0 thoughts on “Who Owns Marriage?”

1. Having been with my partner for 17 years, a mere 7 years longer than the average marriage according to the local registrar, why should our love be differentiated just because of our sex.

   Thank you for your work on this, I just hope it is not derailed by some of your colleagues.

2. As a woman with a transexual history I’m still legally married as a man. Why should I have to annul our marriage to correct the error on my birth certificate and then have to have a civil ceremony? We have been together 36 years the last 26 years as a married couple. We are being discriminated against by the state! I cannot understand why the law hasn’t been changed already. In a fair and equal society this should be done now!

   Keep going Lynne you have a lot of support for this and if there is anything I can do to help please ask.

3. I am also a married woman ( previously as a man with a transsexual history). We’ll have been married 30 years this coming October. I’d like to get that last little bit of my history corrected to get a GRC, but I can’t without “destroying” a marriage that has outlived any marriage in my circle of friends in “normal” relationships.

   As it stands at the moment, to get that last little bit of paper, I have to end the marriage, get my GRC and then only be allowed to have a civil partnership, which is seen in society as a de-rated marriage, not the “proper” marriage we have now.

   Though it seems any action on this probably won’t get through now, due to religious interference or bias applied to law making, if it does, I hope it will include an amendment or clause allowing people like me, and I’m not alone, to be able to get a GRC without destroying the marriage and to have to remarry after.

   Let this be an equal society, free from bias bought about by religion, gender or ethnic origin. I wish you luck in getting any law through both “houses”.

4. It is worth saying that many LGBT community members already reference there upcoming nuptials as marriage anyway. It’s about time =) . Lynne, thank you for being the sort of person who believes in equality of opportunity, rather than just fulfilling your ministerial and Parliamentary obligations.

5. To ensure this debate does not get polarised as religion v equal rights can we please ensure that church beiliefs are also respected and that no church or other religious organisation is forced to perform ceremonies to which it has fundamental objections. Otherwise it is equal rights for the LGBT community while at the same time trampling on the rights of Christians to believe something different.

6. Lynne, I would argue that equality will destroy diversity, if equal rights is pushed to its limits. Marriage should remain the natural relationship between a man and a woman in which children are born naturally and grow up with the male and female role models in the natural family unit.

7. I agree.
   Latest figures show that over 82% of the UK population support traditional marriage.
   Homos and lesbians amount to nothing more than 0,002% of the population and should stop forcing their perverted lifestyles on the rest of us THE MAJORITY.
   Just because we have a spineless and gutless prime minister and deputy prime minister does not give them the right to re-define marriage.
   Grow up

8. Fortunately we are not compelled to follow traditional marriage, that for the Established Church, commenced with a king who defined marriage, in effect, as a mechanism for for achieving a high spouse turnover rate.

   I understand that we do not have religious marriage as such. Marriage is a civil matter that can additionally be conducted in churches as the clergyman can act as the civil registrar?

   My take on marriage is that it is a contract between the individuals concerned that is registered with the State and this gives financial advantages to the couple. Those that wish to hold the contract signing ceremony in a church can additionally choose to do so.

   If a heterosexual couple’s marriage is likely to be upset by the arrival of equal marriage, then there is something wrong with their relationship.

   Religions, it seems, are going to be given the special right to discriminate against those they disapprove and perhaps this compromise is necessary. However, some organisations eg liberal Jews support equal marriage and should be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies.

   Having a transsexual past, I am now in a same sex marriage (of 39 years) that remains legally recognised. I have no evidence that my same sex marriage has had any impact on any mixed sex marriage, anywhere.

9. ‘I want to set the record straight once and for all: we are not changing religious marriage’
   But you are. Marraige is marriage whether it is in a church or a public building . Legally there is no difference.
   ‘I want to urge people not to polarise this debate’
   But this is what you are doing. Your goverment seems determined to go ahead,’not if but when’ Those who strongly believe that marriage can only be for a man and a woman are therefore asked to accept it. Did not the suffragettes polarise the debate.
   Give to same sex couples all the rights as married couples but PLEASE leave Marriage to a Man and a Woman. If you feel you must carry on with it why nat wait until after the next election when we can vote on the manifesto of the parties.

10. Interesting, perhaps Ms Featherstone can enlighten us with her views on:

    Polygyny
    Polyandry
    Polyamory
    Polyfidelity
    Complementarian
    Covenant
    and Arranged marriages

    All types of marriage and I’m sure Ms featherstone will be equally supportive of these rarer types between consenting adults. I look forward to a follow up piece supporting these.

11. You state: “it is the government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better.”

    No it’s not. The government is there to reflect the wishes of the electorate- nothing more, nothing less. If you believe that government is there to over-ride the wishes of the majority (those who believe that marriage is between man & woman) and pander to a very small but vocal minority then YOU SHOULD NOT BE IN GOVERNMENT.
    You clearly disregard the wishes of the electorate and the result is tyrany, not democracy. Then again, what else should we expect from E.U-loving Common Purpose puppets?

    The push for ‘gay marriage’ – falsely so called- has NOTHING to do with equality, but masks a particularly sinister political agenda.

12. You’re right about one thing- marriage is ‘owned by the people’.

    It’s not owned by you, featherstone.

    As you hold that marriage is owned ‘by the people’, why not ask the people whether they wish to retain the current legal definition of marriage???

    Of course you won’t.
    We won’t give you the answer you want to hear.

13. Twenty-four years ago I stood in a church in whose religion I did not really agree with, and invited a god in whom I did not believe (I believed in my own version of him) to ratify the promise I was making to a man to “love, honour and obey him” “in sickness and in health, for better, for worse, richer or poorer” “until death do us part”.

    Well, sickness happened: my husband has a history of spinal injury-type disability. Poorer happened: we got into creditcard debt and had to pay it back over 8 years of scrimping.

    And fourteen years ago, the god I ignored in the church I didn’t agree with made me look at Him properly, and I had the indescribable shock of learning that He is real, and He is exactly as the Bible describes Him, but I’d been reading the wrong meanings into it.

    Six years ago things went from sickness to devastation, as my husband suffered the collapse of his mental health. He attempted suicide seventeen times in eleven months. He wounded me emotionally beyond my ability to bear, and I found my faith reduced to two single core statements: Let no man put asunder what God has joined together; and: He is able to keep you from falling.

    “No man” included myself. Divorce, even separation would have been falling.

    It was three years before our marriage and his mental health were restored. Eighteen months ago another devastating event in our lives ripped my husband’s mental health apart again. He has not yet recovered from that. But neither have I abandoned him.

    It wasn’t my idea to stay in the marriage. I could have made a very good case for divorce, much better than some people do.

    But marriage is owned by God, not the church, not the government, not society. He hasn’t redefined it since the day He said “for reason shall a man … cleave unto his wife … and they two shall be one flesh”. He helps those who are committed to keeping the promises they made (even when they didn’t care about Him or what they promised at the time).

    What you propose is to legalise promise-breaking. To destroy the concept of commitment. To enshrine the destruction of society by selfishness in a principle of law.

    I will never vote for any person, any group, any measure which promises that and believes it to be a good thing.

    It is not.

14. @ Glenys

    I am interested to know whether it was the promise that you made to your spouse that keeps you together or your religious belief probiting divorce?

    Without religion, would you have broken your vows?

    Would you have remained with your spouse if he had transitioned to living as a woman due to gender identity disorder?

    If he had, and you did not divorced, you would have been in a same sex marriage and that is also against your beliefs?

    It is not black and white!

    The scripture you quoted brings to mind that which you do not mention. Scripture also forbids the eating of pork, shellfish, requires parents to smite naughty children, allows the keeping of slaves etc and not many religious people do or are able to keep such rules. Of course, these rules were written to guide a desert tribe society and, as maintaining population was critical to the tribe’s survival, relationships not capable of procreation were necessarity banned. The rules may well have been valid a few thousand years ago but surely not now?

    Your view that marriage is owned by your god must be respected. My view, that it is not, should also be respected as should Lynne’s. Marriage is currently between a man and a woman (not as defined by your god but by the person informing the issuing of one’s birth certificate, where a legal sex is assigned that may or may not always be correct!). In fact two male phenotypes can be legally married as can two female phenotypes (provided that in both couples, one party has a GRC). I am in an all female phenotype legal marriage (I have no GRC). Same physical sex marriage is already here and how has that impacted anybody’s life?

    The religious attack on trans people is based on ‘god dosen’t make mistakes’ but the folk who complete the birth certificates certainly do!

    If a same sex religious couple do not believe in equal marriage then they do not have to get married. However, why should they or any religious person have the right to stop others from marrying who are of the same assigned sex?

    One should study the impact of same sex marriage elsewhere. There has been no earth shattering impact. No doubt some will be offended here when equal marriage happens here but how will that be manifest?

    Regret, disappointment or some other transitory response that surely will not haunt every waking hour?

    On what basis will the advent of equal marriage undermine or devalue all marriages to date?

    Equal marriage will allow same sex couples to live in happy fulfilling relationships. How will this impact anybody in a negative way?

    If one gains comfort from a belief that a god owns marriage then that is fine. It hurts nobody. However, if one seek to impose religoius views on others, by opposing equal rights for same sex couples, and that opposition is successful, you would be inflicting continuing hurt and inequality on others, that would impact their daily lives and this surely must be wrong?

    I see equal marriage as enabler NOT to break promises as I will be able to remain married and get legal protections that others take for granted (with the award of a GRC).

    I do hope that things improve with your spouse.

15. Drought or Famine for UK?

    Use your imagination to think of what a famine might do to us in the UK.

    The subject matter of marriage is far beyond the remit of a petition. Petitions are mere requests for favours. Petitions are appeals on one-way subjects eg to release prisoners, not for fighting two way political battles.

    What should be presented is a “solemn warning” to a tragic government that does nto realise that it is mocking God and yet whose actions bring upon the country God’s wrath and curse.

    Therefore while forecasters speak of a drought in the UK it may be just a sign that our sin is provoking God to bring us to our knees through a famine.

    In recent years the country has suffered various curses on our cattle, MRSA, swine flu, loss of neighbourhoods to Islam, burning of high streets by looters, and now a financial crisis, but God has not yet struck the Englishman’s greatest god, his belly. A land that continues to provoke God so much, is asking for a severe chastisement such as a war or a famine. Today we are only familiar with far-off African famines and forget the relatively nearby Irish famine of the 19th Century which was close to our doorstep or the Black Death that wiped out around half of European population in the 14th Century. Famines can occur anywhere. We are more vulnerable than we think and we would do well not to provoke God by ripping up marriage by calling homosexuality by the name of marriage.

    The nation needs to repent of its ungodliness but I feel that will not happen unless it has a real fright. I fear that such fear will not come until it is too late because rulers and citizens have already hardened their hearts like Pharaoh and shut their ears to our warnings.

    Nevertheless today is still a day of salvation for some so we keep on preaching the Lord Jesus Christ as the Saviour and warning of the danger of unrepentance toward God. We are to keep on until the end comes and God judges this sinful world. It is just what the Prophet Isaiah had to do amidst a people who continued to mock him.

    “Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.”
    Isaiah 6:8-12.

    We fear that our preaching, which we must continue, will largely fall on deaf ears until far worse things befall our nation. Yet the most important thing is that the church must continue to rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, because in so doing we show that we are sincere and that our hope is not in this world, but in God. And then the end will come and we will be with the Lord which will be far better.

    What is needed today is a church and government that will commit themselves to the God of the Bible and lead the people of our nation out of this spiritual and moral malaise.

16. @ Rev Peter Ratcliff

    If you look at the countries around the world, you’ll find that some of the most anti-gay countries with homophobic laws are also the ones most affected by famine, drought, starvation, malaria and AIDS. You are talking absolute nonsense, as most people with a few brain cells will appreciate without any difficulty.

17. Hello Paula,

    If such a situation as my husband wishing to change his gender because of mental illness occurred, I trust I would approach it with the same calmness that I did towards the paedophile currently serving 4.5 years for touching our daughter and possessing a large number of indecent images of other children: I understand _why_ he did that (I understand sexual sin and temptation, although not with that specific focus), but I in no way condone what he has done in breaking God’s law.

    Marriage has been the union of one man with one woman for as long as recorded history goes back. Are you not satisfied with your own names for your partnerships that you have to usurp the definition of our union?

    Yes, the rules were initially necessary. That’s why the Lord Jesus came, to be the fulfilment of those rules, and the payment of the price of not being able to keep them. However, there are a number of examples of Old Testament people who lived the same faith awareness of God as I have; even in the Old Testament, they understood that it was not the doing of the rules that gave one righteousness, but the heart-attitude. Abraham, Job, David, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and many others all knew that going through the motions of rule-keeping was the worst possible thing to do. They sought a living relationship with God Himself, and found it beyond the sacrifices in direct faith. I notice that your list contains an item that was rescinded after Christ’s resurrection (shellfish and pork – see Acts 17), fails to take into account the position of respect and honour which children are given in true Biblical teaching, and doesn’t notice that there is nowhere where Christians are _allowed_ to keep slaves, simply that those who are slaves are encouraged to follow Christ’s example of obedience, and those who are masters are encouraged to follow Christ’s example of loving care for those serving them.

    And whether or not the rules are valid today as rules, the principles that they enshrined and which are so easily distorted certainly are valid. Every single rule had as it’s primary focus the fact that this society was marked out as God’s own, different from those around it, and expected by God to show the specialness of their covenant relationship with Him in those particular ways at those particular times.

    Of course we respect each other’s views. That’s why we’re discussing them calmly, and in a courteous manner, and not demanding that the other be subjected to a police interview for offending the other. But that doesn’t mean that we agree. We don’t.

    I’m sorry, I really don’t understand your comment about a legal sex being assigned which may or may not be correct. Either you were born with male genitalia, or with female genitalia. Should you be one of the very small number of hermaphrodites then I agree you have a genuine medical problem. But since a person issuing a birth certificate can only assign gender based on the physical evidence before them, so to speak, why should anyone else declare them to have made a mistake? That’s completely unreasonable.

    God doesn’t make mistakes. But since our bodies are in a state of genetic decay (as evidenced by the calculations of mutations needed in order to track mitochrondial data), nature certainly does make mistakes.

    How long has same sex marriage been permissible elsewhere, and where is that? I would want to have a track record of several hundred years before I pass comment on that. One question I would want answered is what it did to their birth rate and how they dealt with that?

    As regards your other questions on marriage, I refer to my point above, that if marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life (regardless of whether the promise is later broken) then why does it need redefining at all? You have various terminology concerning partnerships. You surely don’t call your partner your wife, do you, nor she you? The definition of a wife is one who is married to a man. Why wouldn’t you want your own terminology to point out the uniqueness of your relationship? I am proud of being my husband’s wife: we are the couple that we are. So I always use the title Mrs in my full name. I’ve been that way since the day we were married. It’s a mark of the commitment we have to each other. Your commitment is to another woman, not to a man. It should have a different title.

    I have left your first question until last, so as to give it honest self-consideration. I doubt if there is anyone born since the end of the 1950s who can honestly say that the society, the media, the attitudes which they learned from their peers, set them an example in being able to keep the promises made in wedding vows. Individual families may keep such a standard, but they do it despite the prevailing trend, not because of it.

    I had no greater incentive to stand by my husband when his mental health collapsed than did any other wife or partner of someone in his situation. I remember vividly the day my love ran out, about 18 months after the collapse. Within 20 minutes of it happening, whilst I was in conversation with a Christian lady who did not know us very well, a phrase that she used brought me face to face with the knowledge that now my own love for my husband could no longer hold my marriage together, my Lord’s love in me could do that. Not merely physical love, nor emotional love, but the simple choice to love, no matter what. It was my Lord’s choice to love me no matter what, and in my life I have given him (through my problems, my selfishnesses, misunderstandings and tantrums) plenty of reason to regret that. But He never has. He does not give up on me for any reason, and I am learning to live His love the same way to my husband.

    I would like to say this: thank you for reminding me of that truth. I have had some difficult things about myself to face recently, and although I live what I have learned, I don’t always wake up thinking about it. You have been my Lord’s messenger to me today.

    I also thank you for your kind hopes for my husband’s health. He is doing quite well at present. We have a fair idea now of his major triggers, there’ll be one due in about 6 weeks. We are people with “no visible means of support”, but our Support will bring us through it safely. He’d like to do the same for you.

    Regards 🙂
    Glenys

18. @dave. Comments about braincells lacking presumably counts as illiberal and abusive. Nevermind, I will forgive, but it is God with whom you need to find peace.
    As far as tragedies in other nations is concerned, there may be many reasons that are the cause. There are so many things we do that are wrong and deserve God’s judgment and of which we should repent. Lying and unkindness are very serious matters also to name but two, yet our country is plagued with such behaviour. The breaking of the Sabbath is also a very serious disobedience as is swearing.
    Homosexuality stands out as the thing being pushed at the moment but as a nation we fornicate and divorce and kill unborn babies, all of which is wicked.
    Let us not point the finger at others but let us consider our ways lest a worst thing comes upon us.

19. Hi Glenys

    Glenys – If such a situation as my husband wishing to change his gender because of mental illness occurred…

    Paula – Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. Science is providing convincing evidence that people experiencing such a condition have physical differences in their brain that align with that of the gender they consider themselves to be. Gender dysphoria cannot be successfully treated by psychiatry. Like the flat earth doctrine, religions (I hope!) will eventually catch up with the science and change its attitude to folk with atypical sexual development.

    Glenys – I trust I would approach it with the same calmness that I did towards the paedophile currently serving 4.5 years for touching our daughter and possessing a large number of indecent images of other children:

    Paula -That’s dreadful but you are to be commended for staying calm. I lost my taste for religion having been on the receiving end of sexual abuse by one of the catholic lay teachers. The guy had worked out that I was different and picked on me.

    Glenys -I’m sorry, I really don’t understand your comment about a legal sex being assigned which may or may not be correct. Either you were born with male genitalia, or with female genitalia.

    Paula -There is about a 1 in 100 occurrence of ‘abnormal’ genital development. Up to fairly recently, if the phallus (penis or clitoris) was below a certain size, the child was operated on and ‘made into a girl’. Alas, for some, being raised as a girl did not make them feel that they were female and in later life changed over to live as men. Indeed, an XY male that has androgen insensitivity syndrome develops into what appears to be a perfect female child but has undescended testicals and no ovaries but will identify mentally as a female. When a foetus has partial androgen insensitivity, a whole range of birth variations occur. There are many other developmental variations that give rise to ‘intersex’ conditions. In my own case I had some corrective surgery as a baby but strongly identified as a girl from a very early age. Alas the person assigning my legal sex could not look into my head to see that my gender was actually female. My point is that gender (what you brain tells you that you are) is not always aligned with physical sex hence my comment. Other birth variations are treated so why exclude those resulting from atypical sexual development?

    The consequence of not treating gender dysphoria is that the person leads a miserable and unfulfilled life and there is a high suicide rate with many attempting to end their lives and that includes me. Fortunately, things are improving for trans folk now and it is interesting that the number coming forward for medical treatment is increasing by 11% per annum with as many as 1% of the population experiencing some degree of discomfort living in their assigned gender. Indeed, there is an increasing number of folk coming forward who feel they belong to no gender who have no legal recognition and few rights. Nature loves variation but society hates it!

    If nature did not make ‘mistakes’, we would still be single cell animals living in a pond somewhere!

    Glenys – Should you be one of the very small number of hermaphrodites then I agree you have a genuine medical problem.

    In modern times, medical issues are not exclusively diagnosed by visual symptoms. As I said, gender identity disorder is now treated as a medical issue. Folk are assessed to see if there is any underlying psychological problems before treatment is offered. Psychiatry is not a recognised treatment for gender identity disorder and cannot ‘cure’ it.

    Glenys – But since a person issuing a birth certificate can only assign gender based on the physical evidence before them, so to speak, why should anyone else declare them to have made a mistake?

    Agreed but the evidence was incomplete and that was not their fault but now it is possible to have birth certificates altered, provided that the medical evidence is sufficient. Religions now, with science, accept that the earth is not flat and it is no longer heresy to profess otherwise. Homosexuality is no longer treated as a mental illness. Things evolve.

    Glenys -How long has same sex marriage been permissible elsewhere, and where is that?

    Paula -Since 2001 it has been permitted in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden (and several States in the US).

    Glenys -One question I would want answered is what it did to their birth rate and how they dealt with that?

    Paula – In Canada, for example the birth rate has been level since 2008 and was falling before that. I am not sure maintaining population is a good thing as I take the view that the world is over-populated and there is insufficient water/energy/food to support it at current population levels.

    Glenys -As regards your other questions on marriage, I refer to my point above, that if marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life (regardless of whether the promise is later broken) then why does it need redefining at all?

    Paula -The original definition has already been changed by the introduction of the legal concepts of separation and divorce. I see it more of an expansion of the definition to offer equality of choice to a minority who do not fit into so-called gender identity and/or sexual orientation ‘norms’. At present we have a form of apartheid with marriage and civil partnerships. Gone are the days, in the US, where drinking fountains were labelled ‘whites only’ or ‘blacks’. Separate but equal no longer works there and nor should it here. Marriage is currently for heterosexual folk only and is seen as a form of apartheid by many in the LGBT community and many others outside who believe in equality.

    Additionally, equal marriage will mean that folk such as me will not have to divorce loyal spouses if we wish to gain legal rights after ‘gender transition’. I have chosen to keep my vows at the expense of my legal right to be treated as a female by the State for all purposes. Additionally, it is very hard for me to continue being registered as a legal male when I most certainly am not!

    Glenys -You have various terminology concerning partnerships. You surely don’t call your partner your wife, do you, nor she you? The definition of a wife is one who is married to a man. Why wouldn’t you want your own terminology to point out the uniqueness of your relationship?

