Love of God or Love of Self: Homosexuality, Christian Ethics and Social Mores

They had Graeme Le Saux, the former England international footballer, on BBC Radio Four's Today programme on Tuesday of this week. He was talking about how, as a player, he was the object of innumerable insults and taunting for supposedly being gay, which he claims not to be. In 2002, I was present at a Spurs vs. Chelsea match where the Spurs home supporters did indeed mercilessly mock Le Saux for his gayness. I should add that this didn't prevent him from, as they say, playing a blinder and scoring the final goal in Spurs' 4-0 defeat – much to my chagrin at the time!

On the Today programme, Le Saux – who was promoting his autobiography – made the point that it is somewhat ridiculous and out-of-date that there should be such hostility and prejudice towards gays in the footballing world given that there is now so much openness and acceptance of homosexuality in all walks of life. On one level, this is of course true: dressing-room insinuations about a player colleague's sexuality smack of immature schoolboy humour, and there is clearly safety in a crowd in singing homophobic anthems from the stands.

On the other hand, football is one of the few heterosexual male-only preserves in our culture, and many of the men who play or watch the game would like to keep it that way. If they join in the gay-baiting, they are obviously in the wrong; but are they entirely wrong in feeling the way they do? It is the most natural thing in the world, or at least in human cultures, for men to seek heterosexual male-only activities as the occasion for so-called male bonding. In a culture in which women have increasingly – and justly so – asserted their rights to participate and compete in areas of society that were previously a male preserve, many ordinary straight men – not people one would think of as being reactionary or homophobic – feel inhibited from seeking and enjoying safe outlets for a bit of 'harmless' macho aggression, such as football.

But we're talking about attitudes to gay men here, not women. Well, yes and no. The point is football serves the purposes of straight male bonding: providing an outlet for men not just to display aggression but also affection for each other that is not tinged by other sorts of feelings. In English society, men are particularly inept at expressing their feelings of friendship for one another; so this typically needs to be enabled by a context that both draws men together in a common cause and allows them to behave in a way that demonstrates to their companions that they are masculine and straight – for example (but not necessarily) by making lewd remarks about women and derogatory remarks about gays. Clearly, gays are not welcome in such a 'club' of like-minded, red-blooded males. And if a member of the opposite club (i.e. the other team) can be insulted for their inadequacies as a man and put off their game by being slagged off as gay, then all the better. So while instances of homophobic chanting such as that directed towards Graeme Le Saux in the game I watched are clearly unacceptable and distressing, they could also be described simply as a group of men venting a bit of non-physically violent aggression and finding any excuse to jeer at their tribal rivals.

Hence, football provides for many men the opportunity to celebrate masculine prowess and enjoy male friendships in a way that poses no threat to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The growing involvement of women in the game probably adds to the feelings of anxiety that this male preserve is being encroached upon; it's just that gays, in traditional male society, are a more acceptable object of derision than women. Football is one example of more general anxieties felt by men to a varying degree, whereby the growing equality of women with men is perceived as leading to an increasing masculinisation of women (becoming physically stronger, socially more powerful and sexually more assertive) and a corresponding feminisation of men: encouraged to get more in touch with their feelings – traditionally thought of as a weakness; increasingly displaced by women from positions of power, e.g. in business, the family and the Church; and finding themselves presented as the (often inadequate, derided) object of feminine desire – or of gay desire.

This general cultural context provides a backdrop for understanding last week's expulsion of the middle-aged comedian Jim Davidson from the ITV reality-TV show Hells Kitchen. This was brought about by him asking the gay contestant Brian why 'shirt lifters' such as him always put on a particular camp facial expression. Brian took umbrage at the supposed homophobia of Davidson's words; and the comedian appeared to only add insult to injury when he later attempted to apologise by saying he understood where Brian was coming from and that he knew that GAY stood for 'as good as you'. Judging from the reactions of Brian and other contestants, this was clearly perceived as constituting another slur on gay people: either because it imputed to them an aggressive over-assertion of their rights (as Adele, the chief defender of Brian said, the correct phrase should be 'equal to you'); or because it was interpreted as being a sarcasm. Davidson was promptly asked to leave the show by its producers, as they couldn't risk the situation getting out of hand and generating a barrage of viewer complaints and regulatory criticism such as those which resulted from the so-called Shilpa Shetty racism row in Celebrity Big Brother earlier in the year (see my post of 23 February, The Amoral Market and the Randomness of Reward).

But were Davidson's remarks homophobic? I didn't think so. They were in keeping with Jim Davidson's comic style, characterised by humour appealing to the traditional male heterosexual audience: lots of jokes about gays and women. But Davidson is clearly used to getting as good as he gives; and in his circle, which indeed includes lots of gay performers, he would expect a remark such as his to be reciprocated with an equally cutting, sarcastic response – for instance, turning around the phrase 'shirt lifter' into a derogatory remark about middle-aged 'skirt lifters'. Instead, Brian just went into a wounded sulk, and some of the younger participants who thought Davidson had been completely out of order clearly did not understand or appreciate the humorous intent behind his comments. The point was that Davidson had overstepped the mark of acceptability. The goalposts have moved since Davidson was in his prime in the 1980s. Now, anything that implies hostility towards the inclusion and advancement of gays and women in roles traditionally reserved for straight men (such as the very masculine professional chef in Hells Kitchen, Marco Pierre White; or indeed, the stand-up comedian) is strictly taboo. Never mind that Brian, according to Davidson, had made a catalogue of unrepeatable remarks to him (not broadcast). Brian is a performer and comedian – his comedy and sexual insinuations are acceptable; Davidson's macho heterosexual humour is not.

The question about precisely where the boundaries of acceptability lie in relation to homosexuality is a really crucial one, for society and the Church. Leaving aside the related issue of how acceptable are ostensibly harmless, playful manifestations of macho behaviour and attitudes in general, there is a serious question about the extent to which 'public opinion' is now prepared to tolerate expressions of criticism, opposition or unease in relation to active homosexuality. For instance, is the taunting of supposed gays by football crowds really as bad as racist chants and obscenities, as Graeme Le Saux claimed? Liberal opinion would doubtless say that it is; but there is a difference between trying to wind up a player from the opposing team by mocking them as gay – when most people probably realise this isn't in fact true – and deriding someone for their ethnicity, which is an inescapable fact. The former is more an expression of aggressive support for the team, allied to ridicule of something that challenges heterosexual maleness; the latter is primarily an expression of real hatred.

An example of the shifting boundaries of acceptability in this area that is more far-reaching in its implications is the issue of adoption by gay couples, which has been the subject of several posts in this blog (see, for example, my post of 11 September). One of the conclusions that can be drawn from the whole stand off between the Church and the political establishment on this question towards the start of this year is that it demonstrates that it has become increasingly unacceptable in secular society to treat gay and lesbian people in any way differently from straight persons based on a moral condemnation of the gay lifestyle. If the decisions of our legislators do in fact reflect the general consensus of opinion, the eventual passing of the Equality Act without any special exemption for Christian adoption agencies could be taken as showing that the Church's moral beliefs about homosexuality are no longer shared by – indeed, are unacceptable to – the majority.

Another way to put this is that the civic and judicial principles of equality and human rights have encroached on another piece of the Church's traditional terrain: what the Church, along with the majority of society, has previously condemned as morally wrong is now declared as a human right; and gay sexual relationships (and by extension, the suitability of gay couples to become adoptive parents) are considered in effect to be morally equal to straight relationships, whether formalised in marriage or not.

It's worth observing at this point that this 'moral equality' corresponds more to an idea that gay relationships are equivalent to / 'equally as valid' as (no less but equally no more valid as) straight ones than to an idea that they represent an intrinsic, positive moral good – in the way that heterosexual marriage and traditional family life are generally accepted as being good in themselves. And this is because human rights are not the same as the moral right: they are morally neutral and content-less, essentially because what they constitute is freedoms; and freedom in itself is not a moral value but is rather the condition for making truly moral choices. For example, most people would accept the proposition that citizens of a free country should have the right to commit adultery, and many regard it as a woman's right to abort unwanted foetuses; but probably most people would regard both actions as not morally right – or at least, certainly not positively good. Similarly, while the majority may accept that it should be gay couples' right to adopt children, I doubt whether the majority believes this is better for most children than adoption by a father and mother – although it may in fact be better for some. Equally, it probably still is the majority view that homosexuality is not really 'normal' or 'natural' in quite the same way as heterosexuality – however these terms are defined – and, for this reason, gay relationships are not quite as 'wholesome', beautiful or conducive to true happiness as straight ones. But, partly out of sympathy for persons 'afflicted' in this way – and who therefore, it is thought, won't be able to have children – and partly out of guilt for society's past treatment of homosexuals, it is no longer acceptable to assimilate this sort of evaluation of homosexuality with any kind of moral judgement that it is 'wrong' or 'not as good as' heterosexuality. Or indeed the opposite of this: that homosexuality is as good as or better than heterosexuality. Any kind of valuation along the scale from good to evil is viewed as unacceptable; and an amoral equality suspends and takes the place of moral judgement. As Adele in Hells Kitchen put it, gay people are equal to straight, not as good as you, in Jim Davidson's words. From a traditional judgement that homosexuality is wrong, we've moved to a judgement that to make that moral judgement itself is wrong. But let's not dwell on the irony that it's the denizens of hell's kitchen who are the advocates of that view!

