With public consultation on proposals to introduce an equal right to marriage for all, Tim Farron has, this evening, urged Party members to take part.
“We have always stood for individual liberty and the right to choose how we lead our lives. This is why I am member of our party and why I am so proud to be your President. It’s why we came into being in the 19th century to protect the rights of religious minorities. It’s why we led the support for equality for women and why we decided before any other major party that civil marriage should be open to same-sex couples equally.
The Liberal Democrats in Government are now delivering on that. There’s an ongoing consultation on how best to deliver equal civil marriage, which will lead to new legislation in this Parliament. The Government consultation asks about the best way to implement equal civil marriage, and our party conference agreed that the best way to do that is in the context of full equality of marriage and civil partnerships.”
Whilst the provided link to the consultation on the Home Office’s website appears to be faulty, you can take part here.
But first, why not check out what LGBT+ Liberal Democrats have to say on the subject…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
The Joy of Six 1529
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Jason Connor
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
19 Comments
I still find it hard to believe that the consultation takes the illiberal position of telling religious institutions that want to conduct equal marriages on their premises that they cant.
Douglas, the consultation does ask respondents whether they think that equal religious marriage should be considered.
If the Bill presented before Parliament does not include allowing religions to conduct same-sex marriage, or other deviations from the Lib Dem policy on equal marriage, then we have Lib Dem MPs waiting to amend it.
LGBT+ Lib Dems have campaigned hard on this issue, from getting the policy on the Federal Conference floor through to designing and printing the flyers you can order from our site for your local venues. Please support our work and keep the Lib Dems at the forefront of equality.
We need to up our membership before Brighton to keep our ability to submit policy direct to Conference, so if you’re not already a member, please sign up and encourage your friends to join too.
Yet the Executive Summary states – “It will not be legally possible under these proposals for religious organisations to solemnize religious marriages for same-sex couples” and “It will also not be possible for a same-sex couple to have a civil marriage ceremony on religious premises”.
Why even start a consultation where your executive summary is clear what you will and wont be considering?
Dave – I filled in the consultation a few weeks ago, and certainly at that time it said that religions would not be allowed to marry same-sex people even if they wanted to. There wasn’t a structured question that would allow me to object to this bizarre restriction, though I used the “general comments” box to point out how illogical it was.
I am still waiting for the opportunity to vote on this issue at an election… Whatever happened to democracy?
Pete, Q5 of the consultation reads: “Question 5. The government does not propose to open up religious marriage to same-sex couples. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?” and you can answer “Disagree – religious marriage should be opened up to same-sex couples”.
We must support this. Need to stop the vile tactics of the “Coalition for Marriage”.
@Dave Page I agree that religious marriages should be opened up to same sex coiiples, so long as the religion agrees. This is not an option, so I answered “Disagree – religious marriage should be opened up to same-sex couples” and then made a free taxt entry at the end of the consultation to make this clear.
I feel this should have been an option to enable a full range of views to be expressed.
Sara, that’s certainly the Lib Dem party position – the Government should neither forbid nor require churches to conduct same-sex ceremonies. Unfortunately, we didn’t draft the consultation – the Government Equalities Office did.
We need to support it, but at the same time any religious organisation which wishes to have same sex marriages on its premises MUST be allowed to do so.
It’s also bizarre that the consultation proposes to open marriage to same-sex couples AND keeping civil partnerships, but doesn’t propose opening them up to heterosexual couples. Why on earth not? I know plenty of people who want them – and it surely isn’t particularly controversial!
Also, the consultation notes that allowing same-sex marriage will benefit married transsexuals who will be able to remain married, rather than having to dissolve their marriage and get a civil partnership. Great point, but logically it would also apply to transsexual civil partners, who under the proposals would have to dissolve their civil partnership and get married! Makes no sense.
And yes, I agree on the religious marriage – those that want to conduct them should be able to. Seems bizarre that people would have to choose between religious civil partnerships, which are currently allowed, and civil marriage.
I assume churches that want to do this, will conduct blessings, and it will soon be seen as normal. It would be nice to get there in one step, but we will get there, even if in two or three. First civil partnerships, now civil marriage, later church marriage…
Am I alone within the Lib Dems in feeling distinct discomfort on all this – despite my not adhering to any particular religious faith?
I unequivically supported the introduction of civil partnership as an achievement for gay people which removes their legal disadvantages, provides them with a good way of committing to each other as partners (if they so wish) and in a sense gives them something they have made their own.
In insisting on using the word “marriage” for a slightly different (how different?) relationship for gay people there is a real risk of alienating very many people – usually of various religious persuasions – who are genuinely liberal in their attitudes but find this a bridge too far. Should they be driven from our midst?
We progressives have a habit at times of pushing further than we need on issues like this and then claiming we have a majority in favour and to hell with the troubled minority. I call it the triumphalism of the narrow majority.
I prefer broad consensus – except where crucial human rights are involved. Is this really one of those?
Denis, various religious groups are trying to claim that they own the definition of marriage. This is quite untrue as Steve Gilbert showed in this helpful article:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/steve-gilbert-mp-writes-church-opposition-to-gay-marriage-is-intolerant-out-of-touch-and-wrong-27546.html
By trying to claim ownership over the definition of marriage, this is a thinly veiled attempt to push their religious views into our law making.
Denis, this isn’t a matter of religion vs LGBT+ equality. Civil partnership and marriage are not directly legally equivalent, particularly in the case of international recognition, but also pension rights and other arrangements. There’s also the pernicious problem of forcing trans people to undergo divorce or dissolution to get legal recognition of their gender (which this consultation only partly addresses, but which our party policy solves). The additional distress caused in these cases might not affect many, but is clearly important.
Also, there are many faith organisations, from the Quakers and Unitarians through to the protestant Metropolitan Community Church, along with Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and other faiths, who wish to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies with willing congregants. It should not be the role of the Government to interfere in that, surely?
@Sara Bedford Yes this is exactly how I did it and I know of others who did. If a religion wishes to conduct same-sex marriages then they should be allowed to. It’s a shame there isn’t a more straightforward way of giving this response.
@Denis Many people describe people in civil partnerships as married anyway and our language has always evolved just as society changes. Personally despite being gay I’ve never felt particularly strongly about the need for civil partnerships to legally be called marriage. However, more importantly as a liberal I don’t see why they should not. At the same time, if a religion doesn’t want to do same-sex marriage ceremonies, then that should be their choice.
Thank you to those who have commented on my post. Let me make it clear that I have no personal problem about using the word marriage in this way. I also am fully aware of the reasoning behind the views that the proponents of this change hold. My concern is about those – and I fear they are quite numerous – who do not hold those views but otherwise are very much with our party and are progressive in their general outlook. We risk losing some such people over this.
Hence, although I will completely accept the change – which now seems inevitable – I have no stomach to campaign for it.
Denis, I have no doubt we risk losing some people over this who might support our policies in other areas. I’m not sure that they’re liberal in the general sense if they don’t support the idea that other people might have a different idea of marriage to them. Nobody will coerce anybody into having a marriage they don’t want, after all!
We’ve had a few e-mails at LGBT+ Lib Dems opposing these plans, but many which have been supportive, particularly from Christians.