Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UK: Government tells PinkNews no need for Queen’s Speech to mention equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “The bill is due before the House of Lords this month and the source said it was expected that its passage through Parliament would be complete before the summer recess.”
    Does this mean that teh bill will be passed by the Lords too before the summer?

    1. Paula Thomas 4 May 2013, 12:21am

      Yes, that appears to be the plan.

      1. Thank you.

    2. Depends when you define “summer”

      The remaining Commons stages are Report and 3rd Reading. We have no date for the Report yet, however it should be soon. Third Reading will happen immediately after (almost always the same day.)

      Then it’ll be off to the Lords. There are longish gaps (usually at least 2 weeks) between readings in the Lords. Also, their Lordships are able to offer amendments rather more freely and often than in the Commons.

      I suspect that the Committer amendment to offer CPs to opposite-sex couples may have caused a slight delay, too.

      But, Summer? Yeah, probably.

      1. Thank you. That’s a great news. I thought it would have take longer.

        1. Sorry for my English.

          1. Your English is fine, Marc :)

            Sasha x

      2. There are in fact two sitting days set aside for report and third reading by the timetable motion already passed by the Commons.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 3 May 2013, 7:50pm

    If that’s the case, then I would assume that all bills if any already being dealt with won’t be mentioned either?

    1. Paula Thomas 4 May 2013, 12:25am

      There has to be a special motion passed by the Commons for a bill to continue passage over two sessions of Parliament (that has been done in this case but all bills that haven’t this motion would fall at the end of the session).

  3. Chris Ward 3 May 2013, 7:50pm

    The motivation for this is so they don’t have the fallout in the Conservatives over the Queen (as head of the CofE) mentioning how her government is going to bring in equal marriage. Any other excuse is nonsense.

    1. They don’t want her doing a “Maggie” from Little Britain, and projectile vomiting if she has to say the word.

  4. Keith Francis Farrell 3 May 2013, 7:50pm

    I think it is a shame that she does not come out in support for equality for all her subjects. She would earn so much respect from us if she just said that she is very happy to see this country progressing topwards equality for all her subjects. I suppose as head of that biggoted church she cannot

    1. whatever she says, she’s holding an unearned and counter-human privileged position. She wouldn’t earn any respect from me unless she instigated the dismantling of monarchy.

      1. Thankfully David you are in a very tiny minority of republicans – you may thirst for the day when we have a president (currently Boris or Tony Blair would be likely candidates – how proud of a British republic would you be then?) – the Queen and the royal family is hugely popular here and long may that continue.

        1. The President would be democratically elected. Nothing stopping the queen from standing as according to you she would win. Then everyone will be happy.

          Boris and Tony were democratically elected, so just blame the voters then. If you don’t trust the electorate, what is your alternative? Dictatorship?

    2. The Queen is not amused to find out that there are thousands more queens in this country,

    3. Colin (London) 4 May 2013, 12:29pm

      Actually as we have her I would respect her more if she did support us. I know 2 gay employees who see her daily and they report she is a delight.
      however I would in a moment get rid of kings and queens. They have had their day.

      I’m a republican. Britain become a museum living in history or create a future as USA have done. Scotland frees (church) this is your chance to be a republic… Grab it. No kings or queens please. Look forward not backward.
      But you won’t…..and there in lies your destiny …a small country where we Scots leave and create wealth in other countries.

  5. Pavlos Prince of Greece 3 May 2013, 8:05pm

    I am disappointed, but not surprised. Its like sad dejavue from May 2012: same words, same (no) actions.

    1. I’d concentrate on the far greater problems in your Hellenic Republic my good fellow, maybe you missed the momentous vote in the House of Commons in February when a huge majority of MPS voted in favour of equal marriage? We are lucky to live in a democracy, this isn’t a tin-pot republic where a president makes unilateral decrees – legislation takes time to become law. Patience is a virtue.

      1. Colin (London) 4 May 2013, 12:32pm

        Yes and in no small part thanks to David Cameron. He leads a divided party on this issue but has gone there for a minority. Somehow we gay people need to get over our political bias and thank him.

      2. Pavlos Prince of Greece 4 May 2013, 1:16pm

        I know, the first vote in the Westminster was in February, but I am disappointed that the words “same-sex marriage” are not include in the Queens speech, exactly so, as it was one year ago. By the way, I have no sentiments for my “Hellenic Republic” and wish that our King Constantine II come back to Athens from exile in London as a new-old head of state and not just as sentimental tourist.

  6. And one more page in the book of “reasons the British monarchy is entirely pointless and irrelevant to modern society”.

  7. That There Other David 3 May 2013, 8:44pm

    I really don’t care, as long as they hurry up and pass it. Let’s face it, if she mentioned it all those anti-gay Bishops would only hit the Daily Telegraph with another rant.

  8. Inspector General 3 May 2013, 8:47pm

    Bill being quietly dropped when the Lords reject it ?

    Anyway, you’ve got CP. Be grateful !

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 May 2013, 10:09pm

      You f_ckitted retard! Maria Miller hasn’t ruled out using the Parliament Act in a speech she gave to Parliament in December 2012.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 May 2013, 10:12pm

        ..f_ckwitted..

      2. Inspector General 3 May 2013, 10:34pm

        Well, this ‘retard’ is savvy enough not to believe anything a politician promises until it’s in the bag. So, it’s a bit of a shame that just like everybody else in the world, Miller will do what she’s told to do or not to do. It’s really going to hurt when it finally dawns on you…

        1. Jane McQueen 4 May 2013, 1:50pm

          As this bill has full cross party support from all of the leaders of the main parties, this is not something that will be dropped. The Parliament act is there if the Lords try to kill the bill, and it has been said that it will be used if they do try to kill it. The Lords know this so apart from one or two obstinate lords this bill will become law and we will have equality in marriage, and hopefully civil partnerships for heterosexual couples too.

          1. Inspector General 4 May 2013, 2:48pm

            Jane, darling, you are so right…

            There, lets put off the awful outcome for a bit then. Don’t you feel better for it ?

    2. Jock S. Trap 4 May 2013, 10:00am

      Just as you wouldn’t be happy to be treated as second class citizen nor should anyone else.

  9. As a vehicle of snobbery and anti-democracy the monarchy is bad enough. But if they daren’t even ask Windsor to let the subject pass her lips, then as a symbolic institution they are equally unrepresentative of the nation they are supposed to symbolise.

    End this whole ridiculous twattery with a republic.

    1. Well said, Ialocura.

      Bring on the meritocratic republic with citizens of achievement and accomplishment being voted in and honoured by the nation’s citizens as our President.

      Call them King or Queen, and keep all the pomp, but get rid of this useless line of silver-spooned parasites.

      1. Christopher Coleman 4 May 2013, 12:21am

        Meritocratic republic? How delightfully utopian! Have you looked at the condition of most republics recently? Voters waste their time and tax-payer money on elections, even though they know the politicians they elect are owned by the wealthy and big corporations. It’s the public extravaganza in which farce and tragedy meet.

        1. Yeah, much better just to leave it all to to one family accountable to no-one.

          The answer to the problems of democracy is more democracy, not less.

        2. A very negative, and a very fearful, view, Christopher.

          Maybe you would have us all go back to serfdom and the feudal state, on our knees before the monarch, each of us “knowing our place” and worshipping the monarch as if he or she were a god.

          I want to live in a state where every citizen has an absolutely equal chance of attaining every position. I don’t think we should perpetuate an ancient regime in which those at the top are their largely by blood-line, connections, and inter-marriage.

      2. I’d totally support an elected King/Queen. Not a President – we’re not Americans!

        1. Americans aren’t the only people with a President and they didn’t invent the concept.

          Having an elected President would not turn us into America or any other country.

      3. Well said – lets all have a glorious republic – there are so many outstanding examples to chose from – lets go for the African model – economies in ruins, electricity for an hour or two on a good day, rampant corruption, the army plucking any dissenter from their beds during the night, never to be seen again. Nah – lets keep our constitutional monarchy – no contest.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 3 May 2013, 10:12pm

      We tried that in 1642-1651 and it ended in a bloody civil war. Even if a referendum were held to abolish the monarchy, I very much doubt it would succeed.

      1. The Americans tried it in 1776 and became the wold’s pre-eminent superpower. And I hardly think France and Germany look at us and think, “If only we’d left our head of state to one bloodline like the Brits do.”

        If we held a referendum now, you’re right – we republicans probably wouldn’t succeed. That’s why we have to continue making the case based on logic, fairness and facts and counter the royalist propaganda from Clarence House and its unquestioning acceptance by the media.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 11:59am

          America may have become the only super pre-eminent power but look closer at it’s system of government. Elections bought and paid for by special interest groups, even more so since the Corporate Personhood law was introduced allowing major conglomerates to donate unlimited obscene amounts of money to campaigns which makes the ordinary American’s vote not count for anything. Even presidential elections are managed that way, whoever is the highest bidder awards the prize to the next occupant of the White House. Then there is the republican controlled gerrymandering of electoral districts given their party advantages over others to sway the vote in their favour by whatever means. No thanks. That’s not representative government in my view but one of oligarchy, an corprorate elite pulling the purse strings and determining who becomes the leader. No thanks.

          1. Colin (London) 4 May 2013, 12:41pm

            Yes bought and paid for… Agree but at least those involved get involved and go the extra mile for what they believe in.
            I’ve worked over there but have to admit I like the european model better. However I met many ordinary but extraordinary USa people who fought for their beliefs.

            In the UK we at best complain and write useless blogs. USA are the worls leading country for a reason and yes it sticks in my throat as a republican Uk person. We live in the past. They create a future for 100’s millions.
            Come on gay UK get aggressive and copy USA rights movement.

      2. she has already forfeited the throne – s1 & 2 Act of Settlement 1701

      3. I think most republicans would like to have a democratically elected leader, not a dictator taking power by military coup.

  10. Oh, this is a ludicrous non-story. The Queen’s speech is always about new legislation, not about stuff that’s already in the pipeline.

    Just because the Guardian screwed up in its listing doesn’t mean that there’s a great big conspiracy to kill the bill.

    [ok; there could be a great big conspiracy – but let’s not imagine one that’s not there.]

  11. I should imagine Cameron wants the same sex marriage legislation passed-on the statute book-and OUT OF THE WAY-as soon as possible- well before the 2015 General Election anyway. One passed it will quickly be assimilated into the mainstream of society- and I can’t imagine even UKIP going into the 2015 election with a policy of annulling all same sex marriages-so it will be a non-issue by that time.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 12:57pm

      Yes, he does it want it over with and passed. He’s not going to ditch it either after investing a lot of political capital in it along with almost half of his party. What he needs to do now is deal with the rebellious backbenchers which should have been done from day one. All of this banter among opponents of EM that it will cost the Tories the election in 2015, pure conjecture and no substance, has more to do with the backbenchers who are the ones causing and stirring up division, not so much the electorate. The only chance he has to regain deserters is to address the backbencher problem as well as connect with the larger cities than rural areas.

  12. I’m not sure there’s too much to read into this.
    Cameron is running scared from Ukip on three major issues: the EU; immigration; and equal marriage.
    Although the Queen’s Speech is used sometimes to highlight current government policy, it’s usually the kind of stuff that is entirely cherrleading, pom-pom waving policies that get a free ride from the press.
    Even though I’d like a politician to make it a major point of increased freedom for English and Welsh people that deserved to be in the Quen’s Speech, I’m OK with a freedom for me and – presumably – most of us reading this to be awarded without fanfare. So long as it is actually passed.
    In this political climate, it’s more important that the law is passed than whether or not the Queen tips her crown to us in an incredibly boring speech.
    I’ll take legal equality over PR stunt every day of the week.

  13. Barry William Teske 4 May 2013, 6:19am

    And the “Top 100 ‘God’s Terrorists’ of the last 100 Years” are…
    Submit your candidates and hope God cleans up its ‘flock’ soon.
    My 2nd choice is anyone who owns a gun in the name of ‘self defence’.
    My 1st choice is the US of A’s NRA.
    Crime stats are up.
    Hate and intolerance are crimes.

  14. “The bill is due before the House of Lords this month ….”

    Have I missed a news item? We still don’t have the a schedule date for the third reading yet!

    Can PN elucidate this?

    1. Jane McQueen 4 May 2013, 1:53pm

      The third reading will take place shortly after the Queens Speech, it couldn’t happen before because parliament was in recess. The third reading is a formality one, which effectively is just a vote to pass or reject any amendments that have been made at the committee stage. If anything it will take an hour or two at max to do the third reading, as i don’t believe a huge number of amendments were made to it. The interesting one will be the extension of civil partnerships, but i think that will probably pass too.

      1. Ms. McQueen, do you have “inside knowledge”? :-) Thanks for your information.

  15. de Villiers 4 May 2013, 8:13am

    Why does this matter? There are civil partnerships. There will soon be gay marriage. We can adopt children. There is anti-discrimination legislation. Discriminating hoteliers have successfully been sued. Religious Christians have lost their discrimination cases in England and in Europe. Religious adoption agencies have closed. Sexuality is a reason to permit someone to claim asylum if they would be tortured in their home country.

    Why are people desperate as to what others think of them or of what is said by the Queen? It does not matter. We have won every legal battle. We should rejoice.

    1. Dave North 4 May 2013, 9:09am

      There is still plenty of time for us to be thrown under the bus on gay marriage.

      Especially after the UKIP wins.

      Camerons adviser said on Radio 4 yesterday that he should drop the “gay Marriage debacle.

      1. Thanks for that snippet, Dave. I’ve been busy with work and unable to hear everything, but it absolutely stands to reason after UKIP’s success that the PM will now “re-consider” gay marriage as well as the other hot issues that have apparently caused traditional Tory voters to turn to the odious UKIP.

        I fear that gay marriage is going to be “dropped for the moment”, with lots of conciliatory noises made in our direction, and that, I feel, is going to be very hard for us to take. Effectively it’s going to be case of “Sorry, you guys, but for the moment you’re all going to have stay sitting at the back of the bus”.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 1:01pm

        He’s not going to ditch equal marriage. It would be foolhardy to do it at this stage having passed with a huge majority in February with almost half of his party on board and more than two thirds of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Cameron’s adviser can say what he wants. There’s no way the PM is going to sabotage the bill or his party.

        1. You’re so sure, Robert! But you know that right now the PM is being engulfed by those vile Tory backbenchers we witnessed spouting homophobic and heterosexist nonsense in the Commons in February, and they’re TELLING him that he GOT TO get those “UKIP supporters” back, and that the way to do that is to shut out the Romanian and Bulgarians, and DROP “Gay Marriage”.

          I acknowledge Call-Me-Dave is in a very very difficult situation. Hopefully he’s wrestling with his conscience. But then again he’s also shown himself to be a smooth PR man. He’s already switched within days from calling UKIP a bunch of clowns to saying that the swing to UKIP must be respected!

          His choice is: risk the ire of a few million gays and lesbians
          or risk permanently losing man many more millions of votes at the next election.

          He’s no saint, our Call-Me-Dave. Unfortunately.

          1. Dave North 4 May 2013, 8:31pm

            Such is the reality of being a minority.

            Trod on at every turn.

            Can I refuse to pay my taxes as a citizen not entitled to the rights others enjoy???

            Probably not.

    2. I can’t see why the queen’s speech thing matters, but I don’t think we “have won every legal battle”. The government really needs to improve coverage of LGBT issues in education, and to make religious schools and academies/free schools toe the line (at the moment they still get away with promoting hateful, inaccurate anti-LGBT propaganda). Some of the legal protections LGB people have do not extend to trans* people, or only extend to some of them, and the courts still seem to treat trans* people unfairly. Pension law still doesn’t treat men the same as women, or same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples, in all circumstances. It is unnecessarily difficult to access legal gender recognition and sex reassignment treatment. European and international law are often far too tolerant of anti-LGBT discrimination.

      Equal marriage (or the very nearly equal marriage we are likely to get) is a huge step forward, but it doesn’t mean the end of LGBT activism.

    3. First there is an inconsistency in what the Guardian says and what is actually going to be read out in the Queen’s speech. Secondly, does the bill need to be read out in the Queen’s speech, probably not, since it has already gone thru a vote to carry it forward , thirdly why doesn’t the Queen or any other royal ever speak about gay people and fourthly the queen is the establishment and you will find that her bishops and her hereditary peers are the key opponents of same sex marriage and they still wield a lot of power and influence in the UK….unlike a country like France where none of that officially exists in the established politic system.

  16. PeterinSydney 4 May 2013, 9:51am

    I can’t but help to get the impression that Queen Betty is opposed to marriage equality. I can’t imagine why. I bet there are lots of gays in the Royal Family. And certainly there seem t be many in her staff.

  17. Jock S. Trap 4 May 2013, 9:56am

    Mentioned or not, I don’t really care so long as the bill is with us Very soon.

    Or else how many more countries will beat us?

    Stop talking and lets see some action.

  18. Um like. Dosent she get 30 million of oUr money? Weather yoU agree with that or not, why is it ok for her to completly ignore a section of the people who pay her throUghoUt her entire career. Are we lead to believe that we are too distastefUl for oUr head of state to mention. Is this high societys opinion too?

    1. Her role, effectively, is to reflect accurately the feelings of the establishment, the white Tory ladies and gentlemen of country estates and the south east of England. And, sadly, none of them like “this gay marriage lark” at all: hence Bette Windsor’s job is to echo their feelings. Hence: Bette doesn’t ever utter that “hideous” and most horrid of words, “gay”, or “lesbian”.

      If, however, we dislodged this line of royal parasites, there could be a great deal of progress.

  19. This monarch system is outdated, becoming a British joke to the adult world. Time to grow up, let go of your Barbie dolls, and be the king or queen in our own lives folks. Let the past go; welcome the future.

  20. mmm according to this sheshould mention it

    The Queen’s Speech is read by the Queen from the Throne in the House of Lords at the State Opening of Parliament. It is drawn up by the government, and contains an outline of the government’s policies and proposed legislative programme for the new parliamentary session.

    thttp://www.parliament.uk/about/how/occasions/stateopening/queensspeeches/

  21. Georg Friedrich 4 May 2013, 8:49pm

    And today the most important in the parliamentarian hierarchy openly gay Conservative as well supporter of same-sex marriage, is arrested for “rape” ? What a coincidence.

  22. Guardian writers in “not having a clue about politics” shock. Hold the front page.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all