|
This is partially to save the UK Megathread from multiple increasingly disorganised posts on the current Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill making its way through Parliament. And oh, what a fun few months it will be! Yes, the Government did use a hashtag to promote the consultation. The Bill The bill is available to read online here. Basically, it makes same-sex marriage in England and Wales only legal. Because of the state of devolution, Scotland and Northern Ireland will have to introduce their own bills. The SNP have a majority to bring in a bill and will presumably do so once they can get Brian Souter to shut-up. Northern Ireland won't be able to do anything until after a few too many couples cross the Irish Sea. It's been a long time coming this, ever since Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson lost their case to have their Canadian marriage recognised as such here back in 2006. Civil partnerships were originally seen as effectively marriage, but they're really not, as anyone knows. This probably could've been passed four years ago, if it weren't for Stonewall refusing to support it (and in some cases, opposing it) until late 2010. It's one massive failure in a list of many for them. The bill isn't perfect, and there are some very good criticisms including my own from LGBT activists to the bill. Sarah Brown and Zoe O'Connell have decent picking apart of the bill from a trans perspective, which despite the consultation talking about quite a bit, isn't brought up much. Here's a quick run down of what each part of the bill means:
Passage through Parliament In case you didn't know how a bill works, bills get three readings in each house: the first is simply a formality of introducing, the second is typically a debate on the principles of the bill, then comes committee and full house scrutiny, then comes the third reading vote on the bill as a whole. The bill then goes to the other house and goes through the same process. The bill is then consolidated so that both houses agree on the text (which may cause Parliamentary ping-pong, a fun game where each house tries to save as much of its own bill as possible) and then sent to the Queen. Commons
Royal Assent: Immediately after consideration of amendments. Here's a handy map to see how your MP voted! (Blues are Ayes, Reds are Noes, lighter shades are Tories)  Easy links:
TinTower fucked around with this message at May 21, 2013 around 18:18 |
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 04:27 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 12:28 |
|
|
Amendments The fun of committee stage is that everyone submits amendments. This post will list all the amendments with a quick description for those who don't want to spend 20 minutes finding the amendments and parsing them, and I'll update them as often and soon as I can. Good guys: Kate Green, Chris Bryant, and Julian Huppert are doing a lot of the legwork on improving the bill; Huppert especially on transgender issues (due to one of his constituents and local city councillors, Sarah Brown) and humanist marriages. Bad guys: Tim Loughton, David Burrowes, and Jim Shannon all voted against second reading and are trying to wreck the bill. Burrowes himself spent nearly a whole day of the five allotted making increasingly weird cricket analogies as the closest thing to a filibuster we have. Edit: March 16th: I've deleted the Committee Amendments, which either were voted down, withdrawn, or not discussed. If you want to see all of them, I've archived them on my personal website. These are all the current amendment for Report Stage, with government amendments in bold. The full text of the amendments are available here. Amendments
TinTower fucked around with this message at May 21, 2013 around 17:12 |
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 04:39 |
|
|
Memoranda Memoranda are basically publicly submitted comments on the bill. And, as with the public, they're often poo poo. Though some are funny because of the tortured logic they have to go through. Again, I'll update this list as often as I have the chance to. A lot of those opposed to the bill bring up the same canards (religious freedom, traditional marriage, closet homophobia), so it's rather tiring going through them all.
TinTower fucked around with this message at May 20, 2013 around 00:08 |
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 04:42 |
|
|
TinTower posted:
I like how Lord Pannick is the one not pannicking...hurr... Seriously though, it's a step in the right direction!
|
| # ? Feb 28, 2013 23:07 |
|
|
I don't think you need to worry about cluttering up the Megathread- gay marriage chat is far more related to UK politics than the horrors of boatchat, snowchat or foodchat after all. It's good to have all this info in one place though, I'm grateful someone's willing to follow it through every tedious proceeding for us.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2013 10:17 |
|
|
Crameltonian posted:I don't think you need to worry about cluttering up the Megathread- gay marriage chat is far more related to UK politics than the horrors of boatchat, snowchat or foodchat after all. It's good to have all this info in one place though, I'm grateful someone's willing to follow it through every tedious proceeding for us. Agreed, TinTower has been consistently awesome on this issue  My main concern is getting it through Lords. I'm pretty hopeful Huppert's amendments will get through.
|
| # ? Mar 1, 2013 10:35 |
|
|
mfcrocker posted:Agreed, TinTower has been consistently awesome on this issue Me too. The Burrowes/Loughton amendments seem to be going first to clear up the last three days for burning through the bill; if the bill is amended, the Huppert amendments look most likely. He'll have the chance at Report stage too. I've got to read through the memoranda; forty new ones came out over the recess, mostly opposed to it. Yawn.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2013 05:05 |
|
|
Thanks for putting this together, TinTower. It's nice to have organised, and you've been doing a great job in the UKMT of keeping things up to date. Just one thing:TinTower posted:The SNP have a majority to bring in a bill and will presumably do so once they can get Brian Souter to shut-up. *Things work a little differently up here - anyone in Scotland can, and is encouraged to, contribute to parliamentary proceedings, whether by taking part in consultations, submitting petitions (and every petition is looked over, even if there's only a single petitioner), watching debates in the main chamber and/or contributing expert knowledge to committees.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2013 15:48 |
|
|
Thank you for compiling this - I like it in the UK Megathread but having it here is very useful and easy to digest, and I appreciate the time you've spent.
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2013 18:49 |
|
|
The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill, or Wait, This is Just England and Wales, What's Going On in Scotland? The History In 2003, during the consultation for civil partnerships (introduced in Scotland in 2004), the Scottish Government stated that it had no intention of legalising marriage between same-sex couples. However, debate didn't end after the introduction of civil partnerships. The role of religions in civil partnerships was discussed: Petition 737 asked for religious celebrants to given the legal right to conduct civil partnerships, a request that was passed across to the House of Lords. The unsuccessful legal challenge in 2006 by Kitzinger and Wilkinson that TinTower mentioned and subsequent US state introductions of equal marriage led to discussions in government regarding the status of overseas same-sex marriages in Scotland. In March 2009, Petition 1239 was submitted by Nick Henderson, the director of LGBT Network, on behalf of the organisation calling on the government “to amend the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 to allow two persons of the same sex to register a civil marriage and a religious marriage if the relevant religious body consents”. Five months later, a further petition, Petition 1269, was submitted by Tom French on behalf of the Equal Marriage Campaign calling for the government “to amend legislation to allow same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnership”. On 8th September, MSPs decided to combine the two petitions and to investigate the technicalities of the issue with a view to reporting back in the next parliamentary session (note: not something that was normally done, but MSPs had to wait until certain relevant legal cases outside Scotland were resolved). The petitions were closed in January 2011, as the government repeatedly stated that it had no intention of changing the law but conceded that it was only a matter of time before the issue was raised again. In May 2011, the parliamentary election brought in a majority SNP government. The SNP had made a manifesto pledge to consult on the possibility of allowing same-sex marriages in churches and quickly made plans to do so. An initial consultation was launched that September, primarily to consider the role of religion in marriage and civil partnership with a view to legalising equal marriage, but also to look at other legislative issues concerning marriage (namely forced divorce for transgender people upon gender reassignment and international recognition of same-sex marriages). The consultation lasted three months and received around 50,000 responses from within Scotland (out of around 77,000 total), the most responses any consultation has received. The analysis took a further six months and was published in July 2012. Shortly after, Nicola Sturgeon (then Minister for Health and Wellbeing) announced the government would submit a bill to legalise equal marriage. A draft bill was published on 12th December, and a further consultation was launched and will run until 20th March 2013. Public opinion polls over the last couple of years show about 60-65% in favour of equal marriage and about 20-35% against (Equality Network factsheet here). The Equality Network also have a table of where MSPs stand, with 87 declaring they are likely to vote in favour, 10 against and 32 undeclared. The Bill – differences and issues arising from from the England & Wales bill
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2013 20:26 |
|
|
Cheers for doing this TinTower, really great thread. Rather than just stating that CPs aren't equal, maybe it would be worth having some links to that effect. For example, CPs are discriminated against by being made more expensive, and other reasons Fake edit: Thanks for explaining the Scottish stuff kiffkin, I wonder which country will get there first, or if they'll decide on a simultaneous timing?
