Coffee House

Commons shadow boxing on gay marriage

10 December 2012

5:57 PM

10 December 2012

5:57 PM

Today’s urgent question on gay marriage was largely shadow boxing for the statement on it, which has now been brought forward to tomorrow. Maria Miller insisted that the chance of a legal challenge to try and forces churches that don’t want to marry gay couples to do so was negligible. But Cameron’s comments about allowing those religious demoninations that want to marry gay couples to do so, led to Edward Leigh calling for another consultation on this issue.

Interestingly, just before the urgent question started John Randall, the Conservative Chief Whip, and Greg Hands, another member of the whips office arrived in the chamber.

The Tory questions on the issue were fairly evenly split between those in favour of same-sex marriage and those opposed. The culture secretary dealt with the questions with courtesy, she sensibly wants to take some of the heat out of this debate. But even she could not contain a flash of irritation when Matthew Offord asked if the government was now going to consult on polygamy.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • james higham

    Doesn’t much matter whether it is Dave’s vacillating or actual opposition which does it. As long as it doesn’t go through – that’s the only important point.

  • http://atoryblog.blogspot.com Man in a Shed

    Suddenly there an unholy rush to “knock this on the head” as Boris puts it. We have people who voted for Clause 28, now voting for its 180 degr opposite as they argue there’s votes in it and they will look modern, ( they are spectacularly wrong here. )

    It is essentially the rape of our democracy and society by the metropolitan elite. They have no mandate, have failed to consult properly, have failed to answer the counter points made and just dismissed opposition as bigotry. And all this from a party that is supposed to be conservative and defend liberty.

    This used to be a free country – no longer.

    • Fergus Pickering

      You are assuming that homosexual marriage is an unpopular policy. Polling research shows that it is not. It may be unwise or even wicked, though surely not as wicked as Socialism, but it is not unpopular.

  • Augustus

    If you define ‘marriage’ as the act of committing a man and a woman to a permanent relationship that includes joint residence and exclusive sexual relations, i.e. only those two criteria – residence and sex – suffice to make a ‘marriage’, then it seems reasonable that homosexual couples are perfectly equal to normal couples, and so it makes no sense to disallow both to ‘marry’ legally. But that is not the whole character of marriage.
    Marriage is the name we give to the creation of a human reproductive team. Only heterosexual teams satisfy this function, both prenatal and postnatal. Because after birth the history of most mammalian species shows the advantage of pairs with complementary roles in caring for and providing resources for the offspring. This, too, means heterosexual team members. Not only should these teams remain stable for long periods, it has also proven useful to extend the pairing to provide a reserve of support in raising the grandchildren, and for mutual support of the couple as they journey into old age.

    Homosexual pairings are not reproduction teams. Homosexuals can define their domestic unions, and put it in writing, and rely on it being enforceable as any other contract. But there is no public advantage to encouraging and institutionalizing a bond between two people, and jamming it into the rules for marriage, when it serves no purpose relating to human reproduction. The concept of a ‘gay marriage’ is offensive to most people of all creeds simply because their intuitive perception recognizes that the purpose of marriage is not simply to legitimize sexual relations between two people, but is something a lot deeper, that leaves homosexual pairs standing outside this recognition, even when they purport to wonder why.

    • Adrian Drummond

      You are articulating an argument that curiously seems beyond the understanding of the vast majority of people.

      • Baron

        if you define ‘vast majority of people’ being equal to Adrian Drummond that you are spot on, sir.

  • Seasurfer1

    Boris is pulling a good flanker on Cameron. Cameron will lose enough tory voters to prevent him acheiving a ! and him ! a majority. The party will kick him out and implant Boris. As I have said he has lost our historically rock solid vote.
    Stop this stupid madness – Cameron!!!, because the Churches will bring you down with the internet. Emails are already in abundance, suggesting voters abstain from casting a vote for the guilty parties.

  • Seasurfer1

    Cameron will not be getting any votes from our Family

  • Daniel Maris

    Good on Offord, he obviously reads this blog. :) It’s a perfectly reasonable question, given that the main arguments put forward for gay marriage are (a) personal fulfilment (are devout polygamists to be denied personal fulfilment) and (b) equality (are Muslims and African animists going to be denied equality?).

  • Baron

    As the great Mark Steyn says ‘if gender doesn’t matter, why should the number do?’

    Why shouldn’t a child born to a man’s mistress have the same rights as the one he sired with his wife? Is that equality?

    • the viceroy’s gin

      …and why should the bovine zoological genus of the mistress/wife matter?

      “Are you my daaaaaaaaahdy?”

