Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.

[Spud]

I can't see a problem with a second referendum personally, given that the first one was called for the wrong reasons

I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.

Moderator:

These posts on the subject of Same Sex Marriage we originally a derail on the main 'Brexit' thread and have been split into this thread at the request of Spud in order that discussion can continue.

[Rhiannon]

I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.

He was trying to deal with Euroscepticism within his own party as much as anything else.

[ProfessorDavey]

When the Tories forced same sex marriage through ...

What on earth do mean by 'forced same sex marriage through' - surely you mean received a huge majority (366 to 161) in the commons.

And it was a free vote so MPs weren't whipped so could vote freely accordingly to their conscience.

[jakswan]

I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.

Cameron didn't call a referendum he put a Bill before Parliament which was passed by the House of Commons at a ratio of 6-1. 

[Spud]

What on earth do mean by 'forced same sex marriage through' - surely you mean received a huge majority (366 to 161) in the commons.

And it was a free vote so MPs weren't whipped so could vote freely accordingly to their conscience.

I mean that 669444 people signed a petition to stop SSM, and an MP's conscience isn't the conscience of his constituents..

People who didn't agree with same sex marriage may have voted UKIP in protest, and then voted for Brexit thinking that if UKIP were right about SSM then they might also be right about Brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

I mean that 669444 people signed a petition to stop SSM, and an MP's conscience isn't the conscience of his constituents..

People who didn't agree with same sex marriage may have voted UKIP in protest, and then voted for Brexit thinking that if UKIP were right about SSM then they might also be right about Brexit.

None of that backs up the idea that Cameron forced it through.

[ProfessorDavey]

I mean that 669444 people signed a petition to stop SSM, and an MP's conscience isn't the conscience of his constituents.

700k represents just over 1% of the population. Poll after poll at the time showed very strong support amongst the public - typically by about 2 to one.

So public opinion was on the side of extending marriage to include same sex couples so those MPs who supported the bill were aligning with the views of his or her constituents.

So same sex marriage wasn't 'forced through' at it - it was a measure with strong majority support from the public, was subject to strong support by MPs and in the Lords and in neither case were the members whipped so they could vote whichever way their conscience dictated.

[Anchorman]

I recalled something the other day that might be relevant. When the Tories forced same sex marriage through I have a feeling some people voted UKIP in the election that followed, because that party was opposed to ssm. The high number of ukip votes could have led David Cameron to call the referendum. I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of ssm just suggesting how it may have caused confusion.

When did the Tories 'force' SSM through?
After all, Cameron's government had a majority, given that SNP MPs would not vote on this issue (SSM being the province of the Scottish Parliament), and most SLAB and Scottish Lib Dems likewise would not vote?
There was no 'force' involved. Even had hlf the Tories in Westminster voted against it, the Labour and Lib Dems would have supported him.

[ProfessorDavey]

When did the Tories 'force' SSM through?
After all, Cameron's government had a majority, given that SNP MPs would not vote on this issue (SSM being the province of the Scottish Parliament), and most SLAB and Scottish Lib Dems likewise would not vote?
There was no 'force' involved. Even had hlf the Tories in Westminster voted against it, the Labour and Lib Dems would have supported him.

And it was a free vote.

Actually if any vote passed the test for being a great example of democracy, this is it. A proposal with strong majority support amongst the general public, receiving equally strong support in both houses of parliament in a free vote, so no MP or peer is 'forced' to vote other than in the manner they think to be right. And to cap it all the legislation has made us a more equal society and also has extended basic human rights. Win, win, win.

History will be very harsh on Cameron, both for his austerity programme and for unleashing Brexit which may still end up as an existential threat to the UK. But amongst that entirely justified criticism, extending marriage to same sex couples will be a shining beacon - future generations will no doubt be astonished and appalled that there once was a time when gay couples were banned from marrying, in much the same way we are astonished and appalled that women once were banned from voting. That a Conservative PM had the guts to do the right thing - well good on him, but other than that his record is disastrous - I'd go so far as to say the worse record of any PM in living memory.

[SteveH]

Labour introduced the important change, civil partnerships, which gave gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Gay marriage was just cynical "me too"ism on Cameron's part, trying to get a reputation for advanced social attitudes on the cheap, and Labour's coat-tails.

[jeremyp]

Labour introduced the important change, civil partnerships, which gave gay couples the same legal rights as married couples. Gay marriage was just cynical "me too"ism on Cameron's part, trying to get a reputation for advanced social attitudes on the cheap, and Labour's coat-tails.

Or you could argue that Labour failed to properly grasp the nettle through cowardice.

Same sex marriage was the one good thing the Cameron government did. Whatever their motives were, they did it.

[Rhiannon]

Or you could argue that Labour failed to properly grasp the nettle through cowardice.

Same sex marriage was the one good thing the Cameron government did. Whatever their motives were, they did it.

Yes, Blair could have introduced marriage equality. Thevsuspicion is that he didn’t because of his religious beliefs and s desire to please the churches.

I can’t think of a single reason that Cameron introduced marriage equality other than personal conviction. It cost him popularity within his party and outside that it didn’t make a lot of difference.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, Blair could have introduced marriage equality. Thevsuspicion is that he didn’t because of his religious beliefs and s desire to please the churches.

I don't think so - it was more that going straight from nothing to gay marriage was too great a step in 2005, hence the introduction of civil partnerships. He got huge criticism from the churches (in fact probably more than happened when gay marriage was ultimately introduced) - were he concerned about that he wouldn't have done anything.

I can’t think of a single reason that Cameron introduced marriage equality other than personal conviction. It cost him popularity within his party and outside that it didn’t make a lot of difference.

I agree - this was, as far as I'm concerned, personal conviction from Cameron - and good on him, its just about the only good thing he did.

[Spud]

When did the Tories 'force' SSM through?
After all, Cameron's government had a majority, given that SNP MPs would not vote on this issue (SSM being the province of the Scottish Parliament), and most SLAB and Scottish Lib Dems likewise would not vote?
There was no 'force' involved. Even had hlf the Tories in Westminster voted against it, the Labour and Lib Dems would have supported him.

Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic.

The EU has recently ordered Romania to grant automatic residency to the American so-called husband of a Romanian man, even though Romania does not allow same sex marriages. The actions of the EU in ordering Romania to recognize that same sex marriage before consulting the people of Romania (who, it appears, aren't that bothered - see results of yesterday's referendum) appear undemocratic.

To quote Eyore: "I don't like to mention it, but... I just, do mention it".

[ProfessorDavey]

Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic.

It isn't just gay people who support extending marriage to allow same sex couples to marry - millions of heterosexual people (including me) do too.

[Sebastian Toe]

Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic.

Bizarre logic.

[Spud]

It isn't just gay people who support extending marriage to allow same sex couples to marry - millions of heterosexual people (including me) do too.

Fair enough. Is it true that a minority of homosexuals supported it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Fair enough. Is it true that a minority of homosexuals supported it?

I imagine that the vast, vast majority of gay and lesbian people supported the proposals and certainly across the whole population there was strong majority support as evidenced in poll after poll.

[Anchorman]

Jim. If the number of homosexuals who wanted marriage re-defined was greater than the number of people who petitioned for it not to be, then it would have been democratic for the re-definition to take place. As far as I am aware, far fewer same sex marriages have so far taken place than signatures on the petition. Thus it appears the redefinition was undemocratic. The EU has recently ordered Romania to grant automatic residency to the American so-called husband of a Romanian man, even though Romania does not allow same sex marriages. The actions of the EU in ordering Romania to recognize that same sex marriage before consulting the people of Romania (who, it appears, aren't that bothered - see results of yesterday's referendum) appear undemocratic. To quote Eyore: "I don't like to mention it, but... I just, do mention it".

I'm not going to enter into the SSM debate, though I have no issues with secular SSM, since it does not affect my faith. i do,ofcourse, have issues with SSM for Christians, but that's a different thread. My point was that the issue was not forced through in Westminster, sincethere was no viable opposition to the measure;and that the issue affected only England and Wales, being adevolvedmatter in Scotland and the somewhat intransigent Northern Ireland.

[Spud]

I imagine that the vast, vast majority of gay and lesbian people supported the proposals...

I'm looking at this, which suggests differently:

"In 2012, only gay activists (a minority group within a minority group) fought for same-sex marriage. It became clear from polls, radio phone-ins, newspaper essays written by gay people, and open discussions that there was no clear majority amongst the gay community pushing for the changes.
 
Most said their ‘equal rights’ as relating to marriage were comfortably satisfied by civil partnerships. Indeed, they generally expressed the same amazement, shared by the public as a whole, that the issue was apparently a priority for David Cameron and the coalition."

https://www.ukipdaily.com/warnings-ignored-sex-marriage/

[Spud]

I'm not going to enter into the SSM debate, though I have no issues with secular SSM, since it does not affect my faith. i do,ofcourse, have issues with SSM for Christians, but that's a different thread. My point was that the issue was not forced through in Westminster, sincethere was no viable opposition to the measure;and that the issue affected only England and Wales, being adevolvedmatter in Scotland and the somewhat intransigent Northern Ireland.

The viable opposition you mention. In having a state religion (Christianity), you would think that the church's advice would be heeded on such a decision.

[Anchorman]

The viable opposition you mention. In having a state religion (Christianity), you would think that the church's advice would be heeded on such a decision.

   


Fortunately, my nation has no state religion - nor does the national Church - CofS - want one.

[Spud]

Fortunately, my nation has no state religion - nor does the national Church - CofS - want one.

Agreed.

My point was that the issue was not forced through in Westminster,

Ok

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.ukipdaily.com/warnings-ignored-sex-marriage/

Using a UKIP party opinion piece as 'evidence' - don't make me laugh.

[ProfessorDavey]

"In 2012, only gay activists (a minority group within a minority group) fought for same-sex marriage.

The very year that this poll was carried out:

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/poll-gay-marriage

Which demonstrated that public supported same sex marriage by a huge majority - 73% to 24%. So equating that to the UK population, I make that 43 million people in the UK supporting same sex marriage, hardly a minority of a minority is it Spud.