Thinking Anglicans: Marriage Bill: House of Lords completes Report ...

Marriage Bill: House of Lords completes Report stage

The House of Lords completed Report stage on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill on Wednesday.

For a report on the Monday session, go here.

The Hansard record of yesterday?s debate begins here, and continues here.

The name index is here. The PDF file for the day is here.

The Bishop of Leicester introduced Amendment 95, designed to amend the Education Act 1996, and the debate on this starts here. In the end, he withdrew the amendment.

Update

David Pocklington?s analysis of the day can be found here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 11 July 2013 at 8:45am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: equality legislation

I am of course delighted that the bill has survived Report stage unscathed. Barring surprises that is it for the bill which now only has 3rd reading (further amendments can be debated at 3rd reading in the Lords but the main topics have been thoroughly aired). I anticipate Commons approval of amendments could be relatively straightforward.

When tested the bill has enjoyed 2/3 majorities or more.

Highlights from the 2nd day of report included the deeply damaging idea of allowing close family relatives to enter into civil partnerships which for me comes close to sanctioning incest - supported by the bishops who even indicated they would bless such relationships which is just breathtaking. It is interesting to note that it was the pro gay side who wanted to uphold the concept that incestuous relationships should not be sanctioned and the anti gay side are happy to start the slide towards moral anarchy (including the bishops sadly).

The bishops tried very hard to pull it all back for their amendment. It's worth watching as it seemed the bishops had learned a new humility and there was much warmth in several of the exchanges. It was good to see and I hope a harbinger of something to come (hopefully). The Bishop of Leicester was very effective in his speech and had circumstances been different the government might have conceded. But it was not to be.

This time next week I very much hope the bill will be made into law. At that point it might be worth reflecting on how the Church of England met and dealt with the challenge of this legislation and whether they could have done things any better.

Craig,
I'm not sure that civil partnerships for family relatives would be incestuous.
One of the defining differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage is that CPs do not presume a sexual relationship, which is why the church has been able to accept them for its clergy provided they remain celibate.

The strange idea that the church could bless family CPs is rooted in the fiction that CPs are intrinsically non-sexual relationships.

So it's all done and dusted, and, bar the last bout of shouting at the Third Reading it's over. The bill is intact and all the efforts for sabotage it have been defeated.

Within a few weeks it will become law and sometime after that the Church will be faced with priests, currently in civil partnerships who have become married to their same sex spouse. Now marriage, as we have continually been reminded by those opposed to same sex relationships and to this bill, is the only place for sexual activity. What is the Church going to do? Is it going to insist that these marriages are celibate, can it logically so insist and can it continue to discriminate against those who are in same sex marriages for their promotion and preferment?
Or is it going to pretend that they aren't marriages at all?
Has it even started to think about these things?

In response to Richard I would ask the Church to refrain from 'thinking' for a while and perhaps just listen, visit some church schools, talk to teenagers and young adults and have Sunday lunch with some families with same sex parents.

If they can't do that then go on a long hiking holiday somewhere with a good novel, anything other than 'thinking' which only digs the CofE deeper in its own mire.

It's not thinking that is called for it's humanity and if not humanity then at the very least some rest (for them and us).

As for the amendment to allow fathers to marry their daughters to evade inheritance tax I really am lost for words. It's almost like the bishops' moral code is so fragile that if one part (the prohibition of homosexuality) is questioned the whole system turns to sand and disintegrates. In the most cultures and societies we simply do not allow for such relationships even though there is a strong argument for property to be dealt with differently in the tax code (many would support that provided it is not mere tax evasion for the rich). There would be a host of difficulties if this was allowed which it doesn't even bear thinking about but, of course, if one was in an incestuous union one would very easily then enter into a cohabiting civil partnership and one has legalised incest de facto even if not de jure. In this context it is a little ironic to note the role reversal as the bishops assume the mantle of dangerous radical with the sensible majority upholding social norms established down the centuries.

I also caught the Bishop of Chester saying he could envisage blessing such relationships because they would be 'covenental' .... I seem to remember hearing the Archbishop of Canterbury saying at second reading he was against the bill because it would stop marriage being a covenant if same sex couples could marry. This sort of contradiciton is the fruit of their 'thinking' thus far so a break from thinking could only do good (this might though pose a problem for a blog called 'Thinking Anglicans'....).

Point taken, Craig!
I too was taken aback by the special pleading for a civil partnership type arrangement in order to avoid inheritance tax. I was also glad to see Lord Alli point out that this is an issue for tax legislation and not for this bill or the previous Civil Partnership Act. He was right to say that in the nine years since the latter there has been absolutely no attempt to introduce such legislation at any time, even though there have been plenty of suitable occasions. This clearly demonstrates that the proponents aim has always been to derail CP and Equal Marriage legislation and not to right the perceived wrongs done to carers and others. Hypocrisy is the word I believe.

"have Sunday lunch with some families with same sex parents."

Anyone is always welcome to have Sunday lunch with us.

On a broader note one kind of felt the bishops might have felt glad to get out of the chamber in one piece. Baroness Kennedy was very forthright on the fathers marrying their daughters amendment (quite rightly) and even though the Bishop of Leicester did a very good job in presenting his amendment there were quite a lot of vigorous put downs (in the nicest possible way of course) so there was no doubt the amendment would be defeated if pushed to a vote. In spite of the warm words given to the amendment I suspect its purpose was really to create in faith schools islands where same sex marriage hasn't happened yet - a little like FiF parishes in relation to the ordination of women, sort of bringing up children with the information that gays can't marry and then letting the fact that they can be a pleasant surprise as they get older (or possibly attend one).

I hope there are publishers getting ready to produce materials to explain who will and won't marry whom (and why) that schools will be able to use.

I would say "Come and have lunch with us", but we have taken to going to the Carvery at the Bramley Apple - such good value! You couldn't make it for that at home.

Source: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/006164.html

Paula Broadwell Photos Veterans Day 2012 Nate Silver Obama Acceptance Speech 2012 dow jones Selena Gomez ariel winter