      • Baron

        one too many gins, my blogging friend, but to the point and correct, we may get there one day if we’re lucky.

  • Adrian Drummond

    What an unmitigated mess. Intellectually this proposition is absurd regardless of an individual’s religious belief or attitude towards homosexuality. Why not now allow a loving marriage between a pet and its owner?

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Yes, but if the same sex couple introduces a flock of sheep to their marriage, they can have the sheep artificially inseminated, thus starting their family.

      • Baron

        not one too many but two too many, viceroy, have a cold shower, pull yourself together, dzis isa saroius debatink blok

  • http://georgeigler.com/ George Igler

    I fail to see why Dr Offord’s question should have proved such a ministerial irritant. It was an entirely sensible one.

    Once the precedent of re-defining marriage has been established in law, there is nothing to prevent it being redefined again in a polygamous direction. To raise this question is not scaremongering, it’s just pointing to the reality of what is already taking place in jurisdictions where marriage has already been re-defined. Almost every argument that has been used by the marriage reformists, can be applied to subsequent reforms, and a powerful non-discriminatory argument exists too. Anthropologists use the
    terms monogamous/endogamous marriage and European/non-European marriage types, almost interchangeably.

    As progressive politics takes hold of a societal institution change is never a one time deal, constant flux becomes the established order; and it never loosens its grip either. We all know this. Nobody with an ounce of sense is remotely fooled by the protestations that further salami slices are not inevitably thundering down the pipeline… cue Mr Telemachus.

    (Indeed those who reluctantly voted in favour of civil partnerships in parliament, were similarly bought off with resounding assurances that gay “marriage” would *never* follow. How soon we forget. The same was done to hoodwink the Synod into accepting female ordination. Bishops? Don’t be preposterous… ad nauseaum ad infinitum.)

    • Baron

      George Igle, sir, quite right, but then the battle was near lost when civil partnerships were brought in allowing gays to inherit, then adopt children. What benefits accrue to the society from the former, what if a child when he/she grows up cannot come to terms with their gay partners? This of course doesn’t concern our progressive politicians who keep sticking to the dogma of absolute equality in a deluded hope that it brings progress. Madness.

    • HooksLaw

      Women bishops? Shocking. Keep women at the wash tub where they belong.

      • TomTom

        Extremist.

    • telemachus

      Not sure of your point
      Next compulsory homosexual relationships?
      Is this your coming out

      • http://georgeigler.com/ George Igler

        Crumbs, you guys really just have straw-men, don’t you?

  • http://twitter.com/PhilKean1 @PhilKean1

    .
    This, from James Delingpole

    “chaps, who’d like nothing better than to have their partnership solemnised”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100193601/gay-marriage-or-economic-armageddon-which-do-you-think-matters-more/

    James, can we PLEASE keep it clean !
    .

    • http://atoryblog.blogspot.com Man in a Shed

      Wait till you see what’s going to be in the primary curriculum once Dave has redefined marriage. Parents who object can look forward to a visit from the same social services who remove children from foster parents who vote the wrong way.

      If you think I’m joking take a look at Canada ….

  • salieri

    Without wishing to stray into levity, but purely as matter of biological practicality, one of the challenging side-effects of this proposal is that non-consummation of marriage could no longer be permitted as grounds for divorce (the first of five laid down in 1969, if I remember correctly) because it would surely discriminate in favour of heterosexuals. Unless of course you can define what ‘consummation’ might actually involve for gay couples, a thought that some would prefer not to dwell upon before breakfast…
    It’s complicated enough as it is. The readers’ letters column of the Irish Catholic Herald once contained this well-intentioned but troubling advice: “Dear Mr. X, in answer to your question concerning the consummation of your forthcoming marriage, Catholic teaching holds that unless the four stages of consummation be present – namely, erectio, introductio, penetratio and ejaculatio – the marriage has not been properly consummated and is, consequently, considered null and void. And the same applies if the above stages are performed in the wrong order.”
    Ah, ’tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

    • Robert_Eve

      Love it!!

    • HooksLaw

      There are 5 grounds for divorce. None of which is ‘non consummation’ (‘refusing to pay for housekeeping’ is ). Those kind people at .gov.uk even advise you that you can in fact have a do-it-yourself divorce if you want.

      Such is the modern sanctity of marriage.

      • salieri

        Yes, thank you, you’re quite right – non-consummation constitutes grounds for annullification, not divorce. So, presumably, henceforth nullity will have to be, er, null.

      • TomTom

        Such is the modern sanctity of marriage………in civil law

        • HooksLaw

          Aren’t you satisfied rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s? I would just concentrate on your immortal soul if I were you.

          • TomTom

            NO ! The State is an illegitimate construct that should be destroyed. The Evils of 20th Century Politics emerged from The State as unleashed by the French Revolution. It is the Reification of Evil. The State is Leviathan and crushes all initiative and conscience – it enslaves and de-humanises – it liquidated Kulaks and turned to mass-slavery to build the White Sea Canal. It incarcerates and enslaves. It is the vessel for the weak and corrupt to bully and intimidate their fellow citizens. It hax never been so evil as in the past 12 decades

      • Fergus Pickering

        I don’t think marriage was ever very sanctified, do you? What sentimental tosh. Marriage was about property.

    • Hexhamgeezer

      I suspect that consummation will go the same way as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. Just how will consummation be defined for either sex? “Dol you take this lady to be your lawfull wedded ‘wife?” “I DilDo” ?

      • the viceroy’s gin

        “Do you take these sheep to be your lawfully wedded flock, to have and to molest , ’til death do you part or you get a taste for mutton?”

        “And do you, ewe, take this beastialist, and promise to hold still for shearing and anything else this deviant dreams up?”

        “I now pronounce you, um, well, I don’t quite know what the hell you are, let alone how to pronounce it.”

      • albertcooper

        Well its “Buggery” plain and simple

      • HooksLaw

        There is always the Bill Clinton definition.

        • Curnonsky

          Bill’s definition was “eatin’ ain’t cheatin’!”.

    • MikeF

      ‘introductio?’ Sounds like the parts involved have to be given names and then shown to each other with some words along the lines of : ‘Now this is Jim and this is Susan and I am sure you are going to get along really well with each other.’

    • Robert Welstead

      Well thats sorted then. The four stages of consummation are just as easy between two men!

      • salieri

        If you say so. Just my ignorance, I’m sure, but what about any of them, between two women?

  • telemachus

    I have posted before about the irrelevance of this to other than a few in the Westminster Village
    And of course the crackpots of UKIP and a few misfits who post hereabouts
    I read somewhere that sanctimonious visitors form other sites would be prepared to go to prison to prevent gay marraige in their church sect.
    I which case I am all in favour.

    • albertcooper

      I now declare you Husband & Husband !

      • Baron

        albertcooper, sir, it’s Wife & Wife actually.

  • EJ

    The Tories will destroy any chance they had for 2015 if they go ahead with this. While they pander to the will of a small, aggressive, metropolitan minority (once again), they are alienating vast swathes of their traditional support base across the country.

    Conservative voters want focussed action on the economy, the EU, immigration, cultural displacement, Islamisation, crime, feral gangs etc. Instead they are forced to watch this politically correct charade play out while their country descends into an impoverished, third rate, third world, hell-hole. Shame on Cameron and shame on the Tories who go along with this trendy waste of time and energy.

    • Vulture

      Completely correct, EJ> either Cameron is a conscious, Philby-type sleeper sent in by his controllers to destroy the Conservative party. (UKIP call him ‘Agent Dave’ for this very reason), or he is pathologically, indeed terminally, stupid.
      The end result is the same: just as Lloyd George was the last nominally Liberal PM in a Coalition, so Cameron will be the last nominally Tory one. With this issue he is wilfully adding the finishing touches to his monumental work of destruction. No-one except a militant minority of a militant minority gives a damn about Gay weddings- but millions of traditional Tories ( and not only Tories) see it as undermining marriage. Maybe they shouldn’t feel this way – but they do. So why is Dave deliberately pissing on such people from a great height. I’d like to think its just because he’s an arrogant tosser with shit for brains, but it may be more sinister than that.
      Gay marriage is a typical case of fiddling while Rome burns. And we will all soon start feeling the heat.

      • telemachus

        If you are correct it is excellent news
        Reasonable Government for the foreseeable future

        • Kevin

          It is not reasonable to deny marriage to asexual couples or to multi-party relationships of any sexuality or none.

    • telemachus

      “immigration, cultural displacement, Islamisation,”
      No they do not
      The majority of Tory voters could not give a fig about the been and gone gay issues and regard immigation and the Muslim faith as realities which enhance our landscape

      • TomTom

        Troll Boy – how Muslim is your neighbourhood ?

        • telemachus

          Like the vicar I live in a Christian neighbourhood but my next door neighbour but one are a muslim family who I treasure

          • TomTom

            “whom” not “who”. However try living in a Muslim population centre rather than in a White Ghetto

          • MikeF

            I wonder what they think of your ‘treasuring’ them. Do they find amusing if slightly mystifying or insulting and patronising?

