Lammy's gay marriage speech

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on February 6, 2013 at 17:27

Same sex marriage wasn't uncommon in ancient rome

It's been a while since I gave my attention to that particular aspect of Ancient Rome,

but my memory of it is that putative same sex marriage was in fact so uncommon

that the historians you indirectly suggest I consult all fall back on the case of the

Emperor Nero who was reported, while still with his wife, to have married a freedman and a eunuch, whether contemporaneously or at different times is not very clear. I'm trying to remember whether  it was the satirist Juvenal who alluded to Nero entering upon one of these 'marriages' with the verb 'nubere' (=marry - a bridal verb) rather than 'ducere' (=marry - a groom's verb).

A much later emperor, Elagabalus who ruled for a few years after Caracalla, was said to have married one of his boyfriends, Zoticus, but this was roundly denied both before and after his assassination.

Lesser mortals didn't attract much attention from historians or even satirists, ancient or modern. The general conclusion seems to be that same-sex marriages were so few as to be a handful, leaving historians scratching their heads wondering why a late Christian emperor, Constans or Theodosius, bothered his head issuing a ban on a practice that scarcely existed.

Kate, I know even less about your marriage than about those of Nero or Elagabalus!

Permalink Reply by pamish on February 6, 2013 at 17:45

I think we should all go back to jumping the broomstick. Simple.

Permalink Reply by KatyT on February 7, 2013 at 11:13

Nero is the first known instance - and he married 3 times.

It was Constantius II and Constans who issued law 342 AD banning same sex marriage (and ordering the execution of anyone involved in one of these marriages)

Yes - It would be a rather strange and pointless thing to do if the only people who had been involved in these marriages were Nero and Elagabus - One of whom had been dead almost 300 years and the other over 120.  (Though I believe that same sex marriage in ancient rome reached a peak between Nero and Domitian)

Juvenal, Cicero and Martial all refer to same sex marriage in a way that suggests it was not uncommon -  and that the reader is familiar with the practice.

Unfortunately a lot of our attitudes towards sexuality and practice is a bit of a hangover from the victorians - who themselves rather repackaged sexuality within some fairly narrow boundaries. Go further back and you'll find that values were rather more liberal - sometimes even more than those that we have today.  

All this considered - all the permutations of marriage and union over the millenium should have absolutely no impact on the *meaningfulness* of a marriage between 2 people. It certainly has had no impact on mine.  

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on February 8, 2013 at 10:54

My own feelings on the matter, since I guess it's de rigueur to come out and declare oneself?  Bloody bored - now get on with it. What's the next millennia-old concept, institution and noun to be unpacked, re-defined and repacked away not quite as tidily or meaningfully as before?

And now I'm even more bored with the whole fuss than I was earlier in the week. My musing on the next old concept to be unpacked, re-defined etc can scarcely be said to be a complaint. But, Katy, if you'd prefer me to say "refined" and "a little more meaningfully for some" - no problem. Having spent a dozen years of my youth with the ancient Greeks and Romans I never found that they did much for my own sex life - but maybe your wikipedia is better than mine. Let's devote ourselves to ripping off Victoria's constricting corsets and let who will write their wikipedias about ours two centuries or millennia hence.

Permalink Reply by KatyT on February 8, 2013 at 11:39

My apologies for boring you – though I may be so bold as to suggest that if you’re not willing to have your opinion scrutinised then it’s usually best not to offer it up in a public forum.

As for Wikipedia, though it’s a fine institution, I always assume, when someone attempts to reduce others by suggesting that they’re relying on it, the opposite is usually the case.  (Especially when those pointing the finger are simultaneously over-protesting the extent of their learning). It’s like the new ‘Godwin’s Law’ ;-)

Permalink Reply by John D on February 6, 2013 at 18:39

O tempora! O mores !

Permalink Reply by Maddy on February 6, 2013 at 17:30

I think it's largely a diversionary tactic by the government, to grab media attention and set everyone huffing and puffing, while they quietly go on with their draconian programme of dismantling the welfare state. Next up - the great EU membership red herring.

Permalink Reply by pamish on February 6, 2013 at 18:21

Not sure. It could be Cameron trying to flush out the old guard who will be off to UKIP to try to keep their seats? I bet he was surprised at the actual vote though.  It won't quite all be forgotten in a week as it has to go through Lords and third reading, despite now being a forgone conclusion. 

However, I still believe just for one day we can feel the warm glow of something done right. It has a huge symbolic significance, especially when you think it's only since 1967 that etc etc., and that you can still be hanged in a dozen countries for being gay, as well as being shunned by your fellows.  

Permalink Reply by Maddy on February 6, 2013 at 18:43

Yes, there was a list in the paper today of where not to go on your honeymoon after the gay wedding.

Permalink Reply by David on February 6, 2013 at 23:45

I think it says something wonderful about this country that we can do this without a supreme court needing to strike down legislation and without a massive fuss. We are essentially decent people who want other people to get on. I'm sure this will be confirmed when nobody cares any more, within about six months.

Permalink Reply by william spring on February 7, 2013 at 7:16

I haven't any personal dislike of David Lammy though I think on this as on many other issues he is deluded. In my view, he's not doing his job as an MP. He wd not even forward to William Hague a letter I wrote to Hague some months ago re the situation in Syria, where the UK Govt is backing Al Quaeda but in Mali we're not. Also my experience relating to another issue indicates to me that Mr Lammy should stand down @ the next election. He is a very effective MP for Muswell Hill & says all the right things so maybe the Lib Dems will take him up. But down here my Afro-Caribbean brothers & sisters aren't very impressed. You can kick people in the face opnly for so long. The person though I really detest now is David Cameron, who has dishonestly broken faith with his one time supporters such as wm spring

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on February 7, 2013 at 12:46

William - the way elections work is that an aspiring MP sets out their stall, their beliefs and policies.  If most of the voting electorate like what they say, they get elected on these principles.  They don't hold a referrendum on every issue they have to vote on in the House.  If that was the case I would assume that the liberal leaning electorate of Ealing would have forced their MP Steve Pound to vote for the motion rather than against like he did.

Yes, I was dissapointed by the way DL voted some issues but I knew that he would obey the whip when I voted for him as my MP.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page