I would just note that Cameron is the head of the Conservative Party of Great Britain, also known as the Tories, the same post that Margaret Thatcher had. Who says things don't change? They do!
Congratulations to England and Wales! Apparently, same-sex couples will be able to start getting married sometime next year and couples in civil partnerships will be able to convert them into marriages at that time.The equal marriage bill was passed in the House of Commons, and as all amendments added in the House of Lords were accepted, it will not be required to go back to the Lords.[...]The publisher of PinkNews.co.uk and Out4Marriage founder Benjamin Cohen said this evening: “We are delighted that after five years of editorial campaigning and just three years after we received the support of the three main party leaders, Parliament has finally approved same-sex marriage.“Giving gay couples the right to marry will make Britain a more tolerant, open and welcoming place to live in and significantly increase the life prospects of so many people. It is absolutely fantastic that this change in the law, almost uniquely, was proposed by a Conservative prime minister and his Liberal Democrat Deputy with the support of the Labour party leader. Sometimes politicians can work together for the common good and this is a stunning example of this.”
The Lords voted by 390 votes to 148 to reject an attempt by Lord Dear, a crossbencher, to defeat the bill at second reading. It is very unusual for the Lords to block a bill at second reading and some peers may have been voting against Dear because they were opposed to the idea of the Lords trying to obstruct legislation in this way, not because they were great supporters of the bill. But the size of the majority means the bill must now be certain to become law. However, it is still likely that attempts will be made to amend it in the Lords, in particular to strengthen the protection available to churches who do not want to conduct gay weddings. Lady Stowell, a government whip, told peers in her wind-up speech that the government would not necessarily object to amendments of this kind.Additionally, the primary opponent to the legislation, the Church of England has announced that in light of the overwhelming support for marriage equality in both Houses of Parliament they will cease their opposition and concentrate on improving the bill instead of stopping it.
“Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales. It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape.
“The concerns of many in the Church, and in the other denominations and faiths, about the wisdom of such a move have been expressed clearly and consistently in the Parliamentary debate. For the Bishops the issue now is not primarily one of protections and exemptions for people of faith, important though it is to get that right, not least where teaching in schools and freedom of speech are concerned.
“The Bill now requires improvement in a number of other key respects, including in its approach to the question of fidelity in marriage and the rights of children. If this Bill is to become law, it is crucial that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace. Our focus during Committee and Report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement.”
• provide that same sex couples can get married in England and Wales;The bill is now before the House of Lords, where it passed its first reading (equivalent to introduction) by voice vote and will have it second reading on June 3 with committee actions on June 17 and June 19. It is expected that heterosexual supremacists will try to derail the bill by getting unacceptable "poison pill" amendments added to the text of the legislation. However, it is possible that the British government can ignore any actions by the House of Lords by invoking the Parliament Act.
• provide that such marriages are to be treated the same as marriages between a man and a woman in England and Wales;
• permit marriage of same sex couples by way of a civil ceremony;
• permit marriage of same sex couples according to religious rites and usages where a religious organisation has opted in to that process (with the exception of the Church of England and the Church in Wales);
• provide a process by which the Church in Wales can request and obtain legislative change to allow marriages of same sex couples according to their rites if they wish to do so;
• provide that there will be no obligation or compulsion on religious organisations or individuals to carry out or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple;
• provide protection under equality law for religious organisations and individuals who do not wish to marry same sex couples in a religious ceremony.
 |
| Andy Murray GBR (3) vs Novak Djokovic SRB (2) |
 |
| Lynn Featherstone is "Equalities Minister" in the British Coalition Government of the Tories (Conservatives)and LibDems (Liberal Democrats) |
“While on my travels as a champion for women’s rights, I am and will be a champion for gay rights too. Britain must not get complacent. We are a world leader for gay rights, but there is still more that we must do.
“In March, this Government will begin a formal consultation on how to implement equal civil marriage for same sex couples, and this would allow us to make any legislative changes necessary by the end of this Parliament.
“Civil partnerships were a welcome first step – but this party rejects prejudice and discrimination in all its forms, and I believe that to deny one group of people the same opportunities offered to another is not only discrimination, but is not fair.”
 |
| Eunice and Owen Johns are a British couple who went to court to seek the right to foster children and indoctrinate them with their homophobic (allegedly faith-based) views |
"We are simply not here concerned with the grant or denial of State 'benefits' to the claimants. No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is contending for a blanket ban. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. No one is seeking to force Christians or adherents of other faiths into the closet. No one is asserting that the claimants are bigots. No one is seeking to give Christians, Jews or Muslims or, indeed, peoples of any faith, a second class status. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law, to our polity and to our way of life, that everyone is equal: equal before the law and equal as a human being endowed with reason and entitled to dignity and respect."Additionally, the Johns case quotes an earlier decision written by Lord Laws regarding whether religious belief could exempt clerks from performing same-sex civil partnerships:
"The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself."It would be incredible if we could get such a strong judicial opinion about the separation of church and state from our Highest Court. Andrew Brown finished with a statement which has immediate implications for the kulturkampf (culture war) about homosexuality we are currently engaged in:
"So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime."
Obviously, these judgments will have a considerable effect on evangelical protestantism in this country, which has always taken the view that we are, or should be, a Christian nation. But I think the greatest effect will not be on pentecostalists like the Johnses. They can adjust quite easily to the idea that they live under a heathen or godless regime. It is the old-fashioned evangelical wing of the Church of England which will be most upset and confused by these clear statements of principle.Repeat after me: America is NOT a Christian nation.
Gay couples, whose relationships have not previously been given legal recognition by the State, may now formalise their relationships in the eyes of the law and society at large. Their relationships will be legally recognised and protected.Congrats, Eire!
