Bashir Maan: Tied up in knots over same-sex marriages

SCOTTISH politicians from across the spectrum and the gay rights lobby who support same-sex marriage laws are quick to assure concerned religious institutions they will not be forced to perform such ceremonies in their places of worship. The Scottish Government says its proposed legislation would contain clauses exempting clerics of all denominations and traditions from conducting same-sex marriages against their will.

However, all this hype will be worth absolutely nothing once the redefinition of marriage becomes effective and the proposed legislation comes into force. The explanation is simple. The law would become a stepping stone for the gay rights lobby, using European human rights legislation, to eventually force the government to capitulate and remove the clauses preventing the performance of the same-sex marriages by certain institutions or individuals.

If one looks at the successive victories achieved by the gay rights lobby in the last 15 years it becomes clear that they are not going to be satisfied with the law in its proposed form which would prevent same sex couples from having marriages in a religious place. Gay couples may go to religious places of their respective choice and ask for their marriages to be solemnised. But this would be refused and they would be reminded that under the law clerics are not obliged to preside over a same-sex marriage.

Those who refuse may come under attack from the gay rights lobby, which would mount legal challenges. The European courts would rule in favour of the gay rights lobby and force the government to amend the same sex marriage law.

Scaremongering tactics by old-fashioned religious groups? I don’t think so. In March, European judges ruled that while gay marriage is NOT a human right, churches could be forced to perform gay marriages. The government’s promise that gay weddings won’t be forced on churches, synagogues, or mosques, may turn out to be one they can’t keep.

If a member state decides to allow gay marriage, but treats homosexual married couples differently from heterosexual married couples, such rulings from Strasbourg leave the door open to potential challenge under European human rights law. So, if the Scottish Government introduces gay marriage but bans gay couples from getting married in a church while allowing heterosexual couples to do so, the Scottish Government could find itself taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

Holyrood has repeatedly promised that churches won’t be forced to perform gay weddings, but a future ruling of the European Court could leave that promise in tatters.

The convention also requires nation states to protect religious freedom and allows for a “margin of appreciation” for each nation to resolve the clash of competing rights. Legal exemptions to general principles of law are part and parcel of living in a democratic society that respects differences. It is something that the European Court has long recognised and is reluctant to interfere with, but you wouldn’t want to rely on it.

The bottom line is this: The Scottish Government – no matter how sincere it may be – cannot offer a cast-iron guarantee that churches won’t be forced to perform gay weddings. It’s simply a promise it cannot keep.

One thing is perhaps more certain. If Holyrood redefines marriage, someone, somewhere is going to be hauled off to court (European or domestic) for their stance on traditional marriage.

And now, consider the views of Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre: “What the government assurance is ignoring, is the fact that, in law, there is no difference between and no status for civil as opposed to religious marriage – both are in law same thing and merely take place in different premises.”

Churches which perform heterosexual marriages will have to be willing to perform same sex marriages and they will have no legal grounds to resist since the courts have determined that the “orthodox” Christian view of marriage is not a “core part of Christian belief”. On this basis, it appears that according to the decision of the courts, Christian churches which refuse to perform same-sex marriages eventually would be compelled to abide by the law and solemnise these ceremonies. And so, the following questions arise: l Would the mosques, synagogues and places of worship for other faiths that specifically condemn homosexuality be affected by this law?

l Would the courts be approached to interpret and redefine the rulings of such faiths concerning same-sex marriage? l And in spite of the prohibition of homosexuality being “a core” part of those faiths, would the courts decide against those faiths on grounds of discrimination or on some other “politically correct” argument?

Only time will tell. But it is obvious that the assurances being given at present by the SNP government to the faith groups that they won’t be forced to conduct same-sex marriages under the proposed law are meaningless. It is time they carried out a comprehensive rethink and ditched this poorly conceived proposed piece of legislation – and soon.

Writing as a person of faith from a traditional religious background, like so many Scots I want to ask a simple question: “Whose human rights are being violated by this proposed legislation which attacks faiths and beliefs dating back thousands of years before politics was even invented?”

• Bashir Maan is a former Glasgow Labour councillor