      • The_Missing_Think

        “The English have been mongrels since the rape of Boudicca’s daughters”

        Telemachus 28 October 2012 (Load more comments req’d).
        _____

        “British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says” – National Geographic

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html
        _____

        Well?

        • HooksLaw

          Don’t we share 90% of our genes with frogs? To be fair, with some people its closer to 95%.
          Creationists will happily point out that in fact we share 50% of our genes with bananas.

          • The_Missing_Think

            White people are blocked from accessing race laws, that’s why it’s always, but always, whites in the dock defending themselves from non-white accusations, never ever the other way round. The historical track recored of the EHRC confirms this as fact. There is zero infastructure for white people on this very important issue.

            I find this abusive, racially abusive. Not banana abusive or frog abusive.

            Can you see the difference and how stupid you are?

        • http://georgeigler.com/ George Igler

          The two authorities on this subject are both Anthropological Geneticists from Oxford University. Prof. Brian Sykes (The Blood of the Isles, 2006) and Dr Stephen Oppenheimer (The Origins of the British, 2006).

          Both broadly concur that the British gene-pool, by which they include the Irish, Welsh, English and Scots, has remained largely 85% stable since the Mesolithic era.

          It is more than a little ironic that Telemachus should mention the rape of Boudicca’s daughters. The genetic evidence suggests that the Romans arrived, interbred primarily with other Romans, and then left. Their influence on the British gene-pool was shown to be negligible to the point of nonexistent.

          • Baron

            Their influence was not only negligible on the gene pool, on the language, too.

            • John Guest

              In fact, what did the Romans ever do for us?

              • telemachus

                Gave us the discipline to record

            • telemachus

              Sykes’s work is often misused by racists:perhaps not unexpected in Britain. If you I browse through the British National Party website, where there is a page of audio and video clips. One of
              the audio files is a recording of a confrontation on air, between a liberal presenter on a Dundee radio station and Phil Edwards, the BNP press officer.

              Countering the presenter’s assertion that “being British is a bastardisation”, Edwards says: “We are formed from closely related tribes of white European people. It is not colour, it is race, it is genetics. If you take for instance the work of Professor Sykes at Oxford University. He has sampled 6,000 blood samples of
              people whose maternal grandmothers were born in the UK, right? And he has found that 99% of those people have got the identical DNA to the DNA in the neolithic burial grounds at places all over the UK, people who lived here eight, 10,000 years ago. So don’t give me this offensive business about saying we’re a bastardised people.”

              • The_Missing_Think

                So you’re attempting to discredit ‘David Miles’, by linking him with ‘Prof. Brian Sykes’ via a quote from Phil Edwards, the BNP press officer.

                Aaahh… I see, by hop skipping about like that, and getting the old BNP connection in there, and the use of your favorite power word… you’ve won the arguement again!

                Jolly good. I like it, you just sneer the word racist… give it some complex BU Nu Pu, and hey presto, done it again!

                If you click the link you’ll find no “Sykes” mentioned.

                “Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England,
                _____

                … ummh… you sneer about BNP racist, but… erh… why exactly do you classify humans as “thoroughbreds” and “mongrels”?

                Are you sure it isn’t a little ugly… you seem to know your way around the darker corners of that site quite well…?

          • telemachus

            We cannot take Sykes seriously.
            He is attached to the emotional and metaphysical
            Many of our greatest leaders have not been thoroughbreds
            I am thinking the whole of the Hanoverian dynasty
            I am thinking Disraeli
            I am thinking Churchill

      • Baron

        telemachus, you know what’s ironic on this observation of yours? It’s that when the followers of Allah gain a bigger say, as they must, you and your same gender friends will be the ones the enhancers of our landscape will kick, hard. Cannot wait for it to happen.

        • telemachus

          Not sur if that is Islamophobic or Homophobic but remember their is only one God

          • Kevin

            Of course you are not, but who cares?

      • davey12

        Starting to kill socialists in Egypt. Been killing them for a while across the Middle East. It seems turkeys do vote for Christmas.

      • Kevin

        No they do not.

    • davey12

      UKIP..

      Once this is passed someone will try and get married in a catholic church. They will say they are testing the law. 100% certain.

      Every year someone will be trying it on.

      No one will try it in a Mosque. Looks like we have the solution, Maybe we should find out how Islam stops people taking the pee.

      • Fergus Pickering

        It does it by killing them, davey.

    • George_Arseborne

      What else do they have to say when their joystick policy being the Economy has failed colossally .

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here