Fulcrum response to the
Civil Partnership Act

by Andrew Goddard

23 July 2005

As a result of the Civil Partnership Act (CPA), two people of the same sex will be able to register as civil partners in December 2005. The government has consistently emphasised that they have not legislated for 'gay marriage'. Rather, they have created "a new legal relationship of civil partnership, which two people of the same-sex can form by signing a registration document". However, they state that this new relationship "also provides same-sex couples who form a civil partnership with parity of treatment in a wide range of legal matters with those opposite-sex couples who enter into a civil marriage". As a result, the distinction is a technical one of legal nomenclature. It will prove hard for it to secure widespread popular recognition.

The question inevitably arises as to how the Church of England should respond to this new legal and social phenomenon in England. A pastoral letter from the bishops has been promised shortly. What follows traces some of the Church's responses so far and sketches some possible responses in the light of a wider understanding of the relationship between church and society.

CPA: How did we get here?

The Government issued a discussion document on its proposals in June 2003 (along with an executive summary). Among the respondents was the Archbishops' Council on behalf of the Church of England (There were also various Roman Catholic responses including the response to the consultation from Bishop John Hine and the Scottish bishops; a more welcome response came from the Roman Catholic group Quest).

The Archbishops' Council summarised Christian teaching, welcomed a number of features of the proposals as they existed at that stage but also included a number of questions and concerns. In particular its response stated,

We believe that it is in the interests of society for marriage to continue to enjoy a unique status. We seriously question whether there will in practice be a sufficient distinction in law between marriage and registered same-sex partnerships if the proposals outlined in the consultation paper are implemented.

It concluded

We shall want to look particularly carefully at the details of the new legislation to see evidence of the Government's assurance that it 'has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage'. As they stand these proposals risk being seen as introducing a form of same-sex marriage with almost all of the same rights as marriage We accept that there are issues of social justice which need to be addressed in the light of changing patterns of relationship in our society. We believe that it would be possible and indeed right to do so, consistently with safeguarding the special position of marriage. While accepting the case for conferring some new rights on adults who wish to share important parts of their lives with each other, we have significant concerns about the proposed new partnership arrangements and the uneasy compromise they appear to represent.

The government produced a report on the responses to the consultation (also available as PDF). This showed responses were mainly favourable, although there was significant Christian opposition, particularly from the Christian Institute. During the passing of the legislation (full details of which can be found on the website of Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association), attempts were made to amend the proposed Bill in the light of some of the concerns raised by the CofE and others. Most notably there was an initially successful amendment in the House of Lords to widen the scope of partnerships to include relatives who were carers.

During the Lords debates speeches were made by the Bishops of Oxford and Peterborough on the second reading and the Bishop of Worcester spoke most recently (July 2005) on the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Overseas Relationships and Consequential, etc. Amendments) Order). Anglican bishops were, however, often found in opposing lobbies. This voting pattern reflected in part their different theological attitudes to gay relationships and in part differing assessments of the significance of the proposed legislation.

The Civil Partnership Act received the Royal Assent on 18th November 2004 and comes into force on 5th December 2005, allowing the first civil partnerships to be formed on 21st December.

The Civil Partnership Act - Summary

The government has provided helpful answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Civil Partnerships that offer a guide to the new legislation (on which official notes are also available). In essence, two people of the same sex can (under certain stated conditions) enter into a civil partnership which entails certain rights and responsibilities and is only ended by death, formal dissolution or annulment. They do so by signing the civil partnership document (the text of which is still not finalised) in the presence of a registrar and two witnesses.

From just before Christmas 2005, civil partnerships will be a reality in England. They are not, however, expected to attract a large number of people. The government expects there to be 11,000 and 22,000 people in a civil partnership by 2010 ie there will be approx 5,000 to 10,000 such partnerships in existence in 5 years time - detailed analysis here). However, the Church has to respond to the new legal phenomenon and to individuals who form civil partnerships (Christian and non-Christian).

Is 'civil partnership' a category the church can and should welcome?

The initial consultation

The Church of England response to the initial consultation document acknowledged areas that the church could welcome. These included

• "the Government's wish to encourage long-term stable relationships as being more in the interests of society as a whole than a culture of transient or promiscuous relationships"

• "the Government's intention to recognise the rights of individuals within same sex relationships in relation to such matters as protection from domestic violence, the registration of a death and inheritance matters including tenancy succession".

It also noted that the proposals referred "to the importance of securing culture change through legislation". The church agreed "if this means the promotion of greater mutual acceptance of others, the embracing of diversity within our society and the repudiation of homophobia" because "society is stronger and more harmonious if we each respect the decisions which adults make about the ordering of their own lives so long as those decisions are not clearly to the detriment of others".

However, there were clearly concerns:

• Despite the government's claims not to be introducing same-sex marriage, the cultural change being created through legislation "means the promotion of the view that it is discriminatory to distinguish between marriage and same sex relationships".

• In that case, "it is not clear what the Government's declared recognition of the distinctive place of marriage means in substance"

• As a result, the Church must "seriously question whether there will in practice be a sufficient distinction in law between marriage and registered same-sex partnerships if the proposals outlined in the consultation paper are implemented".

• The fundamental basis for this concern is the Christian belief "that it is in the interests of society for marriage to continue to enjoy a unique status".

Does the final legislation safeguard Christian concerns about marriage?

It is clear that the government has not sought to extend existing marriage law to same-sex couples. To have done so would have led to major confrontation with the churches (particularly the established church) and was not the heart of the demands from lesbian and gay groups pressing for legal recognition and protection of same-sex relationships. Instead they have created a new category but they have done so in a manner that intentionally draws on marriage law and privileges throughout rather than creating a clearly non-marital category of civil partnership.

Different from marriage?

There are, in fact, three significant differences between civil partnerships and marriage although on further inspection they appear less fundamental than on the surface and are far outweighed by the similarities.

First, the government asked for suggestions of a more attractive term than "registered partner". A number of marital terms were proposed - civil spouse, spouse, husband, wife, co-husband, co-wife, MATE - Married and Together - but these (along with the exotic Lebensabschnittsmitfahrer - fellow companion on this part of my journey through life) were rejected. Instead the term 'civil partner' has been used. However, as noted in detail below, although a marital term is not used for the partners, familial terms are used for others related to the partners so the distinction is not as clear as it initially appears.

Second, the partnership is entered not by making vows but by signing a document and there is no need for a formal ceremony (although such can be arranged and the document can be read out as well as signed). As yet the content of the document is unknown and thus its similarity to marriage vows cannot be determined. However, there are clearly close similarities with marriage in that a person can only have one civil partner and the intention is that the partnership be lifelong - unless a partner dies, a formal legal process must be pursued to end the partnership. In determining whether an overseas relationship can be recognised as a civil partnership it is clear that any such relationship must (under the law of the country in which it was entered) be exclusive, indeterminate in nature (ie not a fixed term cohabitation) and 'result in the parties being treated as a couple or treated as married)'.

Third, there is no explicit reference to the partnership being a sexual relationship. However, during the consultation the government answered a question about why non-consummation by stating, 'Consummation has a specific meaning within the context of heterosexual relationships and it would not be possible or desirable to read this across to same-sex civil partnerships. The absence of any sexual activity within a relationship might be evidence of unreasonable behaviour leading to the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership, if brought about by the conduct of one of the parties. However, that would be a matter for individual dissolution proceedings'. It is clear that the intention of the government and of most of those registering a civil partnership is that the relationship is expected to be a sexual one between people of the same sex and thus akin to marriage.

Equivalent to marriage

The equivalence to marriage is even more obvious in the wider definitions of partnerships. The FAQ on the government website appears to go out of its way to emphasise the parity between the two. It explicitly states that "Same-sex couples who form a civil partnership will have parity of treatment in a wide range of legal matters with those opposite-sex couples who enter into a civil marriage" and that although "there are a small number of differences between civil partnership and marriage" (eg entering by signing and no religious ceremony available), nevertheless "the Government has sought to give civil partners parity of treatment with spouses, as far as is possible, in the rights and responsibilities that flow from forming a civil partnership". The parallels are to be found in relation to:

• where registration can occur ("The range of places you can register your civil partnership will be broadly similar to those available for civil marriage...Any premises that are presently approved for marriage will, with effect from 5 December, be deemed to also be approved for the purposes of civil partnership registrations until the current approval is renewed or expires. After 5 December, premises will be approved for hosting both civil partnerships and marriages")

• when a partnership can be entered ("Civil partnerships can only be registered between 8am and 6pm (as is the case for marriage)")

• how a partnership can be entered ("When you give notice of your intention to register a civil partnership, details from the notice will be available in a register office for public inspection (as for marriage). It is important that these details are publicly available during the 15 day waiting period, to allow for objections to be made, just as is the case for marriage")

• The age at which it can be entered ("In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, individuals who are aged 16 and 17 will have to obtain the written consent of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s) before registering a civil partnership. In Scotland individuals aged 16 or over will be able to register their partnership without the need for parental consent. This is also the rule, in Scotland, for opposite-sex couples who marry").

• The cost ("The exact amounts have yet to be determined, but it is expected that they will be similar to those for marriage")

• Whether in Wales, Welsh can be used ("Yes, all forms used in Wales in connection with civil partnerships will be printed in Welsh and English. It will be possible for these forms to be completed in English or in Welsh as for marriage")

• Immigration rights ("Under the Civil Partnership Act couples that form a civil partnership will have similar immigration rights to married couples")

• Tax ("It was announced in the Budget on 16 March 2005 that the Government would legislate to ensure that civil partners will be treated the same as married couples for tax purposes")

• Pensions ("The Department for Work and Pensions has just finished consulting on a draft order to amend the contracting out rules to ensure that pension schemes provide survivor benefits for civil partners on the basis of deceased members' rights accrued from 6 April 1988, to treat them on a par with widowers...").

• Employment ("It is proposed that the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 will be amended to require that civil partners and spouses should be treated in the same way in relation to workplace benefits. These amendments will be made in an order before Parliament in the next few months")

The injustices which undoubtedly exist in our society because the law fails to protect non-marital but mutually dependent relationships of care and trust could easily have been rectified without such a close mirroring of marriage law. The intention is clearly to make civil partnerships marriage in all but name. This is confirmed by various other features of the legislation and its current proposed mode of implementation.

First, those eligible to enter a civil partnership must not only be unmarried but must also not be related ie within the prohibited degrees of relationship. This confirms that the civil partnership is understood to be a familial relationship and most likely a sexual one.

Second, the importance of familial bonds is confirmed in the legislation in a number of ways. One of the rights a civil partner has is the "ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner's child". Furthermore, Part Six of the Act lists "relationships arising through civil partnerships" and applies the standard familial relationship terms to civil partnership so that "A's stepchild includes a person who is the child of A's civil partner (but is not A's child)...A's step-parent includes a person who is the civil partner of A's parent (but is not A's parent)... "brother-in-law" includes civil partner's brother..."mother-in-law" includes civil partner's mother...".

Third, probably the most intriguing area is the interface between the Civil Partnership Act and the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). If a member of a married couple changes gender then under the GRA the marriage has to be annulled before a full gender recognition certificate can be issued and the person legally change gender. However, "there will be protection to allow that couple to register a civil partnership as soon as the gender recognition certificate is issued, without being subject to the 15 day waiting period". In other words, the only important legal difference between marriage and civil partnership is that one is between two people of opposite gender and the other is one between two people of the same gender and when gender changes one can automatically switch from one to the other. Under the original Act, this only applied for those who were married when one person changed gender. However, as a result of the 2005 Order, the 1949 Marriage Act was amended so as to "enable former civil partners, one of whom has changed gender as a result of the issue of a full gender recognition certificate, to marry in England and Wales without being delayed by the 15-day waiting period that would normally apply".

Conclusion

It is quite clear from the details of the legislation as passed that the fears of the Church of England in its response to the initial proposals have been realised.

Rather than providing a structure for righting injustices in relation to non-marital relationships the CPA - without using the term - has, in the way it has structured civil partnerships and in the status it has given to them, created 'same-sex marriage'. It will therefore be hard to deny that what is in law a 'civil partnership' is in social reality a 'gay marriage'.

How should the church respond to this new social phenomenon?

It might have been possible, if certain amendments to the proposed legislation had been accepted, to be broadly welcoming of the recognition and protection now being given to certain relationships. Clearly that was the hope of the Archbishops' Council in its response to the consultation process. That stance cannot now be taken by those who uphold traditional orthodox Christian teaching on marriage, sexuality and the family as the Church of England does.

With the passage of the CPA the law has ignored the church's appeal that marriage "warrants a special position within the social and legislative framework of our society". Instead, and in sharp contrast to the infamous 'Section 28', the judgment that homosexuality is a 'pretended family relationship' has been overturned to the extent that families are now structured in law not only around marriage but also around same-sex civil partnerships. The recent July 2005 Orders even amend Church legislation to insert references to "civil partner" and "surviving civil partner" where there are existing references to "spouse" and "widow or widower" and to enable a Minister of the Crown to make amendments to Church legislation.

