Comments: House of Lords: final day in committee on the Marriage bill

"We cannot expect those cultural assumptions [about marriage] and norms to change overnight or at the speed at which legislation may emerge." Bishop of Leicester.

I don't recall the Race Relations Act 1976 allowng little opt outs for people who weren't quite ready to stop discriminating yet. The Sex Discrimnation Act of 1976 did exactly that, of course, and is why we're still arguing about women bishops 37 years after it would have been illegal for anyone else to discriminate on grounds of gender. I am quite sure that if exemptions from race legislation had been given to the church there would be parishes today that managed to have 'theological convictions' preventing them from having a black priest.

Also, a note to overseas readers who may be unaware, all these references to 'schools owned by the church' and 'church schools' omit to mention that almost the entire cost of running them - including all the salary costs of teachers - is met by the State and not by the church.

Posted by Laurence Cunnington at Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 10:03am BST

Looks like Canada's General Synod in 2 weeks will have lots to debate with regard to Marriage. There is a resolution coming forward to begin the process of changing the Canadian Church's marriage Canon.

Among the memorials to the forthcoming General Synod
are some from conservative dioceses that oppose changes to the Marriage Canon to include same-sex marriage. Those may be found among the memorials listed in this section.

Expect the same kind of arguments one has heard from C of E bishops in the Lords.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 2:58pm BST

Regarding Lord MacKay of Clashfern's observation that “It is important to remember that this Bill is not about gay marriage but same-sex marriage. As I pointed out, and I invited correction—so far I have not been corrected—it includes platonic relations between people of the same sex. Therefore, the idea that sexual relationships are fundamental to it is a mistake.”..

This is already true of straight marriages. There is no bar to marriage if one of the partners is not physically able to have a sexual relationship and there is no bar for asexual people who do not intend to have one.

But to say that some marriages are platonic is not the same as to say that siblings should be allowed to get married.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 3:23pm BST

To add to Erika: there's the old joke "Is there sex after marriage?"

That is, when speaking of opposite-sex couples, it's a joke. When we're speaking of opening marriage to same-sex couples, it suddenly becomes a "problem". }-/

Posted by JCF at Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 1:36am 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.