Law Society declares support for same-sex marriage
The Law Society will today enter the escalating political row over same-sex marriage by declaring its support for legalisation – while defending the ‘religious freedom’ of churches and other faith groups that refuse to perform ceremonies.
The Society’s response to a Government Equalities Office consultation, which closed today, comes in the week the Church of England (CofE) condemned same-sex marriages, saying they could lead to a clash between canon law and statute law.
The Society also says it is in favour of allowing opposite-sex couples to enter into civil partnerships, which are currently restricted to same-sex couples.
The Society’s response says that the current situation of permitting marriage between heterosexual couples only ‘constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation’. Such an important ‘societal institution’ as marriage should be equally accessible to all, it says. Therefore, ‘based purely on its commitment to equality before the law’, it agrees with government proposals to allow all couples to have a civil marriage ceremony.
However, the Society disagrees with the government’s proposal to keep ‘religious marriage’ (as opposed to ‘civil marriage’) closed to same-sex couples. It says that the right of religious groups not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies on their premises should be protected because ‘doing otherwise would infringe on religious freedom’. However, stopping religious groups that do wish to carry out such ceremonies ‘would also infringe on religious freedom without legitimate justification’.
The Society also disagrees with government proposals to keep civil partnerships closed to opposite-sex couples on the grounds of discrimination against heterosexual couples. ‘The issue is once again of equal access and non-discrimination,’ the Society adds.
In its own response, the CofE said that the government’s proposals ‘have not been thought through properly and are not legally sound’. It said that ministerial assurances on religious freedom would be ‘of limited value, given that once the law was changed the key decisions would be for the domestic and European courts’.
Law Society vice-president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff said in a BBC interview that, if the issue was taken to the European court, judges were unlikely to agree that any religious organisation would be forced to carry out same-sex marriages. ‘But what it might say is that religious organisations should be allowed to if they want to,’ she added.
Comments
Erm
What has this issue got to do with the Law Society? Its role is to protect and advance the interest of solicitors, not to get involved with issues which have nothing to do with the legal profession. I don't want to know the Society's views on fox hunting and I don't want to know its views on same-sex marriage. How can it purport to express any views on that question (which has more to do with religion and ethics than the law) without consulting the profession which it is supposed to represent? Hasn't it got more pertinent and pressing things to deal with?
Agree
Absolutely agree Me - nothing at all to do with the Law Society. Just another pointless and predictable example of the Law Soc jumping on the politically correct bandwagon.
Diversity
"Me" and "me too": The promotion of equality and diversity is mandatory for solicitors: principle 9 and chapter 2 of the SRA Code.
Diversity
Does the requirement to promote equality and diversity mean that individual solicitors have to lobby their MPs to vote for gay marriage?
I am proud of the Law Society
I am proud of the Law Society for taking this stance. Marriage should be equal for all and religious groups should be free to impose what conditions they want to on sacramental marriage - the Catholic Church does not recognise the validity of civil marriages anyway. If a baptised member of their church choses to marry in a register office, or Anglican church without consent, then the union is considered by them to be null and void. There has always been a distinction between sacramental marriage (the real deal) and civil marriage (only valid for non believers).
Many perfectly valid points
Many perfectly valid points made both pro and con the idea, but the basic point as set out by Me in the top comment is that this is not any concern of The Law Society.
Someone (us) is paying for these people to make blatantly political statements.
Where is the Law Society's statement on support for extending electrification of the South Trans Pennine Route through Dore curve up to Sheffield Midland station during the next Network Rail control period?
Or what about their views on the research at CERN to find evidence of the existence of the Higg's Boson?
Do they support the application by the Premises Licence holder round the corner from me to extend their opening hours by 30 minutes on a Saturday when they are holding a function?
Are they concerned that the quality of reporting by the BBC's financial team is adversely affecting market confidence in bonds and gilts in the Euro zone?
Perhaps they think that more Tesco Express branches should stock Potato Cakes alongside the more commonly available Crumpets and Waffles?
Not only is it not the
Not only is it not the business of the Law Society to get involved in general politics, it's particularly silly in this case, where there will be strong views on either side among solicitors. In an issue between liberals and traditionalist religious groups, it is best to keep out of it.
Well done Law Society
I am proud that the Law Society has stepped up to be counted. If any organisation's views is to be taken seriously in respect of same sex marriage, one of them should definitely be the Law Society. I do not understand how some of the previous comments do not understand the Law Society's authority and interests in the issue. The proposal is all about legislating in favour of a certain minority and the Law Society is the most qualified body to give its views given the unrivalled pool of legal knowledge it has at its disposal. Yes, the Law Society's purpose is to advance the interests of the legal profession and that includes the promotion of justice in society through laws which the legal profession interpret and defend on a daily basis. And yes, if their legal education has done them well, every solicitor should actually do their part in promoting the passage of this bill (including even writing to their MPs if necessary). Unlike the examples that DomcCoop have given in his comments, which are, at best, trivial (might as well include what the Law Society's views are on changing someone's hair colour), the issue of legalising same sex marriage is something that has a sweeping impact on British society's rule of law. This will change British society's attitudes towards the LGBT community once and for all and people's attitudes can only be conditioned through legislation.
What "authority" does the Law
What "authority" does the Law Society have? It is not even a regulatory body, merely representative.
It may be "Law Society is the most qualified body to give its views given the unrivalled pool of legal knowledge it has at its disposal" - has anyone out there been contacted for their views based on their legal knowledge?
I am personally in favour of equility but I recognise others may have different views, and if a representative body wants to speak on behalf of it's members it should seek those views. Then it could say with authority - x% of solicitors support this. If anyone cares what solicitors think.
Finally we are truly in a sorry state if "people's attitudes can only be conditioned through legislation".
If we are talking about
If we are talking about relative authority, then the Law Society (whose position is based on legal principles) has a more legitimate position to put its views forward than the Church of England (whose basis is nothing but dogma). But why hasn't anyone criticised the Church of England's authority in doing so? Also, why hasn't anyone criticised the Church of England for speaking on behalf of all its members when there are many Church of England members who support same sex marraige? Why do we think this is acceptable? That is because people still find it difficult to extricate the role of religion from the role of the state.
Unfortunately, it is true that people's attitudes can only be condition through legislation. Have you not seen the countries where gay people are still relentlessly abused? This is because the state condones it. Think about the 60s when interracial marriage was banned int he US. It's only after the US Supreme Court struck this down that people's views started changing. Time and again, it has been proven fact that the majorities do not usually vote to protect the rights of minorities so it is up to the legislators and the courts to initiate change.
As the institution of
As the institution of marriage was invented by religions, then religions most certainly do have a legitimate position to put forward-in the case of Judaism a position of some thousands of years standing, and on which many legal principles are based.
That position, of course, can only apply to those who accept that teaching of such religion. What the state cannot, and should not attempt, do is to try to force its own views on those who follow that religion. As I understand the proposal the law will not do so.
But you are quite wrong to say that the religions have no legitimate position to make.
With all due respect,
With all due respect, religion has niether invented nor has the monopoly on the institution of marriage. This institution has been around even before any organised religion had been invented. Religions have just adopted this institution in their own way according to their beliefs, and have somehow managed to manipulate history by taking the bits that suit them to claim what you are claiming now.
And again, you are confusing
And again, you are confusing looking at this issue from a legal perspective with looking at this issue from a religious perspective. The Law Society has put forward its views on a purely legal basis. The only reason why a solicitor would disagree with same sex marriage is because of his/her religious views. Have you not read the transcript of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial, which overturned California's Proposition 8? The legal team who represented those who were anti-same sex marriage was not even able to put forward a single sound legal argument on why same sex marraige should be banned.
Same-sex marriage
For the record: the Law Society's family law committee produced the response to the government consultation paper. They are practitioners who sit on the committee because they want to contribute to the development of this area of the law. They are not paid. And they are not making a political statement - as should be clear if you read the fourth paragraph of the piece: the committee's support is ‘based purely on its commitment to equality before the law’.
Jonathan, I completely agree
Jonathan, I completely agree with you. Some people want to sound intelligent on these boards by posting something witty, but if you dissect the contents and basis of their platitudes, you realise that their statements are empty.
A different but practical
A different but practical matter: why do paragraphs no longer show up when comments are posted?
It makes for difficult reading and loses emphasis.
Line breaks
We made some changes to the comments form on Wednesday and removed automatic line breaks. They have now been reinstated.
Regards,
Gazette Online
Family Law Committee
So, the statement should make clear that it represents nothing more than the views of the Family Law Committee and is not to be taken as representing the views of the profession. To think that this is not a political statement is naive in the extreme. It trespasses on areas where - as the comments demonstrate - individual solicitors are entitled to their own views, as is every other member of the public. If the Family Law Committee wishes to make statements of this kind in the future, I trust that it will caveat them appropriately or consult all solicitors before issuing them.
