Zac Hall Plagiarist?

[oldmanxfella]

Dunno, but the idiot Corrin will no doubt be posting about it as if he'd figured it out himself, and then TJ will post something too. And then they'll all jump around rubbing themselves in delight at their freedom from MF.

I wouldn't worry about James. One day he will be so incandescent with rage that he will spontaneously combust.

[Chinahand]

My Goodness, Mr Hall is copying not just the Catholic Church, but everyone from UK MPs¹ to Daily Express Columnists²

 

 

1 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.960.0

2http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennifer-selway/639405/equality-gay-couples-time-same-straight-partners-high-court

[dilligaf]

My Goodness, Mr Hall is copying not just the Catholic Church, but everyone from UK MPs¹ to Daily Express Columnists²

 

 

1 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.960.0

2http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennifer-selway/639405/equality-gay-couples-time-same-straight-partners-high-court

Why shouldn't he copy whoever he wants if he shares their view? We still have free speech here (ATM)

[newsnight]

The sick joke also is that Hall is championing the Ashers Bakery (Colin and Karen, father and mother of Daniel and Amy McArthur his wife) are members of the Church founded by Ian Paisley who loathed and villified Catholics at every turn of the way. He didn't plagiarize anything from Paisly's anti-Catholic statements though did he?

The Asher's have been in the media recently with little soundbites such as "This isn't about hate, it's really not about hate", well, I have a different opinion and ithey really are all about hate, pure hatred.

Hall should look up the comments Paisly has made about the Catholic Church in the past and the same attitudes are live and well in the DUP today.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ian-paisleys-most-caustic-quotes-catholics-breed-like-rabbits-and-multiply-like-vermin-9729672.html

But then this is the really fascinating thing, although those churches hate, loath each other, they hate and loath gay people more and they come together to form alliances to do as much damage as they can to gays no matter what the cost in money or the lies necessary to achieve that objective.

 

"Daniel and Amy were originally members of the Free Presbyterian Church (of Ulster) but now worship at Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Mossley".
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ashers-gay-cake-court-case-couple-say-they-have-done-nothing-wrong-34412588.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Ulster

Opposition to homosexuality

Following a number of high-profile comments made by Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Member of Parliament (MP) Iris Robinson, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a finding that an advertisement placed by the Kirk Session of the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church breached advertising codes. The church had taken out the 540-word advertisement in the News Letter on 1 August (one day before the annual Belfast Gay Pride event) describing "homosexuality as an abomination, defined homosexuals as perverts and called on religious followers to maintain a very public stance against the gay community." ^[10][11][12] The decision was later overturned and the church cleared of all wrongdoing.^{[citation needed]}
Following the 2008 Belfast Gay Pride parade, Free Presbyterian minister and DUP official David McConaghie, who was also spokesman for the Free Presbyterian-dominated Caleb Foundation evangelical pressure group, called for the banning of the annual event, complaining of the "gratuitously offensive and deliberately provocative behaviour emanating from participants".^[13] McConaghie disappeared from public life following his arrest "...after a recording device, believed to be a camera, was found in the toilets of his constituency office."^[14]

Doctrine

The church adheres to Calvinist doctrines. It also self-describes as fundamentalist which it sees as an appropriate term to describe its stance of being anti-liberal. Christian Fundamentalism has evolved over the years to where the original five essential doctrines that one had to hold to be considered fundamentalist, namely: The inerrancy of the Bible,The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, The Virgin Birth of Christ, The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, were mixed in with a healthy dose of "biblical separatism" which is a doctrine that advocates avoiding any public or private worship with people of other denominations that it considers apostates or heretics. At the start of Paisley's ministry this separatism was focused heavily on the Presbyterian Church in Ireland a denomination from which it drew many of its initial members. For the FPC the main target of its doctrinal ire, however, has always been and still continues to be the Roman Catholic Church. As of 2015 its main website greets all-comers with a message of how the FPC disapproves of politicians going to the funerals of Roman Catholics as by doing so they were communicating a message that there was "little difference" between the mass and Protestant communion. This message has been on the front page since at least June 2011^[15]

[dilligaf]

The sick joke also is that Hall is championing the Ashers Bakery (Colin and Karen, father and mother of Daniel and Amy McArthur his wife) are members of the Church founded by Ian Paisley who loathed and villified Catholics at every turn of the way. He didn't plagiarize anything from Paisly's anti-Catholic statements though did he?

