The Bishops of the Church in Wales
on Civil Partnerships:
A Personal Response

by Andrew Goddard

Whatever the weaknesses in the response of the Church of England House of Bishops to the Civil Partnership Act (see Fulcrum response), at least they attempted to provide Christian teaching and guidance in response to this significant new development in the life of the nation. The bishops of the Church in Wales, in a statement issued December 3rd, have however totally abandoned that responsibility and instead produced a statement that can only increase concerns about their ability to uphold Christian teaching in Welsh society.

Their short statement opens by describing the situation - "In December 2005 the Civil Partnership Act comes into force. As a result, two people of the same sex will acquire a new legal status through registering a civil partnership. This will have very significant implications for their rights and responsibilities in respect of taxation, nationality and immigration, inheritance, liability for maintenance and child support, tenancies, employment and pension benefits".

They then preface their response to this development by making the wholly incredible statement that "The Bishops of the Church in Wales cannot and would not wish to prevent what the law allows for Church members, both lay and clerical". Stated in this general form this principle amounts to a total abdication of their responsibility as shepherds of the flock of Christ. The bishops of the church cannot and would not wish to prevent Christians doing something the law allows! Applied as a general principle this is to deny the prophetic ministry of the Spirit and to abandon totally the fundamental principle that Christian discipleship involves following Christ not the world. If it were to be accepted as a principle it would seem to amount to the church's mission today being shaped by an eschatological vision where the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ becomes the kingdom of the world. One need only think of other areas where the law allows certain practices (eg abortion or divorce) or may in the future permit them (eg assisted suicide) to realise the implications of such a wholly uncritical permissive stance.

One can only hope that the statement is not, as it appears, the principled basis for what follows but rather the conclusion that has been reached in the case of this particular piece of legislation. However, for that to be so, it would be necessary to articulate Christian teaching as it bears on the new law and to show why, in this case, a wholly uncritical and permissive stance can and should be taken in offering guidance to disciples of Christ.

Christian teaching is, however, totally lacking in the statement in contrast to the English bishops' statement and despite the Church in Wales being part of the Anglican Communion that has repeatedly made clear its stance in relation to same-sex unions. This total silence presumably is further confirmation that the bishops no longer have any teaching to give on this matter except that found in their earlier statement (25th November) that there is "a range of views held within the Church in Wales" and that "the challenge and call of our discipleship is to live, worship and work together in all our diversity". It is, therefore, not surprising that they can say nothing about developments in society and the law and so simply acquiesce with changes in secular society.

They do, however, offer some account of their understanding of the Act. This, though, is seriously flawed. They begin by stating that "the legislation leaves entirely open the nature of the commitment that members of a couple choose to make to each other when forming a civil partnership. It is not predicated on the intention to engage in a sexual relationship". The latter statement is strictly true in terms of law but the former is clearly false. A civil partnership is an exclusive relationship between two people of the same sex who are not married and one which can only be ended by death or legal proceedings to dissolve the partnership. The nature of the commitment is therefore far from 'entirely open'! The bishops' own statement in the opening paragraph about "significant implications for their rights and responsibilities" clearly shows that socially and legally the legislation has major consequences and that a certain form of commitment is therefore presumably necessary to enter a partnership.

The bishops then state that "the new legislation makes no change in the law in relation to marriage and the Government has stated that it has no intention of introducing same-sex 'marriage'". The first statement is again simply false and repeats an error made by the English House of Bishops. Although not creating 'same-sex marriage' by extending laws on marriage to same-sex partners, the legislation has made a number of amendments to the Marriage Act. On a minor (but illuminating) point, those who undergo gender reassignment while in a civil partnership have to annul the partnership before being recognised in their new gender. However, due to an amendment to the Marriage Act, they are immediately eligible to marry their former (now opposite sex) partner, despite the normal requirement of providing notice of marriage. Much more significantly it is now unlawful to marry if one is in a civil partnership and thus any clergy faced with someone claiming this is a 'just cause and impediment' during a church wedding would presumably be required by law to cease the proceedings should the claim be substantiated.

The government's statements distinguishing civil partnerships from same-sex marriage that are here alluded to and taken at face value are now widely recognised as at best disingenuous and at worse deceptive. The legislation itself, public comments by government ministers and departments, and the popular perception of civil partnerships all make quite clear that this new legal status is modelled on marriage and is as close to 'same-sex marriage' as possible without actually strictly being such in legal terms. The only significant differences are in terms of it having no reference to sexual expression, not being entered by vows (although such vows it now appears will often be made in an accompanying ceremony), and being entered (as the bishops note) through a purely civil registration, although one modelled in almost all respects on civil marriage. The English bishops at least recognised this close similarity in warning that "because of the ambiguities surrounding the character and public nature of civil partnerships, the House of Bishops would advise clergy to weigh carefully the perceptions and assumptions which would inevitably accompany a decision to register such a relationship". The Welsh bishops see no need to offer even a cautionary word about the ambiguity of the legislation and instead simply assert that a civil partnership is not what almost everyone takes it to be - a same-sex union/marriage.

The bishops finally claim that "as a result, people in a variety of relationships will be able to register as civil partners". This is only partially true and seriously misleading. In addition to being only open to unmarried people of the same sex, the legislation famously restricts those who can enter such relationships by prohibiting those within the traditional degrees of affinity for marriage (eg brothers, sisters, or parent and same-sex child). It is also beyond doubt that far from encompassing a 'variety of relationships' those who register as civil partners - and so bind themselves exclusively to one another until death or legal proceedings divide them - will overwhelmingly understand themselves and be understood by others to be registering a form of same-sex union or 'gay marriage' unless they clearly distance themselves from such an interpretation.

The contrast here with the English bishops is again stark in that they carefully delineated what forms of civil partnership might be consonant with Christian teaching, and in particular the calling of ordained ministers. Their definition - avowedly non-sexual relationships - has faced much criticism and is easier to envisage in theory than in widespread practice but at least it sought to define what would amount to a civil partnership with Christian integrity. The Welsh bishops appear to think there is no need to articulate such a Christian vision for this new social phenomenon and instead to allow 'a variety of relationships' to be embraced without comment within the category of 'civil partners'.

Finally, the bishops state "the Act does not allow church buildings to be used for registering civil partnerships, and the Bishops do not intend to produce an authorised public liturgy for such registrations". A wonderful statement that the bishops have no intention of producing liturgies for registrations that would have no legal basis! More worrying is what is not said here. The English bishops were much clearer. They not only stated that "In these circumstances it would not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships" but "in addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership". The failure of the Welsh bishops to make the final statement is clearly tantamount to permission for clergy to used unauthorised and/or private liturgical forms to bless those who enter civil partnerships.

In summary, even if the bishops have not totally renounced their calling to speak the Word of God to society in their refusal to consider preventing something the law allows, they have clearly done so in relation to the specific piece of legislation which this statement addresses. Despite the clear teaching of the Anglican Communion and the example set by the English bishops they have effectively denied that the introduction of civil partnerships raises any serious questions for Christians and allowed both lay Anglicans and clergy to do whatever is right in their own eyes without offering any instruction or even guidance based on Scripture or Church teaching. If Archbishop Akinola and others were dissatisfied with (and perhaps confused by) the tightrope that the bishops of the established Church of England are trying to walk, there can be little doubt that - with much greater legitimacy - they will view this statement as a sign that the leadership of the Church in Wales is in its heart following the North American provinces and effectively walking apart from the Anglican Communion in this area.

The Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is tutor in Ethics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and a member of the Fulcrum leadership team.