But do people really think that the traditional moral condemnation of homosexuality is wrong; or is it rather the case that it's just viewed as inappropriate to express it verbally and in one's actions? Jim Davidson's 'sin', as it were, was his perceived verbal violence towards Brian, viewed as a form of bullying and intimidation: he wasn't wrong to hold whatever views he does hold about gays; but he should have just kept them to himself. How can this be unpacked? Liberty and moral equality means that anyone is entitled to believe whatever they like and define their own morality. So, to be consistent, Davidson couldn't be condemned for his beliefs but only for the actions that flowed from them. These were seen as expressing an aggression directed against Brian's right to compete in Hells Kitchen and a slur on his personal morality.

These two ideas converge in the concepts of intrinsic human dignity and value. Because the secular-liberal ideas of rights and liberty are morally neutral, the concept that is used to transform them into positive moral values in their own right is that of the fundamental dignity and goodness of the human person. By making the universal dignity of the human person the place and source of moral goodness and value, this makes it impossible to make categorical moral judgements about a person based on their actual behaviour and desires. Whatever these may be, it is thought, they cannot impair the fundamental goodness of that person as a human being. That's why the liberal can morally condemn a person, rather than an action, only by labelling them as inhuman; and why psychopathic despots such as the Nazis can justify attempting to kill off whole races only by making them out to be sub-human.

The point of this is that any moral judgement, real or imagined, of someone that is associated with a characteristic viewed as defining them as a human being (e.g. homosexuality) is taken by the liberal – insofar as it is a moral judgement – as an attack on the dignity of that person, not a criticism of the morality of their behaviour or desires. Making jokes about 'gay shirt lifters' is an attack on them for being gay not a wry observation about their shirt lifting, which may contain a germ of truth. And the more that gay persons – and justly so – take a stand on their common humanity and equality, the more it becomes impossible to morally criticise any of their actions without appearing to condemn them as persons.

This presents a problem for the Church, which has always made a distinction between condemning the sin but not the sinner: it's not wrong for a person to be gay, but it is wrong for them to indulge in and act upon their desires. While there is a valid logical and ethical distinction between judging a person and judging their actions, in practice, it is often hard to tell them apart. The Church greatly contributes to society's perception that it condemns gay people for being gay rather than for their behaviour through the logic and tone of the language it uses to set out its position and teaching. Let's take the case of the opposition of some in the US Episcopalian Church to that Church's ordination / consecration of openly gay priests / bishops and the blessing of gay unions, chronicled in an interesting article this week in the Wall Street Journal. The terms in which the condemnation of such priests and unions is often expressed both logically and implicitly involve judging the person as well as their actions. The bone of contention is not just that some of the priests involved are in gay sexual relationships but that they are 'openly gay'. But, of course, you can be openly gay without being sexually active. The controversial gay bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, claimed that his gay partnership was 'celibate' / non-sexually active. It is as if the Church really is perpetrating what liberal defenders of gay rights and the likes of Brian perceive to be the case: that their moral criticism of behaviour implies impugning the dignity and goodness of the person as gay.

This impression is certainly supported by the lurid tone and imagery that's often used. The above Wall Street Journal article refers to the belief in the Ugandan Church, where dissident Episcopalian clergy have been consecrated as bishops, that homosexual acts are Satanic. By inference, one cannot imagine they would have too understanding a reaction to anyone, ordained or not, who came out as gay, even if they were committed to leading a celibate life. Do the conservative Episcopalians really wish to align themselves with such opinions? But they are not that far removed from the language and attitudes of conservative Christians of all denominations, and not just in the USA, some of whom draw support from the Old Testament teaching (as quoted by the Wall Street Journal article), “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination”.

Such views about homosexuality, active or not, are simply not shared by most people in Western societies and, arguably, by most Christians in those societies, too. Would any reasonable person not in fact think that using this sort of language implies a repudiation of homosexuality per se as well as an objection to homosexual behaviour, especially as many churches clearly don't bother too much to make this ethical distinction in the first place? If you regard gay sex as Satanic, then an openly gay person must logically be seen as being under the influence of Satan; which can then lead to the attempts made by some churches to 'exorcise' or 'heal' gay persons of their homosexuality. And it is also an obvious observation that even rational ethical teaching critical towards homosexuality can provide a 'safe' outlet for expressing a characteristically heterosexual repugnance towards the idea of gay sex acts, which strictly speaking has nothing to do with ethics. The fact, for instance, that you personally might find the idea of gay anal sex abhorrent doesn't of itself validate your belief that it is morally wrong; but the belief that it is morally wrong can provide an apparently reasonable justification for expressing homophobic feelings about it.

Even the more rational and tradition-heavy language used by the Catholic Church in its teaching about homosexuality presents huge difficulties in terms of bolstering the liberal view that the Church is simply stuck in the Dark Ages in its thinking in this area. For example, the use of the term 'unnatural' to describe gay sex is extremely difficult to explain or justify to non-believers. In two major respects, this classification is viewed by serious secular opinion as being completely inappropriate to describe homosexuality. Firstly, according to the empirical-scientific understanding of nature, homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon: a universal characteristic of human societies and psycho-sexuality throughout the ages, for which many possible explanations have been brought forward by both the natural and human sciences. Secondly, from a philosophical point of view, the term 'natural' is regarded as highly problematic and relative. What any given society regards as natural is viewed as being determined to a very large extent – but not necessarily exclusively – by contingent cultural factors: it used to be thought unnatural for women to want to pursue careers, but now it's not; similarly, it used to be thought in Western societies that homosexuality was unnatural, but now it's largely not.

But when the Church uses the concepts of natural / unnatural, it's using them in a different sense from these secular understandings of the terms. The Church is of course referring to the concept of the divine Order of creation, lost through sin, and restored in Christ. Homosexuality, in this context, is considered unnatural because it goes against the purpose for which sexuality was made: to be the means through which human beings are called to share in God's creation of new life, making the union of husband and wife an objective, real union with and in Christ. And this is not, as is often thought, merely about procreation. God's work of bringing new life into being that married persons are called to share relates to the entirety of the cycle of creation and redemption in Christ: not just bringing a new human being into this world and into the life of the sin-bound flesh; but helping to bring them into the new and everlasting life of the Spirit, into which this life is but a slow and painful process of being born.

Sexuality is therefore intrinsically linked to our Christian vocation: to a calling to be led by God into a life of holiness and of the Spirit that ultimately transcends the needs, desires and values of a merely material world. The Order of nature from which homosexual behaviour is said to fall short – to be 'disordered' – therefore refers not primarily to the empirical nature of the scientists or the culturally specific world of the socio-anthropologists, but to a creation restored to union with God in Christ, of which this present, secular world is but a patchy blueprint.

Without a clear presentation of this metaphysical context for Christian beliefs about the role and place of sexuality, the teaching on homosexuality cannot fail to appear to be merely a form of outdated prejudice flying in the face of objectively observable fact. Simply discussing the issues using terms such as unnatural and disordered – because they are regarded as just not epistemologically accurate – then appears intellectually uncritical and homophobic. The Church must find contemporary language to put across its precious spiritual inheritance: not by changing the traditional teaching but translating and presenting it in clearer, more modern terms.

For starters, the Church has to overcome the impression that its teaching is that heterosexuality in general (however it is expressed) is of itself natural / good, and homosexuality (whether actively expressed or not) is always unnatural / evil. According to my understanding, at least, of Church doctrine on the order of nature as creation, the opposition is really between sex within marriage [good, holy] and (gay or straight) extra-marital sex [sinful, unholy], not between heterosexual and homosexual sex. Extra-marital heterosexual sex is to be considered unnatural and disordered, in a similar manner to homosexual sex, because it is a case of the couple using sex for their own gratification and purposes (which could even include having children) in a manner that is closed off from the life in Christ of which their loving sexual union is intended by God to be seal and symbol: a bringing together of the dual creative and redemptive work of Christ – creation of a new human being in the flesh and a commitment on the part of the couple to share in Christ's loving work of redemption and spiritual rebirth in that child.

According to this view, becoming involved in a sexual relationship (gay or straight) outside of the divine purpose for which sex was created necessarily leads to a person being drawn away from their vocation to a life of holiness and dedication to the loving service of God. For unmarried persons – some straight persons and, by definition, all gay persons – this vocation can therefore be lived out fully only in a celibate life. But, by the same logic, most people haven't attained true holiness yet and, therefore, many cannot sustain celibacy; and, indeed, it is unsustainable without dedication to a life of holiness and spiritual conversion. Therefore, we should be very wary about appearing to condemn sexually active gay individuals – whether avowedly Christian or not – unless we are prepared to condemn ourselves for our own misdemeanours, including the all-too frequent deviations from sexual holiness (chastity) on the part of married or unmarried straight persons: lusting after persons other than one's spouse; indulging in conjugal sex that is not open to the creative-redemptive purpose God intends for it; infidelities and one-night stands; etc. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Therefore, the Church has to find a language to put across the context of the call to holiness and to a new life in Christ and in the Spirit that is the foundation of its teaching about homosexuality. It's not wrong to be gay; but acting upon, and building one's life around, the desires that being gay induces can lead one away from knowing and loving God – from the meaning of life itself and the core of one's very being. Perhaps, in pastoral work and teaching, as well as referring to gay sex in the formal, doctrinal sense as unnatural and disordered, we could use terms such as 'alienated / alienating' (from one's true vocation); 'non-holy' (orientated towards material and temporal priorities, rather than eternal, spiritual ones); and 'non-vocational' (a gay life that ignores the traditional teaching about our Christian calling, rather than one which tries – albeit imperfectly – to conform itself to that teaching).

Moral objections to active homosexuality, if expressed in these or similar terms, and with reference to the full context of Christian belief, could begin to be understood as what they properly are: not an attack on but rather a defence of the person – a call for each of us to relinquish our self-love and, in so doing, embrace the love of God.

