Marriage (Same-sex Couples) Bill

Lord Norton

The Marriage (Same-sex Couples) Bill has completed its passage through the Commons.  It was given a Third Reading by 366 votes to 161.  It has now arrived in the Lords, having been given its formal First Reading at the end of proceedings yesterday.  It is scheduled for Second Reading on the first day the House resumes after the Whit recess, that is, Monday 3 June.  It looks like being a long day.  Well over sixty peers have now signed up to speak and others may well do so between now and then.  That could mean a ten to fifteen hour debate, or more if other peers add their names!

83 comments for “Marriage (Same-sex Couples) Bill

  1. 22/05/2013 at 11:31 pm

    Any chance of an amendment to open Civil Partnerships to everyone finding its way in at some stage in the Lords? While I support the Bill, it’s not right that it should leave this glaring inequality. I suppose an amendment closing Civil Partnerships to new applicants with the enactment of this Bill would be acceptable too.

  2. Rob Y
    23/05/2013 at 12:39 am

    I notice Lord Dear has put down an amendment to the motion to give the bill a second reading. What is the significance of this amendment, as opposed to simply voting against motion?

    • tom
      24/05/2013 at 9:12 pm

      It’s to allow the peers to use the excuse to vote the bill down on the grounds that it has been introduced against democratic process eg Not in any Queens Speech, no mention in any manifesto or the Coalition Agreement, no white paper etc.

      Despite convention that an unelected body doesn’t vote against a huge majority in the commons they think it’s one of the best ways of scuppering the bill! Charming lot aren’t they?

      Despite

      • Dave H
        29/05/2013 at 12:59 pm

        Private members’ bills don’t normally appear anywhere until they hit Parliament. While most fail, there are some that have made it all the way through the process to become law.

        Emergency legislation doesn’t usually appear in the speech or manifesto either, and that mostly goes through with cross-party support.

        So there are precedents for these things to happen. It’s why we have representative democracy, in the belief that our representatives are competent to make decisions on our behalf. If we disagree with enough of the decisions they make, then we don’t vote for them next time. At least that’s how it should work, but strangely, the government always seems to get in and nothing much changes.

  3. maude elwes
    23/05/2013 at 6:40 am

    How extraordinary in a democracy that is against this bill could find a huge majority in the Commons voting ‘for’ it. Talk about out of touch. But, lets face it, it’s not out of touch, what it is, is deliberate snub nosing of those who vote for either party.

    It’s time people who go to poling stations closely research those put up for office and what are their private lifestyle choices. As this is the only way anyone can work out where these people are coming from and what they will do in our name once we give them the power over us.

    Another issue that must be judged, from the electorate point of view, is what representation certain lobbies have in both upper and lower House. Over representation by minority lobbyists throws those governed into an imbalance that cannot be righted by the ballot box. Therefore, those who are not status quo, millionaires for example, as well as gays, must declare openly, before polling day, what they privately represent on every issue. Otherwise we are voting blinkered.

    Here is what I wrote on another forum. And I don’t feel I’m in a minority by any stretch of the imagination. Which of course you all suspect but choose to ignore, because, if you didn’t you would have offered it up for a referendum as so many called for.

    *** I repeat what I wrote in a previous post. Different entities cannot produce any kind of ‘equality.’ For the two entities are not remotely similar. The physical and mental biological compound is not identical, or even related, on any level.

    A man and a woman in marriage is not and can never be ‘equal’ to two men in a partnership or two women in a partnership. They are different in that they cannot recreate the same situation, either emotionally or physically. Two men cannot pro-create as the two are biologically identical in gender, which is self evident. Two men do not have between them breasts, uterus, vagina, ovaries and the female psyche. Likewise with two women not having the biological requirements to present as male. Therefore, a man is biologically as well as psychologically ‘different’ from a female and vice versa. The two ‘different’ genders are two ‘different’ entities. Therefore, a marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. As, the meaning of marriage is not a union that can be compared to two different biological entities which are unable to practice the union required to create another human being or to form the same psychological connection. Married couples have two distinct and different expectations of what their union can expect, produce and offer, to that of two males or two females. And all the pretense in the world is never going to make them one and the same. More than that, it is psychologically harmful to mankind as a whole to try and persuade them, through legislation, that such an enormous incompatible perception is fact.

    Equality has to begin with comparable entities. Two men having a sexual union is not remotely ‘equal’ to a sexual union between a man and a woman. And the same is for two females. There is no possibility of two men becoming one man and one woman and is therefore not equal in any respect to a couple who are of different genders. So claiming ‘equal rights’ under secular or even religious freedom, in this situation is plainly absurd. And by forcing mankind to pretend that a faux situation is reality, by any government or state, is against the ‘human rights’ of the citizens they rule over. Thereby, doing so is removing the ‘human rights’ of the entire citizenship they govern.***

    • Dave H
      23/05/2013 at 12:52 pm

      If the ability to procreate is a requirement for marriage then it should be denied to anyone found to be infertile and all those who are too old to have children. One could also argue that any couple who fail to have children got married under false pretences and so should forfeit any benefit they gained by being married.

      Given the number of children who need adoption, and the sheer number of humans in the world, making your own is less important than being able to provide a happy, stable home.

      • maude elwes
        23/05/2013 at 3:37 pm

        @Dave H.

        Where did you read in my post that it was a requirement of marriage? It is an expectation of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman was conceived in order to celebrate conception and the joining of two distinct families within one unit to add to those families. It was also conceived to remind those taking such a step that they were entering into a relationship of one unit, which is called fidelity. Which, from my understanding, gay marriage does not require this pledge. So same sex marriage cannot exist for it is based on a pretense of meaning.

        What possible reason do gay couples have for a marriage ceremony that creates a ‘husband’ and ‘wife.’ For, they can never be either of those things to those they choose to partner.

        The relationship between two men or two women is taken care of under legislation by offering up civil partnership, which is theirs for the taking, should they wish to participate. And how clever to realise that by having this ‘right’ they are reducing the rights of other citizens as it is for ‘Gays’ alone. Hence the sudden push for heterosexual civil partnership. Again wanting to reduce the meaning of an infinite difference regarding the entity of human marriage. Which is something that exists as a particular and discrete unit, consisting of unconnected distinct parts.

        Mixed doubles cannot take place between two men or two women. That eliminates the contest before it’s begun. It cannot be a horse race unless only horses are in it. If you admit camels into a horse race it becomes a camel and horse race. No. What is really taking place here is an act by government to remove the fact of gender. What will you call the Wimbledon mixed doubles if you cannot refer to or accept that we have two distinct gender differences with quite separate biological factors and needs? And why should any of us want to give up our gender ‘rights’ in order to pretend we have no real and very desirable differences? I don’t want to be a man, as wonderful as men are, they are ‘different’ from me. Not to mention I love their difference and don’t want to emulate it or pretend I don’t find it extremely exciting in its existence.

        http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/husband

        http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wife

        Without these two distinctive parts, matrimony loses its clarification.

        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/matrimony

        Civil partnership is what two people of the same sex have. Matrimony stems from the word, mother. Which is the essence of the relationship called marriage.

        What you suggest, by way of a back door analysis, is a nonsense. Marriage takes place between a man and wife. And same sex marriage can never bring that situation about.

        Pretending to be other than what one is, is not reality. It is a faux situation and no legislation can change that fact.

        • alan
          24/05/2013 at 11:33 am

          Of course gay couples have been excluded from marriage for centuries. Homosexuality has only been legalised for a few decades and gay couples have only been given legal protection since the end of 2005. Most religious organisations are against homosexuality completely and in many countries gay people can be imprisoned or put to death. Even the Quakers , who are now in favour of same sex marriage , only came to that decision in 2009.

          It’s not surprising, therefore, that gays have been excluded from marriage. I don’t think the majority of people go into marriage with the same ideas as you do Maude or think that gay couples, who have now gained greater tolernace amongst most people, should continue to be discriminated against.

          Gays couples in CPs are on average faithful. However, like married couples it doesn’t always work out like that. I prefer couples to work out things first rather than cry out adultery and ask for an instant divorce based on that. As for children, no-one expects the married couple to have children. It’s their decision and personally I would plan first when to have a baby rather than be put under pressure to have a baby becuase I’m now married.

          As for straights CPs versus gay CPs then the govt has made it clear that this will be reviewed. I don’t even know whether that means getting rid of CPs and replacing it with a more French like system like PACS. It needs a lot more thought put into it rather than saying we now need straight CPs becuase we’re going to have same sex marriage.

        • Dave H
          24/05/2013 at 6:11 pm

          @maude elwes

          I was making the point that many of the things ‘required’ of marriage are poorly applied. Even the requirement for fidelity isn’t particularly well applied in traditional marriage, and of course the number of divorced-and-remarried people who insist that marriage is between one man and one woman obviously forgot to add “at a time” on the end.

          The “mixed doubles” argument holds no water, there is no requirement for an individual participating in the sport to be heterosexual and indeed, several of the top players have turned out not to be so inclined.

          I don’t see why equality is so important, two people can make what they want out of their commitment to each other. We are all different, we like different colours, different music, different art, etc. I could see that marrying your exact clone might be dubious, but that’s probably prohibited by existing laws against the marriage of close family members.

          Plenty of bandying of words and definitions, but the meaning of words changes as the language evolves. The word ‘gay’ is a particularly appropriate example of this, so there is no reason why the word ‘marriage’ cannot evolve to mean a formal union of two people without reference to the sex of either.

          • maude elwes
            28/05/2013 at 3:47 pm

            Lets start with the word, Gay, as used for homosexual groups. It was not ‘changed’ it was aggressively hijacked without a care or debate with those deeply affected. Example: those women with the name Gay, as my cousin, it has been a terrible betrayal of their family to have reduced her given name to an act she has no connection to and turning her into a laughing stock. Which the people of that community despise when addressed to themselves.

            Fidelity in marriage is poorly applied. Well maybe to you and yours but then,even so, Why do you want to pass on to us all the hell lived in by those you know. It may interest you to know,that my family history has a marriage for life principle. Which, I am sure one or two may have had the odd affair. But, it didn’t end the belief that fidelity was and is the root of the promise because that is one of the main moves which cement a relationship. And if you don’t think that a good idea and feel it is to be ridiculed, why would you want marriage for all? Even those who have openly suggested it is not for them. Are you of sound mind?

            What a flimsy line you make about mixed doubles. The doubles remained of mixed gender whether or not one of them had narcissistic tendencies. So your point tends to appear deliberately obtuse.

            And as far as incest is concerned, well you have lost me there as that kind of relationship still has the inevitable offspring in the offing. Which is an indication that inbreeding has to be more productive than playing around with one of your own sex. Entire biblical tribes were built on this fashion. Even when they end up
            with a high proportion of defects.

            So, again, I don’t follow your argument. Are you suggesting this western culture should return to a pattern of inbreeding to keep it healthy or more perverse?

        • timmy
          29/05/2013 at 9:10 am

          Maude …it’s a bit rich of you to talk about straight people being faithful in marriage , let us not forget the highly publicised affairs of Prince Charles, Princess Di, Princess Margaret etc. I don’t think straight people can take the high ground on faithfulness within marriage. I can see why some straight people want to cling on to the adultery clause since it seems to me an easy option for them to get out of their marriage.

          • maude elwes
            29/05/2013 at 1:03 pm

            @Timmy:

            What strange examples you give of married bliss.

            Charles and Diana. Well dear me, what is quite clear is, Diana was not a choice for Charles. I will not go deeper into this aspect out of compassion for her long suffering sons. She was a terrible choice for a wife and most especially for a Prince destined to be King. Albeit I have no sympathy with Monarchy as an institution. I don’t see Charles faltering now he is with the chosen (by him)lady of his youth. Enough said.

            Why didn’t you site those who, for generations, have thrived and remained healthy as a result of their choice to marry and remain faithful to each other as man and wife. There are millions of them. Of all races and creeds and all over the planet. It has been found to be the one stabilising ritual the human race has devised for its comfort and for the environment needed to enable the human child to prosper. Yet you want us, as a society, to simply step aside and turn it into a nonsense. A Las Vegas style party. Hire the Elvis suit and we can go as matching Kings.

          • timmy
            29/05/2013 at 5:15 pm

            Maude – it sounds like you would like to ban all marriages apart from those you personally approve of.

    • Lord Blagger
      23/05/2013 at 2:45 pm

      There is a simple solution.

      The state gets out of the marriage business.

      The only thing that should concern the state is the enforcement of contracts, and the welfare of children.

      So you can have any marriage contract you want, and you go to court to enforce it. Catholic, Muslim, Athiest, Polygamist, you name it, you can have it.

      However, there are laws already in existence that mean people cannot walk away from their children. Enforce those.

      Then there is no issue. Catholics have their contract. Gays can have theirs. Polygamists can have theirs too. Each to their own.

      • Alan
        24/05/2013 at 11:10 am

        Marriage is the “gold standard”. It’s something that you take with you wherever you go. It’s recognised all around the world. The contract (state or religious) has to be called “marriage”

        It’s interesting that now France has both PACS and same sex marriage, British gay couples in CPs,working or living in France ,will still be recognised as the equivalent of PACSed couples. In France PACS couples have lesser rights than married couples. Dutch and Spanish gay married couples, however, will now benefit from more rights in France than us British couples.

        Just shows CPs are different to marriages and could well lead to us being less well off when we take our CP civil status abroad with us.

  4. timmy
    23/05/2013 at 7:36 am

    I understood that lords were there to scrutinize and improve the bill (ie how to provide SSM and not whether to provide it) but Lord Dear and others in the HoL have made it clear that they intend to reject the whole principle. It is also reported that Lord Dear has raised a “fatal motiion” to reject the whole bill on the 2nd reading.

    The HoL are discussing whether I shall be allowed to get married and it would be nice if the list of peers who are going to speak is made public so that we can contact them on our future.

  5. Peter & Judy Koller
    23/05/2013 at 7:51 am

    The Government had no mandate from the British people for this Bill. It is against the will of the majority of the British people. It seriously undermines the purpose of holy matrimony and the family.
    This Conservative Government will be remembered for this divisive policy and will therefore certainly not be re-elected.

    • 23/05/2013 at 1:14 pm

      Every single opinion poll in the UK in recent years shown that vast majority supports same-sex marriage.

      • maude elwes
        23/05/2013 at 6:29 pm

        Another overstatement by ott pro lobbyists.

        According to this poll, 77% of the population want marriage to remain as it is in its traditional form.

        http://www.catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/06/cv-publishes-first-ever-poll-gay-attitudes-same-sex-marriage

        But a referendum, as was called for by many, would have settled this argument once and for all. Wonder why they didn’t want it? Couldn’t be because the truth would out. Could it?

        • Lord Blagger
          24/05/2013 at 11:55 am

          Quite.

          We need a law that says anything not in a manifesto has to be put to a referenda.

          We also need a law that says MPs are held to their commitments on the stump.

          If you say, as John Redwood did, that he will publish the pensions debts then he has to be held to them. If he doesn’t, then that is grounds for a recall. Ditto for the lib dems and their commitments over tuition fees.

          It’s democracy.

          1. If you don’t tell people when voting, and then go ahead and do it when you haven’t asked them, its not democratic. It’s a dictatorship. It’s fascist.

          2. If you tell people you are going to do something, then do the opposite, its fraud.

          • 25/05/2013 at 3:23 pm

            Lord Blagger: In those cases the electorate will not vote for the government at the next election. That’s democracy. I’m sure people who had to live under genuine fascist dictators would have relished that opportunity.

        • Deano
          25/05/2013 at 8:21 am

          Hi Maude

          Clearly you’ve got very strong views. But presumably you accept that a great many people, including the Government & the great majority of MPs, do not see things as you do. The move to recognizing marriage for SS couples is an international thing and its not realistic to think its going to stop or that, having told LGBT people that “marriage” is what they can aspire to, the government can now tell them, sorry, that was a mistake, go back to being satisfied with CPs (if you ever were).

          Try understanding that everyone’s understanding and experience of marriage is individual.The Bill is entirely permissive and merely confers equal recognition by the civil law. Laws should only be prohibitting things if they cause harm. If the Quakers want to hold marriages for SS couples its hardly going to hurt anyone else.

          • maude elwes
            28/05/2013 at 4:26 pm

            You make a good point. The reason a vast majority of people are looking for a new party and new MP’s is because they lied when running for office about their intentions or leanings. They either stayed in the closet with a wife as a beard, or, they lied by omission.

            Which as Blagger wrote, condemns their electorate to living with a policy they did not vote for. With anger and frustration festering at a rate that is unsustainable.

            Alternatively, the high count is a result of not being able to vote against their government whip. Now there is a strange phenomena if ever there was one. And those words we heard about voting with their conscience is another smokescreen. It is the vote of their constituents they should be following, not what they believe is the way forward for their own particular bent. If that was the reason to vote for an MP we all may as well stay away from the ballot box, for it negates the entire idea of democracy.

            And it is so obvious, reading this thread through, that this ‘gay’ marriage issue is an obvious set up. There is absolutely no scrutinized principle or genuine requirement for such an act. It is merely on the books in order to reduce marriage to a total farce. The politically correct brigade pushing, once again, for the abolition of family and the unity it creates.

            And whilst this is what they intend, they deny the fact that those societies where marriage is non existent leaves women and children in dire poverty and misery. Many of the poorer country’s where men simply abandon their responsibility is the reason for their destitution and inability to find human solace.

            As this notion spreads throughout the west, so people become more poverty stricken and bereft than they ever were when they made a commitment to each other.

            Gay marriage cannot produce a kind of connection to an ongoing responsibility with family togetherness because it not a physical possibility. Therefore, why would it be of any use to them? Other than some kind of financial side line in respect of taxes. Then best simply give the same tax breaks to CP’s rather than reduce marriage to a farcical ritual of deviation.

            http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx

        • 25/05/2013 at 3:19 pm

          Maude, have you actually read the page you link to? It says, “More than two-thirds (77%) of gay people disagree that marriage should be only between a man and a woman”. Note the double negative, which means 77% think marriage should be for everyone. It’s also a poll of gay people, not of the population, so does not support the point you were making at all.

          • maude elwes
            28/05/2013 at 8:24 pm

            I knew full well when I put this link up that the poll was carried out on same sex relationships. Which is why I did so. It showed a more accurate level of interest by those whom this will personally affect. What they think about it. And not so much of the lobbyists who push what their paymasters want them to.

            However, polls often do not honestly report their findings. They massage the numbers toward those who are paying the bill, because they want to keep their customer. And, those customers want to dupe the people and are willing to pay a high price for it.

            This is why I am adamantly in favour of direct democracy. You can only know the truth of the nations thought by private or secret voting. Just the way they found out in California what their population really wanted when they counted the votes on marriage.

            http://www.academia.edu/944282/Why_Did_Californians_Pass_Proposition_8_Stability_and_Change_in_Public_Support_for_Same-Sex_Marriage

            Those in government are out of touch and it’s largely due to those around them being sycophantic and fearful of offering up that which they don’t want to see or hear. They shoot the messenger and the messenger knows he will be shot. So, they tell them what they want to hear, rather than what the truth is.

        • Lee
          01/06/2013 at 5:19 pm

          People on here are saying that the public never knew about this therefore they will not elect the conservatives again! What a load of nonsense! What this will mean is that more people, especially LGBT people like myself, will vote for the party that brought equality to this country!
          I am proud to be Gay, I am proud to be a Conservative and I’m glad that we are finally getting equality in this country! No need for the House of Lords, its a shambles.

          • 03/06/2013 at 11:54 am

            @Lee, if you listen to what many of the Lords who oppose same-sex marriage are saying (e.g. our own Lord Bates on BBC R4 Westminster Hour last night) they are quite pragmatic about it, and realise it is not their place to block a bill that was passed by the Commons with a large majority. Instead they plan to concentrate on scrutinising the Bill line by line, for example ensuring safeguards for religious groups are watertight. Exactly the function the House of Lords is supposed to have, in fact.

    • Dave H
      24/05/2013 at 6:36 pm

      If they don’t get re-elected then I think there will be plenty of other reasons put forward as to why not. This Bill is trying to get people together, it’s not divisive :-)

    • Linda Lindsay
      27/05/2013 at 1:59 am

      It is NOT up to polititions to redefine marriage , how dare they take an institution that has served this county well since time began, there was no mandate for this, Cameron went on National TV 3 days before the election and said he had no plans to change the Laws on Marriage, the people were lied too and conned, my family and I as will many others be voteing with our feet, This is discusting takeing something so fundemental as marriage with such little though for those of us who have been married for 33 yrs like myself and change its meaning at a whim, gay people have Civil Partnerships with the same rights reconised by Law,its not about equality its about takeing something away for others just because they think they are entiltled to it ,marriage is the comeing together of one man and one woman to the exclusion of ALL others which has been written and known since time began, well Mr Cameron , you or anyone else DOES NOT have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else! Give the country a Referendum let the people decide, that is a democracy otherwise its a dictatorship! This has been rushed through without any thought for the damage it will ultimeatly cause our to society . thousands of years of british culture and heritage destroyed in one fell swoop, shame on you all if you put this through.

      • Dave H
        27/05/2013 at 12:32 pm

        “marriage is the comeing together of one man and one woman to the exclusion of ALL others which has been written and known since time began”

        No it hasn’t. How many biblical characters had more than one wife? Jacob had two wives and had children with other women too. Kings David and Solomon are noted for having many wives too.

      • Lord Norton
        Lord Norton
        29/05/2013 at 4:59 pm

        Linda Lindsay: Parliament can, and does, variously redefine marriage. It has done so 63 times since the Marriage Act of 1540.

    • timmy
      27/05/2013 at 1:06 pm

      Peter and Judy Koller – you speak as though LGBT people are excluded from family life and religion.

      If marriage is something that is “holy” then why shouldn’t “marriage” be important to LGBT people of faith. There are plenty of religious organisations which are in favour of gay marriage. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to celebrate them. Civil partnerships are secular and the recent change to allow their registration in Quaker meeting houses etc doesn’t alter that. CPs are always secular and have no religious connotations to them.

      As for LGBT not having family life then that is extremely insulting. Many gay people have children and if marriage is good for the family then why shouldn’t it be good for LGBT families.

      LGBT people are part of society , we form the same bedrock of soceity as everyone else does. To suggest otherwise is extremely hurtful.

  6. Old Albion
    23/05/2013 at 8:29 am

    A bill that nobody asked for and was in no parties manifesto……………

    • 23/05/2013 at 1:20 pm

      I asked for it. And every other gay man I know wants it too. Are we nobodies now?

      And same-sex marriage was in the election manifesto of Conservatives!

      • JH
        23/05/2013 at 6:07 pm

        Or to be more precise the supplementary A Contract for Equalities (“We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage” (p.14))

  7. gavinadj
    23/05/2013 at 11:20 am

    Thank you for the update, and I wish you good luck with this very long debate. It will be very interesting to see which Lords supports giving the right to marry to gay people baring in mind that the younger generations tend to more fully support this issue :)

  8. Dave H
    23/05/2013 at 12:47 pm

    Lots of people here against it. Perhaps it’s the wrong Bill and we need to look at the whole concept of marriage and its purpose. To me, I see it as a statement by two (or more, but that’s a whole new can of worms) people who wish to spend their lives together. The law recognises this and encourages it by means of a set of regulations that confer benefits (tax, inheritance, next-of-kin, etc).

    Despite what people say, the concept of marriage is not tied to any particular religion, so all the nonsense about “between one man and one woman” is irrelevant to the wider picture. Indeed, some religions allow for multiple partners.

    As such, perhaps the answer is to require marriage, as recognised for all the state benefits, to be conducted by state officials, after which the couple are free to organise any religious celebration they want. Doing it this way, (no doubt to loud complaints from the CoE contingent in the Lords), would sidestep the whole issue.

    I’d still like to have it explained how my marriage is devalued by letting other people share in the condition. Your own marriage is what you make of it and should be strong enough to be impervious to the outside.

    • maude elwes
      24/05/2013 at 12:05 pm

      @Dave H:

      Your last paragraph says it all really. Which goes for Civil Partnership as well. It is what they make of their union. Having a fetish about calling it marriage is an oddity and to what purpose?

      Religion came after human marriage rituals in this part of the world. So, throwing in the idea of it being a religious dogma was designed to side track. And as such gets away from the core of the issue.

      Marriage between opposite sexes is a vow between them and only them as no other circumstance fits that situation. It is a gift from man to woman and woman to man. They give it to each other and the children of that union as well as to their entire extended family and the community they live in. It is their promise of fidelity, their promise to support each other through their differences. Not through their sameness.

  9. MilesJSD
    23/05/2013 at 2:28 pm

    “The world is in a mess,
    Whatever can I do ?

    A friendly Voice then said:
    ‘Just make a better you’ “.

    Governments and Education Authorities could start making not only their-selves but
    “all people that on Earth do dwell”
    better, too;
    simply by appointing true terminology and headwords to Knowledge and Know-How, as straightforwardly faithful non-fictions.
    ———————
    Marriage is one of the very few Legal Contractualities that needs to be further dependent upon non-contractual Covenance.

    The ‘greater’ Marriage, and ‘Life’, domain is complicated by conflation of “workplace skills and disciplines” with “lifeplace abilities and enablements”.

    We need both mind-education and body-skills-training
    (for herein “marriage” is ‘de-facto’ a very real-life “occupation”)
    notably in mindful-awareness of Collective and Individual Developmental Knowledge and Practical-Know-How advances.

    e.g. Read a little:
    “The seven sacred truths of the Kabbalah, the Christian sacraments, and the Hindu chakras support our gradual transformation into conscious spiritual adults”
    “The sacrament of marriage is congruent to the energy of the fourth chakra. As an archetype, marriage represents first and foremost a bond with oneself, the internal union of self and soul” [Myss, “Anatomy of the Spirit”; pages 67 and 198).
    ————————————–
    “Gay Marriage” and “same sex marriage” to my mind are contra-helpful, mere terminologically-inexact fictional camouflages.
    To a large extent, each masks modernly spin-doctored esoteric-power-plays and socio-psychological ‘social-mobility’ ploys.
    ————————————-
    Overall, we need clear Individual Human Development models.

  10. timmy
    23/05/2013 at 4:51 pm

    Dear Lord Norton and Baroness Deech

    If the HoL reject the SSM do you think that the govt has a legitimate right to use the Parliament Act to get it thru and would you both think that it is not right for the HoL to vote down a bill that had such a huge majority in favour of it in the Commons?

    I voted for my MP but I have no say in who becomes a peer and I have no opportunity in a general elction to get rid of any peer. They are there for life, some who have responded to me and said no to gay marriage are in their 90s. I would be thoroughly disappointed if the Hol scuppered this bill when my MP voted for it and there had been a massive cross party majority in the commons. How could the Lords vote for Lord Dear’s “fatal motion” on the 3rd June when their main purpose is scrutiny and not scuppering bills they simply don’t like the idea of.

    Do you think that the general public would be happy with an unelected body of people voting down such a bill which has had such a big support in the commons?

    • maude elwes
      24/05/2013 at 6:02 pm

      @timmy:

      You are off to a tangent.

      MP’s were voted in by hiding the truth about their intention to bring this bill in and fast track it as they know it won’t stand up to scrutiny. And they have no mandate for it. They wrote in their manifesto they would look at it. Not push it through regardless. And, as a result they misled the public and committed fraud.

      As Blagger writes above, when they do that, then a referendum must be called. Not only that, when something as important to public unity, such as this, is pushed through in this manner, then the voter should have the right for a recall. Which should annul or remove the legislation at once.

      So, your idea of an elected government passing this Act, is off beam. They voted in an extraordinary manner and did it on a lie, without permission from the public. Just as Blair did with immigration. Therefore. the Lords ‘must’ put a stop to it and put it back until after the next general election when those who run for office can be held to account over just exactly what it is they were playing at and what their plans are should the electorate select them to rule over us once again.

      • timmy
        27/05/2013 at 12:43 pm

        The Conservative equality manifesto promised to ‘consider’ full gay marriage. That is absolutely clear.

        David Cameron did say on around the 4th May 2010 in an interview for Sky News that gay mariage wasn’t going to happen immediately BUT a Conservative Party spokesman clarified this by saying that ” Mr Cameron’s response did not contradict the equality manifesto and said he had focused on the part of the question which suggested the Tories were definitely going to legalise gay marriage. The spokesman added: “We’re not planning to rename civil partnerships at the moment. We are considering it. We recognise there is a case to consider but we’re not at that point, there has been no firm decision.”

        That was 2010, since then the govt has been consulting with stakeholders, had public consultations and we are now almost in June 2013 (3 years later!!!!). The conservative party did promise to get to this stage and 3 yrs seems to me a reasonable time scale to get to that point.

        The Bill has had a huge majority in the Commons and it is not the job of the HoL to overturn such a majority. They are scrutinsers only and it’s appalling the a group of unelected bishops and peers think that they have the authority to overtun this bill against not only the commons but also public opinion!

        • Dave H
          28/05/2013 at 6:43 pm

          I wouldn’t necessarily use the “large majority in the Commons” as a reason for the Lords to not block or delay a Bill, I can think of some occasions where even the threat of a delay has been useful in moderating the effects poorly-drafted legislation. However, in this case it has support from both sides of the house, unlike an unpopular Bill being pushed through by a government with a large majority. As such, I would like to think that the Lords would be more concerned with making sure it’s properly workable.

          • timmy
            29/05/2013 at 11:16 am

            Yes, the bill does have a large cross party support, it also has large public support, particulary among the young who are the most affected by the bill. The bill, becuase of its nature, has also already been under intense scrutiny and has had already had a myriad of high ranking people scrutinise it. The change is fairly minor since gay people already have rights under CPs. Unlike France where gay adoption and the move from PACS to marriage was completely different.

            I have great respect of the HoL and I remember listening to the debate when Baroness O’Caithian raised a prayer to scupper CPs registered on religious premises in the HoL (after the bill and regulations had already been made legal!). I was very impressed by all the eminent QCs that spoke up for it. However, the people who are now wanting to “kill” this bill on the 3rd are not eminent QCs, some are hereditary peers, some have appaling records on LGBT rights. Scrutiny is one thing, but pre-biased opinions, religious beliefs is not scrutiny.

        • Lord Norton
          Lord Norton
          29/05/2013 at 5:04 pm

          timmy: It would be highly unusual, though not unprecedented, for the House to vote on the Second Reading of a Government Bill and in this case I and many of my colleagues would regard it as unwise. Should the Bill not pass the Lords, then it would be open for the Government to re-introduce it and invoke the provisions of the Parliament Act, as happened with the Sexual Offences Act 2000.

      • 28/05/2013 at 4:22 pm

        Maude: referendums, recall, fraud, public unity? The fact is, a very small number of people with strong right-wing or religious views are making a big deal of this. Most people don’t really care. Ask people on the street if they support gay marriage and some will say yes, some will say no. But even the latter group don’t see it as a real issue. They might prefer marriage to be between a man and a woman if they think about it; they may even be slightly homophobic. But at the end of the day they realise the sky isn’t going to fall in, nothing will happen to their own marriage or lifestyle once the Bill is passed. How other people choose to live their lives won’t affect them. And so life will carry on as normal. There are far more important things to worry about, so get a grip.

        • timmy
          28/05/2013 at 7:25 pm

          Absolutely spot on Jonathan. I don’t remember the sky falling in when all those other countries brought in same sex marriage. I was thrilled when New Zealand brought it in, I always think of it being like a old fashioned England and I was pleasantly surprised when they brought it in. Some of these countries are beginning to make the UK look a bit backward!

          • maude elwes
            29/05/2013 at 1:41 pm

            @Timmy:

            You live in a dream world. All those other countries?

            Want to take a look at how many ‘all those other countries are.’ Or have you no idea how many countries the planet has?

            In Europe, and that is the pro gay marriage capital of the world, only seven countries out of 27 have gone for this practice. And France is in an uproar as their people reject it in droves.

            The rest of the world? Well in total, only fourteen countries throughout the entire world have adopted this practice. And many others reject it vehemently. And do you know how many others there are?

            So, there are 196 countries throughout the world. And fourteen of them have adopted this practice. Not even where it began in earnest, the USA, who has a government that has been pushing it relentlessly, has adopted it, because their people are not afraid to speak their truth.

            So, I wouldn’t call that a worldwide landslide at all. It is a tiny minority of countries who have no sense of duty toward the majority of their people. The Swedes and the Danes are not us. And those countries are beginning to fold under the weight of their destabilising practices as the ideas that go against human nature begin to burn into the cohesion of their society.

            Childish ideas of nirvana go against the democratic process. Which is now showing, leads to turmoil.

  11. timmy
    29/05/2013 at 9:20 am

    Out of the 76 peers who have put their names down to speak and who I have contacted so far, 19 of them have said they are going to vote against this bill. The average age of these peers is 77 yrs old.

    28 I have contacted have said they are in favour of the bill. The average age of these peers is 62 yrs old.

    SSM has been something that has been very popular among younger people and this shows even amongst my rather unscientific survey of the peers who are in favour or not of SSM.

    Do you think that a group of peers whose averge age is 77 yrs old is represntative of the genral public’s view on same sex marriage? Do you think it is right for these to make a judgement on a law that really affects younger people and not people of around 77 yrs old?

  12. Karen
    29/05/2013 at 1:17 pm

    As far as I can see there are two issues here:

    1. How a word is defined.

    2. Why a particular group wants a particular legal right.

    Dealing with the first: Language changes and the meanings of particular words change. Unfortunately, no-one can control the meaning of a particular word. We might want the word ‘gay’ to preserve it’s meaning of ‘happy and carefree’ but ultimately if the majority in our society are using it to mean ‘homosexual’ then there’s not a lot that can be done about it (apart from a draconian police state deciding to punish people if they use it as such). The word ‘marriage’ is already being used by gay and straight people to define a ‘civil partnership’. People talk about getting ‘married’ when they really mean getting ‘civil partnered’ – though obviously that sounds ungrammatical which probably explains why they’re using the word ‘married’. People in civil partnerships refer to their ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ because again, it sounds clunky to say ‘civil partner’ (as opposed to ‘uncivil’!). So like it or not, the term ‘marriage’ is already being used.

    Which bring us on to the second point. Why do gay people want to be married when they already have civil partnerships? I think the answer to this is an ethical and sociological one. Although in law a civil partnership has the same legal rights as a marriage, many gay people still feel that it’s a second class form of partnership and has such, doesn’t have the same moral authority as a heterosexual marriage. Many gay people have lived much of their lives (particularly those aged 30+) being made to feel as if there is something wrong with them. Allowing gay people to marry will legitimise who they are and will be a huge weight off their shoulders. When many grew up under a school system that contained Section 28 and outlawed male homosexual sex, for the State to say it is as acceptable to be gay as it is to be straight, is a really important message to them and to wider society.

    I think it’s hard for those against the proposals to understand what it is like to grow up gay and feel that their relationship choices are in some way wrong. But equally as an atheist I don’t understand why many religious people are so determined to hold on to their ‘traditional view of marriage’. Passions run high on both sides but we need to be as rational and logical as we can about this matter.

    • Lord Norton
      Lord Norton
      29/05/2013 at 5:06 pm

      Karen: Many thanks for a very helpful contribution.

    • Deano
      29/05/2013 at 5:44 pm

      In addition to what Karen says I would add that Marriage is the heritage of LGBT people just as much as it is for everyone else. It is what their parents probably had, its what they grew up with and its what they were taught in school and, for some, in church. What else would they believe in and aspire to?

      “Civil Partnership” is a name thought up by a government dept tasked with creating something to mirror Marriage without being allowed to use the name and excluding all religious connotations, as a compromise with those who opposed it, notably the Churches and many in House of Lords at that time. It had no meaning before the Act was passed and it is understandable that it does not have the same emotional appeal.

    • maude elwes
      30/05/2013 at 10:16 am

      @Karen:

      How defeatist you sound when placing your bet with those who take over society by its use of language, but, when the opposing view meets your stance you suddenly become robust.

      Obviously this must mean a great deal to you from an agnostic view. And by the way, just in case you feel I am a devout religious believer of any kind, I’m not. Doesn’t diminish my sense of outrage one bit though.

      First of all, when masses call or change a word and its meaning is a side track used to divert attention from the issue. However, I wonder how you would cope with ‘Karen’ being used in the context of a word like rape. ‘He Karened her five times in one day and left her shaken and defenceless.’ And so the use of Karen becomes abhorrent in society only used to define an act of horror. Would you not feel violated by that and want to remove the word from your personal connection to it and be deeply hurt by what you feel is abuse?

      And a draconian police state is already incarcerating people here today for what they think and say. Thereby removing the freedom of expression, which is currently protected by the Human Rights Act. So, what you are defending is a removal of one set of rights and freedom from a majority of the population to a minority deviant group who simply decide, amongst themselves, that from now on what was and is considered unhealthy and goes against the norm of that society, should be made acceptable in law regardless of the hurt and disillusion it causes in others. What you are calling for then, is equality plus for favoured groups. It’s alright if one part of the population want to change our society because they have special rights but not others.

      Then you go on to tell us how this certain group suffered in the past from social discrimination and exclusion because of their sexual preferences and that as a result we must give them the plus status. Well, from my understanding they suffered no more than women who were abused, imprisoned and put for life in insane asylums for getting pregnant when single or unmarried. And today, right here in this free modern society, women are being murdered daily in honour killings as well as children deprived of life, as in parts of our society they are defined as witches. Is the state taking up their cause as religiously and vociferously as it is this sexual preference policy? Not as far as I can see.

      You are telling us you feel we must alter society in the extreme and the meaning of our language to accommodate a small section of society, even when that small section has already received complete equality under law.

      I read a letter sent to the DM and printed yesterday. It sums up the situation admirably.

      ***Enforced conformity***

      How ironic that, as ambulance chasing lawyers offer to pursue financial institutions for mis-selling insurance products, those campaigning for ‘same sex marriage’ should shamelessly try to mis-sell it as an ‘equality issue.’ It is not.

      The equality issue was firmly settled with the introduction of civil partnerships: there’s no no discrimination under the law. What is being demanded isn’t equality, but enforced conformity through the redefinition of our language.

      This is like insisting that Gentiles should be eligible for the office of Chief Rabbi or that men should have the same right as women to give birth. Ludicrous? Of course, because we’re different, and it has always been understood that ‘equal to’ doesn’t mean ‘the same as.’

      The whole point of marriage is that it has always been understood as a union between two of the opposite sex, which by its nature must preclude those who are not the same sex. It’s a simply logical step from there to conclude that it’s not possible to make an opposite-sex relationship available to same sex couples without fundamentally redefining what that relationship means.

      Even if Parliament seeks to enshrine such a redefinition in law, by making a sham relationship available to same sex couples at the expense of creating a legal fiction, the heterophobic lobby will enjoy only a Pyrrhic victory.

      Rev. Allan McGregor

      • Karen
        30/05/2013 at 1:02 pm

        Thanks Maude, I will try to respond to your points:

        What would I do if my name became synonymous with the word ‘rape’?

        If I was a young girl, I would probably be laughed at in the playground. If I was older, there might be a bit of banter around it. Undoubtedly, I would feel uncomfortable and upset but unfortunately there wouldn’t be a lot I could do about it. (That’s not defeatist but rather realistic.) I expect I would probably end up changing my name or using a middle name instead.

        It’s an interesting point though as my housemate is a primary school teacher and is regularly confronted with the situation whereby children call one another ‘gay’ to mean ‘pathetic’ or ‘uncool’. The way that she tries to deal with it is to ask the children what they think it means. If their responses stem from an underlying homophobia (probably influenced by their parents) then she addresses it, if it is genuinely being used as an adjective to mean ‘uncool’ then she talks to them about the other meanings and points out they need to be a bit more sensitive in its use.

        Ultimately you can’t regulate the use of words and the gay community might have to accept that the word ‘gay’ will change its meaning again. But as with any language use, we ought to try to be sensitive to the context and intentions behind it.

        I hope that’s dealt with your first point.

        Your second point seemed to be one about the hurt that extending rights from one group to another might cause. I might be confused here but I can’t see how extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples will hurt opposite-sex couples. Could you elaborate? What hurts are being caused here? Is it the hurt that one person’s view (those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman) is being ignored? If so, the question becomes one of: Is the hurt caused by ignoring one group’s view worse than the hurt caused by not allowing the same rights to another group?

        I would argue that the hurt caused by restricting a right (to marry) to one group is greater than the hurt caused by ignoring the views of another group (that the former should not have this right). Why? Because although I accept that you might be hurting a lot (and a lot more than many gay couples who don’t really care about whether they have a right to marry or not), they are hurts of a different kind. Being prevented from doing something is a direct limitation. Being ignored (or at least, being told that your views don’t count as much as others) is not a direct limitation. You are not prevented from doing anything, you can still air your views.

        I hope this makes sense.

        Your final point seems to be that we are spending far too much time on this issue when there are other more important things to consider. My response here is that the only reason this is so highly discussed is that people (on both sides) have passionate views about it. Therefore it must contain some kind of importance. And the sooner the legislation gets past, the quicker we can move on to other important matters.

        I hope I have addressed all your substantive issues.

        • maude elwes
          31/05/2013 at 4:30 am

          @Karen:

          Oh, please! Amateurish.

          Passive aggressives with Mother Theresa complexes are the bane of our society. You are all over the place, stick with the topic and ask yourself what is the cause of your dilemma.

          • Karen
            31/05/2013 at 10:58 am

            Maude, being accused of being passive-aggressive is not helpful in this discussion. I was merely trying to clarify your points as clearly as possible and deal with them sensibly. I suggest you take your own advice and concentrate on the matter at hand rather than resort to ad hominem retorts.

  13. Deano
    29/05/2013 at 1:57 pm

    I am sure that many Lords will be enthusiastically supporting this Bill which, as Maria Miller says, will correct an obvious injustice. This will be a great thing for LGBT people and for their families and wider society. We need to remember all those generations of LGBT people who have been marginalised and worse. I think of a society which put John Guilgud in prison, along with many other well known and less well known people.

    The Bill is basically a one line change, apart from the provisions necessary to “protect” faith groups who don’t want to join in, so Lords should not have to think about the principle too hard.

    Obviously we all know that traditionally churches have not been the friends of LGBT people, & that it was they who inspired the unjust laws, but even they are changing. We all have a collective past and a collective future. Believing in, & wishing to promote and support, marriage for men and women does not require us to penalise and exclude LGBT people. It is obvious that we stand on the shoulders of our forefathers and we can see further than they could.

    There has been a lot of debate on the nature of marriage in these postings but my observation would be that the law does not in fact define marriage. It merelely lays out eligablity criteria and exit criteria. Marriage means what each couple believe it to mean.

    The role of the civil law is to provide for the registraion of marriages and the issuing of certificates. Thus it is quite right that it should not continue to exclude othrwise eligible couples merely on the basis of their sexuality.

    Roughly 4/5ths of weddings are not religious affairs these days and & those that are take place in a whole range of traditions; plainly the law must provide for all beliefs but not allow any one to impose on another.

    This will be a momentous day when the Bill goes through and truly something we can celebrate as a nation.

    • Lord Norton
      Lord Norton
      29/05/2013 at 5:08 pm

      Deano: Thanks for a very helpful post.

  14. Maggie
    29/05/2013 at 7:27 pm

    If you grew up with a mother and father which one would you prefer to be without?

    • timmy
      30/05/2013 at 11:05 am

      If you grew up with two dads or two mums which one would you prefer to be without?

      If you grew up with an abusive father and nice mum which one would you prefer to be without?

      If you grew up in a single parent family would you have preferred not to have had any parent at all?

      and so on..

      We don’t all have mums and dads and I’m sure whatever your family makeup was some may not have liked both or either parents and some would miss both parents (whatever their parents’ sex was).

      Equal marriage does nothing to other people’s family life or how children view their parents. Hopefully , howeever, same sex families will have a higher profile and will be viewed more tolerably by others. Many same sex couples already have children and they will contine to have so whether they have “gay” marriage or not. Surely if the argument is that children do beter in marriages then I can’t see why that logic doesn’t apply to gay couples with children and the govt should be supporting children in these families rather than treating them as second best which is what they currently do with their parents.

  15. Gavin
    30/05/2013 at 11:08 am

    Having read all the comments on this blog I have come to the conclusion that all those who oppose this bill do so from the same perspective. All the comments about redefining marriage all stem from the fact that heterosexuals are worried that allowing homosexuals to get married will reduce the institution by watering down its meaning.
    This all stems from a basic miss understanding on what the overall objective is, to open up the institution of marriage to more people so that they may also enjoy the benefits of having long term stable recognised relationships.
    People miss the point when they say things like gay relationships are fundamentally different. The only difference between a straight and a gay relationship is that both members are of the same sex. They still have the same dreams and aspirations, they still live in the same places, work in the same jobs, and socialise in the same bars and clubs. You probably wouldn’t notice them if they sat next to you on the bus.
    Being gay is normal, just as normal as being straight, and the institution of marriage is a wonderful thing, why would you force people to have a civil partnership when we have a perfectly good instantly and universally recognised institution ready and waiting?
    It seams strange to me, and I have to wonder where all the resistance comes from, and it comes down to the point I made above, the people who are against gay marriage do so because they think gays are somehow very different and so equality doesn’t count.
    Let me tell you, equality matters, it matters a great deal, and I hope this bill will become law soon so that everyone can start to realise that and start to treat our gay brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours work colleagues and acquaintances just a little bit better. It is after all what they deserve.

  16. maude elwes
    30/05/2013 at 2:34 pm

    @Gavin:

    So you feel the definition of ‘normal’ is really ‘deviant’? I would say that your take on that word is delusional. What are you basing your idea of normal on?

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal

    And

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/deviant

    And because of your heterophobia you want the population to sign up to ‘deviant’ as being their normal marital sexual practice as they take their vows of unity.

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/heterosexual

    Much easier to take another name for it, example, cameron. This gay couple followed a cameron way of life.

    A few lessons on the meaning of vocabulary and why it is a good idea to understand it would be in order here.

    And having lived for some time in Hollywood, that midst of gaiety, I can tell you, from what I learned in that place of plenty, homosexuality doesn’t come close to what the status quo Joe considers normal. Cannot be, for the two same sex partners do not have the body parts to join the game played by heterosexual pairings.

    Which simply goes to prove the government and its attendant parts have lost their collective minds. It’s the LHC again. Playing havoc with their minds.

    And I have to add, for the first time ever, I understand why the massive throng lean toward UKIP. Nigel is a calming drink on an inclement evening.

    • Gavin
      30/05/2013 at 4:01 pm

      @maude
      well it comes down to your perception of gay people, you keep calling them deviant. I would like to point out the homosexuality was de-crimilised in the 60s
      Do you really think gay people have a choice? Would you chose to be subject to all this abuse?
      Your comments are starting to have a tint of homophobia and taring all gay people by the ones you met in Hollywood just reinforces that.

      I know two couples who live on my road, both are very nice, they all go to work, they do the DIY at the weekends, they keep the area clean and tidy etc etc, one just happens to be a gay couple. The only difference is what happens in the bedroom – now you do seem to be obsessed with what goes on in there, but the rest of us couldn’t care less! It is up to them.
      At the end of the day you are not going to be asked to marry someone of the same sex, and this change will benefit wider society (by allowing gay people to form long lasting stable committed relationships), I hope you come to realise that soon.

  17. Maggie
    30/05/2013 at 6:30 pm

    @ Timmy – but we do all have Moms and Dads. It is sad that we are not all, by accident or design, well nurtured by our procreators who are in a unique position to reinforce our sense of identity.

    • timmy
      31/05/2013 at 4:42 pm

      Maggie – the bill doesn’t interfer with adoption, surrogacy or IVF laws. I fail to understand the link between marriage laws and the biology of having children. Equal marriage won’t stop straight or gay couples having children via adoption, surrogacy or IVF. Can you explain a bit what point you are trying to make. I’m slightly confused.

    • deano
      31/05/2013 at 6:45 pm

      I can’t see how Maggie’s post relates to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

      I presume she is saying that children are best brought up by their genetic parents. But being in a state of matrimony is not a requirement of procreating. And conversely, as far as I am aware, Parliament has not in any way linked ‘Marriage’ with fertility treatment or surrogacy in the laws it has made in these areas. Thus the Bill will change nothing in this regard.

      In fact, the only connection I can see between reproduction and the current Marriage Act is that it provides for there to be a legal presumption that any children born during a marriage are taken to be the husbands. Which of course is frequently not the case. So the current marriage law goes against Maggie’s belief that children should all be nurtured by their procreators.

  18. Hansard Society
    Beccy Allen
    31/05/2013 at 11:14 am

    For further details on the bill see this library note http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/LLN-2013-011

    The bill will be debated in the Lords on Monday.

  19. Maggie
    01/06/2013 at 11:13 pm

    This bill does not mention children a great deal, but merely the rights of adults. It’s a pity we can’t ask future generations about their view of how the new ‘family’ model (likely to gather momentum as a result of this bill) will affect personal identity.

    • timmy
      03/06/2013 at 10:23 am

      Maggie….Gay couples alreay have children! . We can already legally have children and many of us already have several children (some of them are grown up adults themselves).Stopping same sex marriage, doesn’t stop us having children.

      If you’re really interested in what our children think about their personal identity then ask them. But I suspect you’ve already come to your own ideas already.

      • maude elwes
        03/06/2013 at 11:43 am

        @Timmy:

        Another ridiculous claim by your post earlier. No, and I repeat it loudly, ‘no gay couple’ has ever conceived together and delivered a child of their union. None, not even the rich and famous who can pay to have an enslaved human being living as their surrogate offspring.

        This is what government should be considering in earnest. The pretense of such a contrived and delusional circumstance is not only being forced on our nation, who presumably have sound minds, but oppresses children with such fallacy, at birth. How can anyone with a sense of responsibility dare to force such a prosperous notion on us, without first seeking consent, via referendum, asking whether they are willing to abide by such dishonesty under legislation.

        • maude elwes
          03/06/2013 at 5:06 pm

          The word was meant to spell preposterous not prosperous.

          What I wrote is contrary to meaning.

  20. Nazma FOURRE
    01/06/2013 at 11:19 pm

    Lord Norton,
    In the name of morality and religious convictions, wish that the Lords would voice out loudly a “No” to the mariage of the same sex couples.
    God bless the Queen and the Lords. God save the Queen.
    Nazma FOURRE

    • deano
      03/06/2013 at 11:05 am

      In the name of morality and religious convictions, wish that the Lords would voice out loudly a “Yes” to Equality & the mariage of the same sex couples and a resounding “No” to Homophobia.
      God bless Marriage, the Queen and the Lords. God save the Queen.

      • maude elwes
        03/06/2013 at 12:06 pm

        With a resounding ‘no’ to heterophobia and the duping of a nation, by far left eccentrics who wish to force the meaning of marriage, as between one man and one woman, into the acceptance of anomalous relationships being acceptable and akin to their specific commitment to life.

        To do this changes the meaning of marriage and its reason for being, into something other than its present fact, leaving it open to further abuse by alternative lifestyles. And by so doing reducing it to absurdity. Which is the intention of the small minority in order to create disunity into an institution created to encourage stability.

  21. Nazma FOURRE
    03/06/2013 at 12:25 pm

    Dear lord Norton
    For the sake of the moral torture of children bearing an outstanding wedding of their two same sex parents and the upsetting downfall of traditonal values, I wish in the name of the United Kingdom, that the Lords would stand and fight for a desperate “no” to the mariage of people of the same sex.There is no homophobia involved in the decision of a desperate no but the urge of the children should prevail over a new sexual immoral tradition of the United Kingdom. I hope that her Majesty hears my voice on this blog and the Lords asks for a referendum. Let the United Kingdom decide together with the citizens for the welfare of children and their traditional values.
    God bless the United Kingdom. God save the Queen and the beloved Lords.
    Nazma FOURRE

  22. timmy
    03/06/2013 at 5:47 pm

    Maude and Nazma – I actually live in the UK and gay couples can and do have children at the moment. I believe the govt has only recently made it easier for same sex couples to have IVF treatment here . Surrogacy is possible and so is adoption and many gay couples have children from previous (straight) relationships and have their children living with them. Surely if marriage is good for children then the govt should be supporting these same sex couples who have children.

    I just can’t get my head around how SSM will alter this sitution. We don’t remove children from their same sex parents here in the UK and this bill doesn’t stop gay couples having children. I don’t think children should be made to feel inferior if they don’t happen to have the same genetics as both of their parents.

    • maude elwes
      04/06/2013 at 5:35 pm

      @timmy:

      Same sex unions do not and cannot produce offspring between them. And repeating that they can is desperate and it shows. No one on earth believes that statement unless they are delusional. And pretending that they can, or by setting up faux situations with other peoples children is both deeply flawed and unhealthy for children who, having no choice in the matter, are dragged into such a confusing and selfish scenario.

      Here is the story of a very brave young man who was raised in a same sex relationship. He and his fellow SS children friends fear for their life and so to ‘come out’ is putting his safety in danger.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3027063/posts

      No that these children are reaching their majority there will be more and more revelations, which is why the gay lobby is frantically pushing for this anomaly to go forward. The last thing they want is all this terrible truth to come out of the closet before they get what it is they want, regardless of the harm it is doing.

      http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/080707

      And last but by no means least. The real horror of the deliberate cover ups, in orde to cling to a profoundly flawed policy.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9959950/My-gay-fathers-sexual-abuse-was-swept-under-the-carpet-says-victim.html

      • timmy
        06/06/2013 at 11:23 am

        Maude …

        You could also try reading

        Children of same-sex couples thriving: study

        http://www.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

        “Children of same-sex parents are doing as well or better than the rest of the population on several key health indicators, according to initial findings of the world’s largest study of such children……

        Former (Catholic Australian) prime minister Kevin Rudd said the wellbeing of children had been ”the sole remaining obstacle” to his supporting same-sex marriage. He announced his change of heart last month.

        Let’s hope some of the peers in the HoL can be persuaded to read some of these studies and also change their minds towards gay couples and their children.

  23. Senex
    04/07/2013 at 7:57 pm

    I notice some are mentioning opinion polls. It is the word ‘opinion’ that should be ringing alarms bells. It is attitudes that create political parties and opinions that voters use in elections.

    Those who oppose this bill including myself have attitudes towards it whilst it seems those who favour it have opinions. Now if marriage is to be redefined on opinions then these change as often as those who wear them.

    The executive in bringing this bill to Parliament is using its new powers established with the creation of the Supreme Court and the removal of the Lord Chancellor.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that the Lord Chancellor would have opposed this bill both constitutionally and because it would have undermined the courts.

    The bill is legally flawed because it allows three in a bed irrespective of the orientation of the people in the marriage. Lord Norton reminds us that Parliament has on a number of occasion’s redefined marriage but in each and every case, monogamy has remained as the basis of the marriage.

    Now gays I believe want monogamy to remain the basis of marriage too and this bill simply does not provide this. Instead it encourages promiscuity the hall mark of the gay community by legally allowing three in a bed or polygamy by any other name.

    But there are other issues too: parliament in creating the Supreme Court never empowered it to interpret the constitution. As a result any bill becoming an Act cannot be challenged constitutionally once it has become law. It is down to Parliament to test the bill constitutionally before it is first presented in the Commons.

    Remember, both houses are political chambers and the executive is a political body so there would be a conflict of interest for members of either house to interpret the constitution themselves. Interpretation must be carried out by a body that cannot act politically such as the Judiciary.

    There is a serious concern that the gay community will suffer badly if the bill becomes law and is later found to be unconstitutional. What the executive must tell us is just how the constitution was interpreted before the bill was presented to Parliament.

    Parliament must try to remove the three in a bed scenario if it can. To fail would make the bill unconstitutional because marriage would now be polygamous.

    The institution of marriage as we know it would be destroyed and it would have been gays that destroyed it. Please do be careful in your support for this bill.

  24. Nazma FOURRE
    05/07/2013 at 12:41 pm

    Dear Lord Norton ,
    I wish that a referendum is a must so that this bill is removed immediately for the sake of moral issues.I strongly oppose to the mariage of people of the same sex as a European citizen.Please for the sake of the moral values of a blessed united Kingdom,the citizens of the United Kingdom should have given their point of views before any such decision be taken on this subject. Hope that the lords, make the democratical standard of a blessed United Kingdom be what it should be and that her Majesty be informed of the possibility for the lords to organise a new vote on this social problem, rest assured that the Monarchy is based on religious values.
    God save the Queen and the Blessed Lords. God bless the United Kingdom.
    Nazma FOURRE

Comments are closed.