In a broader sense, of course, this inability to welcome certain legislation is not a new situation. Civil governments often pass legislation that is in tension with or contradiction of the Christian vision for human and social flourishing. The church must then determine how to raise a prophetic critical voice in the light of this particular instance of that wider phenomenon (something which sadly was largely missing on the part of bishops in the House of Lords). In particular it must seek to discern how it can with integrity act within society given the legal requirement to recognise such partnerships in a number of areas (eg employment and pension rights). Even more pressing it needs to consider how individual Christians - lay and ordained - should be encouraged to respond to the possibility of entering this new public legal status of civil partnership.

CPA - An Assessment

The problems with the CPA are evident for those who uphold traditional Christian teaching. There may be benefits that can be acknowledged and welcomed such as

• providing structure and stability for same-sex relationships in wider society (although the lack of any obligation or expectation of exclusiveness perhaps undermines this)

• giving some protection and rights to same-sex partners that will recognise the goods in committed relationships.

However, the legal definition of such relationships - though very welcome to the minority of Christians who reject traditional Christian teaching and wish to encourage same-sex relationships - is antipathetic to a Christian understanding of marriage and family life within society.

Four central features of civil partnerships as defined by the Act create serious ethical challenges for the church as a body and for any Christian committed to biblical, catholic Christian teaching who may consider entering such a relationship.

First, those who enter such relationships make a presumed (perhaps even explicit when we know the wording of the registration document) life-long commitment to someone of the same sex that excludes them from the good of marriage. While Christians have always had a place for those who are called to lifelong celibacy in the service of God's kingdom they are also warned in Scripture about those who denigrate marriage. Although someone entering a civil partnership may insist that they are not rejecting marriage or requiring others to do so, they are clearly making a legal commitment that entails a personal repudiation of that pattern of life as one to which God may call them. And they are not doing so not because of a higher call to serve God and his kingdom but because of a perceived call to a quasi-marital relationship with someone of the same sex. This is now able to be recognised and established by a new human legal institution that at best has no warrant in divine law and at worst may contravene it.

Second, legally those who enter such a partnership will establish a new wider familial structure (possibly including a parental role over "step-children") that Christians have traditionally held to be established through marriage between a man and a woman.

Third, although there is no explicit conferral of 'conjugal rights' established by a civil partnership, the general expectation is that such a relationship will be a sexual one. Indeed, as noted above, refusal of a sexual relationship may be considered grounds for dissolution.

Fourth, in short, the relationship of being a civil partner although not called 'marriage' is clearly one that is placed on a legal par with marriage and as something mutually exclusive of marriage. There is now a new quasi-marital category in law in addition to being married or single (whether by birth, divorce or bereavement). However, in the words of the St Andrew's Day Statement,

The church...assists all its members to a life of faithful witness in chastity and holiness, recognising two forms or vocations in which that life can be lived: marriage and singleness (Gen 2.24; Matt 19.4-6; 1 Cor 7 passim). There is no place for the church to confer legitimacy upon alternatives to these.

Given that the law in England (and elsewhere in the United Kingdom) now recognises a new status, defined so as to be incompatible with marriage, in what sense can the church recognise this new way of life? How might it - wittingly or unwittingly - find itself conferring legitimacy upon this new alternative to marriage and singleness? Can a Christian interpretation of this new construction be offered such that it becoming a civil partner is compatible with Christian teaching? How would such an interpretation and way of being a civil partner be distinctive and different from that found outside the church and as set by the legislation?

Church and Society - some analogies?

Although never before raised in this way in relation to marriage and civil partnerships, we would be wrong to see this as a totally new and unprecedented set of questions. There have regularly been forms of legally sanctioned or privileged behaviour and status that sit uneasily with Christian teaching and which require Christians to discern how, in relation to them, they live faithfully within the earthly city.

In the early church, service in the military was a challenge. For a number of centuries the legal requirements in relation to oaths to the Emperor meant that Christians judged it impossible to serve and remain faithful to Christ. In other periods, Christians have considered it possible to serve and bear arms but they have sought to structure their life within the military according to the gospel and not simply committed themselves to unthinking obedience to orders. Clergy have developed their own distinctive witness in refusing - even when accepting the status of officers within the military while serving as chaplains - to bear arms. This latter category shows how, even while having a legal status traditionally linked to the use and direction of coercive force, clergy have sought to transform that status by living it in a distinctive manner.