New Principles For Marriages and Partnerships

In my blog of 17 December (‘Modern Sexual Morality’), I stated that in my view, it would be sensible if our society were to formulate some new ethical and legal principles governing civil marriages and partnerships, involving – among other things – a clearer separation between the thinking on these and Christian marriage (as well as religious marriage in general). I argued that the way we view civil marriages and extra-marital, committed partnerships continues to embody some of the moral standards and judgements associated with our Christian tradition, even though some of the types of relationship themselves could be deemed to be morally at fault on a more dogmatic interpretation of Christian teaching.

In general, the combination and interplay between Christian and liberal principles (what I term ‘Christo-liberalism’) create a great deal of ambiguity about sexual ethics. This contributes to undermining marriage and stable relationships, in that the permissiveness that society tolerates and even encourages in some areas comes into conflict with Christian-derived standards that are expected in other areas. This exacerbates the tendency for individuals in relationships to have different expectations about the degree and type of commitment that are involved; and, indeed, it makes the whole basis for commitment as such more difficult and unpredictable.

In my blog of 16 December (‘The Paradoxes Of Gay Marriage’), I argued in favour of a tripartite arrangement for marriages and formally recognised partnerships: religious marriage (heterosexual, according to the provisions of the faiths concerned); civil marriage (open to both straight and gay couples); and some sort of looser civil partnership arrangement recognising and affirming committed extra-marital partnerships (straight and gay). In the present blog, I will attempt to map out the shape that these two kinds of civil marriage / partnership could take once the inherited Christian moral demands and expectations are stripped away from them. This is not to undermine Christian marriage; quite the contrary. Both Christian and civil marriage could be strengthened if a more rigorous and consistent set of distinct standards and values relating to each could be clearly articulated and agreed, while family law were modified in accordance with those new principles.

1 Civil marriages (gay and straight)

Civil marriages already exist, of course: those carried out, in the UK, in a register office. They are not yet available for gay couples; although I would propose extending them (but not church and other religious marriage) to gays and lesbians.

Some key points in this proposed new ethics of civil marriage, which would then need to be reflected in legislation, are as follows:

1.0 Guiding principles

1.0.1 The relationship between the spouses is accepted as being potentially impermanent and non-exclusive

Under the prevailing mores of our society, civil marriages are in fact, if not in right, predicated on an assumption that they might not last and can be dissolved. The very existence of legal divorce means that a civil marriage, as a legal contract, is reversible. Christian Churches vary in the extent to which they accept divorce. So long as they are held to be valid, Catholic marriages are believed to be permanent: even if a couple obtains a civil divorce, the Church does not recognise it, and the individuals are not able to re-marry in a Catholic church. The Church of England also in principle does not permit re-marriage in church for the same reason (the definitive character of the original wedding vows); although it does recognise divorce and give church blessings to divorced individuals that are obliged to re-marry in a civil ceremony.

This was of course the reason why Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles were forced to get married in a register office. By an interesting quirk, there would have been no impediment to the royal couple getting married in church if the Prince had been Catholic (. . .). This is because Mr Parker-Bowles (a Catholic) had obtained an annulment for his marriage to Camilla, presumably on the basis that Camilla had not really meant her vows (including promises of life-long love and fidelity) when she made them. Annulments mean that the original marriage effectively never existed as a true sacramental union; so that Camilla was not divorced but single in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and so eligible for a marriage to a widower (Charles).

It is, on one level, entirely reasonable that the Church or any religion should demand of those of its followers who get married that they should promise to love each other and remain faithful to each other permanently and exclusively, and that this should be part of the core concept of marriage (and that in the absence of such a commitment – as in the case of Camilla Parker-Bowles – the marriage is invalid). But is it reasonable that the state should expect such a commitment from couples contracting a civil marriage? It is not part of the remit of the state to assert any kind of duty for one citizen to love another to the exclusion of any other sexual relationship, and to maintain that love indefinitely. In a way, it is almost a case of the state over-stepping its rightful areas of jurisdiction and competence that the civil marriage or partnership ceremony should involve declarations of life-long love and fidelity; apart from the fact that these promises could appear unrealistic from a psychological or spiritual point of view without some sort of appeal in faith to a higher authority than the state – although Christian marriages, according to the statistics, are just as prone to break up as civil unions. Hence, the promise of life-long love and fidelity is an example of what I mean by Christo-liberalism: the civil authorities and law effectively taking on one aspect of the Church's role and value system, and expecting a Christian-type commitment from a secular marriage.

Under my proposed new framework, marital infidelity (adultery) would no longer be a sufficient justification in itself for obtaining a divorce. This is because, built in to the concept and legislation for civil marriages, and perhaps even into the wording in the wedding ceremony, would be a realistic expectation that infidelities on both sides might well occur. In order for specific acts of adultery to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to authorise a divorce, they would have to be viewed in the context of the whole relationship; i.e. whether the relationship as a working partnership had broken down, and whether more harm (emotional, practical, financial, etc.) to all affected, including children and other dependants, would be done if the couple stayed together or separated. There would also be a more formal process for trying to achieve reconciliation between the spouses, which I will go into further below.

But if a civil marriage cannot reasonably demand life-long love and fidelity, what the state does have the right to expect from marrying individuals is a contractually binding, reciprocal duty of care on the part of the spouses for each other and for any dependants, particularly children and extended family members, e.g. elderly relatives. This leads to my second new principle for civil marriages:

1.0.2 Permanent, contractually binding duty on the part of the married individual to look after the needs of their spouses and other dependants, including if the relationship breaks down and the marriage is dissolved in a divorce

The idea behind this is that even if there is a realistic acceptance that feelings may change and the marital relationship may come to an end in emotional terms, the commitment to marry someone should involve accepting that one is taking on a permanent responsibility for their care. In a religious context (and in the current Christo-liberal version of civil marriages), this responsibility is viewed as a natural extension of the commitment to love one’s spouse for the rest of one’s life. In a de-Christianised civil marriage, the continuing nature of this duty of care becomes a matter of social justice. On marrying, spouses make promises to one another that involve decisions affecting the whole subsequent course of their lives (careers, relationship possibilities, etc.). In addition, the state provides incentives for people to get married and have children through the tax and benefits system. Divorce represents a considerable economic cost through the greater dependency of single parents on social services and benefits; through the poverty that it can bring about; and through the personal and social problems experienced by children that are affected by the break-up of their parents and continuing instability in their family lives.

Ensuring that, as much as possible, divorcing individuals are held to the commitment of ongoing care they made when they married is a means to compensate their spouses for the sacrifices they have made for the sake of the marriage and their partner; and it is a way to lessen the other social and economic costs. The increased legal obligation to provide financial support and exercise an ongoing duty of care towards spouses and dependants would be a function of an enhanced set of rights and responsibilities in marriage.

1.0.3 Re-definition of the meaning of the married state itself, and the rights and responsibilities that accompany it

1.0.3.1 On marrying, individuals would be deemed to have established a permanent relationship between themselves, their spouse and their spouse’s family: they become a member of the spouse’s family. After any divorce, they continue to be a member of their former spouse’s family: they can no more sever that tie than they could cease to be the parent of any of their children, or the aunt and uncle of nephews and nieces with whom their children are genetically related.

This is a formalisation of a principle that also applies to Christian marriage. But again, in the civil context, the purpose is not to imply some sort of ontological union between the husband and wife (who in Christian terms become ‘one flesh’, and hence one family) but to express the truth that families continue even when parents split up, and to encourage the relationships both in the nuclear and the extended family (e.g. between parents-in-law and children-in-law; or between uncles and aunts, and nephews and nieces) to be healed and to prosper, emotionally and materially. When couples marry, they effectively take on the roles and responsibilities previously exercised by their spouse’s parents towards their partners and towards other dependants in the family, including eventually the couple’s parents themselves as they need care in old age. This is the meaning of a father ‘giving away’ the daughter to his son-in-law in marriage: the husband takes on the role of care previously fulfilled by the father.

Formalising the principle that marriage makes the spouses permanent members of each other’s family – whether or not they have children who are then genetically related to the extended family – is a way to underscore the importance of the duties and promises towards the whole family that spouses make when getting married: they can no longer consider that they have a lesser duty towards relatives with whom they are not genetically related than towards those with whom they are.

It may seem unnecessary to encode family relatedness in law in this way. However, I would argue that this is not entirely arbitrary but corresponds to the deeper psychological and socio-anthropological significance of marriage: that an individual does not just marry another individual but marries into an entire family, towards which they then have social, moral and legal responsibilities. Enshrining these things in law would be a way of realigning modern Western social practice in the marriage area with these universal psychological and socio-anthropological meanings, which are more explicitly expressed in less secularised cultures and religions that still place a greater emphasis on the extended family, e.g. Hinduism and orthodox Judaism. Along with greater responsibilities, this also gives married persons greater rights as integral members of their spouse’s family.

It might well result from this proposed change to current social and legal practice that the family ties that a re-marrying person felt towards their second acquired family might be weakened if they continued to view their first acquired family as family. But then the provisions of the law (discussed further below) setting out both the continuing responsibilities towards the ‘divorced family’ and those towards the family of the second spouse are intended to reinforce realistic, responsible and caring attitudes and behaviour towards both families. In any case, the purpose of formally instituting the idea that marriage involves marrying into a whole family – for good – is not to weaken second marriages but to help ensure, wherever possible, that first marriages and their socially beneficial effects endure.

