Parliament to host first 'gay wedding' in equalities victory
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
PHIL REES
Chris Bryant, the Europe minister, is hoping that the Speaker's House will host his civil partnership ceremony next year
enlarge
With its array of obscure procedures, archaic ceremonies and strictly enforced rules, Parliament has often struggled with a reputation as an institution stuck in a time warp. But the hallowed halls of Westminster will take a major step into the 21st century next spring when the Palace defies convention to host its first ever civil partnership ceremony, The Independent can reveal.
Chris Bryant, the Europe minister, will become the first gay MP to have a civil partnership within the parliamentary estate in what will be seen as a symbolic victory for gay rights. Despite his role in the historic event, the former Church of England chaplain said he was "just happy to be getting married" after becoming engaged to his partner, Jared Cranney. "Jared and I are engaged and we hope to have a civil partnership – or a marriage is what it feels like – in March of next year," he said. "We'd like to do it in Parliament if possible."
Mr Bryant met Jared, a company secretary, while out on the campaign trial in Soho with the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in April last year. The pair will now be working with the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, to finalise the details of the ceremony.
All MPs, peers and their families have long been able to get married in the 14th-century chapel within the parliamentary grounds. However, like all religious venues across Britain, it cannot be used for civil partnerships, meaning that another venue has had to be found for Mr Bryant's ceremony to take place.
As part of his bid to modernise the workings of Parliament, the Speaker has been battling behind the scenes to allow the ceremony to take place within the finery of Speaker's House, his official riverside residence in the Palace of Westminster.
The ceremony is likely to take place in the state dining room, still home to many formal events held by the Speaker. Guests will be treated to the opulence of its Gothic Revival-style chandeliers and furnishings designed by A W N Pugin, considered one of the style's masters. Mr Bercow is in the process of securing a licence for the property to become the regular location for gay parliamentarians to register their union.
Mr Bryant has been at the forefront of the Government's equalities campaigning, having worked closely with the Equalities minister, Harriet Harman, first as her private secretary and then as deputy leader of the House. As a former chaplain, he has also called for the church to go much further in recognising civil partnerships in the past, asking Church of England clergy to be "much more open" and treat the ceremony like a heterosexual wedding. "All my friends who have entered into a civil partnership refer to it as their 'marriage' or their 'wedding' so the most important issue is that nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality," he said earlier this year.
Gordon Brown announced that he wanted Parliament to be used for civil partnership ceremonies last month, telling a commission set up to look into diversity within Parliament that it was unfair that only heterosexual ceremonies could take place there. Downing Street sources said the change would send a "powerful message that the mother of Parliaments is truly representative".
House mates: MPs in civil partnerships
*Ben Bradshaw, currently Culture Secretary, broke down another barrier when he became the first MP to enter into a civil partnership, with BBC journalist Neal Dalgleish, in 2006.
*Alan Duncan was the first sitting Tory MP to declare that he was gay. In July 2008, he became the first member of either the Cabinet or the shadow Cabinet to enter into a civil partnership.
*Nick Herbert, shadow Environment Secretary, missed out on being able to hold a ceremony in Westminster. He entered into a civil partnership with his partner, Jason Eades, in January.
*Lib-Dem Stephen Williams, the first MP to come out as gay, could be the next to hold a civil partnership ceremony in Westminster. He has publicly supported a campaign for partnerships to be treated as marriages.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
It should also be pointed out that every society throughout history that has adopted homosexual relationships as law has gone on to collapse very quickly.
Two civilisations directly destroyed as mentioned in my previous statement above were Sodom and Gomorrah.
Sodom and Gomorrah? I was talking about history, not mythology. In any case, neither city 'adopted homosexual relationships as law'. A closer, and less partial, reading of your source text would suggest that both cities were destroyed because of their failure to behave courteously to strangers rather than as a result of their sexual practices, which may have been libidinous but were certainly not exclusively - or even primarily - homosexual. If they'd only offered their daughters as sexual chattels to the visiting celestial beings they might have got away with it...
But then, as charleslambert states, this is mythology you are referring to not history (and no, merely establishing that such cities existed is not evidence that the event took place as described in ancient texts).
To put the icing on the cake, my opinion re Sodom's cause for destruction is not only supported by common sense interpretation of scripture, but God's own words. If you read Ezekiel 16 God clearly declared why He destroyed Sodom; no where did He say He destroyed it because of homosexuality. Jesus came centuries after and His reference to Sodom at no time speaks to homosexuality, but rather to the kindness of men. So you are definitely WRONG!
We have a sovereign parliament (which means it can change law as it sees fit) and an unwritten constitution (hence any constitutional arrangement can be changed through a law).
Everything mentioned in this article is correct and everything in your response is very wrong. If Parliament decides something is legal it is (the sole exception being something blocked by the EU but that could ultimately be undone by resettling or withdrawing from the EU).
I imagine your silly message is based on some random homophobic tendency. I wonder then why you are reading the Independent which has been a bastion of pr-equality.
The current legal standing on the death sentence is irrelevant as crimes and punishments can be given retrospectively now due previous legal decisions made in British courts.
It is absolutely shocking that our soldiers are fighting and dying for freedom in Afghanistan, yet nothing is being done against the terrorism of the European Union. I am a former Ministry of Defence policeman who took an oath of office to defend my country and her laws. However, I would like to know that while I have been living under the auspices of the European Union that I have been subjected to at least five attampts on my life. Is it legal to try to kill someone? Are these the so-called 'real' policies of the EU to eliminate all opponents that disagree with them? Do I not have the right to live my life without the threat of being murdered? The sooner the EU is destroyed the better.
I dislike the EU but it is hardly terrorist.
Policemen, even for the MoD, take an oath to the crown - it is not a 'oath of office' lol. That just shows how you are blatantly lying (and badly with it).
You'd better watch it, by the way, your comments might be considered treason, since they are against the government, and you know what that old laws say about that ...
While the charge of high treason can be brought against any one who is actually trying to sell their own country out.
You can not possibly be British as you'd know that we do not have a written constitution, our constitution is a natural evolvement over many years of change in relation to societies needs. If a law has been passed by parliament and received the Queen/Kings signature then it becomes law, so I would suggest that you go back to school and bone up on history and the British Constitution, before start spouting off about subjects you know nothing about.
So you are one of those that think homosexuality is a choice. Why don't you make that choice for a day then and see?
The fact is homosexual behaviour is found in other animals as well, not just humans. It is entirely genetic. (and please - don't even attempt to counter this without considering proper peer reviewed studies on the subject, you'll just look uneducated.)
Still, your post has ensured that people remain on their guard about bigotry.
In fact I have no idea where you get the idea at all as despite language used by people the fact is civil partnerships are not marriages and no religious nor civil violation even of the most conservative notions has occured.
Please spill your ignorant venom elsewhere. Thanks.
2. How crude you are to resort to equating gay rights to a sexual act.
3. What national character? I thought the whole point is that England (I cannot bring myself to say UK/Britain) does not have much of one.
"1. Your aunt and yourself are obviously very intolerant then."
'Aunt' is a proper noun. It should, like punishment for banality and regional accents, be capitalized.
"2. How crude you are to resort to equating gay rights to a sexual act."
Are there others?
"3. What national character? I thought the whole point is that England (I cannot bring myself to say UK/Britain) does not have much of one."
You believe absence of national character allows the homosexualite to prosper? It's a view many would share, certainly. And it would add weight to your thesis were the inclination largely unknown elsewhere in these islands, but you must understand: the English do not bang drums because they do not have to. In respect of character the problem is rather one of surfeit than deficiency.
The renown enjoyed by our neighbours is based quite often on aspects of culture imported from England. The English people know who they are right enough. I'm sorry you dislike yourself.
Presumably you disdain reading because lighting in public lavatories, much like your motive for being there, is unsuited to more elevated pursuits, in which case a wildly off-target estimation of your fellow countrymen is to be expected.
Please do not label me intolerant. I am not intolerant. Self-expression is a right. As a right it should not be denied. Today, for example, 'gay parades' are enjoyed by all, being frequently hailed as one of our exciting new society's greatest accomplishments.
Before we condemn, therefore, let us remember that some of our finest minds have brought themselves to completion in front of passing nuns before today, just as it is surely fitting to contemplate the moral example of numberless historical giants, themselves unpersuaded of Aphrodite's charms, who went on to fame and fortune in spite of not being allowed to adopt children for whatever unspecified purposes.
Rigorous impartiality is the best answer to doubt. I hope it has answered yours.
This doesn't however mean they shouldn't be the same.
In many ways the civil partnership method is better in that it is a modern creation without all the latin language and need to go through such a complicated courts proceeding (still a proceeding, just not as anarchic).
Anyone thought maybe marriage should be abolished and everyone get a civil partnership instead? Then we really could have separation of church and state :)
Honestly, if gay people spent as much time loathing heterosexuals as some heterosexuals spend loathing gays we'd never get a thing done. No Sistine Chapel, no Swan Lake, no Gallic Wars... Just chundering old straights whining on about 'mafias' as soon as their privileges are encroached on by other tax payers...
You suggest not only that that there is a homosexual mafia, but that (by implication) that it is so ineffectual that the best it can manage is to achieve almost but not quite eqaul rights to the rest of the population.
- Frankly I would expect any self-respecting mafia to do rather better than that. Would Al Capone have settled for being allowed into Speakeasies that other people were already happily using?
And, for what it's worth, bigotry, especially when laced with stupidity, will always be loathsome to decent minded people who, I believe, make up the majority of the UK population.
I for one think gay marriage is a huge step forward in equality for every one.
Well equal rights are important, but you shouldn't neglect the wider social benefits.
Firstly it reinforces out the message that sex should be linked to love and commitment, rather than just for short term gratification. Making a commitment that carries legal obligations helps people to take relationships more seriously, and to work harder if they are in trouble.
Secondly, partners are expected by society and the law to provide for each other.
Thirdly, if gay people lead happier and more fulfilled lives, as promote by marriage or civil partnerships, then they are more likely to be productive members of society.
I would have thought that people who supported marriage would welcome allies, whether gay or straight.
We cannot tolerate dissenters against the liberal orthodoxy. ;)
Civil partnerships and gay marriage effect this not one jot (or if they effect it at all, then it is more likely to be in a positive sense).
It's not even as though anyone is making you approve of all marriages. I can think of plenty of marriages that I didn't much approve of for one reason and another.
Or would you say that marriages like Britney Spears, which lasted all of days, are worthy of solemn respect.
There's more. Why isn't the "Indy" including this information in its report? Why is this disgusting little freeloader trying to use taxpayers' premises to celebrate his civil partnership? He should be in jail.
Whoa, that's more like it. Real issues not the nonsey stuff. It appears that Bryant is indeed a crook and you're right to point it out. That's far more relevant to his constituents than his marriage.
The fact that despite all his theft this man is today being reported for his imminent marriage in Parliament rather than for an imminent appearance in the High Court speaks volumes about how Britain has become the corrupt, dysfunctional, socially unjust, greed is good, crime pays, cesspit of Europe.