MPs vote for gay marriage

MPs have tonight voted to allow gay people to marry.

The Government's bill to legalise same-sex marriage was backed by 400 votes to 175 - with four Oxfordshire MPs voting for, one against and one abstaining.

Sir Tony Baldry, who spoke against the bill during the debate, was the MP who voted against, while Tory colleague Nicola Blackwood abstained.

David Cameron, Ed Vaizey, Andrew Smith and John Howell voted in favour.

Prime Minister and Witney MP David Cameron made a last-minute televised statement recorded in 10 Downing Street less than two hours before MPs voted.

With dozens of Conservative MPs expected to oppose the measure in a free vote, Mr Cameron had to face some criticism for keeping a low profile on the issue.

But he insisted he had always been "vocal" in his support for the move.

"Today is an important day. I am a strong believer in marriage. It helps people commit to each other and I think it is right that gay people should be able to get married too," he said.

"This is, yes, about equality. But it is also about making our society stronger.

"I know there are strong views on both sides of the argument - I accept that. But I think this is an important step forward for our country."

Mr Cameron was speaking as a stormy debate on the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill drew to its conclusion in the House of Commons.

Introducing the Bill, Culture Secretary Maria Miller insisted that it would make Britain "a fairer place to live".

But she faced opposition from numerous Tory MPs, including the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee Graham Brady, who said he had "serious misgivings" over ministers' assurances that religious freedom will not be compromised.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:52pm Tue 5 Feb 13

benjamin says...

Cameron has made sure he will not be in government after the next election. This is an important step backwards for the Conservative Party.
What a pity he cannot devote as much attention to the things that really matter to this Country. Unfortunately Labour will make sure that they are never beaten in an election ever again!
Cameron has made sure he will not be in government after the next election. This is an important step backwards for the Conservative Party. What a pity he cannot devote as much attention to the things that really matter to this Country. Unfortunately Labour will make sure that they are never beaten in an election ever again! benjamin
  • Score: -1

10:27pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Englishman says...

C'mon Davy Boy sort out the real problems in this Country and don't worry about Homosexuals to give them their proper name.
C'mon Davy Boy sort out the real problems in this Country and don't worry about Homosexuals to give them their proper name. Englishman
  • Score: -3

11:05pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Severian says...

Difficult to understand why Cameron got elected then immediately started attacking his loyal supporter base at every possible opportunity.

Gay marriage, student tuition fees, removal of child benefit, HS2, reduced taxes for the super-rich to name but a few of his less great ideas.

Anyone would think he was a Labour mole setting out to destroy the Tory party from within.
Difficult to understand why Cameron got elected then immediately started attacking his loyal supporter base at every possible opportunity. Gay marriage, student tuition fees, removal of child benefit, HS2, reduced taxes for the super-rich to name but a few of his less great ideas. Anyone would think he was a Labour mole setting out to destroy the Tory party from within. Severian
  • Score: -2

6:52am Wed 6 Feb 13

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

Severian wrote:
Difficult to understand why Cameron got elected then immediately started attacking his loyal supporter base at every possible opportunity.

Gay marriage, student tuition fees, removal of child benefit, HS2, reduced taxes for the super-rich to name but a few of his less great ideas.

Anyone would think he was a Labour mole setting out to destroy the Tory party from within.
Not that difficult, he was only ever looking for one term he has his sights set on bigger money sinning opportunities later in his career, plus the man is an idiot plain and simple.
[quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: Difficult to understand why Cameron got elected then immediately started attacking his loyal supporter base at every possible opportunity. Gay marriage, student tuition fees, removal of child benefit, HS2, reduced taxes for the super-rich to name but a few of his less great ideas. Anyone would think he was a Labour mole setting out to destroy the Tory party from within.[/p][/quote]Not that difficult, he was only ever looking for one term he has his sights set on bigger money sinning opportunities later in his career, plus the man is an idiot plain and simple. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: -1

8:36am Wed 6 Feb 13

Mark L. says...

Severian wrote:
Difficult to understand why Cameron got elected then immediately started attacking his loyal supporter base at every possible opportunity. Gay marriage, student tuition fees, removal of child benefit, HS2, reduced taxes for the super-rich to name but a few of his less great ideas. Anyone would think he was a Labour mole setting out to destroy the Tory party from within.
I stopped voting Conservative around twenty years ago. They have always been on the slippery slope away from their core voters. Their latest wheezes as you have mentioned are the straw that will break the camels back for many of their voters. Even my father says he is no longer going to vote for them. UKIP will be the beneficiaries.
[quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: Difficult to understand why Cameron got elected then immediately started attacking his loyal supporter base at every possible opportunity. Gay marriage, student tuition fees, removal of child benefit, HS2, reduced taxes for the super-rich to name but a few of his less great ideas. Anyone would think he was a Labour mole setting out to destroy the Tory party from within.[/p][/quote]I stopped voting Conservative around twenty years ago. They have always been on the slippery slope away from their core voters. Their latest wheezes as you have mentioned are the straw that will break the camels back for many of their voters. Even my father says he is no longer going to vote for them. UKIP will be the beneficiaries. Mark L.
  • Score: -1

8:48am Wed 6 Feb 13

livid99 says...

