Poetry Forum

Full Version: British Lawmakers Approve Gay Marriage
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
BRITISH LAWMAKERS APPROVE GAY MARRIAGE

British lawmakers voted in favour of controversial legislation allowing gay marriage on Tuesday despite fierce opposition from members of Prime Minister David Cameron's own party.

The move puts Britain on track to join the ten countries that allow same-sex couples to marry, but Cameron had the embarrassment of seeing half of his Conservative legislators refusing to back him.

The prime minister insists that the plan to allow same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales would "make our society stronger" although the draft law still has several other parliamentary hurdles to clear.

It passed by 400 votes to 175, mainly because it had overwhelming support from the opposition Labour Party and also from many members of the Liberal Democrat party, the junior partner in Cameron's coalition government.

British media said around 140 Conservatives voted against and around 130 in favour with some 40 abstentions.

Cameron had allowed lawmakers a free vote on the issue, meaning they were not directed by party managers.

Speaking before the vote, Cameron said: "Today is an important day. I am a strong believer in marriage, it helps people commit to each other, and I think it is right that gay people should be able to get married too.

"This is, yes, about equality. But it is also about making our society stronger.

"I know there are strong views on both sides of the argument -- I accept that. But I think this is an important step forward for our country."

Opponents attacked the bill during an often impassioned day-long debate ahead of the vote in the House of Commons, or lower house of parliament.

Pleas from Cameron's heavyweight cabinet allies to persuade their Conservative colleagues to back his plans and avoid damaging divisions fell on deaf ears.

A former junior defence minister, Gerald Howarth, said the government had no mandate for such a "massive social and cultural change".

"I believe this bill is wrong, the consultation was a complete sham. It has caused deep and needless divisions within the Conservative Party," he said.

Another Conservative opponent, Roger Gale, said the legislation was "Orwellian".

"Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, has been historically, remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory, Orwellian almost, for any government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and try to re-write the lexicon," he said.

Same-sex couples in Britain have had the right to live in civil partnerships since 2005 but cannot marry.

Culture Secretary Maria Miller, the minister responsible for the legislation, insisted the bill would protect religious freedoms and "not marginalise those who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman".

The push to win over those Conservatives still bitterly opposed to gay marriage was led by three senior party members -- finance minister George Osborne, foreign minister William Hague and interior minister Theresa May.

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, they said "attitudes to gay people have changed" and same-sex marriage was "the right thing to do at the right time".

The proposals are opposed by the Church of England and its new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, but the legislation bans the "official" churches from offering gay marriage.

The bill must next be scrutinised by a committee of lawmakers and then go before the upper chamber the House of Lords before becoming law.

While a majority of people in Britain back gay marriage, polls show that Cameron's strong support for the issue could undermine his party's chances at the next general election in 2015.
The issue has not however sparked the impassioned protests seen in France, where the National Assembly on Saturday overwhelmingly approved a key piece of legislation that will allow homosexual couples to marry and adopt children.
why do you say english? surely the house of commons is still the British govt?
Bit of a slip... I had put "Poms" but figured nobody would know what I was on about, so I just substituted... will change immediately Blush

Incidentally, this legislation is only for England and Wales. This is still under consultation in the Scottish Parliament and by the looks of it, it's definitely not going to happen in Northern Ireland.
I just got back today and I have not been following this anyway - I am out of touch, I thought the scottish parliament was administrative not legislative and they were looking to change that this year - so much I know

As for NI - seems like we english (?) our losing are grip then(!).
There's a draft bill before the Scottish parliament, due for a vote in March. Scotland is allowed a few laws of its own still Wink

