Will the European Court force churches to perform gay marriages?

12 June 2012 by

The Government’s Consultation on Equal Civil Marriage ends on Thursday 14 June: you can fill in the brief online survey here if you haven’t already. In the meantime, the Church of England is on the front pages this morning with its own response, which amongst other things, warns that “it must be very doubtful whether limiting same-sex couples to non-religious forms and ceremonies could withstand a challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights”

The Church’s argument is set out on pages 10 to 13 of its response. It is interesting, and there might be something in it. However, it is clear from the rest of the document that the Church is, in its introduction, inflating the likelihood of a successful court challenge. This has of course made its way into the press coverage, where it is being suggested that a challenge would “probably” succeed. But even the Church’s own response, reading a little further, does not go this far.

Let’s consider the argument. The Church puts a number of propositions. First,

It remains the case that member states of the Council of Europe are not obliged to make legal provision for same-sex marriage.

Absolutely correct. Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that “Men and women of marriageable age” have the “right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.” However, in 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria that it would not force states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

This was hardly a surprise; the Council of Europe includes strongly Catholic states such as Italy which would not have countenanced Strasbourg telling them to legalise gay marriage (the court caused enough controversy be nearly banning Christian crosses in Italian schools) and therefore this issue has been left within the ambit of the court’s “margin of appreciation” doctrine. Given that it specifically refers to “men and women”, the court was unpersuaded that Article 12 could be read as including a union between two people of the same sex. It observed:

Although, as it noted in Christine Goodwin [a case against the UK relating to transsexual rights], the institution of marriage has undergone major social changes since the adoption of the Convention, the Court notes that there is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriage. At present no more than six out of forty-seven Convention States allow same-sex marriage

The Church’s second proposition is this:

If a member state chooses to make provision in its domestic law for same-sex marriage, then so far as the ECHR is concerned same-sex marriage is protected by the Convention in the same way that opposite-sex marriage is protected: the right to marry contained in article 12 is applicable to both categories so far as that state is concerned.

Here, reference is made to an interesting comment in Schalk which as I suggested at the time clearly left the door ajar for future claims under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which sets out in a single text the range of rights available to European Citizens and which became binding in December 2009. The Charter deliberately dropped the reference to men and women. The court concluded:

61. Regard being had to Article 9 of the Charter [“The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights”], therefore, the Court would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in Article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. Consequently, it cannot be said that Article 12 is inapplicable to the applicants’ complaint. However, as matters stand, the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law of the Contracting State.

It is important to remember that in its own commentary, which explicitly referred to by the Court at paragraph 25 of Schalk, the Charter of Fundamental Rights carefully qualified the right by stating that there is “no explicit requirement that domestic laws should facilitate such marriages”.

The Church’s third proposition is this:

Same-sex couples are in an analogous position to opposite-sex couples so far as the anti- discrimination provisions of article 14 of the ECHR are concerned.

This again comes from Schalk, at paragraph 99:

same-sex couples are just as capable as different-sex couples of entering into stable committed relationships. Consequently, they are in a relevantly similar situation to a different-sex couple as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship

Taking these developments together – and I agree that they are developments, particularly in light of the Charter – the Church concludes:

there would be a serious prospect of a successful challenge to that arrangement under article 14 taken in conjunction with article 12, on the basis that same-sex couples were being discriminated against in relation to matter that was within the ambit of article 12.

Is the Church right?

The Church’s reasoning is forceful and interesting. I expert it was written by a lawyer with relevant experience, perhaps James Dingemans QC (just a guess). It should be taken seriously.

One issue I have with the response is that the warning in the introduction: “it must be very doubtful whether limiting same-sex couples to non-religious forms and ceremonies could withstand a challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights ” This does not really match up with “serious prospect of a successful challenge” at paragraph 32 or indeed the “good prospect of success” at 38.


I would put the prospects of success at no more (but also no less) than “reasonable”. It may be that once a state decides to implement gay marriage, the court will be less cautious in ruling on how exactly the rules are implemented. But, a claimant would still face very significant hurdles. It is clear from Schalk is that the European Court of Human Rights is still a long way from seeking to dictate how states should or should not legislate for gay marriage.

Whilst the Church is correct to highlight that Schalk was about a state where there was no gay marriage at all, even with the innovation of Article 9 of the Charter and the involvement of Article 14 (anti-discrimination), the Court is still likely to give individual states a wide margin of appreciation as to how it legislates for gay marriage, particularly in the highly sensitive religious context. An analogy might be drawn with prisoner voting, an issue which is also highly controversial, where the court has recently re-emphasised that whilst indiscriminate bans are not allowed, states have a very wide range or possibilities as to how they let prisoners vote.

The small print

One final point. Reading the small print, the Church is not arguing that if a legal challenge was successful then all religious institutions would be forced to conduct gay marriages. That really would be fanciful. Rather, it would be open for them to do so. The Church fears that this would require “a considerable amount of further legislative provision” in order to “protect the position of the Church of England and other religious bodies”.

They may be right on this, but this is hardly a reason to ditch the plans, if all that the Church is really concerned about is the potential (and still unlikely) need for new legislation at some distant point in the future – and it would be some way in the future before a claimant manages to take their case to Strasbourg and win.

Indeed, this is actually similar to what happened in respect of civil partnerships. Originally, they were not allowed to happen on religious premises, but since December 2011 that ban has been lifted. At the time religious authorities expressed concerns that they would be forced to conduct civil ceremonies, but this blog doubted that prospect.

As I have suggested before, my expectation is that, as was the case with civil partnerships, once the equal marriage proposals are implemented and the sky does not fall in, the ban on marriages taking place on religious premises will be lifted in due course too. Given the melodrama which surrounded the introduction of civil partnerships, and the non-catastrophe which followed, I tend to agree with this excellent New Yorker editorial:

One day, not long from now, it will be hard to remember what worried people so much about gay and lesbian couples committing themselves to marriage.

So the Church may be right about a potential human rights challenge to the changes as proposed in the Equal Marriage Consultation. But it has inflated the chances of the challenge succeeding. More importantly, even if such a challenge was successful, it is inconceivable that a court would force any religious institution to perform a gay marriage; the most that it would do is rule that religious organisations should be given the choice. This is hardly earth shattering. The Church’s concerns may be real but they should not be a bar to the proposals becoming a reality.

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

Related posts:


  1. Andrew says:

    If the law sets out in terms that the refusal of a religious body to celebrate same-sex marriage is not to be regarded as a breach of their human rights – with a clear signal that if ECtHR says otherwise it will be ignored – then fine. Do it.

    One other wrinkle: any reference to “marriage” in a will made before the law is changed should mean “man-and-woman” marriage – whenever the testator dies. Parliament should not be taken to have changed people’s existing wills.

  2. Sonia says:

    I can understand that every one wants to be treated equally and have the same rights as others, but at what point does the beliefs of the church become relevant. If a church does not condone gay marriage, it should not have to perform gay marriages. If a person is practicing a religion that does not conform to their life choices then maybe they should find a religion that does. Why should a church or religion change its fundamental beliefs because others feel that it should?

  3. Panama says:

    Unlike the Consultation held in England and Wales, the Consultation in Scotland considered both civil and religious same sex marriage. Whilst the Scottish Government is in favor of same-sex marriage, it stated that no religious body would be forced to hold such ceremonies should legislation be enacted.

  4. Waldron-fan says:

    The CofE response is well worth reading, particularly for those of us who disagree with it, as the detail is fascinating (only 13 pages, with useful headings & summaries). They make various interesting legal points, but no show-stoppers.

    The legal/constitutional/political point that really struck me though was the anti-democratic throw-away in para 8 “Many, within the churches and beyond, dispute the right of any government to redefine an ages-old social institution in the way proposed.”. By “any government” they seem to include not just the current coalition government and its botched handling, but even the possibility of a government elected on a clear manifesto commitment with a clear majority in Parliament. Then of course I remembered that many human rights zealots mirror this attitude – paying lip-service to HRA’s respect for primary legislation, but using arguments that betray a hankering for written constitutions which embed those rights to be protected by judges against upstart parliaments.

    Interestingly in paras 10-12 the response briefly breaks out of these legal & theological thickets. It claims that the “underlying, objective” “distinctiveness and complementarity” of men and women is crucial. It strikingly even goes on to claim that the “specific and distinctive contributions of each gender” are the basis for “many of the arguments which support the deeper involvement of women in all social institutions” – really, in 2012 (or are they just thinking about CofE internal debates about women bishops)?

  5. r1xlx says:

    Quoting Christine Goodwin as an example is a shabby example of confusing transsexuals with homosexuals when in fact a transsexual is just a woman and as such is legally able to marry.
    Many clubs are entitled to restrict membership to certain groups and choose who to allow in to particiapate in their activities and there is no reason why the Church should no do the same.
    Anytime two men or two women want to marry they can do in a register office or other location.

  6. Marcus says:

    I wonder to what extent there is a conflict between the norm of ‘progressive epxansion of human rights’ and ‘democratic mandate’. In the event that the majority of the people of the UK are, hypothetically, opposed to homosexual marraige, would its imposition on a hostile population be legitimate? If we can have a pointess referendum on voting reform, why not on marriage reform?

  7. Here, does the Church of England sound like Jesus or the Pharisee?

    Very much the latter, in my opinion.

  8. Geoffrey says:

    Will heterosexual marriage become “Solemn Marriage” to distinguish it from “Gay Marriage”? This whole idea seems to be the result of homosexual triumphalism.

  9. jonathan says:

    I do feel that the government has not actually thought through sufficiently the mechanics of just how to preserve a religion’s right to determine and live out its own beliefs while legislating for change in an institution as ancient as marriage. It’s probably just as well that we are at the consultation stage only at the moment.

    At the risk of being a shameless self promoter, I have looked at the issue from a family lawyer’s angle and I forecast rather greater difficulty than has yet been touched on. If you want to broaden the scope of the debate, you could always have a glance at it here –


  10. M.Hill. says:

    I am afraid that if this government proposal pass, it will be step away from forcing churches to conduct these ‘weddings’ in their places of worship and in near future criminalizing everyone who will dare to oppose. Soon we will see Cathlic Church being made illegal in this county like in the times or reformation or to put it more in the modern context, like in China, where people gather for prayer in private homes in the fear of being arrested. I don’t think this is the example of country respecting different views and faiths. Gay and Lesbian groups won’t stop here, they’ll be pushing other ideas forword. First, when they wanted civil partnerships, they were saying that this is the end of the matter and there will be no other demands but later they started and succeded in campaign to allow them adoptions of children. Why heterosexual couples are discriminated in adoption process when they have politcally incorrect opinion on sexual behaviours of certian groupls?
    Government should do more to support familes and marriage as the union of man and woman. What kind of society we have in our country now? People living unmarried, changing partners, raising children from this numerous relationships, raising their children confused. It is apalling that so many children in UK doesn’t know who their father is, or having multiple setp-parents. I’m surprised that all government and MPs (former and present) know about this problem and yet do nothing to promote healthy structure of society based on the good old traditional values.

  11. The first gay wedding took place in a church: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/my-big-fat-gay-wedding/

    1. M.Hill. says:

      It is blasphemous to show image of The Last Supper in such context and as a gay ‘wedding’ or any other wedding.

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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.

%d bloggers like this: