Reader comments · Government considers watered down same-sex marriage bill to minimise Tory rebellion · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Government considers watered down same-sex marriage bill to minimise Tory rebellion

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I don’t see why the government would bow down to these idiots. The bill passed 400 – 225 easily on the second reading with resistance from the rebels, why water it down for the 3rd reading? Hope this is false.

    1. liarliarpantsonfire 19 May 2013, 12:56pm

      Because they are TORIES. Go to any local tory meeting and you will experience a cesspit of homophobia, racism and heartlessness, neatly hidden. They are a don’t do as I do , do as I say party. This is the true conservative party. Never trust them . They are evil.

      1. barriejohn 19 May 2013, 1:11pm

        There was an idiot “Tory grass roots” spokesman being interviewed on the Andrew Marr show this morning (in his sixties at least, sporting de rigeur handlebar moustache, tie and blazer, of course!). He claimed that there are “millions” like him, just waiting in the wings to plunge the knife into Cameron. He was reminded that David Cameron is in a coalition with the LibDems, which he did seem to grasp. but then went on to say that he “didn’t give a fig” about the LibDems, and thought that Cameron should just ignore them! That is the level of intelligence with which we are dealing. You can see them waving their little Union Jacks at the Tory Party Conference, and singing Land of Hope and Glory at the tops of their voices, as if this is still 1953, not 2013!

        1. Thank you, BarrieJohn! My partner and I are surrounded by that lot whom you have so well described as “waving their little Union Jacks at the Tory Party Conference, and singing Land of Hope and Glory at the tops of their voices, as if this is still 1953, not 2013”!

          There ARE a lot of them, sadly, but they are not the majority in the entire country. Cameron needs to hold on to that.

          1. Hahaha!!! I have just wached the news, and they all went to Downing Street to present a petition to the Prime Minister. One silly woman was saying that she is very angry that they all worked very hard to put David Cameron into office and that he has now betrayed them. They really don’t grasp that we do NOT have a Conservative government, even after all their “hard work”!

      2. You are as bad as the worst homophobe, anti-semite or racist with your gross generalisations – and are peddling the same ignorant hatred as them, presumably for your won political ulterior motives. The haters within the Tory party may be loud and ugly in their sentiment but they are a diminishing minority and there are a great are many more who are passionately in favour of equality.

        1. That’s not how the vote on the 2nd reading went. Fact.

        2. Diminishing minority? Less than half the party voted for marriage equality. Most of the Tory cabinet have horrendous anti-gay voting records.

        3. liarlairpantsonfire 19 May 2013, 9:56pm

          there are a great are many more who are passionately in favour of equality

          As long as you are not gay, european, disabled, an unmarried mother, or unemployed. Remember where that disgusting party UKIP originated from. The BNP with better suits. Open your eyes and see what you are really defending?

    2. Cameron needs to stop governing in his party’s interest and start leading in the national interest. With every passing day he looks weaker: if he can’t be PM properly, and if he can’t lead a coherent coalition government, then he should resign and call an election at the same time.

    3. Cameron is trying to save his job.

      He keeps compromising to keep these people in check but it’s just making him seem weaker.

      Eventually there will be a leadership coup. He needs to learn that you can’t please all of the people all of the time and take a harder line to keep his back benchers in check. He’s like a teacher who tries to be every kid’s friend and can’t keep control in the lesson. Those teachers are the friend of no one and everybody laughs at them.

      He and all the politicians in the country need to realise that politicians serve the electorate not their own career aspirations and, quite honestly, the electorate need to learn to get off their backsides and get more involved in the political system, instead of whining when it doesn’t go their way.

    4. Because he needs this. If he’s going to try and successfully rebrand the Tory party from the current impression of bigoted homophobes, this is the last chance. It’s unlikely we will get another piece of legislation in the UK that is such a grand victory for GBLT rights – not with anti-discrimination laws and integrated military laws already passed. This is the last chance for the Tories to say “no, we’re not homophobes, honest.”

      And it doesn’t work if over half of the party votes against it. For future elections, not just the next one, the Tories really want to be able to point to one time when the Tory party has stood up against anti-gay bigotry and this is their last chance,

    5. I wonder what colour God made Adam and Eve. We urgently need to find out as anyone of a different colour is sinful and must repent and change the colour of their skin.

      In the Garden of Eden there were also no blind people. We should deny blind people jobs, housing, medical care and safety until they repent of their evil ways and choose to see. We all know they are blind by choice.

  2. Robert you can live anywhere you like and obey Gods rule, that is any God you choose to follow. However all the time I’m expected to pay the same tax as you I demand the same rights and privileges as you.

  3. Despite minor opposition – Even France has managed to bring equal marriage into law – Why are we so wet about things that are just and right?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 3:10pm

      Minor but a lot more vocal and spiteful than our own opposition. I don’t see the Government caving in to every whim of the malcontents and loons on the religious right. Similar arguments and amendments were posited during Committee Hearings. All of them shot down by 15-4, all proposed by Loughton and Burrowes of course. It was one of the most enjoyable things I’ve witnessed in a long time in the Parliamentary process, seeing their bigotry exposed and defeated.