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2013 21:52 |
|
|
Weird to see so much of the heavy lifting on fixing this bill up be done by my local MP and a local councilor, both of whom are great on this but very Lib Dem on other things. Without getting too fatalist, what are the chances that the terrible shitlord brigade manage to kill this bill and stop it becoming law?
|
| # ? Mar 3, 2013 22:17 |
|
|
Lamuella posted:Weird to see so much of the heavy lifting on fixing this bill up be done by my local MP and a local councilor, both of whom are great on this but very Lib Dem on other things. With regards to the second part, most resistance will be from the Lords. I could expect a few all night sessions there as the Government slogs through the timetable. This could be reflected by what happens in Commons Committee this Thursday. The first part gives me chance to make this post, then: The T in LGBT I know Sarah and I think the reason that she's so Lib Dem is the very personal betrayal Labour handed her during the Gender Recognition Act 2004: they voted down an amendment to the GRA that would let pre-GRA married couples (such as her and her wife) keep their marriages upon a partner transitioning. She's on the relative far left of the Lib Dems, but in the words of another Sarah (Teather), I think she'd rather poke her eyes out than join Labour. Here's a HuffPo piece she wrote a month back: Sarah Brown posted:After a circuit judge annulled our marriage, we left the court in tears, holding hands. Over the next few weeks, we barely let each other out of sight. It felt as if something visceral had been torn away. It still hurts; the three and a bit years since haven't lessened that. The court even confiscated our marriage certificate, and not knowing they were going to, I never made a copy. As far as the state is concerned, our marriage never existed, and the only proof I have otherwise is a decree absolute.  Sarah and her wife early last month http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYCrMdohBZY There have been criticisms that this was a slippery slope, but I honestly think that Labour, with the pushing from Stonewall, genuinely thought that civil partnerships were enough. The GRA debate on the Andrew Mitchell (yes, he of "loving plebs" fame) amendments (Public Whip) actually show that more than the civil partnership bill debate: they were so opposed to the concept of same-sex marriage in 2004 they whipped against such an amendment that would let a small minority of people keep their marriages. So the GRA has this rather cruel section where married couples must annul their marriage before one of them transitions; hell, "finding out" your partner is trans is currently grounds for no-fault dissolution of a marriage. And even, like in Sarah's case, where your partner is very much on board with your transition, it takes weeks and months to get the resulting civil partnership. The bill as proposed removes this requirement for opposite-legal-gender marriages, but introduced the "spousal veto" due to the replacement saying that a partner has to consent to the continuation of a marriage before a full gender recognition certificate is issued. A Huppert amendment, thankfully, fixes this. On a broader point, I seriously believe the Gender Recognition Act is one of those transitional acts, much like the Civil Partnership Act, or, hell, DOMA or DADT in America. While those two acts seem outdated now, remember that in the mid-nineties DOMA and DADT were compromise laws that actually protected LGBT people from much stronger legislation. I seriously have to give the Lib Dems credit on LGBT rights, though. It's one of the few things that most people who aren't on the Right actually do.
|
| # ? Mar 4, 2013 08:20 |
|
|
Ninth and Tenth sitting today, starts in 20 minutes, and will continue after lunch.
|
| # ? Mar 5, 2013 08:35 |
|
|
Daily Mail posted:The Queen will tomorrow back an historic pledge to promote gay rights and ‘gender equality’ in one of the most controversial acts of her reign. Sweeney Tom fucked around with this message at Mar 10, 2013 around 01:13 |
| # ? Mar 9, 2013 23:14 |
|
|
If that's true this could lead to some rather interesting reactions. There's a definite correlation between having awful political opinions and being rabidly pro-monarchy so the ensuing cognitive dissonance should be amusing.
|
| # ? Mar 9, 2013 23:37 |
|
|
If freepers are any sign of how rabid right-wingers react when someone they like comes out in support of something they hate, they'll throw her under the bus in a nanosecond and pretend that they hated her all along.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2013 01:05 |
|
|
I'd be hilarious to see them marginalise themselves further like that given how beloved the Queen is by most Brits. I think they'll struggle over it a bit more than that though seeing as even the average person has an almost religious devotion to her and our conservatives tend to get really weird over the monarchy. They'll probably claim Cameron put a gun to her head and forced her to imply gays are people against her will
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2013 01:42 |
|
|
They'll just assume she's getting senile and/or that the illness messed with her head and/or that she's not at her best.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2013 01:54 |
|
|
computer parts posted:They'll just assume she's getting senile and/or that the illness messed with her head and/or that she's not at her best.  It's a shame she couldn't be more explicit, but it is a start and provides a precedent for future royals to go much further.Also, holy poo poo at the Mail for putting quote marks around 'empowerment' and 'gender equality'. Assholes.