    Paula – We actually refer to each other as spouses. There are several couples like mine who honour their wedding vows and stayed together, in the most difficult of circumstances. Mine is a relationship, a marriage in fact. I am one of those people who do not like labels but my spouse does and she refers to herself being in a legacy marriage. I just say I am am married if the person asking has a need to know. I hope that there is nothing in the Equal Marriage Bill that will prevent couples describing their relationship as they see fit e.g.
    church marriage
    traditional marriage
    civil marriage
    marriage
    legacy marriage
    civil contract
    etc

    Glenys -I am proud of being my husband’s wife: we are the couple that we are. So I always use the title Mrs in my full name. I’ve been that way since the day we were married. It’s a mark of the commitment we have to each other. Your commitment is to another woman, not to a man. It should have a different title.

    Paula -We are also proud of our commitment and the fact that we have been together over 40 years. If some folk need titles then that is their choice. Other folk do not and that is their choice. I do not deny your right and you should respect mine. My spouse still describes herself as Mrs.

    Glenys -I have left your first question until last, so as to give it honest self-consideration. I doubt if there is anyone born since the end of the 1950s who can honestly say that the society, the media, the attitudes which they learned from their peers, set them an example in being able to keep the promises made in wedding vows.

    Paula – You certainly have set an example and I admire you for what you have done. You have done the right thing (in my opinion – others might disagree). My spouse also has put up with much seeing her husband ‘die’.

    Glenys -I had no greater incentive to stand by my husband when his mental health collapsed than did any other wife or partner of someone in his situation. I remember vividly the day my love ran out, about 18 months after the collapse. Within 20 minutes of it happening, whilst I was in conversation with a Christian lady who did not know us very well, a phrase that she used brought me face to face with the knowledge that now my own love for my husband could no longer hold my marriage together, my Lord’s love in me could do that.

    Paula – And I am not ‘knocking’ that as I know that such beliefs can help certain people and I am pleased that your faith helped you address an horrendous situation. Those of us who do not find religion part of our lives have to find other ways of coping but that does not mean to say that we do not lead good and decent lives, doing good for others with love and tolerance in a way not inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. The only person who has rejected me post transition is my mother because of her catholic faith and she never wants to see me again as she believes that will send her to hell. I could state that religion breaks up families.

    I believe that most LGBT folk (some of whom are Christians) wish for a ‘peaceful coexistence’ with folk practising religion and want an end to the special right of religions to continue discrimination against such folk on the grounds of their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. LGBT folk do not want special rights, we just want the same rights as others enjoy. LGBT folk do not seek the a special right to discriminate against religious folk and respect their rights to do whatever their faith leads them to provided that any discrimination remains behind the church doors. It should be live and let live.

    You may have been offended to hear that I was in a same physical sex marriage but has it really impacted your life?

    How will the occurrence of same sex marriage have any impact on the practice of your faith provided, that religious exemption to discriminate against same sex couples in marriage is granted?

    I suspect that religious-based life will go on as normal, if equal marriage becomes law. It did after homosexuality was legalised.

    Glenys- I also thank you for your kind hopes for my husband’s health. He is doing quite well at present.

    Paula -You are welcome and I am pleased to hear that he is now doing well. Things can change for the better.

    Glenys -We are people with “no visible means of support”, but our Support will bring us through it safely. He’d like to do the same for you.

    Paula – And that is a key benefit that those with faith have, you do have an additional coping mechanism and I am happy for you. It did not work for me, the reverse in fact. As long as I lead what I term a good life and try and to the right things I will be content. I am trying hard!

    Until relatively recently, trans-affected families had no means of support either.

    Thank you for correcting me on interpretation of scripture. You should remember that scripture is in the domain of religions and is of little value being used as arguments against equality if ‘the other side’ does not accept its validity.

    LGBT folk are born the way we are. We do not learn to be either gay or transgender. Many of us have a problem with religions (a learned response and therefore a lifestyle choice) trying to dictate matters that affect us and have a very big impact on our lives. Nobody is trying to impose gender identity disorder on any religious person and I in turn do not expect to have imposed upon me a value system with which I do not *fully* agree.

    My Best
    Paula

20. @ Rev Peter Ratcliff

    Well it looks like the whole world is doomed, because it seems God doesn’t like all those homophobic churchgoers in Africa any more than he likes the atheists in Britain.

21. As a gay practising Christian and also in a Civil partnership of a relationship of 18 years, I feel I must take issue with Lynne Featherstone over the issue of ‘marriage’ for Gay and Lesbian couples.

    The institution of Marriage was ordained for a male and female to be united together and for the procreation of children. The procreation of children is obviously impossible for two people of the same sex, unless of course a lesbian or gay man enters into a surrogate situation, which does not make that situation ‘a marriage’ in any sense of that word.

    As a gay man and a Christian I do not wish to be ‘married’, nor should others in my position, but rather be glad that with the advent of Civil Partnerships we have the same rights as heterosexuals in all things legal.

    I am at a complete loss to understand why some gay people should want to copy those who are not, just as it is totally ridiculous when a man / woman introduces his / her partner as “my husband or my wife”.

    Why we can’t rejoice in what we have got and be thankful for it is beyond me, and although some Christian people may wish to have their relationship Blessed and I, that is totally different from the solmenisation of marriage

22. (see above)……..The last paragraph should continue to read …………

    and although some Christian people may wish to have their relationship Blessed and I would not be against this being offered by the Church, we must never forget that such a blessing would be totally different from the Solemnisation of Marriage.

    Ian

23. @ Ian

    “The institution of Marriage was ordained for a male and female to be united together and for the procreation of children.”

    Who ordained it then?

24. @ Ian

    “As a gay practising Christian … ”

    A lot of people would say you can’t be a Christian if you’re in a gay relationship.
    How would you reply to them?

25. Ian, Read Romans chapter 1 & 1 Corinthians chapter 6v 9 – 11. Heterosexual & Homosexual immorality is to be repented of so that we can be washed of of our sins…..

26. I can’t see how there can be a rational debate if one side quotes part of their belief system to justify its objection if such a system is not embraced by the other side. That belief system is applicable to those that hold it and nobody else. It’s a bit like two diplomats trying to agree a peace treaty speaking different languages not understood by the other. 

    Equal marriage will not significantly alter the number of ‘sodomy events’ and so any god’s wrath is now guaranteed even if equal marriage does not become law at this time?

    So, by (some) religious belief systems, we are all doomed already?

    For the debate to move forward, the religious side perhaps ought to articulate how granting equal marriage rights to same sex couples will impact religious life styles?

    I am really keen to understand the increased detriment that religious folk will personally suffer if equal marriage becomes law. Please could somebody articulate any detriment occurring when Civil Partnerships became law?

27. Reading through the comments from those with religious beliefs it would appear to me you want to impose your views and lifestyle on those that don’t believe in the name of their “god” a being I don’t believe exists. Why do you think they have the right? I thought we were all equal in the sight of your “god” so why do you think you can treat me as an unequal and discriminate against me? Same sex marriage impacts on no one other than those who want it made legal. To object on religious grounds is religious bigotry which I thought was illegal.

    Emily

28. marriege is a legal contract which I assume can be drawn up by a lawyer cheaper than a church or a register office probably ,so the question is a red herring,a time waster a diversion from more important matters and a waste of the publics vote and those that indulge in it need to get a life and put their efforts in more usefull and pressing matters

29. Hi Paula,

    I am sorry for the delay in replying, I don’t get nearly so much time in the later part of the week as I do in the early part.

    I am working on a proper reply for you, but I am trying to make sure I don’t misunderstand your points by reading them in a hurry, and also trying to keep my points succinct and not hit the character limit for posting 😀

    It will probably be a couple more days as I’m looking up stuff as well, and constantly running my phone flat.

    Regards
    Glenys

30. Wow such a lot of strong views (I have my own strong views) and such a lot of vehement undercurrents expressed in the various comments (not good).

    Words can mean so much and be subject to misinterpretation, misunderstanding and manipulation. Yet we cannot deny that words have specific meaning. Over time those meanings can and do change; consider, ‘bonk’ and ‘gay’. One might not approve of or one might welcome the changes of those particular examples, but it can hardly be said that their change in meaning has meant that their former meaning is now inexpressible by other equally suitable single words e.g., clout or joyful.

    My own view about the current proposals to redefine marriage is that this latest push has become a real version of the imaginary ‘Newspeak’ language in Orwell’s famous book, “1984”. Namely, a ploy to change words so that they mean something different to what they have always meant so that there will no longer be a method of expressing their former meaning or that that original meaning is much more difficult to express. Orwell’s examples are extreme, “War is Peace”, Freedom is Slavery”, but the intent of some people appears to be the same to a slightly lesser extent; namely marriage (as it is currently understood), becomes, “the marriage of one man and one woman”, and therefore becomes an unwieldy phrase to such an extent that the concept becomes an anachronism. It is not the lack of unfair discriminatory treatment that is sought, but the lack of discrimination in terms of the ability to state any distinction! This is not just a spiritual worry to some of those of faith (including me), but I believe it is a grave political worry too. If you take away the language of your opponents’ objections, they can have no objections!

    That any currently serving politician can support such a view that drives at promoting the destruction of the ability to distinguish, especially when the ability to unfairly discriminate has already been dealt with, is a very worrying time for British politics.

31. @ Andrew McCormick

    The beginning of your post seems quite reasonable, but as one reads on it becomes clear that you are quite mistaken. That much becomes clear because you kindly illustrate your argument with examples from George Orwell.

    War is the opposite of peace, and the two words cannot be reconcilled. Freedom and slavery is another such example. But what is the opposite of marriage? I would suggest that divorce is a close approximation. By your reckoning the opposite of marriage would approximate more closely to civil partnership. Do you really believe that?

    Amazing as it may seem, at one time the concept of interracial marriage was met with the kind of hosility that some now afford to same-sex marriage. Much – not all – of that hostility is based on religious objections to the change. The same was true about the abolition of slavery – but other religious people were in the forefront of the progress. Similarly some faiths and clergy welcome the prospect of this advance in human rights.

32. I got married in a church some years ago and the ceremony does not cover a whole host of things set in statute by the state e.g. married couples pension rights, inheritance rights etc. That is because it is the state’s job to determine all these things, and because I was in a religious ceremony that was nothing to do with this. The state allows the religious ceremony to “double up” as covering all the civil stuff too, and I did not have to go through a separate civil process and I was glad about that. I have never met any Christians who think they should define all the pension rights, inheritance rights etc. They tend to think it is the state’s job to do that. I have heard non-Christians/Jews/Muslims who appear to think the state should define for them what the marriage ceremony is in their religion. The state defines what civil marriage is and different religions define what marriage is in their religion. You cannot easily cross these boundaries, and the muddle and angst in this debate is largely because people on both sides are attempting to do this. That will never work. To put it another way. I am not Jew, so if I then claim a right to have a bar mitzvah, and to say what bar mitzvah means, it just won’t work. It’s nothing to do with me as a non-Jew. Gay couples need proper rights and laws for their relationships, just like everybody else, but people who are not members of a particular religion cannot define other people’s religion. Neither can religious groups define what the laws state can pass to regulate relationships.

33. You’re doing a terrific job LF; we need more people like you!

34. Hi Paula,

    I’m sorry I am slower than usual at present at answering messages.

    There was rather a lot for me to take in from your message which I was not aware of, and I am anxious not to misunderstand your explanation of your personal circumstances. This particularly means trying to understand a number of situations/terminology which I have not previously heard. It is not a lack of desire to discuss different experiences/opinions, but rather I am trying to show respect by doing my best to understand.

    Some of what you’ve explained I am still working through. You have raised my awareness of situations that I had thought were much rarer than you stated.

    I think I understand from your post that you were born with genitalia which were medically deemed to be closer to male than female, and therefore you were given an operation intended to assist you in being the perceived gender.

    When you asked me for a reaction to my husband changing gender, I took it in view of my husband’s situation, which is one of mental ill-health. I have heard very vague reference to what I think was gender dysphoria occasionally on the radio, but never in terms which I was in a position to follow-up and understand. Thank you for explaining it to me.

    To clear up a side issue: the Bible does not actually say that the earth is flat. It does have a number of poetic imageries that can easily be twisted to say so, but the Bible nowhere states that the earth is flat. It does say that it hangs upon nothing, and that was rather revolutionary for the time it was written. I’ve looked through a few sites which address the problem from various viewpoints, and I note that there is no evidence of the so-called Christians who are quoted being Christians by God’s definition, rather than Man’s definition. The only person who would know that the earth hung upon nothing would be the One who put it there, and was able to view it every day in that position. Nobody living on the earth could do that at that time. They would have had to get that information from the Lord God.

    Regarding the birth-rate question I asked, I would want to see data from much longer than the last 10-11 years, as what I was interested in was the effects on birth-rate, and what happened to the society as a whole where children were involved in same-sex marriages. I’ll check back with you in about 50 years, shall I? ? I don’t believe the earth is over-populated, but I do believe that economic mismanagement of world resources (food and funds) has led to “localised” (i.e., in some countries, but not in other countries) famine/drought that could be dealt with, but isn’t. Sometimes this is the fault of the richer countries, sometimes it is the fault of the wealthy within the poorer countries, sometimes the fault of those who are interested in making their point by genocide.

    I understand homosexuality to be a chosen preference of sexual partner of the same gender. I understand gender dysphoria to be a physical circumstance which (thanks to you explaining your circumstances) I now see can lead to an appearance or circumstance of same-sex partner choice. I don’t wish to pry, or to go beyond what you have chosen to share, so if I have misunderstood something that I read in your post, please let me know.

    As I begin the reply proper, may I also say this in clarification: as you may have gathered I am a Bible-believing Christian. This means that I am not merely one who believes that God exists, but who also believes what He says in the Bible (the Old and New Testaments). This is very different to the majority of people who call themselves Christians. I invited Him into my life nearly 14 years ago, although I did not really believe in Him, as I said in my first post. Just to make one point clear, which people sometimes confuse, the God described in the Bible is not a generic one-god-fits-all-names. For this reason, I would like to refer to Him now not just with the easily misapplied name ‘God’, but with the specific name used in Genesis 1 and 2: Elohim, denoting His Creatorship (in Genesis 2, this is expanded with YVWH denoting His Self). I use a King James Version translation, which I often cross-reference to the original Hebrew and Greek using a Strong’s and a Young’s concordance, with amplification from a Zodhiates Study Bible. In referencing the meanings of English words that have changed definition, I use a 1907 Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary and what research I can gather.

