B1550 – Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2020. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
"1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State."

You were saying?
Once again, you're showing your ignorance. This doesn't mean whatever you think it means.

The gay marriage performed within the diplomatic mission will not be recognized by the host country if the host country doesn't have such a law. It is, however, not breaking laws and regulations of the receiving state to simply perform the marriage. China doesn't have such a law, yet the Beijing Embassy performs it and China is OK with it. So should someone be suing the Beijing Embassy for allegedly breaking international law, then?
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Once again, you're showing your ignorance. This doesn't mean whatever you think it means.

The gay marriage performed within the diplomatic mission will not be recognized by the host country if the host country doesn't have such a law. It is, however, not breaking laws and regulations of the receiving state to simply perform the marriage. China doesn't have such a law, yet the Beijing Embassy performs it and China is OK with it. So should someone be suing the Beijing Embassy for allegedly breaking international law, then?
And yet no definitive answer either way is readily available free online from any government agency or supranational entity, but alas it appears that not only are you a doctor, and a statistician, but an expert in international law and diplomacy. My statement is based on the opinion of somebody who at least claims to have studied law (and this is where you claim to have studied international law at Harvard).

Irrespective of the question of legality you are still proposing to likely compromise diplomatic missions with probably not an inconsiderable portion of the world.

Do you have cases of other countries completely ignoring domestic law and the will of a receiving nation in this way, or do you propose that we lead the way in this?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
Then any such marriage will not be recognized outside the diplomatic mission, whether in Spain or in China. There's literally no difference between having an objection or not having one. Is China recognizing same-sex marriage performed in the Shanghai consulate? No, it doesn't. So based on your logic, this law without the amendment was "irresponsible" because it "conflicts with laws" in China. Yet, China doesn't object to it and the Shanghai consulate is able to perform gay marriage.

If laws that conflict with laws in the host country cannot be passed, then either you're saying there cannot be British laws, or that British law cannot apply in diplomatic missions.
So what you're arguing is that this law is only applicable for diplomatic missions? So why isn't that written in the legislation that this is only applicable to diplomatic missions?
0
Cabin19
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 weeks ago
#24
If a British national was in a country such as Dubai and wanted to get married too someone of the same sex it will be pretty impossible I'm afraid no matter what bill is passed by any UK government
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#25
Report 4 weeks ago
#25
no.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 weeks ago
#26
I was uncomfortable with the original motion and I'm uncomfortable with this too.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
And yet no definitive answer either way is readily available free online from any government agency or supranational entity, but alas it appears that not only are you a doctor, and a statistician, but an expert in international law and diplomacy. My statement is based on the opinion of somebody who at least claims to have studied law (and this is where you claim to have studied international law at Harvard).

Irrespective of the question of legality you are still proposing to likely compromise diplomatic missions with probably not an inconsiderable portion of the world.

Do you have cases of other countries completely ignoring domestic law and the will of a receiving nation in this way, or do you propose that we lead the way in this?
When did I ever claim to have studied international law at Harvard?

There are a lot of differences between British law and laws in other countries. All British law apply within diplomatic missions. There has never been an issue, and it's clearly not breaking international law unless the diplomatic mission is to somehow impose its law outside diplomatic missions' grounds. The line you cited is likely more for scenarios where diplomatic missions' staff broke domestic law outside the mission, and even so, there are countries which then gave them diplomatic immunity to get them out of it. Saudi Arabia did that in Germany.

Spain performs gay marriage in the Hong Kong consulate despite the Hong Kong's former chief executive's objection. If that doesn't count because now you agree that China's non-objection should overrule it, then there's the row between the British Embassy and Belarus over flying the rainbow flag. Gay marriage is currently performed in the diplomatic missions in at least Australia, Cambodia, China, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, the Philippines, Serbia, Venezuela, Vietnam. You can count how many have no gay marriage in their domestic law. On the other hand, numerous countries with legal same-sex marriage does not have a diplomatic mission that performs gay marriage, for example in Mexico (gay marriage recognized nationally, performed in the jurisdiction where the embassy is at, country has no objection to it, gay marriage not performed - are you now going to say the embassy in Mexico City has broken international law and must either close down or perform gay marriage in accordance with the local law?).

As for whether we should ignore the will of the receiving nation (the law of the receiving nation has never been a factor inside the diplomatic mission), I already pointed out over and over again that diplomatic missions are not required to do no matter what, they simply have to option to do it without taking into consideration of the host country's objection with this amendment.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by 04MR17)
So what you're arguing is that this law is only applicable for diplomatic missions? So why isn't that written in the legislation that this is only applicable to diplomatic missions?
If you read the text in the OP, it clearly stated the part it is amending is:

(1) In Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, Schedule 6 Marriage Overseas, Part 1 Consular Marriage Under UK Law, Provision for consular marriage,

There are British diplomatic missions that perform gay marriage in countries where gay marriage is not legal (eg China), and there are British diplomatic missions that do not perform gay marriage in countries where gay marriage is legal (eg Mexico). Consular marriages have no relation to local laws, not even under the original act (which requires a non-objection, not that it would be legal under local law).
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
If you read the text in the OP, it clearly stated the part it is amending is:

(1) In Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, Schedule 6 Marriage Overseas, Part 1 Consular Marriage Under UK Law, Provision for consular marriage,

