A Politics Rant
I am very happy about the Equal Marriage Act. There are far too many killjoys on the internet when it comes to two points with regards to the legislation.
1 - Yes, it includes far too many get-out clauses such as the "even if the minister's mother church(1) agrees with same-sex marriages, a given minister doesn't have to perform them" and "if the minister's mother church disagrees with same-sex marriage, then that minister doesn't get to perform them even if they have no problem with it." However, the get-out clauses mean no-one is going to get to act the martyr, which is always a good thing.
This was never going to be a one-hit victory. The idea that we ought to have said no to a partial victory because it wasn't perfect sounds like cutting your nose of to spite your face. Take this for the 90 year old that wants to marry her long time partner, and we'll fight for more later.
Also, hopefully, the Church of England will either wise up or grow more and more irrelevant and finally be separated from the state machinery. It's a win-win situation on that one.
2 - Yes, this was only the second reading, and so much could still go wrong, but it's unlikely the Lords is going to be the problem given that, in the recent past, it's been more liberal (US use of that) than the House of Commons (http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/71584/a_liberal_lords_or_backwoodsmen%3F.html). Yes, it'll be slow going but that's because political systems are built to stop change and the British system is brilliantly well designed in that regard. Just because it'll be slow doesn't mean it won't happen.
(1) Minister and mother church are used non-denominationally here.
1 - Yes, it includes far too many get-out clauses such as the "even if the minister's mother church(1) agrees with same-sex marriages, a given minister doesn't have to perform them" and "if the minister's mother church disagrees with same-sex marriage, then that minister doesn't get to perform them even if they have no problem with it." However, the get-out clauses mean no-one is going to get to act the martyr, which is always a good thing.
This was never going to be a one-hit victory. The idea that we ought to have said no to a partial victory because it wasn't perfect sounds like cutting your nose of to spite your face. Take this for the 90 year old that wants to marry her long time partner, and we'll fight for more later.
Also, hopefully, the Church of England will either wise up or grow more and more irrelevant and finally be separated from the state machinery. It's a win-win situation on that one.
2 - Yes, this was only the second reading, and so much could still go wrong, but it's unlikely the Lords is going to be the problem given that, in the recent past, it's been more liberal (US use of that) than the House of Commons (http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/71584/a_liberal_lords_or_backwoodsmen%3F.html). Yes, it'll be slow going but that's because political systems are built to stop change and the British system is brilliantly well designed in that regard. Just because it'll be slow doesn't mean it won't happen.
(1) Minister and mother church are used non-denominationally here.