|
| # ? Mar 10, 2013 07:51 |
|
|
I've been busy this week trying (and failing) to get myself elected to a sabbatical position in my student union. As soon as I get some time, I'll update the amendment list and the memoranda list. The Week in Committee
As regards to the Queen's statement, I too wish she'd have been more explicit, but yeah, I think it does create a decent precedent. Crameltonian posted:I'd be hilarious to see them marginalise themselves further like that given how beloved the Queen is by most Brits. I think they'll struggle over it a bit more than that though seeing as even the average person has an almost religious devotion to her and our conservatives tend to get really weird over the monarchy. They'll probably claim Cameron put a gun to her head and forced her to imply gays are people against her will There's one memorandum saying that this bill would go against her oath of coronation and she would need to precipitate a constitutional crisis by refusing Assent or drat herself to hell. It's somewhat dampened by the fact that homosexuality is legal and civil partnerships are too, both given assent by the Queen. TinTower fucked around with this message at Mar 10, 2013 around 14:52 |
| # ? Mar 10, 2013 14:39 |
|
|
quote:Helen Grant's reason for the Government opposition to the amendment was basically "we cannot rewrite history". Of course, the Government opinion on deleting old convictions for buggery is that, actually, we can.
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2013 00:41 |
|
|
It is my understanding that there was until recently a law in England and Wales that made it so that marriages couldn't legally happen during overnight hours. Has anyone drawn up a list of people who voted against removing that and seen if they correlate with people voting against equal marriage now?
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2013 00:51 |
|
|
I was already going to do what I could to help Stephen Williams lose his seat at the next election, just cemented that.
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2013 12:31 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It is my understanding that there was until recently a law in England and Wales that made it so that marriages couldn't legally happen during overnight hours. Has anyone drawn up a list of people who voted against removing that and seen if they correlate with people voting against equal marriage now? There'd be little joy in that; it was part of a flagship coalition bill. As far as Stephen Williams goes, there's still no response from him. Here's hoping we have a better go at Report Stage.
|
| # ? Mar 11, 2013 13:17 |
|
|
Still waiting on a date for Report Stage and Third Reading, hopefully within the next couple of weeks or so. As far as government amendments go, they're still considering making amendments, particularly on trans issues. I'll try to update the list of memoranda, but a girl can only take so much homophobia in one go...
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2013 20:58 |
|
|
TinTower posted:I'll try to update the list of memoranda, but a girl can only take so much homophobia in one go...
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2013 22:32 |
|
|
They've finally announced when the bill's going to get its third reading, it'll be debated on the 20th and 21st of May. The government's apparently still expecting the bill to be passed by the summer recess, so by mid-July. I'm a bit more sceptical because it hasn't exactly sped through Parliament so far and the Lords tend to be massive shits on gay rights issues so they could hold it up for a year or so. Cameron's under pressure from the right to drop the bill (particularly after the massively overblown success of UKIP in the local elections) but I can't see him doing that, at this point it'd be more damaging for him to drop it than just go ahead with it and hope the most virulent homophobes have either gotten over it or died by 2015.
|
| # ? May 9, 2013 13:47 |
|
|
I hope it goes through soon, if only because I'm getting married in May of next year and we've been told it's mandatory for registrars to legally define marriage as being between a man and a woman at the moment  (and also because 2 people should be able to marry, duh)
|
| # ? May 9, 2013 14:38 |
|
|
mfcrocker posted:I hope it goes through soon, if only because I'm getting married in May of next year and we've been told it's mandatory for registrars to legally define marriage as being between a man and a woman at the moment
|
| # ? May 9, 2013 15:14 |
|
|
Kegluneq posted:I was vaguely surprised to hear a registrar at a civic wedding I was at over the weekend (in the UK) make a similar distinction. I was married in a church a few years ago and probably heard a similar distinction being made, but didn't think too much of it then, as religious sensibilities were legitimately a factor there, if not one I support. It would be nice to not have that distinction made in a secular setting though. We're being told we basically don't have a choice over that part of the ceremony. Thankfully, it'll no longer be true should the bill go through. I had the same experience as you, it made my mates and me look at each other in disbelief.