There are British diplomatic missions that perform gay marriage in countries where gay marriage is not legal (eg China), and there are British diplomatic missions that do not perform gay marriage in countries where gay marriage is legal (eg Mexico). Consular marriages have no relation to local laws, not even under the original act (which requires a non-objection, not that it would be legal under local law).
Then why for at least the 12th time of asking are you unable to provide a link to the existing legislation for an amending bill? I'm looking at what you're changing to the bill itself, not the headings under which it falls. I've already had to author bills myself correcting errors in your legislation on account of copy and paste errors, are you still unable to hit ctrl+c and ctrl+v to provide the house with a link to a bill you want to amend? This is clearly an issue you care a lot about, if you want us to debate it the least you can do is make it easy to understand what your point is in the first place...
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
However the line exists due to the relevant Vienna convention, the law of the receiving state applies in embassies. The clauses are there so local law can be complied with in cases where local restrictions apply. They exist for a reason.
I think I already have sufficiently responded to this in my other response, but let me just make this very clear.

If you are going to claim this as an international law issue, then you will need to explain how British and other countries' diplomatic missions have been able to perform same-sex marriages in countries where same-sex marriage is not legal, such as China. You will need to explain also how British and other countries' diplomatic missions have been able to not perform same-sex marriage (while performing heterosexual marriages) in countries where same-sex marriage is legal, such as Mexico.

Then you will have to think about how the original law even would fit in with your view, seeing how all it requires is a non-objection, not for the action to be legal.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by 04MR17)
Then why for at least the 12th time of asking are you unable to provide a link to the existing legislation for an amending bill? I'm looking at what you're changing to the bill itself, not the headings under which it falls. I've already had to author bills myself correcting errors in your legislation on account of copy and paste errors, are you still unable to hit ctrl+c and ctrl+v to provide the house with a link to a bill you want to amend? This is clearly an issue you care a lot about, if you want us to debate it the least you can do is make it easy to understand what your point is in the first place...
We must have different understanding of numbers, because this is your first time asking me for a link to the act, not 12th.

The OP also clearly stated what is proposed to change to the bill, which I will indeed ctrl+c and ctrl+v for you here:

from:

(b)the people proposing to marry would have been eligible to marry each other in such part of the United Kingdom as is determined in accordance with the Order,(c)the authorities of the country or territory in which it is proposed that they marry will not object to the marriage, and

to:

(b)the people proposing to marry would have been eligible to marry each other in such part of the United Kingdom as is determined in accordance with the Order, and


But if you want to read the parts of the act where I am not amending, this is it: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ntents/enacted

It seems to be you didn't read anything in the text. You simply see that it's from me and decided to oppose it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have missed the part where it says it's for consular marriages only, as well as the actual text I am amending.
Last edited by Baron of Sealand; 4 weeks ago
1
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Cabin19)
If a British national was in a country such as Dubai and wanted to get married too someone of the same sex it will be pretty impossible I'm afraid no matter what bill is passed by any UK government
That's not relevant to this amendment, because like you said, there would be other factors to consider, such as the fact that if they do get married at a consulate, they could get arrested for buggery once they step out of the consulate. This amendment doesn't force any diplomatic mission to perform gay marriage, it simply removes asking for a non-objection as a legal requirement.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I was uncomfortable with the original motion and I'm uncomfortable with this too.
This doesn't force diplomatic missions to perform gay marriage regardless of the host country's objection, simply that they don't need to legally consider it, if they don't want to.

In practice, most missions will still not perform gay marriage, for a variety of reasons, in host countries that have gay marriage, and in those that don't.
0
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Joleee)
no.
You do realize British diplomatic missions have been performing gay marriage in countries where it is not legal (eg China), and also have been choosing not to perform gay marriage in countries where it is legal (eg Mexico)? Local legality of gay marriage has not been a factor in whether the missions perform gay marriage, anywhere in the world, even without this amendment.

Unless you have another reason for your objection?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
We must have different understanding of numbers, because this is your first time asking me for a link to the act, not 12th.
Incorrect, you misread
(Original post by 04MR17)
Then why for at least the 12th time of asking are you unable to provide a link to the existing legislation for an amending bill?
Last edited by 04MR17; 4 weeks ago
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
This doesn't force diplomatic missions to perform gay marriage regardless of the host country's objection, simply that they don't need to legally consider it, if they don't want to.

In practice, most missions will still not perform gay marriage, for a variety of reasons, in host countries that have gay marriage, and in those that don't.
I understand what you’re saying, and I’m close to supporting this, but I just have a slight reservation about it.
0
Ranndean
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
As always I will abstain on these issues.
Honestly, same. I'm a supporter but hm.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by Ranndean)
Honestly, same. I'm a supporter but hm.
For me it's that I'm a practicing Catholic (which rules out voting Aye) and a member of the Libertarians (which rules out voting Nay).
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 weeks ago
#39
A massive Aye from me. The argument on same sex marriage was won in Britain years ago - anyone with British citizenship should have access to that, regardless of which part of the world they are in.
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
For me it's that I'm a practicing Catholic (which rules out voting Aye) and a member of the Libertarians (which rules out voting Nay).
Gay marriage is not adversarial to Christianity as a doctrine.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed