That’s odd. Motormouth didn’t appear to have any problem making her decision at all!
The most successful brainwashing technique in human history.
I would love to know of all those who voted against, abstained, or didn’t vote, how many were catholic. I think this should be made public.
It is very worrying in this day and age to be having our laws made by religious extremists.
Not content to label those who hold mainstream religious beliefs as “extremists”, you desire to publicize said persons to draw attention to their beliefs. For the implicit purpose of singling out and bullying them. With the subtext that you would like to exclude Catholics from political life. Very revealing and not in a good way.
What must have made this decision so hard is being a reasoning and reasonable person having to shed common sense and humanity for the sake of a religio-cultural dogma. Is there really a risk that marriage will be made unstable because more loving committed people want to do it??!
Exactly. It’s bizarre when someone you liked suddenly turns on you in some crazy hysteria. In fairness she has a chance to reflect and change her position before 3rd reading, and I would advise her to soul-search, very quickly, because right now I don’t want to even hear her name again.
To the question, yes if they happen to be homosexuals according to Dr Patricia Morgan. So perhaps Sarah Teather is not so unreasonable and unreasoning after all.
When Botox goes wrong.
And like the other cowardly libdem MPs who didn’t vote for SSM they kept their mouth shut until the very last hour…
Most of the Catholic lib dems didn’t vote for SSM. I did’nt vote lib dem in the last election to be told the catholicsm rules OK and that LGBT rights play second fiddle to that.
I voted lib dem becuase you were supposed to be the party for LGBT rights, the party who had voted for equal marriage at a party level.
I’m disgusted, I’m simply not interested in her opinions on what a catholic marriage means to her. That wasn’t what was being voted on. Her belief would not have been affected by this change.
Check out your local Green candidate at the next election and vote for them!
And waste your vote completely rather than voting for a party that has been campaigning for gay rights for decades.
Great. What a brilliant idea.
4 Lib Dems voted against – one abstained.
The others who did not vote, were absent from the house on the day, so the voting record is very good.
Just because four couldn’t decide what was better – religion or LGBT civill rights doesnt make the whole party bad!
According to the article above, 11 Lib Dem MPs did not support this bill which is almost 20% of the parliamentary party. That is not insignificant.
Yeah, but Jenny Willott has just given birth, Charles Kennedy is looking after a sick relative, David Ward is out of the country on Government business and Norman Baker was in Paris on Ministerial business. Less forgivably, John Thurso and Martin Horwood were absent on constituency business. Only Greg Mulholland actually chose to abstain.
I have never heard ANY compelling explanation, no reasoning, no mechanism, by which allowing same-sex marriage somehow, some way, lessens and demeans marriage in any way shape or form, other than solely in the minds of those who oppose it.
Many are simply following orders from elsewhere. Reason doesn’t come into it But at Least we now know where their loyalty lie when push comes to shove.
A Catholic Liberal, an oxymoron surely
Wow! You read my mind. I was going to say that a catholic liberal was an oxymoron as well!
Great minds think alike!
Little fat girl hiding behind man made religion. She may as well say it was because of David Icke’s Reptilians. No more student help for her. She needs to deliver her own leaflets to loose a bit of weight!
What a load of non-sense. One has the right to do and think what one wants of course but the sickening hypocrisy of trying to dress it up is too much. If you say ‘I’m a Roman Catholic and they own my vote’ then at least have the decency to say that openly and we’ll know where we stand. I support the Labour Party but exactly the same goes for Labour MPs in this position, though most don’t push their flimsy explanations to the extremes Teather does.
Has she never heard of LGBT families? What a bizarre justification she gives, and surely one that she will come to regret.
Sorry, that’s just a religiously-orientation bigoted view.
Sarah Teather was someone who would have, and did make me warm to LibDems policies, I thought she was just perfect in her attitude on a whole range of things, but this has been utterly destroyed by this drivel about her religious beliefs. I had no idea.
Frankly, I just wish she hadn’t explained at all, because I now have far less reason to consider the LibDems in the future. I feel like I’ve been betrayed – they way you believe someone is good, then find out something awful about them.
If Sarah Teather is a bit of a religious nut — who else is? Tim Farron would have been the one I was concerned about, but AFAIK he voted for it — he got over his internal struggles between faith and principles of equality. I won’t ever be supporting anything that Sarah Teather says in future. She needs to be discriminated against big time to understand what a crime that is, and what an awful thing to do to others.
Hopefully those who elected her will show her what Discimination looks like when they vote her out of office. She will simply suffer by a Protected Right of the public to get rid of her. Their vote.
There’s just one word for people like you! HYPOCRITE! Watch yourself in the mirror and accept this bad side of you instead of explaining your fake and cheap excuses…
So, marriage is a space primarily for a married couple to raise children and provide a stable family environment? Two gay men/women are also able to do this. It is the gender which is assuming that a “family” must only consist of a biolgical mother, father and their children. This also mean if we follow Sarah Teather’s argument through that marriage is a worthless pursuit for those couple who choose to never have a family or perhaps those who cannot for many reasons, biologically have children. Is this a suggestion that again a family must be a married couple who will categorically produce offspring? It seems narrow and also suggests that a “true family” really must consist of of a man and a woman, and children. We live with high numbers of divorces and children in care and also where non-traditional family units exist successfully. The argument for ensuring families are “stable via marriage” as the express reserve of a just one iteration of a loving relationship of 2humans is outmoded
So the children of gay couples do not deserve stability?
How she can call herself ‘Liberal’ whilst voting against equality is beyond me! A danger to marriage & family life???? Drag yourself out of your bubble and take a hard look at reality!!
What a load of drivel. Nothing but excuses. What I see is a person being manipulated and strong armed in decision making.No Not by her Party.but by her church which has no place in the Governing of the Nation. And as Andie has stated one needs to suspend all reason and common sense to come to this conclusion. She admits that progress will happen. However she is going to do all in her power to stop that progess form happening.Based on her aurgument that Marriage is only for those wishing to raise children within it.So by this standard not even Hetrosexual couples without children or those not wishing to have children need not apply either.But those who want to raise children and have children within their marrige who are Gay must not apply either. So let us follow her logic then. Only Hetrosexual couples who can and want to have children within their marriage need apply. Anyone else does not qualify for Marriage as she sees it. She is a PIMPLE on the arse of Progress.
She had a shared website with the local LibDems and they were all in support of equal marriage, but she voted against, and then the blog post supporting it disappeared.
She has a very slim majority in her constituency and it’s very possible this will be a Tory or Labour seat in future.
Shame, because she really does have a faultless voting record on equal rights for us, but this error of judgement about equal marriage is unforgivable — especially if she did previously support it.
I’d prefer to vote for a liberal Tory than a Catholic liberal. After the vote yesterday I’d vote labour hands down.
She HAD a faultless record.
She has shown her true colours at last – by voting in the disgraceful manner that she did, she shows herself to be a bigot.
It’s time to get oust her from politics.
You are a fickle bunch, a consistent voting record in your favour, only one you don’t agree with and you’re calling for her head……get over yourself.
Another one conditioned from birth to do as she’s told. Funny how for so many of its followers Catholicism only amounts to telling other people what to do. I suspect they learned that from priests and nuns too.
Another Catholic taking their whip from Rome. The absolute pile of vomit she spewed as her justification is insulting to anyone’s intelligence. I haven’t liked her since she was briefly my MP when she was first elected and my opinion was confirmed when she slipped the knife into Kennedy’s back although he didn’t vote for the measure either.
She’ll almost certainly lose Brent Central in 2015 and it can’t come soon enough.
She probabaly voted against not because of her own personal faith but
because she holds a marginal seat which as it is the Third World cesspit of our former capital city no doubt contains many followers of the ever-munficient Allah!
Voting bnp or ukip much?
I’m very, very sad about this.
She probably had some Jesuits show up at the door on the weekend to give her an offer she could not refuse.
I’m really disappointed with Sarah’s decision and I feel it has undermined all of the equal rights campaigning she says she has ‘devoted’ her time to over the years. I don’t understand her argument, surely she should be campaigning for the importance of marriage and the positive role it plays in our society, rather than opposing equal marriage. If, in her opinion, marriage is so important for the stability of family life, why isn’t she encouraging same-sex parents to marry? This just shows her true colours and that deep down she doesn’t believe in real equality.
This lady is a liar. She doesn’t really believe in treating gays equally if she doesn’t want us to have the same marriage rights as her and she doesn’t really believe marriage is so important if she thinks gays are fine enough without it. I hope she knows the bible says that lying is a sin and is in fact one of the ten commandments.
If you want to feel a bit better google Paul Martins Same sex marriage speech. he was our Canadian Prime Minister and he is a Catholic and wouldnt let human rights be something priveledged straight people could vote on. so there are some leaders who do lead. Paul Martin was also a Conservative. A Catholic Conservative and he did the right thing. and surprise! our society hasnt eroded at all. we just have more stable families of all genres.
