The Queen's four children stood vigil around her coffin today in St. Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh. The Queen will lie in rest there until tomorrow afternoon, when the coffin will be flown to London and rest overnight in Buckingham Palace until taken to Westminster Hall on Wednesday to lie in state until the morning of her funeral next Monday.
Earlier today, the King, accompanied by the Queen Consort, addressed the Scottish Parliament for the first time, after hearing loyal tributes to the late Queen from the Speaker and party leaders, all of which were excellent - except that of the Greens leader, who was a bit preachy.
Earlier still, the King began his long day likewise in Westminster Hall in London, where he heard the tributes and condolences expressed by the Speakers of the Lords and the Commons, and gave in reply his first speech to the assembled members of the national Parliament.
President Zelensky echoed Churchill's famously defiant oratory in an address by video link in the House of Commons today, receiving an unheard-of standing ovation from the honorable members. Your Head Trucker was quite moved, too.
HM The Queen opened Parliament today in London with a Speech from the Throne written by the newly elected all-Conservative government. From the official United Kingdom Parliament YouTube channel:
The State Opening of Parliament took place on Wednesday 27 May 2015. State Opening marks the formal start of the new 2015-16 parliamentary session. The primary purpose of this colourful state occasion is to set out the Government's legislative agenda in the Queen's Speech.
A few more street scenes for the pageantry junkies among us:
And Black Rod explains the bit about the doors being slammed:
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:
The House of Lords is a jollier place than you might think. Baroness Stowell of Beeston is one of the leaders of the Conservative party in the House of Lords; and the Conservatives, in union with their coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, are pushing the same-sex marriage bill with the full support of the Labour party, making it all but certain that the bill will ultimately pass by an overwhelming majority.
Last month, in one of the first Lords debates on this bill and its effects on "traditional marriage," Baroness Stowell made a small quip about what might happen in the remote event that George Clooney were to marry her. In subsequent debates, she and other noble lords have briefly returned to this little joke in making points during the course of debate. But on Monday, Baroness Stowell really gave George a workout:
She said: ‘As the law stands, if I was married to George Clooney and he was to have a sexual affair with, say, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton [Labour leader in the Lords], that would be adultery. If I was married to George Clooney and Mr Clooney had sexual relations with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that would not be adultery because he would not be able to do the sexual act which is very specifically defined in law. Should I wish to divorce Mr Clooney on those grounds, I would do so on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.
Stowell added: ‘In future, if the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was to marry Mr Clooney, and Mr Clooney was to have an affair with me — and who would blame him in those circumstances? — that would be adultery and the noble Lord, Lord Alli, should he choose to, would be able to divorce Mr Clooney on those grounds.’
She then pointed out if Alli, an openly gay ally for same-sex marriage in the Lords, was married to Clooney and Clooney had an affair with the openly gay Lord Black of Brentwood (to which he gave a firm ‘Hear, hear!’), then Alli would be able to divorce Clooney on grounds of unreasonable behavior.
Finally, Stowell said: ‘We hope that all marriages, whether they are between a couple of opposite sexes or the same sex will continue, and that they will be faithful and remain happy and contented. If that is not the case, we believe that the existing provisions are perfectly adequate for divorce to take place.’
I'll bet that wherever in the world Clooney is right now, he must be feeling exhausted, and wondering why.
The noble lords are now at the report stage of the bill, and conservatives are making a last-ditch effort to derail or change the bill. Click here to watch the entire day's debate from the start.
For the record, your Head Trucker agrees with a couple of points the conservatives have raised:
1. It makes no sense, and is manifestly unfair and unequal not to allow adultery or non-consummation as a reason for divorce with same-sex couples, as they are for opposite-sex couples.
2. I would allow a grandfather exemption for current marriage registrars who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages on grounds of religious conviction; though of course any future registrars hired after the act comes into force should be told that it is a condition of employment in the job. There is nearly always more than one marriage registrar in local offices, or one from another area can be brought in to do the job. Your Head Trucker does not like to see anyone lose their livelihood on account of personal conviction of any kind.
But the noble lords on the Government benches keep airily and blithely waving away all such objections, and the vast majority keep voting them down, so there you go. Charmingly, all the noble lords of whatever persuasion are unfailingly polite and respectful of one another, even when they bitterly disagree, which is so astonishing to see in this modern world - very refreshing.
Your Head Trucker also emphatically agrees with this conservative British columnist that calling someone "gay" - or, I will go further to say, even calling someone "queer" or "faggot" - is not and should not be considered a hate crime. If you start making every insult a crime, then there is no end and no limit to all that; and you will only embitter the speakers and breed in them a vengeful fury. There must be no thoughtcrimes or Thought Police in our land of the free.
