Last year, the House of Lords voted for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by an overwhelming majority, taking commentators – and many peers – by surprise. The scale of support was greater than in the House of Commons. Every grouping in the House (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and cross-benches) produced a majority in support of the Bill. Given their previous voting, it was expected that a majority of Labour and Liberal Democrat peers would vote for it. What was remarkable was the support for the Bill on the Conservative benches. The reasons for this I have sought to develop in a post on my own blog. (You can read the analysis here.) There were tactical errors by opponents of the Bill – not least forcing a vote on the Second Reading of the Bill – but those alone do not explain the extent of support for the Bill. This can be attributed both to a change of personnel – new peers being more supportive of change – and a change of attitude among longer-serving Conservatives. The stance of the House changed over the past decade, but few expected it to be on such a scale as to carry the Bill by 390 votes to 148, a majority of 242. Shortly before the vote, some newspapers were reporting that the result was too close to call!
Two central and fundamental bases of human-developmental and social knowledge,
and their respective lifeplace ‘know-hows’,
need to be “nailed to the table”,
in this whole Field of Human Thrival-Survival
and in particular of this sub-order thereunder of
[jsdm: the somewhat historical-&-purpose foggily-labelled]
“Same-Sex Marriage”.
1) In “Anatomy of Spirit”, it is pointed out by Caroline Myss that
(‘) before ‘marrying’ another person, one needs to be fully self-controlling, developed, aware and sufficient, in one’s individual self; and to have realised that marriage is a civil-contract [but not at all necessarily a “covenant”: jsdm] within, but by no means as the be-all-and-end-all, nor necessarily [only within certain Religions] as the most important or sacred of, the Overall-Human-Relationships-and Bondings innate-sacramental, somatopsychic, or ‘chakral’ energies, at the Heart (level 4) of the seven natural human development innate-energy-centres.
2) What is also of key importance is not “same-sex”,
nor the foggy “marriage”,
but be publicly binding to the “Same-Purpose” and to the same “Covenant” – if you will, to the same “Love-Covenant”.
3) The contractual part of ‘marriage’, being quite easily at any time after the legalising-ceremony “breakable”, “bought-out-of”, or otherwise “terminated – regardless of spiritual, human, and personal harm or hurt”
should be left until last, of the Bondings-Oaths.
are within the greater enveloping
“Lifestreams” by David Boadella; and
Of course it would be more acceptable to pass such a bill by the House of Lords, they don’t have to worry about votes, the Commons do and if they want to remain an MP they have to ponder on the persuasion of their electorate and whether they would ‘vote’ for someone who reduced the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman to a farce. Especially when you take the age of the population into account beside those in the Lords.
And, if one reads what the papers say, is the high yes vote a surprise at all? So many in parliament appear to belong to the minority group who would favour such legislation. Way out of proportion to the make up of the general public. Parliament therefore being sadly out of touch with the general population on most matters, this would not be any different.
Lets wait for 10 years and see how well the idea has taken on at that point.
The vote in the Commons, where they do have to worry about votes and have the ultimate say, was still substantial – 400 votes to 175 at second reading and 366 votes to 161 at third reading. I agree though it will be interesting to see what the view is in 10 years time.
@JH:
Perhaps the Commons will rue the day come the general election in 2015.
However, the Lords will carry on regardless and there lies the rub.
An Act of Parliament is capable of removing peers that have offended; no peer is secure in this respect. For example should the Commons act by a majority to undermine national security such that a foreign power would have a hold over us it would be difficult to see MPs removed by public appeasement and election without their corresponding support in the HoL being removed too.
maude elwes: What will be the situation in ten years’ time? Probably the same as in those nations that have had same-sex marriage for ten years or more.
Well, LN, I don’t think so.
And my reason for this notion is, a lot more will out by then from children who presently remain silent for fear of reprisal. As well as those who feel deeply they will be threatened if they speak against.
Here in this link you will see an interesting alternative view. Admittedly it is an American angle, but they are far less intimidated than us British on all controversial matters. We become a little stultified with sex and its ramification. And also, they have the right to vote on it, which we muffled cap doffing Brits don’t have the privilege to do.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12434#.U1ZAxqJ45_Y
maude elwes: As the link shows, you rely on material that is flawed, both in terms of history and the role of the state. It is also based on a conceit that you variously repeat that somehow, having lost the argument on merit, it must be somehow an elite conspiracy.