    2. Because our leaders are weak.

    3. Barrybear1980 19 May 2013, 9:02pm

      Any amendment that makes it any different to straight marriage will mean that it is not equal.

      This is disgusting, why if France can do it in a matter of months is it taking so long here and make allowances? The UK is supposed to be a multicultural society.

      How is it acceptable that registrars and teachers who are civil servants should be given the choice not adhere and teach something that will be legally recognised.

      The government need to stop dragging heels and stop fighting against a basic human right.

    4. France and the UK are like apples and oranges. Modern France was born in the French Revolution. Churches were turned into Temples of Reason and gay sex was legalized in 1789.

      the UK is still a monarchy with a State Religion It only legalized gay sex in the late twentieth century.

      I think an exemption for existing registrars and teachers, and a permanent exemption for religious institutions is not unreasonable why not compromise and win win?

  4. The concientious objection brigade will be mostly those coming from a religious perspective based on *their interpretation* of the bible’s stance on homosexuality (check out The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality by Matthew Vines on YouTube, quite enlightening stuff)

    Anyway, given this, may I also refuse to help, serve or indeed respond to those of a christian persuasion given my concientious objection to my own interpretation that the bible is hatefull and evil and probably the work of the devil on earth (cos as we all know, god keeps his nose out but the devil is all up in our business so why would god send us an instruction manual??… Think about it!!)

  5. “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve”

    He also made Hitler, your point is invalid!

  6. If they’re going to bow to these kind of amendments then they may as well not bother with the bill at all.

    I want full equality. Not the right to have equality should a service provider be inclined to give it to me.

    1. Bravo, Br00zR! Well said. And I see many others further down this thread totally agree.

      We want “Marriage EQUALITY” not “Marriage INEQUALITY”!

    2. If they bow to these amendments the entire thing will drag on and on.

    3. That is bloody typical of the gay community, thinking that the existing draft gives full equal rights in marriage.

      It doesn’t.

      It omits equality for non-binary trans people, for polyamories, for consenting polygamies and for consenting polyandries.

      Don’t worry though…in the trans community we are used to being forgotten by some of our allies.

  7. “..allowing teachers not to include same-sex relationships in their lessons, and permitting registrars not to marry same-sex couples”

    Can’t see the majority of Labour and LibDem MPs supporting these changes and the govt need their support just as much as their Tory backbenchers.

    Sounds like they are trying to wind back laws that already exist rather than allowing any additional opt outs for SSM. A bit disappointing that Grayling is supporting this, was’t he on our side for a brief moment?

  8. Aunty Betty 19 May 2013, 12:21pm

    Cameron needs to grow some balls.

  9. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2013, 12:21pm

    Actually using that analogy the ‘religious bigot’ analogy God is suppose to have made us all in his image so Adam & Eve, Adam & Steve, Eve and Mavis, Peter, Patrick and Patrica… we’re supposed to be all the same.

    And if you’re also trying to imply that we all came from Adam and Eve, not only does that make you incredibly simple and naive but a pervert too as that would be a whole load of incest.

    Get real.

    Shame you use such weak, feeble, pointless arguments to justify you own hatred and discrimination of humanity.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2013, 12:22pm

      PS don’t know about an Island you can escape to but there must be a cave you can go back and swing your club into.

  10. Oh yeah….out of Adam’s rib dum de dum!!.

    No one is asking you to marry a man, but feel free to move wherever.

    1. so was their relationship technically incestuous?

      1. Obviously not. After all, we are talking an early ‘Ladybird’ fairy story here.

      2. You cannot have sex with your own rib, so it’s nonsense anyway.

  11. That idea just smacks of pathetically weak leadership by Cameron. If he wants to allow discriminatory disregard for equality laws then he can kiss his job goodbye.

    Those gits who are proposing these kinds of amendments will NEVER vote for marriage equality no matter any amendments, plus Labour and LibDems opposition – so what’s the point, politically, to even consider this? It would just show up Cameron as a doormat.

  12. They don’t need to water it down – they already have support from lib dems an labour to pass

    the only reason to water it down would be to try to make the Tories look good so they can avoid another disaster like the last vote where most of them voted against. It’s hard to sell the “we’re not homophobes” PR when half the party votes for homophobia

    1. Charliej95 19 May 2013, 4:38pm

      Their scared of UKIP

  13. bobbleobble 19 May 2013, 12:36pm

    I guess I can just about see my way clear to allowing conscientious objection for registrars on the absolute proviso that services for gay couples are not compromised as a result. If you’re the only registrar in a town or all the others are busy or won’t swap then tough.

    But teachers – ABSOLUTELY NOT! Any other facts you want teachers to be able to leave out of their lessons? What about the gay kids in their classes? And presumably this amendment wouldn’t stop vile bigotry against same sex marriage, just anything positive.

