Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries: ‘The gay marriage bill is taking the sex out of marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I’m getting so sick of the same old arguments being trotted out – sisters marrying sisters, 3 people marrying, people marrying animals, the destruction of society….How thick are these people????

    1. I know, but technically she is correct. That is why the concepts of adultery, consummation etc. can’t be defined in a same-sex context.

      1. They don’t work in a straight context either though – they’re hopelessly anachonronistic.

        Adultery – is any straight person really going to say to their spouse “I didn’t cheat, I only had anal and oral sex”? By all reasonable definitions, someone who has anal or oral sex with a third party while in a monogamous relationship is committing adultery

        And consumation – would we really decide that, for example, the impotent or some disabled are forbidden from marriage because a certain sex act is impossible to them?

        These laws aren’t incompatible with same-sex couples, they’re incompatible with common sense

        1. bobbleobble 13 May 2013, 2:59pm

          Absolutely, adultery and consummation both have very specific legal definitions which are archaic and pointless in modern society. Ideally adultery should either be expanded to include any sex act or removed altogether as a ground for divorce allowing people to rely on the unreasonable behaviour ground.

          Consummation is only relevant if you’re worried about being able to get an annulment somewhere down the line. In any event a marriage is valid even if consummation doesn’t occur provided both parties are happy with that. In any event consummation could probably go as well, I don’t believe it is a requirement in many countries anyway.

          1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 3:20pm

            Adultery is a biblical reference which is why religious nutters like Dorries get their knickers in a twist. Amazing isn’t it, religious and an adulteress herself? Doesn’t get more hypocritical.

            I do wish a supportive MP in Parliament would get up and call her out on it, but none will because they don’t want to be accused of muck-raking. Then there are those other aduterers on the back bench, Sir Roger Gale and Bob Blackman, the latter believes that one can love more than one person at the same time while championing the sanctity of hetero marriage.

      2. I wonder how she regards the importance of *loyalty* in marriage? Most would regard it as highly important?

      3. If someone has non vaginal sex with a prostitute can they claim their money back then?

      4. justusboyz 13 May 2013, 3:38pm

        Go away JohnE

    2. Don’t be so hard on her, she has spent most of this debate eating bugs in a jungle. She has yet to catch up to the rest of us.

  2. After you’ve finished remembering that affair she had… (at least she didn’t say sanctity)

    Her focus on sex ignore those incapable – the impotent, those medically compromised (eg vaginismus), those who are disabled – will she deny them marriage too? Does she cry about the fact that they are not having properly mandated sex?

    No? Just bigotry then, nothing new.

    Simple truth, there is no definitive sex act such as heterosexual PIV for LGBT people. That is only because PIV in law has long been historically lauded as some magical act – but only because it is about ownership and legitimacy and all sorts of archaic crap associated with marriage that stopped mattering when women stopped being property.

    I really wish the swivel-eyed idiots on the back benches would stop their incessant metaphorical knicker-sniffing over how people are having sex. The law takes a reasonable approach to the matter, and offers a wider principle.

    1. In the examples you mention, if vaginal intercourse is impossible then that is grounds for divorce. In a same-sex context, vaginal intercourse is impossible by definition. That is the difference.

      1. Scott Rose 13 May 2013, 2:38pm

        But vaginal intercourse in heterosexual marriage is not mandated by the government. It is simply an actionable non-action through which somebody may obtain a divorce if they wish a divorce. Married heterosexuals who, for whatever reason, do not engage in vaginal intercourse have marriages that are just as valid as any other couples’ marriages. This bigot is talking as though all marriages in which vaginal intercourse does not occur were invalid. She is thus promulgating a lie.

      2. bobbleobble 13 May 2013, 2:38pm

        Actually it’s grounds for an annulment not a divorce. And an annulment is only really relevant in a religious and primarily Catholic context anyway.

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 3:25pm

        Believe me, no religious cleric would refuse to marry a hetero couple where one was critically disabled and unable to have conventional intercourse. Therein lies the bigotry and hypocrisy of these religious addicted loons.

      4. I can’t quite believe that someone discussing the laws on sex, gender, and marriage on an LGBT website is unaware that men can have vaginas and women can have penises. Did you honestly think the legal definition of “man” is “human with a penis” and that of “woman” is “human with a vagina”?

