Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

MPs vote 400 to 175 to pass same-sex marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Now just to convince the lords…

    1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:19pm

      Don’t get ahead of yourself! Next comes the committee stage where the bill is debated in much more depth. Once it’s been dealt with there it will then come back to the house for votes on any amendments put forward and then once the bill has been cleaned up it will receive its final reading and there’ll be another vote. Then it’s off to the Lords!

    2. I wonder if this is something that will be passed pursuant to the Parliament Act. I quite doubt that the Lords will pass it as easily as it has passed in the Commons.

      1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:23pm

        It hasn’t actually passed the Commons yet, there’s still a way to go. But no I don’t think the Lords will pass it and the Tory lords will take comfort particularly in the fact that more Tory MPs voted against than in favour. The Parliament Act will almost certainly need to be invoked.

        1. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:36pm

          I sincerely hope not. That just defeats democracy.
          We need to have a clear and certain win, otherwise it will just be a pyrrhic victory and we will have that fact held against us forever and a day.

          They did it on fox hunting and it was the single worst thing Blair did in his entire term of office.

          1. unelected “lords” refusing to pass legislation that was passed by the ELECTED Commons itself “defeats democracy”.

          2. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:43pm

            They also did it on equalising the age of consent and I haven’t heard a peep about it, have you? The Parliament Act is part of our democracy and has been since 1911 so how you can defeat democracy by exercising it I’m not sure. Plus I don’t think it matters to gay people who want to marry how it was passed, just that it was.

            Also are you going to accept being held hostage to a group of unelected elderly folk? You want us to let this drop until some unknown point in future when the Lords deigns to pass it?

          3. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:48pm

            That may be true, but when there is a landslide majority it can enable governments to steamroller whatever they want through. That is why the Lords acts as something of a handbrake. and anyhow, there are only 20% of unelected peers, so that is still woefully insufficient to bring about a reversal.

          4. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:50pm

            I would rather bow to the experience of “unelected elderly folk” than I would a bunch of wet behind the ears career politicians that have brown bagged themselves into positions of power instead of simply been given the post.

          5. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:51pm

            I don’t understand what you mean, all peers are unelected. The Lords is a revising chamber only, it is not entitled to reject a bill permanently but when it chooses to ignore that rule it become necessary to utilise the parliamentary mechanism specifically designed to circumvent them when they overstep their role.

          6. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:57pm

            So Spanner you’re seriously saying that if the Lords won’t pass the bill that it should just die? Despite the Commons voting overwhelmingly in favour and despite the availability of a mechanism to get it through over what are bound to be vexatious attempts to scupper the bill in the upper chamber? Is that your position? Because if it is then it stinks.

          7. Hodge Podge 5 Feb 2013, 9:31pm

            I agreed with all of that except the fox hunting bit.

        2. barriejohn 5 Feb 2013, 7:51pm

          But what happened to the “two hundred Conservative MPs” who were going to vote against this? (I agree that it might be rejected by the Lords in any case!)

          1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Feb 2013, 8:28pm

            Peter Tatchell seems to think the Lords will pass it. They may well do just that. 400 MPs representing the opinions of the British public who overwhelmingly favour equal marriage in poll after poll, the highest one at 73% by IPSOS Mori in December 2012 will be food for thought when it comes for a third and final reading in spite of the opposition. Maria Miller has not ruled out the Parliament Act so there would be no point in rejecting it. All it means is a delay but eventually it will have to pass whether they like it or not.

          2. barriejohn 5 Feb 2013, 10:59pm

            That’s interesting, but the Lords can be very stubborn, and like to display their “independence” at times. The polls. however, are right, and most people aren’t really bothered about this. I couldn’t help but notice that arch homophobe Nigel Farage, despite all that he and his cronies have been saying recently, has decided that he WON’T be putting himself forward in the forthcoming Eastleigh byelection. I wonder why that would be?

      2. Dave Page 5 Feb 2013, 7:24pm

        It’d be hard to pass it with the Parliament Act since it wasn’t in any manifesto (except the teeny document the Tories sneaked it in without any of their MPs knowing, after the polls had already opened).

        1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:29pm

          There is no link between the Parliament Act and manifestos. This is a lie that has been bandied about by those in opposition to same sex marriage. Labour used the Parliament Act to get the equal age of consent through and it wasn’t in their manifesto either.

