Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Boris Johnson and 18 senior Tories to push for marriage equality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 9 Dec 2012, 10:19am

    Excellent… finally action is starting!

    Let get this equality up and running.

    1. Still no real action, but bring the pop corn and let the battle commence. Better late than never. And let’s keep a very surgical and critical eye on everyone involved.

  2. Why has PinkNews reverted back to “same-sex marriage”? I thought we put that to bed a long time ago. I’m curious as to why the site seems to have increasingly dropped “equal marriage” and “marriage equality” for “same-sex marriage”.

    1. Oh, I really don’t think it matters, to be honest. Let’s stick to the matters of real importance here.

      1. I think it does matter. Gay Marriage or same Sex Marriage may subtly convey to others that our marriages are different. Equal Marriage offers no distinction at all.

        1. de Villiers 9 Dec 2012, 1:56pm

          I think that matters only to a few people for whom it has significance. All the people I know speak of “gay marriage” either as having no difference or being a difference without distinction.

        2. Evidently PinkNews thinks it matters since they edited their original headline.

        3. “Gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage” are also technically inaccurate: the law currently prevents people who are legally the same gender from getting married. Two people who are legally the same gender and want to get married are not necessarily gay (they could be bi, for example) and not necessarily the same sex (since gender and sex are such messy concepts).

    2. Thank you for changing it.

    3. Cos they rehash others’ reportage

    4. I agree Hayden. It’s not about gay marriage. It’s about equality.

  3. What does Stewart Jackson mean when he says that the bill “will be massacred in the Lords”? I thought the House of Lords could delay a bill, but couldn’t kill it. Is marriage equality really in jeopardy from the House of Lords?

    1. They are a threat but in the long term they will not win. The spectre of Lords Reform may discourage them from being too arrogant. I hope the days are numbered for the presence of those evil bishops.

      1. Dave North 9 Dec 2012, 12:06pm

        Knowing politicians, the equal marriage issue may only be being used to force lords reform further along the line.

      2. Reform isn’t enough. The upper chamber serves no useful purpose whatsoever. I’d respect Cameron a lot more if he just dissolved it completely.

    2. If the Lords reject it they could delay equal marriage by two years. David Cameron could use the Parliament Act then to enforce this. I think this is the most likey outcome.

      1. Craig Nelson 9 Dec 2012, 12:03pm

        It’s a complicated matter but I think that the delay may be less than that.

        I think that the Bill, if rejected in the Lords in two consecutive sessions, would then be certified under the Parliament Act as soon as passed the second time in the Commons. It would have to be the same text (with a few exceptions).

        The parliament act would then be automatic in that sense. I definitley think it should not be ruled out so hopefully doesn’t become necessary. The Govt need to be ready for all eventualities (but especially this one). It does go without saying that it should go through the Commons first…

      2. de Villiers 9 Dec 2012, 1:57pm

        One year, I thought, in the UK?

    3. If it is blocked in the Lords the pressure for some sort of reform will mount considerably, with the greatest pressure being focused on the removal of the 26 bishops.

    4. Craig Nelson 9 Dec 2012, 11:54am

      ‘Massacred in the Lords’. Interesting phrase. What can the Lords do?

      a) reject at 2nd reading (or at later stages)
      b) amend in ways the Govt doesn’t like
      c) spend a lot of time on it

      If it throws it out it can’t amend and it is ripe for the Parliament Act either now or after the election (my preference is now).

      It is welcome to put in amendments as it sees fit but obviously they can be reversed in the Commons (ping pong may then ensue between the two chambers until a version of the bill is agreed).

      When there is a debate about having a democratically elected upper chamber we’re constantly reassured – “Oh don’t worry – the Lords is a revising chamber to scrutinise and improve legislation and shouldn’t rival the Commons”. So I think it is beholden to the Lords to behave responsibly in this matter. If they are obsctructionist the Parliament Act should be used because they are not cooperating in what they themselves say their role is.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Dec 2012, 1:14pm

      Stewart is wrong. Equal marriage was in the manifesto in 2010. It’s hard to say if it will get through the Lords or not. Cameron could invoke the Parliament Act since it was in the manifesto, not that is a necessary requirement from what I understand of the Act.

