the Bishop of New Hampshire a forum in enemy territory and organizing the Inclusive Church group. It’s easy to make comments on a blog and even to write a newspaper column – you have to organize to accomplish much. Unfortunately, the old Anglican balance between catholic, evangelical, and broad churchmanship is being lost. In the Independent newspaper, Fraser wrote:

The conservatives have decided that they can exploit the deep homophobia of many African Christians in order to stage a coup for the soul of the church. Suddenly, we are once again fighting the unresolved battles of the Reformation, with narrow-minded puritans seeking to impose their joyless and claustrophobic world-view on the rest of the church. The newly formed Federation of Confessing Anglicans (Foca) is seeking bridgeheads in wealthy evangelical parishes and the English ecclesiological peace treaty lies in tatters.

The way the C of E authorities are pushing through the game-changing Anglican Covenant probably means that Canon Fraser will continue as a voice in the wilderness. Adrian Worsfold, the Pluralist, thinks that the resistance has failed:

The Anglican losers in this are principally gay and lesbian members, who now must accept that the Covenant will deny them being equal people in the Church of England. . . . Institutionally, the losers are Modern Church Union and Inclusive Church.

This is not to backtrack on the point we were trying to make -- that the framing of an argument is critical, and the choice of terms is important. We all need to be ready to adopt more effective wordage.