Gay marriage thread

[scottycelt]

scotty
Since opinion polls indicate that more than 60% of the population are in favour of gay marriage, and legislation is already on its way through Parliament, I hardly think that it was likely to have been prominent in the Eastleigh campaign. Of course, it hasn't gone to the Lords yet, so there's still time for a 'support your local bishop' initiative.
Local issues were prominent at Eastleigh, together with the usual tendency at by elections to give the government a kick.

I do think though, that the gay marriage bill has been clumsily drafted, with the clause banning both the C of E and the Catholic Churches from taking part added on almost as an apologetic afterthought.

Even if the polls are correct, Ferret, around 40% of the electorate is still a pretty signifcant number and it is precisely the people who feel so strongly about such an issue who will 'bother' to go out and cast a protest vote?

[ahinton]

What are you asking me for?

Ask Jean!

Why? It was you, not Jean, who wrote
The tabloids have been scaremongering about immigration and the EU for years without providing any great benefit to UKIP ...
thereby prompting my question as to what this has to do with gay marriage.

As you, yourself, say it has no relevance to 'gay marriage' then I readily confess that I am at quite a serious loss as to exactly what to make of it, ahinton ...

I can conclude from this only that, if something has no relevance to gay marriage, you find yourself "at quite a serious loss as to exactly what to make of it"; such a situation, if true, would surely appear to rein in your ability to think about and debate almost any other subject, would it not?

[Deckerd]

Even if the polls are correct, Ferret, around 40% of the electorate is still a pretty signifcant number and it is precisely the people who feel so strongly about such an issue who will 'bother' to go out and cast a protest vote?

Yeah but if the >60% who are in favour vote too, democracy will have prevailed yet again. Hurrah for us. Except, you know, nobody is going to vote on gay marriage because it's not on the manifesto of any party with MPs in Parliament to oppose it.

[ahinton]

Even if the polls are correct, Ferret, around 40% of the electorate is still a pretty signifcant number and it is precisely the people who feel so strongly about such an issue who will 'bother' to go out and cast a protest vote?

It's actually less than 40% to the extent that the polls can be believed but, whilst this indeed not insignificant, it is still a clear minority and, since the legislation is not designed to affect them to the extent that it does not seek to make gay marriage compulsory, I don't see the problem, scotty.

I agree with Ferret about the clumsy nature of the drafting of the Bill, at least to the extent that it ought not to meddle in the business of banning Churches - even the "established" one, the C of E - from participating in the conduct of gay marriages and I do wonder if indeed this aspect of it might run counter to the UK Human Rights Act as well as EU human rights legislation.

[Pabmusic]

...I agree with Ferret about the clumsy nature of the drafting of the Bill, at least to the extent that it ought not to meddle in the business of banning Churches - even the "established" one, the C of E - from participating in the conduct of gay marriages and I do wonder if indeed this aspect of it might run counter to the UK Human Rights Act as well as EU human rights legislation.

The Human Rights Act does little more than allow UK courts to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights directly, so if it runs counter to the ECHR, it will automatically be against the Human Rights Act. I'm not sure which Article of the ECHR it might breach, though (14?).

[jean]

I agree with Ferret about the clumsy nature of the drafting of the Bill, at least to the extent that it ought not to meddle in the business of banning Churches - even the "established" one, the C of E - from participating in the conduct of gay marriages and I do wonder if indeed this aspect of it might run counter to the UK Human Rights Act as well as EU human rights legislation.

The intention is presumably to protect those Churches from challenges under Human Rights legislation, to which the C of E is thought to be especially susceptible as an arm of the State.

I hope there won't be any such challenges. I would not be interested in being married in a church that didn't want to marry me.

[scottycelt]

Why? It was you, not Jean, who wrote
The tabloids have been scaremongering about immigration and the EU for years without providing any great benefit to UKIP ...
thereby prompting my question as to what this has to do with gay marriage.

That was my wholly relevant response to Jean's post, ahinton. Have you 'bothered' to read hers?

I can conclude from this only that, if something has no relevance to gay marriage, you find yourself "at quite a serious loss as to exactly what to make of it"; such a situation, if true, would surely appear to rein in your ability to think about and debate almost any other subject, would it not?

