Reader comments · UK: Backbench Tories call for same-sex marriage referendum · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK: Backbench Tories call for same-sex marriage referendum

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why are these people obsessed with preventing equal marriage? Why don’t they do something more productive with their time rather than trying to continue discrimination against their fellow human beings?!

    1. Because it’s the easy option and they enjoy playing to the gallery.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 3:11pm

      Because their god is in the mix! They have a religious agenda and this halfwit believes he’s not homophobic.

    3. Because picking on other people distracts them from their own inadequacies.

  2. Sorry? I thought the matter had already been decided by our elected representatives? We KNOW old tory, grassroots bigots would not have forgiven their constuituency MPs for voting for equality. That’s why so many of them voted against. So, you’ve made your point and sucked up to the bigots. So why do we now need a refereddum on what is, in fact, such a pathetically unimportant issue? Just pass the legislation and let’s move on .. for god’s sake (pun intended).

  3. Fine, as long as we have a counter question on making divorce illegal!

    I am sure that they would not be so keen then would they?

  4. They can choose the 94th of Dectober, 3999 if they like. Their amendment stands no chance.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 4:30pm

      Right! Even Hollande of France rejected a referendum. This is going nowhere. Burrowes and Loughton are both deranged, shouldn’t even be in government since they insist on bringing religion into every equality issue. Let’s face it, their blatantly homophobic but deny it of course.

  5. Hateful pair – I wonder what their problem really is?
    The rants they have made to the committee would be comical if they weren’t so desperately hateful and trying to deny us basic human rights.
    If they win this I guarantee they will strip more of our hard fought for rights away.
    I really cannot understand why people hate LGBT people so much.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 3:51pm

      As I said before, religion is in the mix! Burrowes and Loughton I suspect are a pair of self-loathing closet cases of the O’Brien ilk, since they are the most vocal in opposition. I firmly believe in that old addage, “the ones who protest too much”, are the most suspect of all, some of them even hiding behind sham marriages, children or no children. Virtually every one of them who voted no on February 5th hold some religious belief. I only wish Iain Dale and Peter Tatchell had the courage to out some of them.

    2. “Show me a homophobe – I’ll show you a closet case”. And don’t give me that old c**p about ‘god’s word’. People use the bible to justify their own bigotry – or their own self-loathing. Fortunately, that breed of Tory (as are Daily Fail readers) are a dying breed. Such a disgrace that these MPs are so fearful of the backlash from their constituency parties that they will pander to any kind of hatred. Disgusting.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 5:16pm

        Have to agree with that. You know, even if there were a referendum and it passed anyway, Burrowes et al still would not be satisfied. Their next move would be to repeal it, not that it would happen. I hope Chris Bryant goes after him. I loved it when he alluded to Loughton’s homophobia during committee hearings but had to retract it. Both he and Burrowes hate the homophobic label, they become extremely defensive when it’s raised.

  6. GulliverUK 25 Mar 2013, 3:07pm

    Not going to happen.

    The committee can only suggest changes to the bill. Both have been trying to scupper the bill in committee, luckily they have been outvoted, or been forced to withdraw their amendments.

    The government isn’t going to put this to a referendum, so whilst it’s good to highlight their attempts to scupper the bill, their actions will fail. It just shows Loughton’s attempts to look balanced in the committee meetings, which were publically televised, were a thin veneer on a homophobic core. He voted against ALL equality measures;

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 3:20pm

      I watched all of the Committee hearings. All of their preposterous amendments were overwhelmingly defeated. Almost all of them had to with the rights of religious nutters in public service, the registar Ladele’s ilk to not be prosecuted if they violate the equalities laws or teachers being forced to teach about equal marriage. What both of them wanted was a blanket opt out for religious freaks similar to the quadruple lock. Thankfully, they didn’t make any headway and they won’t with this referendum nonsense. Burrowes actually thinks he’s not homophobic because like Loughton, supports civil partnerships. So transparent isn’t it? They must take us for fools as well as the majority of the British public who support equal marriage.

