Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Thornton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Equality Bill.


Equality Bill

My Lords, in Committee, amendments were put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, regarding gender reassignment and marriage. These were accepted by the Government, as they made it clear that the Equality Bill would preserve the current position in discrimination law and would not interfere with the changes made to the Marriage Act 1949 by the Gender Recognition Act 2004 or the position regarding other faiths using registered buildings. The amendments now make up Part 6 of Schedule 3. Paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 covers the majority of legally recognised religious marriages in England and Wales. It covers those who solemnise marriages according to the rites of the Church of England and the Church in Wales, and those persons who give consent to solemnisation in a registered building. However, paragraph 24 does not cover those who solemnise religious marriages under the Marriage Act 1949 but who are either members of a faith not required to marry in registered buildings or clergy or ministers of a faith with registered buildings but not the persons consenting to its use. By contrast, paragraph 25, relating to Scotland, covers all those persons solemnising legally recognised religious marriages We consider that those persons who solemnise religious marriages under the Marriage Act 1949 but who are not currently covered may also have personal religious concerns about conducting marriages of persons who have undergone gender reassignment. Under current discrimination law, they may refuse to solemnise marriages of such persons without the risk of a claim for unlawful discrimination. It is only fair, therefore, that persons solemnising marriages from all faith groups are covered by Schedule 3. They should not be put in a position of having to choose between facing a claim for discrimination and their personal religious conviction, and they should be able to refuse to marry persons who have undergone gender reassignment. Hence, Amendment 22 has been tabled. Again, this is a permissive amendment that does not place any obligation on those who solemnise religious marriages and it maintains the status quo. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c1371-2 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Conditions of employment Civil partnerships Adoption Candidates Age Depressive illnesses Crew Catholicism Ceremonies Women Employment Equality Homosexuality Foster care Equality and Human Rights Commission Insurance Equal pay Harassment Foreign nationals Discrimination Ethnic groups Mental illness Qualifications Marriage Recruitment Poverty Minimum wage Public bodies Political parties Low pay Scotland Schools Young people Religion Wales Sexuality Shipping Tourism Territorial waters Religious buildings Retirement Transgender people Reasonable adjustments
Legislation
Equality Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk