House of Lords Approves Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Today in London, the House of Lords approved by voice vote the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill on its third reading. A video excerpt by the BBC from today's proceedings is viewable here.  Peers supporting the bill wore pink carnations in the chamber during today's session. The Telegraph reports, with a whiff of reactionary disapproval:

The Queen is expected to be asked to give her approval to the Bill – one of the most radical pieces of social legislation of her reign – by the end of this week. It opens the way for the first legally recognised same-sex weddings to take place in England and Wales by next summer and brings the centuries-old understanding of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman to an end. Peers gave their assent to the third reading of the Government’s same-sex marriage bill without a formal vote after a short debate in the Lords, also backing plans for a review of pension arrangements for gay couples. Unless MPs object to the bill at the eleventh hour during a short Commons debate set to take place on Tuesday, it is expected to receive royal assent within days.

A transcript of today's debate is here. Of particular note are the remarks of Labour peer Lord Rowlands, recounting the remarkable changes he has seen over nearly a half-century in Parliament:

My Lords, I rise to make a brief contribution — my one and only contribution to the Bill — because listening to the debates and reading the correspondence has brought vivid memories back to me of voting at 4.27 am, 46 years ago this month, by 99 votes to 14 for Mr Leo Abse’s Sexual Offences Act decriminalising homosexuality. I was a 27-year-old Member of Parliament who had only been elected the year before, totally unexpectedly so because I was not expected to win a Conservative stronghold. That brief political experience did not prepare me for the vehemence of the reaction to my stance in that year. I have never since come across anything quite like the level of abuse and vehemence that I received in certain quarters of the constituency because of my support for that Bill. How could I possibly legitimise such horrid, heinous and sinful practices? The church, at that time, took rather a curious position on the Bill. It kind of supported it because it could help in the mission to save the sinful souls of homosexuals. The Bishop of London of the time said that it would allow, “the reformation and recovery . . . of those who have become the victims of homosexual practices”.  

I do not know how well that mission has succeeded since.  

I have alluded to this past experience for two reasons. First, I have been impressed and pleased by how much more measured, more sensible and more mature a debate we have had this time on such sensitive issues as opposed to way back in 1967. It shows that society itself has matured and, I believe, become more capable of handling such issues in a sensitive and helpful manner. Nevertheless, passions and fears have been aroused by the Bill. Therefore, the second reason why I have referred to this past experience is that, in such situations, I have always found that a bit of historical perspective is helpful. Has anyone ever tried to repeal that heinous, horrible Bill of 1967? No. Did all the dire consequences, which my constituents at that time said would happen to society if we supported the Bill, come to pass? I do not think so. Therefore, I believe that, with the passage of time, we will also find with this Bill that some of the fears that have been expressed will prove unfounded, as they were after 1967.  

In my personal relations, I am as old fashioned and strait laced as can be. I had a 35-year marriage to one woman until death did us part, so I have had the experience and joy of a long and happy marriage. I do not believe that I should deprive gay people of that same opportunity. It is about equality before the law. As I said, the vote to which I referred earlier took place at the uncivilised time of 4.27 am. We can support the Third Reading of this Bill at a civilised time because the Bill itself is civilising.

And the noble lords for a final time brought the peripatetic George Clooney into view with this observation by Labour leader Baroness Thornton:

To noble Lords who opposed the Bill I say that you have tested the Bill to within an inch of its life, and for that I congratulate you. No one expected that getting the Bill through your Lordships’ House would be a walk in the park, and I think that noble Lords have done their job as they see it with dedication and commitment.  

There were moments at midnight when we were again discussing adultery when I thought we were never going to reach this point. Those moments were made all the more memorable by the description by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, of what is adultery and what is not. I refer noble Lords to column 146, 8 July 2013, if they are in any doubt. I wish her well with George Clooney, and I myself do not think that he is anything like worthy of the noble Baroness.

Update, 7/16/13:  The House of Commons today passed the amended bill, after two hours of debate - though your Head Trucker can't find anywhere what the vote was, so perhaps it was done by a mere voice vote.  The bill now will be sent to the Queen for her Royal Assent, and thereupon will become law. 

Your Head Trucker also cannot find any mention, even in the text of the bill itself, of an effective date - but all the news stories for some reason say that gay weddings will begin in the summer of 2014.  Hurrah!

During today's brief debate (transcript here), Conservative MP Sir Gerald Howarth ranted that the bill had been "bulldozed" through Parliament [note:  the bill was fully supported by the leaders of all three major parties, and was passed by actual votes in both houses by majorities of about 70 percent] and railed against the "aggressive homosexuals" who will just use this victory as a "stepping stone" to something further.  What could that be, I wonder?  Anyone got a copy of the Official Gay Agenda (United Kingdom) and can look it up for me?

And just how is it that our tiny 3 or 4 percent of the population wields such enormous power over everyone else?  Damn, we're good - huh fellas?

Note:  The legislation, whenever it does come into force, will apply only to England and Wales.  Scotland has a separate legal system, but a same-sex marriage bill was introduced into the Scottish Parliament on June 27.  The Northern Ireland assembly defeated a motion calling for same-sex marriage legislation last October.

Update, 7/18/13:  It's official:  John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, announced yesterday that the Queen had given Royal Assent to the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, which is now the law in England and Wales.  Parliamentarians responded to the good news with cheers in the Commons, while the usual suspects - the Catholic hierarchy and the evangelical churches - bemoaned the now "meaningless" state of "traditional marriage," supplanted by the "legal fiction" of "genderless marriage." Whatever. 

Meanwhile, gay Labour MP Chris Bryant tweeted: "The Queen has given Royal Assent to Same Sex Marriage. Aggressive homosexuals, please note. Go forth and propose." Bryant also raised a question on Twitter about why marriages would not start until the summer of 2014. In response to a media inquiry, the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport gave several reasons for the delay:

The Department responded by saying "work is already underway" to address the many legal and practical technicalities of marriage equality, and the transition of civil unions to marriage, including adjustments to registrations, court rules, IT systems, and other paperwork. “Parliament will also need to scrutinize a number of statutory instruments setting out how the new arrangements will apply to other legislation [and work out procedural details] to ensure that marriages of same-sex couples in England and Wales are treated in Scotland and Northern Ireland as civil partnerships.”

And on this side of the pond, Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, sponsors of the lawsuit against Prop 8, reports on developments in this country:



David Boies, one of the lead attorneys in the case, spoke with a reporter from Reuters about the nationwide significance of the Prop 8 ruling a couple of weeks ago at the Aspen Ideas Festival:



And here is Boies giving a fuller exposition of his views at the Festival itself: