Gay marriage again

What will the Bishops say?

At the risk of inviting the ire of Maude and Frank Summers, I have just done a post on Lords of the Blog on the subject of gay marriage.  It is based on the study produced by Policy Exchange and authored by one of my graduates.  Interestingly, it finds that public support for same-sex marriage is greatest in the North-East of England and Yorkshire.  It also indicates that countries that have introduced same-sex marriage have not experienced the dire consequences predicted by some….


About Lord Norton

Professor of Government at Hull University, and Member of the House of Lords
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Gay marriage again

  1. Lord Norton,
    Four quick points:
    First, I absolutely (I think) refuse to make more than thirty comments about any subject online which is not more central to my life and experience than this one is within any three month period.

    Second, Maude has yet to reply to my suggestions of underworld enforcers to harass those who disagree with us online on the rare occasions we agree with one another.

    Third, I never predicted any result which would be visible in so short a time, never predicted any result relevant to any tests that have been made of relevant data on already known consequences and never conceded the status quo in the UK was alright now.

    Fourth, I recently sent an email to my ex-wife. She more or less never responds to these things, but I assure you I never asked if she thought homosexuals having weddings in Holland (were they doing so in 1995) had contributed to our disunion.

    I ACCIDENTALLY posted this reply on LOTB as well. I will ask them not to post it but it will likely appear to tht e consternation of all– it only took two wrong keystrokes –!!!

    • franksummers3ba says:

      Lord Norton,
      It is my opinion that things are amazingly dire. A horror movie beyond fantasy sort of dire and your statistics are misleading. Divorce has declined in Holland slightly while marriage from which one must divorce has declined and since homosexuals are added to the marriage figures that means they mask the true decline even more in real hetero sexual marriages. So if you meant to say that things in Europe and America or so horrible that they boggle a real conservative imagination and stagger reason and that homosexual marriage is a small and very indistinct part of of this catastrophic barbarism in which we live — ahh then I concede your point and we merely have not been clear enough before…
      my next post will go through spam with more links..

  2. ladytizzy says:

    The North East and the bit below us are the least likely to regularly worship. Not too surprising after 13 years…

  3. Rich says:

    I’m sorry Frank, but I don’t understand your basic point. From your post in the prior discussion, you seem to be against same-sex marriage because your dating history and divorce have left you bitter. I don’t say that to be insulting; that is merely all I can glean from what you said there. The only alternative is that you oppose same-sex marriage because it is a contentious issue, which doesn’t really make sense, so I discount it. Now your objection seems to be that same-sex marriage isn’t “real” and disguises the statistical declines associated with what you consider to be actual marriage. You may also be trying to make the argument that somehow same-sex marriage contributes to a decline in heterosexual marriage, but you are extremely unclear and certainly don’t explain how that could possibly be. This is a central failing of those making the argument against same-sex marriage. So please, if you actually do believe gay people, married or not, have any impact whatsoever on a straight couple’s decision to marry, explain how it is supposed to work.

    • franksummers3ba says:

      First from your current post in this thread you seem to be al sorts of horrid things that are not suitable to suggest here.Gleaning is the activity done by beggars after the harvest and if you are admitting having a beggarly literary intellect who am I to disagree. You are so profoundly absurd that it is scarcely worth mentioning.

      Same sex marriage is not real as regards the base measurement in question. It most certainly is not. If I want to decide whether or not allowing beer to be sold where only soda and tea were sold and whether selling beer will dive off the helath nuts and young athletes in a particular parkside market I must stick to measuring those sales. Increases in beer sales and overall sales are not germane nor are the individual sales real parts of the measured set. They may answer another question but not this one. real decline in marriage as it exsited before the new type one has wished to introduce must only look at heterosexual marriages and is not offset in any way by any number of homosexual marriages. That is the real response.
      In addition it is quite respoectable in the tiny circles where thought exist today to say that a state simply cannot do X,Y, and Z. As a citizen of the world I must deal with their consequences and acknowledge the effects but I need not acknowledge ever head of state as legitimate, every victory as real every law as valid. In fact in all senses that matter smae sex marriage in the modern west and more in English than in most languages is not real, but that was not my point.
      I cannot explain physics to my dog, I am actually referring to my parents dog now. I amy be able to explain social philosophy to you but am not entirely sure since you are not prone to honesty, straight communication or any other desirable qualities in a debating opponent.
      However, if the main point of communication is for two person who disagree to prove that they do not like eachother much — then we can make that point over and over again. Of that I have not doubt.