        1. It’s a pity I can’t give thumbs up more than once on a single comment.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 6:08pm

      I suspect they’re not getting much at home to be worrying so much about what we get up to in our bedrooms. The obsession with sex is quite revealing isn’t it? Only right wing christian loons seem to be making noise about it. I think it’s merely a red herring. It has more to do with homophobia, much of it internalised. There are probably a lot more closet cases than we think on those back benches, many of them married I suspect. I only wished Iain Dale had the guts to have outed them when he had the chance.

  3. Jock S. Trap 13 May 2013, 2:14pm

    Eh????????? Yawn!!!!!!!!!!!

    Get Real & Get a life Ms Dorries. Time to Go back in the bloomin Jungle me thinks and out of view!

  4. Jock S. Trap 13 May 2013, 2:16pm

    As for “Warning that the bill could result in the Conservatives losing “as many as fifty seats” at the next general election,”

    Another boring excuse since this is typical Tories propaganda with the UKip vote. Yet Farage has already stated the issue of marriage has not once come up by voters.

    So on what grounds do these bigots base their argument.

    1. They will lose seats at the next election because they are an evil, nasty party who are intent on making the poor suffer for what is not their fault. They need an excuse for this however so if gay marriage can be used she will use it. She is a politician, please do not expect any morality from her

  5. Why is she worried about what marriage is at all as to her it is meaningless just like her vows.

    Not that long ago we had to “alter fundamentally the most important social structure ever known to mankind.” to allow failures like her to get divorced.

  6. Jock S. Trap 13 May 2013, 2:20pm

    ““Legally, marriage is wholly about sex.””

    Absolutely laughable to use this argument for heterosexual marriage yet it’s ALL they can see Gay people as by sex yet deny equality of marriage.

    Hypocrites much?!

  7. “Taking sex out of marriage”. I think, sweetie, you’ve already done that with your whoring while married.

  8. A lot of straight couples would agree that marriage has taken the sex out of their lives.

  9. “Nadine Dorries wonders whether a sister could marry a sister in order to avoid inheritance tax”.

    I suggest that she reads the bill currently before parliament. I think she’ll find that it doesn’t allow for that.

    What sort of pineapples selected her for a parliamentary seat, when she clearly doesn’t understand any part of the process.

  10. Is she trying to suggest that marriage is principally about sex? If so she must know that there are numerous heterosexual couples, happily married,for whom sex is of no or little importance. For a variety of reasons.

  11. Sparky (@Sparkyu1) 13 May 2013, 2:40pm

    Children aren’t in the equation

    And sex? The only part of the laws that includes sex are laughable consummation and adultery rules. And really, you want to limit them to “straight sex”? Straight folk, how many of you would think your spouse hadn’t cheated on you if they “only” engaged in oral or anal sex? That not count as adultery to you?

    Should people unable to manage Penis-in-vagina sex be unable to marry?

    These laws and these objections are ridiculous and unbelievable – they’re excuses clung to by bigots to justify their bigotry. We could hope the quislings in the Tory party would call them out on their bigotry but don’t hold your breath, they’re too busy scolding gay people who are tired of homophobia about how we’re not nice enough to homophobes

  12. Nadine Dorries taking the sanity out of her own brain while talking through her arse.

    1. Warren C. E. Austin 13 May 2013, 3:24pm

      Ms Dorries has brought nothing new to the table.

      Didn’t JEREMY IRONS posit a similar argument a couple of weeks ago?

      Damn, this is getting so old. The heavens didn’t part and the seas haven’t swallowed up mankind the day The Netherlands formally started the ball rolling over a decade ago, or any other day for that matter, and subsequent actions by sister nations hasn’t wreaked any more havoc than that the Religion Nazi’s have been able to muster each time they have tried to defeat passage of Equality/Diversity Law that would embrace LGBTQ initiatives.

      Why can’t people just get with the programme, and be done with it once and for all time.

      Warren C. E. Austin
      The Gay Deceiver
      Toronto, Canada

  13. Well, she’s proved she’s thick enough to be on reality TV

  14. CH Brighton 13 May 2013, 3:24pm

    I’ll bet Cameron’s already wetting his knickers that he’s allowed her back in the party fold.

  15. What an ignorant Bitch

  16. This from a woman who ate camel toe for money !

  17. Welcome back (not) to the Nasty Nadine, defiler of marriage and speaker of sh1t.

  18. justusboyz 13 May 2013, 3:46pm

    I hope all the people who elected this moron to parliament are happy!
    No danger of intelligent debate with her and many of her ilk. I despair

  19. Christopher Coleman 13 May 2013, 3:58pm

    Cheats and deceivers will find or create loopholes in every law, especially if money is involved. Nothing new in that. It is not a valid argument against the proposed legislation.

    This might be a good time to start adding to every new law a warning that anyone who uses the law for purposes not intended by it will be punished.

  20. “If sexual intercourse is not part of the definition of same-sex marriage, why should blamelessly cohabiting sisters not marry one another in order to avoid inheritance tax? Why should father not marry son?”

    Ooh, let me think for a minute, Nadine! Could it just possibly be because we have laws banning incest?!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 4:17pm

      I wonder what this obsession is of theirs with sex and allusions to incest? Notice it’s only the religious nutters who seem to having nothing else on their minds. I don’t know of any country with equal marriage or those withoug where incestuous marriages are allowed do you? I also don’t know of any where there is demand for them either, something they claim could ensue if equal marriage is introduced in the UK.

      I find it odd that none are campaigning for a ban on divorce and adulterers ever remarrying again.

      1. beelzeebub 13 May 2013, 4:45pm

        The bibble is awash with stories of incest.

        Indeed Eve must have been up to it with one of her 2 sons, Kane or Able in order to further the species.

        After reading that hateful tomb it must rub off in their psyche.

      2. Yes, Robert, incest seems to be something they all obsess about – after gay sex, of course.

        As for banning divorce – no, they’d never suggest that because that’d affect too many people. They thrive on promoting discrimination and lies about minorities, and LGBT people are the only ones they’ve got left to pick on.

        The phrase “Get a life” seems apt for Dorres and her ilk. If she was happy in her own life, maybe she wouldn’t feel the need to pick on other people, denigrate them and try to deny them rights.

    2. Sorry, but that is the point Dorries is making:

      IF there is no sexual element alluded to/necessary in marriage legislation, then there is no clear reason to NOT allow cohabiting sisters to get wed.

      I’m pro same-sex marriage; but I hate to say it: she has a point.

      You’ve either got sexual relations alluded to in marriage -in which case concepts of consummation and adultery must be found for people of the same-sex in a marriage or you have not, in which case there is clearly no reason to deny it ANY couple PROVIDED there is no sexual element to marriage.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 4:53pm

        Who in Parliament would support legislation allowing siblings and parents intermarrying? Stop buying into this red herring. Nobody is demanding it and it would never become legal in the UK. Incest or not, it is illegal under the marriage laws of the UK and all other western countries. She doesn’t have a point either. It’s all about traducing equal marriage and homophobia and an obsession with sex that only they bang on about. She should know a thing about sex, the whore that she is and a marriage wrecker.

      2. bobbleobble 13 May 2013, 5:00pm

        Because marriage is about about the formalisation of a loving relationship, not a vehicle for avoiding inheritance tax. Civil partnerships don’t mention sex but hey haven’t been allowed for relatives etc. think of he vows you have to make when marrying and then tell me that there’s no valid reason to deny marriage to sisters etc.

        I also don’t believe that every country in the world has a consummation requirement although I’d be happy to be corrected.

        1. In YOUR opinion marriage is about the formalisation of a loving relationship, for some it may very well be about avoiding inheritance tax. Hey your opinion is valid but so are others. At the end of the day, objectively speaking, IF there is no sexual element to a marriage, then there is morally and legally no reason to deny it to a pair of sisters, mother and daughter or father and daughter.

          Robert in S. Kensington, nobody demanded same-sex marriage 40 years ago, either.

          I don’t mind if gay people can marry each other-it’s no skin of my nose, really- however, the fact remains that if sexual elements are NOT included in marriage law, then any two people should be allowed it.

          In any case, so what if two consenting adult sisters wish to marry? Again, no skin off anybody else’s nose.

          1. bobbleobble 13 May 2013, 5:29pm

            I’ll repeat, marriage is about the uniting of a loving couple. If people are marrying for any other reason then that is marriage fraud and possibly tax fraud too.

            In any event marriage does have a sexual element it just doesn’t need to be government mandated. It isn’t in a lot of other countries and it doesn’t need to be here.

      3. Jock S. Trap 14 May 2013, 9:11am

        Being that opposite sex brothers and sisters cannot marry under UK law, I don’t see how it can be any different for same sex brothers and sister.

        It is therefore a stupid, ignorant excuse to put against marriage equality.

        Why do people need to make excuses for such discrimination when it certainly isn’t warranted esp in law?

        It’s a cowardly excuse to make and bares no relevance to the argument.

    3. ChrisMorley 13 May 2013, 5:36pm

      These are not Nadine Dorries’ words.
      They were written by Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph.
      She simply tweeted some messages but didn’t quote this.
      Criticise her for what she said not Charles Moore’s words.

      Her tweets:
      “If sex is removed from the legal definition of gay marriage, if it can’t take place in a church, what is gay marriage? What defines it?”

      “If the answer is love, if legally is only link between gay/straight + marriage is being redefined to accommodate, why do we need marriage?”

      “Legal definition of marriage is the basis of the law itself at present it’s based on definition of consummation.”

      “Legally, marriage is wholly about sex.”

  21. Would rule out anyone marrying her then the ugly sow

  22. Well damn, as a homo-romantic asexual that means that if I got married to another asexual then Nadine Dorris wouldn’t consider my marriage legit because it would be to someone of the same sex AND we wouldn’t be having sex? I’m so disappointed! …Oh wait, no. Idgaf what a bigot like Dorries says.

    These people are so obsessed with sex in one way or another. They think that LGBT people are at it 24/7 (and wouldn’t want to get married because we don’t care about relationships) and then they think it’s unfair that the consummation part doesn’t apply to LGBT people. Um whut?

  23. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 4:22pm

    Yes, Dorries…you know a thing or two about taking sex out of marriage by committing adultery with a married man, you bigoted harpie. I hope an MP calls her out on it next monday and tuesday, assuming just one has the guts to do it. I’m so sick of these religious loons and their temper tantrums and obsession about sex, penises, vaginas and incest. Since they’re the only ones who bring it up, could it be that they are the ones who really want that? In any case, it’s illegal to marry your sister, brother, father or mother or is she that woefully ignorant of the law of her own country? If so, she shouldn’t be in Parliament. It’s frightening to think that people voted for her and others of her demented ilk.

  24. Yep am going to marry my sister but which one? hmmm obviously they do not know this yet but my old man is getting on in years so am going too get down on one knee too one of them and ask for their hand in marriage.

    Silly woman, I don’t think most women with sisters are likely too get married to each other just yet and too be honest. As a woman, this idiot bigot is making all women look completely thick it really is demeaning.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 5:23pm

      So, there we have it. it’s not even ironic that you’ve admitted you’re a deviant too by defending other forms of deviance. What an idiot you are!

    2. No, she’s not making all women look thick. She’s making herself look thick.

      Would a male MP talking drivel make all men look thick?

      Please can we dump the misogyny, it’s no prettier than homophobia.

  25. I think that she has left any common sense that she may have had in the jungle!

    What a stupid bitch. I would suggest that if you are on twitter you send her your thoughts there too @NadineDorriesMP

  26. Alan Baker 13 May 2013, 4:33pm

    Trust a Tory to be thinking of ways to avoid tax!!

  27. Nadine, dear – your idiocy and bigotry is showing, not that we didn’t know already, but it’s just boring to be reminded again and again how stupid you are!

    Marriage is about next of kin and inheritance as is adoption – family.
    Could this be why they are so anti, gay couples and their natural and adopted kids are then indisputably, family!
    Although CP’s give most of rights of marriage, it does not in their eyes constitute a family; marriage does.
    Their delusions do not make sense, but then that is oft the the case for delusions – especially religious based ones.

  28. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 4:46pm

    I’ve just written to this harpie to let her know what I think of her. I suggest you all drop her a line and fill her brainless skull with facts.

    Here’s her address:

    dorriesn@parliament.uk

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 6:02pm

      And you would know about deviency being one yourself as well as the harlot Dorries for committing adultery, abnormal behaviour and a sexual predator trying to wreck another woman’s marriage. She’s a total fraud.

  29. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 4:50pm

    Anybody care to explain why a bloody lunatic would obsess so much about incest? We don’t think about it and nor do the majority of heterosexual people. It is illegal to marry one’s sibling or parent, twat. Sounds like it’s something you crave though, demented fool.

  30. bobbleobble 13 May 2013, 5:05pm

    Marriage is about the formalising of a loving relationship between two unrelated people, not a vehicle for avoiding tax. That would be marriage fraud.

    As far as I’m aware there are countries where consummation is not a requirement for a marriage and yet I’m not aware of any countries that allow incestuous marriage. In this country it only renders a marriage voidable, if parties are happy with non-consummation then the marriage is still valid.

    1. You keep repeating the ‘formalising of a loving relationship between two unrelated people’ line. Seriously, that is an opinion only. Yet I bet you decry the opinion of those who see it being about children as being outdated. People marry for a lot of reasons: money, inheritance issues, a roof over their head.

      Consummation is grounds for annulment- for atheists as much of those of Catholic faith.

      Either introduce a definition for consummation for homosexual people -and adultery while we’re on the subject- OR remove all sexual elements from marriage altogether. In which case, there is no valid reason to deny it to a pair of sisters. End of. That’s logic; we might not like where it takes us but that’s how it works.

      1. bobbleobble 13 May 2013, 5:33pm

        It’s not an opinion, it’s the law of the land. Marriage isn’t about children, there has been no mention of children in civil marriage since 1836 but the vows shared are still about being a loving couple. If you marry for any of those purposes you have stated then you are committing marriage and quite possibly tax fraud.

        And an annulment is only relevant in a religious context should you want to remarry in a church.

        1. Pure opinion: two heterosexual consenting adults can marry each other for whatever reasons they wish -providing it’s legal for them to do so.

          NOBODY -I repeat NOBODY asked me if I loved my spouse. Just stuff about if I consented to it and it was legal-that’s all. Sorry, but you are wrong.

          Also, it is wrong to say that annulment is ONLY relevant in a religious context as ATHEISTS can go to court to have their marriage annulled owing to non-consummation.

          1. The above should be to BOBBLEOBBLE and their ridiculous notion that it is illegal to marry if you’re not in love (!). No BOBBLEOBBLE, the registrar only seeks: a, your consent
            b, if it’s legal

      2. Commander Thor 14 May 2013, 6:50am

        Argumentation error: False dichotomy detected. Please attempt to put some more thought into your argument next time, or you will sound like an idiot again…

    2. bobbleobble 13 May 2013, 5:50pm

      Your question was about avoiding tax which is why I responded as I did.

      You’re wrong about incest, check out the Sexual Offences Act 2003 specifically sections 64 and 65.

      As to why consenting relatives shouldn’t be allowed to marry well one reason is sex but the other is coercion. It would be incredibly difficult in a close familial relationship to prove that consent was genuinely given.

      1. Commander Thor 13 May 2013, 6:39pm

        “coercion is actually legal”…….back in reality…..no. Go home idiot, you’re drunk.

  31. Tentringer 13 May 2013, 5:10pm

    The simple answer to her is probably “No more than a brother could marry a sister now”. That was easy!

    She is right on one thing – the Tory party are likely to lose 50 seats at the next election. I don’t think it’s going to be this bill that brings that about though.

  32. Because gay people don’t have sex?? This lady is just off her rocker.

  33. She’s been spending too much time in jungles. There are too many MP’s on the Tory benches with these stupid (and they are stupid) ideas. Right wing nutters!

  34. EqualityFinesse 13 May 2013, 5:41pm

    Oh the witterings of Dorries…

    …otherwise know as the Cardinal O’Brian (COB) syndrome:

    Do as I say, not as I do!

    In other words, the typical hypocrisy of your average religious fundamentalist

  35. ““Why shouldn’t heterosexual bachelor chum marry heterosexual bachelor chum? ” …wasn’t that argument bandied around when CPs were introduced…the antis were against CPs and they are now coming out with the same arguments against SSM.

    There nothing stopping heterosexual chum marrying a heterosexual chumess…. sex isn’t a requirment for marriage !

    Adultery may be used for divorce and lack of consummation may be used for an annulment….

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2013, 5:58pm

      It’s a red herring to prey upon the ignoramuses and half-wits who voted for her including the religious loon constituents. She ought to defect to UKIP and take those other blithering homophobic god-bothering idiots Burrowes and Loughton with her. Jesus Christ, she’s reinstated just days and going off on more of her useless rants. What an embarrassment she is and to herselfl, an adulteress faking concern about adultery not being applicable to gay people as if we bloody care about semantics for unreasonable behaviour to warrant a divorce. Why the two words can’t co-exist is absurd. Do we really care that much what its called for gay married couples? I don’t, just give me marriage.

  36. “The divorced Mid-Bedfordshire MP, ….” Looks like she made a huge success of marriage!! LUCKY ex-husband!!!!

  37. Current marriage law prevents siblings from marrying. That she doesn’t know this and works as an instrument of our law making process is quite scary.

