Thinking Anglicans

House of Lords defeats Lord Dear by large margin

The vote in the House of Lords on Lord Dear’s fatal amendment was 148 in favour of the amendment, i.e. to deny the bill a Second Reading, and 390 against the amendment. Accordingly, the bill was approved on Second Reading by a voice vote.

There were 14 Church of England bishops present and voting, of whom 9 supported the Dear amendment and 5 abstained. We will publish the names of the bishops as soon as they are available.

Bishops who supported the Dear amendment:

Birmingham
Bristol
Canterbury
Chester
Coventry
Exeter
Hereford
London
Winchester

Bishops who abstained:

Derby
Guildford
Leicester
Norwich
St.Edmundsbury & Ipswich

The Hansard record of the second day of debate begins here. An index of Tuesday’s speakers is here (scroll down to 3.06 pm). The Division occurred at 6.24 p.m.

The official analysis of the voting can be found here:

Contents: 148 | Not Contents: 390 | Result: N/A

Contents Total: 148
Bishops 9
Conservative 66
Crossbench 46
Labour 16
Liberal Democrat 2
Other 9

Not Contents Total: 390
Conservative 80
Crossbench 68
Labour 160
Liberal Democrat 73
Other 9

33
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
33 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
26 Comment authors
FeriaLaurenceCynthiadr.primroseSpirit of Vatican II Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Anne Brooke
Guest

So, no bishop with enough gumption to vote against the wrecking amendment then?… What a surprise! The House of Bishops isn’t known for its spiritual courage, is it?

Anne B

Ann
Guest
Ann

Who was not present? Beside York?

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

Simon,
did Canterbury really speak against the amendment and then vote for it?

Lionel Deimel
Guest

From the Guardian: But Welby criticised Lord Dear, the former chief constable of West Midlands police, who is attempting to kill off the bill by tabling an amendment that would decline to give it a second reading. The archbishop said of the Dear amendment, which is due to be put to a vote on Tuesday : “Personally, I regret the necessity of having to deal with the possibility of a division at this stage on a bill passed by a free vote in the other place [the House of Commons].” I took this to mean that Welby would vote against… Read more »

JCF
Guest
JCF

You’re right of course, AnneB, but I find myself ready to gratefully acknowledge the abstainers, anyway. Baby steps.

Deoninbris
Guest
Deoninbris

Anne, actually supporting the amendment was ‘the gumption’ I.e they weren’t in favour of the bill simply passing through in its current wording. This was their protest! For those that stood, keep standing!

Interested Observer
Guest
Interested Observer

“The House of Bishops isn’t known for its spiritual courage, is it?” What I don’t understand, as an outsider, is who the bishops are pandering to. There’s not even a majority against same-sex marriage in the CofE itself. You could understand it if they were Conservative MPs, voting against their better judgement in order to shut up their backswoodman local association. If the self-appointed “pastors” of independent churches that meet in school halls had seats in the Lords, the attitudes of the “pastors” would match the attitudes of their congregation, both lacking a certain nuance. But I can’t believe that… Read more »

Martin Reynolds
Guest
Martin Reynolds

Like others I took it Canterbury would not support Dear.

What do you think of this disaster Iain?

Craig Nelson
Guest
Craig Nelson

This vote is truly seismic. Labour Lords have been predicting this kind of result for some time. However the Telegraph and Tory antis honed in on the Lords “mauling” the bill – or even throwing it out.

The Lords may of course amend the bill. Here I would say that the opponents have badly played their hand and should have put more energy into amendments. The majority for the bill is so large that the opponents may not get much leverage.