    Cameron these 150 aren’t going to vote in favour no matter how far you bend for them. You’re just humiliating yourself and winding up the people you’re supposed to be helping with this bill.

    1. But what about conscientious objection for registrars who don’t want to marry interracial couples? Or those who don’t want to marry atheists? Or those who don’t want to marry divorcees?

      We’re talking about public servants and if they can’t serve all of the public equally they should find a new job.

      1. bobbleobble 19 May 2013, 1:32pm

        I absolutely agree with you, it’s disgraceful that they are thinking about this especially as Maria Miller said it wouldn’t happen during the Second Reading Debate. BUT is it better to have same sex marriage on the books with this in place or to make a principled stand on this issue and not get it at all? I guess at this stage pragmatism has to be the name of the game.

        As I said I would limit this hugely to ensure that services are never compromised and I would also limit it to those registrars who are already employed. If you want to become a registrar in future then tough, you do same sex marriages. Let me make it clear, I’m not happy about this but I could live with it if it eases passage of the bill.

        1. Pragmatism? No, it would be unacceptable compromise.

          We’re not talking about just being able to do something. We’re talking about being treated equal. That’s what SSM is all about.

          If SSM doesn’t grant us full equality, then it’s useless. It’s pragmatic only in that it gives you the name of marriage, but it will be a form of marriage that will be recognised as second-rate.

        2. bobbleobble, I want this bill to get through too. Very much so. But I really do think it’d be madness to allow conscientious objections. Cameron should push this through and to hell with the bigots. Surely he can get it through without these ridiculous concessions?

          The ‘christians’ are to thick to see that ‘conscientious objection’ would hurt them too because others could claim that it offended their beliefs to serve Christians. But they’re so blinded by their own hate and bigotry that they can’t see anything. Check out the delusional crap from Christian Concern. They need help not encouragement in their bizarre campiagn of psychotic, ill-judged hate.

          Also, allowing ‘conscientious objection’ would cement our positon as second-class citizens. “You can’t discriminate against women, or people of different races, but, hey, LGBT people – they’re fair game”.

    2. Midnighter 19 May 2013, 1:30pm

      I strongly disagree with your first point; Individuals working for the state – and thus representing the democratic will of society – should absolutely not have any individual leeway on such matters. It opens the door for religious opposition to saturate registrars with “concientious objectors” such that no one is available to provide the service. If these individuals are incapable of fulfilling their role as defined by society, find them another role.

      Unless you wish to live in an theocracy, the line between religious views and the democratic laws of a nation must never be allowed to blur.

      This is the same party that introduced explicit legislation that lead to teachers being scared to discuss same-sex relationships in the past. Don’t expect these dinosaurs to be at all bothered by voting for yet more vile and hypocritical bigotry.

      I agree with your last point completely – any ‘compromise’ will only ever be one sided where those party members are concerned.

      1. bobbleobble 19 May 2013, 1:36pm

        In your first point I did say that any exemption could only be made if it can be assured that services would not suffer. I also qualified that further in my reply to Iris in that any exemption should only apply to current registrars.

        Again this isn’t something I support but I could live with it if it might ease the passage of the bill. The Tory rebels are working hard to make sure that the 225 majority gained at the second reading will be reduced to give the House of Lords cover for rejecting the bill. This compromise could prevent that happening.

        1. Midnighter 19 May 2013, 2:11pm

          I don’t think it is practical to promise a service where potentially your entire staff refuses, and since their wages are paid by the taxpayer they should be obeying the democratic will of society, not that of an imaginary friend. The implication that civil marriage is already subverted by such strongly religious individuals is disturbing enough as it is.

          An evolutionary change to the law which would allow selective discrimination sets a very dangerous precedent and in my view could be far more harmful in the long term that it simply not passing. Once established there is unlikely to be any great political interest to change a known ‘hot potato’ issue, and we’ll just see more of the same.

          This all comes down to the separation of Church and State. No religion should be allowed to impose their views in lieu of the democratic process, nor should any group on matters of minority rights. Religion does not trump democracy; any compromise on this point is always to the harm of democracy.

        2. If you let current registrars refuse to serve LGBT people, then other local authority employees might demand the same rights. Want to talk to someone about your council tax? Well, you’ll have to wait because Barty Bigot has a conscientious objection to you sharing your property with your same sex spouse. Want to vote? Bad luck because Mary Martyr at the polling station doesn’t want to condone your sexuality by handing you your ballot paper.

          Don’t underestimate the persistance and venomous hate of these people, bobbleobble. They wouldn’t shut up and they wouldn’t stop pushing to deprive us of more rights by any means they could.

    3. Sorry, gay people pay taxes too. We pay registrars’ salaries yet we are being denied the service. That’s a violation of our rights as tax-paying citizens. They want equal taxes from us, then they should give us the same rights as any other taxpayers.

  14. Adam and Eve never got married, and I doubt that they were very good parents, considering that one of their sons murdered the other one. Obviously this shows that God’s plan is that only same-sex couples should get married or have kids.