 

The Asher's have been in the media recently with little soundbites such as "This isn't about hate, it's really not about hate", well, I have a different opinion and ithey really are all about hate, pure hatred.

 

Hall should look up the comments Paisly has made about the Catholic Church in the past and the same attitudes are live and well in the DUP today.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ian-paisleys-most-caustic-quotes-catholics-breed-like-rabbits-and-multiply-like-vermin-9729672.html

 

But then this is the really fascinating thing, although those churches hate, loath each other, they hate and loath gay people more and they come together to form alliances to do as much damage as they can to gays no matter what the cost in money or the lies necessary to achieve that objective.

 

"Daniel and Amy were originally members of the Free Presbyterian Church (of Ulster) but now worship at Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church in Mossley".

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ashers-gay-cake-court-case-couple-say-they-have-done-nothing-wrong-34412588.html

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Ulster

 

Opposition to homosexuality

Following a number of high-profile comments made by Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Member of Parliament (MP) Iris Robinson, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a finding that an advertisement placed by the Kirk Session of the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church breached advertising codes. The church had taken out the 540-word advertisement in the News Letter on 1 August (one day before the annual Belfast Gay Pride event) describing "homosexuality as an abomination, defined homosexuals as perverts and called on religious followers to maintain a very public stance against the gay community." ^[10][11][12] The decision was later overturned and the church cleared of all wrongdoing.^{[citation needed]}

Following the 2008 Belfast Gay Pride parade, Free Presbyterian minister and DUP official David McConaghie, who was also spokesman for the Free Presbyterian-dominated Caleb Foundation evangelical pressure group, called for the banning of the annual event, complaining of the "gratuitously offensive and deliberately provocative behaviour emanating from participants".^[13] McConaghie disappeared from public life following his arrest "...after a recording device, believed to be a camera, was found in the toilets of his constituency office."^[14]

 

Doctrine

The church adheres to Calvinist doctrines. It also self-describes as fundamentalist which it sees as an appropriate term to describe its stance of being anti-liberal. Christian Fundamentalism has evolved over the years to where the original five essential doctrines that one had to hold to be considered fundamentalist, namely: The inerrancy of the Bible,The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, The Virgin Birth of Christ, The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, were mixed in with a healthy dose of "biblical separatism" which is a doctrine that advocates avoiding any public or private worship with people of other denominations that it considers apostates or heretics. At the start of Paisley's ministry this separatism was focused heavily on the Presbyterian Church in Ireland a denomination from which it drew many of its initial members. For the FPC the main target of its doctrinal ire, however, has always been and still continues to be the Roman Catholic Church. As of 2015 its main website greets all-comers with a message of how the FPC disapproves of politicians going to the funerals of Roman Catholics as by doing so they were communicating a message that there was "little difference" between the mass and Protestant communion. This message has been on the front page since at least June 2011^[15]

Your not obsessing, are you?

[Keith]

 

My Goodness, Mr Hall is copying not just the Catholic Church, but everyone from UK MPs¹ to Daily Express Columnists²

 

 

1 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.960.0

2http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennifer-selway/639405/equality-gay-couples-time-same-straight-partners-high-court

Why shouldn't he copy whoever he wants if he shares their view? We still have free speech here (ATM)

 

 

He can, if he makes it clear that he's copying other people rather than thinking for himself. Passing someone else's comments off as his own is not something I'd expect from an elected representative.

[Vulgarian]

@Vulgarian, I think Mr Hall should have at the very least acknowledged his debt to the Catholic Church in Eire for informing his opinion on the matter!

 

The fact that he was informed to such an extent that a large proportion of his speech was simply cut and paste from Catholic sources which he read verbatim means he was not presenting the Court with his considered views, but rather agreeing with, and presenting, another's.

 

There is a difference between these two things and he should have acknowledged he was doing the latter, and not the former.

 

Perhaps those are his views and it's just that he found that someone else had expressed them more eloquently than he could.

 

What puzzles me is that it's not hard to wangle the words around so that they are sufficiently different from the source to go unnoticed. We've all been to university!

[dilligaf]

 

 

My Goodness, Mr Hall is copying not just the Catholic Church, but everyone from UK MPs¹ to Daily Express Columnists²

 

 

1 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.960.0

2http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennifer-selway/639405/equality-gay-couples-time-same-straight-partners-high-court

Why shouldn't he copy whoever he wants if he shares their view? We still have free speech here (ATM)

 

 

He can, if he makes it clear that he's copying other people rather than thinking for himself. Passing someone else's comments off as his own is not something I'd expect from an elected representative.

