Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
From the BBC:

Gay marriage: Commons passes Cameron's plan



The bill was passed in the Commons by 366 votes to 161


The House of Commons has voted to allow gay marriage in England and Wales, despite 161 MPs opposing the government's plans.

Several Tory MPs spoke against the proposals, which have caused tensions in the party, but the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships backed them.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill now goes before the House of Lords.

David Cameron hopes it will become law soon, with the first ceremonies taking place by next summer.

The bill, if passed, will allow same-sex couples, who can currently hold civil ceremonies, to marry.

Religious organisations would have to "opt in" to offering weddings, with the Church of England and Church in Wales being banned in law from doing so.

Welsh Secretary David Jones and Environment Secretary Owen Paterson voted against the government's bill at its third reading. They were joined by 10 junior ministers.

Altogether 133 Tories opposed the bill, along with 15 Labour MPs, four Lib Dems, eight Democratic Unionists and an independent.

It goes to the House of Lords on Wednesday, where it is expected to generate further heated discussion.

Tensions between Downing Street and grassroots Conservatives, which have focused on the issue of Europe in recent weeks, have been exacerbated by the same-sex marriage proposals.

But Culture Secretary Maria Miler said it was an issue of equality, to which MPs had to show their "commitment".

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "Let's celebrate, not discriminate. Let's put aside the anger and hear it for the joy."

Demonstrators against the plans held a vigil opposite the Palace of Westminster as the debate took place. A woman was detained by police after trying to drive a car through the gates of the Palace of Westminster as the vote took place.

The bill's third reading was backed by 366 MPs, giving it a majority of 205. There was a ripple of applause in the chamber after the result was announced.

The result is a marginal improvement for Mr Cameron on the vote at Monday's second reading, when 175 MPs opposed the plans.

They passed after ministers reached agreement with Labour's leadership.

Conservative critics had tabled a proposal to allow heterosexual couples enter into civil partnerships, if gay couples were allowed to get married.

But this was defeated, with MPs instead backing a Labour plan to consult on changing civil partnerships.

Many Tories are angry about comments reportedly made by Conservative co-chairman Lord Feldman.

He has denied calling activists "mad, swivel-eyed loons" and Mr Cameron has sent an email to party members, insisting they still shared a "deep and lasting friendship" with him.

Tory MP Brian Binley, who has led calls for an investigation into Lord Feldman's alleged comments, said there was a "growing gap" between the prime minister and the party.

And Robert Woollard, chairman of the Conservative Grass Roots organisation, suggested Mr Cameron needed to rein in some of his colleagues in No 10 who were "wet behind the ears" and "needed to get out more".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
Class :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
to be perfectly honest there are more important things in my world to worry about, like health bills and the usual...really dont care what MPs say or do, and all this is just for the radicals on both sides of the fence....if gay people want to commit then they do that, all of us people in the gay community know that the church will never change its stance so whats the point....the government arent doing anything for my benefit...just looks like another vote pleaser if you ask me, most of my friends who are also gay couldnt care less about it and most of my straight friends just want to know when the next piss up is :D
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
something my brother in law sent me...just to put a smile on the situation

A man escapes from a prison where he's been locked up for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money and guns. Inside, he finds a young couple in bed. He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the homeowner's wife to the bed, the convict gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom.

While he's in there, the husband whispers over to his wife: "Listen, this guy is an escaped convict. Look at his clothes! He's probably spent a lot of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain.....do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is obviously very dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us both. Be strong, honey. I love you!"

His wife responds:
"He wasn't kissing my neck - he was whispering in my ear. He told me that he's gay, he thinks you're cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him It was in the bathroom. Be strong. I love you, too.

@tawa....will let you know:laugh::drinks:

reminds me of some catholic priest scandals and MPs and thier secrets in a twisted warped gothik sense of humour way
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
something my brother in law sent me...just to put a smile on the situation

A man escapes from a prison where he's been locked up for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money and guns. Inside, he finds a young couple in bed. He orders the guy out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the homeowner's wife to the bed, the convict gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom.

While he's in there, the husband whispers over to his wife: "Listen, this guy is an escaped convict. Look at his clothes! He's probably spent a lot of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain.....do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is obviously very dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us both. Be strong, honey. I love you!"

His wife responds:
"He wasn't kissing my neck - he was whispering in my ear. He told me that he's gay, he thinks you're cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him It was in the bathroom. Be strong. I love you, too.

@tawa....will let you know:laugh::drinks:

reminds me of some catholic priest scandals and MPs and thier secrets in a twisted warped gothik sense of humour way
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "Let's celebrate, not discriminate. Let's put aside the anger and hear it for the joy."
yeah.....now i can officially get married and it not be called a civil partnership whoopdy doo....now if we got some decent honest poloticians who focused on the real issues of the day like...oh i don't know the recession for one....instead of stroking each others dicks and having pissing contests over who can get the gay vote better then any other party and sneaking thier mistress's out through the back door whilst thier wives come in the front then i might have some joy in it
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
@Gothik: Calling it "Marriage" closes a lot of legal loopholes that allowed for discrimination when it was called a "Union". That should be something to be happy about. Sure there is other stuff they should be worrying about (when isn't there?), but the fact that they're so overwhelmingly in favour of not continuing to allow these loopholes to exist is good.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,559 Posts
Excellent news.

As Zion says it closes many loopholes created by the use of the word "marriage"; the alternatives would be (i) to review and change many statutes and statutory instruments to add "or civil union" to uses of "marriage", or (ii) to open up many situations to statutory review, so this gives both Parliament and the Judiciary more time to focus on other things than not doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
yeah it does, but the definaition of marriage is in the site of god and many people when they want to get married, want to get married in a church with all the bells and whistles, unfortunatly that won't happen in my lifetime, yes it is good that they have clarified it, but until they allow it in church many people will see it it as a partnership in my opinion. Not being a religious person its great for me, and everyone in general but there are those of a faith who are gay who want the church wedding and wont be able to have it,

dont see the point in clarifying it like they have only for the church to opt out of it kinda makes it a hollow victory
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
yeah it does, but the definaition of marriage is in the site of god and many people when they want to get married, want to get married in a church with all the bells and whistles, unfortunatly that won't happen in my lifetime, yes it is good that they have clarified it, but until they allow it in church many people will see it it as a partnership in my opinion. Not being a religious person its great for me, and everyone in general but there are those of a faith who are gay who want the church wedding and wont be able to have it,

dont see the point in clarifying it like they have only for the church to opt out of it kinda makes it a hollow victory
The church doesn't matter since it's the government who actually controls marriage itself (you have to get a marriage certificate, not from a church but from the government). So what if you can't get married in a church? You can still produce a marriage certificate and claim the same rights as a heterocouple without the governement needing to write new laws about the union process, or rewrite old ones so that discrimination against those in a union can occur.

The whole "union" thing provided too many loopholes (like health insurance being shared here in the US, you can only share it with your spouse and children, a spouse is defined as someone you are married to) for companies to get out of doing what they should be doing, and allowing laws to discriminate unfairly. This is a step in the right direction for fixing the problem of discrimination against the non-hetero community.
 

·
Closet Dictator
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
Brilliant all the neighbors are voting this in, Ireland will have to vote on this soon and no government minister wants to touch it with a barge pole until after the next general election, along with the abortion debate it will bring down my backward government
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,976 Posts
Of all the weddings I've been to in the last ten years, about half had a priest presiding, and only about a quater were in a church. Myself, and most people I know, just got married by a celebrant, which is kind of becoming the norm. Perhaps the weather here makes a difference, as it's much nicer to be married outdoors, as long as you have a plan B for rainy weather.

At any rate, if someone tried to tell me my marriage was less significant because it wasn't in a church, I'd laugh at them and call them a twat. In terms of significance, the official recognition of the marriage is far more important than where the wedding was held.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,172 Posts
guess i put that across wrong and i apologise for that, all i am saying is that no matter what your orientation is, there are those that have a deep faith and would like to have the old fashioned bells and whistles ceremony, to be honest the last wedding i went to was a registry office do and it was great, but all i was pointing out was for those of the gay orientation who have a deep faith and would like to get married in what they consider the house of god, might consider this a hollow victory as they will not be able to do so...

i am not saying a marriage anywhere other than a church is no less a deep and meaningful commitment i would never say that, and i am aware of what this means finacial wise and clarification wise, and i welcome that, i am saying that whilst the government issue the licence and make the laws regarding it, those who want the more spiritual aspect of it, with a priest and choir and what have you are unable to do so.

Until the governments help bring the church into line with this way of thinking then it is at best a battle won, but not the war, just because it is brought into law, doesnt mean it will be recognised by everyone, even in the higher echelons of power......and i am alittle skepticle about this as the government is not popular at the moment and to me this sounds like a vote catcher......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,003 Posts
Well from watching politic shows etc, the reason the majority of those mps were against it was because they felt the government does not have the right to alter the definition of marriage as marriage is a religious institute.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,385 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Well from watching politic shows etc, the reason the majority of those mps were against it was because they felt the government does not have the right to alter the definition of marriage as marriage is a religious institute.
Which becomes hilarious when you consider that you pay the government for the right to get married (again, marriage certificate).
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top