      How would he like a referendum to disestablish the CoE? He’d be the first to cry ‘abuse of religious freedom’. He’s a homophobic bigot through and through, just like fellow bigots Loughton and Shannon.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 3:45pm

      You’re right, Gulliver, it’s not going to happen, try as they might. They must be rather stupid to even think they have that much influence. Cameron won’t back down and neither will the 400 who voted yes. I think we should all bombard them with emails and remind them that they are and will remain homophobes. There’s no other way to describe them because that’s exactly what they are. Just because they now claim to support CPs, their m.o. to oppose equal marriage doesn’t work any more, especially given Burrowes’ track record on voting against equality.

      1. GulliverUK 25 Mar 2013, 3:59pm

        Loughton doesn’t support Civil Partnerships – he didn’t vote for them. What he did do was vote yes on the initial vote;
        then voted for a wrecking amendment which would have scuppered the whole bill. When that was thrown out he absented himself from the third reading. He did the same thing with this bill, voted against it, then absented himself from all the other votes (see the link) even though he had been there for the main vote.

        The way he was behaving in the televise committee meetings I thought he’d had a change of heart, or knew the game was up, and trying to downplay his homophobic attitude, but from the transcripts now it seems him and Burrows were up to no good all along. Their game-plan failed. Anyone like that now saying they support CPs is of no interest to me — we already have them, and no thanks to them. People with a genuine change of heart are welcome – but there’s nothing genuine about these clowns.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 5:24pm

          Gulliver, I never once thought Loughton would ever have a change of heart when he started bringing up religion at every opportunity, imitating Burrowes’ m.o. You could see they were working together but their amendments were blocked at every stage of the game, overwhelmingly in most cases. I loved it when Ben Cohen and James Walsh were giving evidence earlier on. Burrowes tried to get Ben to admit that he (Burrowes) was homophobic, but Ben didn’t play his game. Throughout the entire Committee hearings, both of them had been pushing for religious exemptions, no matter what. In his deluded mind, Burrowes produced another amendment during the final hearing after a long winded rant and actually believed everybody would “love” it as he intimated. It ended up being defeated resoundingly. It makes you wonder why the two of them ever imagined they’d have a chance at delaying or wrecking the bill. They were far outnumbered even by some of their own.

    3. I think this amendment is for the report stage prior to the third reading. They can add amendments for this stage, The committee stage passed without amendments.

      Tim Loughton has also put in an amendment for the report stage to allow straight CPs. Another tactic to delay the bill and get the support of Labour and the lib dems who are in favour of hetero CPs but not in support of delaying the bill.

  7. The Halcyon 25 Mar 2013, 3:09pm

    I’d support this measure – if on the same day they’d have a referendum on the continued presence in the House of Lords of the Lords Spiritual.

    After all, this is a highly, undemocratic situation where the Church of England gets 26 free votes in a body which is already of dubious selection and can impact upon legislation according to the teachings of some 2000 year old Hebrew soap-opera (as amended).

    1. Why not go further and have a referendum on whether or not we should have a wholly elected second chamber, as well as an electoral system only using proportional representation to elect members of each House? Surely these are much more national importance than same-sex marriage, and of greater interest to everyone in the country?

      1. I watch a lot of parliamentary debates and the ones in the Lords are of a far better quality than the ones in the Commons. They are at least some defence against the awful things this government is doing. I’m not sure how an elected second chamber would work as it could just result in perpetual deadlock, like in the US. I used to be in favour of abolishing the House of Lords before i started watching the proceedings.

  8. Spineless little sh*ts … they were elected and are more than handsomely paid to legislate, not pass the buck to the electorate!!!! Just WHAT are they afraid of??????????

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 3:38pm

      They know it’s going to pass into law.

  9. GulliverUK 25 Mar 2013, 3:30pm

    The latest document, “bill committee stage report”, published in the Commons Library on 19th March is here;
    (pdf at bottom of page)

    The deliberations from the 12th March are here;
    click on the (1) for html or (2) for a pdf copy. They’re near the top of the page, where it says “Last Event”

    You’ll see that most of the amendments proposed by these 3-4 loonies were defeated or they had to withdraw them. I feel we can have some trust and confidence in the majority of committee members.

    1. I don’t recall a single one of their amendments getting through.

      In fairness (not that I feel obliged to be fair, but) many amendments are often “probing” amendments, designed to elicit a reply to a minister and/or gauge the opinion of other members. They are usually not intended to be voted upon, and are therefore withdrawn. Yes, silly bloody idea but…

      1. These amendments are for the report stage not the committee stage which passed without any amendments. They’ve schedule 2 days for the report stage/third reading.