She voted against equal marriage becuase she was a Catholic and she was told to vote against it by the Catholic church…end of story…she didn’t suddenly wake up on the day of the vote (having previously said nothing publicly about it ) and decide to vote against SSM….she never made her views apparent to anyone before the vote and she never gave anyone the chance to debate the issue with her….But she did allow her Catholic church to debate the issue with her fully and she sided with them 100%….Charming!
It all stinks!
Weird as he is, at least Jacob Rees-Mogg openly said the only whip that counted for him was the one at the Vatican. Ms Teather’s attempt at justifying her action sounds hollow. She still put the Pope’s boot into SSM.
Naive and narrow minded to call someone who doesn’t agree with you a “bigot”. She has a right to an opinion and a vote, get over it.
In otherwords this bigot was doing as she was told by the Vatican – disgraceful woman!
She in otherwords is happy for there to be an apartheid when it comes to marriage and Gays and Lesbians are not quite First Class Human Beings according to he pathetic beliefs.
I think she should hang her head in shame.
Would love to know how many that voted against or abstained are Christians? With the non-religion population increasing year by year, in many western countries, we are going to see a gradual decrease in human rights abuses that are instigated by the churches.
What a load of angst ridden, hand wringing shite. Pretty stupid and career suicide to imply you take your orders from the Vatican instead of the people ( your constituents remember? ) who out you in parliament. Just remember this old saying ( paraphrased ) “vote for this and no one will remember – vote against and we’ll never forget – and give you the kicking up your ballot box you deserve come election time.
Her ‘justification’ seems to be almost identically worded (& timed) to that posted yesterday by that other Catholic Lib Dem John Pugh.
Note the presumption that LGBT couples do not form or have any resemblance to ‘families’ or ‘family life’, the unspecified threat to family life of allowing LGBT people to be called married; the assumption that all LGBT couples need is rights to do with tax and pensions.
I suspect they were penned by the same author somewhere in the Roman Catholic HQ. Sadly typical of the LibDems not to disguise this a bit better.
“Sadly typical of the LibDems not to disguise this a bit better”
Sadly typical of someone using this as a feeble partisan point when the Lib Dems have campaigned for gay rights as long as, if not longer than, the other main parties.
Tether argues herself out of her own dodgy point here:
(I should add, that I also suspect it will make marriage ultimately seem irrelevant. After all, how long before gay people begin to say, as many straight couples of my own generation have begun to say, “if marriage is just about love, why would I need a piece of paper to prove it?”
Just another bigot. Boiled down to 3 words, that’s all her waffle amounts to.
There are words to describe this woman, but I don’t think this website will let me say them.
Another MP who puts the Catholic church before equality. They need to remember that they are voted in by their constituents, not given a job as an MP by the pope.
I’m also angry at the Lib Dems who abstained. What a cowardly way to avoid it rather than voting against. To go slightly off topic, didn’t Charles Kennedy also abstain during the vote to go into coalition government? Now he abstains on this. Does he do it cause he really wants to vote against but is too scared? No doubt he’ll be shouting from the rooftops next election that he didn’t vote for OR against marriage equality, depending on his audience.
If marriage is there to recognise a relationship of the sort which is beneficial to children then why are: convicted pedophiles, rapists, murderers etc. allowed to marry (so long as their partner is of a different sex)?
There is no character test imposed by the state for different sex couples. What a double standard!
“I recognise that this kind of stability can exist outside of marriage, but the act of giving and receiving vows in front of others and making a commitment for life is an aid to stability.”
So it makes perfect logical sense to allow gay couples to marry, doesn’t it Sarah?
“My concern, however, is that by moving to a definition of marriage that no longer requires sexual difference, we will, over time, ultimately decouple the definition of marriage from family life altogether.”
That’s the crux of her argument. She may support equal legal protections for same sex couples, but her concept of ‘family life’ is limited to opposite sex couples.
The majority of people who turned up for Sarah Teather’s Brent lib dem day of action were gay.
We spent hours trying to give a good impression of the Lib Dems while residents expressed their disappointment with Sarah as a constituency MP.
And now she’s lumped this one on us. Thanks, Sarah.
Don’t support her next time!
I don’t think anybody will. Especially considering that her constituency is less than 20 minutes away from Featherstone’s.
Clearly no LGBT person can ever vote for her again.
She believes we are 2nd class citizens.
And another issue- will all those whose beliefs are governed by the Catholic church/CofE please make that clear on the ballot paper?
I think many MPs, to their disappointment, will find that people voted for their party and not for them personally.
She is purely self serving and extremely worried about loosing her seat. More faces then a 50p coin. Funny but this is merely on inconsistency among many look at the welfare cuts (when she was a govt minister) and the “back tracking” and opposite views she is seeking to express today. Not surprised at all.
I absolutely GUARANTEE that she would be “proud of that” in ten years time and she will be outright ASHAMED of herself before it’s all over with. Her grandchildren will no more be able to understand her reasoning as I am able to understand my Mississippi grandparents support for racial segregation which they ALSO based in the Bible, religious belief and “tradition”.
I meant to say “I absolutely GUARANTEE that she WON’T be “proud of that…”
Her legacy will be one of homophobic bigotry.
She’s a hateful, poisonous bigot.
Time surely to remove the whip from all Catholics who believe the Vatican and not their party manifestos are more binding on how they vote. These individuals are the agents of a foreign power at total odds with the United Kingdom in the 21st century and they have no place in the legislative process of a dmocratic country like ours.
God damn Sarah Teather and her adherence to this evil church
She is homophobic scum.
No ifs, ands or buts about that.
Her bigotry renders her unfit to hold public office.
What she says makes perfect sense to me, even if it is unintelligible to a circle jerking, gerbil shooting bigot like you. Miss Teather understands what most humans throughout history have understood: if two persons irrevocably give and receive the exclusive ‘right to the body’ for acts which consummate a marriage, then they marry. If not, then they do something else. Parliament can’t even agree on the definition of how you consummate a same sex union. In the meantime, the only thing you’ll ever consummate is an exchange of AIDS, butt cancer and syphilis.
Worth pointing out the lib dem abstentions weren’t in reality – Kennedy was caring for a sick relative, several were abroad on parl business and one had just given birth
Worth noting that many of those also hadn’t said anything at all on SSM and were hiding behind a wall of silence for the last year….Kennedy never gave any hint of support via a website blog, local paper, email etc etc…nothing … we still don’t know what Kennedy thinks of SSM, do we? You can care for a sick relative and still issue a statement of support!!!!
Thanks for that clarification. I was quite disturbed by the apparent number of absent LidDem votes – presumably the huge majority in favour was expected by everyone, so being ill or abroad was an accepted excuse. ‘Abstaining’ in a Parliamentary vote is an active process, of course, whereby one most vote both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in the lobbies, which is quite a useful way of demonstrating lack of apathy, if not – in this case – lack of courage or intelligence.
Actually the Scottish abstentions have mo to do with the fact that equal marriage is a devolved issue and there will be a separate bill in the Scottish parliament
She needs to be booted out at the next election.
Surely a BNP style bigot like Teather is not a suitable LibDem candidate.
We must ensure that she does not get re-elected.
Steady on, she is nothing like the BNP and I doubt that she is personally homophobic either.
But she has in effect stated that she is voting with the Vatican rather than on the manifesto she fought the election with. That is surely a serious issue in and off itself which calls into question whether she can really be considered as a whipped Lib em MP any more
Yes she is personally homophobic – she voted against gay equality.
And she shares the opinion of the BNP on SSM.
She is nothing like th BNP.
Like the BNP she is opposed to same sex marriage.
She does not share their other policies but on this issue Sarah Teather is the same as the BNP.
No. She is nothing like the BNP.
Agreed she is a more suitable ilk of candidate for the bnp, she is anti human/civil rights of gay people and personally homophobic, anyone who disputes that very obvious fact is stupid.
I am not a lib dem supporter in any way and I deplore Sarah’s stupid decision to vote with the Vatican, but I suggest you look at her previous long record in supporting gay rights and read her actual blog post before you start hurling such extreme accusations.
That shouldn’t be a problem. Not only is she incredibly unpopular in her constituency (she basically left the whole place to crumble apart from her road as she pursued her career as a minister), but about 85% of North London lib dem activists are gay, and certainly will not be leafletting for this pathetic woman.
She is also personally very arrogant.
If you judge people, You have no time to love them. Mother Teresa.
Mother Teresa was an Albanian prune and a vile bigot who opposed contraception for the world’s most destitute people.
Teresa had PLENTY of time to judge other people.
Please don’t quote her as if she was some type of hero.
My comment was meant in sarcasm…Unfortunately it does not always translate to paper. As these are the types of Statements the church real out when ever they want to sway their followers.Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I don’t think she believes in what she said, but I guess she was under immense pressure from Vatican to defend indefensible and irrational dogma peddled by homophobic catholic church.
She made her choice and the electorate will make theirs and she better pray hard that they forget her allegiance to Vatican
It’s really quite disturbing how much influence the Church of Rome has on our society & government. I can now really understand why – until recent legislation – the heir to the throne wasn’t allowed to marry a papist…..
ok luv, you spent a lot of time soul searching and then went ahead and made the wrong decision.
