UK parliament approves same sex marriage.

It was passed under the Conservative Party's watch as well. Glad to know at least one country can do "compassionate conservatism". Thoughts KM?

Here is the language of Part 1 of the Bill. Sadly for km's legal world view, the words same-sex and marriage are treated as a valid legal descriptive term. Yeah for the UK.



Part 1 Marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales
Extension of marriage
1 Extension of marriage to same sex couples

(1) 5Marriage of same sex couples is lawful.

(2) The marriage of a same sex couple may only be solemnized in accordance
with—

(a) Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949,

(b) Part 5 of the Marriage Act 1949,

(c) 10the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970, or

(d) an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6.

(3) No Canon of the Church of England is contrary to section 3 of the Submission
of the Clergy Act 1533 (which provides that no Canons shall be contrary to the
Royal Prerogative or the customs, laws or statutes of this realm) by virtue of its
15making provision about marriage being the union of one man with one
woman.

(4) Any duty of a member of the clergy to solemnize marriages (and any
corresponding right of persons to have their marriages solemnized by
members of the clergy) is not extended by this Act to marriages of same sex
20couples.

Give the guy a little space, will ya? He's probably in mourning.

And then when he recovers;

Hee hee hee...

We know that if the Bill is passed into law there’s going to be Marriage Type A with one set of rules and Marriage Type B with another. Marriage Type A will be solemnised as ever between bride and groom and marriage Type B between persons of the same sex. There will be a right of annulment for non consummation in Marriage Type A but no such right in marriage Type B where consummation is biologically impossible.

Prohibited degrees of relationship that are necessary for Marriage Type A will be applied also to Marriage Type B where they happen to be unnecessary. That will discriminate unfairly against same sex partners outside the prohibited degrees by admitting to marriage only those who are within them.

The unequal treatment of parties to a marriage with regard to annulment for non consummation and then the exclusion of some same sex couples from the institution of marriage by reason of prohibited degrees will offend the Human Rights Act 1998 and thus require a ministerial statement before Second Reading derogating from the European Convention of Human Rights. Contrary to Cameron’s pronouncements about legislating for equality he is by these proposals achieving the exact opposite although up to now he has remained ignorant of the fact.

Political parties who wish to change the law on major constitutional and social institutions without a breach of trust should do what the Tories did not do in this case which is publish their intentions in a pre-election manifesto and then, if they gain power, instigate a consultation process and public debate starting with a green paper. This is the honest and democratic tradition of the nation.

km

Perfect rant.



You actually mean, what you think they should do.
Glad they didn't.
Congratulations to your country.

I am from the old school of thought I believe in DOMA. One man married to one woman.This is my belief.

Then I think you and KM should get married. Whet the hell, put on a wig and falsies and no one will know the diffy.

This must be killing you.

Well, my position on the matter is intellectual rather than emotional. I admit that the 'two types of marriage' concept came as a complete surprise, mainly because it's such a stupid idea, but since it will lead to the inequalities mentioned in my post it's unlikely to reach royal assent.

km

Hogwash!

It received royal assent in Canada.

Pffft. I wouldn't be so foolish as to ever expect an emotional response from you, Mr. Spock. Your life is lacking, but that's your problem.

From what I read, km is saying that the legalese behind this bill could actually legislate for same sex marriage to continue to be a tier below male/female marriage in certain respects, and that he doesn't think this is a good thing. Did we all read the same post?

He doesn't think same sex marriage — and officially named as such — is a good thing. Period. He's said as much time and time again.

That's his negative take on a positive situation.

Broadly speaking, yes. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art 14 prohibits discrimination in relation to Convention rights such as the right to marry in Art 16.

The prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage prevent genetic birth defects arising from sexual intercourse between persons who are too closely related. Since that applies to heterosexual spouses only there's no need to apply the same rules to same sex partners. Doing so unfairly discriminates against those who fall within the prohibited degrees so you finish up with a situation where some same sex partners can get married and others can't which will contravene Arts 14 and 16.

To get the Bill through Parliament in its present form Cameron will have to admit that he intends to derogate from those Articles and discriminate against some same sex partners.

km

Broadly speaking, I know there is a needle in here somewhere!

The legal technicalities are what he's worried about. And that's fine. But the visceral, emotional, human aspect — that's the hidden (and probably non-existent) needle.