        2. It doesn’t need to be in a manifesto for the Parliament Act to be invoked. Nor does it need to be in the Queen’s Speech.

          The House of Commons can invoke the Parliament Act whenever it wants. All this talk of it needing to be in a manifesto is pie-in-the-sky mythology.

          1. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:37pm

            It’s still crap politics.

          2. I don’t think it’s crap politics either; if it is passed by virute of the Parliament Act or with the advice of the lords, I don’t really mind.

            The justification for the Parliament Act is that the Commons is, as an elected chamber, superior to the Lords. As that is the case, I don’t see it as any less democratic being passed under the Parlaiment Act. One could even perhaps say that it’s *more* democratic since the HL is completely unelected.

          3. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:44pm

            So what would you have us do then? Put it off until the Lords decides it’s going to vote in favour? Be held hostage by 400 odd old fogies with no democratic legitimacy? Are you prepared to wait indefinitely for this to pass because I’m not.

          4. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:53pm

            @Tom: Hello! Mr Bliar and his Liebour party put pay to that. The House of Lords is now 80% elected Peers.

          5. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 8:00pm

            Spanner what are you talking about? Blair removed most of the hereditary peers only. All peers are still unelected and are largely appointed apparatchiks. You need to read up on our constitution. No peer is elected apart from when a hereditary who is still allowed to sit in the Lords dies without issue and a vote is held amongst the other hereditaries to replace them.

        3. @ Dave Page

          WRONG !

          The Telegraph reported on “A Contract for Equalities” on 4 May 2010.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7673224/Gay-couples-could-be-allowed-to-marry-under-Tory-election-plans.html

          The general election was held on 6 May 2010.

          1. GulliverUK 5 Feb 2013, 9:22pm

            Found one before that, on 3rd May 2010

            “General Election 2010: Conservatives may reclassify gay civil partnership as marriage ”

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7673249/General-Election-2010-Conservatives-may-reclassify-gay-civil-partnership-as-marriage.html

            How are they claiming they didn’t know – The Telegraph is practically the Tory Morning News – read by all Tories.

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Feb 2013, 8:39pm

        It probably will have a less easier time in the Lords but just because the Tories have more of their party sitting there doesn’t mean they alone control what gets passed. Lords reform is necessary. It should be divided equally with no party having any majority to make it fairer and ideally elected.

  2. Good result. The opposing argument was weak – as demonstrated by the DUP dinosaurs with their fire and brimstone.

  3. Fantastic news – the hatred displayed by some NO’s is offensive – but we can now get married I’m so pleased

    1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:20pm

      You’re jumping the gun too! There’s still miles to go! If this is a marathon we’ve just run the first 5 miles or so.

      1. Yes, but at least we’ve started the race, so let’s be positive for one day

  4. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:19pm

    225 majority is not bad at all! I suspect the final vote on the bill might be closer but this is a great first step.

  5. Yes about time 2

  6. Robert (Kettering) 5 Feb 2013, 7:20pm

    Fantastic news and what a good majority as well. Will make it more difficult for the UNELECTED Lords to turn it down without good reason.

    1. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:40pm

      There are only a handful of them left.
      Everybody else paid bloody good money for a seat in that house.

  7. tony out n proud 5 Feb 2013, 7:20pm

    would be interesting if the 175 names were published in the press tomorrow how many would retain seat!!!!

    1. I would love to see that list, have been watching the debate for the past 3hrs

      1. according to the “daily echo”,those voting against ,on the south coast,inc.caroline noakes(romsey),julian lewis(new forest),steve brine(winchester),andrew turner(isle of wight) and fred dinages daughter,caroline dinage(Gosport).the southampton labour mp`s voted for it!

      2. gingerfuzzball 5 Feb 2013, 11:15pm

        A full list of who voted and how is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694

        1. Excellent – thank you!

  8. How long does this process last?

    1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:25pm

      That depends on the result of the second vote. If they vote in favour of the programme motion then it’ll be much shorter if not then it could be quite a substantial amount of time. I don’t think the actual timetable has been laid out yet though. I suspect all things going well it should be off to the Lords before they break for Summer.

    2. Dave Page 5 Feb 2013, 7:27pm

      http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/marriagesamesexcouplesbill.html has the details but no future dates yet – the Commons have not yet voted on the timetable for debate!

      It’ll be several months to get it through every stage, and that’s if the Lords don’t reject it.

  9. GulliverUK 5 Feb 2013, 7:26pm

    More YES votes than expected, but also a large number of NOs – 175 is a very disturbing number. Some Tories, and especially the DUP, were far more bigoted than I have hoped for. The DUP were practically rabid. That 175 proved Cameron’s mission to moderise the party still has an incredibly long way to go – so still a choice for most of us between Labour and LibDems – those are fine for me, but some others would have wanted the choice to vote Tory – I’d say that’s off the cards because of that 175. Can’t see how you could stomach voting for a party which has about 160 people who hate gays.

    1. Hang on here, let’s be fair to the Tory MPs who voted for SSM.

      My local MP is Nick Gibb. Despite lots of letters and emails to him objecting to his stance of supporting the bill, he stood up for what he believes is right and voted in favour.

      I’ll be voting Nick Gibb in the next election, provided I’m still alive and he’s up as our MP.

      Sir Peter Bottomley – Worthing, came out in our favour and given the Tory make up of Worthing this was a real shock.

      And of course Nick Herbert from Arundel is gay and in a CP and obviously voted in our favour and made a great speech.

      I have never voted Tory in my life, but I’ll vote for Nick Gibb next time round.

      Give credit where credit is due, please.

      X

      1. GulliverUK 5 Feb 2013, 9:04pm

        Paul AP,
        Yes, many Tories spoke very passionately and well in support, but 175 against in total, and 139 Tories voted against — that means the government could decide to make some concessions, due to the sheer level of NO votes from its own party – which is not great news. Ben made the same point on LBC I believe. It’s also far too many homophobes in the party. Once this passes I hope we won’t need much more legislation or protections, but if we ever did we could expect similar opposition. For example, if we needed legislation to help protect young people at school, or to get them sexual health advice before 16, we’d be screwed. And with that many homophobes how do we know they wouldn’t try another Section 28 in some obscure way, like Clause 28 in the Education bill.

        I had just hoped many of those who voted against would abstain instead. :( But glad it passed with 225 majority.

        1. With that many homophobes they could try another clause 28, but with only half their party still willing to vote for homophobia, they’d need to have won just about every single seat in the country for the bigots to be able to get it through!

    2. That There Other David 5 Feb 2013, 7:34pm

      Ironic that the DUP have so much in common with the Vatican isn’t it?

      1. Same clowns, different circus.

      2. barriejohn 5 Feb 2013, 8:04pm

        I’ve always said that. Ian Paisley even founded his own denomination where everyone had to do as HE said. You can be sure that any organization with the word “democratic” in its name probably isn’t!

    3. DivusAntinous 5 Feb 2013, 9:11pm

      I’ll vote Tory, not for those despicable swine but for Cameron.

      It is great though, 20 years ago this would have been unthinkable, almost half of the Tories in Parliament voting in favour of same sex marriage. The loathsome backward sort of Tories are on the way out I think, I don’t believe we’ll ever have anything like the American Republicans.

  10. There’ll always be an England, and England shall be FREE and EQUAL and JUST and FAIR and FABULOUS!

    Congratulations and admiration from the USA!

    1. That There Other David 5 Feb 2013, 7:31pm

      and Wales….but thanks :-D

      1. Yes, and Wales too! I knew that it was England and Wales but I’m not quite as familiar with Welsh patriotic songs that I could adapt. :)

  11. Magnificent majority in favour…Now – which b@st@rds voted no?…..

  12. it’s a great start, lets hope it passes any further tests, scrutiny, changes and votes!

  13. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:34pm

    They’ve approved the programme motion which means a shorter passage through the Commons.

  14. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:34pm

    Update:
    499 to 55

    Walk in the park.

    1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:35pm

      That was just the timetable motion. It was a whipped vote hence the smaller no vote.

      1. Spanner1960 5 Feb 2013, 7:38pm

        I thought this was an open vote with no whips.

        1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:47pm

          The marriage vote itself was but the vote on the timetable was whipped.

  15. Sean Johansen 5 Feb 2013, 7:34pm

    Why were the DUP voting – am I wrong in thinking this was for equal marriage in only England and Wales. I thought Scotland and N.Ireland had this devolved.

