Comments: Marriage Bill: Committee stage starts today in the Lords

David Pocklington's account makes clear how nasty is the opposition from (mainly) religious bodies.

Also, how groups who came to Britain, in search of civil and religious freedoms, now wish to deny this to indigenous British natives, and gay Christians, Sikhs, Jews and Humanists. And completely ignoring Wales and its own culture - as if it were merely an appendage of England.

Knowing as I do, of the problems within the Sikh community in Britain, of the great difficulties experienced by women and families - especially women who need to divorce; and young women who need to pursue their own self-determination in study, career and love choice, I am inclined to think that Lord Singh and others should turn their attention to the real needs, real problems within British Sikhsim today.

Posted by Laurence at Monday, 17 June 2013 at 11:49am BST

"Also, how groups who came to Britain, in search of civil and religious freedoms, now wish to deny this to indigenous British natives"

Leaving aside the blood and soil dangers of the word "indigenous", the answer to your question is "they don't". Just as the opposition to same-sex marriage comes from noisy, unrepresentative elements within Christianity, the same applies, pretty much, to every other faith group. Polls taken amongst "Muslims" tend to use a definition for "Muslim" that almost guarantees that it will only get the more conservative elements, and the same goes for other faith groups. Muslims in the colloquial sense --- people who have a heritage from Muslim areas, are not themselves observing but are perhaps "cultural Muslims" --- are bothered about ssm about as much as "cultural Christians" are, which is to say not at all.

SSM is a matter solely for conservatives who wish to attempt to gain control over a "community" by shaming them into agreement. It's unlikely to work in the Muslim and Sikh community, and entirely and completely doomed in the Jewish and Christian community.

Posted by Interested Observer at Monday, 17 June 2013 at 10:22pm BST

The Archbishop of York is being disingenuous, at best. He says that "By contrast, the legislation to create Civil Partnerships was clearly a proper exercise". But the bishops fought tooth and nail to oppose Civil Partnership, voting for wrecking amendments and speaking in the most hair-raising terms of the consequences were civil partnerships to happen. Now, they want us to believe that they supported them all along. That doesn't seem completely honest.

Posted by Interested Observer at Tuesday, 18 June 2013 at 8:32am BST
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.