Registration of Civil Partnerships, Same Sex Marriage: Consultation Analysis

7 Other views relating to same sex marriage

7.1 The remaining questions (with the exception of Question 20) asked for respondents' views on a number of specific issues of relevance if any proposals on same sex marriage were to be taken forward.

7.2 The proportion of respondents that answered some of these questions, and particularly went on to make further comments, were relatively low with many respondents referring back to their answers to previous questions. The analysis below reflects the approach taken by many that responded in grouping certain questions together.

7.3 There appear to be a number of reasons why the rate and extent of comments at some of the later questions were lower. First, many respondents made a comprehensive comment at Question 10 which covered the religious implications of same sex marriage, and also in many cases made it clear that they considered marriage to be an essentially religious institution. Hence some of the subsequent distinctions between civil and religious marriage within the consultation paper were not considered of particular relevance by respondents. Secondly, beyond the two main questions (Question 1 and 10) many respondents felt their comments on religious civil partnership were equally applicable to the equivalent question on same sex marriage. Finally, some respondents did suggest there were too many questions and did not feel able to make any further comment.

Question 11

Do you agree that religious bodies and celebrants should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage?

Question 14

Do you agree that religious bodies should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage?

7.4 The figures presented for Question 11 include the answers given at a combination of Question 5 and 11 in some of the amended forms (see Table 1). This decision was made because the majority of additional comments made at this combined question referred to marriage rather than civil partnership. Please note that the figures (at both Question 11 and the combined Question 5/11 are presented separately in Annex F).

Table 15 Responses to Questions 11 (including 5/11) and 14

	Question 11 (including 5/11)		Question 11 only		Question 14
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Yes	36,587	81%	25,819	95%	9,424	93%
No	5,899	13%	1,170	4%	563	6%
Don't Know	2,955	7%	235	1%	105	1%
Total	45,441	100%	27,224	100%	10,092	100%

Potential maximum respondents at Q11 (including 5/11)= 46,484
Potential maximum respondents at Q11 only = 28,010
Potential maximum respondents at Q14 = 10,707

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

7.5 As with religious civil partnership, a much greater degree of consensus emerged between those supporting and opposing same sex marriage once questions moved on to consider whether religious bodies or celebrants should be required rather than allowed to undertake same sex marriages. A clear majority of respondents at both questions thought that no element of compulsion should be put in place.

7.6 Those respondents that also opposed the proposed introduction of same sex marriage tended to make comments that re-emphasised what they had already set out at Question 10, with the majority of comments making it clear that they believed same sex marriage to be wrong and contrary to the will of God. Some also suggested that their comments at Question 5 in relation to religious civil partnership applied equally to same sex marriage. In summary that:

• The separation of religious bodies and the State is important and maintaining this separation means that religious bodies must remain free to choose which ceremonies they conduct;
• Freedom of belief and conscience must be respected and no individual celebrant can or should be required to act in a way that is contrary to their faith;
• If anyone did try to force religious bodies or celebrants to conduct same sex marriages, tensions would increase and positions become even more polarised; and
• It is in any case unlikely that same sex couples would want to be married within a religious body or by a religious celebrant fundamentally opposed to what they were doing.

7.7 Other concerns raised included that religious groups may be accused of homophobia if they do not agree to conduct same sex marriages and that religious celebrants may simply stop solemnising marriage altogether if faced with a barrage of accusation and possible legal challenges under equality legislation.

7.8 Whilst a majority agreed that religious bodies and celebrants should not be required to conduct same sex marriages if they did not wish to, some respondents saw things differently. Again, similar reasons were given as with regard to religious civil partnership, namely that the State should not put in place opt-out clauses that effectively allowed religious bodies and celebrants to act in a discriminatory way. There were also concerns that little would be achieved if there were no requirements, in that only a small number of religious bodies and few celebrants would agree to conduct same sex marriages. As with religious civil partnerships, a small number of respondents thought that whilst whole religious bodies should not be able to opt-out, individual celebrants should.

Question 12

Do you agree with the introduction of same sex civil marriage only?

Question 13

Do you agree with the introduction of same sex marriage, both religious and civil?

7.9 Questions 12 and 13 asked respondents to consider the case for same sex civil marriage only and then for both religious and civil same sex marriage. The overall balance of opinion at these questions is set out in Table 16 below. Note that the number of respondents at Question 13 is high as this was one of the questions included on the amended form through which the majority of those broadly in favour of the proposals submitted their response, although it was not included in the amended form used by the majority of those who broadly opposed the proposals.

Table 16 Responses to Questions 12 and 13

	Question 12		Question 13
	N	%	N	%
Yes	439	6%	20,957	68%
No	6,293	79%	9,263	30%
Don't Know	1,190	15%	440	1%
Total	7,922	100%	30,660	100%

Potential maximum respondents at Q12 = 10,707
Potential maximum respondents at Q13 = 31,405

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

7.10 The results at both these questions need to be set very firmly within the context of how respondents answered other questions. First, at Question 12, a very substantial majority indicated that they did not agree with the introduction of same sex civil marriage only. However, when results are compared with those for other questions (and particularly those at Question 10^[29]) it is apparent that most respondents were not seeking to indicate that civil same sex marriage alone would be insufficient (in other words that they favoured both civil and religious same sex marriage), but rather that same sex marriage of any kind, including civil, was unacceptable. Further comments which, as at Questions 11 and 14 almost exclusively referred back to or repeated points made at Question 10, confirmed this interpretation.

7.11 The figures at Question 13 also need to be viewed in context- again comparison to responses at Question 10^[30] suggests the figures are so different (from those at Question 12) because the question was included on some amended forms but not others. Further comments made at this question tended to emphasise the need for arrangements between opposite and same couples to be equalised and that this would only be the case if both the civil and religious options were at least a possibility. However, as at earlier questions, many also re-emphasised that the arrangements should allow rather than require religious bodies to conduct same sex marriages.

7.12 The only substantive additional point to emerge at Questions 12 and 13 related to the arrangements for all marriages and was a suggestion that the legal registration component of all marriages should be a civil arrangement between the couple and that State, as is the case in some other European countries. In addition to undergoing a civil marriage, those that so wished would then able to go on to have an optional religious ceremony that recognised their marriage within their belief system. Respondents putting forward this proposition often made reference to the arrangements in France in particular and, on a few occasions, also identified themselves as being celebrants.

Question 15

Do you consider that religious celebrants should not be allowed to solemnise same sex marriages if their religious body has decided against solemnising same sex marriage?

Question 16

Do you agree that religious celebrants should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage?

7.13 The consultation then moved on to ask respondents whether they agreed with allowing individual religious celebrants to solemnise same sex marriages if their religious body had decided against doing so, and then whether they agreed that religious celebrants should not be required to solemnise same sex marriage. The overall balance of opinion at Questions 15 and 16 is set out in Table 17 below.

Table 17 Responses to Questions 15 and 16

	Question 15		Question 16
	N	%	N	%
Yes	8,620	86%	9,291	93%
No	1,065	11%	473	5%
Don't Know	306	3%	224	2%
Total	9,991	100%	9,988	100%

Potential maximum respondents at Q15 = 10,707
Potential maximum respondents at Q16 = 10,707

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

7.14 A clear majority of respondents were in agreement at both questions, with many then restating their opposition to same sex marriage. Further comments made suggested that most respondents viewed these issues in much the same way as they had done with regard to religious civil partnership, with most considering that:

• The right for a religious body to make a collective decision not to solemnise same sex marriages must be respected by all its individual celebrants; and
• Individual celebrants and religious bodies should also have the right to act according to their own conscience and Scotland must continue its long-standing tradition of tolerance and freedom of worship.

7.15 As with responses in relation to religious civil partnerships, many respondents made an explicit assumption that Christian organisations would want nothing to do with same sex marriage and that this would also apply to religious celebrants. Those that would do otherwise were frequently referred to as rogue celebrants who respondents felt would be acting contrary to Biblical principles. Whilst many respondents were clear that religious celebrants should conform to the decision made by their religious body, this was dependent on the religious body having made what they saw as the correct decision - in other words having decided not to undertake same sex marriage. If the religious body had decided to undertake same sex marriage - and hence had made what some respondents were clear would be an incorrect decision - most of these respondents suggested that individual celebrants would be required by conscience to disobey their religious body. Further points made again echoed comments relating to questions on religious civil partnership and included the following:

• Religious celebrants are employed by their religious body, and that in no other sphere would it be considered acceptable for an employee to expressly disobey instructions given to them by their employer;
• Celebrants should have been fully aware of what they were signing up to when they took on their role and should remain faithful to the beliefs and doctrine of the religious body to which they belong;
• The licence to act as a celebrant is not bestowed on celebrants simply as individuals, but because they are representatives of their religious body. This restricts their right to do as they please; and
• If they are not able to act as a true and faithful member of their religious body, they should resign their position and join a group whose doctrines they do feel able to uphold.

7.16 As before, some respondents were very concerned that the Scottish Government was even considering the possibility of legislation that would affect how religious bodies governed themselves, and the prospect of the State involving itself in the internal workings of religious bodies clearly angered many respondents.