The Law Society is
The Law Society is approaching the topic from a legal perspective and nothing more. It is telling us that it has come to its conclusion on the basis of Britain's current legal framework. That's it. Yes, individual solicitors are entitled to their own views but the views will diverge on the basis of religious dogma. The Law Society would not have taken into account any solicitor's religious belief because it does not allow for this. The Law Society is saying that this should be the view of the profession purely on the basis of Britian's legal framework, much like when the Church of England says that this should be the view of all its members purely on the basis of its teachings.
The comments by poster "Don"
The comments by poster "Don" above serve to demonstrate precisely why the Law Society (or its committees, paid or unpaid) ought not to have made such a blatantly political statement.
How so? You can't just assert
How so? You can't just assert something without giving any justification for it.
Response to consultation
The Law Society is responding to a Consultation.
I have come across an Article, “When is a consultation not a consultation?" (http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/politics/when-is-a-consultation-not-a-consultation.cfm) in which it is reported, “...government ministers went out of their way to confirm that the ‘consultation’ was about ‘how’ to introduce the proposals with equalities minister Lynne Featherstone insisting the government would not turn back on its determination to proceed whatever the outcome”.
If this is the reality of the situation, it seems appropriate that the Law Society should be commenting on the ‘how’ of introducing same-sex marriage legislation. Attempting to redefine marriage has practical implications apart from the religious, social and cultural ones. Those practical implications are huge in themselves.
In response to Don, 'How
-
Got to agree with DomcCoop on
Got to agree with DomcCoop on this one
Pray tell, apart from
Pray tell, apart from religious grounds, on what other basis can one challenge the same sex marriage proposal. As a corollary, on what legal basis can one challenge the same sex marriage proposal. As already mentioned above, even the learned legal team in the Prop 8 trial cannot even come up with one single sound legal argument against same sex marriage. Note the Law Society's statement where it says: "From a legal perspective, there is no justification for the current discrimination and lack of equal access to marriage to remain in place. We therefore agree with the Government’s proposals".
If you only read posts carefully, I've also provided examples supporting my claim that people's attitudes can only be conditioned by legislation. Also, it is a known fact that turnout is usually low in national elections when times are good. Why? Because people are content, nothing important for them is at stake in such times, thereby breeding inaction. The same can be said of initiatives to protect a minority group's interest.
And with all due respect, please do not change the tone of your posts right now to make it seem like you were trying to engage in a sensible conversation from the beginning. The examples you gave previously included:
"Where is the Law Society's statement on support for extending electrification of the South Trans Pennine Route through Dore curve up to Sheffield Midland station during the next Network Rail control period?
Or what about their views on the research at CERN to find evidence of the existence of the Higg's Boson?
Do they support the application by the Premises Licence holder round the corner from me to extend their opening hours by 30 minutes on a Saturday when they are holding a function?
Are they concerned that the quality of reporting by the BBC's financial team is adversely affecting market confidence in bonds and gilts in the Euro zone?
Perhaps they think that more Tesco Express branches should stock Potato Cakes alongside the more commonly available Crumpets and Waffles?"
I responded that these are trivial (actually, I should have used the word ridiculous and pathetic) because you were clearly being ignorantly sarcastic and a smart-ass.
In any case, what views can the Law Society give on the examples you have given above? First of all, there is no consultation on these issues. Second, there are already overarching laws and institutions in place to take care of these issues and it is now up to the government to execute policies and strategies based on these laws. Now this will involved other considerations such as economic and financial--areas which the Law Society clearly has no expertise in delving into.
And I am certain that at least with some of these issues, like the current recession, the government is racking its brain to get the country out of this situation. However, that does not mean that until a solution is found, the government cannot/should not deal with other important issues such as this proposal. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you are saying that the government should deal with one issue at a time, then your concept of a government is greatly distorted.
Like I said, this proposal is about legislating for the rights for minorities who have long been discriminated for no legitimate reason. And yes, if you ask me, the attempt to give a minority group full dignity and protection is as important as helping people find employment in this recession.
The Law Society is the body representing the body of profession most qualified to interpret and defend the law--from solicitors, to barrister to judges. This body therefore has one of the most legitimate authorities and interests in making its views known.
Practical Implications
DomcCoop says “The Law Society response gives practical advice only in its answer to Question 16”. It also actually ignores Q14 on consequential impacts, which is rather disappointing given that at the beginning of the Response it says, “We welcome the government’s consultation on how to legalise same-sex marriage”.
same sex marriage and the law society
The debate should be about the proper role of the Society (and proper consultation) not the rights or wrongs of same sex marriage. My own views are irrelevant. I do however feel strongly that it is not the role of the Society to take a stance on this issue any more than many other possible socio/ethical issues. I do not want to remain a member of a Society that purports to decide or represent how I should think on this issue or any such issue.
Mark
I completely respect that.
I completely respect that. But then I hope you're not part of the Catholic Church and the Church of England...
Well, that would be his
Well, that would be his choice.
If you want to be a solicitor there is no choice as to being a member of the Law Society.
Regrettably, like most UK institutions whose time has passed, the Law Society is floundering around seeking a role for itself. Purporting to represent the political views of its members is not in any way part of what it should be doing
Same-Sex Marriage
Is it fact necessary to be a member of the Law Society? When I was admitted as a solicitor in 1978 I had to opt to join the Society. Am I still able to resign my membership and continue to practise as a soilcitor?
Another issue here is why the Family Law Committee of the Law Society are seen as the Society's "experts" on this subject. Almost every solicitor will have a proper and expert view on whether there should be "equal civil marriage", either by nature of her or his practice, being married or in civil partnership (or choosing not to be), adhering to a religion or electing not to; and so on. Every well-informed citizen, and that should include all solicitors, has a right to be heard equally with those who spend their professional time dealing mainly with issues of relationship breakdown.
Indeed, I'd love to know what
Indeed, I'd love to know what proportion of Legal Aid family law clients come in and say "we are a same sex couple, and have had a Civil Partnership after a ceremony in the Registry Office, but we require your advice on how to become 'married' and have the same status as civil partners, and go through the same ceremony in the same Registry Office"?
Yes, you are correct-at one
Yes, you are correct-at one time one had to apply to join the Law Society; some people did not.
The rules were then changed so that on admission one automatically became a member. The reason was, no doubt, to ensure control.
I do not think it is possible to be a solicitor without being a member of the Law Society although the logic behind this is far from apparent. As the Law Society is merely representative surely membership should be voluntary? It is, after all, the SRA which is the more important, and independent (for which read out of control), body.
Admitted then elected
I have just dug out my certificates. I was personally admitted as "a Solicitor of the Supreme Court" in November 1976 and, in January 1977, was "appointed and admitted a Member of The Law Society" - two different certificates. So certainly over that Christmas, I was a Solicitor but not a Member. I don't think it ever crossed my mind though to be the former but not the latter.
Role of the Society
The Society's response document begins with the words "The Law Society is the representative body for more than 140,000 solicitors in England and Wales". Unfortunately, the document does not make clear that the views set out in the document cannot be taken to represent the views of those 140,000, who are entitled to make their own minds up on sensitive issues like same-sex marriage. What the Society should have done was limited its response to an analysis of the legal position and (in reply to question 14) the potential "consequential impacts" (surely a pleonasm) of legalising same-sex marriage. Article 9 (which is cited in the document) confirms that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That right applies to solicitors as much to anyone else - a point which the Society appears to have overlooked.
Role of Law Society
In fairness to the Law Society, I think that what it has said is very much based on an analysis of the legal position and, in consequence, it agrees with certain of the Government’s proposals but disagrees with others.
Having re-read the Response, I can only find one sentence which it might have been better left out: “Such an important societal institution as marriage should be equally accessible to all”. However, that itself appears after reference to a quote from Lady Hale in Radmacher v Granatino.
Same sex marriage is controversial and I have not been able to find on the internet any response to the Consultation from the Bar Council nor from CILEx.
It is true that there is a
It is true that there is a difference between the voluntary membership in churches and the automatic membership in the Law Society. However, it does not derogate from the fact that no one seems to have criticised the Church of England/Catholic Church on their responses to the consultation as being representative of their whole churchs' stand when many Church of England/Catholic church members want to stay within their respective churches and yet do not agree with their church's stand on this matter. How can one apply a different standard to the Law Society?
Because if you don't like the
Because if you don't like the response of the church of which you are a voluntary member, you leave.
And isn't this exactly the same point which was made previously?