      1. IIRC, none of the parties’ main manifestos mentioned marriage equality. The Tories released a secondary ‘equality manifesto’, which said they would consider it. The reason this is relevant is not the Parliament Acts, but the Salisbury Convention: since Attlee’s Labour government in the 40s, there has been a convention that the Lords will not block a bill that was in the winning party’s manifesto – this was because the Tories had a huge majority in the Lords and they wanted to avoid conflict with the Commons. I’m not sure how rigid this convention is nowadays (the Lords can still amend bills, and some people have suggested that changes to its composition have made the convention unnecessary), but it would be easy to argue that the convention does not apply here, as the bill was only hinted at in a secondary manifesto document of one of the ruling parties.

        (continued)

        1. Anyway, I would guess that the government would be happy to use the Parliament Acts to force this through late next year given how much political capital they have already invested in the issue.

  4. Well done Tories! I am constantly and delightedly gobsmacked.

  5. Totaly bang out of order, church should be for man and women. and not for those who back perversion.

    1. Man and women? Are you backing polygamy you perv lol!!

    2. Hysterical Screamer No. 243 9 Dec 2012, 11:40am

      But I’m neither man nor woman, I’m both, I’m intersex! So is the love of Almighty God not permitted the likes of me?

    3. Man and women? Are you supporting polygamy then lol. Always thought the Christian Right were dodgy.

      1. Oops, didn’t think original comment had posted!

    4. Please don’t feed the cretin.

    5. Your comment is nothing but a pathetic attempt to get a reaction. People like you probably get orgasms when you receive angry responses. It’s so juvenile.

      1. quote Your comment is nothing but a pathetic attempt to get a reaction. And yet you moron, you reacted. now sod off and go read the daily mail

    6. Lol, you can keep your church!

  6. The ride through the Lords will be a rough one.

    Suffers of IBS (Irritable Bigot Syndrome) like Normal Tebbit and Detta O’Cathain will spout their vomit their hatred around the Noble Lords’ chamber as usual (mumbling “I’m not anti-gay between such purgings, of course), urged on by the Lords Spiritual. O’Cathain will again read, verbatim, ‘brieflings’ from The Christian Institute

    The arguments will be all but identical to the lunacy they spouted during the CP Bill legislative passage… but things have moved on.

    The C of E’s recent misogynistic vote will play against them. O’Cathain and Tebbit have no new weapons in their armoury. And the saner lords will be anxious not to appear too crusty and out-of-touch.

    I’m quietly optimistic.

    1. There should have been a forward slash before the second ‘their’. Oh, well.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Dec 2012, 1:21pm

      It will indeed be a very rough ride considering that CPs passed with a very small margin. It will be a close result I think, maybe just squeaking through. The situation in France next month when it votes for equal marriage might have some impact and of course the decision in the American Supreme Court to hear equal marriage cases.

      My gut feeling is that the Lords Reform issue might just come to fruition, hopefully, if they block it which spells the removal of 26 Anglican clerics, a blow to the church and a diminishment of its power. I hope this issue is raised and becomes more apparent during the equal marriage debate to put the bigots on notice that their days will be truly numbered although some will make charges of political blackmail and bullying fomented by the gaystapo of course, the usual lunacy we can expect from the idiots.

  7. Craig Nelson 9 Dec 2012, 12:08pm

    Firstly speed is of the essence here. There is a certain amount of momentum and this needs to be capitalised upon.

    Secondly I am very shocked by how Tory MPs allow themselves to refer to their own Prime Minister (“Arrogant Cameron”). This is a)very discourteous b)in most parties you would have the whip withdrawn by speaking in that manner. Interesting insight into the fractious state of today’s Tory party when their MPs can’t bring themselves to a modicum of civility towards their own leader.

  8. I have to admit.. I was not expecting this at all.

    It has given me a reserved feeling of hope :)

  9. I can’t help noting the irony: Boris has famously said that “if gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.” I know of nowhere he has explicitly retracted this claim. I think, in fact, even when he said it he probably wasn’t, in heart of hearts, against gay marriage or gay relationships. It’s just that, at the time, it was the kind of statement that got him attention, and so he probably made it for that reason. This makes it even worse, no? Good that he has done some things recently that show support for LGBT people, but we mustn’t forget he rarely retracts his statements: a fault in itself

    1. I doubt Boris even remembers the statement. I doubt he remembers what he had for breakfast come to that! Regardless of what he has said in the past hes on the right track now, thats what matters. Go BoJo!

      1. Yep, he is in the right track indeed, according to his voters.

        Mayor Johnson’s India trip reveals shortcomings of “Brand Boris”

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2012/dec/03/boris-johnson-india-trip-reveals-his-strengths-and-shortcomings

        He is the perfect blond buffoon to represent London and tell unintelligible jokes to his imaginary Indian investors.

