Thursday, 24 January 2013

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Updated

Hansard reports:

Bill Presented
Marriage (Same Sex Couples)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Maria Miller, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Eric Pickles, Hugh Robertson, Lynne Featherstone, Mrs Helen Grant and Jo Swinson, presented a Bill to make provision for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons and civil partners, about consular functions in relation to marriage, for the marriage of armed forces personnel overseas, and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 126) with explanatory notes (Bill 126-EN).

The Leader of the House of Commons announced that the Second Reading (first stage of actual debate) of the bill will take place on 5 February.

The text of the bill, and an explanatory note, are available here.

The impact assessment is also linked from that page.

Meanwhile, some news reports and comment:

BBC Gay marriage: MPs set to vote on proposals for the first time and Gay marriage support growing says Tory MP Nick Herbert

Changing Attitude Same-sex marriage bill introduced in House of Commons and earlier The legal status of marriage and equal marriage in the Church of England

Ekklesia Religious groups welcome draft Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill

Yesterday was also one of the days for Questions to be asked of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry. In relation to this topic, and on the related topic of Civil Partnerships, here is what he said:

Same-sex Marriage

Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): What recent representations he has received on the implications of same-sex marriage for the Church.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Tony Baldry): The Church has had a series of discussions with the Government Equalities Office and officials over the past few weeks regarding the drafting of the Government’s Bill. There have also been meetings between senior Church representatives and the Secretary of State.

The Church of England’s position on the issues of principle were set out clearly in the published submission from the two archbishops last June. I understand that the Bill is to be published later today, and I would prefer to defer any further comment on the detailed drafting of it until Second Reading, which I understand will be soon.

Miss McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he give an indication of the timetable that the Church would need in order to implement the rather complicated system envisaged in the Bill?

Sir Tony Baldry: That will depend largely on the timetable set out in the Bill, and my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to clarify one important point. The Church of England is not asking for any special treatment or protection under this legislation; the issue is simply that the Bill should be drafted to ensure that the Church of England has the same freedoms as all other Churches and denominations to decide these matters for itself, and that, of course, must reflect the unique legal position of the Church of England.

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): Speaking as someone who had a heterosexual marriage celebrated and registered in church, I hope that the Church Commissioners will explain to Colin Hart, the self-appointed campaign director of the so-called Coalition for Marriage, that having unity and diversity is a good idea, and that nobody in the Church of England ought to be worried about same-sex couples having the same opportunities of marrying as those of the opposite sex.

Sir Tony Baldry: These are issues that we will each have to address on a free vote on the Bill’s Second Reading, which I understand will take place soon. It may be for the convenience of the House if I give a brief summary of the submissions made by both archbishops in response to the Government’s earlier consultation, so that there is no ambiguity about the Church of England’s position. In their summary, the two archbishops said:

“The Church of England cannot support the proposal to enable ‘all couples, regardless of their gender, to have a civil marriage ceremony.’ Such a move would alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as enshrined in human institutions throughout history…To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships. We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.”

And here on Civil partnerships:

Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): What the policy of the Church of England is on celebrating civil partnerships.

Sir Tony Baldry: The Church of England’s position remains as set out in the House of Bishops pastoral statement of July 2005. A working group chaired by the former Northern Ireland Office permanent secretary, Sir Joseph Pilling, is reviewing the Church’s approach to sexuality more generally and will submit a report to the House of Bishops by the end of this year. A private member’s motion seeking to authorise the registration of civil partnerships in Church of England churches is due for discussion in the General Synod in due course.

Mr Bradshaw: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of senior Church of England bishops have, in the context of the debate on same-sex marriage, expressed their support for civil partnerships, but would the Church of England’s opposition to same-sex marriage, and the distinction it tries to draw, be more credible and have more authority if it allowed Church of England parishes that want to conduct civil partnerships to do so?

Sir Tony Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well. Given the sensitivity of the issue, the most sensible thing for me to do is to ensure that his comments and those of any other right hon. and hon. Members are drawn to the attention of Sir Joseph Pilling.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 10:30pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church in Wales | Church of England | equality legislation
Comments

Amazing!
I never thought this would happen while I was still able to enjoy it.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Thursday, 24 January 2013 at 11:13pm GMT

Enjoy Martin ! And one and all.

Yes, it good to have lived to see it.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 1:16am GMT

May God's Justice roll down like a mighty stream, and the Happy-Wedding-Tears will follow---Maranatha! :-D

Posted by: JCF on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 1:24am GMT

Now that the truth is out - that Churches will have to opt in to the legislation in order to celebrate Same-Sex Marriages - perhaps the Roman Catholic and Anglican hierarchies will cease bleating about their inability to accommodate the Marriage of Gay Couples who wish to make their Vows of monogamous faithfulness to one another - with the love that dare not speak its name - but which is, nevertheless, a positive force for good in the lives of the people concerned.

(That might just be the longest sentence I've ever written - but all in a good cause!)

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 8:55am GMT

When I 'came out' in 1969 I was told that homosexuality would never be socialy acceptable. It is extraordinary how far we have come.

Yet there is still a long way to go and I have no doubt that the 'debates' on the bill will show just how far.

Posted by: Richard Ashby on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 10:06am GMT

The text of the Bill is now available to download from the Parliament website: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/marriagesamesexcouplesbill.html

Posted by: David Lamming on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 1:23pm GMT

May God's Justice roll down like a mighty stream, and the Happy-Wedding-Tears will follow---Maranatha! :-D (JCF)

How lovely JCF - inspired !

Richard Ashby, I came out gradually at college, also in 1969 ! I used to fantasize, image, anticipate the G-d would bring this about as part of the 'Kingdom' fullness of an age beyond my lifetime !

Michael and I celebrate our 40th anniversary on 18th August, and have always felt G-d brought us together or a life of happiness, service and joy. Now unambiuously affirmed by our island race and churches and meetings.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 4:47pm GMT

I suspect that the feel-good factor will be short lived - except for those who enjoy seeing more people loosing their jobs, or being sued, because they are convinced that the marriage of a female and a male is by its very nature blessed, and distinct, when compared to two males or two females.

Posted by: RevDave on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 9:44pm GMT

I was once told by a very wise priest that "God is love, and every act of loving is an act of God". Respect for one another is part of that love.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 25 January 2013 at 11:14pm GMT

Wow! 56 pages! Compare Canada's equivalent legislation: http://canlii.ca/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2005-c-33/latest/sc-2005-c-33.html

Posted by: Alan T Perry on Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 12:08am GMT

"I suspect that the feel-good factor will be short lived - except for those who enjoy seeing more people loosing their jobs, or being sued, because they are convinced that the marriage of a female and a male is by its very nature blessed, and distinct, when compared to two males or two females."

And I suspect that if something like that happens, it will be one or two elderly bed and breakfast owners who will get as much public sympathy as some Southern USA motel owners in 1965 who, despite the Civil Rights Act, still refused rooms to certain people based on a passage in Genesis concerning Noah's sons.

Posted by: Counterlight on Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 12:54am GMT

The provision regarding adultery is puzzling. Adultery is to be a ground for divorce for same-sex couples, but is defined as (the word used in the Explanatory Note) 'conduct' with a member of the opposite sex only - in other words the definition of adultery is unchanged but applies to same-sex and different-sex couples alike.

Posted by: John Scrivener on Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 10:07am GMT

"I suspect that the feel-good factor will be short lived - except for those who enjoy seeing more people loosing their jobs, or being sued, because they are convinced that the marriage of a female and a male is by its very nature blessed, and distinct, when compared to two males or two females."

People can continue to believe what they like, but is it really too much to expect them to obey the laws of the land? Must we really have sympathy for people who take it upon themselves to decide which laws to respect and which ones to disregard?

Posted by: Erika Baker on Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 10:26am GMT

"I suspect that the feel-good factor will be short lived"

RevDave, when trying to analogize the Joy of HEAVEN, the author of Revelation reaches for a ***WEDDING*** ("the marriage feast of The Lamb"). Do you really sell marital bliss that short? Even if it's not the wedding *you* have in mind?

Posted by: JCF on Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 8:50pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.