1.0.3.2 Spouses have a particular responsibility of care towards their children and stepchildren, along with a clear set of rights. Establishing the principle that, even after a divorce, an individual continues to be a member of their spouse’s family makes it even more difficult for divorced parents to ignore the needs of their children or any children of their spouse from a previous relationship or marriage with whom they have also established any sort of parental relationship. In contrast to the view set out above that spouses cannot be under the obligation to love each other permanently and exclusively, they should be considered to have at least a strong moral obligation to love their children; and a formal, legal obligation to provide for their children’s material needs, even if they are not able to provide for all their emotional needs.

The new law and practice of civil marriage would therefore include strict measures to ensure that absentee parents continued to look after their children’s and stepchildren’s financial and material needs. And at the same time, there would need to be a better way to ensure equal treatment in the assessment of which parent was best-placed to have the greater share of custody, and to enable regular and sufficient access to the children for the parent not awarded custody. In particular, there should be no bias in the determination of these things towards the party in the divorce viewed as being more ‘wronged’ in the marriage break up; and no assumption that mothers are ‘naturally’ more suited to being the main carers than fathers.

These two ideas (the mother as the wronged party and the more able carer) currently often go hand-in-hand and are part of the Christian inheritance that has been taken forward in modern secular (Christo-liberal) marriage. This leads to custody decisions often being made on the basis of reward and punishment in relation to a moral judgement that is taken about unfaithful husbands having violated the ‘sanctity’ of marriage and of motherhood; ideas which clearly derive from the Christian history of our country. These judgements should really be regarded as irrelevant within a fully secular marriage institution. In particular, assessments about custody and access should consider the children’s needs and wishes (emotional, social and economic) first and foremost, and then the rights of both parents to continue to play an active role in their children’s upbringing so long as this will not be detrimental to the children in any way.

1.0.3.3 The above two provisions apply equally to straight and gay couples. As civil marriage would now involve a clear social purpose (cementing strong extended families and fostering responsible personal relationships), and a strict set of rights and responsibilities, there is no reason in a secular context why these elements should not be extended to gay couples as well as straight partners. This is what would give gay marriage a real social and cultural meaning beyond a ‘mere’ celebration of the love and partnership of two individuals. So, under the new regime I am proposing, gay spouses would be considered in law to have become permanent members of each other’s families by marrying each other. For instance, if one’s gay son gets married, his husband becomes one’s son-in-law; and the son-in-law becomes an uncle to any of his husband’s nephews and nieces; etc. And, just as in straight marriage, these family relationships and the associated responsibilities towards extended family members would be considered to continue to be in effect even after any divorce.

The same goes for the duty of care and maintenance towards spouses and children: this should also be considered to remain in effect just as much for gay divorcees as for straight ones. With respect to children, gay married persons should have full equality in terms of assessments of their suitability to become parents: through adoption or equal access to assisted reproduction, e.g. through artificial insemination (for lesbians) or surrogacy (for gay men). If either of the spouses were already a parent before getting married, there should also be no discrimination in determining whether or not the newly married gay couple should have custody over them (if this were disputed with the other parent), or which of the spouses should have custody over any children in the event of a divorce: again, the needs and wishes of the children should be paramount.

Whether or not one regards the advent of the gay family, and the use of artificial means of conception to enable gay persons to become parents, as desirable or morally acceptable is largely irrelevant within the context of a fully secularised marriage institution. Again, these are considerations and judgements that derive from the Christian tradition. The main concerns from the civil perspective are fostering strong family ties and responsibilities; and ensuring the maximum degree of continuing, stable care for family members and children that either already exist or who will be born to gay parents – whether or not society decides to extend the framework of marriage to such gay relationships and families. If that framework is created, this offers the chance of giving those children greater support and rights as they progress through childhood. But this involves society shedding its remaining prejudices about gay people and gay sex: its association as something inherently dirty and immoral that does not have a place alongside and within family life. And if society really decides that gay people are deserving and capable of taking on the elevated set of obligations and privileges that should be associated with civil marriage, then it follows that they should be viewed as capable of taking on responsible parenthood just as much as their straight counterparts.

1.0.3.4 A new language to describe family relationships is required to accommodate these new concepts of the permanence beyond divorce of family relationships that are sealed in a marriage, and the extension of these relationships to gay marriage. For instance, if lesbian and gay married couples either have children through some form of assisted conception or surrogate pregnancy, or adopt children, should both partners be called the mothers or fathers of their children respectively? In other words, should it be possible for a child’s two legal parents (either on the birth or adoption certificate) to be of the same gender? Currently, in English law, it is in fact possible for a child to have two legal fathers or mothers in the case of adoption by a same-sex couple. Interestingly, though, the language that is used about such families – either the official, legal terminology, or the informal language used by parents or children of gay adoptions to refer to their family relationships – tends to avoid phrases such as ‘two fathers’ or ‘both my mothers’; the words ‘parents’, in the formal context, or ‘dad(s)’ and ‘mummy/-ies’ etc. in the informal context, are often preferred.)

This issue of gay parents is a very wide-ranging question covering a multitude of individual circumstances. But in theory, in a civil context, there is no absolutely compelling reason why a child should not have two official mothers or fathers. The sources of objection to this idea are threefold: the Christian tradition (and other religious traditions); an argument from human nature; and psychology. The basic objection itself is similar from all three angles, i.e. that a child needs both a mother and a father, because this is the natural way that a child is procreated, brought up and comes to negotiate its own role in society, including gender role(s).

It is generally accepted that children do need both maternal and paternal care figures and role models in their lives. But the sad truth is that these are very often not their natural mothers and fathers, particularly in the case of adoption, which is of special relevance in the context of lesbian and gay parents. If a gay couple adopts a child, it is probably better for that child, emotionally and legally, for both partners to be legal parents – rather than creating an inequality, and increasing the potential for emotional turmoil in the event of a relationship break up, by allowing only one of the individuals to be legally regarded as the mother or father. And the point about encouraging gay adoption to take place – if it is going to take place at all – in the context of gay marriage and officially recognised gay family relationships is that this should also reinforce the extended family structures that can provide an additional source of caring maternal or paternal figures (in the shape of aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.) to supplement the potential comparative absence of such figures from the child’s nuclear family.

One other observation that is worth making is that the argument in favour of the need for parental figures of both genders often presupposes that one or both of a child’s lesbian mothers, for instance, could not also serve as something of a model for fatherhood or masculinity. Gender should not be equated with anatomical sex. It is a commonly noted fact, for instance, that lesbian women often exhibit more conventionally masculine traits than typical straight women; and that gay men are often more overtly feminine or effeminate than their straight counterparts. So it is still possible for a child to learn about masculinity and femininity from same-sex parents. It is questionable, then, whether a child’s having two mothers or two fathers really does much long-term damage to their ability to develop their gender identity, sexuality and adult relationships in a ‘normal’ way; although the psychological impact of having same-sex parents should not be written off as insignificant. Maybe only time will tell what the long-term consequences will be.

Another question illustrating how society’s language to describe family relationships might need to evolve to reflect the changes I am advocating is how one would refer to ‘former’ spouses if a permanent relationship with a spouse and her / his family is deemed to be established in marriage. Common parlance would doubtless continue to employ terms such as ‘ex’ or ‘former’ to refer to previous spouses, even after any change in the legislation such as I am advocating. However, officially and logically, it might be better to designate these as ‘first’, ‘second’, etc. – e.g. a straight man who has married three times might refer to his previous wives as ‘my first wife’ and ‘my second wife’; and his third wife as ‘my current wife’.

You could argue that this is tantamount to sanctioning polygamy, in that it is implied that the conjugal relationship with previous spouses continues into subsequent marriages. And, in a sense, this is the case: a serial marrier of this sort would indeed be viewed as continuing to be related to his previous wives and their families. So the law would have to be explicit about the different types of relationship involved – family connection versus primary emotional / sexual relationship – and the rights and responsibilities in each. Determining a workable balance between the different relationships concerned would be part of the process of establishing the conditions and the settlement (financial and personal) for any marriage break up. It would in theory be possible for any such divorce and re-marriage arrangement to stipulate – within agreed limits – that wife No. 3 accepted that her husband could maintain an emotional or even sexual relationship with one or both of his previous wives, as the mother of his children for whom he continued to have a legal duty of care. Once you eradicate as part of the fundamental concept of marriage the idea that it involves an obligation for a permanent and exclusive sexual relationship between the spouses, there is no theoretical reason why situations of this sort should not arise if this was with the mutual consent of all the parties. Indeed, situations such as this do occur in real life today without the possibility to accommodate or negotiate them within the context of Christian-derived models for marriage; so that they frequently result in separation and divorce, which could be avoided if more realism about human behaviour and contemporary mores were built into the marriage model. All the same, the ‘current’ wife of such a serial marrier should have special privileges that preserve her right to reasonable treatment and for the promises made to her in marriage to be backed up by legal protection.

Is the husband in the above example in reality any more of a polygamist than under the current legislation, in which he would perhaps more accurately be described as a serial monogamist? The actual relationships and behaviour could well be identical in both contexts, even with respect to spouses maintaining sexual relationships with their previous spouses, as occasionally happens. The new model for marriage would recognise these realities while protecting the rights and security of all those affected by infidelity and, effectively, by polygamy.

Following on from the above observations, it would also be the case, for instance, that ‘former’ mothers-in-law or sons-in-law should now be called first, second, etc. mothers-in-law / sons-in-law. Familial relationship between non-genetically related uncles / aunts and nephews / nieces would also be viewed formally as continuing to exist after any divorce. Establishing in law the continuance of these types of relatedness could be important to ensure that strong relationships that already exist in the extended family are protected and promoted after a divorce has occurred. The same could be said, for instance, about relationships (and relatedness) between grandparents and non-genetically related grandchildren (e.g. in the case of adopted children or stepchildren). For clarity, it might be necessary to refer to someone as ‘my niece from my first marriage’ or as ‘my (step-) granddaughter from my son’s first marriage’, for example. Nieces and nephews themselves would not have the same dilemma, as ‘Auntie’ and ‘Uncle’ are often used for members of the extended family and for friends of the family, so there should normally be no need to explain the exact relationship in the terminology itself.