      2. Doesn’t the fact that he has problems remembering what he says make it even worse?

  10. Hysterical Screamer No. 243 9 Dec 2012, 5:35pm

    I heard the number is now up to 19! Let’s hope these 19 are working their butts off to increase that figure.

    19 truly gay-friendly Tories! Phew!

    At last we have the evidence on the table!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Dec 2012, 5:48pm

      There are a lot more than that actually who aren’t on the list. I expect the number to grow sizeably. In a whipped vote for the Labour and Liberal Democratic partiess, just 19 Tories would see equal marriage pass if a vote were taken now. The Tory number voting yes will get larger as the debate continues now that there will be written legal provisions protecting religious denominations. That will allow some who are on the fence to reconsider a ‘no’ for a ‘yes’. Of course, the diehard traditionalist religious nutters will remain immovable. Thankfully, they won’t be in the majority I don’t think.

  11. Spent an afternoon writing to people in the HoL and got around 30 postive replies from them (none against so far), Got a positive response from both the conservative and labour whips in the HoL. Beginning to think that perhaps the HoL won’t be that troublesome????

    Had the feeling that we should be writing to people in the HoL now and that probably the vote has been won in the commons????

    1. As an American who has been following this story, I have been disappointed in the passivity of many UK gays. John, you are doing the right thing by writing to the Lords, but how many others are? You have the majority on your side, yet you allowed the opposition to gain a public relations coup with a huge public petition. There was no serious, organized effort at a counter-petition. With a little effort, Stonewall or some other group could have put one together and yielded double the signatures, thus crushing the other side. Similarly, the opposition turned in a greater number of responses during the consultation. There is no reason this should be. Where are your organizations? Are they simply lazy or are they making a calculated move to sit this out so as not to help Cameron?

      1. The other thing is that the MPs and Lords are desperate waiting for us to write in. They’ve been snowed under with negative letters from the C4M campaign and when they get a positve letter they are really, really appreciative of it.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Dec 2012, 1:23am

      John, I’ve been doing the same, so far received 11 responses, none against thus far.

      I urge every gay man and woman who comes to this site to write to the Lords and post the same on Facebook and Twitter or any other social media. Let your family and friends know just how important this is.

      You can bet that the opposition is way ahead of us and already lobbying the Lords with mendacious information in droves.

      StonewallUK should be ashamed of itself for not taking a more pro-active role. They’ve reported NOTHING since the consultation began. Ben Summerskill should be held accountable or replaced with someone who is more competent and really serious about equality.

      The Out4Marriage campaign has done precious little. The opposition have been stepping up their aggressive campaign with no sign of backing down. We must NOT allow them to bully and threaten the government.

      Wake up everyone, stop being complacent.

      1. I want to write to the Lords but I don’t know where to start. What did you actually write in your letter and how did you choose which Lords to send it to? Did you write an actual letter or send an email?
        There should be somewhere where people can easily find this information with a suggested template of what to write. I want to help make marriage equality a really but sometimes feel the ability to make it so is out of my hands.

  12. 19 for and 100+ against!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Dec 2012, 1:25am

      Actually, Matthew as many as 187 are for.

  13. Dave North 10 Dec 2012, 2:05am

    Wont it be great when we can just live out our lives with the protection of the law and not have to put up with the continual religious zealots calling us filth.

    There time has past. These so called arbiters a now being seen as anti humanity.

    And good riddance to them.

  14. This is encouraging, although not altogether surprising. If you look at the history of the Conservative party you find that they are slow to take up a new cause but once they do they are actually the ones that lead to quite radical and progressive change. I’m thinking of extending universal suffrage, free trade, a female leader etc

  15. “What is at stake is the intrinsic meaning of marriage and what is best for society as a whole.”

    Of course, Bishops, it’s best for society as a whole that you ostracise and exclude.

    Actually, no.

    1. ‘ostracise and exclude’ ? – there are no laws against you getting married – just make sure it involves one man and one woman (I presume you are one or the other!) .I presume you feel that bothers and sisters who want to marry are ‘ostracised and excluded’ or the 55 year olds who want to marry 8 year olds ? ‘Equality’ ?

  16. “If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.” :Boris Johnson.
    Yeah lets ‘whack’ it through! – pseudo marriages between men, 3 men or brothers & sisters , or men and animals. Anyone who disagrees in this ‘equality’ must be a bigot ! What a distorted world we live in .Call it ‘gayriage’ but please don’t call it Marriage folks – leave that to ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN .

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all