to feel despair at the gay marriage vote

A very good point, Jings...and now I really am going for a pootle...

We can't mention the sex act?! I think we can you know. And often do.

But maybe, with marriage, we should forget about the sex thing. Just think only about love and support. Perhaps we've got too hung up on sex. We do get bombarded by it.

Yup. An interesting preamble.
So marriage is a special (sometimes holy) contract that must involve a penis and a vagina. Got it.

Why shouldn't marriage be hijacked? Why shouldn't the concept of marriage change? Not everyone understands, or accepts if they do understand, the old testament concept, which presumably only applies to christians anyway. The rest of the world (i.e. most people) have every right to have a different concept of marriage from that one.

Sorry, 'concept'.

I like the way you changed the meaning of "not wading in" there, Maries

I dont think the OP is being unreasonable and although I dont want to wade in on this argument ( because when anyone does they get called a hoomophobe or worse) I do not like it.

I am maried. I am a wife. My husband is my husband, be is not as far as I am concerned my "partner". he may be that as well but that is not why I married him. I could be ( and was for many years) his "partner" or " special other" or signigficant other" or whatevcer term you want to use when I shacked up with him.

I understand that the original ideaof Civil partnerships was to allow homosexual couples to be protected in law. Had I not wanted to marry I too could have taken steps to protect my situation in law - either through a will or after the original act, via a civil partnership. That act gave homosexuals equal rights under the law.

However, the problem is some of these people are not happy because they are not " married". To ensure they have this equality therefore we have to change the concept of marriage.

Now marriage ( despite what some think here) has NOT significantly changed since the year dot in the old testament.

Marriage is not just about a legal contract - although that is part of it. In most religious views it is a public declaration of more than that. It is also a signifier of far more than that.

This is where it gets complex and this is where the new law gets controversial ( and I get to be called unreasonable for not liking it).

Marriage is not between two people who love each other. I can do that with other people. I can my children, my parents even friends.

So it is a special relationship- I accept homosexual couples ( I refuse to use " gay" because this is another word like marriage is now becoming, thats been used and abused and taken over in the language of homosexuality) may have special feelings for a someone in their lives. They may want to celebrate that and make a public delaration- thats what a civil partnership can be for as well.

But it is not marriage because marriage is more than that.

Neither is marriage about bringing up children. You can do that in a co habitive relationship. You can bring up children in a homosexual relationship too. In a homosexual relationship they may or may not be children begat
(ye Gods there is an old word!) or they may not. same goes for cohabitive couples who are heterosexual - so marrigae is more than that.

It is there for the provcreation of children.

Wait, I hear you saying, but not all marriages beget children. No they dont! But the potentiality is there. But of course you could say, if a homosexual partner gets it togehter with a surogate / in a bottle with dirty mags ( depending on your inclination) and a turkey baster .... you can begat.....

So that isnt what marriage is about either.

So its about a physical expression of love and committment and a public show of same and children. Nut homosexuals can show a physical expression of their emotions but this is where we get the nitty gritty.

Marriage is not just about physical expression, public committment or bringing up children - or the ability to bring them into the world via sundry means ( although that is what it is now going to become.

Marriage is about one man and one woman, declaring their love, their committment and sharing a physical act of love ( used to be called " natural act" as opposed to "unnatural act") which has the potential to result , without other interference , in procreation of children.

That is marriage. Not one bit or another . That is why it is different to a civil partnership and that is why no homosexual pair can ever be married.

Its down to the dangler ladies and gentlemen.

Two men cannot do it. Two women cannot do it. Their sex act is different.

And this is why we cannot talk about it. We cannot mention that sex act can we?

But the new law changes everything. In the persuit of making homosexuals equal and the same my relationship has to be changed. They had equality , they will never be the same but they are having a good try and I am not being unreasonable in saying I do not like that.

I am not against anyone having their partnership recognised but why should marriage be hijacked for it? The proper way would have been to make all have civil partnerships and leave marriage for the religionns as something different. But they dont want that.

I have said my piece. I will say no more.

Re the Bishop's Bench... the UK is the ONLY western democracy to allow clerics in the legislature - I understand that Iran does something similar.

It wouldn,t have taken a lot of intelligence or imagination to anticipate the West Lothian problem. Some people did anticipate it and were ignored. [shrug]

Isn't 'organic' change what's always driven our constitutional reforms?

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

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.

the need for

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.

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.

You'll have heard of the Electoral Reform Society.

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.

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'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!

"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!

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.

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.

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.

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.