The Quakers have issued this press release: Quakers greet Lords’ support for equal marriage.
The Unitarians issued Unitarians welcome further step forward for Same Sex Marriage.
The Evangelical Alliance published Christians must model real marriage to society
The Christian Institute sent this email to its mailing list: Deeply disappointed, but utterly resolved to keep proclaiming the truth. And later it published Wrecking marriage will ‘come back to bite’ PM.
The Campaign For Marriage issued this: Party machines push Bill through.
Christian Concern has issued this: Peers approve same sex marriage bill.
TBTG! Hallelujah! 😀
And of course the Queen will rubber stamp it, as she did in Canada and Aotearoa/NZ
All this of course began when the Lambeth Conference approved contraception in 1930. Not many people see the link…
Wonderful-grace filled news !
Typically misrepresented by some of these religious groups as steam-rollered etc when in truth all votes were free votes !
And so on …………
‘Let right be done.’
If the Campaign For Marriage genuinely thinks that party machines have much to do with voting in the House of Lords, it may go some way to explaining why their campaign was so unsuccessful. To wit, there has been little comment on why, exactly, the House of Lords produced that remarkable strong vote in favour of equal marriage. While a greater than 2 to 1 majority in the Commons was no surprise to many of us, few predicted an even greater majority in the Lords. One explanation may lie in the rather nasty ‘green ink’ lobbying campaign conducted by many… Read more »
Who ever said that democracy was dead. This result, from the house of peers – no less – gives hope to those in the country who are looking for social justice and equity. This ha obviously been allowed to happen – despite the strong opposition from bishops in the House of Lords!
Apparently or so I hear from a reliable source the retired bishops in the HofL all voted in favor of equal marriage. Now that is interesting. They don’t have to ‘toe the line’ according to whoever it is that decides where the line stands. Can anyone verify this? Thanks.
Interestingly, Anglican Mainstream are rowing back on their posting of “First they came…”. Somewhat dishonestly they have edited it without stating that they’ve edited it, and left the date alone, but have added a somewhat incomprehensible “no, it’s not relevant, but in fact it’s very relevant” coda.
“Of course what happened under the Third Reich is on a completely different scale! In terms of horror, brutality, unadulterated evil; we acknowledge that there is no comparison to what we face here in the UK now.”
Phew! I was worried Kristallnacht was just a day away, to be honest.
I hope the new pope won’t follow the horrible homophobic remarks of his theological adviser: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/papal-theologian-treating-homosexuals-with-dignity-means-telling-them-the-t/
I of course criticise the opposition for their approach to the bill and the whole proposal. However I don’t have a sense ‘if only they did this or that differently’ the result would be any different. The vehemence of the response early on – here I’m thinking Carey, Sentamu and the CofE press operation led almost overnight to a disappearance of the ‘gays against gay marriage’ grouping. Under the anti-gay onslaught (section 28 redux) that was always going to be the case and, knowing our opponents, the opposition were always going to let the mask slip and allow us to… Read more »
Dear Craig, Thanks for you thoughtful analysis. I particularly like the idea of levers not connected to anything – it conjured up the image of a bishop in all his flowing parliamentary robes in some rusting signal box on a branch line where no train had passed since the 19th century straining at the signal lever connected to points at a rural railway halt celebrated by John Betjeman that had long since been taken up by Beeching. As far as the amendment to the Lords’ Amendments produced by David Burrowes, it seems to have sunk without trace. Did the Speaker… Read more »
Indeed, one of the most extraordinary things about the whole saga is that now it is over the press are no longer interested. There was nothing in The Guardian, nothing on the main BBC news and only a brief mention on the main news on Radio 4. It’s been a nine day wonder, the press has moved on to other jucier news. There will be a flurry of interest when the first marriages are celebrated and that will be it. How are C4M and all the other associated groups going to keep up the pressure, year after year, when this… Read more »
Dear Tom, I agree with everything you said. I think the last minute wrecking amendment must have just dropped out due to time. In any case the Lords amendments were all government amendments not just anything the Lords happened to just throw in and although we have two chambers it’s the same government in both! Usual practice is to accept all Lords amendments that the government supports. It’s not meant to be a free for all or another go at Report stage. I think it’s more about self publicity than anything else plus a desire to make a nuisance of… Read more »
Three cheers for the Quakers and the Unitarians
Indeed, I think Craig’s “pulling on levers that weren’t connected to anything” is an excellent summary of the whole opposition position. C4M and their friends assumed that same-sex marriage mattered as much to everyone else as it did to them, and confused middle-aged small-c conservatives saying things like “well, I wouldn’t myself” or “well, what do they…do?” with committed, obsessive, irreconcilables. This is why smart political parties don’t just ask people where they stand on issues, but how much they care. A lot of (largely younger) voters are actively in favour of same-sex marriage, as an equality and decency issue.… Read more »
One more point for the CofE to consider. The notable thing about the passage of the same-sex marriage legislation is that the opposing churches had precisely zero impact on the passage of the bill. No amendments they had put down or supported were accepted. None of the lengthy and feverish reports they commissioned, or the dubious academic research they championed, had the slightest impact. The demands for protections for registrars and teachers, whether demanded in good or bad faith, were ignored. The “Quadruple Lock” appeared drafted as much to provide an irrefutable “you’re protected, so shut up” as out of… Read more »
WARM WARM WELCOME TO THE EQUAL MARRIAGE act!!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/britain-gay-marriage-legal_n_3610525.html
ABOUT AN HOUR SINCE.
REJOICE!
It is remarkable how much the CofE (and other religious groupings) have shown how they have misread the signs of the times. Of course they have every right to state a contrary view, but it has to be cogent and sensitive. And after the debacle over women bishops I suspect many people have finally dismissed the relevance of the CofE to public discourse and now just close their ears or ignore what it says. Sympathy for local clergy who have to struggle even harder to make themselves heard against this background. And may I add that, as a retired person,… Read more »
Roger is right, this is supported by many retired people -look at the Lords’.
I too, am retired and have not suddenly lost my liberal convictions, or taken leave of my senses.
Among the refreshing aspects of attending Quaker meetings are the quality of discussion and the respect paid to everyone’s contribution. Elders genuinely want to know what everyone thinks, and as a result Quakers have been able to move forward to embrace SSM. The hierarchies of the Church of England and the Church in Wales have not the slightest interest in what ordinary churchpeople think, and I don’t suppose they’ve bothered to read Linda Woodhead’s research either. They hand down policies from on high, and have never made themselves look more ridiculous than in the matter of SSM.
Helen speaks my mind. Very much so.