It is …necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong \u201d\u201c and more than that, sickening.<\/p>\n
However, I and many of my colleagues remain with considerable hesitations about this Bill. My predecessor Lord Williams of Oystermouth showed clearly last summer, in evidence during the consultation period, that it has within it a series of category errors. It confuses marriage and weddings. It assumes that the rightful desire for equality \u201d\u201c to which I\u2019ve referred supportively \u201d\u201c must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different. And as a result it does not do what it sets out to do, my Lords. Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same gender and opposite gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality.<\/p>\n
The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society \u201d\u201c as we\u2019ve already heard \u201d\u201c is weakened. These points will be expanded on by others in the debate, I\u2019m sure, including those from these benches.<\/p>\n