  15. This is ridiculous. I am sick to death of having to fight to have the same rights as straight people. We already have a “watered down” version of marriage with civil unions as it is so it doesn’t need to be further amended to make a few Bible thumpers happy.
    Also…. Teachers can refrain from teaching about same sex relationship if they are offended??? What about atheist teachers refusing to acknowledge or teach anything that has an element of faith connected to it? Or Muslum teachers refusing to acknowledge the other faiths of their students…. These people just want to have something to complain about because somehow gays having equal rights diminishes theirs.

  16. Ukstopgaybully Lgbt Stopgaybullying 19 May 2013, 12:55pm

    This UK “Government” is Watered down! Only interested in appeasing its self indulged Back Bench rebel politicians who fear any further vote loses due to opportunists UKip mainly due to immigration and European Union issues Not Same sex marriage which is used as a scapegoat ! While the World is steaming ahead with Same sex marriage the British show how backward and discriminatory it is! We say if your Country refuses to Include You Equally We Have No Obligation To Belong or Serve Loyally to it! ;o)

  17. barriejohn 19 May 2013, 1:02pm

    I’m losing patience over this isssue. After the abolition of slavery, there were “conscientious objectors” in the Southern States who – on the basis of what their Bible said, remember -couldn’t accept black people as equal members of their society. Similarly, after the apartheid era, many whites still considered “blacks and coloureds” to be sub human – again based on some twaddle in the book of Genesis. Why should such bigotry be accommodated? Rights are rights, not privileges, and should be available to all without exception. Why kowtow to people who are so obviously living in the past?

    1. I hope like hell that supportive MPs are reading this thread and getting some inspiration for tomorrow from thoughts such as yours, barriejohn!

  18. Xavier Bongibault 19 May 2013, 1:02pm

    That exactly what we need here in France too: the right of mayors to refuse marry same-sex couple if this is against their religious believes or simple political values.

    1. Craig Nelson 19 May 2013, 1:16pm

      Dear Xavier, if indeed that is who you are – are you seriously wanting to enshrine into law a provision where people can refuse to provide a service on behalf of the State to people who pay their wages, undoing hard won protections of discrimination law? If so you really are sinking to new depths.

    2. Go have a nice wee chat to your non-existent god.

    3. What’s next? Mayors refusing to marry interracial couples because it’s against their “Whites only” beliefs? Is that what you’re advocating Monsieur Bongibault? (aka lapdog of France’s leading anti-gay marriage activist F. Barjot)

    4. Here across the pond, the marriage equality laws definitively protect religious entities from having to perform them or to use their properties for this or any other purpose dealing with gay married couples. On the other hand, government recognized businesses that are not tax exempt religious based entities are required to abide by local and State laws. I don’t know about France but we here in the USA live under a democracy and NOT a theocracy. In this religions do not have a right to create nor enforce laws based in their personal beliefs. Nor do they have the right to thrust them upon everyone else. In this it is written, “Render unto Cesar what is due Cesar and to God what is due God”. Even Jesus knew it was better for the separation of the two.

  19. He needs to stop pandering to homophobes who will never support this, if a registrar can’t do part of their job then they should be punished and sacked eventually, same for teachers etc

    “Religious conscience” is just code for homophobic idiots

  20. Much of this is spite. They know people are leaving in droves to join UKIP because of the referendum issue. If they would only offer a fair and quick EU refererendum, this situation would not exist. It’s give and take and at the moment, the government want it all their own way and there are over a million of us, who want something in return.

  21. Craig Nelson 19 May 2013, 1:11pm

    I am not sure whether the watering down would pass the Commons. It might of course if a whipped Tory vote and enough dissidents in other parties. Libs would probably split down the middle. It could be a tight vote.

    It is of course unnecessary and won’t increase the bill’s support by a single vote but would just show Cameron is now being shoved around at will by his right wing and he is no longer in control of his party.

  22. Not only is this idea stupid and offensive, it won’t work because if Cameron gives the bigots an inch, they’ll take a mile. Next they’ll be using this as a precedent to refuse to serve LGBT people in shops, or to refuse to let us stay in B and Bs, etc. Where will it stop?

    You can’t let people ignore the law because of some prejudiced belief about other people. Why not allow racists to ‘conscientiously object’ and refuse to serve people with different skin colours to theirs? Why not allow ‘christians’ to refuse to serve atheists and those of other religions? And how about the misogynists – why shouldn’t they object and refuse to employ women?

    Take these bigots in hand, Cameron, and drag the spiteful, hateful b*stards into the 21st century.

    1. “Take these bigots in hand, Cameron, and drag the spiteful, hateful b*stards into the 21st century.”

      Indeed! Cameron has said he’s a conviction politician. Well, now that statement is truly about to be tested.

    2. I completely agree Iris. It seems to me that prejudice against gay people is seen as more socially acceptable and less important than other forms of bigotry not that I’m trying to claim that racism and misogyny aren’t horrible, nasty prejudices that represent the very worst in humanity. I think all discrimination is equally wrong, yet it’s time that homophobia was treated as such.

