I think marriage is an outdated concept anyway - personally.

Because Cameron has gay friends who have voiced strong opinions on this (all MPs have gay friends, as so many of them are), and he has been convinced it's the right thing to do. Obviously there is some Conservative opposition, as Conservatives are naturally cautious when it comes to social change and worry about the difficulties of making it work, and other MPs feel it is their duty to represent their constituents who believe marriage should be preserved as it is.

Is the party imploding over it? You'd have to be a complete fool to think so. Frankly this kind of open debate without the threat of Party whips is rather refreshing.

@ Jamie: I respect your right to be wrong.

he *thinks?* Sounds like a safe bet to me. Conservatives all over western society are going to start to crumble on this issue - they have no choice but to adapt or become obsolete - I agree though they won't implode, they will definitely adapt and admit they've been wrong all along.

Well, they'll adapt anyways :P

I think imploding was a bit of artistic license to wind up the righteous right........
What I and many of my Conservative Association Comrades seem to be saying is that this decision has been made unilaterally by MPs without a great debate within the general public or the Conservative Party rank and file members.
I don't think this policy alone will make him more popular amongst non-Tory voters and I'm not convinced it will bolster his popularity within the Party.
A bit like the recent speech on a referendum on Europe, he loses as many friends as he gains and his political compass seems a little askew.
Gay friends of mine seem reasonably happy with Civil Partnerships as long as they are treated the same as married couples for income and inheritance tax.
It all reeks of populist desperation; Keep calm and carry on David you'll soon be as popular as Tony Bliar.

"I think marriage is an outdated concept anyway - personally."

Yes, but the conservatives do not. I mean it would be hard to find a mainstream liberal party which agreed with you, but since they allow personal choice to determine whether you get married there is no need to prevent people from being outdated as that would lose yourself votes...

Can the govt force the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church to marry gay people in their churches, seems a bit draconian. What about if gay people want to marry in a mosque or a temple or a synagogue, do the same rules apply?

@NigeeBaby, gay friends of yours may... but if you are ok with that kind of civil partnership what is the difference between that and marriage?

Ok, there are a few things, adoption law may need to be re-examined. It is the case the having multiple adults protecting and caring for a child increases their well-being (the chances of them doing well in life, however you happen to measure that) And i don't mean two married parents, I mean having support, which could be aunts/uncles, older siblings, grandparents, friends, gay relatives who can't conceive with their chosen sexual partners....

(This could be expanded to mean social support in the form of teachers, scout leaders, community nurses/police officers, priest/other religious figures, sports trainers... etc. but let's not lose focus)

Marriage is about family, and adoption is about adding a child to your family. In this case it is important that the law protect the best interests of the child, and evidence would indicate that having a gay couple adopt is better than being left in foster care or with an abusive birth family.

@NigeeBaby: marriage has existed before those religious institutions, it was forever a promise between two people, and the churches got involved because they kept records.

Marriage is still basically a promise between two people, often declared before their friends and family. If any religious organisation doesn't want to celebrate this and include the people in their community that is their choice - whatever the symbolic bullshit they may also want to say about marriage... the law provides for civil marriage outside of a church, infact the law provides that marriage means nothing in a church unless you also register with the civic offices.

So no, nobody has ever suggested that churches should be forced to recognise any marriage they are uncomfortable with. They just aren't important to this conversation, because a secular society is one where religion is optional.

Cameron knows that gay marriage will happen in the next twenty years anyway so better to lance the boil rather than be seen (again) to be the nasty party. I'm amused that some tories want a fuller party debate. Do they really want to tear themselves apart for 12 months only to end up in the same place?

I don't think a single gay person will now vote for a government based on this new law, and I don't think a single Tory will not vote as they consider supposedly better tory handling of economy to be far more important.

What staggers me is the political fudge. If you want to reach out and express your support for gay people why now make it a criminal offence for the Church of England to marry gay people whilst at the same time allowing other faiths to marry gay people. What they propose will open up legal challenges not reduce them. A conservative Sikh leader may now challenge the fact that he is compelled to marry gay people or risk losing his job if the Sikh church as a whole agrees to Gay weddings, whereas a CoE vicar is protected from being compelled to perform the service. In an attempt to end gender discrimination they want to enshrine religious discrimination. Breathtaking how civil service advisers will allow such a shoddy piece of legislation to be enacted.

@ Maniac

I don't buy it. Cameron no doubt expects many things to change in the next twenty years, but it's not in the nature of politicians to grasp nettles or lance boils when they don't feel they have to. He knows full well that this won't make his party look any better than it does currently, and that it won't win any extra votes (there may be a few who firmly believed that every Tory was anti gay who will now consider voting for them, but that will be offset by those who will run away to UKIP).