    1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:38pm

      Marriage is a devolved issue but there are parts of the bill which will affect all people in the UK and also there’s nothing to prevent Northern Irish or Scottish MPs voting on matters affecting England and Wales so we’ve had to put up with the DUP dinosaurs. 4 of them spoke in this debate and I needed a shower after each.

    2. That There Other David 5 Feb 2013, 7:39pm

      Yep, but unlike the SNP the DUP aren’t honourable people in the slightest.

      1. bobbleobble 5 Feb 2013, 7:48pm

        Well to be fair a large number of Scottish Labour and Lib Dem MPs will have voted in favour too. And the Alliance lady whose name I’ve forgotten (Naomi Long?) and Mark Durkan of the SDLP so we’ve had support from devolved areas too.

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Feb 2013, 7:45pm

    Fantastic. I didn’t even expect 400, maybe 350. Great news.

  17. barriejohn 5 Feb 2013, 7:45pm

    There is going to be incredible pressure on the Lords to reject this. However, all the prayers seem to have been mightily ineffective so far:

    http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/2013feb02gaym/

    Just have a look at the comments!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Feb 2013, 8:16pm

      I think it’s uncumbent on all of us to start a letter writing campaign to the Lords, send them in droves because I know the C4M hate group are already mobilised.

      Still, I’m gloating at all that wasted money C4M and the Roman cult spent on useless leaflet and post card campaigns and advertisements, money badly spent. Dr. Sharon James, Colin Hart, Anne Widdecombe will need mega-doses of anti-depressants. They were all so confident they’d win and this vote today, huge as it is, has really blown their argument out of the water that the majority of the British public were against. Revenge is sweet! An truly historic day in Parliament in years. Makes me proud to be British.

      1. roderious 5 Feb 2013, 8:38pm

        A letter writing campaign will have no effect on the noble lords, they are unelected and never have to face the voters. They don’t care what the plebs think.

  18. Excellent news! I was listening to the antis who were interviewed by the BBC and, yet again, not one of them raised a single valid reason against EM. They’ve lost the argument simply because they haven’t got one against this.

    The Bill is fair to LGBT people, fair to religions who wish to marry us – and fair to those religions who don’t. So what reasons could there be to oppose it other than prejudice or ignorance?

    1. I listened to some of the debate this afternoon Iris and was pleasantly surprised by some of the quality of the arguments on both sides, despite my strong views. I know how pleased you are with this outcome and if it eventually does become law I will still be gracious toward those who see things differently.

      I reply here becoz you will recall the last time we exchanged comments it was about the death of our friend Stu. Coincidentally, during the debate I managed an exchange with the minister who took his funeral. I hope I may find out more of what happened and to pass on condolences to those close to him. I know you shared my sadness and would be interested to know.

      1. @ JohnB

        Very shocked and saddened to hear of the death of Stu. Having been such a prolific poster, I’d often wondered why his comments disappeared so suddenly. I knew he’d been on sick leave for a while, but I thought he was expecting to return to work fairly soon, so I imagined perhaps he was back in the public sector and restricted from posting, at least not under the same name.

        How sad that he didn’t live to see the splendid HoC voting figures tonight.

        It would be nice if you or someone could post a news item / obituary in the main section of PN. There must be many people like myself who didn’t know him personally but enjoyed reading his comments and upvoting them.

        RIP Stu.

        1. My sentiments exactly Gerry. I did email PN a couple of months back when I learned the news. I would be happy to do an obituary but it may not be appropriate coming from me, especially since me and Stu were sometimes opposed on issues like what is being discussed in this thread.

          But my grief is nevertheless real. Stu was a courteous and sensitive man who always looked to argue his passion for social justice based on facts. I feel I’ve lost a friend. If you were to Google something like “Stuart Ross Durham” you will get more info but not much. Now I am in contact with the minister who took his funeral I may learn more – if I do I will try another email to PN, who I feel should say something, given Stu was a faithful and prolific contributor.

          1. @ JohnB

            Many thanks for the info. The newspaper announcement makes it sadder still.

            It definitely needs a mention in PN. I don’t think it would be any problem if you were to contribute, I’m sure it would be something suitably dignified.

            I hesitate to use that ghastly word ‘closure’ but it really just doesn’t seem right for such a regular contributor to disappear, not just from PN but life itself, and not have some explanation and recognition here on the PN site. (Sorry if that’s not very eloquent, but it’s far, far too late to think of anything better.)

            Maybe PN could re-run the Comment article he wrote sometime last year or so, and update it accordingly ?

          2. @Gerry

            Absolutely – what you say is spot on …. I am also replying to Iris. Iris and Stu I regard particularly as friends on PN and what I say to her is pertinent here.

            Now I have made contact with people close to Stu, I feel I am closer to knowing the truth and as you put it – gaining closure. I suspect there are some sensitive issues still to get through and when I have that will be the time to say something more.

            I was disappointed that PN did not reply to my email but I will try again when the picture is a bit clearer. Becoz of the semi-anonymous nature of PN comments etc., it is difficult to just make statements other than use the opportunity in comments. If PN allows an obituary or tribute or news post, this imo will be entirely appropriate.

      2. Thank you, JohnB. Yes, I’d like to know (if that was OK with his family). I still think about Stu – he was a kind, conscientious and decent man. Knowing what happened won’t change anything but I think it does help a bit – to understand and fill that gap.

        Please update us if you find out anything further. I’d be really grateful.

        Yes, I’m very pleased with this outcome. As I said above, I believe that this Bill is fair to all and respects all beliefs.

        1. @Iris

          My sentiments exactly re. Stu. Precisely because I need to talk to his family, Besides wanting to pass on my condolences and that of his friends on PN I would like to know what happened but only of course if the family wish to share. I am hanging fire saying much more until then but you see in my reply to Gerry that is something that needs to happen.

          Take care :-)

        2. Thanks, JohnB. I read what you wrote to Gerry. I too would like to see something on Pink News. I don’t see a problem with you writing it. Stu often conversed with you and I know he appreciated your courtesy even when you did disagree. If you’re the one with the initial indirect contact with his family then it makes sense that you write it too, if they’re OK with it (and I would quite understand if they didn’t want to give details or if things were still too raw). Anyone who wanted to write something about Stu could then add their comment in the comment box. Stu was a big part of PN and I’m sure lots of people would like a chance to leave a comment.

          Best wishes to you as always. :)

          1. Thanks for your kind and helpful thoughts Iris.

            I did email Pink News today by way of sounding them out and am waiting upon their response (sadly last time they did not reply). Rest assured, I will pursue this angle.

            Meanwhile, I am waiting a response also from the minister who conducted Stu’s funeral. This is key as it will be a way in to communicate with Stu’s parents. As you rightly discern, things are raw and sensitive with his family I believe but it will be helpful to tie a couple of loose ends before proceeding much further.

            In a sense the people or at least some who frequent PN can be likened to part of Stu’s extended family, and it is right they know and can pay their own tribute. I’ll do my best and do please bear with me.

          2. I hope PN does reply to you. Maybe they’re nervous about breaching the privacy of his family. I was so shocked to hear about Stu from you last year. I’d assumed he’d just stopped posting here after some bullying comments from trolls, or had returned to work and was too busy. Such sad, sad news…

            Thank you for all you’re doing regarding this.

          3. Good news – I have just responded to an offer from PN (Scott / Benjamin) to provide an obituary. I said I will be happy to do so but first I need to communicate with Stu’s parents. I am hoping the minister intermediary will help to effect this. Will keep you posted.

            As for feeling sad, that is how I feel too – but also I feel at peace as well – what no-one can take away is what Stu gave to us and many others also – let’s be grateful and rejoice in that.

          4. @ JohnB @ Iris

            Glad to hear that in due course there’s likely to be an obituary, subject of course to Stu’s family’s wishes etc.

            I hope there will also be an opportunity for PN readers to add their (moderated) appreciations; there needs to be a fitting tribute for someone who was so closely involved with the site.

            Losing Stu at only 38 puts things into perspective; it shows just how fragile life is and how much there is to be grateful for.

          5. Good news, JohnB. Thank you for updating us. If his parents and family are OK with it and if they see what’s written beforehand, I think an obituary on PN would be very good. Stu deserves some kind of recognition here, I feel.

            Gerry, you’re so right. Life is very fragile and very short. All we can do is try to live each day the best way we can and help and support each other when needed.