The economy is in a mess.
2013 Britain is blighted by poverty, people are struggling to make ends meet as food, water and energy prices and taxes rise. So the Prime Minister, whose elected position is to deal with these problems and help protect the country and its people, instead wates his time making sure gays are happy.....
Gordon Brown was a disaster, but Cameron worse. This **** is bringing the country to its knees. Businesses are folding, poverty is rising, suicide rates are up, food banks are appearing......but we're ok, because gays can now get married.
FFS.....
The economy is in a mess. 2013 Britain is blighted by poverty, people are struggling to make ends meet as food, water and energy prices and taxes rise. So the Prime Minister, whose elected position is to deal with these problems and help protect the country and its people, instead wates his time making sure gays are happy..... Gordon Brown was a disaster, but Cameron worse. This **** is bringing the country to its knees. Businesses are folding, poverty is rising, suicide rates are up, food banks are appearing......but we're ok, because gays can now get married. FFS..... livid99
  • Score: 0

10:48am Wed 6 Feb 13

abfab123 says...

I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments.

And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst. abfab123
  • Score: 3

11:10am Wed 6 Feb 13

livid99 says...

abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments.

And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
So do you think this issue is more important than getting the country back on its feet ?
Despite what the media would have us believe, not everyone feels that gay marriage is the most important thing in the world at the moment. The PM should be dealing with the serious problems we have, not messing around with things like this.
[quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]So do you think this issue is more important than getting the country back on its feet ? Despite what the media would have us believe, not everyone feels that gay marriage is the most important thing in the world at the moment. The PM should be dealing with the serious problems we have, not messing around with things like this. livid99
  • Score: -2

11:46am Wed 6 Feb 13

benjamin says...

Pleased I no longer live in Nicola Blackwoods's costituancy. I emailed my Poole MP, Robert Syms and asked him to oppose the gay marriage vote. I am pleased to say, he replied that he would be voting against, and he did.
Pleased I no longer live in Nicola Blackwoods's costituancy. I emailed my Poole MP, Robert Syms and asked him to oppose the gay marriage vote. I am pleased to say, he replied that he would be voting against, and he did. benjamin
  • Score: -1

11:48am Wed 6 Feb 13

abfab123 says...

I think this issue is one of many that needs resolving.

What I don't think is necessary is the thinly disguised digs at 'gays' - I mean, heaven forbid they are happy!

I also think that Nicola Blackwood as our elected representative should take the time to vote, regardless of the issue. Any fool could choose to abstain, why do we bother choosing representatives if they won't actually do the job?
I think this issue is one of many that needs resolving. What I don't think is necessary is the thinly disguised digs at 'gays' - I mean, heaven forbid they are happy! I also think that Nicola Blackwood as our elected representative should take the time to vote, regardless of the issue. Any fool could choose to abstain, why do we bother choosing representatives if they won't actually do the job? abfab123
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Wed 6 Feb 13

livid99 says...

abfab123 wrote:
I think this issue is one of many that needs resolving.

What I don't think is necessary is the thinly disguised digs at 'gays' - I mean, heaven forbid they are happy!

I also think that Nicola Blackwood as our elected representative should take the time to vote, regardless of the issue. Any fool could choose to abstain, why do we bother choosing representatives if they won't actually do the job?
I'm not really having a dig at gay people - a person's sexual preferences are a private thing as far as I am concerned, and if this law is good for some people then fine. What DOES bother me is when, in a time of serious recession, a collapsing economy and all the other major problems we have in society, our PM spends so much time and effort making sure this particular issue is apparently given priority over everything else.
[quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I think this issue is one of many that needs resolving. What I don't think is necessary is the thinly disguised digs at 'gays' - I mean, heaven forbid they are happy! I also think that Nicola Blackwood as our elected representative should take the time to vote, regardless of the issue. Any fool could choose to abstain, why do we bother choosing representatives if they won't actually do the job?[/p][/quote]I'm not really having a dig at gay people - a person's sexual preferences are a private thing as far as I am concerned, and if this law is good for some people then fine. What DOES bother me is when, in a time of serious recession, a collapsing economy and all the other major problems we have in society, our PM spends so much time and effort making sure this particular issue is apparently given priority over everything else. livid99
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Man on the Green says...

This vote was an unusual one, in which MPs were not "whipped", and were allowed a "free vote" (or indeed to abstain). If we claim to respect individuals' freedom of religion, belief and expression, then we must logically allow our MPs to vote or abstain according to their individual consciences. Far be it from me to speak for Ms Blackwood, or even attempt to divine (if that's not too ambiguous a word in this context!) her stance on this vexed issue, but I really do respect her right to abstain, and believe we should not seek to "go behind it".

Each of us too is entitled to our view (and in some cases seemingly somewhat conflicted views) on this matter, which is clearly one that has attracted much public interest and debate (surely a very positive thing?).

Despite what others have said, this really is a big issue, and indeed it is - it seems to me - really all about beginning to define the Big Society that David Cameron has been telling us he wants to build in Britain; an inclusive society that doesn't seek to define people by their sexuality, that makes marriage as an institution of state (rather than the religious ceremony that is often linked) open to all, irrespective of their sex, and I am happy to say that I am all in favour.

After 27 years of marriage, I would have found it hypocritical to seek to exclude others from that state, simply because of what they might or might not get up to in or out of bed, a bizarre criterion by any yardstick for deciding or determining anyone's civic status!

But I understand and respect others' religious reservations and objections. As do those who framed this legislation, which forces no minister or church to conduct such marriages.

I first came to this view as a schoolboy over 45 years ago, and the very first demonstration I ever took part in was in the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral, arguing for what were then described as "gay rights", but which a wise school matron with whom I debated the issue described to me even then as "treating everyone equally". I hope she is still alive to see this day.
This vote was an unusual one, in which MPs were not "whipped", and were allowed a "free vote" (or indeed to abstain). If we claim to respect individuals' freedom of religion, belief and expression, then we must logically allow our MPs to vote or abstain according to their individual consciences. Far be it from me to speak for Ms Blackwood, or even attempt to divine (if that's not too ambiguous a word in this context!) her stance on this vexed issue, but I really do respect her right to abstain, and believe we should not seek to "go behind it". Each of us too is entitled to our view (and in some cases seemingly somewhat conflicted views) on this matter, which is clearly one that has attracted much public interest and debate (surely a very positive thing?). Despite what others have said, this really is a big issue, and indeed it is - it seems to me - really all about beginning to define the Big Society that David Cameron has been telling us he wants to build in Britain; an inclusive society that doesn't seek to define people by their sexuality, that makes marriage as an institution of state (rather than the religious ceremony that is often linked) open to all, irrespective of their sex, and I am happy to say that I am all in favour. After 27 years of marriage, I would have found it hypocritical to seek to exclude others from that state, simply because of what they might or might not get up to in or out of bed, a bizarre criterion by any yardstick for deciding or determining anyone's civic status! But I understand and respect others' religious reservations and objections. As do those who framed this legislation, which forces no minister or church to conduct such marriages. I first came to this view as a schoolboy over 45 years ago, and the very first demonstration I ever took part in was in the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral, arguing for what were then described as "gay rights", but which a wise school matron with whom I debated the issue described to me even then as "treating everyone equally". I hope she is still alive to see this day. Man on the Green
  • Score: 3

12:43pm Wed 6 Feb 13

abfab123 says...

Man on the Green - you are far more eloquent than I could ever be and I agree with most of your points.

I still think it is a bit of a poor show to abstain, I just can't see what that achieves.
Man on the Green - you are far more eloquent than I could ever be and I agree with most of your points. I still think it is a bit of a poor show to abstain, I just can't see what that achieves. abfab123
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Wed 6 Feb 13

bigchet says...

the problem seems to me that the gay lobby dont want to be treated equaly ,they want preferential treatment and this elected parliament with mps fiddling expenses and letting the whole economy slide down the plughole seem desperate not to offend the gay campaigners in any way and give this priority instead of trying to get the country back on its feet. no wonder voters have lost faith in their judgement.
the problem seems to me that the gay lobby dont want to be treated equaly ,they want preferential treatment and this elected parliament with mps fiddling expenses and letting the whole economy slide down the plughole seem desperate not to offend the gay campaigners in any way and give this priority instead of trying to get the country back on its feet. no wonder voters have lost faith in their judgement. bigchet
  • Score: -2

1:45pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Mark L. says...

abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
Hate?- No.
Refusal to accept a vote on what you truly believe to be wrong and unacceptable -Yes.
What we used to call freedom of speeech when it used to exist.
[quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]Hate?- No. Refusal to accept a vote on what you truly believe to be wrong and unacceptable -Yes. What we used to call freedom of speeech when it used to exist. Mark L.
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Wed 6 Feb 13

mb77 says...

What a shame there are those commenting above that would seek to prevent others from having the same rights as them. Unless you are arguing that the act of marriage should be repealed entirely, you are either a hypocrite or a bigot. But, thankfully, increasingly a minority.
What a shame there are those commenting above that would seek to prevent others from having the same rights as them. Unless you are arguing that the act of marriage should be repealed entirely, you are either a hypocrite or a bigot. But, thankfully, increasingly a minority. mb77
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Wed 6 Feb 13

abfab123 says...

Mark L. wrote:
abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
Hate?- No.
Refusal to accept a vote on what you truly believe to be wrong and unacceptable -Yes.
What we used to call freedom of speeech when it used to exist.
Thankfully, the majority saw fit to disagree with you.
[quote][p][bold]Mark L.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]Hate?- No. Refusal to accept a vote on what you truly believe to be wrong and unacceptable -Yes. What we used to call freedom of speeech when it used to exist.[/p][/quote]Thankfully, the majority saw fit to disagree with you. abfab123
  • Score: -2

2:35pm Wed 6 Feb 13

livid99 says...

mb77 wrote:
What a shame there are those commenting above that would seek to prevent others from having the same rights as them. Unless you are arguing that the act of marriage should be repealed entirely, you are either a hypocrite or a bigot. But, thankfully, increasingly a minority.
Took a while for the word "bigot" to appear, but very predictably it has arrived.
It seems to be a popular name to call anyone who happens to disagree with the views being forced upon society by the gay lobby groups....
[quote][p][bold]mb77[/bold] wrote: What a shame there are those commenting above that would seek to prevent others from having the same rights as them. Unless you are arguing that the act of marriage should be repealed entirely, you are either a hypocrite or a bigot. But, thankfully, increasingly a minority.[/p][/quote]Took a while for the word "bigot" to appear, but very predictably it has arrived. It seems to be a popular name to call anyone who happens to disagree with the views being forced upon society by the gay lobby groups.... livid99
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Grunden Skip says...

MOTG, so you support law that is prejudiced against straight people. If this law manages to get passed, then Larry and Gary will have the choice between a civil partnership, or marriage, yet George and Georgina will only be allowed marriage, and not a civil partnership. This law makes nothing equal.
MOTG, so you support law that is prejudiced against straight people. If this law manages to get passed, then Larry and Gary will have the choice between a civil partnership, or marriage, yet George and Georgina will only be allowed marriage, and not a civil partnership. This law makes nothing equal. Grunden Skip
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Grunden Skip says...

abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments.

And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.
[quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES. Grunden Skip
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

Dave's Poll Tax moment. But the Poll Tax whilst apparently politically unwise did at least have a moral basis. This stuff is, I suppose , best described as amoral. Blair's bans were cynical and opportunistic but they assuredly got him some extra votes. I rather suppose that homosexuals are mostly uninterested in this and will not change their voting patterns. Sad all round.
Dave's Poll Tax moment. But the Poll Tax whilst apparently politically unwise did at least have a moral basis. This stuff is, I suppose , best described as amoral. Blair's bans were cynical and opportunistic but they assuredly got him some extra votes. I rather suppose that homosexuals are mostly uninterested in this and will not change their voting patterns. Sad all round. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Wed 6 Feb 13

abfab123 says...

Grunden Skip wrote:
abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments.

And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.
Who says Sandy and Mandy want to get married in church? Perhaps Sandy and Mandy would like the option to get married in a registry office and to have that recognised as a marriage (as opposed to a CP), just like George and Georgina can?

The church talks about banning churches from conducting same sex marriages on the grounds of religious freedom, when in fact some churches, Quaker for example are quite happy to conduct same sex marriages..... so much for religious freedom then....
[quote][p][bold]Grunden Skip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.[/p][/quote]Who says Sandy and Mandy want to get married in church? Perhaps Sandy and Mandy would like the option to get married in a registry office and to have that recognised as a marriage (as opposed to a CP), just like George and Georgina can? The church talks about banning churches from conducting same sex marriages on the grounds of religious freedom, when in fact some churches, Quaker for example are quite happy to conduct same sex marriages..... so much for religious freedom then.... abfab123
  • Score: 1

6:32pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Andrew:Oxford says...

Well, now that's sorted. Can we get on and deal with the *real* issue that is being debated in the country.

Should women be allowed to become Bishops?

:)
Well, now that's sorted. Can we get on and deal with the *real* issue that is being debated in the country. Should women be allowed to become Bishops? :) Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

7:09pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
Well, now that's sorted. Can we get on and deal with the *real* issue that is being debated in the country.

Should women be allowed to become Bishops?

:)
Nah. The real issue is:- popular music since 1972 has been merely ephemeral. It all happened between 63 and 73. It will live forever.
Vote now
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: Well, now that's sorted. Can we get on and deal with the *real* issue that is being debated in the country. Should women be allowed to become Bishops? :)[/p][/quote]Nah. The real issue is:- popular music since 1972 has been merely ephemeral. It all happened between 63 and 73. It will live forever. Vote now Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

oafie says...

Great ................. can the law regarding criminal offences now be applied to those that engage in sexual activities in toilets and in public places.
Great ................. can the law regarding criminal offences now be applied to those that engage in sexual activities in toilets and in public places. oafie
  • Score: -1

9:00pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

Start talking about (yawn) footie or duff state schools else we'll never get in "most commented"
Start talking about (yawn) footie or duff state schools else we'll never get in "most commented" Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Man on the Green says...

Grunden Skip wrote:
MOTG, so you support law that is prejudiced against straight people. If this law manages to get passed, then Larry and Gary will have the choice between a civil partnership, or marriage, yet George and Georgina will only be allowed marriage, and not a civil partnership. This law makes nothing equal.
@GS I've re-read my post above, and can find no trace at all of any reference to my alleged support for restricting civil partnership only to same sex couples as you apparently seem to be suggesting. I'd rather you didn't try to put words in my mouth.

In fact, I am in favour of opening civil partnership (perhaps modulated to confer certain specific rights) to all couples who are not otherwise in a legally binding relationship, irrespective of their sex (as is possible in several other European countries).

Anything that encourages people to abandon the mythical "protection" of a common law marriage should be encouraged, as this leaves countless ex-partners destitute when they (and 'they' are usually women) discover that this status affords them no rights whatsoever. If instead they were able to opt for a civil partnership, they would gain considerably more security, which seems to me a good thing all round.
[quote][p][bold]Grunden Skip[/bold] wrote: MOTG, so you support law that is prejudiced against straight people. If this law manages to get passed, then Larry and Gary will have the choice between a civil partnership, or marriage, yet George and Georgina will only be allowed marriage, and not a civil partnership. This law makes nothing equal.[/p][/quote]@GS I've re-read my post above, and can find no trace at all of any reference to my alleged support for restricting civil partnership only to same sex couples as you apparently seem to be suggesting. I'd rather you didn't try to put words in my mouth. In fact, I am in favour of opening civil partnership (perhaps modulated to confer certain specific rights) to all couples who are not otherwise in a legally binding relationship, irrespective of their sex (as is possible in several other European countries). Anything that encourages people to abandon the mythical "protection" of a common law marriage [sic] should be encouraged, as this leaves countless ex-partners destitute when they (and 'they' are usually women) discover that this status affords them no rights whatsoever. If instead they were able to opt for a civil partnership, they would gain considerably more security, which seems to me a good thing all round. Man on the Green
  • Score: 2

11:47pm Wed 6 Feb 13

oafie says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Start talking about (yawn) footie or duff state schools else we'll never get in "most commented"
Sorry Lord.P
My eyes have been dazzled by some very flash cars with personalized number plates..............
.I. am very tempted to open up the topic of 'marriage', what it means and how religion took over this institutuon some several hundreds of years ago.........but also what triggered D.C's 'sudden decision to take this action'.............
......Perhaps he's going to insist on gay tories 'coming out'?
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Start talking about (yawn) footie or duff state schools else we'll never get in "most commented"[/p][/quote]Sorry Lord.P My eyes have been dazzled by some very flash cars with personalized number plates.............. .I. am very tempted to open up the topic of 'marriage', what it means and how religion took over this institutuon some several hundreds of years ago.........but also what triggered D.C's 'sudden decision to take this action'............. ......Perhaps he's going to insist on gay tories 'coming out'? oafie
  • Score: -1

7:12am Thu 7 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

Man on the Green wrote:
Grunden Skip wrote:
MOTG, so you support law that is prejudiced against straight people. If this law manages to get passed, then Larry and Gary will have the choice between a civil partnership, or marriage, yet George and Georgina will only be allowed marriage, and not a civil partnership. This law makes nothing equal.
@GS I've re-read my post above, and can find no trace at all of any reference to my alleged support for restricting civil partnership only to same sex couples as you apparently seem to be suggesting. I'd rather you didn't try to put words in my mouth.

In fact, I am in favour of opening civil partnership (perhaps modulated to confer certain specific rights) to all couples who are not otherwise in a legally binding relationship, irrespective of their sex (as is possible in several other European countries).

Anything that encourages people to abandon the mythical "protection" of a common law marriage should be encouraged, as this leaves countless ex-partners destitute when they (and 'they' are usually women) discover that this status affords them no rights whatsoever. If instead they were able to opt for a civil partnership, they would gain considerably more security, which seems to me a good thing all round.
MotG , you've presumably never been there but any divorcee who's been through the (state-controlled) divorce system will tell you there's never enough to go round. If you allow cohabitees to litigate against each other because of state intervention, believe me all you get is an even more bloated state and the same number of destitute cohabitees.
[quote][p][bold]Man on the Green[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grunden Skip[/bold] wrote: MOTG, so you support law that is prejudiced against straight people. If this law manages to get passed, then Larry and Gary will have the choice between a civil partnership, or marriage, yet George and Georgina will only be allowed marriage, and not a civil partnership. This law makes nothing equal.[/p][/quote]@GS I've re-read my post above, and can find no trace at all of any reference to my alleged support for restricting civil partnership only to same sex couples as you apparently seem to be suggesting. I'd rather you didn't try to put words in my mouth. In fact, I am in favour of opening civil partnership (perhaps modulated to confer certain specific rights) to all couples who are not otherwise in a legally binding relationship, irrespective of their sex (as is possible in several other European countries). Anything that encourages people to abandon the mythical "protection" of a common law marriage [sic] should be encouraged, as this leaves countless ex-partners destitute when they (and 'they' are usually women) discover that this status affords them no rights whatsoever. If instead they were able to opt for a civil partnership, they would gain considerably more security, which seems to me a good thing all round.[/p][/quote]MotG , you've presumably never been there but any divorcee who's been through the (state-controlled) divorce system will tell you there's never enough to go round. If you allow cohabitees to litigate against each other because of state intervention, believe me all you get is an even more bloated state and the same number of destitute cohabitees. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

7:17am Thu 7 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

Last post possibly a bit obscure. I was referring to the proposal to give cohabitees more "rights"
Rowlocks-what the politicos mean is more state control and actually an awful lot of us know the law about cohabitation and we don't want the fecal nose of the state in our business.That's why we cohabit.
Last post possibly a bit obscure. I was referring to the proposal to give cohabitees more "rights" Rowlocks-what the politicos mean is more state control and actually an awful lot of us know the law about cohabitation and we don't want the fecal nose of the state in our business.That's why we cohabit. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -1

11:11am Thu 7 Feb 13

Jocelyn Ireson-Paine says...

Grunden Skip wrote:
abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments.

And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.
I'm confused. Surely the church or mosque is discriminating by refusing to marry them. Isn't that bad?
[quote][p][bold]Grunden Skip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.[/p][/quote]I'm confused. Surely the church or mosque is discriminating by refusing to marry them. Isn't that bad? Jocelyn Ireson-Paine
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Grunden Skip says...

Jocelyn Ireson-Paine wrote:
Grunden Skip wrote:
abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments.

And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.
I'm confused. Surely the church or mosque is discriminating by refusing to marry them. Isn't that bad?
Not unless you are going to re-write The Bible or Koran. Religion persecutes and discriminates by nature, and is enshrined in law. Although I find it rather amusing that gay couples are up in arms in not being to call themselves married , but have the same equality and rights under law here. Maybe Gary and Larry after they are married should pick their destination of honeymoon very carefully, because consummating their marriage in Dubai can result in The DEATH penalty, Jamaica 10 years hard labour and the rest of The West Indies imprisonment up to 14 years, or a safari in Kenya, that will get you 14 years, the same for an idyllic visit to the Seychelles. Central America? forget about Belize as Gay couples are barred from even entering the country. But the classic is Dominica, where you are incarcerated in a mental hospital. So really in the great scheme of things, The UK are well up on things Gay, and give more protection than most.
[quote][p][bold]Jocelyn Ireson-Paine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grunden Skip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.[/p][/quote]I'm confused. Surely the church or mosque is discriminating by refusing to marry them. Isn't that bad?[/p][/quote]Not unless you are going to re-write The Bible or Koran. Religion persecutes and discriminates by nature, and is enshrined in law. Although I find it rather amusing that gay couples are up in arms in not being to call themselves married , but have the same equality and rights under law here. Maybe Gary and Larry after they are married should pick their destination of honeymoon very carefully, because consummating their marriage in Dubai can result in The DEATH penalty, Jamaica 10 years hard labour and the rest of The West Indies imprisonment up to 14 years, or a safari in Kenya, that will get you 14 years, the same for an idyllic visit to the Seychelles. Central America? forget about Belize as Gay couples are barred from even entering the country. But the classic is Dominica, where you are incarcerated in a mental hospital. So really in the great scheme of things, The UK are well up on things Gay, and give more protection than most. Grunden Skip
  • Score: 2

4:38pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Jocelyn Ireson-Paine says...

Grunden Skip wrote:
Jocelyn Ireson-Paine wrote:
Grunden Skip wrote:
abfab123 wrote:
I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments.

And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.
Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.
I'm confused. Surely the church or mosque is discriminating by refusing to marry them. Isn't that bad?
Not unless you are going to re-write The Bible or Koran. Religion persecutes and discriminates by nature, and is enshrined in law. Although I find it rather amusing that gay couples are up in arms in not being to call themselves married , but have the same equality and rights under law here. Maybe Gary and Larry after they are married should pick their destination of honeymoon very carefully, because consummating their marriage in Dubai can result in The DEATH penalty, Jamaica 10 years hard labour and the rest of The West Indies imprisonment up to 14 years, or a safari in Kenya, that will get you 14 years, the same for an idyllic visit to the Seychelles. Central America? forget about Belize as Gay couples are barred from even entering the country. But the classic is Dominica, where you are incarcerated in a mental hospital. So really in the great scheme of things, The UK are well up on things Gay, and give more protection than most.
Well, we're better off than in 1954. The topic is on my mind, because as a computer scientist, I can never forget the Government's shameful treatment of gay computer-scientist Alan Turing. He did so much for computing and WWII code-breaking, yet was forced to take hormones that made him grow breasts. In 1954, he killed himself by biting a cyanide-covered apple.

But the Church's is weird. Scientific evidence is that gayness is not a choice, but determined by genes and development. So God makes gays. Yet, when they want to exercise their equality, He — or His ministers — belt them round the earhole and scream "NO! NO! EVIL!!! DON'T TOUCH!".So He makes them, then punishes them for being what He has made.
[quote][p][bold]Grunden Skip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jocelyn Ireson-Paine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grunden Skip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]abfab123[/bold] wrote: I was a bit confused then, thought I must have stumbled onto the Daily Hate (Mail) website judging by the above comments. And Nicola Blackwood couldn't even be bothered to vote at all - voter apathy at its worst.[/p][/quote]Not at all ABFAB123, if you listened to her interview on The Wireless this morning her reasons were perfectly valid She is not against in principle, but she needs the church/Mosque protected. She and many other MPs are worried that Sandy and Mandy will tip up at their local church and when refused will go to the European court of Human Rights, which will judge in their favour, and the church will be forced to marry them. When that is enshrined in an unbreakable law, then she will vote YES.[/p][/quote]I'm confused. Surely the church or mosque is discriminating by refusing to marry them. Isn't that bad?[/p][/quote]Not unless you are going to re-write The Bible or Koran. Religion persecutes and discriminates by nature, and is enshrined in law. Although I find it rather amusing that gay couples are up in arms in not being to call themselves married , but have the same equality and rights under law here. Maybe Gary and Larry after they are married should pick their destination of honeymoon very carefully, because consummating their marriage in Dubai can result in The DEATH penalty, Jamaica 10 years hard labour and the rest of The West Indies imprisonment up to 14 years, or a safari in Kenya, that will get you 14 years, the same for an idyllic visit to the Seychelles. Central America? forget about Belize as Gay couples are barred from even entering the country. But the classic is Dominica, where you are incarcerated in a mental hospital. So really in the great scheme of things, The UK are well up on things Gay, and give more protection than most.[/p][/quote]Well, we're better off than in 1954. The topic is on my mind, because as a computer scientist, I can never forget the Government's shameful treatment of gay computer-scientist Alan Turing. He did so much for computing and WWII code-breaking, yet was forced to take hormones that made him grow breasts. In 1954, he killed himself by biting a cyanide-covered apple. But the Church's is weird. Scientific evidence is that gayness is not a choice, but determined by genes and development. So God makes gays. Yet, when they want to exercise their equality, He — or His ministers — belt them round the earhole and scream "NO! NO! EVIL!!! DON'T TOUCH!".So He makes them, then punishes them for being what He has made. Jocelyn Ireson-Paine
  • Score: 2

9:48pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Lord Palmerstone says...

But Oxford Pride spokes-man Rafe Jeune, 29, said he was disappointed Ms Blackwood had failed to show constituents her real views.

He said: “I think she’s weak and I think it’s a cop-out.

“I don’t think she really supports the idea of gay marriage. She’s been to Pride events before, so she’s trying to show in public that she supports us, but gay marriage is clearly something she doesn’t support us on.”
I think she might have thought she was in a queue for a Sainsburys Special Offer.
But passing by on that one, "Scientific evidence is that gayness is not a choice, but determined by genes and development" I tend to agree save that "development" could just be lack of same. Does it matter that someone with a brilliant mind has never pased the emotional developmental stage of 12-13 1/2? I'd not have thought so. But if I was still scrumping apples and throwing eggs at houses aged 51, plus saving battalions of soldiers by superior information, I'm not quite sure the word "pride" would have readily come to mind.
But Oxford Pride spokes-man Rafe Jeune, 29, said he was disappointed Ms Blackwood had failed to show constituents her real views. He said: “I think she’s weak and I think it’s a cop-out. “I don’t think she really supports the idea of gay marriage. She’s been to Pride events before, so she’s trying to show in public that she supports us, but gay marriage is clearly something she doesn’t support us on.” I think she might have thought she was in a queue for a Sainsburys Special Offer. But passing by on that one, "Scientific evidence is that gayness is not a choice, but determined by genes and development" I tend to agree save that "development" could just be lack of same. Does it matter that someone with a brilliant mind has never pased the emotional developmental stage of 12-13 1/2? I'd not have thought so. But if I was still scrumping apples and throwing eggs at houses aged 51, plus saving battalions of soldiers by superior information, I'm not quite sure the word "pride" would have readily come to mind. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

9:37am Fri 8 Feb 13

A Scroat says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Start talking about (yawn) footie or duff state schools else we'll never get in "most commented"
Or my lord, we could talk about religions cleaning up their act...Catholic Priests abusing children, vicious abuse by nuns on children or those lovely men involved in Operation Bullfinch. Try "freedom of speech" on those subjects !
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: Start talking about (yawn) footie or duff state schools else we'll never get in "most commented"[/p][/quote]Or my lord, we could talk about religions cleaning up their act...Catholic Priests abusing children, vicious abuse by nuns on children or those lovely men involved in Operation Bullfinch. Try "freedom of speech" on those subjects ! A Scroat
  • Score: 1

6:35pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Union Man says...

Everyone has an equal right to marriage an honourabe estate for the procreation of Childen.
Gay marriage by contrast is a license to fornicate and unless Cameron backs down he will find his supporters leaving his party inn their droves.
Certainly his colleague Mr Clifton Brown in Gloucestershire has seen the danger and voted against Gay Marriage, as logic suggests that the additional votes from Gays will be completely dwarfed by the old guard died in the wool Tories leaving the party and staying at home at election times.
Everyone has an equal right to marriage an honourabe estate for the procreation of Childen. Gay marriage by contrast is a license to fornicate and unless Cameron backs down he will find his supporters leaving his party inn their droves. Certainly his colleague Mr Clifton Brown in Gloucestershire has seen the danger and voted against Gay Marriage, as logic suggests that the additional votes from Gays will be completely dwarfed by the old guard died in the wool Tories leaving the party and staying at home at election times. Union Man
  • Score: -1

9:18pm Fri 8 Feb 13

OX26Hound says...

Fair enough, but if the legislation should be written to legalise "same sex marriage", rather than just "gay marriage", perhaps this was why Cameron decided to U-turn on the suggested tax break for married couples.

This might be a bit of a pie-in-the-sky idea, but if "same-sex marriage" became the legal term - and a married couple's tax break was reintroduced - what is to stop two straight men, for example, entering into a sham marriage in order to gain a financial advantage?

Unlikely, perhaps, when you consider the small amount of money that would very likely be involved, but a point possibly still worth adding to the discussion.
Fair enough, but if the legislation should be written to legalise "same sex marriage", rather than just "gay marriage", perhaps this was why Cameron decided to U-turn on the suggested tax break for married couples. This might be a bit of a pie-in-the-sky idea, but if "same-sex marriage" became the legal term - and a married couple's tax break was reintroduced - what is to stop two straight men, for example, entering into a sham marriage in order to gain a financial advantage? Unlikely, perhaps, when you consider the small amount of money that would very likely be involved, but a point possibly still worth adding to the discussion. OX26Hound
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Alfie Nokes says...

So this gay marriage thing wasn't at all helpful in taking our attention away from the (resurrected) Secret Justice’ Bill - creating extraordinary new legal powers to keep official dealings hidden from the public, being passed at the same time?

But of course, our government would never need such an instrument, because, well, they love us and would never lie to us, would they...
So this gay marriage thing wasn't at all helpful in taking our attention away from the (resurrected) Secret Justice’ Bill - creating extraordinary new legal powers to keep official dealings hidden from the public, being passed at the same time? But of course, our government would never need such an instrument, because, well, they love us and would never lie to us, would they... Alfie Nokes
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree