Press Releases

  1. 95 Churches want to register Civil Partnerships

    16 January 2012

    Anglican Coalition Logo

    A limited survey by the LGB&T Anglican Coalition of which LGCM is a member has already revealed that almost 100 Church of England churches would want to explore registering their buildings to offer Civil Partnerships if the Church of England would allow it.
     
    This comes as registration forms for religious buildings become available for the first time this month following the end of the Government ban in December.
     
    The news that so many Anglican Churches would want to explore registration shows the disparity between the official stance of the Church of England and that of ordinary parishes.
     
    Canon Giles Goddard, a member of the Coalition and Chair of Inclusive Church said, “The 95 churches we have identified are the tip of the iceberg.  Patience with the Church of England is wearing thin among lesbian and gay Anglicans and their friends and families.  The church needs to learn to become inclusive and welcoming to all. We hope that measures will soon be taken so that individual parishes can opt into offering blessings and legal ceremonies.”
     
    At present any such application would be rejected by Registrars because applications require the consent of the Church’s governing body, the General Synod, and there are no plans to ask General Synod whether it would give consent or not.
     
    The House of Bishops has begun a review of Church policy on Civil Partnerships however, under the leadership of The Bishop of Sodor and Man, The Rt Rev Robert Paterson. Alongside considering whether clergy in Civil Partnerships can be appointed as Bishops, it is also expected to update church policy in the light of recent changes in legislation.
     
    The Revd Colin Coward, Director of Changing Attitude England and member of the Coalition, said: “Congregations which are welcoming and open to LGB&T people, are impatient in their desire to model the infinite love of God for all creation and provide spiritual and pastoral care for lesbian and gay people who wish to celebrate their love and fidelity with their partner in church.”
     
    Since Civil Partnerships began in 2005, over 47,000 have been registered, and there is growing evidence that many couples want to register their partnerships in a church or other religious context.


  2. LGCM responds to the Adrian Smith demotion by Trafford Housing Trust

    28 October 2011

    Trafford Housing Trust LogoThe Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement supports both marriage equality and freedom of speech.

    Adrian Smith, a Christian working as a housing manager with Trafford Housing Trust, recently expressed views on his personal Facebook page which stated among other things that in his opinion gay marriage is “an equality too far”. He wrote that “the Bible is quite specific that marriage is for…men and women if the state wants to offer civil marriage to same sex then that is up to the state; but they shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.”

    As a result of expressing these views Trafford Housing Trust demoted Adrian Smith and cut his salary by £14,000.

    The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) has been consistent in its support for marriage equality and believes that institution of marriage can embrace couples regardless of sexuality and gender. LGCM takes the view that this is consistent with a respect for Biblical principles, and would therefore disagree with Adrian Smith on the matter. However LGCM strongly disagrees with the decision by Trafford Housing Trust to demote Mr Smith.

    Rev Sharon Ferguson, Chief Executive of LGCM said: “There are a number of issues here. Mr Smith is in fact mistaken to think that marriage equality legislation would force religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages. Most campaigners are opposed to this. What we are asking for is the freedom for those religious organisations who wish to offer such ceremonies to be able to do so and for these to be fully recognised in law. To force a church or other faith community to provide such a service would clearly suggest a level of state interference which would have a questionable effect upon all citizens’ freedom.

    “Adrian Smith was foolish to state his views on his Facebook profile which indicated that he was employed by Trafford Housing. However, the views themselves were not inciting hatred and, as far as we understand, Adrian Smith has never been accused of discriminating against clients whatever their sexuality. It would not be unusual for an employer to reprimand an employee for publishing these remarks on a social networking site, when they so clearly contradict that organisation’s clear commitment to equality. So Trafford Housing may have acted with the best of intentions here but we believe they have overreacted and very much hope that they will reinstate Adrian Smith.

    Rev Ferguson added:

    “Sadly actions of this nature serve only to reinforce the view that Christians are persecuted under equalities legislation whereas in fact it is designed to protect and support us all.

    “LGCM does not wish to see the development of a suppression of dissenting opinion. We endorse freedom of speech and healthy debate. This is something which LGBT people are not permitted in many parts of the world. It would be strange for us to wish this freedom denied to others in our own society who in good conscience don’t agree with us.”


  3. LGCM urges participation in EHRC Religious Freedom Consultation

    22 August 2011

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has recently appeared confused over its approach to religious freedom. A short while ago it seemed to be backtracking and suggesting that not enough had been done to protect religious freedoms and then more recently it appears to have reverted to its original position and said that it will not be seeking greater representation for these cases in court.

    In the light of the controversy caused it has announced a very short consultation period for stakeholder organisations to comment about the issues raised. Some have reacted with understandable cynicism but the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) urges organisations who might be affected to take part in the consultation.

    LGCM recognises that there is a clear distinction between the four cases where Christians are bringing legal action against the United Kingdom because they believe their right to freedom of religion has been compromised.

    In the cases of Nadia Eweida, and Shirley Chaplin the issue is one of wearing religious symbols at work.

    The Rev Sharon Ferguson, Chief Executive of LGCM said: “The decisions taken in these cases were too harsh and made a mockery of the intention of the law. All people should be allowed to wear the symbols of their faith as long as they are not using them to proselytise or they cause a safety or health risk.”

    The cases of Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane are however entirely different. Lilian Ladele was a registrar who lost her job after saying her beliefs meant she could not officiate at civil partnership ceremonies. Gary McFarlane was fired for refusing to give sex therapy counselling to gay couples.

    Rev Ferguson said of these cases: “These decisions were correct as the people involved were working in the public domain and cannot be allowed to choose to whom they will offer a public service. However, some discretion may be needed when a job role has changed after a person has taken up employment. This was the situation with Lilian Ladele – civil partnerships were introduced after she began her work as a registrar in Islington. The employer could have tried to be more sensitive and made adjustments if possible without affecting the service or the work of other employees. If reasonable adjustments could not be made then the employee would have to accept the situation and perform the duties. In Gary McFarlane’s case, he was aware from the beginning that Relate offered counselling to all couples regardless of gender or sexual orientation and that by taking up the role of counsellor he would be required to offer the same service to all people. It would seem therefore that a combination of sensitivity and common sense must prevail.”

    However Rev Ferguson added: “The issue of reasonable accommodation which the EHRC are consulting about is however a complex one. Reasonable adjustments are there for people with a disability to provide opportunities for disabled people to perform different job functions or to not lose their job if they become disabled during a time of employment. This allows the employer to assess if the job can be done adequately by a person and can benefit both parties. So far, the only adjustments that have been called for based on religion or belief have been to refuse to perform certain functions and consequently discriminating against others. There is no discrimination against others caused by the reasonable adjustments made for a person with a disability.”