Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Hylton

The Committee Stage on 17th and 19th June  was well attended and clearly argued, although the media coverage was less than for Second Reading.

My contributions were at cols 11 and 12 of 17th June, and at cols 265 – 266 of 19th June.

The Report Stage will be held on 8th and 10th July.

16 comments for “Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

  1. timmy
    21/06/2013 at 8:24 am

    An amendment to stop a bill that is intended to give marriage for same sex couples seems to me against what we are told is the purpose of the committee stage in the House of Lords which is to scrtunise and improve the bill. This amendment was desevedly thrown out as was clearly the case when the lords voted with a huge majority to reject Lord Dear’s wrecking amendment. Why do the Lords persist in trying to wreck this bill when now both the lords and the commons have voted for it with huge majorities?

    It questions yet again why we have a body of elderly unelected people standing in the way of democratic decisions made by an elected body.

    • maude elwes
      21/06/2013 at 12:02 pm

      Age has nothing to do with it. An understanding of what marriage is appears to be lacking in both houses. To pass this monstrosity would need to change the expectation of marriage as it is presently to something quite different. And that should be disputed vehemently.

      And, Timmy, age discrimination is ‘equal’ to sex discrimination or homophobia. Think about it. You are suggesting people who have more experience and who have lived longer have less right to an opinion than you. Which from another point of view could be asking for an inexperienced and naive set of individuals to run our country. Thank goodness we have at least one or two in both houses who, in fact, reflect the majority of the voters thinking.

      What you fail to realise is, it is you who is out of step with the country, not Lord Dear or Lord Hylton. And that majority is sincerely hoping that indeed the Lords, with their principles at heart, will indeed continue to do what they are doing. Only with more fervor and gusto.

    • 22/06/2013 at 8:26 pm

      How is the House of Lords standing in the way of the Bill? It passed its second reading with a fair majority. The “elected body” of the House of Commons also had a significant number of members who voted against the Bill, but the majority passed it; the same would be true of an elected upper chamber. The vote on the amendment did result in a good debate on the Bill. If a second chamber just rubber stamps legislation without debate or any opposition, it may as well not exist.

  2. MilesJSD
    21/06/2013 at 12:01 pm

    I am “against” both
    (i) the existing and traditional child-bearing & rearing-marriage; and
    (ii) the (de-facto-existing) same-sex cohabitation contracting and/or marriage-ing strong-stream.

    I already started here on Lords-of-the-Blog giving reasons, factors and life-experience evidences;

    {check longer major factors (too long to include in 250 words here)
    with under MARRIAGE-ING]

    and suffice it here to say that
    1. until you have made yourself/been made by educators-trainers, a self-supporting lifeplace-individual (a ‘plus-monad’) you are unfit to bond with another plus-monad to form a beginning-dyad.
    2. In the words quoted by PhD Caroline Myss in ‘Anatomy of the Spirit’ (page 202) “If you can’t love yourself, you can’t love anyone else”.
    1. Childed marriages & Relationships need to be brought into the Present-to-Future Greater-Timeframe
    2. Likewise all Human Development needs to brought into the Present-Future Greater-Timeframe

    • maude elwes
      25/06/2013 at 10:21 am


      I have always felt that those who tell us to love ourselves and are, by association with that thought, self lovers, must have strong narcissistic tendancies. Which, from my understanding of psychology, is something not desirable in practice.

      Which brings us to child marriage and therefore child sexuality.

      I have felt for some time that the fetish with the age of consent here in the West is a strange fight against nature and the very reason in nature for our being.

      Each decade the desire by the state to raise the age limit of consent has got to what is now a perversion of the meaning of human being.

      Once upon a time, it was a given that girls of 13 would and could marry. Romeo and Juliet, then later, addressed in Truman Capote’s, Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

      Yet now we see a man going to jail for having bought sex with a seventeen year old prostitute, who incidentally, looks 35.

      The fact that nature and the entire work up from birth as human animals sends out powerful signals, that cannot be disputed or fought, and therefore must be satisfied in order to breed, makes no difference to those who rule over us. And it has become a mania. It won’t be long, at this rate, before we are seen as children at 25.

      Lock them up or send them to a nunnery for nature is too powerful and sexual desire too prolific.

      On the other hand, they teach the art of erotic desire from the age of five and encourage the knowledge of pornography, sexual deviation and how to use condoms in order to ‘save’ their bodies from the ravages of childbirth. Additionally and fashionable is the handing out of ‘the pill’ (dangerous) without parents knowledge from twelve or younger. Is that schizoid thinking or what?

      The elite approach is, ‘well, it may be okay if the two performing the forbidden act are of the same age, but, only a devil does this or is attracted to someone out of their chronological sphere. Even though that context is far more ‘normal’ from a logical and therefore natural point of view.

      It is time humans became more accepting of their innate condition and instead of fighting, what cannot be trumped, they come up with a cleverer way of dealing with our reproductive system and the psyche being pushed relentlessly toward its fulfillment.

  3. MilesJSD
    26/06/2013 at 12:11 pm

    Kindly allow me to try a
    “generic-summary” sort of rejoinder:

    What is absent is holisticly-sequential and complete individual-human-developmental, and lifeplace,
    (not Workplace, ‘though see below for that also)

    what is thereby wrongly in place and wildly out-of-control and beyond even re-education,
    (i) “wrong habits that feel right”
    (p42 in Eric Franklin’s “Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery”)

    (ii) a whole sectorial “Sex” Industry (read “Porn = Pornographic = including-bestialities)
    wherein the “oldest profession” remains sluggardly the least educated and the worst trained even in the normal lifeplace and at neighbourly healthy and health-building levels of touch, hugging, and mutual-self-control.

    (iii) …

    (But that’s probably a sufficient rejoinder, so I give way)

    • ladytizzy
      26/06/2013 at 9:41 pm

      JSDM, today I was reminded* of a quote attributed to Edith Wharton (and, so, of your comments here):

      “I begin to see what marriage is for. It’s to keep people away from each other. Sometimes I think that two people who love each other can be saved from madness only by the things that come between them: children, duties, visits, bores, relations, the things that protect married people from each other.”


  4. Senex
    01/07/2013 at 7:57 am

    It goes without saying that the business of the house is primary legislation. The courts will generate secondary legislation where there is ambiguity.

    The bill is unconstitutional on two counts one of which is that it abandons the principle of equality before the law. Whilst I am strongly opposed to the bill I will not deny its existence as it serves a useful purpose in stress testing the new constitutional arrangements set in place with the creation of the Supreme Court.

    The courts are want to interpret Acts by the letter of the law. This will cause some heartache to Judges as they endeavour to deliver equality. It will put them on a collision course with the executive.

    As an example: a married hetero couple M and W are friends with a homo married couple MG and MD. W becomes suspicious that M is having a relationship with another and confronts M who says that he seeing MD. As a consequence the relationship between M and W irretrievably breaks down with W wishing to divorce M citing adultery.

    The matter goes to court: council for W argues that the law allows M as a hetero to commit adultery with MD. The judge interprets the SSM Act and decides W cannot cite adultery as the reason for the divorce because the law states that MD cannot commit adultery with M.

    M then moves MG into the home as the property is in his name. There are now three in this household. This is the precursor that will drive the homosexual agenda for polygamy. W later blogs: ‘Marriage should only be between a man and a woman’.

    • maude elwes
      01/07/2013 at 12:56 pm


      Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. Fidelity is not a requirement of SSM, and therefore can no longer be a requirement of heterosexual marriage.

      However, what you miss is that the true motive behind this SSM Act is not to produce equality, it is to reduce the meaning of what marriage between opposite sex partners means. It’s purpose is to create a meaningless enterprise should heterosexual couples wish to continue with tradition. It is comprised this way in order to bring about a nonsense to consider marriage at all. Thereby doing away with the institution once and for all. And by so doing, lock us all out from any benefits that may be available under law for that union.

      And the other pretense in all this malfeasance is, that all is well with those countries who adopted this nightmare previously.

      Lets look at what is happening in Canada.

      And this highlights the reality of this monstrosity.

      And in Scandinavia, that bastion of the alternative lifestyle.

      As I wrote before, this legislation cannot be used to give all people equality under the law as there cannot be equality between different entities. SS couples do not meet the requirements needed to produce a coupling of heterosexual union. The make up of the pairs are imbalanced and it cannot be righted by a pretense or ‘faux’ set up. This simply leads to a profound confusion bordering on the insane.

  5. Senex
    01/07/2013 at 7:58 am

    Many are wondering why the constitution has not kicked in to prevent this bill from beginning its journey through Parliament.

    The emphasis in our unwritten constitution has ‘always’ been to prevent political instability by ensuring that as a pre-process, prospective legislation would undergo amongst other things constitutional interpretation within Parliament before bills began their journey. The ideal situation was for this interpretation to remain in place whilst a bill underwent scrutiny by the HoL.

    In this respect the Lord Chancellor would sit silently on the Woolsack keeping a soporific eye on proceedings; for him to speak as head of the Judiciary would have seen him contravene the Act of Settlement 1701. This act prevents Judges interfering politically with Parliament.

    This pre-processing would invariably bring the Lord Chancellors office into conflict with the executive often leading to heated sometimes vitriolic disagreement. The executive took the view that it had the legitimate right to decide what bills came before Parliament and in this respect the Lord Chancellor as a Judge was acting politically.

    The hostility by the executive toward the judiciary and the prospect of unbridled power by the executive saw both amenable to change. A constitutional bill was prepared and Parliament got down to business. In 2005 the bill became law and the divorce was complete.

    Unfortunately, what both the judges and the executive forgot in their haste to go their own ways was the constitution and the people. Not unreasonable given that members of either house had and still have only a superficial understanding of our constitution. No judge or executive was willing to look positively at the role of Lord Chancellor nor were they willing to look at the constitutional role of the Law Lords, all they wanted to do was go their own separate ways the sooner the better.

    The outcome: nobody in a Sovereign Parliament can now do the work of the Lord Chancellors office specifically to interpret the constitution. Parliament technically cannot maintain by Act of Parliament the constitution. All public law bills are missing any legitimate constitutional consideration. The 2005 Act was the Straw that broke the proverbial back. Parliament has legislated itself into institutional paralysis and works as a consensual tyranny.

    The SSM bill is such a tyranny. The Law Lords should on reflection consider that to all intents and purposes they were sacked something that last happened when Charles II and James II removed judges that opposed their political will.

    As a footnote: not all active judges were removed from the HoL.

    In a bizarre twist the loss of the Lord Chancellor regressed the monarchy to a point in time somewhere back in the Bronze Age. I wonder if anybody knows the ancient mariner.

    The Queen is anointed so the Old Testament book of Judges could apply? In order to restore both the Law Lords and the Lord Chancellor she would have to attend her HoL without speaking during bill stages. On conclusion her powers as a judge would then return as a delegated authority to the Lord Chancellor.

    Certainly as of now the process of refusing ‘Royal Assent’ on constitutional grounds is a distinct possibility?

    Ref: Kings and Judges in the Bible; the Book of Mormon

    • Lord Blagger
      01/07/2013 at 10:47 am

      You’ve forgotten the bit about where they are supposed to tell us what they are going to do in a manifesto.

      Otherwise its a dictatorship.

  6. Senex
    01/07/2013 at 8:00 am

    Lastly, it was a couple of years ago when the nature of human rights was given a definition here on the blog. It went something like: a human right exists as the duality of law. Both are mutually exclusive except where they exist to reinforce one other.