    I am not a Pastor, I don’t know the Bible nearly as well as I should after 13 years, and I do make mistakes. But I’m trying not to.

    So, the question is a two-fold one at present: Christian bashing of (if I may use a group descriptive) LGBT, and specifically, the redefinition of marriage. I begin at the beginning of the Christian faith as it is in the Bible, not in any specific church denomination.

    In the beginning Elohim (God) created… and on day six He created Man (the entire human race in one representative) in His own image. Since Elohim is Spirit, not flesh, it was Man’s spirit/soul which was created in Elohim’s image. The physical image is not the issue, since the Bible does not describe – in fact specifically prohibits description of – Elohim as a physical entity. It does, however, translate His interactions with us and care for us in terms we can understand, which includes such poetic phrases as “the hand of my God was upon us”, “the eyes of the Lord are in every place”.

    Genesis 1 is written as an overview of the creative works of the first seven days (the arbitrary chapter and verse divisions should have made a break in Genesis 2:4, after the word created, but as the original Hebrew had no punctuation it is understandable that the grammatical division was missed. The key to the break is the word “generations”, repeated 7 times in Genesis). In Genesis 2 we have a more personal and focused view of the specific acts and conditions of the environment on Day 6.

    There is import to the order of facts which we are given about Man’s creation: firstly, in Elohim’s image, therefore a spiritual being; then given dominion over the other created lifeforms; specifically created male and female: two distinct types of human; commanded to multiply and fill the earth; provided with a vegetarian diet.

    In Genesis 2 we learn more specifically that Elohim created one representative of the human race, a male known to us as Adam.

    Adam had already had the unique act of creation that he had been given the breath of life, and was a living soul. This sets him apart from every other created lifeform. The first recorded conversation is the giving of a single rule and its consequence when broken: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    Elohim showed Adam his solitude amongst the remainder of creation by there not being a “help meet” for him. This phrase is nowadays best rendered as “a helper suitable for (Adam’s) needs”, since the old meaning of “fitting, suitable, proper” has now almost vanished. The fact of this solitude was the sole thing that was not good in Creation (out of 7 pronouncements that Creation was good). This demonstrates to Adam the significance and uniqueness of the creation of a female counterpart for him. But Elohim did not simply create the first woman the same way Adam was created. Instead He took part of Adam’s own genetic material, his own flesh (identified as a rib) and created Eve that way. From Adam’s side, poetically, to be his support and second-in-command.

    Then you have the first marriage ceremony. It is defined in Genesis 2:23-24 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    This is the foundation on which so many of the complaints against Christians are levelled. Those of us who believe not merely in “God”, but also we believe what Elohim says as the absolute truth, because He cannot lie, see that homosexuality as a choice is a direct and flagrant rebellion against the way all Mankind was created. It is rebellion against the purpose of our sexuality, and against the intention of it. This is why the Bible condemns it so strongly. It is one of the worst rebellions against the Lord God. Additionally, marriage is foundational because it was included in the Creation acts of Day Six; it was set as a divine edict of how things were to be.

    That is why it should never be redefined, and why it does not belong to any human or man-made definition. We did not define marriage; Adam articulated the definition he was shown in action.

    There is, then, the charge against Christians, against the Bible, that things are not like that. If God was perfect, how come we have the world we do?

    Most people with a cursory knowledge of our faith [I do not have religion, even though you choose to call it that; I have a living one-to-one relationship with Elohim] know the world was created perfect. Without exception, all of those who have made that complaint to me have (1) failed to remember that Man chose to rebel against God/Elohim, (2) refused to admit that they have a culpability in the ongoing rebellion, and (3) ridiculed the consequence that Elohim set and which we now live in.

    In the Bible, the word ‘die’ has a rather specific meaning of cessation: I find it best rendered as ‘separation’. Adam and Eve both died instantly: being not only physical but also spiritual bodies, their spiritual life directly derived from Elohim, in the instant they chose to disobey Him by their spirits died – were separated from the sustaining life of Elohim. This is evidenced in Genesis 3:10: Adam knew _fear_ for the first time.

    Created genetically perfect, with every possible variation that a perfect human body could have written in, it is a matter of mathematics as to how many variations they could produce in every child they had. And they had a lot more than 3. But the consequence of their rebellion was that genetic perfection could no longer be maintained. The Bible describes this in Romans 5:12-19, condensed in the phrase “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”.

    The word sin is a translation not only of a Hebrew word, but also of a Greek word, both of which carry the same symbology: that of an arrow missing the centre of it’s target.

    The Bible is not against equality. It contains the most significant equalising statement ever: _all_ have sinned. Adam’s spiritual death misses the mark of our original spiritual life. And since no dead thing can ever give rise to life, no dead spirit could ever give birth to spiritual life, all Mankind ever since has been born spiritually dead. That is why the Lord Jesus Christ came: to give us spiritual life by atoning for all our rebellion.

    And what of your situation? As I understand it, you suffered at conception from a genetic problem, that of gender dysphoria. This has caused problems which – if more Christians were aware of it – are certainly something we have to examine ourselves about. However, the phrase “all have sinned” is not based solely on gender problems or sexual preferences.

    Mankind was created with free-will. That is, the ability, and the right, to choose in accordance with the individual level of understanding, whether or not to obey Elohim. A growing child does not have the level of understanding an adult does. However, both have a conscience.

    It was exercising our free-will in rebellion that caused spiritual death. Setting aside entirely the question of gender and gender-related choices, how many times in your life have you chosen to exercise your free-will to disobey even the basic rules of conscience that you had both in childhood and adulthood.

    People make a big issue over Christians condemning LGBT and how we say you are destined for hell. They’re missing the real point: _no one_ is entitled _not_ to go to hell. I certainly wasn’t, and I considered myself as good as anyone else. Lots of Christian denominations are very fond of quoting John 3:16 For God so loved the world…. But almost none of them go on to quote John 3:17-21, and only a handful link the whole passage with its defining verse in John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

    Ah. I’m halfway down page 4 on the word processor, and it’s time to get everyone ready for school.

    I’ll stop here. I’ve got several more pages of debate, but you should have your turn as well. Anything I haven’t specifically addressed, doesn’t mean I have been considering it, or at least trying to.

    Regards,
    Glenys

35. Dear Lynne

    Interesting set of comments above and with the exception of the dear Rev seeing sin round every corner, I have a lot of sympathy for most opinions here, even if I do not agree with them all.

    Idealistically I see no reason why people of any set up should not, as a couple, be wed. But, to say that since this is a civil marriage proposal it does not reflect upon a religious marriage, and therefore not to polarise the debate, is all very good, but rather misguided.

    The problem for Churches who do not believe in same sex marriage, is that they would still have to recognise that a couple are married from the legal point of view. The religious ceremony may be a separate issue, but the legal state is the same whether a person is married through a church, registry office or a cricket pavilion somewhere.

    Now, I would very much like to see this pushed through and I think it is years late in coming, but I also recognise that the religious lobby, at least those opposed to gay marriage, will have a say in this and probably have a right to have a say.

    Having said that, I suspect that the representatives of the clergy who are against this are far from representative of the opinions of their flock – they may not be elected, but if they are speaking for a broad church, they should take that into account.

36. The word “marriage” should remain used only for what it is – a lifelong committed partnership between a man and a woman. The new proposal will do nothing to change the legal rights of those in civil partnerships, and just cause confusion.