      Cameron needs to put his foot down and do what’s best for society, equality and treating others with the fairness they deserve is an essential part of making this country a better place. Cameron is part of a party that is fundamentally against all of these things, they always have been and they always will be. “Conservativism” is about maintaining the inequalities and divisions on society so we shouldn’t be so surprised because Cameron may be liberal for his party but the rest of them stand by those backward and reactionary beliefs.

    3. I completely agree Iris. It seems to me that prejudice against gay people is seen as more socially acceptable and less important than other forms of bigotry not that I’m trying to claim that racism and misogyny aren’t horrible, nasty prejudices that represent the very worst in humanity. I think all discrimination is equally wrong, yet it’s time that homophobia was treated as such.

      Cameron needs to put his foot down and do what’s best for society, equality and treating others with the fairness they deserve is an essential part of making this country a better place. Cameron is part of a party that is fundamentally against all of these things, they always have been and they always will be. “Conservatism” is about maintaining the inequalities and divisions in society so we shouldn’t be so surprised because Cameron may be liberal for his party but the rest of them stand by those backward and reactionary beliefs.

  23. have i got to live on a deserted island to obey gods rule

    Good idea, off you go.

  24. DivusAntinous 19 May 2013, 1:22pm

    It seems nobody is concerned about doing what is right, but rather with not upsetting anybody. I was gong to vote for the Tories, but I don’t think I’ll be able to bring myself to vote such spineless twits into government. I was looking forward to voting for the first time, but I may not vote at all.

    1. Midnighter 19 May 2013, 1:39pm

      I know how you feel, but remember if you can’t vote ‘for’ you can always vote tactically in general or local elections (I’m aware of plenty of people who vote for a different party in local elections because they stand more of a chance than the party they vote for at general elections).

      A vote might seem like a waste where an entrenched party always win, but I’d urge you to vote nevertheless – surprises do happen in elections, and while people do tend to vote out of habit, an election where there are meaty issues at stake like equal marriage or the EU can really mix it up.

  25. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 1:26pm

    I don’t know why Cameron should be concerned about 150 Tories rebelling Wasn’t that about the the same who voted no, abstained or were absent for the second reading? Yet it still passed with a huge majority of 225.

    This has all been orchestrated by Loughton and Burrowes, their fingerprints are all over it. I’d like to know who those cabinet members are who may vote for amendments. We all know Hammond is one, but I’d be surprised if Theresa May, George Osborn or Jeremy Hunt would support any of them.

    1. It’s because Cameron’s not so much a man of conscience as a man who would rather not go down in history as the PM who lost the next election for the Tories. He doesn’t want to be saddled with that blame.

      On the other hand, he could really PROVE for all time what a man of conscience he really is, as in “Cameron succeeded in introducing Equal Marriage, and bore vilification for the rest of his life”.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 2:59pm

        Well, it won’t be equal marriage that will defeat the Tories in 2015. Remember, they came into office without a mandate, a hung Parliament with an already wrecked economy and unemployment, among other things. There’s no way this bill is going to be wrecked by the loons in his party, no way. France was in far worse shape, and look what happened there. Same arguments that were all resoundingly defeated.

    2. Paul Halsall 19 May 2013, 2:34pm

      I don’t like Hunt or Osborne. I have a bit more respect for Theresa May, but in this case they are not to blame. Hunt was openly saying he would support the Bill on TV today. May has indicated that many times, and Osborne is apparently trying to snuff the rebellion.

      I think it very unlikely this government will last another two years.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 3:05pm

        Hunt and May also made a video for the Out4Marriage campaign. No way they’re not going to support the bill. This will all die down one’s its out of the way and passed into law. The same nonsense has come up in every country where equal marriage has passed. this is no different, in fact, far less significant than what we saw in France. It’s been far more caustic in twelve American states.

  26. Mumbo Jumbo 19 May 2013, 1:26pm

    “conscientious objectors”

    WTF? Are we at war or something?

    I would rather see the bill withdrawn rather than enshrine religious bigotry in law and run the possibility of this dangerous idea spreading into other areas of life.

    1. We’re in agreement, MJ! Let’s hope that tomorrow some MPs on our side use this argument to SHAME the homophobes on the other side.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 3:54pm

      It’s not going to happen. There are sufficient protections for religious loons under the CP legislation, this is no different. It’s all about fear-mongering because they know the bill is probably going to be passed on Tuesday. We went through the same spurious nonsense in 2004 with the CP bill, word for word. They traduced the legislation then and they’re traducing the marriage bill in exactly the same manner. The world didn’t come to an end, it didn’t cause heteros to stop getting married or procreating and no church was sued for refusing to bless a CP’d couple, and as far as I know, there hasn’t been one case of a divorced hetero couple suing a church for refusing to marry them.