I’d have had more respect if you’d abstained but by voting no you stabbed us in the back.
Legislation that returns the definition of marriage to the remit of the religious institutions does not destroy marriage, or set us on an unequivocal path towards this. I am glad that Sarah Teather is not my MP as it releases me from a dilemma her constituents must now face. This sin’t just voting against a manifesto commitment, it’s voting against the soul and core principles of the Liberal Democrat party. As a life long committed Liberal Democrat voter, I could never vote for her.
I note that both her and Charles Kennedy have had no real career to speak of outside of Parliament, and the immaturity of them either voting against, or abstaining on this key Liberal issue is clear evidence of the draw backs to such a choice for our Parliamentary members.
I’ve said this elsewhere in this thread but you should probably know that Charles Kennedy was looking after a sick relative last night.
Shame on her
Bla bla bla…what a load of old woffle, as soon as I read ‘catholic’, I understood why. Tiresome bitch!
It’s interesting that all these people are saying their commitment to “faith” is their reason for voting against this bill.
When these people ran for election, did they run on their faith? when they were knocking on doors canvasing, blogging or face booking. Selling their political aspirations, what they could do for their constituents, I’ll hazard a guess that their religion never entered into the equation.
If you run for political office remember your there to represent the majority and as need arises protect the rights of minority. if your not willing to represent all of your electorate you are unworthy representing any.
When employers interview candidates faith is one of many questions you can’t ask… so if you asked this of a candidate in an election they would likely say “none of your business!” but this vote makes it clear it is because it made my political representative vote against my rights!
OK I’ve just re-read this, WHAT IS HER POINT??? I know its early but this is sooo painful & frustrating to read.
I’ve always admired Sarah Teather, and I won’t question her integrity. However, I strongly disagree with her reasons. Just a thought, but for those who believe that marriage is primarily about marriage not love, why not support restricting marriage to fertile hetrosexuals who have not been married before. The rest can have civil partnerships. Then there would be no doubt about the true meaning of marriagr. I guess they wouldn’t dare upsrt their constituents!
Sorry meant to say for those who believe that marriage is primarily about raising children!
“I’ve always admired Sarah Teather, and I won’t question her integrity.”
Well I WILL question her integrity.
She believes we are 2nd class citizens.
It is expected she will lose her seat at the next election. This just confirm it.
Well she’s lost the LGBT vote for sure.
maybe she’ll get the pathetic uncle tom votes from the likes of christopher biggins .
It is a cross road moment – which path to choose etc hey see Rev 19:7 note the marriage between the Lamb ( Jesus) and the Bride( the Church) marriage redefined. note that the Church includes male and female who are not male and female (Galatians 3;28)
and also wasnt it the Catholic church that performed same sex marriages at afirst.
No it was a party politics decision not a religious one
She’s jumped so many hurdles, and now falls flat on her face in sight of the finish line. She’ll have to start all over again if she wishes to regain some form of credibility within the LGBTQ community.
Her vote on this is completely unforgivable.
She needs to lose her seat at the next election
In that case, the LGBTQ people in her constituency better show everyone who would be their choice at the next election campaign.
Anyone but Teather will do.
I’d pick a Tory who supports equality over a catholic bigot like Sarah Teather
Coward! That is all.
Surprising and disappointing. She’s obviously thought carefully about how to explain a position that seems to be natural to her but she’s displaying a poor view if the history of marriage and, as she almost concedes, reached a conclusion that by no means necessarily follows from the premises from which she starts. I might have more sympathy if she was suggesting that marriage should be legally restricted to those who can, and make a binding commitment to, have children and that the right to have then was only granted after a test of likely parental quality.
She’s employed as an MP not a representative of the Catholic Church. Time now to split state and church. We live in a supposed democracy not theocracy. Shameful behaviour for a LibDem MP.
She’s been brainwashed to believe in an imaginary friend who loves her (I’ve always got the strong sense she doesn’t like herself very much) who along with some very bizarre frock-wearing misogynists she has once again, like so many religionists, been unable to see the truth from the many lies that are thrown out by them to anyone who opposes their own mandated status quo. She’ll be voted out and this utterly strange young woman can then go and sit in some big old building and yammer away to herself firmly believing that she’s not alone but she is and always will be. Indefensible nonsense.
“life-long liberal and a committed Catholic”
What her vote proves is that it is not her alleged liberal ideology that she bought to parliament but her bigoted Catholic one.
