to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

Goodness, I'm even more confused now ! So, if a vicar is also a registrar but as a vicar, can decide not to marry a gay couple, does that mean that he/she is above the law ? If so I wasn't aware that we are allowed to choose which laws to obey. Hmmm, I can think of a few I would like to break !

Yes, Mice have a good trip, and thanks for your clear and articulate explanations!

A vicar could not be made to do anything he felt was against his religious beliefs ginny. The government is not in charge of anyone's soul.

Feetlebaum, my MP also opposed the bill. Maybe he doesn't understand much about love and commitment. He left his first wife for someone else. They had a child and then he left her too. Think I might be sending him a little message too.

Actually, baptisms are often refused. If the vicar feels the parents are not committed themselves. Or even if they are just not church attenders.

And I think you'll find baptism is a sacrament. Apart from in the Baptist church.

Well at least that's one thing I can thank Mr Bean Milliband for.

j08 . So why were the b & b owners in the wrong ? They said it was because of their beliefs. What makes vicars a special case ?

Well, yes. I'm not at all sure about that one. I guess it was because they were running a business. And you're not allowed to discriminate in business.

Good question ginny I can't understand why priests/vicars etc will be allowed to choose whether to marry a gay couple or not, when a couple cannot choose whether to allow a gay couple to sleep together under their roof.

Mind you the church is a sexist institution anyway.

Vicars are there to look after people's souls. Not to provide a service for money. (I know expenses have to be met of course)

There is a difference but I don't think I can explain what I mean.

I think a lot of people, probably many at the very top, were unsure about the bed and breakfast couple.

How can you tell for certain whether someone holds a genuine religious belief, or is just being a narrow minded homophobe? Someone had to decide.

Oh I am intrigued j08 what do you mean? What people at the top?

I think perhaps the whole B & B things was a set up anyway, is that what you meant?

No. I don't think that at all! I just think that it was a difficult decision for a lot of people to arrive at.

I am glad to see that none of my (SNP) MPs voted - true to their promise not to vote on matters related to England and Wales only.

As to Gordon Brown Abstaining - I'd bet a £ to a penny that he was not there. The man has hardly been seen in Westminster since he lost his PM job - still drawing his MP's salary though....

Thank you all for your answers. I'm not sure I am any the wiser, it still seems as if there are different rules for different people. It is nice though to have a discussion without anyone getting hot under the collar. I love a good discussion and am always suprised that some people can't cope with others having differing views and take it as a personal insult. I often find I learn alot by listening to these alternatives .

Granny23 Not to mention several thousand pounds a year "to help him readjust from being PM". Margaret Thatcher and John Major are also still getting their readjustment compensation. I suspect TB is too as he never seems keen to turn down any source of income, but I am not certain.

Ooops sorry j08 I wasn't trying to read your mind.

Just wondering what you meant that's all.

No. That's alright.

Granny 23

Gordon Brown was there recently. He voted to keep 650 M.P' not 600.

Maybe my post does sound a bit bigoted and lacking in love. But I see it as being a bit problematic to allow the structure of society to change.

Two hundred years ago the structure of society meant that the poor were allowed to starve. Three hundred years ago slave-owning was seen as a normal structure of society. Most changes have been for the better.
Why deny two people the chance to make a public and legal commitment to each other? What are people afraid of?

marthanne
I am sorry but I think "Changing the structure of society" seems a bit over stated for what has been proposed.

A small minority in this country who are already in a relationship will change what they call that relationship. Nothing more at at all.

Current figures suggest that the Gay and Lesbian population in Britain is about 1.5%.

I've enjoyed this debate and can see your points of view- on a humourous note it will be more money for the lawyers when the Gays want to divorce