    The creation of a law gives rise to the human right. The absence of such a law is a freedom and such freedoms are not declared as they simply exist.

    Marriage is a law and on this basis a human right is created to deny marriage; as a result children are born both inside and outside of wedlock. The law says that a legal relationship between two same sex people allows a child to be given up to them for adoption.

    This law creates a human right for a child to have as a first choice parents of the opposite sex and removes what otherwise would have been an undeclared freedom.

    On this basis should the law in adoption or the consequence of artificial insemination or IVF give priority to prospective parents of the opposite sex? Should female homosexuals be forced to offer up their new born child to a hetero couple for adoption?

    • maude elwes
      01/07/2013 at 1:10 pm

      And the children that everyone wants to pretend does not exist.

      We know there is a giant cover up, but it won’t be long before they reach their majority and begin to speak for themselves in their thousands as this person did. What will those who claim there is no problem in this union for the child do then? And more importantly, will they be held accountable for their act of cruelty.

  7. Frank W. Summers III
    01/07/2013 at 7:51 pm

    Lord Hylton,
    Your contributions in spoken proceeding and your amendments as best I can detect them from these short readings are thoughtful, excellent, well-reasoned and the product of that particular point of view which cannot be readily reproduced. The contrast to the abomination which is while being a set of spoken remarks the starkest contrast to two of the most absurd paragraphs known to legal reasoning which seemingly were asserted gratuitously into the already very controversial and difficult opinion by Justice Kennedy in the recent USA v. Windsor case. Your compatriots are fortunate in that regard, I hope they listen to what you have to say here.

  8. Senex
    02/07/2013 at 12:17 pm

    Maude, children’s rights are certainly being abused by the existence of this bill. The Eastern Orthodox Church which has some influence in the Duma sees MDs’ legislating to deny foreign same sex couples access to Russian children for adoption. This creates a human right which says only hetero couples can care for children and reinforces the original undeclared freedom for parents to ‘own’ their own children.

    Now contrast this with the executive’s view of things: the law states that same sex couples can adopt children. This gives rise to a perverse human right that says heteros have NO right to care or ‘own’ their children.

    Here use of the word ‘perverse’ infers a moral basis to the right. This perverse morality is the states view of morality and not the reasonable one that says the moral basis of society should be based upon a reasonable view or interpretation of Christianity or Islam or Judaism and so on.

    If homos were to be denied the right to care for children how would they react? Homosexual women would marry homosexual men for the sole purpose of procreation. Homosexual women would then move their lovers into the same home creating three or more in the household. Should this become widespread it would become a precursor to polygamy the ultimate aim of homosexual power.

  9. Senex
    02/07/2013 at 12:20 pm

    LB: You know only too well the courts have established that governments are not bound by manifesto to honour one.

    On the subject of dictatorship: tyrannies are not necessarily hostile to those they serve. However, the absolute power of the executive allows them to bear down harshly on any perceived dissention.

    To quote from Wikipedia “The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009.” The SSM bill if it becomes law will generate secondary legislation in the courts and we can assume with some certainty that the courts will differ on how they see things.

    The Supreme Court, this Vestal Virgin, will be busy but there is a problem. The Court sits or exists in contempt of the constitution, specifically the Act of Settlement 1701 and its supporting Acts by denying Parliament its right to interpret the constitution. As Parliament is a political institution this court acts politically and its judgements as such could not be relied upon in the European Courts.

    But don’t worry if the Queen can creates peerages in the HoL contrary to the Bill of Rights 1689 (the Queen acts politically) then the Supreme Court can bypass the constitution in a similar manner as long as the executive says it is ok. The question is, is this in the best interests of the nation?

    Its difficult to see how at the moment the Queen can give Royal Assent to any bill because both the Courts and Parliament technically enjoy a degree of institutional paralysis.

Comments are closed.