    I also have a concern that the whole way that we have approached friendly and loving relationships between those of the same sex, puts such a strong emphasis upon sex.

    I agree with the Archbishop of York that there is no such person as “a homosexual” or “a heterosexual”. We are all human beings made in God’s image, of which our varying sexuality is just a part.

37. The word “marriage” is also used in engineering to describe the union of two metal parts, as an example. Also it is used in Antiques to describe an item being put together from different parts.

    Personally, I don’t see any confusion at all when using it. The only confusion comes when a bloke uses the term “wife” to describe his male partner. But that is a different word and is only an affectation used through fondness and fun.

    The real point here is that someone should be able to say to another that they love and want a lifelong commitment to, “I want to marry you,” and for everyone to understand what that means.

    It seems rather churlish to say to someone, oh, sorry, you are not allowed to use that ancient old word – only particular people are allowed to use it.

    In language, the use of words change constantly, and in law they do to. In the end, common usage will become the accepted form, as it has with every other word in language down the centuries. That is how the OED is created!

    The Archbishop of York said that “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is.”

    And neither is it the role of the church. It will be the role of the common man who through everyday usage defines the meaning of every word. The state simply reacts to that usage for administrative purposes.

    (Note: looking back over polls over the last few years, the results are rather more confusing than some media and campaigners have declared. It seems that the public are pretty split on the issue with slightly more seeming to be in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry. The confusion is caused by some of the questions which include references to the current system – the results include a high percentage of “don’t knows,” which can often be translated as “don’t care”. When Carey claims that the “British people do not want any of this” he is clearly wrong and the Daily Mail has simply added the Don’t Knows to the No vote to skew the debate completely. So, not much help there to either side of the argument!)

38. Hi Glenys

    I hope that Lynne does not mind hosting our conversation  here!

    I read your post with interest and better understand your perspective. To address points that you raised….

    It is  brain development that dictates who we are and this apparently causes folk to have gender identity issues. Physical anomalies can also occur but it is the brain that dictates ones gender. It is ‘hard wired’ and thus cannot be modified by any known medical or psychiatric intervention . The only successful treatment is to transition.

    Yes, my relationship has the appearance of a lesbian one but don’t judge a book by its cover!

    My spouse thought that this would cause mega problems but there have been none. Indeed, why should there be any issue?

    Gay folk  if denied equal marriage, are unlikely to form heterosexual relationships and so the impact on birth rate is a non issue. As sexual orientation is not a learned response, any adopted children will not be ‘converted’.  You would not describe your sexual orientation as a ‘chosen preference’ as it is what it is – so why should it be different for gay folk?

    I agree that world resources need rebalancing and the transfer of wealth from the many to the few should be reversed. Jesus and I have the same opinion of ‘money lenders’!

    ‘Flat earth ‘was catholic teaching. Some religions have expanded their rule base beyond the confines of scripture to cover aspects such as birth control, and, in the process, condemned millions to poverty and disease in the third world. Religion is not always a force for good.

    Our substantial difference stems from my non acceptance of your belief system (partly because it is not evidence based). It is based on having faith  in what you have been told being true for all folk. However it is true for you but not for me. This is why I am unable to give weight to the arguments that you offer, based on scripture.That does not mean to say that much of what is stated in scripture is not good and sensible!

    My inexpert take on religion is that it is a facilitator for some to lead a good and honest life. Thus, the important aspect is the outcome and not the process employed to get there. It is the folk that we are and what we do that should define us and not any religion that we follow.

    I cannot be intimidated by threats of hell fire, plagues of locus etc.  I can’t see that the god you describe would condemn me for trying to be authentic.

    All I know for sure is that I was born the way I am (as I understand gay folk are). The only lifestyle choice we have is whether to suppress the way we feel to indulge religious lifestyle choices and other sensitivities. Why should we deceive ourselves and lead miserable existences to do that?
     
    Traditional marriage in the late nineteenth century meant that women had no legal personality, could not keep money that they earned or own property or make a will without their husband’s consent. All their property was transferred to the husband. No divorce was possible.  This is traditional marriage?

    Marriage was necessarily altered to remove unfairness based on gender, to halt the legal robbing of women!

    It is thus clear that we have marriage that is an evolving concept. I and others seek removal of unfairness based on gender identity (because of enforced divorce to gain legal recognition).

    Homosexuality was unlawful until comparatively recently and equal marriage is the final episode in granting such folk an equal place in society.  We are asking for the unfairness, indeed downright discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, to be removed.

    What concerns me is that some religions may be denied the possibility of performing equal marriage ceremonies and this would be discrimination.

    I cannot see how me being allowed to remain married and receive my legal rights as a female will hurt anybody. I also can’t see how gay couples getting married rather than forming civil partnerships will have the slightest impact on heterosexual marriages. I believe that in 5 and not 50 years folk will be asking what all the fuss was about.

    We do not intend to impose homosexuality or gender identity disorder on religious people. We tolerate your views. Please do not seek to impose your belief system constrains on us!

    I wish you well.

39. @ Michael Sparrow

    “I also have a concern that the whole way that we have approached friendly and loving relationships between those of the same sex, puts such a strong emphasis upon sex.”

    That’s mainly the fault of the church, which is obsessed with the issue.

    The Archbishop of York is not concerned about the welfare of lesbian and gay people. If he was he would have signed the Cambridge Accord whilst he was still only Bishop of Stepney. Also one has to wonder why the Review of matters arising from the murder of Damilola Taylor, headed by Sentamu as Bishop of Birmingham, failed to consider the fact that the boy had been the subject of homophobic bullying shortly before his death.

40. “We are not prioritising gay rights, or trampling over tradition;”

    Yes, you are.

41. @LJU

    In regards to the “prioritising gay rights,” I have to agree with Lynne – this is not putting rights of people who wish to marry someone of the same sex over those who wish to marry someone of a different sex. Rather this is putting both wishes on the same footing.

    As for the trampling over tradition, well, just about any change that is ever made to any rules could be said to do that.

    Traditionally women were refused the vote, and we trampled all over that tradition. Traditionally, most people in the country were denied the vote for that matter.

    Traditionally, some clubs refused membership to Jews, and we trampled over that tradition too.

    When you are working in society to give everyone equal rights under the law, inevitably you could be accused on trampling on tradition. Should you deny equality on that basis?

    Of course not.

42. @Liberal Majority

    Sorry LM but you need to see a few things;

    1st – One tradition we have had in this country for some decades is that MP’s are elected to represent the will of the people. Are you in favour of overriding the clear majority that is in favour of keeping the definition of marriage as that between a man and woman?

    2nd – Are you then in favour of say removing the laws covering bestiality as they are a long standing tradition? How about the legal recognition of Polygamy? Cool with that?

    finally you define yourself as Liberal Majority – well it may be a surprise to you but, like Polly Toynbee a believer in the Progressive Majority, there is no (large L) ‘Liberal majority’ in the UK.

    A cursory glimpse at the the result of the recent referendum to change the voting system, and the general level of scepticism regarding the EU (note NOT EUROPE) tell you all you need to know about the general public’s rejection of most Liberal (Large L) values

43. In fact Lynn herself said in her recent interview with the Daily Telegraph…

    “it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better.”

    To reflect society? So most of the UK think that as stated before that marriage should only be offered to the joining together of a man and a woman, so come on Lynn why don’t you reflect that?
    Though I disagree with it most of the UK public want the reinstatement of the death penalty for certain crimes.
    Most of the UK want looser ties with Europe – cool about reflecting that view Lynn.

    Of course not you’re a politician and a progressive and if theirs one thing that all progressives believe and that;s that their always right about an issue – even if events – i.e. the Euro crisis – prove them totally wrong..

    Regards etc.

44. @Steve James

    An MP is elected by the people in their area because the majority who voted feel they best represent their opinions – the MP is not a stooge for the people to represent every change of whim. If you want that sort of system then you would need to have a central committee that sets up policy ideas and then hold a national referendum on every single tiny aspect of law and procedure. Probably a couple of thousand a year, I would imagine.

    A close second would be to go for PR where you will get a much more balanced and representative range of views across parliament.

    Your comments about bestiality and polygamy are simply ridiculous.

    As for polling – attitudes appear to swing back and forth depending on how the questions are asked and the existence of Civil partnership seems to have confused the data and people’s understanding. So none of that is very reliable.

    At the end of the day, though I am sorry that some people who follow a religion will feel this is an affront, I still support gay marriage. As does my 92 year old mother, a very strict Christian (CoE) who would happily see same-sex couples marry in her local church. Much to her surprise, living as she does in the home counties, she finds that most of her Tory, well-to-do, middle-class, Christian friends, agree with her! Somebody must have forgotten to ask them.

    BTW – I do not claim that the majority of people in this country are Liberal voters (I am not a member of the Lib Dems myself), rather that the majority of people have mostly liberal views and that the Lib Dems could actually pick up much more support if they sorted themselves out in many ways. Of course, I am not the only one that believes that – as both Tory and Labour parties go out of their way to woo the liberal leaning attitudes in this country, they obviously believe so to.

45. Hello Paula,

    Thank you for speaking to me and explaining what your life is. One of the things that I have learned about my Lord is that He likes for His people to get involved in the lives of others. He has arranged for me to learn about two lives which are nothing like mine have been. One of those has chosen Him for their Lord last November, after 5 years knowing each other.

    I realise our conversation is come to an end: I regret that I can’t think of anything more original to say publicly than that I was sorry to read of your childhood experience. Too many have used their authority and their victim’s vulnerability as a cover, be it religious or otherwise. I do not approve of the denominations, and I in no way condone abuse.

    I do have choice over my sexual preference. How far back in my life the choice goes is irrelevant. I can change the choice any time, either to the opposite, or to abstinence. I think the same is true for most people.

    Marriage has been confused with the rights assigned to the marriage contract in law. I have not addressed the issue of what rights accompany marriage. There has been great injustice in the past. But it does not change the fact that marriage was instituted and defined as one man with one woman for life. That is the right which it cannot be divorced from. And divorce itself does not ever justify the redefining of marriage, any more than the fact that there are crimes justifies the abolition of every law.

    How does your circumstance affect mine? I am already married, and there are still enough expectations that married means one-man-one-woman-even-if-the-for-life-is-not-an-expectation that I know that when I say I’m married people know that it is to a man. So in that respect, no, I suppose you do not affect me. But you are affecting my children. You are changing what marriage will be presented as to them, to their peers. Why do you not want your own special designation, with whatever legal rights?

    There are a great many things I think we might be able to discuss. But I will close with this:

    Evidence is in the eye of the denier. If you are so sure of the lack of evidence, then what we offer as evidence is nothing to be afraid of examining. Yet most people do refuse to examine it. They refuse to discuss it fully. My Lord does not judge you on whether you are good or bad by human standards, but on whether or not you admit that there is nothing you can do of yourself to be of the standard of righteousness needed to enter His presence. The Bible says simply Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    Without Christ, I am no different to you in His eyes.

    You will, I think, understand that I wish you not ‘all the best’, but rather the contentment that I have, and ten times more besides.

    Regards

    Glenys

46. Whilst marriage equality is to be welcomed, it is disappointing that the Coalition doesn’t have more regard for our National Health Service

47. Oh I dunno Dave, they have more regard for it than the last lot did, Labour were busy hiving it off to private profiteers and the PFI farrago that means most of the money being spent on the NHS now is just paying interest for operations done years ago. An entire health service bought on tick.

    That is however a bit of a tangent from the matter in hand: Liberal Majority here is spot-on in talking about how MPs are representatives not delegates, we elect them for their brains not their obedience!

    Good thing too. Otherwise how could they know how to behave when something new comes up – you’d need a fresh general election every fortnight. And public opinion isn’t the best judge: ahead of the Iraq War, the opinion polls were in favour of it. Even when war started, with Labour, Tories and Greens then all supporting the war and only the Liberals and some fringe groups calling for an early end to hostilities, it was still pretty popular — albeit with opinion increasingly polarised one way or the other.

48. Listening to the Moral Maze on Radio Four last night (or a bit of it while in the local Tesco’s car park!) I was struck by the comments from Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner of the Movement of Reform for Judaism.

    She was quite adamant that this was a simple act of equality. She felt that arguments that Marriage should be all about procreation of children were a red herring being used to substantiate an argument that she felt that she could not justifiably use to a same sex couple.

    Her movement already bless same sex civil partnerships and she really wanted to be able to balance this all out by saying that if a “couple” in a sexual and loving relationship wanted to get married, then they should – simple, straightforward and even handed.

    Dr Austen Ivereigh from Catholic Voices was keen to distance himself from the provocative and quite homophobic comments made earlier in the week by Cardinal Keith O’Brien when he described the plans as “grotesque.” However, Dr Ivereigh was still sticking to the line of “complimentary” gender match and the natural procreation of children which is, more and more, sounding like excuses to get round the fact that many in the upper echelons of Roman Catholicism simply are really against people who are gay being given equal footing – they cannot reconcile it against a few lines of scripture and don’t have the appetite (or guts) to try.

    As you hear the politicians argue this through (with many on the side of gay marriage) you realise that Civil Partnership was actually a fudge – it IS marriage in all but name, given a slightly different status to appease the Bishops in the Lords to make sure it got through.

    Many Tory MPs and the public feel this issue is being given too high a profile at the moment. This is a little disingenuous since it is taking up very little parliamentary time and is more of a debate taking place in public. However, despite the apparent contentiousness of the issue, I suspect that far more column inches are being given over to upcoming talent shows!

    But simple, single issues like this are important. They test the moral fabric of our parliament, try their commitment to civil liberties and equality and can expose where some MPs are really positioned on a whole range of issues. Fox hunting was another such issue – as a voter you may have had no interest in the issue at all, but hearing how your MP spoke about it, what language they used and how they approached the issue (which ever side of the argument he or she was on) could expose all kinds of cracks in the way they hoped you saw them.

49. The move to re-define marriage is not altruistic or for the sake of the equality of homosexuals; it is, as Francis Maud aluded to in the press this morning, a politically pragmatic policy designed to make the coalition electable at the next election. So thousands of years of cultural tradition across all faiths and cultures to bring up the next generation of children with a father and a mother is swept aside to keep politicians in power. Lynne Featherstone, you must feel so proud.

50. Who owns marriage?

    For a Christian there is only one answer – God

    Jesus said,
    “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one.

    Change can be right but it can also be wrong.

    whatever legislation you pass, for Christians this is the definition of marriage given by Jesus and same sex arrangements can therefore never be considered marriage.