Cameron is doing this simply because he believes it is the right thing to do, and he believes (as I do, as it happens) that it is a natural Conservative policy. Marriage is a great thing (all the better now that the majority of people unsuited to it no longer get married) and it should be on offer to all who believe in its ideals.

The fudge has happened because lots of supposedly intelligent people have tripped themselves up trying to please everyone and made a hash of it. Hopefully the courts will trim it down to something sensible rather the pissing on the whole idea.

@Octavious - if you believe in equality then you must ensure all people get the same rights as everyone else regardless of sex, gender, race, disability religion etc. The Tories are creating an inequality that didn't exist by saying some people must conduct services for gay people and others are explicitly criminalised if they do the same thing. CoE members who happen to be gay will also not be able to get married in their church, but may have to change religion in order to acheive the same rights as say Sikhs.

The courts can not be blamed for badly conceived and drafted legislation. The Tories know it will be challenged by someone so do the right thing now.

Whilst I accept that Cameron may be genuine in his support, I think others have been brought kicking a screaming to this point.

I wonder if the married coercion laws will need redrafting by the way in the light of the other news story about Chris Huhne. At present only a wife can be coerced by her husband.

@ Maniac

I don't believe in equality. I believe in fairness and opportunity. The Tories are trying to create a new opportunity for gay people who believe in marriage to get married. This is a good thing and outweighs the minor inequality in religion that remains.

With regards to Chris Huhne, yes, that's a silly law that should be changed. Nice to see another bit of scum forced out of Parliament though. Still, with his record of perverting the course of justice and the person who knew him best (his ex-wife) thinking he's a bit of a shit, I'd say he was odds on favourite to lead the Lib Dems in the next election fight.

"I believe in fairness and opportunity." and is it fair that a Liberal Jew will be able to get married in their synagogue, but a CofE member uch as myself can't marry a gay man in my Church? What definition of fairness do Tories use these days.

Ah, I see... You're arguing along the old "It's not fair that some people die of illness before they can enjoy retirement, so for the sake of equality we should shoot everyone at 65" line?

Under Tory plans it will be possible for gay people to be married. Without them it is not. Call me mad but but I consider an imperfect good thing better than no good thing at all. The Holy Catholic Church members in favour of gay marriage, such as yourself, should have spent more effort convincing the rest of the Holy Catholic Church that gay marriage was a good thing. Then the messy details around the edges would never have been included.

@Maniac, if your church doesn't approve of your gay marriage, why should they be forced to marry you? Why should any religious group be forced? You rights extend only so far as the infringe on the rights of others.

You can be entitled to marry whoever you want, and even have the freedom of religion to create a church which marries gay members... Where is the unfairness?

You have every freedom to not remain in the CofE if they refuse to sanctify your partnership.

@octavious, no I'm not arguing to reduce everybody down to an equal level. I believe, as I thought you did, in fairness of opportunity. Some people will make the most of their opportunities and others won't. The cream will rise, I have no problem with that. I just think everyone should have a fair opportunity, to work, marry, participate in society etc. excluding people because of race, gender etc damages society as much as it damages those individuals.

@orathaic - the C of E is my church, but everyone in it holds different opinions. I'm as much entitled to my views as the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would be bizarre if for the church split on every issue like gay marriage, date of the earth, women bishops, establishment status etc. what I want is to be in a church that abides by the law. We wouldn't allow a 'no blacks' football team, even though not many black people would want to join. If the law says people should be treated equally, then they should be treated equally. No one ( person or organisation) should be above the law.

With regards to creating my own church, I have a church. I don't agree with it and I rarely visit it - christenings, weddings funerals etc. what am I to do if I was gay create a church in my village to be attended by just me? It like saying if you don't like Kestas site you can create your own, there is little point there being 50000 duplicate sites if we all sit around playing with ourselves all day. (Although I suspect some members do this already).

"You rights extend only so far as the infringe on the rights of others." The right to gay marriage doesn't impinge on your right to be married and if you don't approve of gay marriage I have no issue with that - don't marry a man. The 'rights of others' you refer to is just a right to be bigoted. You can continue to be bigoted, and to think he'll and damnation will swallow gay men up, giving gay people rights does not alter your right to think whatever you want to think. Name me a specific 'right' that is being impinged if churches are allowed to marry same sex couples?

Churches being allowed to preform gay marriages isn't the issue, churches being forced to preform them is. And it violates freedom of religion since the government is coercing churches into changing their doctrines to align with government policy. Just remove gay marriage and insert another issue and you'll see how troubling a precedent this would be.