Martin Reynolds
Guest
Martin Reynolds

There were many voices in the HofL this evening saying the same as Craig Nelson.

badman
Guest
badman

Paul Waugh reports that the breakdown of votes on Dear’s wrecking amendment was: For/Against: Conservative peers 66-80, Labour peers 16-160, LibDem peers 2-73, Crossbench peers 46-68, Bishops 9-0, Others 9-9 In every party the wrecking amendment had majorities against. But the bishops voted for it nem con. This does not augur well for their future in a reformed House of Lords. It is not only that they are out of touch. It is not only that they voted against freedom for those outside their own church. It is also that to vote against further debate was widely criticised by peers… Read more »

Iain McLean
Guest
Iain McLean

Martin (and all). Just mystified. But agree it is the worst possible outcome for CofE Central. However unlike in 1832 (the last equally disastrous call) the Abc’s coach will not be attacked in the streets of Canterbury

Froghole
Guest
Froghole

One small crumb of comfort from this dismal tally is that it might be construed that the five bishops who dissented from their colleagues were actually against the wrecking amendment but did not wish to embarrass their colleagues by stating so openly. That, at any rate, might be the perception – although, judging by his public pronouncements, the Bishop of Leicester might well have joined the aye lobby with the nine supporters of the amendment. I am surprised that he didn’t. At any rate it gives the perception that the Church is split (which it is anyway), and that it… Read more »

Karen MacQueen+
Guest
Karen MacQueen+

Welby voted in favor of the wrecking amendment to deny the bill a vote in the Lords. Evidently he has little actual respect for the processes of parliamentary democracy and even less for LGBTI persons and our families. Spare us the irenic interpretations that would pretend that the Mad Hatter makes sense. To have thrown away so much good will so shortly into his time in office is a serious mistake. Welby claims the marriage equality bill should be amended to allow civil servants and teachers to discriminate against gay couples and children. Really??? Further, he claims that marriage equality… Read more »

Laurence
Guest
Laurence

The Church of England HofB have acted in bad faith and without accountability.

Having obtained their own quadruple lock’ they then went on to rubbish the whole enterprise.

Shame on Welby for affecting to be sorry, while being totally unrepentant, as shown by his behaviour.

Let’s hope for a backlash on pccs.,AGMs., synods, and the general synod. Let’s hope for a campaign of protest. disobedience from lay members and ministers.

I’d love to see picketing of cathedrals and churches.

Spirit of Vatican II
Guest
Spirit of Vatican II

Welby is to the right of Williams and Bergoglio is to the right even of Ratzinger — today the pope denounced political correctness as incompatible with the Gospel.(surely referring to feminism and gay rights, which the CELAM Aparecida document sees as rampant individualism).

Perry Butler
Guest
Perry Butler

How many hereditary peers voted for the Dear amendment? Quite likely the removal of hereditary peers and the bishops will figure in the next manifestos of Labour and Lib Dem?

commentator
Guest
commentator

May I enquire if the Committee stage in the Lords follows the practice in the Commons, which is the makeup of the Committee reflects the proportions of the vote?

commentator
Guest
commentator

Having taken the time to listen to Archbishop Welby’s speech, encouraged by Fr Reynolds that the tone made all the difference, I was not won over. It is clear that we have an Archbishop of Canterbury who is no friend to gay Christians. If actions do speak louder than words then this is now clear. it is also clear that whoever votes for a wrecking motion wishes to call a halt to the democratic debating processes of Parliament. This is in itself a scandal and should bring forth the strongest condemnation from their colleagues and those whom the appear to… Read more »

Flora Alexander
Guest
Flora Alexander

The idea that it is desirable to provide further safeguards for teachers is extraordinary. Surely, whatever their personal views might be, it would be unprofessional for teachers to say anything in a classroom situation that would be hurtful to pupils with parents in a same-sex relationship. Similarly it would be out of order for them to express criticism of the many parents who are living together but not married.

Mark Hart
Guest
Mark Hart

How did the bishops who are crossbenchers vote? (Lords Carey, Harries, Williams – any others?)

