Will churches really be sued for not allowing civil partnerships?

24 February 2011 by

On 17 February the Home Secretary announced that the government was moving ahead with changes to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which would allow the registration of civil partnerships to take place in religious premises.

While welcomed by many, some have voiced concerns that permission will inevitably become coercion. They fear that religious organisations may face legal action if they refuse to facilitate civil partnership ceremonies, a claim the Government denies. But will they?

When the Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005, it marked the first time that gay relationships were given significant legal recognition in the United Kingdom. Hailed as a significant step forward for gay rights, the legislation established an institution under which civil partners enjoyed virtually the same social security and pension benefits, the same tenancy and visiting rights, and the same tax exemptions as married couples. It remains the case today that, in many ways, a civil partnership is identical to a marriage.

They are, however, not the same. As a concession to the strong feeling of some religious groups that civil partnerships would distort and undermine the concept and institution of marriage as a holy union between a man and woman, the Act ensured that the registration of civil partnerships was to remain secular in content and location. This is evident in section 2(5), which provides that “[n]o religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil partnership document”. In addition, under section 6(1)(b) of the Act, the place at which two people may register as civil partners “must not be in religious premises”, which is defined in section 6(2) as premises which “are used solely or mainly for religious purposes, or have been so used and have not subsequently been used solely or mainly for other purposes”.

In order for civil partnership registrations to occur on religious premises, section 6(1)(b) requires repeal. Interestingly, but slightly obfuscated by much of the commentary following the Home Secretary’s announcement, there already exists a legislative provision to achieve just that. Section 202 of the Equality Act 2010 provides for the repeal of section 6(1)(b) of the Civil Partnership Act, and consequent amendments relating to the making of new regulations in respect of premises at which registrations may occur. In this sense, this new development is old news; it has been on the statute books for some time, and the announcement of the Home Secretary merely marks the beginning of a consultative process that will (probably) culminate with that section being brought into force.

Following on from that, it is almost inevitable that the prohibition on religious elements at civil partnership registration ceremonies will be lifted. Section 6(3A) of the Civil Partnership Act requires that a civil partnership may only be registered in a register office or other approved premises, and at present paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005 makes it a condition for approval that registration proceedings “shall not be religious in nature”, meaning that they must not involve extracts from marriage services of religious texts, be led by a religious leader, involve religious ceremonies, or include hymns or other forms of worship. It is likely that this is also destined for repeal.

These changes recognise that many who enter into a civil partnership view it as a commitment with spiritual significance, as opposed to a purely secular agreement. And by granting to gay people the right to reflect that belief by having a religious ceremony conducted in a willing place of worship, a further measure of equality is achieved. The Home Secretary’s announcement has thus been welcomed by gay rights campaigners, and some religious communities: Quakers, Liberal Judaism and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches have already signaled their intention to facilitate same-sex partnerships.

Discrimination claims

On the other side of the debate, a joint statement released by Reform, the Christian Institute, Christian Concern, Affinity, and the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches stated that the changes would bring the Government “into conflict with thousands of Evangelical churches and the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church”. The Telegraph also suggested that:

…the new move could open up a legal minefield with same-sex couples possibly taking anti-discrimination action against religious groups if they were barred from getting married in the place of worship of their choice.

The spectre of discrimination claims, which has also been cited by Conservative MP Edward Leigh, has been rejected by the Government. In announcing the commencement of the consultative process, the Home Secretary acknowledged the concern, but emphasised that:

Religious organisations – institutions – will do exactly what they wish.

On reading the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, the Home Secretary looks to be right. Section 202(4) provides for the insertion of a new section 6A(3A) into the Civil Partnership Act, which will state:

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.

This should be the end of the matter, although the precise wording of the section might beg the question: although “this Act” i.e. the Civil Partnership Act, will not place an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships, what about other pieces of legislation? Might the Equality Act 2010, or the Human Rights Act 1998 impose the type of obligation which the amended Civil Partnership Act will specifically disavow?

Section 29 of the Equality Act makes it illegal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in relation to the provision of services. An interesting question may arise from the fact that, at this point, marriage and civil partnerships remain separate institutions. On that basis it is arguable that marriage ceremonies and civil partnership registrations are different services, so that if a church simply refused to offer the specific service of civil partnership registration at all, they could not be said to be discriminating in the provision of that service. Such a refusal would undoubtedly have a discriminatory appearance, but this would ultimately trace back to the separate regimes provided by statutory law.

Even if it did amount to a form of discrimination, paragraph 2 of Schedule 23 of the Equality Act provides a sexual orientation discrimination exemption for “organisations relating to religion or belief” in terms of membership, participation in their activities, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and the use or disposal of premises they own or control. This means that churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious organisations could refuse to facilitate civil partnerships, provided that it is “necessary to comply with the doctrine of the organisation”, or if it is imposed to avoid conflict with the “strongly held convictions” of a significant number of the religion’s followers. Thus the Equality Act is unlikely to facilitate legal action against religious organisations which refuse to conduct civil partnership registrations on their premises.

It is also clear that Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that “men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry”, could not mandate the registration of civil partnerships in religious premises. The simple reason for this is that, as noted above, a civil partnership is not a marriage. Article 12 is therefore relevant to a very different question: whether gay people should be allowed to get married. In that respect, as was explained in a previous post, the in the recent case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria, the European Court of Human Rights decided that at this point in time, Article 12 does not require States to allow same-sex marriage.

