Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay MP Mike Freer accuses fellow Tories of attempting to “derail” equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 3:09pm

    Now that the CoE has said it does not support CPs for heteros, it’s going to take the wind out of Loughton’s wrecking amendment. Isn’t it obvious? There was no such support among Tory bigots prior to the second reading and they didn’t get anywhere with it during the committee hearings. It is a ploy to derail and it’s going to backfire on them. next week. Even if all those in opposition to equal marriage voted for it, it would fail I think given the 225 majority in favour of equal marriage on 5th February.

    How can Loughton really say he supports it when he’s opposed to equal marriage. So it would mean heteros would have more rights than gays? It’s so transparent what he’s up to and even with that he lies about it, delusional bigot.

    1. I wonder if Loughton has complained in the past about the amount of time being spent on SSM? If so it should be increasingly obvious to all that he and other opposers are the people who are ensuring that it is taking so much parliamentary time? They are complaining about something that they themselves are causing.

  2. Well done, Mike Freer, but I do think that at this precarious stage and when certain MPs are clearly playing very dirtily, you would be totally justified to take your gloves off and speak much more directly!

    It’s not a case that there’s “a danger” that “some people” are “moving some amendments . . . to derail the bill”: it is the case that that they are actually doing whatever they can to wreck the bill!

    Why has Tim Loughton never advocated CPs for heterosexuals before, at any stage?

    I suggest we should now be loud in highlighting the fact that he has been anti-gay all along, and that this latest concern of his is dissembling, false, sham, and spurious!

    Expose him as a fraud, Mr. Freer! Or we risk him & his mates succeeding in wrecking this bill!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 5:12pm

      Eddy, Loughton wrote back saying he actually supported CPs for straight during the legislative process in 2004. He said the current amendment for next week addresses one inequality (for heterosexuals) but will vote against equal marriage because it doesn’t convey any equality or any further rights. I then resorted to the ‘b’ word but he cautioned me not to use it when addressing MPs in the future. I couldn’t help myself. He accused me of using it when justification for equal marriage can’t be explained adequately. I fired back saying that what would be the purpose allowing straights access to CPs that they don’t already have in marriage while denying gays access to marriage? He stupidly admitted it would give straights more rights, while at the same time would be voting against equal marriage. WIth that, I told him he’s a bigot. Am waiting for further response to that one. He’s a nasty individual.

      1. Sterling work, Robert!

        And do you know if it is true that he did indeed fully and wholeheartedly support CPs for heterosexuals in 2004, from the introduction of that bill until its passing?

        If so, we have a creature who in 2004 saw CPs being campaigned for homosexual people and said, “If the gays are having that, then we want some too!” The motive could well have been: “the gays can’t have what we don’t have!”

        And now in 2013 this creature sees marriage about to be dished out to the gays, and he says “We’ve wanna have something too!” and so he’s harking back to his cry of 2004.

        In both cases it’s a kind of jealousy born of enmity at play. It’s the bully in the schoolyard, who’s determined that if anybody else is in any way advantaged then by hell he’s got to be compensated!

        That’s it! Compensation! Tim Loughton wants heterosexuals to be compensated!

        That’s homophobia.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 6:30pm

          That he’s voting against the bill next week while aspiring to grant heterosexuals more rights than us, then the term “bigot” fits. I don’t regret calling him that either, it’s very appropriate. There is no such thing as reasoned debate with him.

  3. Its a WRECKING AMENMENT because Laughton knows that if CP’s are introduced for straights-then that WILL undermine marriage in certain Peer’s minds-who will then vot aginst the WHOLE equal marriage Bill.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 May 2013, 6:40pm

      Yes it is and even in that Loughton lies. He won’t succeed I don’t think. He didn’t during Committee Hearings citing fears for the church, shot down by 15-4. In fact none of his or Burrowes’ wrecking amendments succeeded and they won’t next week.

      Even if the reverse were true, the Lords are aware that it can only be delayed one year if Maria Miller carries out invoking the Parliament Act as she indicated last December. It would serve no purpose at this juncture to reject it other than delay it.

      Further, the two very timely announcements today by the CoE that it does not support the amendment while stating that it is now satisfied with the quadruple lock couldn’t have come at a worse time for Loughton and Burrowes. Serendipitous in fact. Those statements from the church today won’t bode well for them in the Commons next week or in the Lords.

  4. Supporting the amendment is different to voting for it. I don’t think MPs are daft and most realise that Loughton has proposed this to wreck the whole bill. I think they’ll vote for the govt’s amendment instead, review it in a few yrs time. Makes much more sense anyway.

  5. Godric Godricson 19 May 2013, 5:53pm

    I don’t understand why LGBT people go and offer themselves for ordination to be priests. Why belong to an organisation that actively hates you? Similarly, I don’t understand why Mike Freer as an out Gay man would work with Tories. What can it be that attracts LGBT people to give their vitality to hateful organisations?

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