In summary, legal changes of this sort could have a positive impact on social practice, which is currently imprecise about what – if any – the continuing familial relationship is between divorced persons and their former spouses’ extended families. If the law stipulates that a continuing familial relationship exists, this creates the social conditions whereby personal relationships can also continue, where this is felt to be of mutual benefit to the parties concerned.

When it came to mapping out things like gay marriages and multiple marriages in family trees, these need not become significantly more complicated than they are already, as they mainly focus on genetic relationships in any case. More complex charting of relationships by marriage alongside genetic relationships could easily be added on. If the genetic relationship is not known – e.g. if a lesbian married couple deliberately decided to remain ignorant about which of the two women was the biological mother (for instance, in cases of in vitro fertilisation), and the identity of the biological father was also unknown – then the family tree could indicate both mothers as being the parents: instead of the usual pairing of father and mother as the next generational link, the tree would indicate two mothers. If the genetic mother is known, then the vertical line down the tree to the next generation could come from the biological mother, while a horizontal line indicating matrimony would still link the two women. In the same example, if the biological father were known, another type of horizontal line indicating parenthood could connect the genetic parents.

1.0.4 New processes for attempting to bring about reconciliation and for dissolving marriages would be required

Under the new reinforced model for civil marriages I am proposing, married couples should not be allowed to divorce unless a) they have been through a rigorous, formal procedure to determine whether their differences are irreconcilable, and b) a binding, enforceable legal agreement has been reached setting out the individuals’ continuing obligations towards their spouse, nuclear family (e.g. children) and even, in some instances, members of their spouse’s extended family; and also setting out their rights in relation to the same persons. These two processes would need to be carried out in a co-ordinated way, in that disputes over responsibilities, and over the use of wealth and property, are often central to marriage break-downs in the first place.

The type of process I would envisage is, in the first instance, a cooling off period of, say, at least two months following the decision by one or both partners to initiate divorce proceedings. This could be followed by anything from one to six months of consistent, verified attendance by both partners at counselling sessions provided by officially certified and monitored counsellors and organisations designed to effect a reconciliation, if possible, or to ascertain beyond doubt that a reconciliation is not possible.

The couple’s claims about their legal or moral rights in relation to money and property could also be discussed and assessed in a preliminary way as part of this formal process of counselling: one of the goals of the counsellor would be to try to disentangle any dispute over such material matters from the underlying emotional conflict. In this way, it might be possible to avoid further disputes over such matters if the ‘marriage-settlement’ process was taken forward to the next stage (winding up the marriage); or, indeed, if by resolving one side of the marital conflict (emotional or material), a resolution of the other aspect of the dispute could also be encouraged.

If, on the other hand, it is determined that no reconciliation of the married partners can be brought about, the second stage of the process would commence: determining a legal contract governing the divorce, which would set out explicitly the rights and responsibilities belonging to both parties consequent upon a divorce, and putting in place legal and financial measures to ensure that the terms of the contract are adhered to and enforced.

1.0.4.1 Aspects covered by the new form of divorce settlement could include:

· Financial arrangements: determining the extent and modality (e.g. one-off or continuous) of financial support, if any, to be provided by one of the divorcing spouses to the other and any dependants

· Custody and access: deciding whether one or both parents should be awarded custody of any children and stepchildren (including different arrangements for individual children, if desirable, most obviously in the case of children of previous marriages); and determining arrangements for access to the children for the other parent, including details such as the geographical distance that parents are allowed to live apart where this affects the provision of access; the amount and distribution (e.g. at weekends, holidays) of time the parent without custody is allowed or mandated to spend with their children; the particular needs, best interests and stated wishes of the children; etc.

· Details about continuing personal relationships between the parties to the divorce themselves, and between them and their extended families of which – under the new arrangements – both individuals continue to remain a part. This part of the settlement could provide a way to legally guarantee the right for continuing relationships and support between any children of the marriage and relatives such as grandparents, aunts and uncles. Provisions under this part of the ‘divorce contract’ could be divided between those that were legally binding and explicitly set out detailed practical arrangements (e.g. access to the children for grandparents); and those that represented a ‘Statement of Expectations and Intentions’, e.g. where one or both of the spouses expressed a wish to continue to maintain a meaningful friendship and working partnership with their spouse and her / his extended family after the divorce (whether shared children were involved or not). A statement of goodwill of this sort could be made even if the terms of the divorce meant the spouses no longer had either an automatic moral right or legal entitlement to a close relationship with their spouse beyond essential practicalities.

· Such a statement of expectations could also provide a formal framework for assessing the impact of any re-marriage on existing personal, material and sexual relationships. This is because part of the new arrangements for civil marriages would be that before a re-marriage could occur, there would need to be a review of the re-marrying person’s divorce settlement to see if any of its binding elements needed to be modified. This would require the consent of the re-marrying individual’s previous spouse. In addition, such a review would take into consideration the former spouse’s statement of expectations and intentions at the time of the divorce, in order to assist in drawing up a renewed statement taking the new marriage into account. This revised statement would attempt to reconcile, as much as possible, the expectations of the former and current spouses of the re-marrying person, so as to minimise conflicts and facilitate a good working relationship between them (necessary when mutual care for children is involved); and to ensure that, if the second marriage itself broke down, a formal statement existed setting out the expectations from the re-marriage that both parties had had when they contracted the marriage. The purpose of this would then be to streamline the process of determining the possibility of a reconciliation and (if that failed) the drawing up of a second divorce settlement.

A mutual statement of expectations could also be composed in advance of any first marriage, thereby serving as an informal alternative to a pre-nuptial agreement. (Couples could of course still conclude a formal pre-nuptial contract if they wished.) This would be a legally documented, but not necessarily narrowly enforceable, declaration concerning the economic, social and personal commitment that individuals were making to one another in their marriage. As such, it could help inform the reconciliation or divorce processes if the marriage did hit the rocks. The document could, for instance, spell out the couple’s expectations with respect to the exclusivity and permanence, or otherwise, of their sexual relationship as part of the more realistic, de-Christianised, but nonetheless legally and socially more responsible re-definition of the status of civil marriage I am advocating.

1.0.4.2 There should be tough legal provisions in place to enforce divorce settlements, if they are flouted, or to impose a settlement if one or both parties refuse to co-operate with the reconciliation and settlement process. The government has recently set out proposals along the lines I am suggesting, although I think the measures could go further. They could go as far as the facility to confiscate or freeze assets (not just withdraw money from bank accounts, as in the government's proposals), or the partial withholding or total withdrawal of custody rights if these were deemed to have been abused (e.g. if a parent who had been awarded custody on the basis that they remained a UK resident emigrated to Australia).

These tough legal penalties and incentives should have teeth. They are not something whose enforcement should be left to chance or to the ineffectual functioning of an anonymous bureaucracy such as the ill-fated Child Support Agency (CSA). Divorcing couples should have to disclose full details about their income and assets, as honestly and in as legally binding a way as they would when declaring these things for tax purposes. At the same time, the enforcement authority should have access to those assets and legal powers to freeze or confiscate them as a last resort to prevent divorcers from evading their responsibilities. Ultimately, some very stringent penalties should be available to enforce the decisions reached during the settlement process, including compulsory sales of assets and even imprisonment if the attempts to thwart a fair resolution of the financial and practical issues were considered to be especially serious or contemptuous.

1.0.4.3 Which agency or agencies would be involved in these processes of attempting to achieve a reconciliation, working to agree a divorce or separation settlement, and enforcement? Here again, my proposals diverge from those of the government. There would probably need to be a new national body to co-ordinate these tasks. But it would be advisable for these tasks to be run and financed at a local level, with only a loose national organisational framework to carry out necessary administrative and oversight tasks, and development of national strategy and policy. I envisage the new body as an offshoot of the current local register offices, co-ordinating the work of multiple service providers involved in the different processes, such as counsellors, lawyers, financial advisers and law-enforcement agencies. The work of this body could be financed largely – maybe exclusively – on the basis of fees paid by divorcing couples: perhaps on a percentage calculation linked to the value of the sums involved in the divorce settlement. There could be an initial upfront fee – by way of deposit – payable by the party suing for divorce.

The purpose of all these measures would not be to stigmatise divorce, as was the case in the past. But one objective they would be trying to achieve is to make couples think extra hard before going down the divorce route. Divorce should no longer be seen as an ‘easy option’ enabling parents to duck out of their responsibilities to children, partners or their wider family; or to provide an effortless transition to a new marriage. Indeed, if the reconciliation and settlement process resulted in a decision that, on balance, it was in the best material and emotional interests of all concerned that the marriage should not be dissolved, there might still be the possibility to negotiate some more flexible living and relationship arrangements as part of the mix. For instance, there could be an agreement that the wife and children of a husband who has been unfaithful could live in the marital home, while the husband would be free to live elsewhere with his new partner, so long as a new agreement on mutual rights and responsibilities (enshrined in a Statement of Expectations and Intentions) was adhered to.

1.0.4.4 What principles should be applied in assessing divorce settlements, especially the financial arrangements? In particular, should the principle of equality be systematically applied, i.e. the divorcing couple’s assets are simply divided into two equal portions? This is obviously a topical question as a result of recent legal cases. The spirit of the reforms that I am proposing here is that, wherever possible, the divorce settlement should aim to preserve a constructive relationship between divorcing individuals, particularly when the care of dependants is also involved. Simply splitting the couple’s material assets in half is not necessarily the best way to achieve this objective – whether this is because it provokes resentment on the part of a husband who sees his hard-won wealth being depleted by his ex-wife whom he sees – rightly or wrongly – as being motivated by greed; or whether, in a more general sense, this is because the focus is then directed towards material considerations rather than to the long-term emotional and practical consequences and needs of all concerned, not just the husband and wife.

So the new regulations should not just lazily enshrine the principle of equality, as if that would automatically compensate for any injustices that might be involved in the break down of the marital relationship itself, and for any harm suffered by grieving children. The outcome that is sought should be one of fairness: equity rather than equality of a type that is calibrated merely in mathematical, material terms. In the case of a family abandoned by a husband and father starting a new relationship, the aim should be to ensure that – wherever possible – the family does not suffer any disadvantages additional to those inherent to the family break up itself. This involves focusing on securing enough material assets so that the opportunities and the options in life that the wife and children had prior to the break up can be preserved or even enhanced, e.g. education choices for the children and opportunities for the wife (who may have sacrificed a career of her own for the sake of the husband and children) to make a fresh start in work and relationships.

To obtain a settlement of this sort does not necessarily involve splitting a husband’s wealth into two even halves. In fact, in cases where the husband is not especially wealthy, the consequence might be that more than half of his wealth was made over to his wife and children; so long as the husband’s ability to continue to develop his career and earning potential was not radically impaired. If this happened, it would also be unjust and ultimately counter-productive, as it would lessen the potential for the husband to a) improve his personal circumstances, and b) pass on some of the benefits to his first family as a voluntary gesture of care and goodwill, as much of the goodwill would have been eroded by the original settlement. This touches upon one potential flaw in the argument that the simplest and most practical alternative is always just to split a separating spouse’s wealth in two: this can damage the spouse’s ability and motivation to grow his or her wealth still further, which could then be of benefit to all concerned.

In addition, sanctioning the notion that jilted wives (or husbands) should automatically be entitled to half of their treacherous spouses’ assets could mean giving even more of a green light to greed as a motivation for getting married in the first place, and then for seeking a divorce. The point of the reforms that are being advocated here is that such motivations should not be rewarded or promoted by the system; that marriage should represent a serious commitment and set of obligations, which the divorce settlement is an attempt to uphold and fulfil.

In reality, however, cases where fabulous sums of money are in dispute are the exception rather than the rule; and the financial-settlement process would simply have to try to find the best compromise deal ensuring as fair a re-distribution of the family’s wealth as possible in the light of the needs of all concerned. Equally, it is in keeping with the principle of fairness that husbands who have been keeping their wives in a state of some luxury should expect to continue to have to do so, to a certain extent. The wives would be deemed to have a reasonable expectation of being looked after in this way, based on the commitment that was made to them through marriage, perhaps backed up by a Statement of Intentions and Expectations on the part of their then fiancé. As has been stated, a divorce should not be a way for husbands (or wives) to back out of their responsibilities, or for women (or men) to dig for gold.

1.1 Summary: marriage

Above, I have set out some new concepts, guidelines and suggested legislative changes relating to secular marriage in the UK. The core principles underlying these suggestions could be summarised as follows:

· Strengthening the cultural meaning and institutional support that is given to marriage

· Affirming marriage as a serious and – in its effects, at least – permanent commitment of two people to each other and to their extended families

· Making marriage fairer: in its availability to persons of any sexual orientation; in the insistence on the rights and needs of children and of the extended family in and beyond marriage; and in the resolution of problems through divorce or alternative arrangements

· Stripping marriage of some of the inherited Christian-derived expectations that it necessarily involves a permanent and exclusive sexual relationship between the spouses; and removing from it much of the associated guilt and blame when things go wrong and spouses stray. The aim of this is to focus on the continuing responsibilities that mature adult individuals have towards their partners, who have previously committed their lives and futures to them.

Part two to follow: new civil partnership arrangements.

Can Gay Adoption Be Reconciled With Christianity?

In the recent debate about whether Catholic and other religiously affiliated adoption agencies should be allowed an exemption from new UK social-equality legislation that would oblige them to consider applications to adopt children from gay and lesbian couples, it was taken as a given that imposing this obligation on those agencies would be tantamount to forcing them to act against their religious principles. This controversy formed the subject of three entries to this blog at the time (24 and 25 January), in which I discussed some of the delicate issues of conscience and discrimination involved.

The present blog entry is an exploration of the ethical arguments in favour of allowing same-sex adoption from a Christian, and more particularly Catholic, standpoint. I attempt to open up a number of perspectives on the issue that add up to a plea to look beyond the Church’s block repudiation of same-sex adoption (and of same-sex unions upon which it is based) to consider how we might in fact discern the action of the divine love and Spirit in the motivation of at least some of the gay couples involved, and in the cry of children in need of adoption, whether by conventional male-female or same-sex parents. As such, my hope is that this discussion may be of some use to Catholic adoption agencies in their deliberations about how to respond to the fact that no exemption from the legislation was accorded to them, and in their decisions about whether or not to comply and stay in business. This question once more became topical this week, when another vote on the new legal provisions was held in the House of Commons, and opposition to an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies again prevailed.

The question is essentially as follows: must adoption by same-sex couples always be seen as wrong, viewed from the standpoint of Christian principles? The official position of the Catholic Church is clear: same-sex adoption is a ‘grave sin’ – the kind of sin that excludes any good and is all black, without any shade of grey. Nonetheless, it is still legitimate to ask whether there are any possible benefits at all to be gained from adoption by same-sex couples – for the children, as opposed to the adopters. It is clear that there is a great shortage of adoptive parents, in the UK and throughout the world if one considers the issue of orphaned children in developing countries, recently highlighted by the pop star Madonna’s adoption of a Malawian boy. In this light, could the adoption by gay couples of children who desperately need parents not be seen as at least being of potential benefit to them? In other words, is it better, morally, for some children who are desperately in need of parents either to be adopted by loving, dedicated gay couples; or not to be adopted at all – given that there aren’t enough straight couples who are seeking to adopt?

Given this lack of suitable prospective male-female adoptive parents, it would seem to be a shame to dismiss out of hand the idea that gay couples could help to make up some of the shortfall, simply on the basis that any good they might be able to do for the children would be outweighed by the ‘evil’ of their sex lives. I suppose if one really believes that a sexually active gay lifestyle or relationship of whatever quality or duration constitutes grave or mortal sin, then it does follow logically that it would be better for children who might otherwise have been adopted by same-sex couples not to be adopted at all. But Catholics in particular need to be really sure that they genuinely hold that the moral balance is always, indeed on principle, tipped against same-sex adoption. One reason for this is that Catholic opposition to abortion leads the Church to argue in favour of an increased use of adoption as one of a number of alternatives to terminations. But if just a relatively modest proportion of the vast number of terminations that take place in the UK each year were replaced by adoptions, then adoption agencies would be faced by an even more acute crisis of insufficient numbers of persons seeking to adopt. If one doesn’t agree that gay couples with a long-term, loving commitment to one another are living in a perpetual state of grave sin because of their sexual activity, then it would be possible to emphasise a different aspect of the moral law in one’s consideration of this issue: the Christian call to love children. From this perspective, enabling vulnerable, potentially unwanted children to benefit from the love that gay people long to give them – even if, in part, this might be because there aren’t enough straight people to take those children on – could almost be seen as a Christian duty. Consider the alternatives for some children: a childhood spent in care or foster homes, subject to the risk of sexual abuse and deprived of the security of a loving family environment, resulting in a greater tendency to be exposed to the malign influences of crime, temptation and drugs as life unfolds.

But I hear the cry go out, ‘moral relativism’! In other words, I could be accused of trying to make out that same-sex adoption can serve an intrinsically good purpose, whereas what it really is, even in my own example, is the lesser of two evils (i.e. a lesser evil than children not finding any adoptive parents at all). But that’s making quite a judgement (arguably, an unchristian one) about the parental love and security gay people are able to give the children they adopt: that it’s morally flawed or a form of ‘tainted love’. Furthermore, we live in a world of moral relatives and compromises in which sometimes we just have to make a decision about what is the best course of action available to us in the circumstances – which is often not the same thing as the ideal option, in moral terms. Putting this another way, the best of two practical alternatives is often the way it is given to us to perform good, rather than this being merely the lesser of two evils.

There are too many examples to mention of these situations where we sometimes have to choose the least black of two grey areas. Possible examples range from momentous moral decisions (e.g. whether to go to war) to the trivial but nonetheless morally significant choices we make on a daily basis: ‘should I buy that DVD that the kids have been clamouring on about all week – which will give them a lot of happiness for a few hours – or should I give the money to that person collecting for Cancer Research, which could actually save a life?’; ‘should I exceed the 30-mph speed limit by 5 mph to make sure I arrive at the school in time to pick up the kids, at the risk of not being able to stop in time if a kid runs onto the road?’

The ethical questions about same-sex adoption are in reality a similar choice between two morally mixed alternatives: ‘is it right to let gay couples give their love to adopted children, or to deny them and the children this opportunity in order to protect the children from being conditioned into accepting (and even practising) an immoral lifestyle?’ Who can apportion the degree of good and evil, right or wrong, discernment or lack of it, on either side? We just have to be guided by love – as Christians and as human beings.

Let’s put the question in a way that’s closer to home: if you and your partner were killed in a car crash, and the only close relatives who were able and willing to take the children on were your gay brother and his partner, would you prefer them to be adopted by them or by complete strangers, albeit a straight couple? And which alternative would be morally right and the best option for the children? What parents would not in fact prefer their children to be adopted by a devoted gay or lesbian couple in such circumstances – even a couple they did not know – if the alternative was their children having to live in care or an orphanage of some sort?

From the preceding discussion, one can conclude that Christians are entitled to take the view – and it follows logically from first principles – that adoption by gay couples is always wrong and that they want to have nothing to do with it. But equally, Christians can take the view that gay adoption is compatible with Christian teaching – not out of liberalism and a soft attitude towards homosexuality, but out of charity and compassion towards children. Clearly, on an orthodox Catholic or legalistic view of Christian moral teaching, the rejection of gay adoption prevails. But on a view that places the calling to love one another uppermost – even if this involves making compromises with the letter of the law – then it’s possible to see how Christian adoption agencies could in conscience agree to consider gay couples as potential adoptive parents, irrespective of whether the civil law mandates them or not to do so on the basis of egalitarian principles.

In the recent debate in the UK over the new legal equality provisions, the Catholic Church – speaking on behalf of Catholic adoption agencies – rightly placed the emphasis on the centrality of the needs of the children. Those agencies do in fact have a very good record of finding parents for some of the children that are the most difficult to place, owing to the traumas they may have been through. The Church’s view is that it is indeed in the best interests of the children to be found adoptive parents who are of the opposite sex to one another and, ideally, are married to one another. The agencies clearly put in a great deal of painstaking work to ensure they can find suitable parents of this sort for the children they have responsibility for. All the same, the Church accepts that there might be some children for whom adoption by single people – even, in theory, gay persons – can be the best option, if, for instance, the children have been abused by a parent of one particular gender. There is not such a huge leap from this to the view that in other instances, for similar reasons, it might even be the best option (considerations of moral relativism apart) for some children to be adopted by two parents of the same gender, rather than just one.

The only thing that stands in the way of this view being taken is the moral condemnation of gay sex and relationships: of gay sex rather than homosexuality per se (if adoption by single gay persons is morally acceptable) or extra-marital straight sex (if adoption by unmarried straight couples is acceptable). So there is really a sort of prejudice against gay persons going on, as the Catholic teaching that any sexual acts other than unprotected genital sex within marriage are sinful is being applied inconsistently. In fact, the Church is practising its own form of moral relativism, for exactly the same reason as I was advocating a sort of relativist argument in favour of adoption by gay couples. In other words, the Church itself accepts that sometimes the adoptive parents will fall short of the ideal of a stable, married, Christian couple. This is firstly because, in the real world, that moral and social ideal isn’t always the best option for the child (cf. the example of single adoptive parents being occasionally preferred), and secondly because there just aren’t enough couples that conform to the ideal who want to adopt.

Might it even be the case that individuals or couples who decide they’d like to adopt are more likely themselves to be psychologically wounded and, by that token, are perhaps less likely than the average of the population to be successful in maintaining life-long marriages? I’m not sure if there are any statistics on the comparative divorce and separation rates of couples who adopt and couples who don’t. In any case, if the divorce rate were higher among adopters, you could interpret this as just showing that adoption itself was stressful, or that it was linked to some adopters not being able to have children, which is a well known cause of marital break-up. One intriguing related question, though, is whether the break-up rates of gay couples who adopt are higher than those of straight adopters. It is of course far too early to research this question, as gay adoption and civil partnerships are such recent innovations. However, it is quite conceivable that gay partnerships (and possibly, in the future, marriages) will provide more stable parental relationships and families for their adopted children than the straight equivalents. This is partly because gay people grow up without the expectation that having children will just come easily and automatically to them: they will always have thought that they might have to adopt rather than having children of their own. This means that their adopted children (more so if the adopters have had to fight to be allowed to adopt) may be wanted even more than they would be by straight couples, for whom those children may always be seen as a substitute for children of their own, without denying the love that parents still feel for their adopted charges.

Which brings me back round to the issue of putting the needs of the children first. If the needs of the children really are paramount, should the fact that two potential adoptive parents of the same sex share a bed and do physical things to one another that the Church regards as immoral (as ‘more immoral’ than the physical acts performed by a stable unmarried straight couple) automatically take precedence over the perception that those same persons might actually be the best parents for this specific child? The best parents, that is, out of all the prospective parents on an agency’s books – we’re talking about practical morality here, not an ideal world. Just as the Catholic agencies have an excellent record for placing difficult children, so it is the case that it is often gay couples that take on those children, also frequently with highly positive outcomes for the children concerned. And maybe that’s partly because, as gay people have often had to struggle to overcome adversities in their personal lives, they are well placed to identify with children who have had a difficult start in life.

But is it giving children the best start in life to offer them not a mother and father but, say, two mothers or two fathers? In adoption, parents become not just the children’s nominal mothers and fathers but their real ones in law: with the same legal and social rights as the biological parents (if still alive) had before the adoption went through. The fact that it is legally permissible for same-sex couples to adopt creates, I think, a totally unique situation whereby it is possible for children to have two real – official – mothers or fathers. This is not the same, for instance, as when a child adopted by a male-female couple is said to have two ‘real’ mothers: their adoptive mother, who is the official parent in the eyes of the law and also hopefully becomes their real parent in emotional terms, and their biological mother – the real genetic parent. Nor is it the same as when a child has, say, a real (biological) father who might have left the mother and a real (emotional) father in the shape of a stepdad, in which case it is the biological father who remains the real (official) father in the eyes of the law; unless the child is adopted by the stepfather, in which case the parental rights rebound on to him.

In cases of same-sex adoption, by contrast, a child acquires two real (official) mothers or fathers who, one hopes, also become their real parents in emotional terms. In practice, if the child’s biological parents are both known and still alive at the time of the adoption, then it is a child’s ‘normal’ parental pairing of mother and father who are replaced in loco parentis by two mothers or two fathers. The child could be said to be losing a father, for instance, at the same time as gaining an extra mother in his place. It could be argued that this is a violation of a child’s ‘right to a father’, or their right to a mother if the situation were reversed. In any case, even without taking into consideration this ‘replacement’ of a conventional mother-father parental pairing by a mother-mother or father-father pairing, same-sex adoption could still be viewed as a denial of a child’s right to have both a mother and a father.

These are very difficult questions, psychologically and ethically. But in reality, children in same-sex adoptions are not being denied either a father or mother but are being offered the love of two new parents – who just happen to be of the same sex – to make up for the love of the child’s biological mother and father that, for whatever reason, is no longer available to them. So it’s not a subtraction of relationship, connection and love but an addition; and the law still accords recognition to the biological parents, and allows a relationship between the child and their biological parents to be (re-)established (by mutual consent) once that child has reached the age of maturity. So it’s only really if one holds the view that there is some sort of ideological conspiracy to undermine the conventional (straight) family and traditional morality that one would see same-sex adoption (negatively) as depriving a child of their right to a mother and father, rather than (positively) as just a gift of love and care to that child.

Nonetheless, the fact that a child adopted by a same-sex couple gains either two mothers or two fathers must have an impact in psychological terms. Given that this situation is quite unique and unprecedented, it is pre-judging things to assume that this impact must always or only be harmful, relative to a child’s having just one official father and mother. All the same, this issue should not be treated lightly or passed over as it has been, to some extent, in politically correct discussions on same-sex adoption. The truth is we don’t really know what the long-term impacts on children will be from having two legal mothers or fathers, rather than a mother and a father, or a single parent. There may be some negatives as well as positives. But despite the negatives, there is a need to remain focused on the – albeit relative – positive benefits one is seeking to achieve through same-sex adoption, which are basically identical to those from straight adoption: giving children love and the best start one can in the actual circumstances.

The fact that in same-sex adoption, a child has either two mothers or fathers raises an interesting dilemma in terms of how the Church can actually refer to such parents. The core of the Church’s moral issue with same-sex adoption is that it violates the created order whereby children naturally have – and are intended by God to have – one mother and one father. Hence, the objections to same-sex adoption are not just on practical and psychological grounds (in which case, the arguments I have been advancing might carry more weight) but on spiritual grounds. Ultimately, adoption is seen by the Church as having a redemptive purpose, which is the core reason why the Church sees it as part of its mission to be involved in adoption in the first place. That purpose could perhaps be defined as being to lead the life of a vulnerable child back into the divine order for the family, society and nature as expressed in the unity, love and mutual responsibilities that bind the trio of father, mother and child(ren). It is hoped that when an adopted child, who might otherwise have been alone in this world, is re-embraced within this natural unity of the family, the consequence is that that child will be more likely to encounter Christ (the very name and spirit of that unity and love) and reflect the pattern of his will and purpose in their subsequent life.

Outside of this, in some ways, commendably idealistic picture of the family, it is, however, rather difficult for the Church to know how it should actually ‘relate to’ same-sex adoptive parents, both conceptually / terminologically and pastorally. Is it the case that the Church (particularly, the Catholic Church) must necessarily regard same-sex adoption and parenthood – because it violates the order of creation – as not just morally wrong but invalid, in the same way that it considers same-sex marriages to be invalid? Legally, the Church is obliged to accept same-sex adoption as a fact if the civil law of a country permits it. But there are, for instance, many legal forms of marriage that the Church does not accept as really valid: in spirit as opposed to the letter of the law. In the same way, is the Church’s position effectively that same-sex adoptive parents are more like carers or guardians rather than real parents in spirit? In the terms of the above discussion, the Church might accept that same-sex parents were a child’s official parents but not necessarily the child’s real parents (who remain the child’s biological parents?). And does the Church make a distinction – whether in practice or in doctrine – between the ontological status of male-female adoptive parents and that of same-sex parents? In other words, does the Church view the former as becoming the child’s true parents (in spirit as well as in law, though not biologically), whereas it regards it as impossible for same-sex parents to be a child’s spiritual parents (the true parents, called by God to fulfil that role)?

I have to say that I don’t actually know the answer to these questions: the limited amount of web research I’ve been able to do hasn’t turned up any formal statement of Catholic teaching on the matter. Maybe the Church doesn’t actually have an established position on the ontological and spiritual status of adoptive parents, as opposed to the moral responsibilities of those parents and the Church’s own duties of pastoral care towards them, whether they be male-female or same-sex. The absence of any definitive statement in this area could then be seen as analogous to the Church’s unwillingness to declare whether a civil marriage involving two non-Catholics is a valid marriage: it’s something beyond the Church’s remit to make dogmatic, and therefore universally binding, pronouncements about – whereas the Church does of course believe itself to be qualified to issue dogmatic statements about the behaviour of its own members. Adoption is a civil matter and is therefore not something the Church has any direct control over, in terms either of its practice or its meaning.

In reality, however, it is clear that the Church does treat Catholic male-female adoptive parents as if they were both the real (biological) parents, and the true (spiritual) parents, i.e. as called by God to exercise all the rights and duties of parents in relation to their adopted children. The same cannot be said about Catholic same-sex adoptive parents. In October 2006, for example, the Catholic Bishops of the USA voted on a resolution that referred to the baptism of children adopted by gay couples as a matter for “pastoral concern”. The resolution stated that this sacrament should be accorded to those children only if there was a reasonable hope that they would be brought up in the Catholic religion. This can mean only one thing: that the gay couples involved would be expected to be celibate, as that would be the only way in which their lives together would be in conformity with Catholic teaching and hence give rise to the hope that the children would receive a consistently applied example of the Catholic way of life as they grew up.

But then this really would amount to no more than adoption by, effectively, single gay persons – the only difference being that there are two of them, living and caring for the child(ren) together – rather than by couples. To me, this picture of the celibate same-sex adoptive family appears to embody less unity and mutual commitment than one in which the parents have a sexual relationship with one another. This is partly because the idea of the parents acting together as true parents – plural – seems remote if they are not also united with one another in an intimate physical and emotional way as the parental couple. In fact, a celibate arrangement like this would make the adopted child’s new family home resemble a sort of lay religious community: celibate Christian persons of the same gender caring for children separated from their biological parents as part of their Christian calling. Putting it from the child’s perspective, does it not create a much more loving, normal and healthy family environment if they can relate to their parents as bound together in a single unit, within which they in turn are embraced? Admittedly, with same-sex parents, this would not be ‘mum and dad’. But in order for an adopted child to see their parents as real mums or real dads, don’t they need to be a ‘conjugal’ unit, rather than separate individuals that would in practice merely be exercising the role of substitute mums or dads? Separating the same-sex parents in this way would have a similar effect on a child as if male-female parents were expected to act as separate individuals in their parental care towards a child: not really combined into a single loving parental unit, thereby giving the child the security that its parents’ love is really capable of binding and holding the family together through indissoluble ties.

So it’s hard to see how celibate same-sex adoptive parents could be true parents, emotionally and spiritually. And that is my point: the Church does not and will not see same-sex parents as true parents in any sense – in fact, at least, if not in formal doctrine. So one could say that, for the Church, the fact that celibacy would be more likely to result in same-sex adopters being less authentic and emotionally real as parents does not represent an impairment of their parenthood because they are not really parents in the first place.

In a sense, one could argue that this basically celibate + non-parental ideal for the relationship of same-sex adoptive parents to their children implicitly acknowledges the fact that sexually active same-sex parents would be more like real parents: more like the straight equivalent, that is. And indeed, there is a critical ambiguity in the language the Church uses to describe gay partnerships. These are referred to – if only in the negative – as ‘unions’. For example, a 2003 statement on the issue from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law”. This phrase can be interpreted as having two possible implications: 1) ‘gay “unions” are not only morally wrong but do not really exist, because only a true marriage between a man and a woman can constitute a sexual union as such’; 2) ‘there is such a thing as a gay union, e.g. a sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex; but this (or just the active sexual expression of the attraction?) is morally wrong’.

In the first sense above, gay sex cannot constitute a union because only in the marriage of a husband and wife can the physical act become the expression and manifestation of a true, spiritual union. In the second sense, a contrary meaning is implied: it is the sex that actually defines a ‘union’ between two gay persons. Despite what is explicitly stated, this concept of a gay union is in fact based on an analogy with Christian doctrine on marriage, whereby in order to be valid (and hence to be a union), a marriage has to be consummated. At the same time, there is a circularity here: the dual interpretation that is given to gay sex (both a union and not a union) allows the validity of, and any possibility of moral good within, gay unions defined purely in relation to sexual activity to be denied.

But if you don’t define a gay relationship simply in relation to sex, this enables one to come up with an alternative Christian concept of gay union. It is not the sex but the love between the sexual partners that makes that partnership a union, as it is this love and mutual commitment that elevates the relationship above the level of ‘mere sex’: sexual gratification without any reference to either love or the intention to have children. If the place of ‘union’ in gay partnerships is seen as the relationship of love, rather than the sex, then the sex itself can be seen as just one (albeit particularly intense and meaningful) expression of that love among others; but not as in itself essential to constituting and maintaining the relationship as a loving union – although in practice, love between members of a couple tends to need some sort of physical expression to be nourished.

One of the characteristics of this sort of loving union between sexual partners – married or unmarried, gay or straight – is the wish for children. This is not always present, of course; nor can one talk strictly of an intention (as opposed to a wish) to have children being inherent to the sexual act or instinct, in the gay context. But the wish to take on the responsibilities and duties of parents, on the part of gay couples, could be interpreted as something that helps to identify their relationship as a ‘true union’ analogous to the marital union; and as expressing the same fundamental human need for the sexual relationship to be fulfilled and expanded beyond itself to encompass the joys and trials of mutual parenthood. It is only if one is fixated on defining gay relationships purely in relation to forms of sex that cannot naturally result in parenthood that one can write off these feelings and wishes as contrary to nature and to God’s plan.

If, on the other hand, it is love that defines a union (as it is the love of God that consecrates the sacrament of marriage), then it is, so to speak, only natural that gay people, too, should wish to become parents together. In fact, one might say that this wish is a mark of the authentically spiritual character of the love that a gay couple shares. And not only that, but one could even talk of the desire and the fact of gay couples taking on the responsibility for children through adoption as having a redemptive purpose, just like that of having children naturally as part of a marriage: it elevates sexuality beyond itself to become part of a mission to give life and love to children.

Of course, gay adoptive parents do not give life to their children in the biological sense. But it is only if one has a biology-based concept of parenthood that one would say that this disqualifies gay couples from being parents (givers of live and love to children) in the true, spiritual sense. And that biology-centric concept of parenthood does seem to be at the root of Christian refusal of same-sex adoption and parenthood: that because gay sex can’t naturally (biologically) result in children, then it can’t be natural (part of the divine order for the human spirit and nature) for gay persons to wish to extend to children the love they feel for each other that is expressed, in part, through sex. But maybe this can legitimately be seen as part of God’s plan: bringing together gay couples that want to transcend a self-indulgent, irresponsible sexual lifestyle by giving love to children who might otherwise go through their whole childhood without the love and devotion of parents and a family.

As this last discussion shows, any support for arguments in favour of same-sex adoption – even if practised with extreme care to ensure that the parents concerned are as well matched as possible to specific children’s needs and circumstances – does involve a certain amount of dissent from official Catholic doctrine. But this dissent is not motivated by some sort of spirit of disobedience, although I guess the reasoning could be dismissed as being disordered in the same way as gay sex itself. My concern is that there may be kids out there whose desperate need for adoptive parents could be met – albeit imperfectly – by gay couples; indeed, maybe it is part of ‘God’s plan’ to bring the needs and wishes of the prospective adopters and of those children together.

It’s not enough for Catholic adoption agencies to effectively wash their hands of the issue and pass on applications for adoption from gay couples to other agencies, as has been the practice up to now. You could say that this was a case of moral ‘bad faith’: denying moral responsibility for something that is not directly the result of one’s actions but which is still facilitated by them. The denial could be stated as follows: ‘we’re not responsible for promoting adoption by same-sex couples, who we refer to other agencies’. And yet, by so doing, Catholic agencies are indirectly enabling same-sex adoption and, effectively, condoning it. Would it not be more honest for Catholic agencies to in fact seriously consider applications from same-sex couples? Then if, in all conscience, the agencies still came to the conclusion that there were no children on their books that would benefit by being adopted by those couples, then yes, no moral reproach (as opposed to legal complaint) could be made if the agencies declined the application and the couples were referred elsewhere. Then at least, the Catholic agencies would have given an active ‘no’ to the application rather than a passive ‘yes, maybe’. Perhaps only in this way can Catholic agencies be said to be truly exercising their duty of care to protect children who may be adopted by same-sex couples, rather than effectively passing on this responsibility to other agencies who may not have the same moral standards or values.

Clearly, it could be pointed out that this might be a rather redundant process: why go through the motions of processing applications that are automatically going to be rejected? There would obviously be no point in that, and that’s not what I’m advocating. I’m suggesting that agencies should take a long, sincere look at the gay individuals and couples that approach them (even supposing that any gay people do apply to them), and really examine their consciences and professional judgements as to whether there are any children under their care who would prosper if adopted by those applicants.

This would ultimately, perhaps, involve trying to listen to the voice of the Spirit and putting one’s trust in the truth that God’s love can work through situations where its presence is not usually suspected – even in the love of a gay couple for a child.