UK Parliament votes in favour of gay marriage

[robertlouis]

Last night a historic event took place in the House of Commons in London, when a government bill allowing gay people of both sexes to be married was passed by a significant majority.

It extends only to England and Wales - its chances of success in Northern Ireland are probably low, and perhaps questionable in Scotland too - and it still has to go through various committee stages and further debate in the House of Lords. The majority partner in the governing coalition, the Conservatives, were split almost 50/50 and the vote was largely carried by large majorities of Labour and Liberal Democrat members, 400 to 175.

It's also up to Churches at the institutional and in some cases at the individual parish level to decide whether they will allow gay ceremonies to take place on their premises, so it clearly has a long way to go before it achieves universal acceptance in law, and even longer with religious groups.

That's not to suggest it's just a tentative step, however. It's truly momentous and a day to celebrate, as it moves gay men and women a step closer to reaching full social, political and legal equality in the UK.

I don't care at all for David Cameron's massively divisive fiscal policies, but for this measure I sincerely applaud him for his courage and steadfastness.

[Stavros]

What a waste of Parliamentary time; it pales into insignificance compared to the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, and even that did not include the Merchant Navy or the Armed Forces.

I am not opposed to Gay Marriage, gay people already have civil partnerships, what I find extraordinary is that an institution called marriage be elevated to some hallowed status as if it were the ultimate proof that you are a human being, in spite of the fact that a substantial number of marriages fail -perhaps people whose marriages fail should be pilloried in public for the failures that they are. Some even go further and argue that if you have not created a Family then you are a worthless failure, with no regard to the possibility that some people might not want children, be incapable of producing them, or more importantly, be useless at being parents.

It would be better not to have the institution at all, at one time, maybe still, it was a tax break. That it will rumble on and divide the Tories may look good for the opposition, but this is cynical political window dressing that at its core is meaningless to most people and also most MP's.

Loving relationships do not need the approval of the state, the endorsement of religion, or the approval of your next-door neighbours. And some of the happiest and most enduring relationships between two people have been ever thus without being subjected to the terrorism of the moral police, gay or straight.

[tsadriana]

I love it ,actualy was fun watching the twats voting ,and funny the ones who voted agaisnt are actualy gay

[tsadriana]

Only with this situation it shows that actualy most people dictate who to do your life i think its wrong there.Biggots from biggots cities

[Prospero]

I think Stavros sort of misses the point. It's not that marriage is a great big deal. it's just wrong that the religious right - and the religous (unaffiliated) have been allowed, for so long, to keep this as the preserve of the strictly hetereosexual. Why on earth shouldn't two men, two women or two transgendereds of any ilk be married? It just seems like natural justice to me. (I have interest here. my sister is gay and had a civl partnership a few years ago. She so wanted to have a wedding ceremony but her church wouldn't allow it).

[tsadriana]

I think Stavros sort of misses the point. It's not that marriage is a great big deal. it's just wrong that the religious right - and the religous (unaffiliated) have been allowed, for so long, to keep this as the preserve of the strictly hetereosexual. Why on earth shouldn't two men, two women or two transgendereds of any ilk be married? It just seems like natural justice to me. (I have interest here. my sister is gay and had a civl partnership a few years ago. She so wanted to have a wedding ceremony but her church wouldn't allow it).

I hope your sister will have a brilliant wedding Prospero...The bottom line is that the heterosexual world wants to have control n any decision and i dont think its right...They treat us in the end like some sort of specimens not like humans.

[tsadriana]

Prospero in the end we can create a contry were only bi/gay/trans/lesbians can live and this world will become so boring without us lol

[Stavros]

I think Stavros sort of misses the point. It's not that marriage is a great big deal. it's just wrong that the religious right - and the religous (unaffiliated) have been allowed, for so long, to keep this as the preserve of the strictly hetereosexual. Why on earth shouldn't two men, two women or two transgendereds of any ilk be married? It just seems like natural justice to me. (I have interest here. my sister is gay and had a civl partnership a few years ago. She so wanted to have a wedding ceremony but her church wouldn't allow it).

On the contrary, the point is that marriage was the portal through which sexual intercourse was deemed 'sanctified' by religion, just as the wrath of God was said to be visited on fornicators, mastarbators and any other kind of non-sanctioned religious union. Children born out of wedlock were looked upon as bastards and treated as such, with the exception of the Virgin Mary who evidently had sex before marriage but avoided the social criticism by claiming a miracle from God. Just as young men and women who had gone wild when young and shamed their famlies either took the veil, or became devout as a means of mending their relationship to their society.

I assume in the mists of time a formal marriage/union had something to do with the rights of the children -sons- to land and property, and may also have been a way of regulating unions to prevent close relatives from marrying, procreating and weakening the genetic quality of the tribe/society.

We are living in an increasingly secular age, in which partnerships do not need to be validated by a church, if people who are in a formal religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, in which marriage is 'blessed' by the religion but crucially, validated by it and only by it, then it is a matter for those people in the church, rather than politics. It is surely because secular society is trying to impose its own values on the Church that a rift exists on both sides of the house.

Amongst all this hooha, as you observe, the validity of 'homosexual marriage' in Judaism and Islam is not mentioned, so when people talk of a victory, I wonder what they mean, not least because so many marriages end in divorce where the religious element is still complex. Until just this week we have been struggling to reconcile English law with attempts by legally divorced Jewish couples to receive a Get from the Beth Din, or to have a divorce decision by a Beth Din recognised in English Law (see links below). It has led The Times to argue that in this recent case the 'victory' that appeared to reconcile Jewish Law with English Law is inevitably going to validate Shari'a Law too. If it applies to a divorce, could it be applied to marriage? Do you really think the Chief Rabbi is going to approve of homosexual marriage, or local mosques welcome their gay sons and daughters?
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/10...court-decision

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/is...-decision.html

[Prospero]

Nope _ Rabbis and Imams will still force their archaic attitudes on followers. It is clearly not all going to happen at once. Yes in the Uk for the mainstream, it is an increasingly securlar age (though islam is a fast growing faith as we become a multi faith, multi ethnic and multi cultural nation) but i do applaud parliament deciding (subject to all the processes still to be sorte) agreeing that if gay people want to be married they can. It might be a social redundancy , but isn't that for these couples to decide for themselves without being discriminated against?

[Stavros]

Yes indeed, which is why I support Gay Marriage; but I can't get excited about it either; it only applies to Registry Offices; it will be interesting to see if it is used as the 'this far and no further' by organised religion, as I don't see much liberalism on social policy in established religions as you also mentioned.