Comments: Progress at Report stage of Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

The interesting thing is how the CofE's various offerings in this debate have been completely ignored. The CofE's views are obviously regarded as the internal debate of an irrelevant cult, rather than anything much to do with the country at large.

With majorities like yesterday the House of Lords would find it virtually impossible to hold the bill up, which means that the bishops will be ignored in person as well as on paper.

That's what happen when you hold to fixed positions, wrapped in unreadable waffle. You end up talking to your own membership, while no-one else listens.

Posted by Interested Observer at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 8:28am BST

'You end up talking to your own membership, while no-one else listens.'

I am still a member (just!) and I stopped listened to so-called 'official' CofE pronouncements years ago. That claim to speak for all of us and have consulted none of us.

Apart from the spufflings of some homophobic Tories ('aggressive homosexual community' anyone?) I thought Parliament conducted itself quite admirably yesterday.

Posted by Stephen Morgan at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 10:23am BST

This is a victory for those Same-Sex couples who wish only to live their lives in peace and security - unhindered by those in society who question their right to live together in monogamous faithfulness to one another.

Detractors from the Bill have now been defeated in their effort to encumber the legislation with the 'red herring' of opening up Civil Partnership to heterosexual couples as a 'quid pro quo'.

No doubt the leadership of the Church of England may be rueing the day that they opposed the idea of Same-sex couples being legally joined together in Civil Partnerships. If they had been more helpful in that matter, the prospect of Same-Sex Marriage may never have been considered by the British Parliament.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 10:38am BST

The CofE's views may have been regarded as the internal debate of an irrelevant cult, but the whole debate in parliament was dominated by the internal debate of the conservative party. That's why the critical issue ended up being the timing of an investigation into something that everybody knows no-one wants. Labour managed to hand massive power to the swivel-eyed loons while disagreeing with them and forcing the conservative frontbench to agree with labour, which was a political masterstroke but is somewhat disconnected from the issue of gay marriage.

Posted by Leon at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 12:13pm BST

I think a claim that nobody wants civil partnerships for mixed-sex couples needs justification. The government consultation that preceded this bill had a large majority in favour.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 12:49pm BST

It is my personal belief that the number of mixed-sex couples who want to enter into civil partnerships is approximately zero. That is different to the number of people who think they should be allowed.

If I'm wrong then I agree they should be allowed.

Posted by Leon at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 3:40pm BST

What difference is there between marriage and civil partnership for a heterosexual couple (or indeed for a homosexual couple) - are there different legal rights?

Posted by Cathy at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 5:03pm BST

What happens in France may not be a helpful comparison but the figures there are astounding.

When the French government introduced their version of a civil partnership (Pacs), although aimed at gay couples, it was an immediate hit with opposites sex couples.

Some 95% of Pacs are entered into by straight couples and currently the figures for Pacs and marriages have almost equalled out with something like a quarter of a million each a year.

While there are important differences between a Pacs and a CP, I think the figures speak for themselves.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 6:50pm BST

what are the legal differences between French marriage and Pacs? Is it just the word marriage that people are trying to avoid or is there some substantial difference?

Because as far as Britain is concerned, one reason we want marriage equality is because our CPs are nor recognised in all countries, which puts us at a genuine disadvantage.
I'm not sure why straights would want to trade marriage for CPs that are absolutely the same thing with the exception of a bit of discrimination thrown in.

Posted by Erika Baker at Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 9:19am BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.