I honestly wouldn't have believed it if you hadn't given a link.

I wonder what Church would do if the couple declared that they "intended" to remain celibate then changed their minds ... this sort of thing really does defy belief.

These are supposed to be the finest theological minds in the UK and they seem to be permanently fascinated by other people's genitals. No wonder they're losing their influence - which is the real problem of course. They're frightened that the power that they used to wield over the rest of us is waning fast. Bloody good job too!

The view from Taipei

http://www.nma.tv/gay-marriage-uk-legalization-vote-david-cameron/

The gay marriage debate is running in the UK House of Commons at the moment. A number of MPs who were going to abstain from voting have said that they will now support the Bill as a result of the vile emails, death threats and other communications that they have received from the anti faction. Yay! Another result.

Here's the speech that David Lammy MP intended to give today. Unfortunately backbench speakers are being limited to four minutes each so he had to cut most of it: They must be queuing up to have a go!

http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/Speech_on_Same_Sex_Marriage

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-debate-politics-live-blog#block-51113eeab5790c59379389a4

Interesting:

"Andrea Leadsom, the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, said she would be positively abstaining. She would go through the yes lobby to show her support for gay rights. But she would go through the no lobby to because she thinks that the legislation is ill-considered and that the government does not have a mandate for it.

MPs are not allowed to formally abstain, but if they vote for both sides, as they can, they can register the fact that they want to sit on the fence. If they choose not to vote at all, no one knows whether they are abstaining on principle, or whether they are just absent."

The vote in favour was 400-175, a good solid majority.

Timeline: 500 years of gay rights in Britain

1533 Buggery Act: Britain's first civil sodomy law passed during the reign of Henry VIII

1861 Offences Against the Person Act removes death penalty for sodomy

1885 Labouchere Amendment introduces offence of gross indecency – in practice, the law is used to prosecute homosexuals when sodomy could not be proven

1895 Oscar Wilde sentenced to two years' hard labour for gross indecency

1954 Lord Montagu imprisoned for 12 months for “consensual homosexual offences” in landmark case along with two other men

1957 Wolfenden Report concludes: “Homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence”

1965 Tory Whip Lord Arran proposes the decriminalisation of homosexual acts

1966 Conservative MP Humphry Berkeley proposes decriminalisation. He loses his seat at the general election. Labour MP Leo Abse takes up the issue and persuades Home Secretary Roy Jenkins to support him

1967 Sexual Offences Act allows homosexual acts in private between consenting men aged over 21 in England and Wales. Homosexual behaviour remains illegal elsewhere in the UK

1981 Homosexuality decriminalised in Scotland and in Northern Ireland in the following year

1988 Local Government Act prohibits “the intentional promotion of homosexuality” in a provision known as Section 28

1992 Homosexuality decriminalised in Isle of Man

1994 Age of consent reduced to 18 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act

1999 Lifting of ban on gays in armed forces

2000 Age of consent equalised at 16

2002 Adoption and Children Act allows same-sex couples to adopt

2003 Section 28 repealed

2004 Civil Partnership Act: same-sex couples granted same rights as those in civil marriages

2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations prohibit discrimination in provision of goods and services on grounds of sexual orientation

2008 Offence of hate crime introduced on grounds of sexual or gender identity

2009 David Cameron apologises over introduction of Section 28; same-sex couples given equal rights to IVF

2011 Civil partnerships allowed in places of worship

Hmmm ... assuming passage by the House of Lords (they can only defer passage, anyway) I wonder how one can transfer a Civil Partnership to a "marriage" as the Civil Partnership arrangement will, presumably, be made redundant.

One for the Embassy soon ......

Get married in Gay Pareee!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/france-gay-marriage-adoption-bill-assembly-_n_2669974.html

Get married in Gay Pareee!

http://www.huffingto..._n_2669974.html

You can even find it on BBC, and no doubt other respectable organs, without sinking to Huffington level!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21433198

Although the Gay Marriage Bill has been passed in the Commons, it can still be rejected by the Lords. Meanwhile, the revolt against PM Cameron is gaining strength, and this issue may cost him his job.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/21/peers-asked-to-reject-gay-marriage-bill

One thing the issue does is make some people you'd normally consider at least reasonably well informed if not intelligent look downright stupid.

Norman Tebbit and Jeremy Irons, for example, both asked if they'd be allowed to marry their sons. Maybe they thought there was no problem with heterosexuals marrying their daughters. Or maybe they just didn't think at all.

