Updated Tuesday afternoon
From Hansard:
Sexual Orientation Discrimination
That the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Kevin Brennan.]
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 100.
Division lists here. The debate record of points of order prior to the vote starts here (scroll to end).
Update Analysis of the voting by The Public Whip
BBC Gay adoption rules ‘rail-roaded’
Telegraph Last ditch attempt to block gay rights bill
Statement on SOR vote from Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor
Tuesday morning
Letters to The Times include one from the Prolocutors of the Convocations of Canterbury and York.
See Bishops’ opposition to laws on gay rights
Telegraph MPs back gay rights Bill despite protests
Daily Mail You’re abusing Parliament over gay vote, Catholic leader tells Blair
Update Tuesday afternoon
Ekklesia Christian groups told not to ‘play on people’s fears’ over Sexual Orientation Regulations and also Anglicans pin hopes on unelected bishops to block anti-discrimination measures
Faithworks press release Faithworks urges Christians to read the Sexual Orientation Regulations and draw their own conclusions and also A brief guide to the Sexual Orientation Regulations (PDF)
I think we can safely say,
“The ayes have it. The ayes have it.”
Why does the good woman have to say “widespread” when it most obviously isnt?
And it’s not than some people haven’t been lying their heads off – and seem bent on continuing to do so.
These shocking anti-gay letters in the Times from anglicans show how necessary the new regulations are. Are they writing officially or as individuals?
Is any one countering them ?
WTF is meant by ‘marriage and the family’ ?
LGBT people don’t marry or have families? …. Is that it ? !
I’m so sick of the Roman rhetoric about closing their adoption agencies. As a teacher of special education (12 yrs) and education as a whole (21 yrs), I’ve had some wonderful same sex couples who have provided safe, secure, nurturing homes to children, esp. special needs and abused children. On the other hand I’ve had some absolutely abominable and possibly abusive adoptive and foster parents who were “straight” and Christian. Some people adopt for the check in this country (US), not sure about the UK.
That said, who makes the Catholic Church the experts on who makes the best parents?
It would be interesting to discover just how many of the NOES were from the newly gay-friendly Conservative Party. Are Mr Cameron’s days numbered? Or are those who voted NOE certain that they will not be called upon to serve on the Opposition Front Bench?
Given the backwards religious thinking on display here, claimed as core and essence to doctrine or faith, do we even want the Cardinal to run our soup kitchens, let alone our adoption agencies? As a religious leader he is, after all, asserting his innate legacy privileges for closing doors and denying services to people whom, above all, he has vigorous legacy privileges to define as bad. Forget the facts of other peoples’ daily lives, what about the Cardinal’s privileges? Or is this simply another step in the agonziing, slow, public death of homosexuality as the most reliable contentious wedge issue… Read more »
Here we go again….. I am starting to find all of this somewhat boring and tiring. For good or all – and if you disagree then please argue with me – I am finding more evidence in favour of a hypothesis I am developing which I have alluded to before. It is that (and here I coin what I think is a new term) objectivist approaches to religion inevitably attempt to recreate whatever social prejudices were around when the religion was set up, and the more objectivist the more virulent will be the attacks (Nigeria anyone?). As one by one… Read more »
Craig Roberts: Interesting comments. Have you read Andrew Sullivan’s review of Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book, “The Enemy Within”? Sullivan makes a clear case for your thesis, the convergence of what you term “objectivist” religions. He finds this convergence witnessed by D’Souza, who praises extreme Islamists, calling for their “Christianist” counterparts to establish authoritarian, theocratic, and explicitly anti-modernist states along lines similar to those that Islamists establish within the ummah. In a sense, D’Souza is taking Jerry Falwell’s and Pat Robertson’s remarks about 9/11 to their logical conclusion: if the US had it coming, because it had sheltered feminists and homosexuals,… Read more »
_…obejectivist forms of religion (other words might be literalist, fundamentalist – I shy away from realist at this point) will by a law of inevitablitiy end up in the same place._
Mr Cupitt’s point, nearly.
By all means, don’t shun away from realist/idealist/neo-platonist, manichaean and hierarchic, because this is what these teachings are.
Nothing to do with God or Christ or the Bible – even less the Gospel – but all to do with the Ways of the World.
Thanks Craaig this makes much sense. A very helpful way of thinking about this. I am just reading Daphne Hampson’s After Christianity, and the two (yours and hers) go well, to my mind, though different. I must say that as a theologian she is a breath of fresh air. I would love every one to read,or re-read her book. Few male theologians come any where near to her work, it must be said. Daphne Hampson’s treatment of patriarchy is especially relevant at the moment , vis-a-vis both SORs and the present troubles of the Anglican Communion. I am under no… Read more »
‘It is that (and here I coin what I think is a new term) objectivist approaches to religion inevitably attempt to recreate whatever social prejudices were around when the religion was set up, and the more objectivist the more virulent will be the attacks (Nigeria anyone?).’ I find the above to be the nub of your argument Craig and find it clear and helpful. However I should like you to elucidate your statement below, if you wouldn’t mind. I want to understand the basis for increasing anti-gay prejudice in society. Or have I misunderstood this one ? ‘As one by… Read more »
The ayes and noes are listed at the link that Simon has provided. My understanding is that the Conservatives had a free vote. Will double check on that. There are a number of MPs from all parties, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem who voted against and I think a Plaid Cymru who voted both which is an abstention. The lists make interestin reading -the Conservatives on the list are not all “headbangers” but include a number of moderates/ more socially liberal types including Ken Clarke, Peter Luff and others. The same as you’ve got people like Peter Kilfoyle on the labour… Read more »
Daphne Hampson’s After Christianity I’ve got it too, but I found it a bit laboured and it wants to hang on to theism whilst rejecting Christianity – because it is intrinsically patriarchal. The God you have is somewhat made by the tradition and its contents that describe it – so what’s her God? She has it defined by something she calls Western spirituality, but I’m not sure this works. Still is suits her sort of religious theistic humanism, and she has rejected taking up a sort of feminist network-type neo-polytheism. I know also because I once asked her when she… Read more »
Thanks too, for this Charlotte.
It all comes together. It all makes sense.
The book sounds interesting.
I am struck by the murderous intent that seems to infuse these fundamentalist postions.
‘Kill if you need to.’ Is that it ?
We seem to learn nothing from history.
We need Daphne Hampson more than ever…..
Daphne Hampson’s After Christianity ‘I’ve got it too, but I found it a bit laboured and it wants to hang on to theism whilst rejecting Christianity – because it is intrinsically patriarchal. The God you have is somewhat made by the tradition and its contents that describe it – so what’s her God? She has it defined by something she calls Western spirituality, but I’m not sure this works. Still is suits her sort of religious theistic humanism, and she has rejected taking up a sort of feminist network-type neo-polytheism. I know also because I once asked her when she… Read more »
Procedural objectors should address the Opposition Front Bench and Mr Cameron in particular. It was with the agreement of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition that the matter was dealt with as it was. Mr Cameron was making quite sure that the Conservative ‘nasties’ did not have the floor of the House and thereby give the lie to the ‘New Conservative’ position he so wants the Country to believe and vote for.
Quite Anglicanus,
and as I said on the thread about the Archbishop’s letters; If the fellas had had any r e a l concern for proper proceedings being undermined (as opposed to a feigned one), there would have been lavish opportunity over at least a decade to bring that concern up in both Houses.
But as it is…