On Tuesday evening the House of Lords decided to allow the Same-Sex Marriage Bill to progress to Committee Stage.

Whilst the result of the vote is disappointing a large number of Peers voted for the Bill but highlighted their concerns about it and said they would continue to pursue these concerns during Committee and Report Stage.

Supportive Peers

A number of excellent speeches were given by Peers from across the political parties during the two day Second Reading debate:

Lord Dear, former Chief Constable of West Midlands police, who has led the campaign against the Bill in the House of Lords remarked:

“…we find ourselves in a world where an ill considered Bill seeks to overturn centuries of tradition, heedless of public opinion and the views of religious leaders and blind to the laws of unintended consequences. It seeks to alter totally the concept of marriage as we have always known it, it seeks to divide a nation with an argument that hides behind the concept of equality when in reality it is about sameness, and it stands on its head all considerations of electoral mandate.”

Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay said:

“Marriage has developed over the years. No previous development is anything like this. This is not a development; this is a new creation. The express purpose of the Bill is to open the institution of marriage to same-sex couples, including those in a platonic relationship.”

Former Home Secretary, Lord Waddington noted:

“Throughout history, in all countries and cultures, marriage has been the union of a man and a woman; and although not every married couple have or want children, the core function of the union has always been the procreation and joint care of children.”

Baroness O’Loan, who has in the past chaired the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s human rights enquiry, spoke of the way in which the Bill creates two different institutions:

“What is proposed will result in two different types of union that will bear the same name: marriage. The first will involve traditional legal marriage between a man and a woman. The second, legal marriage between same-sex partners, will be significantly different from opposite-sex marriage. Non-consummation will not be a ground on which such a marriage can be declared void. There will be no presumption that a child born to the family is a child of the family, and sexual infidelity with another same-sex partner will not constitute adultery. The formal proposed legal relationships of married same-sex couples cannot therefore be construed as being identical to those of married opposite-sex couples. There will be different consequences, not only for the couple but for any child who may be born to such a relationship.”

Former Head of the British Army, General Lord Dannatt, commented on the absence of any mandate for change:

“A Bill such as this did not feature explicitly in any of three major parties’ manifestos at the general election. It did not appear in either of the last two Queen’s Speeches. The formal consultation process, as we have heard, was purely on the basis of how this redefinition of marriage was to be conducted, not whether it should be conducted.”

Baroness Cumberlege, former businesswoman and Health Minister said:

“Adopting an ancient word in the belief that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is false; it is patently different. This false premise on which the Bill is founded undermines its rationale. We should reject this flawed Bill and have a rethink.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby made no attempt to hide his firm opposition to the Bill:

“The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape, with same-gender and different-gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as a covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society, as we have already heard, is weakened.”

He concluded:

“This is not a faith issue, although we are deeply grateful for the attention that the Government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom. However, it is not at heart a faith issue. It is about the general social good. Therefore, with much regret—but entire conviction—I cannot support the Bill as it stands.”

Summary

The Bill has been scheduled for two days of scrutiny by a Committee of the Whole House on Monday 17 and Wednesday 19 June. It is expected that a considerable number of amendments will be tabled which will both get to the heart of the Government’s intention behind the Bill and improve the safeguards that are in place for churches, ministers and public sector employees. It is quite possible that additional days of Committee will be added if there are a large number of amendments.

You can see how Peers voted by clicking here. Those voting ‘content’ were voting to accept the amendment tabled by Lord Dear that “this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading.” Those voting ‘not content’ opposed this amendment and therefore granted the Bill a Second Reading and approved its passage to Committee.

Find below a video message from CARE’s Chief Executive, Nola Leach, which can also be viewed here: