Comments

Let us not discriminate. Why not define marriage for the future as the lifelong or shorter union of one or more creatures regardless of gender, solemnised as the parties choose?

What started off as the decriminalisation of a private act has turned into a witch hunt against everyone who finds that act distasteful.

There is no such thing as 'Gay Marriage' - call it any other debased PC term you like but Marriage it is not!!

The answer to this is surely quite simple.

Marriage is a religious ceremony and institution. Whether it can be between same sex partners is entirely a matter for the relevant religion.

In civil law there should be a civil institution of partnership. All partners should should go through this-if they wish to have a religious ceremony that should be according to the rites of that religion.

What do you feel is the correct answer to Roger Helmer's rather reasonable sounding question?

You don't - "sadly" - supply one.

It's a technique as old as the hills to bracket anyone on the 'other' side of a debate as being one with those holding extreme views.

There is no illogicality whatsoever between holding a strong position in favour of gay rights and freedoms, seeing civil partnerships in a very positive light; and holding that the institution of marriage has a particular, very ancient, meaning and significance (beyond a narrow religious one) as being between a man and a woman.

Holding the latter view is a perfectly legitimate position and cheap shots like the article above should not be permitted to bring those holding it into disrepute.

The word 'marriage' has meant something specific for many centuries and its meaning can't simply be changed by PC diktat.

If marriage is covenantal and divinely ordained, one trusts that these 32 + 38 will be laying a bill before the house to abolish Civil Marriage and the tax breaks that go with it.

Enoch Powell had other views for which the Conservative Party punished him, perhaps they were too "mainstream" ?

Jerry, great and important post.

Personally I'm with Dolly Parton on gay marriage:

‘Sure, why can’t they get married? They should suffer like the rest of us do.’”

One of the funniest things I've read for quite a bit. People are usually funny when they talk about morality but these ones are something else.

This sort of rubbish is why the Spectator lost my custom. It's not conservative at all, it's not thought provoking. It is just the usual bigoted rant.

You've stumbled into a minefield, Jerry. The 'Westminster Declaration' is fully sharia compliant. Tread carefully, mind how you go! [that'll be 100 Guineas, thanks]

"The next row was in the 1970s, when the unusual alliance of Malcolm Rifkind and Robin Cook campaigned to bring Scottish law into line with English. They were defeated. The law didn’t change until the next Labour government"
Wrong it was the next Tory Government in 1950.

MickC, Heartless C etc If the state calls it 'marriage' it is marriage. That will depend whether legislators are prepared to make it law. It's not about religion especially for those who don't subscribe. Or if a church recognises it. No one expects the Catholic Church to embrace this or even the CoE (not all of it anyway). Others may. I don't see it in many mosques either. But that's their affair. My but won't it be a quandry if a guy gets married to a lass and then to a guy. Now THAT will flumox them all. Will it be bigamy? Or should we say - bi-gamy. Watch this space. A local tory I know is getting engaged to a police-man, we're all so happy for them, really. Just change the law will you, get on with it. Those who don't want to watch, look the other way, why is it your business to interfere anyway? Oh, Jesus said marriage isn't for everyone. But no one reads that or the next few lines. Seems He recognised reality more than some of his self-professed followers.

Mick C has it right I think. Let the law prescribe legal unions that combine property and care of children. Let religions decide on their view of what constitutes a marriage or similar.

Honestly, the way some folk carry on about gay marriage you'd think it was going to be made compulsory.

David Maxwell Fyfe sat for Liverpool West Derby, now represented by Stephen Twigg. Until constituent Len McCluskey puts up as a union-backed Independent and beats him, but that is another story.

We should seize this opportunity to propose something better. The extension to relatives of the right to contract civil partnerships. The entitlement of each divorcing spouse to one per cent of the other's estate for each year of marriage, up to 50 per cent, and the disentitlement of the petitioning spouse unless fault be proved, thereby restoring the situation whereby, by recognising adultery and desertion as faults in divorce cases, society declared in law its disapproval of them even though they were not in themselves criminal offences.

The entitlement of any marrying couple to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 as regards grounds and procedures for divorce, and to enable any religious organisation to specify that any marriage which it conducts shall be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly. And the statutory specification that the Church of England be such a body unless the General Synod specifically resolve the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses, with something similar for the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.

That would be a start, anyway.

Why did my comment take so long to go up. Was it because you were waiting for some OTHER sane people to post and meanwhile letthe ranters have their heads. It's good to see there are so many right wing people around who do NOT want to burn homosexuals.

I dont really agree with Cameron. Commitment in itself alone isnt particularly interesting. Its the context of the commitment and I really dont see what interest the rest of society has in recognising gay relationships through marriage. There doesnt appear to be any particular benefit to the wider community in the way there is with recognising heterosexual relationships.

I dont think the gay lobby want tolerance. I suspect they are seeking approval. And they're not going to get it.

Jerry,

Call me a cynic (I am) but is this post the start of your campaign to get back into parliament as a Cameroon? Have you tired of your return to the barrister life so soon? Have you heard on the grapevine that there might shortly be a seat available because the sitting MP is about to have er... legal difficulties?

OK then, you need to follow this post up, fairly sharpish, with an angst ridden post on the environment. That should do it. Good luck! [that'll be another 100 Guineas, thanks]

"Jerry Hayes is a political clown of negligible importance to the Government. So why all the fuss over his sex life, asks Peter Popham " Tuesday 07 January 1997
Independent

EC Pleeeeease! No. Have already done 14 years in the place and would probably regarded as a silly old fart. But I am a Cameroon. I think it's time for a spoof book entitled, "The case for a compulsory gay United States of Europe with the Deutchmark as currency, French as the first language and a national sperm bank based in Belgium."

ReekKnot, right and right.

‘There’s something special about marriage. It’s not about religion. It’s not about morality. It’s about commitment. When you stand up there, in front of your friends and family, in front of the world, what you’re doing really means something brave and important. You are publicly saying: it’s not about “me, me, me, me” anymore. It’s about “we”: together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And, by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. "

An excellent and conservative view. Let's hope this government pushes it to fruition.

Marriage rests upon a legal foundation. It confers rights of inheritance and carries weight in such terrible decisions as the termination of life of a partner or such wonderful decisions as raising children. That is as far as it should go in terms of State interference. It should not be a vehicle for social engineering and neither should it be used for getting tax breaks.
 
In the end, marriage is intensely personal and private. Regardless of what it is called its value lies in the commitment of two people to each other. Sometimes those two people see it as a commitment before God and sometimes they do not. Regardless of belief it is only as good as the two people make it.
 
Someone close to me embarked upon a same-sex relationship about one year ago. I recently asked if they were considering getting civvied/married or whatever. "Oh no," they said. "We are going to give it at least a couple of years to make sure that we are very certain we want to be together for life."
 
As I understand their relationship, they are very aware that "marriage" is a profound undertaking; a declaration of intent that signifies love and life-long commitment to love, honour and cherish.
 
It is inconceivable to me that anybody could suggest that their plans have any less legitimacy than those in a heterosexual partnership.
 
Accordingly, the idea that in terms of State intervention and social recognition (personal belief is another thing altogether and should be respected) same sex partnerships should enjoy equality in law and public life.
 
My close "friend" is lucky. A few decades ago they would not have been able to achieve the kind of self-actualisation they now enjoy. And that would have been a tragedy.

I recollect a Conservative politician named Iain Macleod, but not, I'm afraid, one named Ian Mcleod.

I approve of gay people ever so much. Brings down the number of perfectly ghastly children.

"Eighteen months later, Helmer tweeted, ‘Why is it ok for a surgeon to perform sex change operation but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to ‘turn’ a consenting homosexual?’"

Perhaps because there is no such thing as a "sex change"?

No one can change their DNA.

"Transgender" is another one of those pseudo scientific made-up words invented to legitimise the "sex change" industry.

There seems a general assumption that homosexuality is something you are born with. Is there any proof of this, or is it just a fashion? What about people who have relationships with both sexes. Are they born bisexual, or are they suppressing a part of their 'true' selves?