      They know it’s going forward and they just don’t like it or want it, irrespective of their bogus outrage over the economy, unemployment, EU reform and immigration as reasons for withdrawing it. Farage vowed to exploit the Tory loons and they’ve played right into UKIP’s hands at their own peril.

  27. sickening

  28. Beelzeebub 19 May 2013, 1:31pm

    How the F can you “water down” equality.

    1 = 1
    2 = 2
    a = a

    Nowhere does 1 = 0.5 except in the minds of these bigots.

    1. Beelzeebub 19 May 2013, 1:34pm

      And PS. If you do this you might as not “F”in bother, as I would want no part in yet another “not as good as you” frigged institution designed to appease bigots.

      1. Beelzeebub, glad to hear you say this, as that was my reaction too and I believe it the right one to have if they are going to introduce such disabling amendments!

  29. Well if it is the C of E exemption that is causing them to vote against it – Everyone has a right to get married and a right to have their religion and to get married in their Faith .

    As for the Exemption it is ajoke as the Church is exempted under the Submission of the Clergy act – dates back to Henry 8th and it basically states that they cannot do contrary to the ROyal Perorgative. ( the monarchs final say) the Govt is trying to get out of it by saying the kween is a constitutional monarch – doesnt operate a royal perorgative anymore. She does and MUST as the Church is banking on it. The thing is if she really is against it then she must say, if she doenst say it CAN BE ASSUMED that she is for it and the church will be in contempt of the Royal Perogative.tehhehehehehehehheheheh! hahahahahahahahhahahhaha! sorry its funny.
    Like i said – God loves Queer folks and sent Jesus to die for us – what >? it is sunday afer all I can preach!

  30. michaelandfred 19 May 2013, 1:44pm

    And not doing it has and will also upset “vast numbers of people.” Boo hoo. ALL laws always upset someone. Paying taxes upset vast numbers. Going to war in Iraq upset the vast majority, but go you did. Bigotry however isn’t something the government should give in to. Pass the damn law already.

  31. “The government is in LISTENING mode”, they say?

    Sounds to me like the government is in the mode of surrendering to the bullies!

    Introducing “amendments allowing teachers not to include same-sex relationships in their lessons, and permitting registrars not to marry same-sex couples”?

    My gut reaction to such amendments is: scrap the Bill entirely! This country isn’t ready for it. Let other nations lead the way.

    We don’t want or NEED a Marriage Bill that has no TEETH, that enables teachers to impart the message that SSM is not even worthy of mentioning, and that enables registrars to LEGALLY refuse to marry us!

    If such amendments are to be added, cancel this Bill, and let the UK be shown up by all those other nations which have, are, and will overtake us!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 2:53pm

      I don’t believe it’s going to be watered down. They put forward those spurious arguments when CPs were being legislated. Laws currently in place guarantee sufficient protection for the religious loons of whatever walk of life and profession. Some of them must be pissed off at the CoE not supporting the CP amendment and its statement yesterday that the quadruple lock delivers more than adequate protection. I don’t think any of them expected that to happen. Loughton and Burrowes must feel gobsmacked over that one having raised the issue as a concern during the Committee Hearings. It’s all grand-standing histrionics and reveals the homophobia that’s at the heart of just over half of the Tory party.

  32. Jock S. Trap 19 May 2013, 2:05pm

    This is the media so will hold out.

    However if true those 150 were in a minority and surely therefore no government can ignore the majority who voted for this bill.

    It doesn’t need ‘watering down’ and it certainly doesn’t need a minority to dictate terms of a democratically elected bill.

  33. Obvious troll is obvious.

    1. And an illiterate one at that.

  34. “have i got to live on a deserted island to obey gods rule?”

    Well, if you sincerely believe in fairies, ghosts, elves, goblins, spirits, gods, phantoms, devils, leprechauns, angels, and the like . . . then you suffer from a serious mental illness and you really ought not to go and live in solitude but seek out professional mental help.

    There are no supernatural beings out there, Robert Sampson. Kick yourself in the balls and kickstart your life! You have yet to start living!

  35. “Compromises taking place behind the scenes in Parliament may result in amendments allowing teachers not to include same-sex relationships in their lessons, and permitting registrars not to marry same-sex couples, in order to keep as many Tory MPs on board as possible.”

    Maybe the amendment can also include a point to say that homosexual students are exempt from attending the classes due to the utterly pointless nature of what they will be taught.
    Homosexuals generally do not need to know the ins and outs (forgive the pun) of penis-vagina sex due to the fact that we wouldn’t ever have that sort of sex.
    Refusing to value a student’s relationship, and teach people of the potential risks of homosexual sex isn’t a ‘conscience’ issue, it’s child abuse.

    If the bill is going to be written as a convenience for homophobes, then the government might as well not have the bill at all.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 2:45pm

      Therein lies the reason why these amendments are being introduced, to defeat the bill. What these loons don’t quite realise is that even if such an amendment were carried, it would open up a can of worms, pitting one religion against another, atheists, Unitarians, LIberal Judaism, the Quakers refusing services to religious nutters and what not. It would backfire on them. They haven’t really considered what they are wishing and hoping for. They can’t possibly expect that only religious nutters should have extra protection under the law surely?