@LN:
The argument is not mine but yours. You belong to a political party who has to stand by and wait for a mandate from the people in order to rule. So voicing my opinion does not mean I have lost, until and unless, Parliament has the courage to put our money where its mouth is. A vote for all of us collectively to decide what it is we wish to live under would soon clarify what that is. Except, with our lack of choice in political parties, as they all beat the same drum, means referendum is the only way this nation can speak out. The same way those Americans our government admires so much have as a natural course of their voting rights.
And as a PS, blaming the Queen, as this is a constitutional monarchy, is a cop out. There is a referendum for Scotland to have the opportunity to leave and another being raised to get us out of Europe. Referendums are an acceptable way, in any democracy, to settle an issue. Although Europe will really be settled by the voters in a few weeks time.
maude elwes: We live in a parliamentary democracy and referendums are novel devices used only (and usually as advisory tools) on constitutional issues. No one has yet improved on the analysis in the report of the Constitution Committee on the use of referendums. We do, though, differ from the USA in that we have now had two UK-wide referendums. There is no provision in the USA for a USA-wide referendum.
What was remarkable was the support for the Bill on the Conservative benches.
Thorny subject for the Lord prof at the university of Hull, where things are doubtless discussed.
When one considers the bonding/pairing that was encouraged in the single gender private/public schools in the 1950s/60s such conservative support is not entirely surprising.
Women’s rights changed everything; pill;family planning and so on. “Medical progress”
Meanings have changed. The meaning of the word “marriage” in same sex marriage is completely different from that of the previous status quo. Sometimes it now means ‘chattel’ in the same sense as ‘chattel’ of a wife in the 19thce.
The bonding and pairing, in single gender private/public boarding schools in the 1960s, that I mentioned in my previous post has not disappeared but changed. In a school with both genders the bonds formed are both normal,AND abnormal, (whereas they were previously only abnormal)so it is hard to know what to suggest. Boys and girls will be boys and girls I suppose.
Such pairs and bonds are also formed in nunneries and monasteries, so it is human nature in the absence of a second gender. It is animal nature as well unless you are a snail, in which case you are ambidextrous, every which way you can.
@GH:
You forgot to mention prisons. Yes, bonding between human beings appears to be a very necessary part of their fulfillment. And that bonding must therefore be natural and healthy.
However, the relationship between human beings is not the question here. This is about ‘marriage’ being up for grabs. And marriage, or, if you like, holy matrimony, is to do with the relationship between a man and a woman, singular. Which is not only a unique pair bonding between two ‘opposites’ joining together as one, but, with the promise of creating another human being from that oneness. It is a gift of one man and one woman to each other. That is what makes it ‘special.’ Two opposites declaring to the world they intend to share their life through this ‘natural’ gift of oneness. And within that coupling, they take the wonderful qualities of both male and female gender in an understanding and respect of each others ‘differences.’ As I recently wrote on Lord Norton’s personal view blog, it is a celebration of separateness coming together in an ultimate promise of devotion. Not a joining or celebration of identical beings in a friendship that includes same sex relief. It is deeper than simply a form of lets get each other off and have a party. Exclusive pairing of opposites is ‘marriage’ as we know it and human beings realise that within this promise is required a perceived sacrifice of sexual freedom.
What on earth is wrong with a civil partnership, or, that joining with any other name, rather than removing that ‘specialness’ that only a man and a woman can have together? Why destroy the celebration of two ‘opposites’ (not duplicates) giving the promise of breeding within a pact and a bonding that children from that union can recognise as a promise to them for life? It is not ‘equality’ to remove the joy of a unique relationship of opposites who vow to be monogamous by turning that vow into a farce. That move of destruction is simply a punishment or vengeance for being heterosexual. Difference rather than sameness is not something that should be or can be denied and no government has the right to remove that from men and women who wish to continue in the tradition of their ancient culture. And frankly, for any government to collude in smashing that coupling is really bazaar beyond belief. Weird is the word for it.
If you add to that, the removal of the meaning of monogamy as the basis for such a union, that takes the cake. It leaves no excuse for it other than envy of that which cannot be reproduced no matter what name you stick to it. And for a so called ‘democratic government’ to go along with such a call, without giving ‘all’ its citizens the right to openly voice their pleasure or objection to it, is portentous.
As a footnote I will tell you this, and you can believe it or not, some family and a couple of friends of mine are seriously considering the prospect of leaving the land of their birth to go and set up home in any Roman Catholic country in order to flee from such a blow to their belief in marriage as a special union in their life. and to feel they are in step with their fellow man on the raising of their children. They are simply waiting until after the next general election to see if that brings any sincere change they can live with. Which is tearing everyone apart.
This is a far bigger issue than any of you are giving it credit for.
maude elwes: I recommend you read: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3371/Dramatic-change-in-attitudes-towards-gay-couples.aspx
@LN:
Most people in this democracy realise parliament is a place of deceit – and so are their polls, which are devised to mislead.
You will see in this clip the supporters of gay marriage cannot bear the idea of a free vote. The strident way they oppose it tells you they know it would never float if there should be a referendum. If they believed it would, we wouldn’t have to ask for it. The pollsters don’t tell you that they choose their audience selectively and weigh up who they will ask. They are in the business of selling their craft to those who want to use it to convince. They will not do that for long if they cannot give the answers required. It is naive to believe otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTQeodDbQN4
And Tatchell on love is very, very humorous. Love is not the basis for marriage and never has been. It is a union of practicality and he knows it. To reduce it to the ridiculous notion of love shows the immaturity and perverse thinking behind this act. To dare to use the rights of human beings of differing races and reducing them to being equal with homosexuals and lesbians is as hostile as you can get to their rights of gender. Because people of different races marry interracial is no way connected to the differences of gender. What an absolute insult to suggest they are the experiment to be used to equate homosexual union.
We should have a referendum on the rights of the people to return marriage to a union between men and women.
@ Lord norton:
Here are two links to sum up your idea of what polls try to tell us.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/readpoll.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Aggmwi1lPpAC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=political+polls+dupe+the+public&source=bl&ots=QCEwkND4OD&sig=cnUJbZQAMvuJ6IkNLzBbjZf8NJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ys9gU72nJcrs0gXh3oGwBg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=political%20polls%20dupe%20the%20public&f=false
I believe that poll swallowers are at a gross disadvantage. Often it sways legitimate opinion and weakens a belief in their own wisdom.
And food for thought.
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/gay-marriage-farce.html
maude elwes: Very interesting, but irrelevant as should be apparent from their content. They are discussing problems with election polls and their interpretation.
You forgot to mention prisons.
There cant be many ex-cons who will get married to their former cell mates, Maude, but I do get what you are saying about abnormal bonding.
The word “Indenture” was used with regard to contract of service sometimes life long, in the 19thc.
Same sex “marriage” now apparently, quite often, means the same as that, assuming that the one is the chattel of the other.
As I say it would be much better to encourage multiple same sex “marriages” (homosexual/lesbian polyandry/gamy?) so then they could all live together in a monastery, or nunnery.
Talking about prisons and single gender schools of old, monasteries and nunneries are another case of what was until now considered to be ‘abnormal’ bonding, best not mentioned at all to those who have family values!
Indentures could not marry without the permission of their owner, were subject to physical punishment (like many young ordinary servants), and saw their obligation to labor enforced by the courts. To ensure uninterrupted work by the female servants, the law lengthened the term of their indenture if they became pregnant. But unlike slaves, servants were guaranteed to be eventually released from bondage.
Just checking my arithmetic it seems that the Indenture was usually for emigrants to the US, akin to white slavery but only for a term of years.
@ Gareth Howell:
‘There cant be many ex-cons who will get married to their former cell mates, Maude’
Oh no? Want to take a bet on that Gareth?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/10/gay_prison_inmates_can_they_get_married_and_share_a_cell.html
And to expand on that.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/california-prisoners-marry-same-sex-partners-article-1.1445064
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to device.
Walter Scott
1808-Marmion
Gareth, I’m really not sure why the links I put up that show the US already have same sex marriages in prisons and that within those prisons they live as a couple. But, if you want confirmation of that search the internet. You will be amazed at what is already taking place in the land of the free.
In the meantime, here are a couple of links to sites that offer an interpretation of same sex marriage for those who ‘don’t know.’
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if04g01
http://c4m.org.uk/
And what the political view of the Archbishop of Canterbury is.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5069/archbishop-justins-speech-to-the-lords-on-the-governments-gay-marriage-bill
I wonder whether civil partnership should ever have been contemplated at all, let alone backed. As that move appears only to have exacerbated the fate of the majority who want marriage to remain as it has always been, an act of responsibility to each other by two people, of the opposite sex, practiced by them for the security and eventual procreation expected of it.