to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

I'm beginning to think I don't actually give a sod.

Of course the C of E is a "state" church jo - no other churches (not even the anglicans in Wales etc) have bishops in the house of lords. Or the queen as head.
Do you not see that there will be a mismatch between legislation on gay marriage and on discrimination and the C of E stance. They will want to retain their registrar status but pick and choose who they marry. So one law for the C of E and another law for everyone else. It does not make a lot of sense does it?
They are already getting dispensation to ignore anti-discrimination law when it comes to women bishops. How far does it go?
Crazy if you tried to explain to an non-brit really.
Don't see anything wrong in the last line of my post. We are allowed to criticise the institutions of the land if we want and you are welcome to debate with us - but not to tell us off for the content of the debate.

I didn't "tell off" anyone.

The other (low?) churches don't have bishops do they? They must have some big knobs in the House of Lords though.

Like I say #pastcaring

Well, I care very much, just as I do whenever one group of people is suffering discrimination. I look forward to the day when there is one form of legal contract for all couples, performed as a civil ceremony. If members of any church want to add on a religious ceremony, that is between them and the relevant church.
I get the impression that most posters are very much in favour of the law change, but of course there may be people with different views who are just choosing not to post.

The late Donald Soper was a Methdodist member of the house of Lords. He was still a Hyde Park corner soapbox speaker, well into his nineties.

He was an amazing guy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Soper,_Baron_Soper

Yes! He was the one in the back of my mind Nelliemoser. I knew there was a well known one.

Jo I had to Google him with a search term like "Methodist soapbox preacher" His name had slipped out of my brain.

And he has been dead since 1998.
He became a Life Peer during a Labour government and had been a leading ight in social reform as well as CND.

Well actually, scrolling through the very long list on wiki there do not appear to be any other serving clergy etc either christian or not. 26 bishops and 1 ex archbishop all from the same church.
But, by jingo, I had never realised that there are so many of the so and sos.
Even an "ex heroin addict".
Good job that they don't all turn up. Otherwise it would cost the country a fortune in daily attendance payments and the palace of Westminster would sink into the Thames under their collective weight.

The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, is in the Lords, but I can guess on which side he would vote.

The Reformed Jewish Rabbi, Julia Neuberger, is also a member of the House of Lords, but the only clergy admitted to that body by virtue of their denomination are Anglicans. So discriminatory that it might be an offence against something or other.

Julia Neuberger stood as Liberal (or Lib Dem) candidate in our constituency in South London a long long time ago. I should be able to guess which way she would vote.

Not all Christian denominations have bishops but all of the main denominations and religions in UK have members in the House of Lords. And in the House of Commons. Yes, it is discriminatory that only (some of the) CoE bishops sit ex officio in the HoL. The CoE is the established Church. That puts it in a unique position in England. Them's the facts.

I am concerned at the CofE's dated attitudes to gay marriage and women bishops - they are basically in a position of breaking the law, were it not for the fact that an exceptions have been made for them.

They cannot on the one hand be the "state" church and on the other ask for special pleading to be outside the generality of the state's laws.

I understand that they feel they are sticking up for things that they see as being morally right and above human/state legal systems. In that case they should opt to remove themseles from the role of "state" church and choose disestablishment.

As he was 95 by then it was permissable. One wonders how many peers in the house of lords are also in Donald Sopers condition and have not been noticed.

"The CoE is the established Church. That puts it in a unique position in England. Them's the facts."

The unique position being that it represents fewer than ten percent of the population... some establishment!

I'm not making excuses or making a case I'm just stating the facts! Yes, having an established church is weird. Yes, it's completely tangled up in our weird constitution. But no-one is interested in constitutional reform. And if we did have the kind of gut-reaction knee-jerk 'reform' on offer these days we would probably find a worse situation. Like the House of Lords. There are hundreds of them now, all turning up and claiming their allowances and politicking. And now we've got rid of all the hereditary peers who were peers because one of their ancestors had been buddy with a former sovereign, what have we got? An elected second house? No, we've got life-peers who are peers because they've been buddy with one of the political parties. Such an improvement!

JessM I would remind you that the Queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is the Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith.

I don't think it's accurate (or factual) to say that no-one is interested in constitutional reform. I am, for a start, and I know of several others. Interest in constitutional reform does exist!

That said, I would agree there doesn't seem to be much will to start making changes (such as abolishing the bishops' right to sit in the Lords, to begin with, and then arranging for an elected second chamber) among politicians.

But politicians aren't everyone. I reckon reform will happen some time. Maybe not in my life time.

You'll have heard of the Electoral Reform Society.

Electoral reform is not strictly relevant here, but numbers in the House of Lords are approaching, if they haven't already reached 800 and the forecast is for 1,000 members before the end of this Government. There are 650 MPs in the House of Commons (except not Chris Huhne right now) and they, at least, are elected.

Electoral Reform will encompass certain aspects of constituional reform, won't it? Because some aspects of electoral reform won't be possible without constitutional reform. But it is the electoral reform (making things more democraric) that is driving the process.

the need for

Yes, Bags I shouldn't have said that there is no interest in constitutional change. But I don't think it's in the forefront of most people's political interest. And I think that the constitutional implications of planned legislation aren't always understood or considered. With an organic constitution like the UK you also have to be alert to the unintended consequences of action and inaction - like the West Lothian matter, for example.

And it shouldn't be driven by electoral reform! That's exactly what I'm talking about - unintended and unplanned constitutional change .