 

Did he say "these are my words" or just present an argument using that info?

[ManxTaxPayer]

I detest plagiarism. In fact, I have a dream that one day, even the Isle of Man, an island sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of original speeches.

[dilligaf]

I detest plagiarism. In fact, I have a dream that one day, even in the Isle of Man, an island sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of original speeches.

I'm sure I read that somewhere else.

[ManxTaxPayer]

[Chinahand]

Mr Hall's Speech.

 

It was quite long - apologies!!

 

All text in red is copied verbatum from the sources given. At least he wrote the last page and a half ... though I'm sure I've missed other sources, google isn't perfect, and neither am I so there may be some errors, but I think I've got most of it right!!

 

I love it where he adds in statements like "in my view" and "I feel" in a wall of copied text!!

 

 

 

Thank you Mr Speaker,

 

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/it-hurtful-gay-people-even-raise-question-about-whether-same-sex-marriage-should-be


When it comes to matters of such public importance as the redefinition of one of the most fundamental and foundational institutions in our society as marriage is, it is perfectly reasonable to ask those who seek this change to listen to and give a fair hearing to those who oppose it. A healthy society is one that tolerates a diversity of opinion and viewpoints, and this should be valued.


In opposing same-sex marriage, I see myself as addressing a very fundamental question. Would it be to the benefit of society and of families to make a fundamental change to the definition of marriage? What are the implications for society, and crucially for children, of the proposal that marriage would no longer mean a union between one man and one women in the kind of indissoluble relationship in which the procreation and raising of children takes place?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2015-10-21b.960.0

You do not have to be a person of faith to value the centuries of tradition which societies the world over have attached to the institution of marriage; and, as has been pointed out, the unintended but glaring inequality resulting from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, whereby same-sex couples are still entitled to continue in a civil partnership, to take up a civil partnership or to enjoy the extension of marriage, while opposite-sex couples have only the option of conventional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is hardly fair. It gives rise to an inequality in what is being billed by the Chief Minister as a Bill to promote equalities, and in my view it does seem to fly in the face of notions of equality.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennifer-selway/639405/equality-gay-couples-time-same-straight-partners-high-court

This blatant unfairness that has been highlighted was recently challenged in the UK High Court by Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, who are in a long-term relationship. Logic and all notions of equality would suggest that they had an extremely good case; yet, unbelievably, they have lost. The case was obviously brought to the High Court by this couple to make a very good point, and it is one that cannot be ignored by any government indefinitely. Mr Speaker, the change in the attitude towards homosexuals over the past 30, 40, 50 years has been remarkable and welcome; yet now, most bizarrely, it is heterosexual couples who face discrimination and disadvantage unless this is addressed.

What is even more disturbing in this whole affair, as I understand it, is that under the UK government proposals adults could very soon be able to change their gender by simply filling out an application form. That can already be done in Ireland. It was as a result of pressure from the transgender lobby to end discrimination against transgender and transsexual people.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-8

The message of the Chief Minister and those of the ‘yes’ side is that this Bill is about equality and whether gay relationships should be offered the same security and the same respect as those of heterosexual relationships. It is as simple as that, no more and no less. If a heterosexual citizen is allowed to marry the person he loves, then why should a homosexual person not be allowed to marry the person he loves? This argument appeals to our sense of fairness and justice, but is it really as simple as this? Is it really as simple as the Chief Minister is trying to make his case?

Equality is something we should all be passionate about. It is a basic human right and we must all cherish and promote it, yet its application does not necessarily give us the freedom to do whatever we would like. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission itself acknowledges that:

Equality does not always mean treating everyone the same.

As a value, equality becomes problematic if it is treated separately from other concerns and other values, as would appear to be the case in the same-sex marriage debate. In fact, it is quite mistaken to apply it apart from other fundamental principles such as truth and justice. And it also does something else at the level of conscience. An exclusive focus on equality in separation from other principles distracts us from asking in conscience the absolute critical question: can a relationship between two people of one sex, however loving, however committed, be truthfully termed a marriage? This distraction of one’s conscience by appealing to equality without taking into account other values and rights, including the central issue in this debate of the rights of children to a mother and a father, is the first part of what I would term the equality trap.

