Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Gonzyy

MPs approve gay-marriage bill. (England & Wales)

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-21346220

 

The Commons voted in favour of theMarriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

 

Prime Minister David Cameron has described the move as "an important step forward" that strengthens society.

 

About 140 Conservative MPs are thought to have voted against the plans.

 

Former children's minister and Conservative MP Tim Loughton told the BBC that he believed "140 or so" of his party colleagues had voted against the plans, along with "a small rump of Labour MPs" and "four Lib Dem MPs".

 

He added: "Apparently there are 132 Conservative MPs who voted in favour, so I think what we're going to see is that more Conservative MPs voted against this legislation than for it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the Lords won't even think about rejecting it, the majority is too damn high party

I don't know what's more embarassing, the fact that more than half of Cameron's party voted against him, or the fact that they're just so old-fashioned.

 

So many fun discrepancies in what the 'against' lobby were saying, but I liked this one:

 

@BenSummerskill (works at Stonewall) "Is it the unique sanctity of his first, or second, marriage that Sir Roger Gale MP is seeking to defend?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Step it up, America. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really America that needs to step up, it's the states. Marriage is liscensing and state run thing and should be kept that way. I would be upset if the federal government got involved with gay marriage, even if it was trying to pass a pro-gay marriage bill. I think in due time the states will pass gay marriage legislation, although I'm sure there will be a couple of holdouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really America that needs to step up, it's the states. Marriage is liscensing and state run thing and should be kept that way. I would be upset if the federal government got involved with gay marriage, even if it was trying to pass a pro-gay marriage bill. I think in due time the states will pass gay marriage legislation, although I'm sure there will be a couple of holdouts.

Is it not the federal government's job to correct an unconstitutional (14th amendment) flaw within state laws?

Uh... I'm not sure what you're talking about. You mean the due process clause? Can you elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really America that needs to step up, it's the states. Marriage is liscensing and state run thing and should be kept that way. I would be upset if the federal government got involved with gay marriage, even if it was trying to pass a pro-gay marriage bill. I think in due time the states will pass gay marriage legislation, although I'm sure there will be a couple of holdouts.

Is it not the federal government's job to correct an unconstitutional (14th amendment) flaw within state laws?

Uh... I'm not sure what you're talking about. You mean the due process clause? Can you elaborate?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [...] nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

There are laws on the books that provide 1,138 benefits to married heterosexual couples. Isn't limiting civil unions to all interested citizens denying them equal protection and privileges?

That's an interesting point and I've never seen it before. I'm guessing the Supreme Court has never ruled on that.

 

I don't have a good defense for that. Limiting civil unions would not be unconsititutional if there were granted the same benefits of married couples. Also, I think we sometimes forget that anybody can get married, just not to someone of the same sex. So homosexuals are entitled to the same privileges as you and I would, however they must marry someone of the opposite sex to get them (which is probably something they won't want to do). It's an interesting point but for that reason I feel it would fail under Supreme Court review, particularly with the court as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we sometimes forget that anybody can get married, just not to someone of the same sex. So homosexuals are entitled to the same privileges as you and I would
So, let me get this (ahem) straight: if same-sex marriage is somehow a homosexual privilege, doesn't it make marriage as it is a heterosexual privilege? If same-sex marriage is introduced, it's not only homosexuals that get more rights, but heterosexuals as well.

 

Assuming that same-sex marriage it's a purely homosexual "privilege" is a very effective way to argue that marriage-as-it-is is a purely heterosexual privilege - and with such opposition, who needs to lay out one's points at all?

 

Tl;dr: if gay marriage is a homosexual privilege, then heterosexual marriage is a heterosexual privilege, therefore marriage as it is now has heterosexuals with more rights than homosexuals. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a good defense for that. Limiting civil unions would not be unconsititutional if there were granted the same benefits of married couples. Also, I think we sometimes forget that anybody can get married, just not to someone of the same sex.

Shall we try the same for race? Black people can get married, sure, just not to white people. You then aren't denying black people the right to marry - you're just deciding who they can marry. Exactly what's happening with gay people in America.