      1. I would sooner have marriage put off for a few years than have it written into the law that teachers don’t need to teach and keep their own students safe because doing so makes them feel uncomfortable.
        Everything I know about safe sexual conduct is in spite of my education, not because of it.

        And I am quite sure that a Labour led government will have more backbone to make the needed changes without compromising everything in the face of the 11th century backbenchers.

    2. er uts called sexual reproduction, so every child ought to know

  36. Paul Halsall 19 May 2013, 2:30pm

    “Tories are vermin” Nye Bevan. Never forget it.

  37. You can obey “God’s rules” to your hearts content. Just leave others the freedom to have a different viewpoint.

  38. Cameron has tried to bring his party into the 21st century, but it looks as if they insist on demonstrating that they are indeed the nasty party.

    Credit to Cameron he did try but you can’t make a silk purse out of a pigs ear.

  39. Christopher in Canada 19 May 2013, 3:02pm

    It’s all based on the idea that being gay is easy, while being str8 is hard. hence the need to hide all elements of homosexuality from children, It really doesn’t say much for being str8, does it?!?

  40. Yes. Good bye!

  41. Watering down of equality laws?
    Exemptions for public employees payed with public money, registrars, teachers,charaties recieving public funds,public corporations, and limited companys, where do you stop.
    Equality that isnt equality, isnt!
    I’d rather see this bill burst into flames and self destruct than see any amendments to the Equality Act to appease deluded homophobes and bigots. How exactly does a court define conscience- it can’t.
    Besides conscience is usually regarded as not doing something that harms an other, NOT imposing your beliefs on a group or individual you dislike ! as these dispicable nutters want to do.
    Lets get something absolutely clear – religious freedom only applies if that freedom does not infringe the freedoms of others AND does not cause a harm to another, it is not carte blanche to ignore the rights and freedoms of others or cause them harm or for that matter discriminate in the public square on grounds of your religion or anyone-elses.

  42. Are we talking about the same Adam and Eve who got kicked out of the Garden of Eden, spent the rest of there lives miserable and unhappy with each other and raised the worlds first murderer?

    Not to mention the fact that they never got married and all of there children were born out of wedlock…

    Real great examples for us to follow Robert.

  43. Pavlos Prince of Greece 19 May 2013, 3:32pm

    Its not so much about House of Commons, but about House of Lords – because same-sex marriage bill have be here a better chance to be approved, right ? Well, then better such law than indeed no law. And when Labor come to the power again, they will bring this amendments down.

  44. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 3:41pm

    In your dreams, delusional halfwit.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 4:13pm

      Loon! BIg yawn!

    2. Oh! Keith you big old turd. When it does become the law of the land in the UK, will you promise to eat up a pound of rat poison? One less skip rat like you won’t be missed out of the sewer.

  45. Yes, we are getting more like Uganda and Zimbabwe every day Keith. Are you pleased and excited?

    1. Speaking of recreational drug use… what have you been smoking?

  46. Godric Godricson 19 May 2013, 3:44pm

    Why are we surprised? You can never trust a Tory in matters of equality. They will always come out on the wrong side of history. This is potentially no different.

  47. To the responder from France: Here across the pond, the marriage equality laws definitively protect religious entities from having to perform them or to use their properties for this or any other purpose dealing with gay married couples. On the other hand, government recognized businesses that are not tax exempt religious based entities are required to abide by local and State laws. I don’t know about France but we here in the USA live under a democracy and NOT a theocracy. In this religions do not have a right to create nor enforce laws based in their personal beliefs. Nor do they have the right to thrust them upon everyone else. In this it is written, “Render unto Cesar what is due Cesar and to God what is due God”. Even Jesus knew it was better for the separation of the two.

  48. It’s disgusting that Labor isn’t carrying this legislation. They deserve to be out of power if they aren’t willing to push for full LGBT marriage equality.

  49. As more and more the general public start seeing us as a whole, as the real people whom we really are, the more irrelevant the monstrous picture that religion paints of us becomes. In this the metaphorical nail you speak of is instead, going in the belief system of your coffin.

  50. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 4:11pm

    Even if concessions were made to the loons, religious or otherwise, the legislation itself still would not get their vote so it’s a losing proposition to consider in my view.

    Just take Loughton’s ill-intentioned amendment as an example. He wants heteros to have access to CPs, in addition to marriage, pretending it removes an inequality for them while he’ll be voting against the legislation on Tuesday. He told me yesterday in an heated email exchange that marriage for gays conveys no further equality which is why he is voting no while supporting more rights for heteros. That’s not going to happen. It’s so obvious what he’s up to. The man is a delusional loon.

    1. Indeed, Robert. Those wrecking amendments were part of the loons’ plan, supported by the like of Christian Concern. We should never underestimate just how far they’ll go to deprive other human beings of their rights. They’ve leapt on this issue with glee – determined to bully and denigrate us to make up for their own sad little lives.