    2. Peter & Michael 25 Mar 2013, 5:23pm

      Yes, but this Bill has reached the Report stage before a Third reading of the Bill, can someone say when the Report stage will happen ?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 5:26pm

        Supposed to happen next month. It has to before it goes for a third and final debate and vote in the Commons because it heads to the Lords in May.

      2. The discussion part of the Report Stage is usually carried out on the same day as Third Reading. Third Reading generally follows immediately after the Report debate. Then it’s off to the Lords for its first reading there.

  10. They need something to knock on the door with that they feel some gusto about. Hoping that their constituents are like them, simple, backward & not in touch with how the country feels.
    It will be easier to get the fighting spirit in the number of Tory canvassers who must be terrified at the thought of knocking on doors, to people who are suffering at the expense of a chancellor who won’t admit he has got his policies wrong.
    They are making mischief, hoping for a headline in their local paper, showing the true blue Daily Mail reader that they are protecting the majority, doing their bit to keep the ‘backs to the wall’ joke up.
    I only hope, there is not a son or daughter, terrified to approach either one of them, to speak on matters of sexuality.
    I have my fingers crossed, they knock on my door. Oh yes bring them on.

  11. If I was an MP and this actually happened, I would make a point of standing up at every meeting and debate, and demand every last thing be resolved by national referendum.
    Every area of policy. No matter how trivial the matter, or how urgent the need for a resolution, or how intrusive it would be if it went ahead. As a form of protest, I would jam everything up with referendum requests.

  12. It’s a little suspicious that they are adopting the tactics of the religious right in America, in fact the same tactic they used in Prop 8 in California – a referendum to ban equal marriage at the same time as the Presidential election in 2008. I wonder what their connections are.

  13. It’s not going to happen. Cameron has already taken the heat for having a vote on the issue. The last thing he wants to have the whole fight all over again in a referendum. The vote passed. The issue is decided. Time for the Whips to have a chat with these gents.

  14. I suspect the Tories will have far more to worry about than a gay marriage referendum at the next election.

  15. If democracy doesn’t work, let’s opt for getting our own way by trying to incite tyranny by majority. In other words, Burrows and Loughton have failed miserably, with egg all over their faces, and they can’t stand it. Now both of them have gone all tantrum and squealing tears, and seek to overrule the very parliamentary democracy they are working for.

  16. GulliverUK 25 Mar 2013, 4:05pm

    After reading some articles about the GOP it occurred to me that they might not be after “our” vote so much as the youth vote. The GOP problem is there are plenty of young people who might vote GOP, but won’t because of their hostility towards people who are gay, harsh immigration rhetoric, and a piss-poor attitude to women. The Tories will have found the same issue, they can’t attract new young people to the Tory party because of these issues.

    Recently Cameron ordered a drive to embrace LGBT, immigrants and those from BME groups, and women. I’m not skeptical of Cameron’s motives, I do think he’s trying to do the right thing, make a name for himself in the history books, and attract more people to a modernised Tory party. On 3rd reading he absolutely has to get more Tory MPs to vote FOR this legislation tho.

  17. The rights of a minority should never be voted on by the majority. It’s ridiculous.
    Had women’s right to vote been put up for vote, they wouldn’t have it, either.
    The Conservatives were against womens’ rights back then as well.

  18. Good luck with that Burrowes and Loughton!


  19. What a pathetic, nasty and spiteful idea. What on earth is their problem? Why does EM affect them one jot? How about they get on with their own lives and stop meddling in other people’s?

  20. That would mean the hostility against us being whipped up by the press and commentators for the next 2 years!
    You see what happens- the “debate” over marriage easily slips into total homophobia- with newspapers like The Mail and The Telegraph constantly fanning the flames of prejudice!!!

    1. GulliverUK 25 Mar 2013, 5:30pm

      “That would mean the hostility against us being whipped up by the press and commentators for the next 2 years!”

      true, but it’ll also mean religion being bashed for the next 2 years too. How many more O’Brien’s will be exposed, how many more Tory MPs and their affairs outside marriage will come to light? It’ll be two years to investigate every one of those Tory bigots and watch their every move.

