Go Back   GameFront Forums > General Chit-Chat > The Pub

Remember Me?

The Pub Intelligent discussion and debate on real-life issues. You can also visit the History and Warfare forum | This is not a game support forum.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 5th, 2013   #1
I am the Law!
 
Commissar MercZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 28th, 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Available
Posts: 7,397
Rep Power: 29
Commissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured One
Send a message via MSN to Commissar MercZ Send a message via Yahoo to Commissar MercZ
Default British House of Commons votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/wo...iage-vote.html

Spoiler:
British House of Commons Approves Gay Marriage


Elizabeth Maddison, left, proposed to her civil partner, Hannah Pearson, in front of Parliament in London on Tuesday.
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALAN COWELL

Published: February 5, 2013

LONDON — The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Britain, indicating that the bill is assured of passage as it moves through further legislative stages.

But in a major setback for Prime Minister David Cameron, who championed the bill, it appeared that more than half of the lawmakers in his Conservative Party voted against the measure or abstained.

After a six-hour debate, the Commons vote was 400 to 175 for the bill. It will have to pass in the House of Lords, where delaying tactics by opponents are possible, but Mr. Cameron has said that he plans to have the bill enacted into law sometime this summer.

Although 132 of the 303 Conservative lawmakers voted for the bill, early calculations by opponents within the party were that as many as 170 or 180 others in the party had broken with the prime minister, 140 by voting against the bill and as many as 40 others by abstaining. The opening to the revolt came when party leaders decided to make the issue a so-called free vote, a procedure commonly used on issues of conscience that allows lawmakers to break with their party without fear of disciplinary action.

The bulk of the votes approving the measure came from the opposition Labour Party and the center-left Liberal Democrats, who are allied in an uneasy governing coalition with the Conservatives. While both of those parties suffered defections of their own, the parliamentary blocs stood solidly behind the measure that the parties have long advocated.

In modern times, few prime ministers have faced such an extensive rebellion in their own ranks, and the outcome seemed likely to add to the growing ferment among backbench Conservatives about Mr. Cameron’s leadership on a wide range of issues, including Britain’s shrinking defense budget and its increasingly uneasy ties with the European Union.

The divisions over same-sex marriage have been less vehement in Britain than they have been in France, where a similar bill backed by President François Hollande has prompted rival demonstrations in Paris recently that have drawn tens of thousands into the streets. Discussions in the French Parliament have been equally impassioned, where a marathon debate on the issue, now in its second week, has featured angry insults across the floor of the National Assembly and more than 5,300 amendments.

By comparison, the debate in the House of Commons was mostly understated, with a strong undercurrent of realism among lawmakers who oppose gay marriage but sense that the battle is already lost, not only in the crushing parliamentary majority favoring change but in a wide variety of opinion polls that have shown strong public support for the measure put forward by Mr. Cameron.

Nonetheless, some Conservative lawmakers added a strident note to Tuesday’s debate. Sir Roger Gale, a right-wing backbencher, pulled no punches. “It is not possible to redefine marriage,” he said. “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, has been historically, remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory, Orwellian almost, for any government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.”

Another discomfited backbencher, Edward Leigh, struck a note that carried a warning for Mr. Cameron, who spoke openly of his support for gay marriage almost as soon as he became the Conservative leader in 2005. He is said to have adopted the position under the strong influence of his wife, Samantha, a creative adviser to a London fashion accessories company — and to have made it part of a broader push to reposition the Conservatives and make them more appealing to younger and less traditional voters.

But to Mr. Leigh, and for many others in the party’s parliamentary bloc, pushing the bill was a step too far. “We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage; otherwise what, I ask, is a Conservative Party for?” he said.

He added, “We are alienating people who have voted for us all of their lives, leaving them with no one to vote for.”

Mr. Cameron is trying to modernize the Conservatives, and to position the party for general elections in 2015, when it will have to battle against a resurgent Labour Party riding high in the polls and strongly in favor of same-sex marriage, as is the third major party in British politics, the Liberal Democrats.

Although Mr. Cameron played the role of protagonist for the bill before British lawmakers, and risked adding momentum to a restiveness about his leadership among right-wing Conservative backbenchers, he was not among the 70 or so members of the House of Commons who spoke in the debate on Tuesday.

But he addressed reporters earlier at 10 Downing Street, where he had been holding talks with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“Today is an important day,” he said, before heading for the Commons to cast his vote. “I am a strong believer in marriage. It helps people commit to each other, and I think it is right that gay people should be able to get married too.”

“Yes, this is about equality,” he added. “But it is also about making our society stronger. I know there are strong views on both sides of the argument; I accept that. But I think this is an important step forward for our country.”

A day after the newly confirmed archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, took office saying that he shared the Church of England’s opposition to marriage between people of the same gender, three cabinet officials said in a letter published in The Daily Telegraph that the new legislation was “the right thing to do at the right time.”

“Marriage has evolved over time,” the letter said. “We believe that opening it up to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, the institution.”

It continued: “Attitudes toward gay people have changed. A substantial majority of the public now favor allowing same-sex couples to marry, and support has increased rapidly.”

The three ministers — George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Home Secretary Theresa May — also asked whether it was “any longer acceptable to exclude people from marriage simply because they love someone of the same sex.”

The debate divided Britain’s Conservatives, who lead in uneasy coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

Opponents of the legislation argued that it would alienate traditional Conservative voters, jeopardizing Mr. Cameron’s prospects in the 2015 national election. But supporters said it would bring in new backing from outside the party.

Archbishop Welby, 57, was confirmed Monday to replace the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, who has retired after 10 years in office.

The new archbishop, the spiritual head of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, endorsed the traditional view that while the Church of England has no objection to civil partnerships between people of the same gender, it is, as a recent church statement put it, “committed to the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, said Monday that he would be “voting for equal marriage in the House of Commons, and I’ll be doing so proudly.” He also said he would urge his 255 legislators in the 649-member body to vote with him, although a small group will probably not.

“I’ll be voting for equal marriage for a very simple reason: I don’t think that the person you love should determine the rights you have,” Mr. Miliband said Monday.

The legislation, which applies to England and Wales, would permit civil marriage between same-sex couples, but specifically exempt the Church of England and other faiths from an obligation to perform such ceremonies. Some faith groups, including the Quakers, have said they want the legal right to perform same-sex marriages.

In their letter, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Hague and Ms. May said: “Our party also has a strong belief in religious freedom, a vital element of a free society. The bill ensures that no faith group will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. The legal advice is clear that these protections for religious groups cannot be overturned by the courts.”

It said: “Religious freedom works both ways. Why should faith groups, such as the Quakers, that wish to conduct gay marriages be forbidden from doing so? This bill will enhance religious freedom, not restrict it.”





It's not formally law (there are other protocols it has to go through), but it's a big step. I could not imagine such a thing passing in the US Congress at its current composition, it's been difficult enough getting it on a state-by-state basis.

Last edited by Commissar MercZ; February 5th, 2013 at 03:47 PM.
Commissar MercZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #2
Victim of Forgotten Hope
Forum bystander

 
Rikupsoni's Avatar
 
Join Date: April 26th, 2004
Location: Finland
Status: Available
Posts: 2,920
Rep Power: 21
Rikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputationRikupsoni has a sound reputation
Default Re: British House of Commons votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

Rather odd that the church ban was consolidated on law, though that way it's guaranteeing there's no pressure to force them to it by grounds of equality legislation. If they change their mind, certainly the law can be amended, because there seems to be some kind of support inside the Anglican Church, but certainly not in the Catholic or Muslim communities.

But I have no problem with religious communities not performing same-sex marriage. It's odd to complain about something related to faith. Marriage is a sacrament. I don't like religious teachings, thus I'm not a member of any denomination. The person complaining doesn't have to be either.

I find it bemusing that same-sex marriage is paraded as some sort of century's biggest social progression. In countries with civil union, there's pretty much no difference (adoption legislation is separate etc.), it's just a change in the name. So how is this name change going to improve their lives dramatically? It's not even like that all gays want to get married or like the idea. Yes, same-sex marriage has quite a lot of symbolic value, but practically it's a minimalist issue, it's not going to change much. It's not even a real political question.

Conservatives don't seem to know how to state reasons for their perception of marriage. Marriage is a cultural matter (male-female breeding a biological one, from which marriage derives) and their conservative or religious opinion weighs as much as the opposing ones because one can't argue culture. However, discrimination isn't okay, but I don't really see how civil unions discriminate anything. Certainly female-male marriage partners can't be given any better social welfare benefits than civil union partners for example. That's discrimination, not the name.

I don't really care which way these bills end, as long as there is an option for civil unions in case they don't pass. If majority of people support it, then same-sex marriage is good. And even if a I was a religious person, I'd probably concede on the matter if the public opinion largely is for it, because it's not like support for same-sex marriage will lower in the future.

