Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

UK: we’re going to the chapel (or synogogue)

Timothy Kincaid

March 3rd, 2010

From the Times:

The House of Lords voted to lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in churches and other religious premises last night.

Peers voted by 95 to 21 – a majority of 74 – to lift the ban which previously prevented gays and lesbians from getting “married” in such places.

This amendment, which only applies to churches that endorse same-sex ceremonies, lifts one of the last distinctions between civil partnerships and marriage. The commons has yet to approve the change but that is fairly certain.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

David C.
March 3rd, 2010 | LINK

The rest of the world pulls away in the distance, as the United States falls further and further behind. Once a shining example of equality and human rights, the US is quickly finding itself increasingly a relic of its own socially conservative excesses.

Perhaps a new momentum will build for freedom, and the shock of the released energy will finally break us free from the last millennium and into a new age of equality and opportunity for all Americans, irrespective of which of their peers they choose to love.

AdrianT
March 3rd, 2010 | LINK

Well the goal should be to abolish the distinction between gay and straight relationships. I want to see straight people apply for civil partnerships and gay people get married too. Separate is not equal.

RCM
March 3rd, 2010 | LINK

Here’s hoping the Queen believes lesbians exist too, unlike her Great Grandmother (Queen Victoria) who wouldn’t sign a law banning them on account of their non-existence.

tavdy79
March 3rd, 2010 | LINK

95-21 sounds like impressive support – until you realise that there are 735 seats in the Lords, so it’s actually a 13%-3% split: over 84% of the Lords didn’t consider the issue important enough to vote.

Mihangel apYrs
March 3rd, 2010 | LINK

RCM

that’s great, great grandmother.

PS Victoria was a goer when young – she wore poor Albert out!

Fred in the UK
March 3rd, 2010 | LINK

In reply to tavdy79.

Few votes in the Lords get more than half of members to vote. Many members of the House have other occupations as well, and given that their membership is for life, a number of those 735 seats are held by those who are elderly and in poor health. So overall I would not read much into the turn-out.

RCM
March 3rd, 2010 | LINK

You’ll be right Mihangel, I was probably a whole “great” short. I did laugh, but I don’t really care much about what anyone does or did in bed, if they aren’t trying to do it me, or anyone that minds if they do.

I also agree with Fred’s point. At the House of Lord’s a low turnout is not important, if the Bill got through, and nothing sudden happens at the Commons, it will be law soon enough. Then Timothy Kincaid and all other concerned observers can stop getting totally confused by our currently rather silly legal situation regarding religious gay weddings.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.