Her argument to justify her vote is incongruent and does’t stack up. She is trying to paper over the fact that at her core she has an agenda to enforce religious based prejudice on the gay community.
She has betrayed her parliamentary role of separating religion from politics and thus has no place in a Liberal-Democrat party or parliament. I hope her constituents and colleges realize this.
The piece is remarkble for what is does not explicitly say, but keeps implying right the way through if we are to make any sense of it:
“I don’t think a same sex couple should be parents.”
And we don’t think she should be a politician. Touche..
I remember seeing her inquestion time about 10 years ago and thought she was the future of politics. she seemed sincere and honest. Now after power she’s turned into a complete bitch. she is living proof that power corrupts
Actually she isn’t terribly bright and a comete waste of a Cambridge education.
So much to say and so little achieved by this negativity. Equality for all should be unqualified and not a privilege of those who use religion as a prerequisite to marriage. The failure of the church will only be enhanced by their poor attitude to other fellow human beings, after all, gay people are not aliens!
I’ve emailed her (firstname.lastname@example.org) with the following. I hope others email her too. I’m really angry at her justification.
I read your blog concerning why you chose to vote against equal marriage.
While I appreciate you taking the time to justify your decision, I was very concerned by the main thrust of your argument.
Possibly by omission, you very much made it seem like only straight couples have families.
There are many families where gay parents have adopted, fostered, had children by surrogacy or by former relationships. My civil partner and I (and yes, we would like to be ‘properly’ married) are in the process of adopting.
I’m sure you didn’t mean to, but by your words about the importance of the link between marriage and family, you have delivered a huge slap in the face to those of us who are gay, lesbian etc and who would like to raise their families within the bounds of marriage.
She takes her orders a man who says he’s not allowed to get married and spends all his days wearing a white dress in the vatican, muttering about how a man in the sky told him homosexuals were a threat to civilisation. Why did you think she’d vote yes!
She’s another bigot homophobe, whose reputation is now that of a bigot that supports apartheid of a minority. If i google her name will homophobic hate bigot follow.
After 2015 I hope the google entry will be ‘Sarah Teather former politician’
She is a bigot.
it was a waste of time anyway…she lost… :
I wonder how many Muslim MPs would vote to make the consumption of pork and alcohol illegal? There would be outrage if they did and they would be accused of imposing their religion on everybody.
As with most catholics, their allegiance is to Rome ..these spineless libdems are making a mockery of their position in govt ..at least they will disappear after the next election .
Steady on now.
Spain; Portugal; Belgium; Argentine; Mexico (as well as repeated US studies) show that ordinary cathoiics are more in favour of equality than other religions.
Don’t confuse catholic people with the disgusting hierarchy of that church. Sarah Teather has proven herself to be a spineless; bigoted lapdog of the catholic church.
I think you will find that is more to do with the separation of church and state in those countries , rather than a catholic-lite version of this hideous religion.
What a load of bigoted homophobic Roman Cult inspired claptrap. Well madam, I hope you have a fall back career because you wont be re-elected next time round and that is a guarantee…You are on the list as are every other deluded homophobic bigot who voted or abstained in in an effort to deny human rights ton a large minority of the British population…. That’s democracy pet and British Gay people will exercise it with gusto come ’15….
The trouble is that most of the bigots represent bigoted constituencies.
Sarah Teather on the other hand occupies a marginal seat.
The fact that she spat in the face of the gay community with her bigotry should ensure her failure at the next election.
She’s lost the vote of a constituency which had previously supported her.
Her betrayal will not be forgotten.
I look forward to meeting her… when she asks me if I’d like fries with my meal.
Who was the assh0le who opined during the debate yesterday that he didn’t take his whip from Westminster but Rome. He must be reminded of that when he wants to be re elected and told where to go!
Rees Mogg.. a complete wanker and old school friend of Dave and Gideon i believe
In a safe Tory seat.
Most of the bigots knew that voting against would not harm their re-election chances.
The bigot Teather on the other hand…
Miss Teather’s argument stands on 2 rather bigoted assumptions:
1) That couples in loving, committed relationships who have children are are in some way better and more worthy than those in loving, committed relationships that don’t. If you strip out the homophobia, then her argument leads logically to the conclusion that the test of marriage is the willingness and ability to have children and straight couples who are elderly, infertile or simply don’t want children should be denied marriage and forced into a (by definition lesser) civil union. That would be a real redefining of marriage but presumably that irony is lost on her.
2) That gay couples can’t or don’t have families. The reality is that many gay couples do have children where from adoption, surrogacy or a prior relationship. The logic of her position holds these families as inferior to their heterosexual counterparts.