It is possible to imagine other arguments that could be advanced under the Human Rights Act. For example, it might be argued that in so far as a church has the capacity to register a civil partnership, it is a public authority for the purposes of section 6, and that in refusing to facilitate a civil partnership it is infringing the right to respect for the family and private life of the intending civil partners (under Article 8), or their right to manifest their religious beliefs by engaging in a religious ceremony.

Of course, such an argument would be weakened by the fact that gay couples would be free to go elsewhere – to a willing church – in order to have a religious ceremony performed. Perhaps more significantly, requiring an actual church, as opposed to some other body with a religious affiliation, to act contrary against its own doctrine would engage Article 9 rights to freedom of belief in the most acute way.

Arguments might also be advanced on the basis of Article 14, but the prospects of a successful discrimination claim succeeding under the Human Rights Act when specific discrimination exemptions are provided in the Equality Act 2010, look highly speculative.

Probably no need to worry

In the round, the concerns of religious institutions that the changes will, in themselves, require them to facilitate civil partnerships are probably unfounded. Although this is certainly not the only question posed by the changes; there are other dilemmas which may arise pursuant to the operation of ecclesiastical law. For example, the Church of England, which has made clear it will forbid its churches to be used to facilitate civil partnerships, may face difficulties in preventing rectors who have freehold title to parish property for using their premises for that purpose, and there may be issues in disciplining a clergyman who invites a civil registrar onto his premises to conduct a civil partnership ceremony.

All of these complex matters, and a good deal more, are likely to be covered in the consultation process. This will take time, and although recent years have seen rapid advances in gay rights, the Government does not appear in the mood to rush this particular development. The Home Secretary has said that the consultations are not working to any deadline, and would be allowed to take “whatever time it takes”. In the meantime, it is possible that some religious institutions are really more worried about the ever closer prospect of full marriage equality for homosexuals than about the risk of being sued.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. ruby says:

    It would be like sueing a synagogue for not allowing a hogroast.

    Nonsense. As always, englands politically correct ruling classes bend over backwards to appease others, but disregard british and christian values

  2. William says:

    Martin, if they followed this line, they would cease to be Catholics automatically.

  3. dw says:

    It’s a bit OT but I really think the US system gets this right.

    When I got married in California, my fiancee and I had first to apply for a marriage licence from the county. As part of this application, we had to swear that we were unmarried, weren’t related, etc. The application for the licence effectively completed the official, bureaucratic part of getting married.

    Once the licence was granted, there was no restriction on the ceremony itself, except that it had to take place in California (we got married in a hot air balloon). It could take any form, and could effectively be officiated by anyone who had been “ordained” over the internet.

    Had we chosen to have the ceremony in church, it would have been entirely up to the priest/minister/whatever as to whether we could get married there. In other words, a church would be treated no differently from any other location.

  4. carchia says:

    The name of “predictable displeasure” is excommunication.

  5. martin says:

    Although the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Southwark has raised strong, if confused objections to the GEO proposals, his brother Archbishop of Westminster has expressed more nuanced views concerning civil partnerships.
    An interesting possibility appears in the RC Church in that the ancient religious communities – Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans – have the legal status, under Canon Law, of being ‘exempt’ Orders. That is, they are not subject to the authority and control of the local Bishop(s) except in matters concerning the conduct of the Mass and celebration of other Sacraments. Given that neither same-sex marriage, nor civil partnerships are recognised as ‘sacramental’ by the RC Church it would be perfectly possible for an exempt religious order to decide that it would make its property, including its church/chapel available for the registration and celebration of such unions, and there would be little, canonically, that the local hierarchy could do about it, apart from expressing their predictable displeasure.

  6. Huw Sayer says:

    Someone should remind the CoE that it is the ‘established’ church of this country and so its buildings are open to all parishioners whatever your religious persuasion (that’s why your parish church cannot refuse to baptise your children or marry you if you are heterosexual – no matter that you may require both services at the same time). As such it presumably cannot ‘forbid’ civil partnerships in churches if parliament mandates them.

    The CoE could only go so far as to free the individual priest from any obligation to perform the service – but you are quite within your rights as a parishioner to request access for a visiting priest of your choice to perform any ceremony (hatch, match or dispatch) – so long as the service remains open to the public (there is no such thing as a private wedding in a Anglican church).

    That said, I think you will find the CoE has more leverage with some priests than others – seem to recall the Synod changed the incumbency rules a few years back so that new appointments did not get the same freehold rights as their predecessors (many are simply vicars not rectors – apparently this makes a difference) – you might like to check this point though.

    Full marriage rights for all is long overdue and would be good for society since the institution apparently tends to promote stability in family relationships. At the very least the law should allow those of a religious persuasion to enjoy a religious ceremony even if it is not within the confines of a religious establishment.

  7. Matthew
    Thanks for an extremely informative analysis.
    As you have referred to my Church Times news story of last week, can I just make one comment.
    In her interview with me, Lynne Featherstone made a clear distinction between the activity to implement Section 202, on the one hand, and the wider consultation on aligning civil partnerships with civil marriage on the other.
    Her comments, which you quote about allowing “whatever time it takes” were made in specific reference to the latter.
    In reference to the former, she has said that the GEO consultation on changes to the 2005 regulations will be opened in “the late Spring” so one can reasonably imagine that those changes will be in effect within a year or so from now.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: