to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

As ever, anno!

We are writing about this bill as if it has already passed into law, but the House of Lords is still a major obstacle.

I agree, it would. Bring it on

Is the C of E a "state" church? They always seem to have ministers from other churches at big state church do's. (Catholic, Methodist etc) Isn't it just Christianity that is regarded as the main religion of the country?

But I do think that any attempt to take away any licences from the C of E at the same time as bringing in gay marriage, would cause quite an uproar. To say the least!

It's not about hating anyone or anything; it's about removing people's and institutions' ability to act in discriminatory ways that are against the law. If being discriminatory is a conscience thing, well OK (maybe!), but it shouldn't be allowed in public spheres. Since the C of E is a 'state' church, it's public and needs to accept that what the majority of the public wants in a democratic society is what it should get.

I accept that that is probably not a watertight argument, but it just needs a few bungs andnit will be.

Just read read the last line of your post Jess.

Gobsmacked is the word that comes to mind.

Complaining Isn't the right word. I just think it is ridiculous to talk about taking away the C of E' s licence to marry!

What specifically are you complaining about j0? We can't really discuss this issue without bringing in the C of E can we, given that they are the established church and against this change in the law. In fact they have been fighting tooth and nail to stop it. And it still has to go through the lords which has nearly 30 seats reserved for its managers.
It is one of those historical moments when state and C of E are in conflict. If you do not like threads that debate issues around the C of E then you do not have to join us.

Oh, this is getting a bit "hate the Church of England" now. Not good.

I think it was Theresa May who told Conference that the Tories were seen as the nasty party. Could this be a cynical ploy to present themselves as the touchy-feely nice party? I don't care about their motives, though, I am just very happy that the law has got through.

Hi nathalie and welcome. The next 2 years of the coalition are going to be interesting aren't they. We'll be just entering the election campaign in 2 years time.

From what I can see far fewer young heterosexuals are marrying while lesbians have flocked to engage in civil patrnerships and will no doubt marry in due course.

I'm ecstatic the Tories have been shown to be in disarray over this issue.

Yup. If the C of E or any other church/faith don't want to play, just withdraw their licences to conduct legal marriage ceremonies. Just have licences for those who will marry everyone and let the rest do their ceremonies for those that want the religious top up.
Do those who officiate in non christian temples etc have a licence?

Me too. Yet another reason to disestablish the church from the state. Then the church can just be a private club and can rapped on the knuckles when it interferes with public life.

Agapanthus - please see my post where I said I agreed with you too.

When people talk about marriage being such a beautiful and sacred thing, I ponder that when I got married in 1969, I was in fact giving my husband the legal right to rape me! (To be fair, he never did!)

But isn't it lucky that gay marriage didn't come in before 1991 (when marital rape became a crime in the UK) ; with a same-sex couple, how could they have worked out who now had the right to rape whom?

Jess I think you've got it right. Much as I like tradition and 'Britishness' perhaps it's time that the Church of England withdrew from it's privileged position in the politics of the UK. We have such a variety of religions now it seems unfair to give the C of E such a high status.

I agree too. The French have a better 2 tier system - civil ceremony for everyone and then religious as well if you want it. Extend the civil ceremony to all kinds of partnerships I say.
I think part of the issue in the UK is the fact that the C of E is established and therefore thinks they should have a say in the laws of the land

SUSSEXPOET... yes I agree with you about the anomaly in the law and have mentioned it on this and another thread , as it is close to my heart, but you are the only one who seems to agree. Indeed many people ( even a gay man that I spoke to today), do not realise that this is the case, and do not recognise the inequality of refusing hetero couples a civil partnership.

Why are Christians being highlighted in objecting to gay marriage? If the Christian church disapproves that's fine. Moslems, Jews etc are also against it and that's fine too. If gay couples want to be married in a secular registry office, fine, no problem. They can be married and still true to whatever faith they wish to follow.

No. It's an inbalance. A child needs one of each. Of course there are good and bad parents, hetero or otherwise. But that doesn't make any difference to the fact.

Surely that depends on the mother/father family? I see no reason why a same sex couple should not make perfectly good, loving parents.

Yes. I'm not so sure about a same sex couple raising a child. I think a mother/father family is better for that.

I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage - but I am not a Christian. I can understand why Christians do find it difficult, as it does undermine what they have been taught and the Bible though. One reason I couldn't be a Christian myself

And yet - I do have misgiving about adoption by gay couples.

Well I'll miss chatting to her about my dog . So, if she does read this, please stay mollie.