On 15 December the House of Lords debated a motion to annul the government's new regulations enabling civil partnerships to be registered in churches with the latter's agreement.
Hansard records that Lord Lexden sought to contribute to the debate, but in the event he was not able to deliver his remarks in a crowded House.
Read the speech in full below:
My Lords, I am opposed to the motion before the House this morning.
I am opposed to it because it conflicts with my view of the way in which the modern Conservative Party should conduct itself. I am also opposed to it because it seeks to destroy a path to change within our Christian churches.
'Britain', said Disraeli, ' is a progressive country in which change is constant'. The Conservative Party is almost invariably at its best when it assists, rather than impedes, change. It can do itself great damage, particularly where progressive social change is concerned, by strenuously resisting it. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the sphere of gay issues-as a newly published and fully researched account of Conservative attitudes to them by my friend Mr Michael McManus has shown. Those attitudes have changed fundamentally in the last few years in response to changing public opinion. Further change should not be blocked.
Disraeli, the great Jewish outsider, himself pointed the way. He passed legislation which enabled, but did not compel, local authorities to undertake extensive schemes of social improvement. Far-sighted local leaders, like Joe Chamberlain in Birmingham, took advantage of their new powers to transform some of Britain's worst urban areas. Others did not.
The changes that this government has made to the law on civil partnerships follow that model. It cannot be said too often-or too emphatically-that the government's measure enables, but does not compel, change. As the General Secretary of the Church of England's General Synod has stressed, ' the position under the new arrangements is that no Church of England religious premises may become "approved premises" for the registration of civil partnerships without there having been a formal decision by the General Synod to that effect'. My Lords, those arrangements should stand.
Parliament long ago ceased trying to prescribe how the Church of England should order its affairs. The furore over the revised Prayer Book in 1928 marked the final attempt by Parliament to enforce its views on the Church. It failed. This government's civil partnerships' measure is true to the tradition which has existed since then-facilitating change if that should at any point be the Church's wish, but not enforcing it.
The central doctrines of the Anglican Church have stood unchanged over the centuries; the institutions through which they are imparted have changed fundamentally. In Church, as in State, change is constant, as the reforms approved by the General Synod in recent years have amply demonstrated, and further far-reaching change is under discussion. Who can tell where the process of institutional change will lead? The Church itself must be left to determine it, equipped with the new enabling powers that the government has provided-to use them, or not, as it may decide. In the meantime why should highly respected religious groups like the Quakers that want to make use of the new arrangements under the government's legislation be prevented from doing so by this motion before us?
My Lords, it would not be right to think of this subject as one which is only concerned with doctrine and high principle. It impacts personally and directly on many people, some of whom are among us in this House.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood had very much hoped to be here today to speak, but has been detained by important matters relating to the Leveson Inquiry.
It is a great pity we are not able to hear from him in person, because he is one of the few people in this House to have entered a civil partnership. His view should be important to us.
I have spoken to him at length about it. He has been in a civil partnership with someone whom he has known for nearly 22 years. He is a Tory, for whom tradition and values are of the greatest significance. And he is a committed Christian. He tells me that when he entered his partnership in 2006 nothing would have given him greater joy than that it could have taken place in a Church -- provided of course that the Church itself was happy to do so. That it could not it is a source of great regret for him. Let us not deny others the fulfilment that was denied one of our own Noble Friends.
My Lords, many of my gay friends like me have the Church at the very centre of their lives. They look with hope and humility to a future where it might be possible to register civil partnerships in their Church-to a future where, in a new way, the Church may fulfil its great mission to bring 'the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and make Him known to those in its care.' My Lords, do not shatter their hopes by passing this motion.