  38. What’s to stop hetero bachelor chum from marrying hetero bachelor chum? Nothing. As their is currently nothing stopping hetero bachelor chum from marrying hetero spinster chum.

  39. if marriage is about sex, then why is she sleeping with another woman’s husband?

  40. “Conservative MP Nadine Dorries says the government’s same-sex marriage bill will take the “sex out of marriage” and wonders whether a sister could marry a sister in order to avoid inheritance tax as part of the reform.”

    Sigh…A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  41. I thought the trollop had left her man for another poor sucker. My God, some men must be desperate.

  42. The funniest lines in this article:

    “. . . If it hopes to slip this quietly past the country over the summer, . . .”

    Considering the amount of noise this bill has generated, that’s worth a chuckle.

    “The government is introducing, for the first time, a definition of marriage which has no sexual element,”

    He doesn’t know much about gays, does he? That got a laugh.

    “Legally, marriage is wholly about sex.”

    No wonder she’s divorced. Although that’s not really funny, it’s very sad.

  43. johnny33308 13 May 2013, 10:08pm

    BIGOT!

  44. Colin(London) 14 May 2013, 12:25am

    To me she is simply showing the media hyped, uneducated, non fact based bigotry. Worse it’s calculated to stir the media as it’s about her not us as she looks at self promotion.

    I so hope she is deselected or voters see through her.

    This is about minority equality.

    I firmly believe the Tories will loose no seats over this. It’s a minority issue does not affect the majority at all. How does a same sex marriage affect a hetrosexual marriage and more than a hetro marriage affects another hetro marriage?

  45. I’m thinking someone took the sex out of HER life and she’s just jealous! “Someone” needs to get laid!

  46. Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 14 May 2013, 3:38am

    Look at her face…

    She has not had any sex since her husband left her for a more younger prettier woman!

    Why are bigots so obsessed with gay sex for some reason!!!!????

    It is love of everybody of any gender, not what equipment is between your legs you stupid dopey bitch!

    What an old silly Doushbag!

  47. Paul from London, UK 14 May 2013, 3:43am

    Another bigot smoking way too much pot – even before they open there mouths and say something very stupid without thinking!!!!!

    Silly woman, she is worse than my 101 year old grandmother, who at least still has a brain and at least supports civil unions!!!!!!

  48. What is missing from this list of reasons why many people will not vote Conservative/Liberal in the next election? (clue LGBT)

    1. Cut flood defence spending on entering office, slashing it from £665m in 2010-11, to £540m for each year until 2014-15.
    2. Forced (by the Lords) to agree to change the law to give the new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) powers to set a cap on exorbitant interest rates charged on payday loans. The government had said a cap could harm the interests of users of payday loan firms.
    3. A planned badger cull (based on discredited science) aimed at curbing the rise in bovine TB.
    4. The environment department had planned to destroy buzzards’ nests to protect pheasant shoots.
    5. Planned to sell 258,000 hectares of state-owned woodland in England.
    6. The dog’s breakfast re. West Coast Mainline rail franchise.
    contd:

  49. contd:
    7, Plans for the Ministry of Justice to limit payments under the criminal injuries compensation scheme so that only seriously injured victims would be eligible.
    8, Handed control of the process of DLA assessment to a private company whose assessors have little experience of the work.
    9, George Osborne, the chancellor, announced he would cap tax relief on charitable donations at £50,000 or 25% of income. This was greeted by protests from charities, which warned they could lose a significant proportion of their income.
    10, Announced a 10% cut in housing benefit for anyone unemployed for more than a year in the June 2010 budget.
    11, Planned to scrap a scheme providing free books for children.
    12, Planned to abandon a scheme to remove violent partners from the family home.
    13, Tory health minister suggested withdrawing the scheme that gives free school milk to under-fives.

  50. There is an additional reason for annulment of a marriage (a forced annulment this time) in British law:

    The gender recognition act requires the annulment of even a a happy marriage if one partner applies for a change of sex marker on a birth certificate, despite the fact that in many cases, the marriage has been consummated. This is based on a fear that a continuation of the marriage would open the door to same sex marriage.

  51. apparently her website describes her as a television personality? I guess she’s preparing for defeat in 2015 or are people in beds that stupid to vote for her again?

  52. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 2:13pm

    Taking the sex out of marriage ! I think Nadine did that when she had an affair with a married man. Disgusting behavior.

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