Whether or not people can
Whether or not people can leave does not have anything to do with the fact that the church's response attempts to represent the views of all its members. It is absurd to say that just because someone does not agree with some of its church's position, their first response is to leave that church automatically. I'm sure like you, I know many CofE members who don't agree with the church's position on same sex marriage. But have they left the church since then? No. The church knows about this, and yet, they still present their views as representing all their members.
Believe it or not, Don, I am
Believe it or not, Don, I am not per se against same-sex marriage. It is not an issue that effects me personally and as has been pointed out, different churches choose to recognise or not recognise civil marriages on their own terms, so it ought not to affect the church either.
I myself had a registry office wedding, and then the next day had a wedding in the Romanian Orthodox Church, as the former is not recognised by the said church of which my wife is a member; the latter is not recognised by the law of England and Wales.
But that is not the point. What you appear not to be able to grasp is that personal views and opinions are not in issue and are not relevant. If I wanted to campaign for same-sex marriages, I would join an organisation that does so. You fall into the trap - which I'm afraid is endemic amongst those on the left wing of the political spectrum - the trap which says "I believe I am right and therefore what I say is right and everybody else is wrong"
I beleive that there are questions to which there is not a right or wrong answer, and that debate on such matters should take place between those who wish to involve themselves in that debate.
I do not wish to be involved in that debate, and I object strongly to being labelled a supporter, and to my money being used in supporting a particular side of that debate
Incidentally, the law society committe may well not be paid, but:-
My previous examples in an earlier post were not saracstic. It is the reductio ad absurdum of your posts. If the Law Society is now poking their nose into this issue, then it follows they should poke their nose into all issues.
If not, then who chooses which issues, and why?
If you didn't like my examples, which were there to prove a point, then what about:-
I've had enough of this debate now, but I'll leave you with one final thought. Would you have been happy had the Law Society stated the following? (these aren't my views by the way) "The Law Society, the Representative body for 140,000 solicitor does not support the Government's plans for civil marriages for same-sex couples. The Law Society said 'The Civil Partnerships Act provides all the legal protections and equivalence that a marriage does, and therefore the only point of this proposal is to change the legal description of the union. Since parties are free to describe themselves however they wish, and members of a Civil Partnership can (and do) call themselves married, the Law Society considers that this proposal, is simply a step on the way to abolishing marriage and is forwarded on the whole by militant atheist activists. Taken together with ongoing proposals that different-sex couples could become Civil Partners and that unmarried couples should have the same rights as married couples, it ought to be obvious that in a few years, the concept of marriage will be abolished entirely as being redundant and serving no purpose. The Law Society opposes this".
Such a press release could quite easily happen. The Law Society should get out of politics, and try to help the people who pay for its existence (which it abjectly fails to do).
If that's the position that
If that's the position that the Law Society took, then I will criticise them for having erroneously applied England's legal principles. However, one thing I will not criticise them on is for responding to the consultation. As I have mentioned above, this body represents the body of professionals who have studied, who apply, interpret and defend the law day in and day out. So I don't see why people have gotten their knickers in a twist over the mere fact that the Law Society responded to the consultation.
You say: "You fall into the trap - which I'm afraid is endemic amongst those on the left wing of the political spectrum - the trap which says "I believe I am right and therefore what I say is right and everybody else is wrong". For the reasons mentioned in the first paragraph, clearly, you can see that the main point I was defending was the Law Society's authority/interest in responding to the consultation and not whether their response is right or wrong. It just so happens that I agree with their conclusion--and you have taken this as my only motivation for everything that I have said in my previous comments.
My advice to you is the next time you enter into a discussion with someone else, do not put them in boxes automatically. It is actually quite patronising and it closes your mind to other people's arguments. And maybe next time, if you heed my advice, you will be able to see the forest for the trees.
Bar Council
One of the above postings refers to the fact that the Bar Council does not appear to have responded to the consultation. This is no doubt because the Bar Council possesses much better judgment than the Law Society and concentrates its efforts on protecting the interests of barristers - a job which it seems to do with considerable success. The Bar Lesbian and Gay Group does seem to have submitted a response, having (according to its June 2012 newsletter) "asked our members to reply to the questions posed by [the consultation] and formulated a response that reflected the views expressed". If you are going to respond to consultations on issues such as this, that is the correct way to do it.
Quite!
Quite!
Stupid
Look - there are already civil partnerships which convey the same legal rights as marriage. Marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN and is part of our cultural heritage.
The demeaning of our cultural heritage and alegorical moral code is part of the issue in broken Brittain.
I am fed up with this as this is not an equality issue but one of symantics.