In the flush of victory and social change, if we are to deserve all we have won, we must all resist the cruel, Stalinist urge to rub people's noses into the dirt and force them to bend to our every last demand of political and personal correctness. If you are sincere in believing that liberty is a great American principle, you must concede that freedom of dissent and disagreement, even the expression of disapproval, are essential to our democratic values. Otherwise, how are we morally different from the bigots who tyrannically demand silence, singularity of opinion, and extreme conformity to their point of view?
As I have said many times before here on the Blue Truck, it is but one small tiny baby step from being oppressed to being an oppressor - you have only to read the daily headlines from all around the world, not to mention any history book. Victims can, and have, and do switch with great glee to being full-throttle victimizers in a heartbeat.
And yes, I am talking to you, Miss I'm-So-Liberal-It-Hurts-My-Fake-Tits. That's not liberalism - it's self-righteousness, and very, very ugly.
So behave yourselves, guys, and have some humility, and some humanity. It's the right thing to do - and much sexier, too.
The House of Lords passed the bill at second reading a couple of weeks ago by a vote of 390-148. Now they are are debating, for the first of three days, proposed amendments to the bill, many of which are intended to weaken the bill. Attendance is low since there's no vote today.
Update, 5:10 p.m.: The noble lords have adjourned, but you can watch the entire day's proceedings here. The debate on the amendments begins at the 33:00 mark.
It's very interesting to listen to a calm, civilized debate on the subject. Also very interesting to see what the pro- and anti-gay people look and sound like on the other side of the water. But a rather shocking sign of the times: at about the 55:00 mark, while Lord Armstrong of Ilminster is speaking, you can see a noble lord seated behind him texting on a small phone. Which leaves your Head Trucker speechless.
Yesterday, the Most Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin "Whatajerk" Welby, went out of his way to utterly trash the idea of same-sex marriage, saying it would "abolish" true marriage between men and women and replace it with "a less good option that is neither equal nor effective," thereby handing our homo-hating enemies a wonderful cache of ammo to use against us for years to come. Here's the video of his speech in the House of Lords:
Today, however, a church spokesman declared that after seeing large majorities in both Houses of Parliament vote in favor of the same-sex marriage bill, the Church has no further objections to make, and the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords will now work on amendments to refine and "improve" the bill. Which it seems is not so evil after all.
Politics. What a difference a day - or a vote - makes. What a fucking turnaround. What sheer, unmitigated hypocrisy. I'm glad the Church, and presumably the two-faced Archbishop too, is going to stand out of the way now - but I am totally underwhelmed by their transparent, self-serving motives.
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.
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.
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.
So says the Most Reverend Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, in a speech during the House of Lords debate on a same-sex marriage bill today, as the Telegraph reports - emphasis mine:
In his first major intervention in the debate, the Most Rev Justin Welby said he could not support David Cameron’s same-sex marriage Bill in its current form.
He warned that the reform “weakened” the concept of the “normal” family as the basis for a strong community and replaced traditional marriage with something “less good”. . . .
Speaking on the first day of debate on the Bill in the House of Lords, the Archbishop warned that legalising same sex marriages would be a social problem, not a faith issue.
“We think that traditional marriage is a cornerstone of society,” he told peers.
“Rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective," he said.
“The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost; the idea as 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.
“It is not at heart a faith issue,” he said. “It is about the general social good. So with much regret but entire conviction I cannot support the Bill as it stands.”
The Archbishop criticised the Bill for mistakenly treating marriages and weddings as the same thing. Gay couples can have equality without needing to be able to marry, he said. “Two things may be equal but different."
The Bill also fails to deliver equal rights for homosexuals because it distinguishes clearly between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, “thus not achieving true equality”.
“The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined, and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories.”
The new definition of marriage is “an awkward shape” with same-sex and opposite sex marriages “scrunched into it” but not fitting well, the Archbishop said.
The Lords debate follows an overwhelming vote [366-161] in favour of the Marriage (same sex couples) Bill in the Commons last month.
Full text here, thanks to Grandmere Mimi who tracked it down and shared it with me.
I will post more on the debate, with some fine contributions from noble lords in support of the bill, when news video is available.
Meanwhile, your Head Trucker would like to direct your attention to the selfish, sex-crazed breeders notorious people, politely called heterosexuals, who are actually destroying the institution and have no respect at all for traditional family values:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, harmony; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Grant that I may seek not so much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.
.
We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.
and welcome to the Blue Truck, a blog for mature gay men with news and views on gay rights, history, art, humor, and whatever comes to mind. Plus a few hot men. The truck's all washed and gassed up, so hop in buddy, let's go.
CAUTION: For mature gay men only beyond this point. Some posts and links may not be suitable for children or the unco guid. You have been warned.
Insert valid picture ID with date of birth now, or click here.
My Story
click photograph to read
Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?
It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society.
If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God.