Or to put it more simply Sarah Teather believe that gay people are 2nd clas citizens.
Well said, Graeme.
Her reasons for voting no are absolutely pitiful. She has obviously been got at by the Catholic cult and has now destroyed her previous good record.
Just wrote to her
Dear Ms Teather,
I wanted to write and let you know that I feel utterly betrayed by your decision to vote against marriage equality. You have always seemed like a good and fair person and have dealt responsibly with GLBT issues in the past. I read your reasons for voting against equality and I am perplexed.
You say “I believe that the link between family life and marriage is important.”
So do I. What about my family? You imply that parents with “sexual difference” are more valid than families with same-sex parents. This is insulting, hurtful and untrue.
“Those who argue for a change in the law do so by saying that surely marriage is just about love between two people and so is of nobody else’s business.”
This is also false. Nobody has argued solely for love as the reason. Marriage is about status and acceptance within the community. It is the best way to support love – and families. You obviously disagree. With your vote you attempt to condemn your Gay …….
…… Gay brothers and sisters as second class citizens. To further say that allowing two people of the same sex a loving marriage will undermine the institution and unravel society is just Roman Catholic vitriol with no foundation in reality.
In your patronising letter of excuse you resolutely ignore the fact that many Gay people have happy loving families.
You end your letter with “Our party members hold strong views, but recognise and cherish the space for difference. I am proud of that.”
I am glad it is so easy for you to be proud. I hope one day you recognise the deep shame of your actions.
Second class citizens ? – give me a break .There is NOTHING stopping you from getting married(as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex and not a relation!) apart from your own self invented discriminations .Those who label themselves ‘gay’ have the same legal rights as married couples through civil partnerships …but that’s not good enough we want to hijack the meaning of marriage…..just as ‘gay’ used to mean someone who was happy and now means someone who is never happy or satisfied by following the disordered path .
Self loathing idiot.
I’m guessing he/she is a close friend of teather,
I wonder how she would view widows and widowers left with children to raise, some of whom may never remarry? Her vile statement is also an insult to them too and extremely offensive.
I’ve noticed how the opposition, including the RCC are now getting around the issue of infertile hetero couples and others who marry and have childless marriages for whatever reason, yet never really provide any logical explanation why they should be allowed to marry and yet we shouldn’t.
These vile people really can’t come up with an adequate response other than as long as it’s one man and one woman regardless of their inability to procreate. Love and commitment in their view aren’t primary for a marriage to take place. You can see right through her argument. This is more to do with religious beliefs and imposing them on a piece of civil legislation. People like that shouldn’t be allowed to be in government.
When examined carefully, however, this objection is not valid and does not hold weight. The sexual activity of an infertile heterosexual couple is intrinsically open to procreation—even though their sexual union cannot result in procreation. The sexual act of an infertile couple is the kind of act that is open to procreation; the fact that it cannot lead to procreation is accidental to the act itself. Under normal circumstances—i.e., functioning fertility—their act could lead to procreation. On the other hand, the sexual act of a same-sex couple is the kind of act that is never open to procreation; the non-openness to procreation belongs to the very substance and definition of that act.
Thus, one can rationally hold that openness to life is intrinsic to marriage without excluding infertile couples from marriage. Infertile heterosexual couples engage in the kind of act that leads to procreation; homosexual couples do not.
Las time I checked, the Catholic Church didnt run this country. This debate was for equality. Yes the bill isnt perfect and needs loads of work. But she voted on HER faith. She is not elected by the Catholic Church. She is elected by all sorts of people in her community and her job is to represent the wider good of the community. I am never voting Lib Dem again. Replace gay with inter racial. Or disable and no disabled etc. Yvette Cooper raised a valid point in the debate. If married is about making babies, should we DNA test all prospective Brides and Grooms? Do we disallow marriage for those no longer able to conceive?
Tell her and Nick what she has done to her part, A future hopeful now lost to loony land. All respect lost.
More bigotry wrapped up in Catholicism/religion. I’m sure it was terribly hard for her to vote against SSM……not.
So she’s got a lovely catholic marriage and it would be spoilt by allowing gay people to marry too. How?
Putting her ‘personal conscience’ ahead of other people’s equality is nasty and selfish.
Does anybody know what the Lib Dems stand for?
At least she stood up and was counted. For an elected member of parliament to abstain is I think, cowardly and weak. Who are they frightened of offending….their voters or their party leaders?. Shame on them.
Well dear, your now Teathered to the wrong side of history. Good luck with that.
She makes such a long speech to say : I AM A CATHOLIC. Strange for a country where the Anglican church is part of the state.
In name of her Catholicism, she tries to justify her unfair speech.
What misses in her analysis is the benefit that equality has on the society.
She “forgot” to think that treating everyone equal can only promote equality and a fair society.
She talks pretty much about herself, her believes, but not about the people that voted to her?
Did she “forget” them too?
Student fees! Now this!
Why is it okay be homophobic under the guise of religion? What would Sarah Teather’s statement look like if we were discussing allowing any other minority group to marry? Take a look:
One can’t help wondering whether giving your first loyalty to what is, in effect, a foreign sovereign power, actually constitutes treason. I’m sure we could find some room for her at the Tower of London.
“This evening I voted against the second reading of the same-sex marriage bill. It was one of the most difficult decisions I have ever taken. As a life-long liberal and a committed Catholic I spent many months reflecting on this issue in the lead up to the vote.” … let me stop you just there and explain that you represent your constituency and if you were wanting to do your job and represent your liberal democrat constituency you should have damned well consulted them rather than spending months up your own a*se considering your faith a valid input on your secular job.
Ms Teather must recognise that the LGBT community, and LGBT rights supporters everywhere, will remember her with bitterness for having voted against same-sex marriage rather than for her former support. History will remember her as a bigot.
Bitterly disappointed in her and won’t be voting for her again. I was very impressed with her work as education minister and had really followed her career since then but no more. Hero to zerol
Spare me. Such a hard decision to vote for equality. Let stick to some weird cult that abuses little choirboys. It must have been so hard for her. Poor thing.
…..another anti-catholic thread – what a surprise !
Has the Federal Commissioner for the LGBT Stasi Archives compiled a list of all the Catholic MPs yet to target for more vitriol ?
It’s an outrage that this MP has had a free vote in a democratic government is it not ,and followed her conscience (look up the meaning folks ) ?!
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell
The militant LGBT lobby want to say 2 + 2 = 5 , by changing the meaning of 4 to make it 5 & to make marriage something that can exist between two people of the same sex despite it being naturally impossible .Disagree and you are a ‘thought’ criminal(homophobic) and against Orwellian ‘equal’-'marriage’ .
As the papist church describes the loving sexual expression of a mongamous gay relationship as “intrinsically disordered”, every ounce of the vitriol is deserved. I wish there were more of it.
wrong again – homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” not any loving expression .
Spooning baked beans into your armpit and calling this ‘eating’ or ‘equal-eating’ is just as “intrinsically disordered”.
It was indeed a free vote. But gay marriage was also the explicit manifesto commitment of the liberal democrats at the last election. Ms Teather campaigned and won her seat on that manifesto. She has now chosen to ignore the commitment to her own party in favour of an adherence to a hostile foreign power (the Vatican). I am sure the many gay people in her constuency, their friends and families will bear that in mind at the next election.
As a constituent, I found this deeply disappointing. Not all Roman Catholics saw it like this: see for example
Read her comments as I was very interested to hear her thoughts on her decision as she always comes across as a thoughtful legislator who looks at the complex nuances of issues than the screaming headlines.
And then read the replies here which seem sadly based on screaming headlines than complex nuances.
“The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has mostly centred on rights. But this isn’t the only liberal philosophical perspective on the legislation. The more I considered this bill the more I was unsure about the state’s role….In this case, the state is regulating love and commitment alone, between consenting adults, without purpose to anything else. That feels curious to me, as I would normally consider that very much a private matter”.
This is her core point: It gives no new LGBTQ rights v. more state directing Love.
Most (all?) have seen red & ignored that point, with a few intemperate words flung like ‘Bitch’.
PS LibDems had highest % big party vote ‘For’, anyway.
What the feck is a catholic doing in the LibDems? kick the bitch out! Only people willing to live in the real world should be alowed in politics.
After so much work for the LGBT community, why does she seem to think that gay people do not want children? What a bizarre justification…
Of course perverts and cowards will want to vilify those who stand up for chastity, self control and normalcy.
Homosexuality offends the organic patriarchal values of the Volk and its very survival. Heterosexual marriage is sanctified BECAUSE it represents procreation and therefore the survival of the tribe.
In marriage of man and woman, the free people – free that is from the corruption of States – perceive their God; the microcosm of the Volk! The child born from this union has the potential to be the Übermensch.
Marriage can never celebrate the sterile Bitch Sensuality. Marriage is the altar upon which the Übermensch – the self-overcomer – may be the fruit of the shared suffering of man and woman!