You didn't seriously think the Irish would go for it did you?
I don't really know what is possible in NI long term - I suppose right now they are pre-occupied with their other overdue changes
Yes, there's a lot that has to happen there before they can even consider who marries whom where and in what outfit.
while i applaud it, they did take their their time and it's still not a certainty. i'm of the mind it was done in order to get the gay vote but i've always been a cynic. still, it's a step forward. it see a bit silly that that the other three quarters of the british isles don;t do it at the same time many will just visit the uk and get married
Of course that will happen, but if the marriage isn't recognised as legal in your own country I have to wonder, what's the point?
It is, I submit, as some MP said, a step into Alice in Wonderland. As of when does the government get to assignnew meanings to words? Can they say that gherkin means tomato? The United nations is henceforth 'arse'? Poetry is to be termed 'bollocks'? Really, do these little men have such power? Why have they been able to change the meaning, without quite knowing what they were changing it to? Why duck adultery? Is x to be know as 'husband' and 'y' to be known as 'wife'? Are people to be banned from enquiring whether a 'married' couple are husband and husband, or husband and wife? What on earth is the purpose? I realise that the gay lobby -- highly represented in the media, indeed over-represented -- feel a need to carry on campaigning for something-- but what is achieved? And what will the next great target be, which will be rammed down my throat day after fucking day?

No, I am not for it.
(02-06-2013, 08:15 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]Of course that will happen, but if the marriage isn't recognised as legal in your own country I have to wonder, what's the point?
then we'll just have a influx of people who stay after they get married. half of manchester is from dublin already Hysterical

(02-06-2013, 08:35 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: [ -> ]It is, I submit, as some MP said, a step into Alice in Wonderland. As of when does the government get to assignnew meanings to words? Can they say that gherkin means tomato? The United nations is henceforth 'arse'? Poetry is to be termed 'bollocks'? Really, do these little men have such power? Why have they been able to change the meaning, without quite knowing what they were changing it to? Why duck adultery? Is x to be know as 'husband' and 'y' to be known as 'wife'? Are people to be banned from enquiring whether a 'married' couple are husband and husband, or husband and wife? What on earth is the purpose? I realise that the gay lobby -- highly represented in the media, indeed over-represented -- feel a need to carry on campaigning for something-- but what is achieved? And what will the next great target be, which will be rammed down my throat day after fucking day?

No, I am not for it.
i think it's about more than a word, i think it about security and love. call it anything you want if you don't want to call it marriage but allow two people the right to enter some kind of relationship-contract that says what they own is owned by both equally and that they openly profess their love for each other. i see nothing wrong with it being called a civil marriage. the church (all churches and religions ) have the right to refuse the religious ceremony but not a civil one.

doesn't a divorce use names not gender, i'm sure the question could be asked but i can't yet remember ever asking any couple "are you man and wife"

and bollocks is often the best term i can use for some of the poetry i've read Big Grin
(02-06-2013, 05:45 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]BRITISH LAWMAKERS APPROVE GAY MARRIAGE

British lawmakers voted in favour of controversial legislation allowing gay marriage on Tuesday despite fierce opposition from members of Prime Minister David Cameron's own party.

The move puts Britain on track to join the ten countries that allow same-sex couples to marry, but Cameron had the embarrassment of seeing half of his Conservative legislators refusing to back him.

The prime minister insists that the plan to allow same-sex couples to marry in England and Wales would "make our society stronger" although the draft law still has several other parliamentary hurdles to clear.

It passed by 400 votes to 175, mainly because it had overwhelming support from the opposition Labour Party and also from many members of the Liberal Democrat party, the junior partner in Cameron's coalition government.

British media said around 140 Conservatives voted against and around 130 in favour with some 40 abstentions.

Cameron had allowed lawmakers a free vote on the issue, meaning they were not directed by party managers.

Speaking before the vote, Cameron said: "Today is an important day. I am a strong believer in marriage, it helps people commit to each other, and I think it is right that gay people should be able to get married too.

"This is, yes, about equality. But it is also about making our society stronger.

"I know there are strong views on both sides of the argument -- I accept that. But I think this is an important step forward for our country."

Opponents attacked the bill during an often impassioned day-long debate ahead of the vote in the House of Commons, or lower house of parliament.

Pleas from Cameron's heavyweight cabinet allies to persuade their Conservative colleagues to back his plans and avoid damaging divisions fell on deaf ears.

A former junior defence minister, Gerald Howarth, said the government had no mandate for such a "massive social and cultural change".

"I believe this bill is wrong, the consultation was a complete sham. It has caused deep and needless divisions within the Conservative Party," he said.

Another Conservative opponent, Roger Gale, said the legislation was "Orwellian".

"Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, has been historically, remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory, Orwellian almost, for any government of any political persuasion to seek to come along and try to re-write the lexicon," he said.

Same-sex couples in Britain have had the right to live in civil partnerships since 2005 but cannot marry.

Culture Secretary Maria Miller, the minister responsible for the legislation, insisted the bill would protect religious freedoms and "not marginalise those who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman".

The push to win over those Conservatives still bitterly opposed to gay marriage was led by three senior party members -- finance minister George Osborne, foreign minister William Hague and interior minister Theresa May.

In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, they said "attitudes to gay people have changed" and same-sex marriage was "the right thing to do at the right time".

The proposals are opposed by the Church of England and its new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, but the legislation bans the "official" churches from offering gay marriage.

The bill must next be scrutinised by a committee of lawmakers and then go before the upper chamber the House of Lords before becoming law.

While a majority of people in Britain back gay marriage, polls show that Cameron's strong support for the issue could undermine his party's chances at the next general election in 2015.
The issue has not however sparked the impassioned protests seen in France, where the National Assembly on Saturday overwhelmingly approved a key piece of legislation that will allow homosexual couples to marry and adopt children.
Well, as long as they can only get married on Tuesdays I would say that's fair do's. I am all for compromise and horses getting married in church.
Best,
tectak......I'm outa here! Its a fuckin madhouse. Where's my pogo stick. Ooops. Its where I left it.
Horses getting married in church? Is there another royal wedding coming up?
(02-06-2013, 08:35 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: [ -> ]It is, I submit, as some MP said, a step into Alice in Wonderland. As of when does the government get to assignnew meanings to words? Can they say that gherkin means tomato? The United nations is henceforth 'arse'? Poetry is to be termed 'bollocks'? Really, do these little men have such power? Why have they been able to change the meaning, without quite knowing what they were changing it to? Why duck adultery? Is x to be know as 'husband' and 'y' to be known as 'wife'? Are people to be banned from enquiring whether a 'married' couple are husband and husband, or husband and wife? What on earth is the purpose? I realise that the gay lobby -- highly represented in the media, indeed over-represented -- feel a need to carry on campaigning for something-- but what is achieved? And what will the next great target be, which will be rammed down my throat day after fucking day?

No, I am not for it.

See its funny though, words are subjective. For a gay/lesbian couple marriage simply means a life-long commitment to each other. Religious folk like to add that it's "between a man and a woman". (similarly I'm sure certain folk would like add that it's between two similar coloured people if they had as much clout as the church.) Although words have definitions, they are often blurry and disputed, I say by all means the govt has a place to cement the definition in a way that makes for more freedom for those involved.

It's not just about the word though. My Mum moved to the US to live with her female partner; she had to go through 8 years of leaving the country every three months due to not being able to get a visa. If she was straight she would simply get married and hey presto be granted the rights of a straight person. But because she is a lesbian she gets sub human residency status. She is married now, but because it is a state by state law, it still isn't recognised by the govt. It is a matter close to gay people because it actually directly affects their lives in meaningful ways.

rowens

(02-06-2013, 09:51 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]Horses getting married in church? Is there another royal wedding coming up?

I used to think bad thoughts about Kate Middleton, until I saw her in a bikini. Then I thought, Is that all?

The outfits she wears make her look a little more thick. I guess if she had some shape they'd make her look fat.

A real let down.

Well, the horse you're talking about. That's another generation...
Kate Middleton is fat?

No wonder you haven't got a girlfriend Tongue

rowens

Did you even read my comment?

As for me having a girlfriend... Not officially.

But like the song goes..."Men don't know but their little girls understand..."
misunderstood, sorry

rowens

Kate peels off those dresses, and she peels off her meat too I guess. A real disappointment.
i'm okay with thin or fat as long as they don't stink Big Grin
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6