  19. Liam the God 5 Feb 2013, 7:54pm

    Now can we do something about their selling off the NHS?

    1. Bit behind the times, Liam. Labour was actively flogging the NHS off. The current lot are just subcontracting the workload – the NHS as a whole is probably safer now than before!

  20. The debate was also very good, some really good four minute speeches, just had it on in the background.

  21. PeterinSydney 5 Feb 2013, 8:12pm

    Well done UK, now Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott in Australia, how about matching your British counterparts and give equality a go in Australia.

  22. Pavlos Prince of Greece 5 Feb 2013, 8:14pm

    Symbolic bridge of same-sex marriage between Westminster in London and Palais de Bourbon in Paris. Very nice.

  23. I think a bit of perspective is called for when considering the number of revolting Tories. Remember, the whole party used to be as nasty as they are. David Cameron is doing a great job in cleaning up his party’s act, but as today’s vote shows it is clearly far from complete. Still, I commend his efforts and thank him sincerely for pursuing marriage equality in the way he has. This vote is a tremendous result for his vision and personal integrity.

  24. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Feb 2013, 8:19pm

    To think, all of the praying by C4M, the CoE and Roman cult went unanswered so I suppose their God approved of what happened today in Parliament. Cameron deserves an award for sticking his neck out in the face of rabid opposition in his party. He pressed on and never yielded to bigotry. Well done, Prime Minister and thank you, and thank you to every straight man and woman who supported us and of course all those brave and courageous MPs.

    We should all send them a congratulatory letter of gratitude for a job well done.

    1. Have just emailed thanks to Wollaston, Gilbert, and Lammy, though there are others too who ought to be thanked! Amazing day, wasn’t it!

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Feb 2013, 9:34pm

        Yes indeed, Eddy, a truly historic day. What a marvellous Valentine’s Day gift for all of us. I’m in the midst of writing to several MPs to congratulate and thank them, some not in my constituency. I will also send a letter of thanks to the three party leaders. I hope StonewallUK considers the PM for an award, so richly deserved. I am exuberant, overjoyed and proud of our great country and democracy.

        1. Good for you, Robert, for taking the time to dish out the affirmation to all those people and bodies who now deserve it.

          Those hetero couples who were part of Tatchell’s campaign deserve our thanks too, I think. They gave the issue massive publicity and validity.

    2. roderious 5 Feb 2013, 8:44pm

      The pro equality Christians kept a low profile and organised a day or prayer. The anti equality Christians did very little praying but organised a well funded media blitz, letter writing and public lobbying campaign.

      That either means that the pro equality Christians were reluctant to match their prayers with deeds or that the anti equality ones showed a sinful lack of faith in the power of prayer.

  25. What an extraordinary afternoon. Absolutely stunning speeches from Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr. David Lammy, Mr. Stephen Gilbert, and others.

    And it’s clear there are two areas of the UK that LGBTs should steer clear of: Northern Ireland and the south coast of England (excluding the wonderful western south coast)!

    1. barriejohn 5 Feb 2013, 9:23pm

      My own MP here in the New Forest – Desmond Swayne – is a “committed Christian” who supports the measure, despite earlier opposition to civil partnerships, and as a result he has been subjected to personal abuse and a campaign organized by local clergyman and the unbelievably religious local paper (Lymington Times and New Milton Advertiser) of which the editor is a complete Christian nutter. Full marks to him for standing his ground on a matter of principle, and arguing his case convincingly, though I doubt that his seat will be in any danger in this area!

      1. barriejohn 5 Feb 2013, 9:26pm

        That should read “local clergymen” – there were five of them!

    2. @ Eddy

      That’s unfair on Brighton, Caroline Lucas and Simon Kirby !

      1. True! Sorry! Caroline made a number of strong speeches at the start of the proceeedings.

  26. And the sky hasn’t fallen on our heads. YAY!! A smashing result. I’m so pleased.

  27. I just wrote a rather gushy letter to my MP Lynne Featherstone to thank her. Do show support f your MPs voted for equality.
    I was particularly touched by the chap who said he had intended to abstain but, on hearing the arguments, voted yes.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Feb 2013, 9:43pm

      I agree, Lynne deserves a letter from all of us. Am in the middle of doing just that and several others. I urge everyone to thank David Cameron regardless of political affiliation. He stuck his neck out in the face of fierce opposition in his party. That took courage and integrity. Do thank him.

