A bill which seeks to make Britain the
15th nation to legalize gay marriage was approve by the
House of Lords on its second reading Tuesday, leaving little doubt
the bill will become law.
After roughly 3 hours of debate,
members approved the measure with a voice vote. The House of Commons
approved the measure last month. The bill now heads to the committee
stage.
An amendment aimed at derailing the
project was widely defeated by a 390-148 margin. The “wrecking
amendment” as it has been dubbed by the media sought to allow
straight couples to enter civil partnerships. Opponents were
disappointed by the meager support the amendment received.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin
Welby, told colleagues that he could not support the bill because it
would diminish and devalue marriage.
“The concept of marriage as a
normative place for procreation is lost. The idea [of] marriage as
covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating
the state, and as our base community of society, as we have already
heard, is weakened,” he said.
Writing in the Financial
Times, Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive who
publicly came out gay in 2007, argued that marriage equality was good
for business.
“People are happier and more
productive and make more money for their company when they feel they
are included and can be themselves,” he wrote. “Giving gay
couples the freedom to marry sends an important signal of
inclusiveness.”
2 comments:
Hi Ulf, Can I correct a couple of errors in the report. The House of Lords spent 2 days on the second reading debate not 3 hours with almost 90 members speaking during the debate which had originally been scheduled for a single day's debate. The bit of the debate I heard at the end was actually quite good and a few of the anti-speeches made some fair points. Unexpectedly, there was a degree of good humour and leg pulling - would you call it joshing? - among the peers. The 'wrecking amendment' was a purely procedural attempt to stop the legislation in it's tracks by refusing to give the Bill a second reading but it was heavily defeated and the second reading was approved without a division (vote). The Bill, having already been through its committee stage in the Commons will go through the same process in the Lords where opponents have promised to try and introduce amendments to strengthen protection for churches, teachers and civil marriage registrars that oppose same-sex marriage. However the protections in the existing Bill are already reckoned to be pretty strong and, given the scale of the pro-vote in the Lords commentators believe the Bill will go through pretty much in its current form. Another point noted both by participants in the debate as well as by commentators is how the tone of debate on gay rights has changed over the years and become much more positive even since the debate on the introduction of Civil Partnerships a few years ago. Virtually all speakers now accepted that CPs were good things - even Peers who argued strongly against the original legislation.
So it does look like the legislation will be passed.
P.S. There was an attempt during the debate in the House of Commons to introduce another 'wrecking amendment' which was about extending Civil Partnerships to straight couples but this was (I think) withdrawn when the government agreed to look at this separately but outside this Bill.
Steve
Thanx for the corrections and updates Steve.
As for me, I'm fine with exceptions for churches, mainly because I don't care what they think on the topic and would never seek getting married in one.
As for teachers, depends on the context...if we're talking about not wanting to teach gay students, or using their positions to condemn homosexuality, then I'm definitely not on board with that.
As for a civil servant refusing not to perform his/her duties because of their religious beliefs, then I very strongly believe they need to check their religion at the door and do their jobs.
I'm pretty sure, these very same people wouldn't be allowed not to perform their jobs if the person were, lets say..Hindu, Muslim, agnostic, black, white, red or yellow, nor do I believe anyone who owns a business, should be able to deny service to a paying customer based on their delicate religious beliefs.
Moral of my rant: " If ya can't handle serving fags, then don't place yourself in a position where this may be required of you!"
As for "joshing" well, "leg pulling" is probably more widely used here than that term.
Golly gee willikers ; )
Post a Comment