Let's recount all the reasons why it's a good thing to have bishops in the House of Lords...

[PeterParkerSays]

when Lord Carey (I know, technically not a current Archbishop) comes out with this stunner.

In what way does he think he is adding meaningfully to any debate around same sex marriage?

It seems to me to be just another example of the uselessness of the House of Lords in general. I have been shocked by how hard it is to reach many of the lords and just how unaccountable they are to the public.
If you want to try and register your support for the bill www.LobbyALord.org is a good way to try and reach them.

If you are going to have the House of Lords in its current form (I wouldn't) whereby it is made up of people who represent various strata in society then bishops are in because Christians are a significant section of society and so should be represented in a chamber based upon those lines

As an atheist, do I want legislation reviewed by someone based on their belief of a mystical sky fairy? Probably not in an ideal world and certainly no more than having someone appointed on the basis of which side their ancestors fought on during the English civil war nearly 400 years ago (for example).

The problem with having an elected house of lords though is that, unless we are careful, we will end up with another house full of liars, thieves, mendicants, promise breakers, greasy pole climbers and time served arse kissers who pop up once every five years, promise you the earth and then promptly disappear into their Westminster bubble of lobbyists, whipped votes and free lunches.

If the answer to anything is ever "more politicians" then what the hell is the question???

What I would love to see, and something that will never happen, is for the Lords to be appointed by a lottery that every Brit is entered into. Make it a bit like jury service where you can get chosen irrespective of political persuasion, background, education, disability status, experience, race, gender or proclivity to believe in sky fairies. You serve a term of ten years or so and are then automatically replaced by someone else. At least it would be representative of society.

It does seem antiquated. But they can't actually vote, can they? And there are only 25 of them. Take them out and there are still only 171 women vs 563 men, some of whom (of all parties) have very strong religious views and have used their vote in issues such as abortion and faith schools. But still, some of them are quite intelligent and specialist, and debates can be more interesting than in the Commons because more of them are Crossbench.

www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/composition-of-the-lords/

I do find it hypocritical and patriarchal that UKIP and half the Tories are so obsessed with a referendum on Europe but deny us a referendum or any prospect of reform of the House of Lords.