Big damn deal. The Houses of Parliament are the only place in Britain where you can smoke in a subsidised bar. (Subsidised by us naturally.
This is just more parliamentary nest-feathering that will probably cost yet more money, yet benefit the general populace not one jot.
Hasn’t this man got better things to do, like getting MPs arrested for fraudulent expense claims?
I tottaly agree RobN, We have heard nothing more on the Fraudulent Morgages etc. What’s the betting all will be swept under the carpet to try and save some thieving hydes and Westminsters soiled reputation.
Nice to see MP’s expending time and effort on an issue that affects about 12 people in the entire country.
Lazy, selfish pigs the lot of them.
I think these comments are a little unfair. There is a symbolic value in allowing CPs (and civil marriages for that matter) on parliamentary grounds. This will benefit the gay community generally.
But gay people in general STILL won’t be allowed to get a civil marriage ANYWHERE in the country.
This sideshows like ‘Should MP’s be allowed to get a CP in Westminster?’ or ‘Stonewall is campaigning to allow CP’s be performed in the tiny number of churches willing to perform them’ are irrelevant.
These idiots need to get their fingers out and realise that civil marriage equality is the goal – not the right to get CP’ed in a place of superstition like a church.
I’m with Robn and Simon. This is nonsense
I accept this proposal is trivial by comparison to the issue of marriage. And I entirely endorse Simon’s criticism of Stonewall for refusing to campaign on this issue. However I think you underestimate the importance of what I will call “normalisation”: people will see our rulers making provision for de facto gay civil weddings in a place which, whatever we may think of the current inhabitants, is an important part of our country’s heritage. Just another little step along the road of treating gay relationships like straight ones. Not a massive step, not indeed anything like the final step, but a step nevertheless. I therefor disagree with Rose that it is nonsense.
By the way in order to comply with the excellent laws we now have on discrimination, it is not possible to treat CPs any differently from civil weddings or vice versa so civil heterosexual weddings will also have to provided for. This is a step along the secular road as well..
No 7: Harry: “people will see our rulers making provision for de facto gay civil weddings in a place which, whatever we may think of the current inhabitants, is an important part of our country’s heritage.”
Except of course that they will also know that the chapel of the Church of England in Westminster will STILL be off limits to gay couples as that cult does not recognise gay marriage; neither do the catholic or islamic cults.
This proposal effects a tiny number of MP’s – it is not beneficial for anyone else.
Stonewall and the gay MP’s are pissing into the wind with their absurd efforts to allow CP’s be held in churches (most churches will refuse to marry gay couples even if legally we are allowed. MP’s are acting in a purely selfish manner by wasting their time on being allowed get a CP in Westminster. Shouldn’t they be too busy to be working on behalf of their constituents.
Civil marriage is the goal.
These activities by Stonewall and the gay MP’s are merely diversionary tactics to hide the fact that law-abiding, tax-paying gay couples are denied access to the civil contract of marriage simply because they are gay.
Any institution, even the local golf club. has to consider it’s rules. Well, this is Parliament, and it has an absolute duty to lead by example, and by now we’re well aware of what happens when it doesn’t. This particular debate arises within the context of the Speaker’s Conference, which has chosen to address the representation of gay people in Parliament.
Lest we forget, the way Parliament has been organised for the last n-hundred years has been pretty antipathetic to anyone other than white straight men. Well-fed fellows wandering about late at night in frocks and wigs, waving sticks, muttering in medieval French, and all that.
I think by now the case is well accepted that this hasn’t helped the cause of women in Parliament? Currently we have a legislature that still includes far too few female MP’s, a handful of gay ones, and only one out lesbian across the two houses. So, a Speaker of Conservative Origin sponsors a debate that says this isn’t good enough, and doubtless to the chagrin of his former colleagues? Support the man!
What do we get here, in this forum? The S’murph greasing up his favourite double-ended toy of civil marriage and Stonewall’s shorcomings, and whacking off to his own fevered imaginings.
Of course, at one level, it’s of very little importance whether a handful of MP’s get to solemnize their civil vows within the curtilege of the Palace of Westminster. And of course, they haven’t covered themselves in glory lately. Nevertheless, it’s legitimate that they consider this measure. What will be outrageous is if they spend more than five minutes in agreeing it.