"Marriage of same sex couples is lawful"

[yorksrob]

Ultimately one person has to conduct the ceremony though.

Currently churches aren't forces to marry anyone - indeed many will refuse to marry unless they were fully convinced that both partners would keep their commitments. I know of two such churches with no or one divorce in 30 years. Do you want to force them to marry anyone who turns up?

This legislation seems to make a reasonable compromise by deliberately allowing religious institutions to opt out, so I find it ridiculous that they're kicking up such a fuss. If they're worried about the ECHR changing things, they should complain to Strasbourg.

I have to say, my personal preference would be for a Civil Partnership. The word "marriage" has too many connotations of religion for my taste.

 

[maniacmartin]

This legislation seems to make a reasonable compromise by deliberately allowing religious institutions to opt out, so I find it ridiculous that they're kicking up such a fuss. If they're worried about the ECHR changing things, they should complain to Strasbourg.

But in the case of Church of England, it doesn't merely allow them to opt out, it forces them to opt out.

I've never been a fan of Civil Partnerships. They sound too formal - like a business relationship or something.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The word "marriage" has too many connotations of religion for my taste.

Yet people have been able to have a secular marriage in registrar offices for decades I think religion has long lost its monopoly on marriage

 

[Oswyntail]

But in the case of Church of England, it doesn't merely allow them to opt out, it forces them to opt out....

That is because of the unique legal status of the CofE, as the authority responsible for Canon Law. An act from Parliament could not impose this on the CofE, even as an option. It is up to Synod to amend the law, and, as we know, this can take ages!

 

[Welshman]

Ultimately one person has to conduct the ceremony though.

Currently churches aren't forces to marry anyone - indeed many will refuse to marry unless they were fully convinced that both partners would keep their commitments. I know of two such churches with no or one divorce in 30 years. Do you want to force them to marry anyone who turns up?

I was always told the position regarding the CofE was that because that church is the "established" church of the land [rightly or wrongly!], then anyone living within the parish has a right to be married at the parish church, provided they are of age, have not been married before, and are not intending to marry someone prohibited by the Tables of Kindred & Affinity.

A priest or vicar has no right to object to officiate at a marriage simply on the grounds that s/he thinks the union is unwise or unlikely to survive its first anniversary.

 

[Holly]

But in the case of Church of England, it doesn't merely allow them to opt out, it forces them to opt out. ...

That was a masterstroke of political genius.
It effectively prevents the CofE from meaningfully having any input into the political debate.

Right or wrong it was a brilliant move.

 

[Oswyntail]

That was a masterstroke of political genius.
It effectively prevents the CofE from meaningfully having any input into the political debate.

Right or wrong it was a brilliant move.

Why would anyone want that? Besides, whatever the proposal, the CofE does have an interest that should be considered (as they tend to be the experts in both church marriage and the law surrounding it). I do hope no one is going to try to stifle the CofE contribution with "nothing to do with you".

 

[Nick W]

I was always told the position regarding the CofE was that because that church is the "established" church of the land [rightly or wrongly!], then anyone living within the parish has a right to be married at the parish church, provided they are of age, have not been married before, and are not intending to marry someone prohibited by the Tables of Kindred & Affinity.

A priest or vicar has no right to object to officiate at a marriage simply on the grounds that s/he thinks the union is unwise or unlikely to survive its first anniversary.

This appears to be true. I never realised and I wonder how many marriages are conducted against the will of the vicar.

 

[DarloRich]

The whole idea of same sex marriage is morally wrong, is disgusting and will result in the breakdown of the social fabric of this once great country of ours. The participants will burn in a fire of eternal damnation for their abhorrent and frankly unclean practices. The whole idea makes me shudder.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman as defined by the word of our lord Jesus Christ. It is an outrage that this holy, sanctified joining of two clean, pure and virginal individuals should be sullied by any connection with such appalling behaviours. On the day of resurrection the lord shall sit in judg………………….. Sorry I just can’t do it! I feel dirty for even writing that!


I have absolutely no problem with couples of the same sex getting married. The same rights should apply to all in society without exception.

It should be considered that civil partnerships do not offer the same legal rights, especially for in relation to survivorship, that a married couple would receive. However, simply changing the marriage laws wont deal with all the issues, there needs to be a simultaneous alternation of the laws of succession.


(Clearly the first 2 paragraphs of this post are a parody on right wing religious types who should feel free to attack me for being a terrible, pinko liberal. PLEASE DONT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[fusionblue]

I would just go one further and ban marriage entirely.

Equal opportunities for all. Nobody gets married.

At least it would put the debate to bed!

 

[Oswyntail]

.....
(Clearly the first 2 paragraphs of this post are a parody on right wing religious types who should feel free to attack me for being a terrible, pinko liberal. PLEASE DONT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

That was fairly obvious. But I think it is a common error to assume that views on same-sex marriage are divided along left/right political lines. I know many "socialists" who think it is abhorrent, as well as many whatever-is-the-equivalent-of-socialists-on-the-right who support it. Just as there are many religious types in support and non-religious types against. And there is no clear majority in either leaning. This is genuinely an issue that defies categorisation.

 

[PR1Berske]

Why can't I marry my dog?! Pffttt, discrimination....

 

[455driver]

Why can't I marry my dog?!

I have never married a dog but have woken up beside a few in my time!

 

[Geezertronic]

Dogs are bisexual anyway, or at least my dog is

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder how the vote will go in the House of Commons on the related matter.

 

[Kernowfem]

Marriage is a union to cement a relationship between a man and woman, each having the necessary organs for the production of child. The same sex people were eventually catered for by the introduction of civil partnerships civil partnerships ansd who enjoy the same equality rights.

As far as i'm concerened "marriage is a union to cement a relationship between two people in love" regardless of sex!!

I was married for years and i dont have any children...does that make my marriage "uncemented" What utter claptrap.

"The same sex people" you mean gay and lesbian couples who settled for a civil partnership because at that point it was the closest thing TO a marriage, but does not give gay and lesbian couples the same legal status/rights as a hetrosexual married couple.

I hope the law will be changed and gay marriages will be sanctioned. I also hope that the church of England will allow those gay couples who wish to marry before god to do so. Religion has no place in my life, what's written in a bloody book will never dictate to me what is wrong or right.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

...what's written in a bloody book will never dictate to me what is wrong or right.

Let's hope you don't work on the railways then!

 

[starrymarkb]

Any reason why the DUP MPs want to ban Gay Marriage in England and Wales when it wouldn't affect their constituents as in NI the decision is devolved to Stormont?

 

[bb21]

Any reason why the DUP MPs want to ban Gay Marriage in England and Wales when it wouldn't affect their constituents as in NI the decision is devolved to Stormont?

Because they want to pretend that they are more important than they actually are. :roll:

 

[maniacmartin]

MPs from devolved areas often vote on English-only issues. Its a bit of a flaw in the way devolution happened in that England wasn't devolved too in my opinion.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Because they want to pretend that they are more important than they actually are. :roll:

To be fair though it's only similar to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish constituency MPs voting for matters that only affect England. As maniacmartin says, it's only a negative effect of devolution to all countries bar England!

 

[bb21]

The eyes to the right, 400, the nose to the left, 175.

 

[Manchester77]

People on twitter (no one official) have said it has been legalised...?
Can anyone confirm one wants to browse the daily mails comments for a good laugh

 

[Seacook]

People on twitter (no one official) have said it has been legalised...?
Can anyone confirm one wants to browse the daily mails comments for a good laugh

It's only the second reading isn't it? It will not pass into law for a while yet.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Indeed, it now has a Committee Stage, Report Stage, Third Reading in the Commons; then a repeat of the whole process in the Lords, a stage of back and forth passage between the two for amendment then Royal Assent.

 

[PaulHarding150]

One step closer tonight.

400 Ayes v 175 Nos

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Finally some common sense.... From the commons!

 

[Searle]

People on twitter (no one official) have said it has been legalised...?
Can anyone confirm one wants to browse the daily mails comments for a good laugh

They're tragic, people are saying that they're going to stop voting tory because of it?! They never cease to amaze me.

I'm very much pleased at the result, although I don't have any plans as of yet to cash in on it

 

[maniacmartin]

They're tragic, people are saying that they're going to stop voting tory because of it?! They never cease to amaze me.

Who are they going to vote for then? Labour and Lib Dem MPs voted for the motion in greater proportions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They're tragic, people are saying that they're going to stop voting tory because of it?! They never cease to amaze me.

I feel that some of the strident and shrill voices in the Conservative heartlands will be from the Blue Rinse / Twin-set and pearls / "Offended of Orpington" brigade who still hanker back to the days of the British Raj.

 

[Searle]

Who are they going to vote for then? Labour and Lib Dem MPs voted for the motion in greater proportions.

UKIP!