The second part is that we are told this Bill is not about changing marriage but it is about sharing it, about extending it to others, and this is also profoundly untrue, in my view. For many people who are married, it is abundantly clear in each day of their married lives that the manifold distinctions between male and female define what marriage is. Allowing people of the same sex to marry requires that the traditional and natural institution of marriage is stripped of its very essence: the bonding of man and woman and the begetting and raising of children by their natural parents in a relationship of permanence and sexual exclusivity.

The legal recognition of marriage as a union between a male and a female does not discriminate, but it appropriately differentiates. It is appropriate because only the union between man and woman is open to new life. To try to make marriage something else by simply repeating that it is about marriage equality numbs the engagement of our consciences, which in silence and peace tell us the truth: that we are made male and female, and we are made by a male and by a female. This is the unchanging truth upon which marriage, as the bond between a male and a female, is based.

http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-7

Mr Speaker, I fear that if this Bill succeeds it will become increasingly difficult to speak in public about marriage as being between a man and a woman, and mention of mothers and fathers will likely be removed, or will have to be removed, from a whole raft of legislation to be replaced with gender-neutral terms.

Because of this, I am concerned about what teachers may be obliged to teach about marriage in schools. Teachers may very likely find themselves being forced to act against their consciences. Even in Roman Catholic schools – which I note that the Chief Minister makes absolutely no mention of; he mentions the Church of England but makes no mention of the Roman Catholic Church – the state generally holds a position of dominance in regard to the curriculum. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask whether, if the Bill succeeds, teachers will be forced to teach the new reality of gender-neutral marriage even if the Roman Catholic parents or the management, the board, the governors have got profound misgivings about it. It is absolutely imperative that faith schools are protected. They must have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression, and they must be free to model the teachings, values and principles, in the case of St Mary’s School, of the Roman Catholic faith and in the case of St Thomas’s, of the Church of England.

What would happen if a man or a woman in a same-sex marriage applied to teach at a religious school, was successful in obtaining a job offer, and then informed the school that they were in a same-sex marriage, which resulted in the offer being revoked? That has happened elsewhere. A court could rule that to be discrimination, but it could also be argued that this would be an assault on religious freedom. Religious schools, in my view, must have the right to govern their internal affairs free from state interference, and I ask the Chief Minister to address this should this Bill succeed and before coming forward.

I would also question whether this will lead to a climate of intolerance and a violation of religious freedom. The cross-denominational group in Ireland pointed out that when Britain introduced same-sex marriages the adoption agencies had to close because they were not prepared to provide services to same-sex couples.

The Inter-Church Group has also said that service providers such as photographers and caterers at weddings would be acting illegally if they were to decline services for same-sex weddings, even though providing those services would be contrary to their consciences. They are also of the view that chaplains working in publicly funded institutions, such as prisons and hospitals, could face disciplinary action and possible dismissal if they spoke of marriage as being between a man and a woman only.

I would also add a real concern of mine: that if the Bill succeeds, any public servant, teacher, police officer, marriage registrar or member of the judiciary could face legal sanction and possible dismissal if that view were to be expressed in the course of their work.

Looking at other jurisdictions, in one case in the United States the co-founder of Mozilla, the IT company, was forced to resign in from his position as the chief executive after it transpired that he had personally donated US$1,000 in support of a campaign to oppose the introduction of same-sex marriage in California some years previously. His modest donation, out of his own personal pocket, elicited global boycotts and protests from the lesbian-gay community and its supporters, and eventually he was forced to give up his job.

Closer to home, in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission took action against a baking company – a family business run by people who held the view that marriage can only be contracted between a man and a woman – apparently because they refused to bake a cake with a slogan on it promoting same-sex marriage. And even though the judge hearing the case accepted that the owners held deeply religious views, she said the that business was not above the law. They lost the discrimination case and were ordered to pay costs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3431004/Were-gay-row-bakers-human-rights-breached-Incompatibility-laws-sees-appeal-halted-following-intervention-Northern-Ireland-s-Attorney-General.html

But then it is interesting to note that this month a high-profile appeal by them was halted by the dramatic intervention from Northern Ireland’s top lawyer, the Attorney General, because there was possible incompatibility between the equality laws and the European Convention on Human Rights, and the case continues today. In a free society I do not think that a business should be compelled to assist in the promotion of an idea that it opposes.

http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-7


In jurisdictions that have legalised same-sex marriage we also hear that Church authorities can find themselves in trouble if they refuse to hire parish halls, for instance, for same-sex marriage celebrations.

Mr Speaker, the intention, I feel, of the Chief Minister and some people supporting this Bill might be to try to create a more tolerant, caring and inclusive society – and, in principle, this is something which we should all be in favour of. However, as I have outlined, there are real fears that if the House allows the Bill to continue it might result in the opposite – in a less tolerant society. This is the risk, the danger, and the responsibility lies with those who want to redefine marriage to show that this will not be the case in the Isle of Man.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/it-hurtful-gay-people-even-raise-question-about-whether-same-sex-marriage-should-be


It is also important that we all consider very carefully what a fundamental change in the law would mean for society today and for future generations.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-8


The Isle of Man prides itself in placing family at the heart of society – so much so that the institution of marriage and the families it creates enjoy a special position and must be guarded with special care. Like the vast majority of countries in the world, marriage in the Isle of Man is considered to be a legally binding union entered into voluntarily by a man and a woman. We are now being asked to consider changing this definition so that two people of the same sex might also enter into marriage.

The issue we are being asked to vote on is about more than simply changing a piece of law which may or may not apply to us as individuals; it is about changing the way that we as a society think about family, and enshrining that change in our land.

http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-1

The proposed redefinition of marriage as a legal contract, without distinction as to their sex, is saying that the special role marriage has had until now in bringing forward and nourishing new human life, only possible between a man and a woman – this, without distinction of sex – will be incidental to marriage.

Moreover, it is saying that it is a matter of indifference to us a society whether a child is raised by a father or a mother, or by two men, or two women – and, more basically, by its biological parents at all. Mr Speaker, Hon. Members, that is what we will be voting into our society.

In due course, Mr Speaker, no matter how carefully the law seeks to regulate matters, technologies that have until now only been used to aid infertile heterosexual couples will be the ordinary means of reproduction for same-sex couples – who biologically cannot otherwise have children. It is a possibility that children could very well end up with several people that they could properly refer to as their parents: the genetic mother who donated the egg, the surrogate mother who bore the child in her womb, the adopting lesbian mother, the father who donated the sperm, and the adopting homosexual father.

If the proposed law is enacted and our society is changed, all of these kinds of parenting will have to be considered as part of the new ‘normal’. Experts have said that in such situations the issue of legal guardianship of children will be very difficult to determine. And in order to conceive a child, a same-sex couple would have to overlook a child's right to be raised by both his or her biological parents.

All of these changes are about adults’ needs rather than the needs of children. Are they likely to contribute to a culture in which children are viewed as commodities? We have to remember that our culture predisposes us to value self-fulfilment above virtually everything else. In my view, the introduction of same-sex marriage will put the needs of some adults before the natural rights of children to a father and a mother. This cannot but be highly damaging to society in general and to the institution of the family in particular, which must be guarded with special care.

http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-5

Mr Speaker, I appeal to Hon. Members not to be motivated by error or by the pressures of the moment, and not allow any further passage of this legislation as it will, in my opinion, constitute a real and grave anthropological backward step. Something very unique and very precious is in real danger of being lost. Legalising same-sex marriage will lead us down a slippery slope to where anything goes.

http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Marriage_print_final-final.pdf

Once gay marriage itself has been granted on grounds of equal protection or equal benefits, it will be virtually impossible to deny either parental or marital status to any number of adults.

http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-5


The state is not discriminating when it requires there to be a man and a woman for a marriage contract; it merely recognises the natural reality. A marriage made up of a man and a woman is not the same as a union of two people of the same sex.

To distinguish is not to discriminate, but to respect differences. Same-sex marriage is a fundamental threat to marriage and the Bill is trying to tamper with society's DNA and the consequent mutation which will reap unimaginable consequences for the Isle of Man.

http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Marriage_print_final-final.pdf

There is an abundance of evidence that recognising same-sex marriage will undermine the entire institution; and even when you look at Scandinavian gay marriage, that has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated and virtually any family form is acceptable. More than half of all the children in Norway and Sweden and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents – and married parenthood has become a minority.

Mr Speaker,

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm

changing the legal term of marriage is not about one change in the law, like the Chief Minister is trying to portray, but rather amounts to hundreds of changes all at once. The term ‘marriage’ can be found in family law, employment law, trusts and estates, healthcare law, tax law, property law, and many others. And these laws affect and pervasively regulate religious institutions such as churches, religiously-affiliated schools and families.

http://irishcatholic.ie/article/same-sex-marriage-debate-5

The battle is not between the two ideologies and I do not oppose one ideology with another. But we do need to understand the intention: respect and care for gay and lesbian people on the one hand and opposition to same-sex marriage on the other.

Mr Speaker, looking at the consultation itself – as the Chief Minister has touched on. It was held for five weeks and that lasted until 13th November; and it was, in fact, one week short of the recommended minimum period under the Government's code – a point that did not pass unnoticed. That means that there could well have been people unable to respond.

Nevertheless, there was an unusually high return consisting of 176 responses. Many of these showed a remarkable degree of detail, which at the very least deserve close examination. The very fact that so many people took the trouble to respond – and in some cases devoted a very considerable amount of time and effort – was good news for the very democratic process that underlies our system of Government.

The results of the consultation were not published until 26th January, or thereabouts, by which time an announcement had already been made some three weeks earlier that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill would proceed. Leaving aside all else, this was not only most regrettable and somewhat discourteous to those people who had responded, but it could also be perceived as further evidence that the elected representatives do not have a due and proper regard for what ordinary people think. This hardly encourages a greater participation in the electoral process and it may well further exacerbate what may be described as a democratic deficit.

I have already touched on the issue of equality, Mr Speaker; but again, without becoming too technical, there are two particular grounds on which a nullity decree may be sought for heterosexual marriage. The first is on the grounds of a lack of consummation, though by Schedule 2, part 3, paragraph 5(3) this does not apply in the Bill before us.

The second is on the grounds that the respondent was pregnant at the time of the marriage by someone other than the applicant, and that this fact was unknown to the applicant. This is not excluded from the Bill, though without needing to pursue the point further it is very difficult to see how the respondent could ever be pregnant by the applicant in a same-sex marriage. Surely it does not assist a respect for the law to pass provisions whose wording, at least in part, poses a factually impossible proposition.

The second deficiency concerns the dissolution of a marriage by way of divorce. Until more recent times divorce was available solely on the proof of what is sometimes still called ‘the marital offence of adultery’. This has always been heterosexually perceived. The Bill retains this perception in Schedule 2, part 3, paragraph 4. In doing so it loses its claim to the creation of equal marriage. Put another way, if the marital offence of adultery is regarded as being capable of being committed only in heterosexual terms, it must imply that this is only how marriage itself can be perceived.

Mr Speaker, in pursuing this question of equality further: if this Bill is passed it has been contended that it would create a further inequality for heterosexual couples and the same-sex couples who have got two alternatives open to them, which are either a civil partnership or marriage. And again it has been suggested this could be rectified by the Civil Partnership Act being amended to include heterosexual couples as well.

So two questions arise from this: what, if anything, is the difference in practice between the Civil Partnership Act and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill? And what would be the practical, legal and financial consequences of having four separate pieces of legislation on essentially the same subject?

On the issue of conscience, Mr Speaker, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill contains limited provisions concerning conscience with reference to ministers of religion. This is to be welcomed as far as it goes but, as it stands, it also again creates a degree of inequality. Traditionally, religion has been perceived in terms of a belief in deity, but it is notable that the forthcoming Equality Bill defines religion far more widely so as to include a philosophical belief – or even an absence of such a belief.

Religion will become one of the protected characteristics, yet in a matter where religious conscience is likely to become particularly active with regard to same-sex marriage, the scope of protection appears to be very narrow and therefore, in my opinion, unsatisfactory. Mr Speaker, unless the Equality Bill is to become deficient with regard to one of the protected characteristics, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill requires a careful scrutiny to determine how the conscience on the grounds of religion in the broader legal sense can be truly protected. That might well include, for instance, provisions for registrars and teachers in schools where marriage education is given. Issues could also arise in the sphere of employment where applicants for a job or for promotion are discriminated against because of their religious views on same-sex marriage.

Mr Speaker, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is no ordinary piece of legislation. It has ramifications far beyond its actual provisions and I think it requires some greater degree of enquiry and consideration that can even be achieved by the ordinary legislative process. The case for the creation of a Select Committee to investigate its provisions further in the terms that I have described, and maybe in other areas too, is very compelling and self-evident.

I therefore beg to move that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill be referred to a committee of this House.

[thebees]

Ha, brilliant CH

[Chinahand]

I wonder who the anonymous users are turning up to read this thread?!

[Declan]

TJ's linked to this thread on facebook Chinahand.