Another analogy might be the abortion laws. While the church has been consistently critical of these in their current form, it has recognised that there are certain forms of abortion which are permitted by the legislation and which may be permissible for Christians. In short, strong opposition to the legal definition of legitimate abortion does not entail refusal in all circumstances of the use of legal rights established under abortion legislation.

Christian discipleship, Church discipline and civil partnerships: 3 Options

How, then, should the church respond to this new situation in relation to civil partnerships. In particular, what guidance and discipline should it offer to Christians, especially those who minister in the name of Christ?

The church has consistently recognised that there are special relationships between single people that are godly and could benefit from legal recognition and privileges. It is clear that some - though far from all - of these could now register as civil partnerships. While not restricted to relationships between people who identify as gay or lesbian, clearly there are Christians - including a number of clergy and other licensed ministers - who are in this category and who are particularly likely to wish to avail themselves of the benefits of this new law.

Option I
One option would be for the church to take a wholly positive attitude or to decide that it has nothing to say on this matter and that it is purely a matter for individual consciences. Given all the difficulties already noted with the legal definition of civil partnership, to take such a stance would represent a total abandonment of the Christian calling to be salt and light. It would amount to capitulation to a secular understanding of civil partnerships that is incompatible with Christian teaching. In an age when more and more Christians are becoming critical of the church's historic failings to bear distinctive witness in the face of political and social power during Christendom, this would mark an ironic repetition of such errors but in relation to legal changes that make no pretence of being shaped by the Christian gospel.

Option II
The opposite option would be for the church to call on all Christians to reject this new way of life and to demand of those who hold office in the church that they must not enter a civil partnership as such a status - neither marriage nor singleness - is incompatible with their commitment to teach and live out the gospel.

Given the church's teaching, its critique of the initial proposals for civil partnerships and the legal reality described above it is hard to fault such a stance theologically. Presented on its own terms, a civil partnership amounts socially and relationally to a same-sex marriage and as such is incompatible with Scripture, Christian tradition and the church's official teaching.

There are, however, problems with following this line of response. First, it is unclear whether it is practical, especially in relation to discipline of lay people, but also in relation to clergy. A strong 'abstentionist' stance requires a clear and high level of cohesion and commitment on the part of the church and it appears - not least from the public support given to civil partnerships by some bishops - that this is unlikely to be present. Second, by encouraging non-participation, the church would appear to be refusing to engage constructively with this social development and failing to seek to transform its fallen features by offering a distinctive pattern of life. Third, one might draw an analogy with divorce (and further marriage after divorce). Here there is legislation in response to which (as with abortion) the church has offered a critique and which is interpreted as regulating actions that must be understood as a sign of our fallenness. However, even while being willing to critique aspects of the legal framework, the church has recognised that Christians (including clergy) can use existing flawed legislation within certain limits.

Option III
The third option is therefore to develop a distinctive Christian vision that reconfigures the understanding of civil partnership as defined in legislation but enables certain people to register as civil partners under the Act. The problem here is that it requires of the church what it currently lacks and over which it threatens to be divided - a positive account of godly same-sex relationships. As such it is perhaps not viable at the present time, thus leaving option II as perhaps the most faithful initial Christian response.

Towards Option III?

What might be the elements of a more nuanced response in relation to the legislative framework for civil partnerships?

First, anyone entering a civil partnership in so doing commits themselves to an unmarried life. This is not something alien to the Christian tradition but which has an honoured place within it. The first requirement therefore is that Christians (especially clergy) entering civil partnerships do so within a personal commitment to the way of celibate singleness in order to serve the kingdom of God. That way of life does not entail the rejection of all friendships. A civil partnership does not entail any formal commitment which is wholly incompatible with Christian discipleship within that vocation. Such a conjunction (though not without a certain ambiguity) is therefore not in and of itself inherently self-contradictory.

Second, it follows from civil partnerships being incompatible with marriage and from the Christian vision for the single life that those who enter them must do so committed to the form of chastity required in that vocation ie abstinence from sexual relationships. The civil partnership must therefore be recast from its legal definition in terms of quasi-marriage into the category of friendship. This could draw perhaps on biblical examples such as David and Jonathan and aspects of the Christian tradition of friendship (as discussed, for example, by Alan Bray). This could be fully consonant with biblical and traditional teaching on sexuality and not incompatible with being a civil partner in 21st century England while being clearly distinct from the legal understanding of civil partnership. The House of Bishops in their most recent discussion note

Because friendship has the spiritual significance highlighted by Storkey and still more by Aelred and Anselm, it is something that Christians need to celebrate and support. This means that one of the things that the Church needs to consider is how it can give public recognition to the importance of friendship. As a number of writers have pointed out, in the past the Church celebrated the importance of same-sex friendships with rites that gave them an official standing. What needs to be explored is what kind of recognition would be appropriate today, and how we might incorporate into our liturgical life an affirmation and celebration of the value of friendship (SIHS, 3.4.39)

Faced with innovations within wider society's construction of relationships, perhaps the church is being called to retrieve, from its own social history, patterns of relationship that it can affirm and commend as an alternative ecclesial vision of human flourishing within non-sexual relationships.

Third, those Christians entering a civil partnership must find some way of distancing themselves from the legislation's reconfiguration of the definition of family.

It is, reportedly, some sort of this 'third way' that the Church of England bishops are likely to commend in a pastoral letter this summer. At present the position is only clear from press reports. These unhelpfully describe the proposal in terms of acceptance of civil partnerships as long as a commitment is given to uphold church teaching by abstaining from sex. While, as noted above, this addresses an important element of any Christian response to civil partnerships, it has a number of weaknesses

• It implies that the only problem with civil partnerships is if they include sexual activity. In fact, it is clear that a Christian critique must go much deeper because the Christian vision is not able to be limited to sexual conduct.

• It ignores the government's statement that refusal of sexual activity may, in law, count as 'unreasonable behaviour'

• It seems to be accepting the legal position that civil partnerships are effectively a form of same-sex marriage but then commending a sex-less marriage. Another analogy here might help. What if the state to allow someone to have more than one spouse (a reality in many parts of the world and - it could be argued by some - a reform of an unjust and irrational restriction on individual liberty within a secular, post-Christian world)? Would it be acceptable for the church to allow Christians and especially Christian leaders to make use of this new right as long as they made a commitment only to have a sexual relationship with one spouse?

The 'no sex' condition also fails to address other scenarios which are bound to arise. Three in particular stand out.

• Would it be acceptable for a cleric who divorced (perhaps as a result of their struggles with homosexuality) to subsequently enter into a civil partnership? As Gene Robinson shows, this is not a fanciful scenario

• Would it be acceptable for a cleric in a civil partnership to abandon his or her partner and seek the partnership's dissolution in order to marry? More generally, how should clergy view people requesting marriage with such a history - do they apply the guidelines for those seeking marriage in church after divorce?

• Less likely, but no less problematic, would it be acceptable for a married clergyperson who underwent gender reassignment simply to redefine their relationship as a civil partnership after their marriage was annulled?

Any response to these real questions requires deeper thinking about the nature of marriage, same-sex relationships and being male and female. This must go beyond simply restricting attention to 'genital acts'.

It is important that the bishops do not fail to address the real challenges to marriage and the family in England that arise from the CPA. They risk pleasing nobody but instead making the church the object of widespread ridicule if they simply advocate what will be viewed as 'celibate gay marriage'.

Complex and painful though it would be, it would be much more beneficial to seek to develop a distinctive Christian vision for same-sex relationships. This would recognise that Christian theology is not simply concerned about whether these are sexual relationships. There are also wider issues including their relationship to marriage and how they bear witness to - rather than undermine - the importance of humans being created in God's image as male and female. Only in the light of such a biblically-rooted and gospel-shaped vision can a Christian response to the novelty of civil partnerships be developed and implemented.

Assimilation or total rejection are always appealing temptations in the church's engagement with society. The challenge the church faces with the CPA is that it is so divided on the issue of homosexuality that some will seek to lead it down the former path in order to advance their cause of changing church teaching. Others will prefer the latter (as the only way to uphold traditional teaching) while recognising that enforcement will prove difficult and that implementation may lead to even wider gulfs within the church and between church and society, particularly those who identify as gay or lesbian.

What is clear, however, is that given the serious challenges represented by the CPA's undermining of marriage, any attempt to chart a 'third way' can only succeed within a clear and strong statement of the Christian teaching on marriage and a Christian critique of those features of the legislation which have a negative impact on marriage and society. The response must not, however, remain solely negative. Rather, it must encourage the development of a positive alternative vision of what might constitute legitimate same-sex relationships - consonant with Scripture and Christian tradition - for those not called to marriage.

Click on the links below for further information:

• The House of Bishops' Pastoral Statement on the Civil Partnership Act

• Fulcrum response to the Bishops' Statement on the Civil Partnership Act

To contribute to the debate on the Civil Partnership Act on the Fulcrum Forum, click here and follow the 'login' instructions.