@Invictus - Maniac is CoE which means he isn't in the US (UK somewhere I'm sure, but could be as close as Canada) and doesn't "get" our rights and how they work. I have yet to find a Brit who does. You'll note he says he has a church but doesn't go to it. Over here, you would choose a church in a faith in which you believe. Over there you are either CoE, Catholic, Jewish, or atheist for the most part (sure Muslim is available as well, but none of the other protestant faiths). So they don't have our freedom of religion and are slaves to their church's views.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Draugnar.

How so? You mean my understanding of the way religion works in the UK? Quite possibly true. My understanding of how it works in the US? Well considering I've been Baptist and Church of God and UCC and found my way back to my Lutheran roots, I think I know a little something about how freedom of Religion in the US works.

Invictus - Draugnar is right. I'm in England. We have an established church, the Church of England. The church has 44 reserved seats in our second chamber (house of lords) and the church has an obligation to marry, baptise and bury anybody who so wishes regardless of how often they frequent church. I'm not saying I agree with churches being established, but if we have one they should abide by their side of th bargain. If they disestablished themselves there would be a different arguement about their duty to marry anyone.

Let me reverse the 'insert gay marriage' issue. Would it be acceptable for churches to not baptise the disabled if church teachings so dictate, or to force non- whites to sit on the floor?

Please elaborate and tell me what other terms could cause a problem if gay marriages are allowed.

@draugnar - I 'get' your rights and I approve. In England we can also believe what we like and worship how we want. Some churches are not recognised, such as church of scientolgy, but this is for tax reasons, they are still allowed to organise. My point here is that we have an established church, right or wrong, and as such the C of E should follow UK law. They should after all cater for all the population and not just the people who turn up on a Sunday.

Draugnar is not right. His post says British people cannot change to a different church, and says that there are no Protestant churches besides the Church of England. He says there are no Muslims in Britain. He says the British "don't have our freedom of religion and are slaves to their church's views," implying that citizens are bound to their church in some sort of feudal relationship. He was not talking about an established church (which just means it gets tax money and has a negligible role in the near-symbolic House of Lords), he's talking about a theocracy.


And yes, it would be acceptable for a church to refuse to baptize disabled babies or make non-whites sit on the floor. I'd never join such a church, but freedom of religion means freedom of religion. The government ought not meddle in church dogma any more than the church should meddle in crafting public policy.

If the government can force churches to preform gay marriages against church teaching then it can force female clergy on Catholics and Muslims. It can enforce drinking-age rules on Catholics and others who use wine in the Eucharist. It can keep Jews from preforming circumcisions. It can do all kinds of things to make religions conform with the policies of the government of the day. One day it'll be a government of Zombie Thatcher who starts doing things you oppose, and she'll be able to do it because of the precedents set by things like this. Isn't it enough that gays can get married in a sympathetic church with government sanction if they want to? Why force every church to do it?

It seems clear to me that what maniac is suggesting is the right thing, since the established church has actual government obligations. Obviously that model doesn't apply in America, where others have (quite rightly) suggested that forcing a church to marry gays is pretty out of line - since the marriage contract is a legal matter and doesn't require a church to do it.

In other words, here in America churches are free to be bigoted douchebags - and I admit, sadly, that that is as it should be.

"He says there are no Muslims in Britain" - Um, no I didn't. In fact the opposite, I included Muslim as an afterthought on my list of established and recognized religions.

"He says the British "don't have our freedom of religion and are slaves to their church's views," implying that citizens are bound to their church in some sort of feudal relationship." - They are. Maniac says as much. The CoE is the official church of England and, as such all marriages, baptisms, divorces, etc. (things we typically view in a religious manner) must be approved byt hem to be recognized by the government. They are all slaves to the CoE whether you want to admit it or not. As long as the CoE can say "Gay marriage will nto be recognized by the British Government" then they are slaves to the CoE, whether it is their church or not.

Maniac - Emigrate over here. We will have gay marriage pretty much everywhere sooner than Britain does *and* we already have it in some states and some churches so you can find one that will fit your religious and biological orientation.

Now, for clarification, Maniac. If, say, the Lutheran church were to start performing gay marriages in England, would the law recognize and accept these marriages or would the government's being in bed with the CoE not recognize them?

@invictus - we Brits are allowed to move church and worship how we like. The point is the C of E is the established church (for right or wrong) and they have a duty to serve all the population regardless if they attend church or not. They took on that role and they should either abide by it or disestablish themselves. I'm happy either way.

They law of the land should over rule ever organisation. If the uk law says three year olds cannot be given alcohol then so be it. If they allow abortion, so be it, if they want to stop circumcision fine. I'm amused when you complain that you don't want zombie like imposition. What the hell do you think the Jewish, Muslim and christen faiths do? The state can protect the rights of the young and gay people and others. Religion for too long has been used as an excuse to discriminate, those days are ending, trust me.