Marriage News Watch, 6/3/13

Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports on marriage progress in this country:



And over in Britain, the House of Lords continues its debate on the same-sex marriage bill for a second day, beginning at 2:35 p.m. London time, or 8:30 a.m. Texas time.

Your Head Trucker watched most of the live coverage yesterday, and it was fascinating to hear the arguments coming from both sides: both the prehistoric objections we've already heard a-plenty from the uglies on this side of the water, as well as breathtakingly beautiful endorsements of our full human worth and dignity from enlightened straight men and women, as well as a few gay peers. It's the apparent multitude of straights who now are on our side that makes your Head Trucker's head spin; I don't trust straight people in general, for reasons well known to all of you who are of my generation, and I'm not sure I ever can trust them unreservedly as a group - but their support is very welcome to my ears.

Watch a replay of today's debate in the House of Lords by clicking here.

The first half-hour is taken up with other business; the debate itself runs about four hours after that.


Update, 12:50 p.m., Texas time:  The Lords have concluded their debate on the second reading of the bill, and defeated by a vote of 390-148 a "wrecking amendment" proposed by Lord Dear, which would have rejected the bill entirely. So it seems very likely from this vote of nearly three to one that the bill will eventually pass the House of Lords and come into law this year, if I am understanding things correctly. 

The Lords will next spend two days scrutinizing the various parts of the bill in committee, but I'm not sure when that will happen.

Bill stages in Parliament; click to enlarge.

Further thoughts: The more I think about the Archbishop of Canterbury's ringing denunciation of same-sex marriage, dripping with homophobia, during yesterday's debate, the more upset and disgusted I feel with him and the whole prevaricating, temporizing, canting Bench of Bishops.   Justin "Whatajerk" Welby is no friend of the gays, no matter what sweet, poisonous, honeyed words drip from his lips.  His action and his words of condemnation and disdain for human dignity are well-nigh unforgiveable in my book.  This consummate corporation man and CYA-er has no business being head of a diocese, let alone of a worldwide communion, and he has played smut with your Head Trucker.  I will never believe another word he says, nor will I ever trust him as far as I can throw him.   My fellow Southerners will recognize the gravity of what I just said, even if the rest of you don't.

In contrast, consider the alternative view of the the Right Reverend Nick Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury, who just last week wrote this in a letter to Lord Alli, the first openly gay peer in the House of Lords, and a Muslim, who spoke in favor of the marriage bill earlier today:

At the co-educational North London Grammar School I attended from 1965-72, there were 2 effeminate gay lads in my year who were no threat to the rest of us but who were regularly beaten up just for being different. At times school for them must have been a brutal experience. What they went through was unkind and unjust but I don’t remember a teacher intervening on their behalf. I am thankful things have changed and we now have a greater sense of equality and fairness. In the current debates it is striking that within the Anglican Communion one of the strongest supporters of same sex marriage is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. From his experience of the racism of Apartheid he sees same sex marriage as primarily a matter of justice.

When the proposal for civil partnerships was debated in 2004 the Church of England was largely hostile. I am grateful that in the Archbishops’ opposition to equal marriage they have expressed their support for civil partnerships and I hope this will help the Church of England towards affirming these relationships liturgically. Like the Archbishops now, I used to think that it was helpful to distinguish between same sex civil partnerships and heterosexual marriage. Many in the churches think the commonly used description of civil partnerships as ‘gay marriage’ is a category error. However, the relationships I know in civil partnerships seem to be either of the same nature as some marriages or so similar as to be indistinguishable. Indeed, the legal protection and public proclamation which civil partnership has afforded gay relationships appears to have strengthened their likeness to marriage in terms of increasing commitment to working on the relationship itself, to contributing to the wellbeing of both families of origin, and to acting as responsible and open members of society. Open recognition and public support have increased in civil partnerships those very qualities of life for which marriage itself is so highly celebrated. It is not surprising this now needs recognition in law.

The possibility of ‘gay marriage’ does not detract from heterosexual marriage unless we think that homosexuality is a choice rather than the given identity of a minority of people. Indeed the development of marriage for same sex couples is a very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage.

Read the entire letter here.

Would that the worthy Bishop had been named to the Primate's see instead of Whatajerk Welby.


Further reading:

Baroness Stowell's introduction and summary of the main points of the bill, which she calls "a force for good."

House of Commons Library Research Paper on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, a comprehensive review of the background and provisions of the bill: PDF, 63 pages, 818 Kb.

Particularly nice: The comments of 86-year-old Lord Jenkin of Rodin, who began his parliamentary career in 1964, half a century ago, were recognized as outstanding by several of his fellow peers during the debate, and are worth repeating here in the Blue Truck.

Like all of us, I have had a very large amount of correspondence on this subject, much of it by e-mail. Thanks to the Whitsun Recess, I have been able to reply to a great many of these—not all, but most.

My own starting point is something that I learnt many years ago as an undergraduate faced with what was, for me, a new involvement with people who were not heterosexual. I asked my grandfather, who was an extremely wise lecturer at the Edinburgh medical school, all about it. He said, “My dear boy, it is as foolish to condemn those who have homosexual proclivities as it is to condemn them for having red hair”. I have lived with that all my life and I have always opposed discrimination against homosexuals.

- Continued after the jump -

In the exchanges I have had through e-mail and other communications, I have identified three clear lines of argument against the Bill. The first I can deal with very briefly. There have been references to homophobia: I am afraid that some of the messages I have received actually reek of homophobia. I was reminded of some of the arguments advanced when Parliament abolished the criminal liability for homosexual conduct between consenting adults. There were those same dreadful arguments, deeply shaming, and I am very sorry that they still exist.

The second argument is one that has been referred to several times in this debate so far. The question is: does the Bill redefine marriage? It was put to me by one correspondent that:

“The Government’s plans will redefine the marriages of the 24 million married people without their consent”.

Other people have referred to their anniversaries. Last year, my wife and I celebrated our diamond wedding, and I have to say that it has been a marriage with mutual comfort and support. Is this Bill going to redefine that marriage? I cannot see how that could possibly happen. I was grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for confirming that nothing in this Bill will redefine our marriage or indeed those of the other 24 million married people in this country. One has to regard that argument as really quite misconceived. As others have said, it is not irrelevant that there is a great deal more support for the Bill among young people who are facing marriage, are about to get married or hope to get married than there is among the population generally. They do not see it like that. One has only to think of the possibility of the following happening. A young man poses the question to his intended, “Will you marry me?” and she replies, “Oh no. This Bill has made it all totally different. It’s for gays and lesbians—I can’t possibly marry you”. That is pure fantasy and I do not think we should pay too much attention to it.

The other argument that I have been rather more impressed by, and which again has been mentioned, is the question of the potential liability and difficulties for people, particularly in the public service, who find themselves, in a sense, implementing the provisions of the Bill in one way or another. A number of people, including some of those who have expressed support for the Bill, have voiced these concerns to me, and that is something that this House will need to look at quite carefully. I was very much comforted by the assurance given to us by my noble friend on the Front Bench that Ministers are considering what more might be done to allay those anxieties. I regard that as very important.

Finally, I return to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I hope that he will not feel it is unfair if I call him my “old friend”, as indeed he is. I have come to the firm conclusion that there is nothing to fear in gay marriage and that, indeed, it will be a positive good not just for same-gender unions but for the institution of marriage generally. The effect will be to put right at the centre of marriage the concept of a stable, loving relationship. As a practising Christian, perhaps I may make the point to the Bishops’ Benches, including to the most reverend Primate, that there is every reason why, in time, the Anglican Church should come to accept that, although I recognise that it may take some time. The character of love which marriage reflects—that it is faithful, stable, tough, unselfish and unconditional—is the same character that most Christians see in the love of God. Marriage is therefore holy, not because it is ordained by God, but because it reflects that most important central truth of our religion: the love of God for all of us.