|
| # ? May 9, 2013 15:17 |
|
|
mfcrocker posted:We're being told we basically don't have a choice over that part of the ceremony. Thankfully, it'll no longer be true should the bill go through. At least our minister didn't insist on the 'love, honour and obey' part of the traditional vow - in fact she would have refused to even say it if we had asked(UR Church).
|
| # ? May 9, 2013 15:39 |
|
|
Amendments are now up. God drat, pension law is complicated. Also, I know you've brought up the humanist marriage amendment, mfcrocker: as far as I'm aware, it's merging the Marriage (Approved Organisations) Bill in, which is stuck in the Lords. I went to see Hilary Benn, my MP, at his Burley Park surgery today. He's pretty on board with the good amendments, if rather standard on religious freedom as defined. TinTower fucked around with this message at May 17, 2013 around 19:10 |
| # ? May 17, 2013 19:06 |
|
|
TinTower posted:Amendments are now up. God drat, pension law is complicated. e: oops, didn't realise you meant in the OP. Ignore this, I'll give them a read myself. Allan Assiduity fucked around with this message at May 17, 2013 around 20:05 |
| # ? May 17, 2013 20:00 |
|
|
This is the timetable for Monday and Tuesday, as the BBC reckons will happen, with the order of amendments to be debated: Monday
Tuesday
(e: Changing to reflect BBC Parliament schedule). TinTower fucked around with this message at May 20, 2013 around 18:53 |
| # ? May 18, 2013 10:22 |
|
|
TinTower posted:This is the timetable for Monday and Tuesday, giving 30 minutes for Questions to Ministers, with the order of amendments to be debated: Thanks for keeping this stuff updated and easy to understand. I like to think of myself as politically literate, but even I get totally bogged down by the minutia of parliamentary process, especially with the 90 or so amendments. Here's hoping that the good stuff gets through, and the wrecking poo poo doesn't.
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 11:16 |
|
|
TinTower posted:This is the timetable for Monday and Tuesday, giving 30 minutes for Questions to Ministers, with the order of amendments to be debated: Questions last for an hour, and there is likely to be a Statement from a Minister on some other issue on at least one of the days, so expect debate to start at about 4.30/1.30 on each day.
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 15:24 |
|
|
Semi-mental posted:Questions last for an hour, and there is likely to be a Statement from a Minister on some other issue on at least one of the days, so expect debate to start at about 4.30/1.30 on each day. I'm going on my recollection of Questions lasting about 40 minutes during second reading. The BBC reckon the debates will start around 3:30pm and 12:30pm each day.
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 15:37 |
|
|
With news regarding the upper echelons of the Conservatives considering capitulating to their grassroots, what could the Conservatives really do about it? Some articles mention creating amendments for "conscientious objection", but surely the point that they could modify the bill is already over? Could they drop or, worse, gut the Bill before it passes? e: Probably phrased this a little simplistically, looking back on it after Pasco's post below, I meant this in the sense of anything beyond what they're already doing. Allan Assiduity fucked around with this message at May 19, 2013 around 23:14 |
| # ? May 19, 2013 20:38 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 12:28 |
|
|
Allan Assiduity posted:With news regarding the upper echelons of the Conservatives considering capitulating to their grassroots, what could the Conservatives really do about it? Some articles mention creating amendments for "conscientious objection", but surely the point that they could modify the bill is already over? Er, see that post from TinTower about 4 posts above yours? That's referencing the list of amendments in the second post of the thread and when they will be debated in the Commons. Even if all the wrecking poo poo there is defeated and it passes Third Reading in the Commons, it then goes to the Lords and this whole process starts again. All of the amendments needed to ruin this bill are already up for votes on Monday and Tuesday, and with the Tories in meltdown and Labour willing to be mischievous to cause Cameron problems, the dream could be easily dead by Tuesday evening.
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 23:04 |
|
