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:mad:

[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:mad:

[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/101935/jewish-divorce-ruled-ok-landmark-high-court-decision

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2013/2/1/times-reveals-high-courts-shock-sharia-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.

[Dino Velvet]

Good for you guys over there. Saw it on the news last night.

[fivekatz]

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.Not understand the politics of the UK and being a UD citizen who actually believes our nation is in danger of blurring the original concept of separation of church and state (as in the political power of the Christian Right in the US).

I personally see no problem with a law that ends up requiring the state to honor and allow marriage with all the benefits and protections of the law without an exception based on race, religion, creed or gender.

OTOH if that same law does not require any church to either perform or accept the marriage of any parties for any reasons that religion deems are religious, that is the essence of religious freedom IMHO.

I frankly see LGBT rights as the current fight for civil rights in my country and it is for the government to determine and define rights of all citizens, regardless of religion, and for the government to leave religion alone. It is for the members of any faith to change and dictate its convention, not the governments IMHO.

I applaud the UK for its movement in this civil rights fight and admit my ignorance on your politics and have only expressed opinons based on what I comprehended from these posts. If I have misread please forgive me, but I believe that the government should not dictate to the religions and that no religion should dictate to the government in regards to the rights of the people.

[Ben]

The 1960s civilized the cultures in America, the UK and other places....
And, too, this shows that applying pressure, through organizing etc., does have an impact.
Politicians do respond to what's going on in the culture, in society. Provided there is external pressure.
I mean, there are no gifts from above.
Take, say, health care in Canada. It took Canadians 15 years to finally get Tommy Douglas to institute public health care in the province of Saskatchewan. He didn't wake up one morning and decide to give everyone public health care. I mean, the doctors were quite antagonistic. They said things like: Public health care will turn Canada into a communist country.... And as we know our Northern neighbors are a communist country -- ha ha! :)
I mean, governments, like corporations, are not benevolent institutions. They just don't institute kind and moral and decent policies, as it were.... It does take popular pressure.

I mean, this is from 3 years ago:

David Cameron stumbles through interview on gay rights

Tory leader appears less than confident when asked about attitude of Conservative MEPs and peers to homosexuality:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/24/david-cameron-stumbles-gay-rights

[Ben]

Gay marriage: what the Tories are pushing is conformity not equality

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/06/gay-marriage-conformity-not-equality

[Stavros]

Not understand the politics of the UK and being a UD citizen who actually believes our nation is in danger of blurring the original concept of separation of church and state (as in the political power of the Christian Right in the US).

I personally see no problem with a law that ends up requiring the state to honor and allow marriage with all the benefits and protections of the law without an exception based on race, religion, creed or gender.

OTOH if that same law does not require any church to either perform or accept the marriage of any parties for any reasons that religion deems are religious, that is the essence of religious freedom IMHO.

I frankly see LGBT rights as the current fight for civil rights in my country and it is for the government to determine and define rights of all citizens, regardless of religion, and for the government to leave religion alone. It is for the members of any faith to change and dictate its convention, not the governments IMHO.

I applaud the UK for its movement in this civil rights fight and admit my ignorance on your politics and have only expressed opinons based on what I comprehended from these posts. If I have misread please forgive me, but I believe that the government should not dictate to the religions and that no religion should dictate to the government in regards to the rights of the people.

The secular aspect of this is quite simple -gay people will be able to go to a Registry Office and get married like everyone else who does it.

The cleavage that has been widened is between secular society and organised religion, even though there are religious groups -the Quakers for example- who are not opposed to gay marriage- and members of other churches whose support is contrary to official policy. Most people in the UK claim to believe in God and belong to a religious body, which can range from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, through Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, to Wicca, and those people in the 2011 Census who said their religion was Heavy Metal, Satanism, New Age or Jedi Knight, although the latter has decline substantially since the previous census in 2001. Apparently, 2,418 claim to be Scientologists.
-there is an article on this here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/11/census-data-religion-jedi-knights

Only the Church of England is formally exempt from discirmination law and thus has no obligation to perform civil partnerships in a religious venue and is exempt from any law on gay marriage, although the Govt has confusingly said it can 'opt in' if it wants to, which is unlikely. Just last month the Church of England Synod, its parliament, declined to grant women the right to become Bishops, it is tied up in knots on the issue of homosexuality across the board from gay priests to the crisis in the African branch of the Church which believes homosexuality is a wickedness.

A practical example of the cleavage has been found with Registrars who are Christian and refuse to perform civil partnership ceremonies -the case of Lilian Ladele is also interesting because she worked in the London Borough of Islington, which has a large gay population, and though initially she worked around the rosters to avoid same-sex partnerships, she claims the Council would not amend their schedules to enable her to avoid them, and in addition she says she was bullied and harassed as a homophobe and was eventually dismissed -and though she won her case against unfair dismissal, she lost it on appeal and the European Court of Human Rights declined her appeal even though they understood that when she took the job there was no civil partnership law and thus her religious convictions were not likely to be challenged, and that the Council showed no interest in her religious beliefs after the law was changed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19467554

As I said before, this is a hollow victory for the gay lobby -not only is there no consensus among gay people that marriage should be a right, there are deep divisions within and between secular and religious communities on the issue; attitudes have indeed become more accepting of diversity but this is being used a political football in the UK because they look at the re-election of Obama as a template for the next general election campaign in the hope that being liberal on social issues will win them seats, not the most morally pure reason to support equal rights in the law...

[sexyasianescorts]

I have nothing against Gay couples at all but I am not sure the government should interfere with the church. Maybe i am missing something as there are lots of elements about this matter that confuses me??

Chloe x

[fivekatz]

I have nothing against Gay couples at all but I am not sure the government should interfere with the church. Maybe i am missing something as there are lots of elements about this matter that confuses me??

Chloe xBeing from the US not only do I agree but it would be against our Constitution for the government to demand of by example (Mormon Church, Catholic Church) to perform marriages for gay couples if they have a strict religious belief against this.

In the US Catholic employers and the Catholic Church as employers have raised objections to the provision in the Affordable Health Care Act that requires that woman be provided birth control as part of their prescription insurance. And based on the separation of church and state the Obama administration is having to come up with an alternate insurance option for women employees who work for employers with legitimate religious objections.

I understand the feelings expressed about what is happening in the UK because here in the US some states tried creating "civil unions" that would provide many but not all the same legal protections and privileges as marriage. It took a gay friend to explain to me the objection was that it was still unique and separate and not full and proper recognition. Similar to, I suppose, the stupid premise Southern states in the US have with their "separate but equal" laws regarding education etc.

Change on the subject of LGBT rights in the US has come slowly though appears to be gaining great energy. As recently as 2008 the whole topic of same sex marriage was so toxic that neither Obama or the Dems would do anything but dance around it. 2012 was a different story.

The signs in "western world" are that as generations change, so to is the outlook toward a variety of civil rights and that those rights are not just a matter of race, color and creed but also sexual orientation.

Wonderfully encouraging. I suppose I don't understand the role that church plays in marriage issue in the UK, though I would think that the pressure for the church to change should come from the faithful and not the government.

Just my take as an outsider looking in.

[Stavros]

The point I would make is that the Church of England is explicitly exempt from discrimination law, but no other church or religion -not the Catholic Church, not Islam, or Judaism, which means that in purely legal terms, all religions and churches should be conforming with the law. It is up to the Church of England and the other Christian churches, and religions to change if the want to, but the fact that they may be falling foul of discrimination law is potentially where the rift between social attitudes and religious practice is at its most difficult and sensitive.

[fivekatz]

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.In the US we have seen this vary from church to church in certain sects while others like the Mormons are jeu dead set against it. They spent the vast majority of the money in California to create the constitutional amendment against Same Sex Marriage.

Acceptance by one's faith is no small issue but really churches slowly change and it is the for the members of the church and not the government to tell the church what to do.

And IMHO it is a huge step when a government states without exception or vagueness that all people are entitled to marriage and its legal protections and legal obligations regardless of their sex or sexual orientation.

If the choice was between having the government recognize your marriage if you are LGBT or the church by far the government is more important. It is the government who determines your inheritance rights, life-death issues for your mate, joint property rights etc. To me that is the real issue about marriage. Any two people can exchange their vows before their loved ones and God without the church or the government. It is government that protects equality in marriage not the church. So whilst many of the churches in the UK may not embrace this law, the law is major victory IMHO.

Just my take.