Tuesday, 5 February 2013

A Disappointing Day for the Institution of Marriage

Today the second reading of the bill for same sex marriage was passed by the House of Commons by 400 to 175 votes. It is predicted that more Conservative MPs voted against the bill than for it, showing just how divisive the issue is within the Party. It seems rather strange to me that David Cameron decided to introduce the bill when it was not in the manifesto or the Queen's Speech, that he must have known would divide the Party and create unnecessary tensions within it. The bill will have reduced support for the Conservative Party and in addition to exposing the tensions within the Party, the election of 2015 will now be harder to win. It provides Labour with another advantage going into the election. It is an issue that should not have been by a Conservative-led Government at the present time; there is not enough support within the Party, including the grassroots, for it to be proposed. Furthermore, I am sure there are more important issues that need to be addressed and are more pressing to the country than this. I have discussed briefly why the bill was a bad idea, I am now wish to discuss why I am against gay marriage (you may have already gathered that I am).

Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. Thus, by allowing same-sex marriages, marriage has been redefined. It is a religious institution, intertwined with the state. Without agreement from the Church of England, this bill should not have even been considered, let alone passed. Civil partnerships allow same-sex couples to gain the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I fail to see why this needs changing. There is not universal support for the bill even from LGBT people. Furthermore, it is said that religious organisations will not be obliged to hold same-sex marriages, but it appears to me that if there is a law present, there will be a way that someone will manage to sue the church due to discrimination. This may not be the case, but it certainly a possibility and something that must be prevented. Religious organisations should have the choice if they wish to hold same-sex marriage ceremonies or not, there should be no obligation on them whatsoever to do so.

Today is a disappointing day for the institution of marriage but there are still different stages the bill has to pass, let's hope something can be done before it becomes law.


  1. The institution of marriage along with Christianity being widely practiced has long gone I'm afraid. If you are so stringent on the religious aspect I assume you know that the vast majority of married people in the UK don't attend congregation every Sunday, They don't practice Christianity, they don't follow the religion 'correctly' so does this mean they cannot be married?

  2. I understand that. I am just saying that marriage traditionally is a religious concept adapted by the state and as such religion does play a part, even if people don't practice religion 'correctly'. It does not mean that the Government should barely consult the church on this issue. The Church has its role to play.


All comments are moderated.