7.17 However, a minority did feel it was the role of the State to do just that, and that religious bodies should not be able to instruct those that might wish to solemnise same sex marriages not to do so.

Question 17

Which of the options do you favour to ensure that religious bodies and celebrants do not have to solemnise same sex marriage against their will?

7.18 The consultation paper proposed two possible options for ensuring that, if they were to be introduced, religious celebrants would not have to register same sex marriages against their will. The options were as follows:

• Option 1 would be to extend the existing authorisations of celebrants under the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 so that the same celebrants would have the ability to solemnise same sex marriage. It would be made clear that religious bodies and celebrants who did not wish to solemnise same sex marriage would not be required to do so; and
• Option 2 would be to set up a new procedure, separate to that for the solemnisation of opposite sex marriage, under which all religious bodies who wished to solemnise same sex marriage could advise the Registrar General which celebrants they would like to be authorised. It would be made clear that it would not be discriminatory to decide against seeking approval to solemnise same sex marriage.

7.19 Respondents' preferences are set out in Table 18 below and then in Table 19 have been cross-tabulated according to whether they agreed with the introduction of same sex marriage (Question 10). As at Question 8, a number of respondents reported that they had been unable to find the options at all within the consultation paper, whilst others were unable to access the options whilst completing their response form and hence were commenting from memory.

7.20 It was also the case that some of those opposed to the introduction of same sex marriage fundamentally objected to this question being posed at all. Of the questions about possible arrangements surrounding same sex marriage, Question 17 in particular was seen to imply that a decision had already been made and that the consultation process amounted to little more than window dressing. A number of respondents gave this reason for declining to answer or comment further.

Table 18 Response to Question 17

	All Respondents
	N	%
Option 1	821	9%
Option 2	4,553	50%
Neither	2,853	31%
Don't know	894	10%
Total	9,121	100%

Potential maximum respondents = 10,707

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

7.21 Overall, Option 2 received most support, although the proportion of respondents that opted for neither alternative was also high.

Table 19 Option preferred by view on the proposed introduction of same sex marriage

	Support same sex marriage		Oppose same sex marriage
	N	%	N	%
Option 1	603	51%	207	3%
Option 2	108	9%	4,402	57%
Neither	283	24%	2,531	33%
Don't Know	191	16%	639	8%
Total	1,185	100%	7,779	100%

Potential maximum respondents = 10,707

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

7.22 Table 19 illustrates how views differed considerably depending on whether respondents supported the introduction of same sex marriage or not. Those who supported the introduction of same sex marriage tended to prefer Option 1, whilst those who did not preferred Option 2. However, as with the corresponding question on religious civil partnership (Question 8) a number of those that had stated a preference for Option 2 made it very clear that they had done so only because they saw it as the least worst option and that they fundamentally disagreed with the introduction of same sex marriage. Many of those that had selected 'Neither' as their answer also made a similar point in their further comments.

7.23 Respondents who considered Option 2 as preferable generally did so because they felt it would at least place some distance between opposite and same sex marriage and that, by extension, this would offer the greater protections to religious celebrants. It was also suggested that Option 2 would better reflect the widespread opposition of the Scottish faith community to the introduction of same sex marriage.

7.24 As with responses relating to religious civil partnerships, concerns were voiced that Option 1 would leave celebrants particularly open to legal challenges under equality legislation, with a number again suggesting that lobbying is already underway to remove any safeguards that the legislation would currently offer. These concerns led some to call for explicit and additional protections to be put in place through amendment of the current equality legislation. However, others were concerned that the necessary powers have not been devolved to the Scottish Government, and hence any assurances made in Scotland would be dependent on the co-operation of the UK Government which, even if promised, could not be guaranteed.

7.25 As at Question 8, a small number of respondents wished to remind the Scottish Government of the challenge involved in developing a set of arrangements that would work with the many and varied structures and governance arrangements in place across Scotland's religious bodies. Several of the main religious bodies also pointed out that they are part of wider organisations and work in partnership with those in other parts of the UK and that arrangements which applied only to Scotland could present significant challenges.

7.26 Those that preferred Option 1 often commented on its simplicity and also that it came closest to putting the same set of arrangements in place for opposite and same sex marriages. Some of those that preferred Option 1 did acknowledge that they could see why Option 2 might be preferable to some of the main religious bodies since it could go some way to allaying the latter's fears of being coerced into doing something they did not want to do. For that reason, Option 2 was sometimes seen as an acceptable compromise as a way forward.

Question 18

Religious bodies may not wish their premises to be used to solemnise same sex marriage. Do you agree that no legislative provision is required to ensure religious premises cannot be used against the wishes of the relevant religious body?

7.27 Respondents were then asked whether there was a need for legislative provision to ensure that the premises of religious bodies could not be used for same sex marriage against their wishes. As at Question 9, the wording of the question was itself the subject of comment, with some suggesting it could have been deliberately designed to confuse.

Table 20 Response to Question 18

	All Respondents
	N	%
Yes	2,157	22%
No	6,826	71%
Don't Know	694	7%
Total	9,677	100%

Potential maximum respondents = 10,707

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

7.28 A majority of respondents did not agree that no legislative provision was required - in other words, a majority thought provision was required. As with questions relating to religious civil partnerships, although respondents that opposed the introduction of same sex marriage tended to consider specific legislation to be necessary, and those that supported the introduction of same sex marriage tended to think it unnecessary, the relationship between respondents' answer at Question 18 and other questions (such as Question 10) was less direct than at many questions. When it came to making additional comment, many respondents simply referred back to comments made at the earlier religious civil partnership related question. In summary, therefore, the comments made were that:

• These are complex issues, and will require careful scrutiny from those with the necessary legal skills and understanding;
• Some respondents thought that the current legislative provision is sufficient and that ownership of premises already gives religious bodies control over what is permitted to take place on those premises;
• The majority of respondents that commented considered that specific, water-tight legislation must be put in place to protect those that own and manage religious premises from challenge under equality legislation; and
• Some respondents thought that what they saw as discriminatory practice should not be protected through legislation.

7.29 A further point made was about the receipt of public funding. Occasional references were made to this issue at other questions, but primarily at Question 18. Some of those that supported the proposed introduction of same sex marriage suggested that religious bodies should not have the option to withhold the use of their premises for same sex marriage if they were in receipt of public funding to maintain or in any way support the running of the building in question. Concerns that just such an approach might be taken were raised by some of those that opposed the introduction of same sex marriage, and it was suggested that some of the services that religious bodies provide to the wider community might be forced to close if vital funding was withheld.

Question 19

If Scotland should introduce same sex marriage, do you consider that civil partnership should remain available?

7.30 The penultimate question in the consultation paper effectively spanned the two issues of same sex marriage and civil partnership by asking respondents whether civil partnership should remain available if same sex marriage is introduced. This was one of the questions included on the amended form through which the majority of those broadly in favour of the proposals submitted their response, but was not included in the amended form used by the majority of those who broadly opposed the proposals. The balance of views on this issue is set out in Table 21 below.

Table 21 Response to Question 19

	All Respondents
	N	%
Yes	17,781	67%
No	3,852	14%
Don't Know	5,085	19%
Total	26,718	100%

Potential maximum respondents =29,812

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

7.31 The majority of those that answered this question did believe that civil partnership should remain available, although the reasons why people thought so were many and varied, and there were less clear patterns and relationships between how people answered this question and their responses to key questions on the introduction of religious civil partnership or same sex marriage.

7.32 For example, a small number of respondents said they wished to see what they saw as the inferior option of civil partnerships abolished and replaced with their preferred option of marriage. These respondents generally felt that civil partnership would simply be rendered pointless by the introduction of same sex marriage. Others wanted to see civil partnership abolished because they objected to its existence in the first place - in other words, they were not so much commenting on the relationship between the two sets of arrangements as voicing their basic objection to any form of legal, or in any other way formal, recognition of same sex unions.

7.33 However, some others who opposed the introduction of same sex marriage favoured retention of civil partnership as a clear and very distinct alternative which would highlight the difference between civil partnership as originally envisaged and any same sex marriage arrangements that might be put in place.

7.34 Some respondents supported the retention of civil partnership because they felt some couples might well prefer a clearly civil, secular option, particularly if they do not have a faith and see even civil marriage as something that has developed out of religious conventions. Many simply suggested that maximising choice was a good thing, whilst a small number of respondents voiced concerns about the impact that abolishing civil partnership might have on current civil partners.

7.35 Many respondents, both in their comments at this question or elsewhere, or in answering a question added to some of the amended forms, expressed their support for the introduction of civil partnership for opposite sex couples. As with many other issues, this was generally about creating single, equivalent arrangements for both opposite and same sex couples, as well as the view that some opposite sex couples might prefer civil partnership as offering legal protections but without any of the cultural and religious overtones that may come with marriage. This concern was raised by some of those strongly opposed to the introduction of religious civil partnership and same sex marriage with opposite sex civil partnership seen as a development that would further undermine the institution of marriage.