The Church of England’s exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage

What is it about?

Behind the Church of England’s public statements on marriage, such as Men and Women in Marriage, lies the thought of ethicist Oliver O’Donovan. This article highlights the influence of O’Donovan’s arguments concerning ‘sexual dimorphism’ (male/female physiological opposition) and ‘openness to procreation’ upon the Church’s case for the heterosexual exclusivity of marriage, by showing how they fill in the gaps in the reasoning of Men and Women in Marriage. These arguments, however, are ideologically conservative, fail to meet O’Donovan’s own standard for the admissibility of natural claims and do not convince that sexual opposition is an essential requirement for fidelity, permanent mutuality or openness to procreation – the Church of England’s three goods of marriage.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Since the first civil same-sex marriage ceremonies took place in England on 19 March 2014 there has existed a fundamental and unprecedented split between what established Church and state consider constitutes a ‘marriage’. Same-sex couples are excluded from marriage in the Church of England, which has pre- sented a case proceeding not from any scriptural prohibitions of same-sex acts but rather from claims about universal ‘natural marriage’. Consequently, the Church has not merely argued that it should be permitted to operate its own definition of marriage, but has claimed exclusively heterosexual marriage to be a universal institution and has argued that the state has overstepped its proper concern with the ‘regulation of formalities’ to redefine the institution itself. By taking this stance and claiming that its understanding of marriage should apply across society, irrespective of any democratic mandate, the onus rests on the Church of England to demonstrate that it is justified in excluding same-sex couples. This article seeks to contribute a fuller understanding and critique of the Church’s statements in order to evaluate whether its arguments adequately justify excluding same-sex couples from marriage.