Reader comments · Tory Business Minister Michael Fallon: I was wrong to vote against equal marriage — but the Tories now have to unite · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory Business Minister Michael Fallon: I was wrong to vote against equal marriage — but the Tories now have to unite

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That There Other David 7 Feb 2013, 11:56am

    We’ll see which way Mr Fallon votes at second reading. This may be a good sign that the majority for the bill could increase in the next vote, making it harder for the Lords not to push it through quickly.

    Good to see that some politicians can still admit they’re wrong though, even if it is a couple of days later than needed.

    1. Paula Thomas 7 Feb 2013, 12:17pm

      That was second reading on Tuesday. First reading is a formality with no vote and usually takes place the day before the bill is published.

      He will have an opportunity to vote for it at third reading but that is usually nodded through.

      1. That There Other David 7 Feb 2013, 12:27pm

        Thanks for the correction :-)

  2. bobbleobble 7 Feb 2013, 11:57am

    This is the attitude that I hope a lot of the no voters take. It’s got through its second reading, there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t get through a third, now it’s time to work with the government to make sure that what goes to the Lords is the best it can be.

    Sadly I suspect that a lot of the Tory, DUP and Labour noes will simply try to wreck the bill in committee since they didn’t manage to stop it democratically in the House. They won’t win.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Feb 2013, 1:06pm

      Agree with that. The Lords would be extremely foolish to delay it considering that the bill passed by a large majority, more than I expected it to. I thought it would have been a close vote but it wasn’t, exceeded everyone’s expectations I think. I can’t imagine any of them who voted no will relish the idea of being on the wrong side of history to be forever tarnished as the nasty bigots. In light of the majority in the Commons, they should be pragmatic about it and just vote yes, get it over and done with so it won’t be a major election issue in 2015, the last thing they need. If anything, delaying it would probably guarantee a huge defeat for the Tory party at the next election. I can’t imagine the opposition really want their party to go down in flames over this issue with the reality of a Labour government in power for perhaps 10 years or more. No party likes to be isolated and consigned to the long grass indefinitely, least of all the Tories.

  3. Both these MP’s are trying to wriggle out of the consequences of their votes against- They have done the bidding of the RC Church-but are now trying to backtrack and pretend they “shouldn’t have done it” or “it was a mistake”

    Who is going to be next I wonder? That Teather woman I expect.

    “Oooh- I realise I have made a mistake in voting against equal marriage- Really I shouldn’t have done it” But when it actually came to the wire- she did the Pope’s bidding- like all these wriggling little weasels!!

  4. Dave North 7 Feb 2013, 12:14pm

    In other words, “I wish to appease Cameron as I am in fear of my job.”

  5. I heard the full interview. I don’t think he meant that he was wrong to vote against.

    He was saying that he accepted that he had lost the vote and the argument, and there was no point in continuing to try to block it.

    1. Well – pragmatic at least, and it’s something that he recognises it now needs to go ahead.

      1. However the fact remains that he is a bigot and we must make sure that at the next election we vote for a candidate who supports equal civil rights for all.

    2. The article comes across as a bit confused and ambiguous as to what he actually said – I suspect your reading is correct. The impression I get from the vague language quoted is that he thought he was ‘wrong’ about the amount of Parliamentary support the measure actually got.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Feb 2013, 12:53pm

        Exactly my take after hearing the full interview. A lot of them who voted no may just unit regardless, some may imply that they may have been wrong voting no just to save face so they won’t come across as being so isolated against the majority who voted yes. Either way, I won’t ever forgive them for voting no and pandering to bigotry, much of it religion based. Just because they claim the majority of their constituents wanted a no vote doesn’t necessarily mean they are the majority view. There has been a lot of apathy and complacency among some supporters who never bothered to contact their MPs in the first place. Religious nutters most definitely are a minority but they are more motivated to voice their opposition than some who claim to be in support of equal marriage.

    3. I agree. I also heard the full interview. There has obviously been some politicking in the no votes. They are indicating to their voters in these constituenies that they voted against it on this occasion to appease them. If they vote for at Third reading they can say ‘ It was inevitable, it was going to happen anyway and we must unite behind the party.’

      This man was my MP once – I have to say I think he has mellowed!!

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Feb 2013, 12:58pm

        Interesting point you raised there. Let’s hope that is the case. I think they underestimated the size of the majority voting yes. 225 is a very significant majority and one that should be taken very seriously by the opposition at the 3rd and final reading and vote, very seriously indeed. The 225 is a direct result of the majority of the British public in support. It’s the job of Parliament to carry out the wishes of the people. I only hope many in the Lords will give careful consideration to not rejecting it. It’s going to happen with or without them if the Parliament Act is going to be invoked.

  6. Michael Fallon is a bigot who deserves to be booted out at the next election.

    He is an utter disgrace who deserves contempt for his bigotry.

    Cameron must punish him by ensuring his career in politics is finished.

    Fallon is not suitable for public life thanks to his bigotry.

    If Fallon thinks he’s going to get away with this he is very much mistaken.

  7. How cynical is that?! Now he and his fellow bigots have been shown up for what they are, he back-pedals furiously for fear of losing his ministerial position. Despicable.

  8. I want to see Fallon demoted at the next cabinet reshuffle.

    His bigotry renders him unsuitable for ministerial office.

  9. I really don’t mind. The more MPs who vote in our favour the better and if their number is swelled by former naysayers then all to the good.

  10. Cardinal Capone 7 Feb 2013, 1:51pm

    It could be difficult for them to unite if, as one poster on the CI FB page seems to suggest, he might be a Fabian/Marxist:

    “Seeker Mig – The mandate for Gay Marriage is done through the EU and they are not interested in gay rights only to suit their socialism and Marxist ideas would not surprise me if Cameron is a Fabian as they are ran on the communist manifesto.”

    An occasional look at the reader posts can be entertaining, if a little stunning in their ignorance.

  11. One of the things that found so amusing about the second reading was all of the MPs who were pretty much saying “We want our discrimination to be free from discrimination”, “How dare you call me a bigot for discriminating against people!” and “It’s wrong to discriminate against people who discriminate”.

    One thing I found shocking was the amount of out in the open religious arguments. Since when is The UK a theocracy?

    Hopefully Fallon will vote correctly in the future…

    1. Oh dear trying to press Like on Tablet set off the Don ‘t Like button by mistake. I am really sorry, Chris, Laurie x

  12. Frank Boulton 7 Feb 2013, 2:17pm

    It’s great that he’s declared himself in favour of gay marriage but his reasons for it aren’t exactly impressive. The ethics that support same-sex marriage are the equality that it recognises and the discrimination that it reduces. What the majority wants is not necessarily right. A majority voted for the Holocaust and Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. He just wants to be in the right place when history judges him.

  13. Looks pretty cynical to me. Change of mind shortly after the vote. Its oats though he didn’t have time before the vote tobe this thoughts sorted.

  14. Janet Lameck 7 Feb 2013, 4:10pm

    Remember that in the next election when you Tories GO DOWN in flames!
    Don’t vote party line, constituentys want.

  15. “I voted against because I think if you’re going to redefine marriage, one of the central institutions of our society, you probably need to do so on the basis of a lot more consultation for that change than I thought existed at the moment.”

    No, you voted against it because you’re an old bigot.

  16. He has admitted that he is “wrong” on the basis that he is in the minority. He stil justifies his bigoted and false reasoning for the “no” vote in the first place. He hasn’t changed at all

  17. theotherone 8 Feb 2013, 12:55am

    i offer a hand of friendship to fallon – admitting your wrong is a hard thing to do.

  18. de Villiers 8 Feb 2013, 9:21am

    Democracy is about accepting the decisions taken by democratic assemblies and Parliaments. This Minister accepts that his arguments lost, that his side was defeated and that this represents the democratic will.

    It is good, first, that one can see democracy in action – that the losers accept the rules of the system. Second, that this has been secured by a Parliament rather than a court means that the losers cannot say that this measure has been ‘forced’ upon them by undemocratic and unelected judges.

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.