Edited by Mano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may be going though a financial crisis, our economy is shrinking and we're a small pretty much irrelevant country nowadays but at least when it comes to this sort of things we've always been on the front line, leading the charge.

First country in the world to abolish the death penalty, first European country to abolish slavery (and the second in the world if I'm not mistaken), we've decriminalized the use of drugs and same-sex marriage is legal here already. Step it up world.

 

But yeah this is pretty good news, good to see more countries giving equal rights to all people.

Edited by Micael Fatia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First country in the world to abolish the death penalty
Bollocks, the Grandduchy of Tuscany abolished it in 1785

 

good to see more countries giving equal rights to all people
They were probably jealous that the French did it first. :cute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First country in the world to abolish the death penalty
Bollocks, the Grandduchy of Tuscany abolished it in 1785

Yeah but the Grandduchy of Tuscany ceased to exist in 1859, Portugal abolished the death sentence in 1867 (lol 82 years later) so I guess you're right I should've said we're the first country in the world that still exists to abolish the death penalty. Now go rain on somebody else's parade lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First country in the world to abolish the death penalty
Bollocks, the Grandduchy of Tuscany abolished it in 1785

Yeah but the Grandduchy of Tuscany ceased to exist in 1859, Portugal abolished the death sentence in 1867 (lol 82 years later) so I guess you're right I should've said we're the first country in the world that still exists to abolish the death penalty. Now go rain on somebody else's parade lol.

That's not rain.

 

:box:

 

Meanwhile, I just read Goggie's post, and I can honestly say that

@BenSummerskill (works at Stonewall) "Is it the unique sanctity of his first, or second, marriage that Sir Roger Gale MP is seeking to defend?"
this quote is made of pure, unadulterated win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we sometimes forget that anybody can get married, just not to someone of the same sex. So homosexuals are entitled to the same privileges as you and I would
So, let me get this (ahem) straight: if same-sex marriage is somehow a homosexual privilege, doesn't it make marriage as it is a heterosexual privilege? If same-sex marriage is introduced, it's not only homosexuals that get more rights, but heterosexuals as well.

 

Assuming that same-sex marriage it's a purely homosexual "privilege" is a very effective way to argue that marriage-as-it-is is a purely heterosexual privilege - and with such opposition, who needs to lay out one's points at all?

 

Tl;dr: if gay marriage is a homosexual privilege, then heterosexual marriage is a heterosexual privilege, therefore marriage as it is now has heterosexuals with more rights than homosexuals. :)

That was a bit confusing for me to be honest and I don't really know how that would change a court ruling. The (US) Constitution is blind to sexuality and therefore we should define marriage not as a privilege for heterosexuals or homosexuals but for citizens of the United States. Like heterosexuals homosexuals can also get married. Whether they want to or not does not matter. With the current court I do not believe that would fly with the justices. If I'm missing something let me know.

 

I don't have a good defense for that. Limiting civil unions would not be unconsititutional if there were granted the same benefits of married couples. Also, I think we sometimes forget that anybody can get married, just not to someone of the same sex.

Shall we try the same for race? Black people can get married, sure, just not to white people. You then aren't denying black people the right to marry - you're just deciding who they can marry. Exactly what's happening with gay people in America.

 

This I like, especially because I think the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't restrict who marries who based on race (don't know the case off hand and I may be wrong about a case existing). Race is a bit different than gender under Supreme Court review though, so I'm not sure that point would work. I would like to see how the court would rule on that.

 

Again, I'm not against gay marriage here, but I would prefer the states to keep their power of liscencing with no government intervention. Just my inner federalist coming out in me :P.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really know how that would change a court ruling
Perhaps we're on two different pages here - you're thinking in a common law frame of reference while I think in a civil law frame of reference. It doesn't quite matter, however.

 

What I meant with my post is: passing a law (federal, state, provincial, whatever) allowing one to marry someone of their same sex would allow everyone, not just homosexuals, to pursue such a marriage; it doesn't give more rights to homosexuals, unless they had less rights to begin with.

 

I think the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't restrict who marries who based on race
It depends on when such a ruling was issued, though - I'm pretty sure that in 1910 such a case wouldn't have even obtained a Supreme Court hearing. Society changes in a relatively short time, and the law should reflect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think in due time the states will pass gay marriage legislation, although I'm sure there will be a couple of holdouts.

 

I think the Federal system can work, but it must be pretty heart-wrenching if your State is one of the holdouts and you have to move away from your home just to marry the person you love. The very fact that you could probably guess to a high degree of accuracy which States it would be 'holding out' is pretty sad to be honest.

 

Not that i'm saying it would be any different if we had a federal-style system here. I can't imagine many of the traditionally Conservative constituencies voting yes to gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really know how that would change a court ruling
Perhaps we're on two different pages here - you're thinking in a common law frame of reference while I think in a civil law frame of reference. It doesn't quite matter, however.

 

What I meant with my post is: passing a law (federal, state, provincial, whatever) allowing one to marry someone of their same sex would allow everyone, not just homosexuals, to pursue such a marriage; it doesn't give more rights to homosexuals, unless they had less rights to begin with.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. I wasn't saying that legalizing gay marriage gave more privileges/rights to homosexuals. My only small objection to that statement is only a technicality. I realize that the movement is called the "gay rights" movement, but I dislike throwing around the word "right". Marriage is not legally defined as a right in United States politics. I understand that not being able to marry the one you love can be a big deal, but let's not act like (all) people against gay marriage are right depriving loons.

--

We can debate federalism all we want. The good thing about federalism is that some states will be ahead of the pack and will be able to have more progressive laws than the entire nation itself (as seen with Wyoming and women's suffrage in the 1800s and some states with gay marriage). The bad thing is that some states will be holdouts (southern states and civil rights). I personally like the federal system (likely because I grew up in it) and would prefer if the federal government stay out of things like liscencing.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that not being able to marry the one you love can be a big deal, but let's not act like (all) people against gay marriage are right depriving loons.

 

There is literally no rational reason to disapprove of the legalization of gay marriage other than "muh religion" or "I just don't like it", neither of which have the credibility to stand up in court, let alone deprive an entire population of people of their basic human rights. Let's play around with your sentence a bit:

 

I understand that not being able to marry the one you love can be a big deal, but let's not act like (all) people against interracial marriage are right depriving loons.

 

What should we call someone who is against granting human beings the rights promised to them by their government? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who was adamantly opposed to gay marriage who was not in fact a "right-depriving loon".

Edited by LCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised this is happening, I expect many other countries to follow suit. The only argument against it really is just religious people and please correct me if I'm wrong, but religion in western countries seems to be losing its following. I can't see why we shouldn't just allow it, I am in no way religious so I have no objection against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think with the decline they'd be encouraging more people not less to get involved with Religion, but logic, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think with the decline they'd be encouraging more people not less to get involved with Religion, but logic, eh?

 

Are you talking about the fact they made it illegal for the CoE to perform gay marriages? If so, it's fairly understandable. They want more people to be involved with their religion, but not at the expense of destroying their religion. I mean, you can make everyone a member of CoE by saying that being CoE means being able to breath, but then it wouldn't be CoE anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think with the decline they'd be encouraging more people not less to get involved with Religion, but logic, eh?

 

Are you talking about the fact they made it illegal for the CoE to perform gay marriages? If so, it's fairly understandable. They want more people to be involved with their religion, but not at the expense of destroying their religion. I mean, you can make everyone a member of CoE by saying that being CoE means being able to breath, but then it wouldn't be CoE anymore.

I don't think "not married to a person of the same sex" is the only criteria for being a Christian.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"Homosexuality isn't natural"

>Homosexual behavior is known to exist in over 1,500 species of animals

>Homophobia (which isn't an accurate word because intolerance is not fear, but can instead be a product of it) is found, as far as we known, only in humans.

 

How does it sound to say "I'm afraid of homosexuality" or "I'm afraid of gay people" ? And then proceeding to speak and act against it. I think that kind of legislation against something that is what we have strong evidence of, a biological occurrence, is on the losing side of history.

Edited by TakerMayFire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.