In rare semi-accord with one of your earlier statements, ahinton, what has the apparent 'reining in of my ability' to think about and debate any other subject got to do with letting loose my now obvious if imperfect ability to think about and debate the subject of 'gay marriage'?

Sadly, I remain at a complete loss in regard to the point you appear to be desperately and, as yet, wholly unsuccessfully trying to make.

[ahinton]

The Human Rights Act does little more than allow UK courts to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights directly, so if it runs counter to the ECHR, it will automatically be against the Human Rights Act. I'm not sure which Article of the ECHR it might breach, though (14?).

I have no idea and I'm not even certain that it would do so, but it nevertheless appears bizarre to me - and I'm sure also to others - that a law permitting gay marriage contains clauses precluding Churches from conducting them, since that might appear to constitute a kind of discrimination against Churches.

[ahinton]

That was my wholly relevant response to Jean's post, ahinton. Have you 'bothered' to read hers?

Of course, but the statement that I questioned was nevertheless yours, not Jean's and the connection between gay marriage and both tabloid scaremongering about immigration and EU and your reference to UKIP remains unclear.

In rare semi-accord with one of your earlier statements, ahinton, what has the apparent 'reining in of my ability' to think about and debate any other subject got to do with letting loose my now obvious if imperfect ability to think about and debate the subject of 'gay marriage'?

That wasn't what I said; please re-read your statement and my response and try a little harder to understand. It really isn't so difficult.

Sadly, I remain at a complete loss in regard to the point you appear to be desperately and, as yet, wholly unsuccessfully trying to make.

The loss is indeed yours, the desperation is not mine and the success is no one's so far; I don't think that it could possibly be made any clearer.

[ahinton]

The intention is presumably to protect those Churches from challenges under Human Rights legislation, to which the C of E is thought to be especially susceptible as an arm of the State.

I hope there won't be any such challenges. I would not be interested in being married in a church that didn't want to marry me.

Indeed - but it's the other way round that bothers me, in the sense that the law appears to leave it open for any Churches that may wish to conduct gay marriages (or are at least prepared to entertain doing so) and object in principle to their being prevented by law from doing so to mount challenges to that law on grounds of discrimination; I suspect that this might happen as a consequence of a situation in which a gay bishop, dean, priest or whatever who wishes to marry is denied by law the possibility of being married in Church, particularly given that this would mean either that he/she would then either have not to marry or marry outside the Church in and for which he/she officiates.

[Pabmusic]

I have no idea and I'm not even certain that it would do so, but it nevertheless appears bizarre to me - and I'm sure also to others - that a law permitting gay marriage contains clauses precluding Churches from conducting them, since that might appear to constitute a kind of discrimination against Churches.

I agree. Anything that appears to allow discrimination is clearly open to challenge.

Article 12 says 'Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right'. Article 14 says 'The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. It seems to me that there's probably enough there, but I've not much practical experience of human rights law.

[ahinton]

I agree. Anything that appears to allow discrimination is clearly open to challenge.

Article 12 says 'Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right'. Article 14 says 'The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. It seems to me that there's probably enough there, but I've not much practical experience of human rights law.

Thank you for this; I think, however, that the issue is not just one of a human right to be married per se but (a) a human right to be married in Church and (b) the right of a Church to conduct marriage ceremonies that are of themselves lawful.

[Pabmusic]

Thank you for this; I think, however, that the issue is not just one of a human right to be married per se but (a) a human right to be married in Church and (b) the right of a Church to conduct marriage ceremonies that are of themselves lawful.

Oh yes, I agree. I expect the argument would have to be based on Article 14 - by not allowing A & B to marry in church, they are being discriminated against (on the grounds of sex?) in the exercise of Article 12, as against X & Y, who are heterosexual and can marry in church.

[ahinton]

Oh yes, I agree. I expect the argument would have to be based on Article 14 - by not allowing A & B to marry in church, they are being discriminated against (on the grounds of sex?) in the exercise of Article 12, as against X & Y, who are heterosexual and can marry in church.

OK - but, aside from this particular consideration, I remain puzzled and perplexed as to why whoever drafted this Bill considered it necessary to ban Churches from participation in the act for which its very purpose is to endorse it in law; it would, I think, have been no more bizarre and equally illogical had the Bill proposed that only Churches - i.e. not register offices - could marry gay couples.

[jean]

It was to protect the churches - especially the C of E - against any such challenges.