Sat 1st Nov 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Latest News

Same-sex marriage Bill likely to face strong opposition in the Lords today

By on Monday, 3 June 2013

The House of Lords  rejected Lord Dear's wrecking amendment by 390 votes to 148 (Photo: PA)

The House of Lords rejected Lord Dear's wrecking amendment by 390 votes to 148 (Photo: PA)

The Government’s same-sex marriage Bill is expected to face opposition in the House of Lords today, as it begins its Second Reading.

Lord Dear, a crossbench peer and former West Midlands chief constable, has tabled an amendment which would refuse the Bill a Second Reading and effectively kill the controversial legislation.

Lord Carlile of Berriew successfully used the same parliamentary tactic in May 2006, to defeat Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill.

Eighty-six peers are due to speak during today’s debate which will mean there will not be time for a final vote until tomorrow.

According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, it is alleged that senior officials in the Church of England have urged their bishops to stay away from the vote in the House of Lords this week, despite the Church’s official opposition to the legislation.

  • http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

    God bless Lord Dear, and all who are willing to stand up and fight against this atrocious law !!!

  • http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

    I am in France, and this is not the last fight.

  • whytheworldisending

    Its about time the Anglicans and Methodists came out as Christians against this Bill. If they do not, or if they delay too long, they risk division both within and without of their ranks.
    The argument, which Cameron recently tried to prop up his Bill with, namely that it might stop bullying of pupils who think they are homosexual, is not a good one.
    Firstly, very many children suffer the misery of bullying and the vast majority of the bullying has nothing to do with perceptions of homosexuality. What is Cameron doing about this larger tragedy? Nothing. The mantra always repeated on the suicide of any pupil? – “This school has an excellent anti-bullying policy.” If Cameron really gave a damn he would have addressed the real problem – that schools are institutions which, by their very nature, generate bullying and bullies.
    Secondly, it is incoherent and hypocritical to suggest that detrimental behaviours should be promoted in order to save embarrassment or bad feeling. There are pupils who have the great misfortune to be addicted to smoking, drugs or alcohol. Should we accept that they are in fact only what they think they are – smokers, drug addicts and alcoholics? Should we not try to help them for fear that they do not want to hear the truth, which is that these behaviours are harmful? Some pupils have parents who have committed crimes – many have a parent in prison. Does that mean we should teach children that crime is good? The truth is that there are no such things as criminals, drug addicts or homosexuals. There are people who need love and acceptance, and there are behaviours, some of which are good for people, and some of which are bad for people.

  • acs

    If the Anglican bishops are not there to oppose this Bill that is a stunning disgrace.

  • licjjs

    Well the Lords certainly did not live up to all the hype – a real let-down.

  • jerry

    Stop cherry picking the bible, gay marriage may well harm the fundamental harm the fundamental building block of society but simply saying it ‘says in the bible’ will get you nowhere in today’s secular society

  • Robjwhitby

    As a gay man and an active Roman Catholic, still in full communion with the church, I know how concerning the Catholic church and commenters here find the Government’s proposals. However this is not a religious matter – this is a matter of equal treatment of citizens before the law. I love my boyfriend very much. He i also Catholic and one day, after this law has passed – for it will pass, of that there is no doubt – I will marry him. Jesus said absolutely nothing against love of this kind. His only commandment is that we should love our neighbour. There is not much neighbourly love exhibited in the comments posted here.

  • http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

    This sort of confused understanding is a direct consequence of this turgid political agitation in the religious sphere.

    I will marry him. Jesus said absolutely nothing against love of this kind

    No you won’t “marry” him, given that Jesus defined marriage exactly for what it really is :

    Matthew : {19:3} And the Pharisees approached him, testing him, and
    saying, “Is it lawful for a man to separate from his wife, no matter
    what the cause?”

    {19:4} And he said to them in response, “Have you not read that he who
    made man from the beginning, made them male and female?
    ” And he said:

    {19:5} “For this reason, a man shall separate from father and mother,
    and he shall cling to his wife, and these two shall become one flesh
    .

    {19:6} And so, now they are not two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    There is not much neighbourly love exhibited in the comments posted here

    On the contrary, to explain those Church doctrines that are given to drive a wedge between your soul and your Original Sin has precisely Christian Love as its very purpose.

  • Robjwhitby

    You’re talking about religious marriage. This act does not aim to address religious marriage, it only seeks to extend civil marriage to same sex couples. The requirement to marry in a relgious ceremony was removed in England in 1836. As you can see gay people have been waiting a long time for equality before the law. The catholic church is free to choose not to marry gay couples. Just as a gay Catholic I am free to challenge that.

  • http://jabbapapa.wordpress.com/ Julian Lord

    The Catholic Church is free to choose not to marry gay couples

    No, she is NOT — she is absolutely required NOT to do so.

    And really — rejecting a specific and deliberate teaching of Our Christ might belong to your intrinsic freedom, but it can NEVER belong to any Catholicism .