Plaid Cymru’s equalities spokesman Lindsay Whittle AM has welcomed moves by the Scottish Government to allow same sex marriages – and wants to see the same done in Wales.
Lindsay Whittle, AM for South Wales East, said: “I welcome this progressive move in Scotland and it represents an important step in ensuring equal treatment for all. It will enable gay and lesbian couples to marry with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples and that surely is right.
“I wish Wales would follow but, unfortunately, unlike Scotland we are not able to introduce a policy which ensures both equality and freedom because the matter is not devolved.”
Ministers in Scotland confirmed they would bring forward a bill on the issue, indicating the earliest ceremonies could take place by the start of 2015. The decision comes after nearly 80,000 people responded to a major consultation exercise and an online exercise showed significant support in favour of the move.
The proposed legislation in Scotland will include significant new protections and conscience clauses for churches and individual clergy who object to gay marriage on religious grounds,
Will Gay Welsh couples be able to get married in Scotland and will that situation be legally recognised in Wales as other "foreign" marriages are?
I cant really understand the concept of same sex marriage. The purpose of marriage is, ulimately, to protect the welfare of children, in a society without religous or social constraints, men would be promiscous and produce lots of children with different mothers, and abandon them and the mother to the winds of misfortune and poverty. With the traditional marriage there are religous and social constraints which, in theory, exist to protect children and mothers. In a same sex marriage there cannot be any children, by the laws of sexual reproduction. Same sex couples who may adopt children, do so for the worst and most selfish of reasons, and in many cases cause tremendous problems for the children as they grow up and turn into adults. I have no objection to same sex couples living together, or having a civil partnership, which gives the couple virtually all the rights of a conventional marriage. But a vast difference between a civil partnership and a civil marriage is that a civil marriage almost always contains religious aspects during the marriage. The word marriage is a religious word in itself. In this day and age, it could be argued that we are living in a secular society, (but, and I speak as an Agnostic, if you believe in a Christian God, yours is the true religion and your God is the only God,) the concept of marriage in a church, carried out by two hetrosexuals has no meaning, unless they are believers. If you dont believe in God you might has well have a Registrar Office Wedding,or on top of Caerphilly Mountain, otherwise its mere hypocrisy. I see it as the height of folly and hypocrisy to allow people who are not religous to take part in a religous ceremony for the sake of their own vanity.
The only people who would oppose this are homophobic bigots who may use religion as some form of defence for their bigotry. Wales is not a religious country so really you're just plain old homophobic bigots.
Since marriage is a religous event, and if Wales is not a religous country, why should they want to get "married". I am not homophobic, merely being a Mr Spock of Star Trek and applying the rules of logic to the situation. Civil partnerships give same sex couples every civic and legal right heterosexuals get in marriage and since marriage is for the procreation and protection of children, I cant logically see why they want to be married.
Marriage is a societal construct and not a religious one. Religion has neither claim nor hold over the word or indeed concept of marriage.
If as some would claim, marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation. Then ought we to restrict marriage to those of child rearing age. Should childless couples be forced to seek annulment. When the youngest child of a married couple reaches the age of maturity, should their marriage be annulled too?
When you follow the path of such arbitrary rules you realise just how silly they all are. There is no more logic or reason to deny marriage to a gay or lesbian couple than there is to deny dental care to people with brown hair.
There are a vast array of one true gods depending upon your choice of religion. In a society that allows freedom of religion then this is your choice to make. Such choices do not supersede the right of others to freedom from religious intolerance.
If your choice of religion or indeed personal beliefs do not support or approve of gay marriage then don't worry. All you have to do is not marry a gay or lesbian person and you wont have a problem.
Ron, Who said same sex couples are not, or cannot be religious?.
According to Ron James you cannot be a christian and believe in god and live by christian principals if you are NOT heterosexual. i.e. if you are homosexual.
What bigotry nonsense this person spouts, and appears to be allowed to utter on these pages, in fact, his comments are clearly discriminatory, and, anyway, being the agnostic he professes to be, and, with no real interest in anything religious, including marriage, (according to him), then his remarks could be construed as inciting discrimination against gay people.
Bite your tongue Ron before putting your brain in gear in future, I thank god for Lindsey Whittle, who does Ron thank for Lindsey?
1 If marriage is not seen as a religous ceremony, why do they want to get married in church,which is a building dedicated to public worship, especially that of the established form of Christian religion, why cant a Registrar`s Office Ceremony be acceptable?.
2 I am not homophobic, and never said that homosexuals cannot be Christian, all you need to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ and, that through him you will achieve salvation and eternal life, nothing to do with ones sexual orientation. Though if you are a Christian you must follow the traditoin and rules of the church, I happen to think that the Government, any Government should not dictate to the church, on its beliefs.
3 One of the reasons I became an Agnostic, is that during the the English Reformation, Henry VIII,made himself the head of the Church of England, I can understand the Catholic Concept of Apostolic Succession, i.e, an unbroken line from St Peter, but find it odd that a secular person can declare himself Head of the Church of England. It gets even more mind boggling, when toady,the Head of the Church of England is the Quenn, who is a woman, but despite that, some members of the Church dont want women Bishops or Priests.
Does not compute as Robby the Robot used to say in Lost in Space
Your first paragraph Ron: first line: who are `they?.
I would remind you that Jesus Christ surrounded himself with exclusivly male companions, on the law of averages at least two, if not three of them were homosexuals, good for him.
What you actually said was that to be married in a church one has to be a christian, and, then you make some further stupid qualification for doing so as being able to `procreate`, you further declare that for these reasons homosexuals should not marry in church, do you regard them all as unable to procreate????.
Why I am spending time even reading and considering the expressions you make on this topic I dont know, but what I do know is that the views you express are deeply held by you, the topic clearly bothers you, and as being made by an agnostic, in justifying them, they are very dangerous inciting expressions, if they were however expressed by a deep thinking believer in Jesus Christ, then they would be excusable, ill founded, but nonetheless acceptable in debate.
The comments are distasteful and inciting and should stop, you should throw away that shovel you are using to dig the hole in which you are likely to not able to climb out of by reasoned argument.
I`ve heard of a virgin birth, but if two homosexuals could marry in church procreate and produce a child that would really be a miracle.
Notice how the local politicians are staying away from this debate, gutless. Well done Lindsay for your highlighting contribution.
Ron, two christian homosexuals marry in church and produce a child! The fact is one of the pair is a homosexual woman, the other? a homosexual man, nothing to do with virgin births, this debate is about same sex couples, so would you also bar homosexual women marrying homosexual men??? now there`s a problem, for you!!!!!
I suspect that Ron is something of a stranger to reason. I can find no semblance of a coherent argument in his comments. Even so…
There will be some gay and lesbian couples who are Christians and would wish to marry with a religious ceremony. Likewise there are churches/religious groups who welcome gay and lesbian people and would happily conduct such a ceremony. Currently the law would prevent such ceremonies from taking place. Even though all parties are in agreement.
Not all gay and lesbian couples will be religious or have any interest in a religious ceremony. Indeed some will not want to marry at all, just as is the case with heterosexual couples. A heterosexual couple can choose a civil marriage in a registry office or a church wedding. They do not need to be religious, churches profit from weddings and use them as a source of income.
A gay or lesbian couple have only the choice of a civil partnership. This civil partnership is reserved exclusively for gay and lesbian couples. Heterosexual couples are excluded from civil partnerships and there have been challenges against this.
No church or religious group would be forced to marry a gay or lesbian couple against their will. However, gay marriage would result in civil weddings in registry offices for gay and lesbian couples. So the question of gay marriage is not a religious issue but fundamentally a question of equality. Should a gay or lesbian couple be viewed as equal to a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the law. To which I see no reason for any answer other than a resounding yes.
Further to this, gay and lesbian people are allowed to adopt in this country. In addition there are fertility treatments available including surrogacy/sperm donors that would result in children in a gay or lesbian relationship. Such families already exist and undoubtedly their number will grow.
The concept of marriage pre-dates the established church within this country. I would politely suggest that Ron seems deeply misinformed and would perhaps do better to educate himself about the issues he comments upon.
Helen suggests that I am misinformed, but, she says
However, gay marriage would result in civil weddings in registry offices for gay and lesbian couples.
This shows she herself, differentiates between a religous wedding in a church and a civil wedding, which has been my point all along. I am not homophobic, do not object to same sex civil relationships or partnerships, but, while not being a Christian, I understand their faith, and in it, marriage is a religious ceremony, the object of which is the procreation of children, and a such does not apply to same sex relationships.
However she says
The concept of marriage pre-dates the established church within this country
But since the whole point is about letting same sex couple marry in a church, her point is invalid, if there is no christan faith or church, marriage means sonething totally different to church wedding, which the seems to be a need for among some same sex couples.
Well Ron, it would appear that you have talked yourself out of an argument. For you are stating that you support gay marriage in a registry office.
Quite why it is that you suppose you have the right to dictate to religious groups and churches is utterly beyond reason. Is your ego so overly large that you think you know better than they. It would appear that your issue is less that of prejudice and more so a case of rampant arrogance.
If a church or religious groups sees fit to conduct a gay marriage ceremony then that is a matter for them alone. You have no right to superimpose your views of religion on to them or to restrict their freedoms.
As a young gay man I am appalled by Ron's blatant and outdated ignorance, more so that he seems to be so hung up on his interpretation of the Bible (which also says if your daughter is raped but does not marry her attacker should be stoned to death) that he is completely forgetting there are liberal, tolerant people of all faiths who believe we should all be treated equally under the eyes of whatever omnipotent force they choose to believe in. I am an atheist but have religious friends who do not see me any differently for my sexuality nor wish to deny my liberty to marry. Good on Lindsay Whittle for voicing the opinion of a progressive majority even if it still won't get me voting for Plaid.
I meant if she didn't marry the man who raped her she would be stoned to death, apologies for the error.
Nonsense Helen, you seem to be unaware of when you ahve lost, The origianl item makes the comment, which is very relevant to the whole discussion
The proposed legislation in Scotland will include significant new protections and conscience clauses for churches and individual clergy who object to gay marriage on religious grounds
So, it is obvious that there are objections to gay marriages, in the proposed Scottish legislation, in church, on religous grounds. This has been the basis of my whole arguement, where a minority demanding their "rights" impact on the religous beliefs of the Christian faith, and, as I have said I am not homophobic, and do not object to Civil partnerships, my overwhelming fear is that this whole Equality Fascism, will see the majority of the population constrained by the respect of the so called human rights of minorities, which will impact on the human rights of others.