Response to Bishops' Opposition to Gay Rights Law

Sir, Your report (March 19 ) that more than 40 lay members of the General Synod have written to the Diocesan Bishops of the Church of England to express concern about the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) due to come before the House of Lords on Wednesday reflects the concerns of many others, clergy and laity, in and well beyond the synod.

Some of the clauses are highly contentious, and significant issues of public policy are involved. Some of these have an impact on marriage, family life, the moral welfare of children and freedom of speech.

It is not in the best traditions of Parliament for such issues to be dealt with by regulation.

To do so does not give opportunity for full debate in either House of Parliament.

The House of Lords has an opportunity on Wednesday to address the democratic deficit and insist that these matters of policy are put in a Bill by rejecting regulations which they can neither amend nor debate fully.

THE VEN NORMAN RUSSELL
Prolocutor of the Convocation of Canterbury and Archdeacon of Berkshire

THE REV CANON GLYN WEBSTER
Prolocutor of the Convocation of York and Canon Chancellor of York Minster

Sir, The SORs are nothing less than a fundamental attack on freedom of conscience and freedom to teach and practise our Christian-Biblical faith.

These SORs are a blatant misuse of state power to impose an anti-Christian morality against the wishes of the majority of its citizens, and the Scottish Christian Party will actively seek their abolition.

THE REV GEORGE HARGREAVES
Leader, Scottish Christian Party Glasgow

Sir, Certainly, homosexual people have needed further protection, but these regulations go much further than that.

For the first time Christians, and others, will not be allowed to act and speak freely according to their beliefs about homosexual practice. And this is being brought about by mere secondary legislation, the details of which were not explicit in the Act which provided for it and which has every appearance of being rushed through with minimal debate.

This seems shabby in the extreme and creates the sense of a strong government determination not just to protect gay people from discrimination but also to discriminate against religious believers. It cannot but create deep discontent.

C. J. DAVIS