Mark Hart
Guest
Mark Hart

Answering my previous question (I didn’t notice the link provided):
Carey – content
Harries – not content
Williams – no vote

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

What a terrible day for the Church of England. Those vote breakdowns are truly damning. The bishops just voted away their claim to moral leadership. Again Canterbury shows himself more concerned with saving his role in Africa than with saving souls in his province. Such bitter fruit does empire bear. And the sad thing is that the bishops’ votes were pointless. The distinction–England permits gay marriages, but the CofE does not–will make little difference to homophobes, who will denounce the culture of England, and the CofE by association. If Canterbury thinks this outcome will win him many points with conservatives,… Read more »

Concerned Anglican
Guest
Concerned Anglican

I had a look at the speech by Welby, around him were a sad little group of bishops including London on his left and Leicester behind him. The all looked sheepish and nervous as though they were going against the grain – as they were. Thirty years ago in the synodical system you could have seen a similar sight and have heard a rearguard defence against women priests. In thirty years time I am sure that the bishops (should they still exist in the House of Lords or for that matter if the House of Lords exists) will have accepted… Read more »

ExRevd
Guest
ExRevd

I think it’s what is known as a Pyrrhic defeat!

Jean Mayland
Guest
Jean Mayland

Sadly the Bishops have demonstrated once again how far they are from the bulk of society. What they did is an insult to gay and lesbian people and a damaging blow to the Church’s mission.

Mercifully a few abstained and Lord Harries did us proud. If only he had been AB instead of Carey , the Church would be in a very different place today.

Spirit of Vatican II
Guest
Spirit of Vatican II

John Milbank’s concerns about “adultery” and “consummation” suggest to me that there is a confusion between marriage equality and marriage identity. Yes, samesex sex is different from the heterosexual sex in several ways. But within the life-project of a couple its role is positive and valuable. Just as we give the same legal and moral respect to the sterile marriage of an elderly couple as we do to the life-promising marriage of the young, so we should give the same legal and moral respect to samesex marriages as to traditional ones. Of course we also give respect to unmarried couples… Read more »

Laurence
Guest
Laurence

This is well worth reading ! What sounded condescending and threatening when delivered on the day, with patrician tones, now looks totally ridiculous in cold print. So if you are in need of a bit of cheer after the bishops poor showing — here you are !

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/18-arguments-made-against-gay-marriage-house-lords

Enjoy.

dr.primrose
Guest
dr.primrose

“This is well worth reading ! What sounded condescending and threatening when delivered on the day, with patrician tones, now looks totally ridiculous in cold print.” By far, my favorite is Lord Tebbit’s argument against same-sex marriage — the succession problem caused by sperm donors to a lesbian queen and her wife: “There is, I believe, no bar to a lesbian succeeding to the Throne. It may happen. It probably will, at some stage. What, then, if she marries and her partner bears a child by an anonymous sperm donor? Is that child the heir to the Throne? If the… Read more »

Cynthia
Guest
Cynthia

I met one of the homophobic bishops. He was very friendly until I introduced him to my partner. Then he was frosty, the only frosty response we’ve ever had in 9 months or more in England.

His sermons lacked inspiration and intellectual vigor. Not really the sort who seemed capable of really wrapping his mind and heart around the issues.

How does the CNC pick these people? And what is to change so that CoE doesn’t have to endure another generation of this hateful drivel?

Cynthia
Guest
Cynthia

“But I can’t believe that educated men like this are actually hate-filled homophobes,” Well, I met one of those bishops and he was definitely not one of the brightest bulb on the tree. Don’t know about the others. Doesn’t seem to be a lot of independent thinkers. Something has encouraged an extraordinary level of “group think” that is disconnected from the rest of the church (CoE), the rest of England, compassion, mercy, and the love of God. Let alone a realpolitik sense of how destructive this vote may prove to be. It would be sad, except these people have had… Read more »

Laurence
Guest
Laurence

Yes drprimrose one couldn’t make it up ! Hilarious quotations.

I still find it hard to choose just one !

Feria
Guest
Feria

Anne Brooke: ‘So, no bishop with enough gumption to vote against the wrecking amendment then?’ Well, it’s not quite the same as a consecrated bishop, but… if Eton College’s claim to be a Royal Peculiar is valid, then that makes Lord Waldegrave of North Hill an Ordinary in the CofE, and he voted against the wrecking amendment. The full list of what peers who are (or might be) Ordinaries of CofE peculiar jurisdictions did is as follows: Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Ordinary of the possible Royal Peculiar of Eton College): against the wrecking amendment. Lord Eatwell (Ordinary of the… Read more »