  4. maudie33 says:

    @Frank: I feel you are very sincere and similar to myself, with millions of others, who fear the State we live in is gripped in a dream world of fantasy. Promoted by a too strong political hold over their stultified lives. Politicians are insulated from the genuine public they claim to represent. The control of sinister back room boys and lobbyist who do not allow an alternative view to be heard, is now considered the views of the people. Backed up by rigged pollsters who give the buyer what they want to hear say rather than what they know the truth to be. Which is why governments are so out of touch with the electorate. And why they are not prepared to consider, for one minute, an alternative view. It suits them not to do so.

    One of the reasons appears to be too many of one section of society being employed in government positions. And the ‘Sir Humphrey’ effect has taken over that asylum completely. As can be so clearly seen when their front men go out the day before to check out the venues they plan to speak from. In other words, they are like Elvis. They are surrounded by a shield of denial that no one can penetrate. It is a set up. Because the truth is, they do know these politically correct moves, made by all parties, is despised by a very large majority of the real people of this country.

    And no matter how they see the country fall apart, they, like Nero, continue to fiddle. And the fiddling is taking a toll on society that is so detrimental, regular people will not be able to accept it. Which, I feel, is what they really want to promote. Just as they did with all the other policies they went ahead with, knowing full well it was against the wishes of the country.

    Same sex marriage is not equality. And pretending that a deviant sexual lifestyle is equal to the natural process of man woman relationships reduces our natural sense of what is healthy and
    acceptable in society. If this practice is considered equal then all deviant sexual practices must be considered equal as well. Whatever that perverse leaning spins to. And that is the fact of the matter.

    I will give the US general public their due, they do shout loudly on political matters and put their money where their mouth is. Here, the people are totally turned off and have lost all desire to fight because somehow, they believe a new party will come forward and save them.

    • franksummers3ba says:

      We are parts of two societies whose differences are more obscured than they ought to be, to no good effect. I appreciate your kind words about me and other Americans who express their views on this matter. The contexts and methods of our two social politics are really quite different and it makes things hard to compare. However, I think any panic you feel in these regards is more than justified. Casual ease is not the right response to catastrophe…

  5. maudie33 says:

    And this little story will tell us that, contrary to Lord Norton’s claim, countries that have adopted this practice of same sex marriage, face horrific persecution of those who do not want to embrace this lifestyle into the blessings of their religion. Our freedoms are being removed systematically and through the back door by these politically correct, all consuming, back room dealers. Harassment is the name of the game and will grow not lessen with this policy.

    So, in effect, what this is dong is removing the ‘freedom’ of religion. And they know it. Which is what it is designed to do. Next it will, like the couple in Devon, remove the right to freedom of choice for those who don’t want to associate with people who practice a lifestyle that makes them uncomfortable. So, we will lose more of the ‘rights of association’ which are declared a Human Right under that act.

    How can a society be considered ‘free’ when they are forced, by law, to accept association outside their comfort zone. Are the Mosques going to have to accept gay marriage practiced by their Imams? In a similar way to the link I put up?

    Here is the islamic view on this matter and it is as important as any other in our country today, as this is a vastly growing club, imported by these same politically correct pushers who promote these issues in the first place. And yet they then tell us they are not bringing in forced association to promote discourse. Oh, really, could have fooled me.

    And the view of Sikhs doesn’t appear to be all inclusive on marriage either, as this article in, The Telegraph, expalins.

    • Lord Norton says:

      maudie33: Some members of the public get very excited about the issue and make a lot of noise about it, while others – the majority – don’t see what the fuss is about and support gay marriage. The point to be borne in mind about survey data is that the Ipsos MORI polls showed a shift in opinion over time. It is not a question of bias in the way the question was phrased – the question remained the same, but the responses changed, showing opinion moving to majority support for same-sex marriage.

      There was a Conservative MP a decade or so ago who kept asserting that gay sex was ‘unnatural and abnormal’. As I pointed out during the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill in 2000, this is in part wrong (it is not unnatural) and in part irrelevant (being left-handed is abnormal). The current proposals for same-sex marriage do not impinge on religious freedom. Religions are not being forced to do anything they do not want to do, other than in respect of those religions which would like to perform same-sex marriages and are being denied the freedom to conduct such ceremonies.

      The various cases you refer to are irrelevant in the context of this proposal.

      • maudie33 says:

        Lord Norton, if nothing written in opposition to this matter is relevent, why are we having a debate? It is not possible to have a fruitful debate on any issue if only one side of the equation is considered material. In other words, you are telling us we are wasting our time responding to your call to our views on this matter.

        Now, you tell us you have seen studies advising you that this move will have no effect on society as a whole. And you say it has been proven to be so in countries that introduced it eleven years ago. Which countries ae you referring to who tell you they have seen no effective change? Where are these studies held for public view? Can you put a link up to enable us to view them so we can aslo judge and find we concur with their advice? And if not, why not?

        You write that religions will not be affected by this move in the law. That cannot be an accurate statement as the link I put up shows. Court actions will be brought against any releigious leader who refuses to indulge in such a ceremony, Just as the elederly Devon couple were persecuted for not wanting to introduce it into their little bed and breakfast home. They were forced to give a bedroom to peope who wanted to prove their cause was superior to the owners. And that is what it was, dressed up as a suitable law suit.

        However, the main aim of the law suit, from a political point of view, was to instill fear in the Christian and religious people of this country by warning them they could no longer call on their right to ‘freedom of association.’ This same law suit told them that their rights were second class to the rights of homosexuals who wish to carry out their sexual act within earshot of those who find it uncomfortable. And that in future the public must indulge this act within their environment regardless of their deepest feelings.

        And I have no doubt whatsoever that this same pressure will be brought on those clergy who will refuse to marry same sex partners, even though the same sex couple will be able to find a compliant man or woman of the cloth to perform the blessing for them. And if you say this will not be so, what are the safeguards you intend to put into law to protect them from this?.

      • Lord Norton says:

        maudie33: One cannot prove a negative and it is difficult to argue with a string of non sequiturs. A commercial B&B service has nothing to do with the law in respect of organised religions. People are free to associate with whoever they wish, or not as the case may be, but there is a difference between making a choice as a private individual and discrimination when you are acting in a public capacity.

        As for court action in respect of gay marriage, leading legal authorities have made clear that there is no real prospect of this happening under the ECHR. If it was likely, why has it not happened in other European countries which have gay marriage? They are all signatories to the European Convention.

  6. maudie33 says:

    @Lord Norton:

    As we are far more litigious a nation than the rest of Europe put together, and also lean far more toward wanting to emulate the Americans in these matters, I think it may be a good idea to legislate to protect the clergy from what is very likely indeed.

    After all, the British are Uncle Sam lovers in most other respects, a law against would then ensure clergy will not end up like the elderly couple of Devon or the sued clergyman in Canada.

    You see, a great deal of British people believe that as the Church is all inclusive in the same way as a business, albeit it pretends not to be a business, they could indeed end up in the same kettle of fish as those exploited people in that tiny 4 bedroom B&B. Which had advertised itself as ‘Christian’. Meaning they belonged to the club

    After all, their business was far smaller than the Church and one would have to assume, the great Church must be able to offer a far larger pay out for people wanting to make a killing.

    And, low and behold, here we see Denmark Churches have been ‘forced’ to perform ‘gay marriage’. So much for the wonderful Danish with their no difficulties with the same sex legislation.

    All that is going on in this respect is going to come out of the closet. And in the not too distant furture.

    • Lord Norton says:

      maudie33: I gather the intention is to include the protection you refer to in the legislation. I am not sure if you have read the article to which you link, since no minister will have to officiate if they do not wish to. The size of a B&B is irrelevant to the fact of engaging in a public commercial enterprise. If you advertise a room in exchange for payment, it is a commercial operation.

      • maudie33 says:

        Which really means the common man with little money and no means at all to build the equivalent of the Ritz must accept his loss of association rights or starve to death.

        Typical of those insulated from life to think that acceptable in a free society. And yet it is claimed by the Tories they are for the small man and sall business. When they are more into subjugation if you look at it from a true persepective.

        The law in this matter made a politcal decision. And as the old saying goes, the law is an ass.

      • Lord Norton says:

        maudie33: Most B&Bs don’t discriminate and the good ones are thriving, especially in today’s economic climate.

  7. franksummers3ba says:

    Lord Norton,
    As I am sure you are aware the Windsor case decided by the US Supreme Court has overturned the DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) and requires the federal government to extend the same benefits and privileges to couples joined in homosexual as hetero sexual unions. I of course think this is a bad decisions overall and will serve to weaken a society already in bad shape. However, I agree with a portion of the majority (and thus only binding) opinion:
    “The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to
    the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the
    common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband
    and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,”
    Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384. Marriage laws
    may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each
    State. ”

    There can be no real doubt about this so long as one attempts to actually be sane and a citizen of the United States. On this grounds I always found DOMA highly problematic. However, the new decision will turn this into a very serious mess and completely on its head. The only real solution is vastly distant from current politics and requires the Federal funds divested to or credited to varied state domestic regimes to operate under a more complex schedule in which states by one formula or another get some funds for the regimes they recognize which the union as a whole does not and complete federal funding for those which the whole union and the state recognize. This is the pattern under which a vast amount of business has been and is being done in countless areas of federal life.

    I mention this to you (although none may read it in such an ancient post) because doubtless in Europe and the UK there will be tendencies to analogize and equate circumstances in our system and yours which will really not bear such a simple analysis. I am only now really addressing the issue here and find that I am in the familiar role of criticizing the US Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s