      I don’t think religion can withstand that sort of enmity .. but most of us who’ve waiting a lifetime for equal rights … can. As for the papers you mention – I think they’ve got the message, and can see which was this is going. At one point the Telegraph were doing up to 3 articles a day on this, almost all their articles have been very homophobic.

      The government want to get on with this, and get it out of the way, so it’ll be full steam ahead. Loughton was sacked from his ministerial post, so I don’t think he has any clout with ministers.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 7:04pm

        I was hoping Iain Dale and Peter Tatchell would out those MPs who voted no on February 5th. Since the O’Brien debacle, to me it makes even more sense now to just do it. O’Brien was the perfect excuse to out them considering the enormity of his anti-gay comments and vile rhetoric about equal marriage. Outing them would be more than justified in this case.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2013, 5:32pm

      Which is why Cameron won’t allow a referendum, rightly so. Burrowes and Loughton know it, they’re just playing to their bigoted religious freaks in their constituences, saving face. I daresay, Burrowes and Loughton have become emboldened by the demo in Paris yesterday to have made the announcement today. I’d like to see the look on their faces when it passes there on April 2nd. I’m surprised they didn’t comment on the pitiful Trafalgar Square turnout and tried to spin it into something bigger than it was. In my view it was a non-starter, a dismally small display and lacking any significant support by the British public. Poor old Ann Widdecombe won’t be a happy camper either. I really think she believed there would be hundreds of thousands yesterday.

  21. That There Other David 25 Mar 2013, 5:26pm

    Oh dear. When you can’t win, at least delay defeat? Best you can do, boys?

    If they like religious exceptionalism so much why don’t they move to Fundamentalist Iran?!!? ;-)

  22. Widdershins 25 Mar 2013, 6:30pm

    Jeez, you guys. Stop embarrassing your grandchildren!

  23. Hey all we’ve ever wanted is the right to other people’s indifference, so just pass the damned thing and you probably won’t even remember in a few months as it has absolutely nothing to do with you. Bigoted fools, get a hobby!

  24. It maybe the majority of MPs are in favour of gay marriage but they do not have a public mandate to push this through onto statute as it wasn’t in their manifestos. Letting the people decide could be an appropriate way forward.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Mar 2013, 12:00pm

      You’re an idiot. It was in the Contract for Equalities and not every issue has to be in a manifesto. NHS reform wasn’t and no public mandate for that either, among others. We don’t have bigoted mob rule in the UK, thankfully which is what a referendum on this one issue only would signify.How about referenda to disestablish the CoE and reform the HoL, ban divorce and abortion?

    2. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2013, 4:02pm

      Actually JohnB, Yes they did!

    3. Sorry John. Utter rubbish. We can never subvert Parliament by carrying out a referendum AFTER Parliament has voted it through unless we wish to negate our democracy (such as it is). Parliament can be advised by a referendum not directed.

  25. We can all imagine that any such referendum would only be one massive hate-fest for homophobes. Burrowes et al. would use it as an opportunity to stir up ill-feeling and fear amongst heterosexuals, resulting in increased homophobia and fear within the LGBT community. The hysteria amongst homophobes during a referendum would be so great that I could imagine it culminating in civil disorder with angry protests by a minority against homosexuality, not just same-sex marriage. A referendum is a dangerous proposition and they know it – their objective is to incite hatred.

  26. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2013, 4:01pm

    Typical. Yet again a minority of losers demand against the majority.

    They just can’t take it can they.

    And this they call love + Religion.

    Well Religious extremists all you’re doing is showing how much you hate.

  27. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2013, 4:08pm

    I would like an extra clause with this legislation in that we simply cannot be up for debate everytime some bigot feels the need.

    Once marriage in introduced it can only be improved Not removed.

  28. Desperate old school Tories….

    The don’t understand (or more likely don’t want to accept) that in a civilised country, we only ever have referendums on issues that impact everyone (Europe and the EU for example).
    We NEVER have referendums on minority rights, because in a civilised society we would NEVER put the rights of the minority in a position where they could be crushed by the majority (even though there’s clear evidence that the majority are now supportive).

    All this tells us is that Tim Loughton and David Burrowes don’t want to live in a civilised society.

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.