Evangelical Alliance

Parliament debated plans to redefine marriage on 5 February 2013 when the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill received its Second Reading. Ahead of the debate and vote the Evangelical Alliance drew together a variety of resources which consider the government's plans and explain our opposition. The Alliance also provided a briefing, which you can access here, to many Members of Parliament to aid their contribution to the debate.

For an in depth background briefing on the issues surrounding same-sex marriage the Alliance's submission to the government's consultation is available online. The consultation received over 220 000 responses, and that doesn't include the half a million signatures on the Coalition for Marriage petition which the government pledged to include and then relegated to an appendix.  

The Coalition for Marriage has produced a video looking at the benefits of marriage for raising children, making the case that it's the best place for them to be born into and raised in.. This doesn't mean that children can't thrive in all sorts of different families and relations, and nor does it mean that married couples are any less married if they don't have kids – it just means that a marriage is the natural model for bringing up children.

Coalition for Marriage has also produced a helpful guide entitled: '10 reasons why the government is wrong to redefine marriage'. This popular resource for exposing the myths on which the government is basing its proposals can be found here.

'Redefining Marriage: a case for caution' is a recently published Jubilee Centre paper by Julian Rivers, professor of jurisprudence at Bristol University. From a legal perspective, it suggests that the Government's proposal to introduce same-sex marriage is based on reasons of equality, stability and convenience. Professor Rivers shows that on closer inspection, these are respectively incomplete, speculative and negligible. As currently defined, marriage secures the equal value of men and women as well as promoting the welfare of children. By contrast, the new definition of marriage will unavoidably call into question its exclusivity, its permanence and even its sexual nature. Julian Rivers makes a persuasive case that such an unravelling of marriage is too high a price to pay for a proposal which fulfils no practical legal need.

You can either read the paper online or order printed copies.