  28. Please pink news make a name and shame list of the mps who voted against equality and are pro hate and pro apartheid . These homophobic, evil bigots need to be exposed .

    1. Who knows. It’s not over yet in the parliamentary process of the bill. They may redeem themselves in the later votes!

      (probably not, but hey…)

  29. Garrd Thennson 5 Feb 2013, 9:05pm

    The angst from the anti-gay marriage lobby on the BBC comments section is childish. I think these people need to go into their churches and pray to their god to intervene in the whole matter.

    Though I think these people will find god rather hands off on the whole issue. Nothing new there.

    It must be amazing to have a silent all powerful sky friend to use as a weapon for bigotry and illogical reasoning.

  30. according to the “Daily Echo”,those on the south coast voting against,inc.Caroline Noakes(Romsey),Julian Lewis(New Forest,Steve Brine(Winchester),Andrew Turner(Isle of wight)and Caroline Dinage(daughter of tv`s Fred,under Gosport).the two southampton Labour mp`svoted in favour!

  31. Hodge Podge 5 Feb 2013, 9:33pm

    Woot! Congratulations everybdy

  32. So pleased and remember the majority of straight people support you too. Congratulations, a great day for equality!

  33. To quote the BBC’s Nick Robinson – “The real reason for the anger directed at David Cameron is that many Conservatives have realised that they and their attitudes are the dragon their leader has decided to slay.”

  34. Incredible

    A big thanks to the Labour Party and the Lib Dems (and a minority of Tories) for this.

    We will have equality, and we also know that it’s too soon for the LGBT community to vote Tory again

  35. Name and shame the bigots who voted no.

    We must make sure that these people are not to advance in their political career – their bigotry deems them unsuitable to hold public office.

    1. I know one of them, Edward Leigh.. takes care of Lincolnshire/Gainsborough in the UK.. i wrote to him months ago and had his reply back that he would (and did) vote no because equality isn’t important in England. i wish i still had the letter he wrote back.

  36. Hello everyone. I’m gay student from Russia and I’m really happy that gay people can be happy somewhere in the world . And their government and parliament don’t call them rubbish.

  37. My three favourite moments in the debate. 1. Dimwit DUP MP David Simpson saying God created Adam and Steve by mistake 2. Nadine Dorries saying yhat without faithfulness marriage is meaningless (she slept with a married man) 3. Roger Gale standing up for traditional marriage (three times married – did he keep the match ball on his hat trick?

    1. I heard about (1) but not the others – what hypocrites!

  38. Seventy percent in favour. Woo! Landslide! About the same proportion as in the French vote was as I remember it. Pity the Coalition for Marriage wasted all that paper on hundreds of thousands of leaflets campaigning against this though, think of the trees!
    Of those who voted against 78% were Conservatives, though the Conservatives as a whole were split almost right down the middle it seems.
    In any case: Go equality!!!

  39. Widdershins 6 Feb 2013, 3:04am

    Congratulations from Canada … may the next step go smoothly – well as smooth as it can be when pollies are involved.

  40. This is just the second reading, there in still the Committee Stage, Report Stage and the Third Reading in the House of Commons!

    Then if passed the third reading, the same process in the House of Bigots (Lords)!

    If the bill fails in the House of Lords, then the Parliament Act 1912 – can immediately force Assent to the Bill!

    1. I believe there is however, a minimum time period to the Act, if the Lords vote no then the Commons cannot immediately push it through I believe, as it was part of my History course :P there is a maximum of 2 years available until the Lords have to give it up

  41. Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 6 Feb 2013, 9:19am

    Congratulations England!

    Light years ahead of Australia by a million years!

    What a joke Australia is now!

    New Zealand, France, Columbia are next!

    Columbia will have gay marriage by a Court order – sometime effective on July 2013!

    The US States of Illinois, Delaware and Minnesota will be next!

    Hawaii, New Jersey and the Rhode Island Senate – too many Dixiecrats, so gay marriage is not possible!

    In New Jersey has a fat, bigoted and stupid Republican Governor!

    Finland, Australia and Germany – Government in power is too bitterly bigoted and Conservative!

  42. BRAVO
    BRAVO
    BRAVO

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all