All you need to do to confuse a straight man is to start talking about where he puts his willy. Works every time...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-let-gays-get-married-we-must-be-bonkers-8629685.html

Some of the old buffers in the House of Lords tried to get a 'wrecking bill' through today that would kill the gay marriage bill. They were defeated by a majority of 242. It's time to get that wedding dress ordered!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Same sex marriage in the UK? The ever friendly ex Archbishop Carey is again trying to put in a wrecking amendment in the House of Lords. He never gives up. I suppose the Bishops are a little miffed after a CoE vicar called the present Archbishop of Canterbury the W word on twitter after his absurd comments in the last debate. Or as the church press office replied "it is unseemly to call the Archbishop of Canterbury an onanist ;-) " (I had to look that one up.) I don't think this is going to end with out casualties. Hopefully a secular institution will be the result.

Some of the old buffers in the House of Lords tried to get a 'wrecking bill' through today that would kill the gay marriage bill. They were defeated by a majority of 242. It's time to get that wedding dress ordered!

While technically correct that’s a bit unfair on some of the “old buffers”, as although some who supported the “wrecking bill” like Lord Tebbit were fiercely against gay marriage (so much so that they probably lost more support than they won) many others strongly supported the principle of gay marriage but opposed the way the Bill was put forward.

Their point and the reason for their opposition, for anyone who is unaware of British government process, was that the government had no right to introduce social legislation that they had not been voted in to introduce and that had not been in their manifesto and detailed in the Queen’s speech of what “her” government intended to do. As the British Constitution is unwritten and largely based on precedent they saw this as setting a dangerous precedent which would allow any future government to introduce any social legislation they liked, even if it was undemocratic and had no popular support. Many of those who voted against the Bill supported gay marriage, but opposed the procedure as “an abuse of the democratic process”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I take most of this type of “research” with a pretty hefty pinch of salt, and the two studies of gay adoption/parenting given here are prime examples of why.

What both of them (and the “research” by the University of Melbourne this year and that by the University of California in 2010 are flawed for similar reasons) failed to make clear was that the ratings/scores on which the findings were based were made by the parents with NO objective/independent testing. Fair enough, that applied equally to those “raised in traditional families with a mom and a dad” as it did to “the children of same-sex parents”, but the difference was that the “same-sex parents” had volunteered in answer to advertisements in the gay and lesbian media which made it clear that it was comparing them and their parenting skills with “traditional families”, while the comparison group of “traditional” parents were totally unaware of the comparison and thought comparisons were being made on a regional/ethnic/socio-economic basis. The possibility (probability?) of the same-sex parents exaggerating their scores for obvious reasons has been completely ignored.

Both studies also failed to make any mention of possible bias on the part of those doing the “impartial” research: Dr Simon Crouch, who ran the Melbourne study, has a gay male partner and two young adopted boys, while Dr Nanette Gartrell and Dr Henny Bos, who co-ran the California study of lesbian parents, are both in lesbian gay marriages.

I have little experience of gay parental adoption, but while I am sure there is no actual sexual abuse (or “sex” per se) involved in the two cases I know personally I have very serious doubts about whether it really is a good idea on anything but economic grounds, and far from setting my mind at rest flawed “research” like this makes me wonder if those who should be in a position to be better informed, such as the researchers, are covering something up.

Nearly there girls...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/15/gay-marriage-house-of-lords_n_3599456.html?1373906139&utm_hp_ref=uk

Edited July 15, 201312 yr by sustento

Gay Marriage Bill receives Royal Assent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23338279

Time to get the wedding planner in!

Looks like it's time for or an upgrade :-) I wonder if the civil partnership came with an lifetime free upgrade. Time to check the small print.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

A great day for Norman Tebbit and his son, Charles Moore and his dog

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/17/norman-tebbit-gay-marriage_n_3610680.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Oh no......now I will have to get married a second time LOL

Husband and I tied the knot in Canada just over 5 years ago ( been together 22 .... yikes that sounds long since I'm only 48) he just obtained his Canadian citizenship.

I'm really pleased about this news as England is home and we plan on 6 months here and 6 months in the UK.

Looks like it's time for or an upgrade :-) I wonder if the civil partnership came with an lifetime free upgrade. Time to check the small print.

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Outline details were contained in the Bill (now the law). Its not an "upgrade", but a "conversion", to be made available through the post for a fee of £100 although its not due to come on line until next year.