Last edited by Rikupsoni; February 5th, 2013 at 04:27 PM.
Rikupsoni is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #3
Go and eat your own face.
 
Mr. Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: June 17th, 2002
Location: Telford, Shropshire, England, UK, Earth, Sol...
Status: Be Like Dad; Keep Koala.
Posts: 14,773
Rep Power: 42
Mr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finestMr. Matt is Gaming Forums’ finest
Default Re: British House of Commons votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

I've never really understood why gay couples would want to participate in a ceremony from a religion that considers them sinful, myself, but some gay couples are in fact quite spiritual regardless and want the opportunity for a spiritual ceremony, same as everybody else can get.

So long as each individual vicar / whatever has the option to decline performing the ceremony without repercussions if they do not believe in gay marriage, everybody wins.

Mr. Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2013   #4
Now made of people
 
Red Menace's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 10th, 2004
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Status: Sleeping
Posts: 7,741
Rep Power: 30
Red Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finest
Default Re: British House of Commons votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

At least in the United States, marriage licenses were only started to prevent interracial marriages. I don't know why we need the state to tell us who we can and can't marry in the first place anymore. I understand the state has maintained the place it cut out for itself in marriage through favorable taxation for couples, but beyond that, what purpose does state-sanctioned marriage actually serve?


Red Menace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2013   #5
I am the Law!
 
Commissar MercZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 28th, 2005
Location: Texas
Status: Available
Posts: 7,397
Rep Power: 29
Commissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured OneCommissar MercZ - the Honoured One
Send a message via MSN to Commissar MercZ Send a message via Yahoo to Commissar MercZ
Default Re: British House of Commons votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Menace View Post
At least in the United States, marriage licenses were only started to prevent interracial marriages. I don't know why we need the state to tell us who we can and can't marry in the first place anymore. I understand the state has maintained the place it cut out for itself in marriage through favorable taxation for couples, but beyond that, what purpose does state-sanctioned marriage actually serve?
Not just taxation but the way benefits may be received, how property is inherited, who they can designate as beneficiaries, adoption, as well as some census-related data collection.

To some people marriage is still an important thing if only as a symbolic thing to be recognized. Even before the state got itself involved in marriage, it was not as if there was a position that they would leave same-sex couples alone. I mean up until a few years ago some states like Texas did criminalize certain bedroom activities, and before that living arrangements.
Commissar MercZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2013   #6
Now made of people
 
Red Menace's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 10th, 2004
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Status: Sleeping
Posts: 7,741
Rep Power: 30
Red Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finestRed Menace is Gaming Forums’ finest
Default Re: British House of Commons votes in favor of same-sex marriage bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissar MercZ View Post
Not just taxation but the way benefits may be received, how property is inherited, who they can designate as beneficiaries, adoption, as well as some census-related data collection.
True, although I feel, in the absence of government, most of the other things could easily be worked out through employers, insurance companies and legally binding agreements.

Quote:
To some people marriage is still an important thing if only as a symbolic thing to be recognized. Even before the state got itself involved in marriage, it was not as if there was a position that they would leave same-sex couples alone. I mean up until a few years ago some states like Texas did criminalize certain bedroom activities, and before that living arrangements.
As to your first point, I don't see state recognition to be the deciding factor in the symbolic importance of marriage, I understand people do, but the reality of it boggles my mind.

I was recently a groomsman at a wedding, after the ceremony, the minister walked up to the couple and simply handed them an envelope and said "take this to the city clerk for your license." Very symbolic indeed.

If you're religious, getting married in the church of your choosing is the important part, the license is just a needless formality, you've already entered into the covenant with your loved one and your God. If you aren't religious, the ring on your finger is far more symbolic than a piece of paper you never take out of the firebox.

As for your second, you are quite right. But, don't forget the laws even went further before and included unmarried heterosexual sex and oral sex. Over time, we liberalized and the laws against heterosexual sex were repealed. Now, they are being repealed in their entirety as the state retracts fully from involvement in your bedroom activities. I'm just cutting out the middleman.



Last edited by Red Menace; February 9th, 2013 at 05:27 PM. Reason: GOVERNMENT OUT OF YOUR POCKET, OFF YOUR BACK AND OUT OF YOUR BEDROOM
Red Menace is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7.







   
 
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!

GameFront Forums - Terms of Service - Top
Copyright © 2002-2012 Game Front. All rights reserved. Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Forum Theme by Danny King (FileTrekker), Sheepeep & Graeme(rs)