      They just love having some group to pick on – how Christian of them. NOT.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 5:27pm

        Iris, it’s going to backfire on them, believe me. I will gloat when the bill passes on tuesday and pass it will. WIth people like Chris Bryant, he won’t let Loughton or Burrowes get away with their traducing of equal marriage as evidenced by his firm rebuttal to Phillip Hammond the other day on QT. I sent Chris an email earlier today about that and what Loughton told me, as I did with Stephen Williams who is supporting his ill-intentioned loony amendment.

      2. I sincerely hope the bill WILL pass, Robert. But I’m not as positive as you – I still worry sometimes. Your comment did make me more optimistic though :)

    2. Yes, if there is one Swivel-Eyed Loon up to mischief in this particular matter, the evidence suggests that it is Mr. Timothy Loughton.

      And, come to think of it, when I saw him speaking on BBC News at Ten the other night, I did think there was something odd afoot with his eyes, never mind the drivel that was pouring from his mouth.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 5:30pm

        Indeed, Eddy. Don’t forget that other swivel eyed loon, David Burrowes and his ill-intentioned referendum amendment that will go down in flames, I guarantee it. They didn’t get one amendment carried in Committee and they won’t succeed this week either. Delusional fools and halfwits. You know, I’m glad I called Loughton a bigot yesterday. It pissed him off no end because I’d called his bluff. He didn’t bother responding to a follow-up email because of it.

  51. Charliej95 19 May 2013, 4:36pm

    Tories with no backbone. They will blame UKIP but look and the unreported surge in Labour support also !.

    (Never trust a Tory!) unless they have a clean record on equality issues.

    1. Godric Godricson 19 May 2013, 5:44pm

      Never trust a Tory……Keep it simple and remember history

      1. Charliej95 20 May 2013, 5:32pm

        Agreed :D

  52. Cameron needs to get tough with the tory bigot scum, if he backs down, he’ll have lost all credibility and conviction and will still lose all those bigot tories to ukip anyhow , but also any evolved voters for the party.
    He won’t win the next election anyhow because of the economy. It is best he is remembered as a politician of change than a weak puppet to his vile back benchers.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 5:23pm

      He’s not going to back down, believe me. If it were truly about equal marriage, Labour wouldn’t have gained 291 seats in the local elections. It debunks that myth entirely. They would have suffered massive losses but didn’t and neither did the Tories really.

      1. I hope you are right, I’m not bothered if the Tories split the wheat from the chaff, get rid of the nasty element, would save the party in the long term.

  53. Yet this Gov, shows its spinless, there have been time that the party “whip” would tell them to toe the party line….Now it seems Cameron is will to bend over just to appese the some of the spineless cretons within the Tory faithless, rather than face them face on

  54. Phuk this up, Cameron, and you’re toast. Which you may end up being anyway.

  55. Man made god, not the other way around, you mental midget.

  56. Why did God create Eve? If you look at Genesis you’ll see the reason: Because Adam was lonely. Man was not made to be alone. If he can find a lifelong mate to quell his loneliness that should be celebrated as part of God’s initial desire.

  57. Leigh Hamilton 19 May 2013, 8:00pm

    I can only hope the Scottish government doesn’t buy into this worthless middle-ground nonsense with their bill.

  58. Just think where these proposed exemptions would lead and the sort of notices that would appear…

    • “Coloured People Must Occupy Rear Seats Only”

    • “Europeans Only”

    • “No Gypsies, No Irish, No Queers”

    • “The Management regret that you can’t work here / lodge here / be served (delete as appropriate) because your skin’s too dark / light, you’re wearing a turban / crucifix / burka, you’re too old / young, you’re Catholic / Protestant / Jewish.”

    Do we really want those dark days to return? Of course not !

    The Tory bigots are just flying a kite to get some sort of wrecking amendment, but there’s no way it will get through for the reasons listed above.

    Cameron needs to neutralise UKIP only on Europe and immigration. Once he’s sorted out those two key issues where he’s certainly very vulnerable, UKIP will then become toothless and fade away, except for a ‘None Of The Above’ vote. Even that could fixed just by adding a ‘None Of The Above’ box to the ballot form !

  59. typical tories. still stuck in the 2nd century. they need to get their fingers out their a***s and realise this is the 21st century and everyone is equal, no matter their race, nationality, sexual orientation etc. Even France and most of America are bringing in Equal Marriage laws, so why we the UK.

  60. For goodness sake. We’re going to get another ‘skimmed-milk’ marriage. This won’t be equal marriage, this will be half way between civil partnerships and marriage. If we’re going to get another marriage-lite, why bother? We’ll just end up having this debate again in a few years.

    Just pass the bill. The public support it, the elected MPs overwhelmingly support it and all 3 major parties officially support it. Stop pandering to bigots.

  61. it is not fair to water it down just because we have to extend the civil partnership to straight couples. This should be done but in a future legislation. It’s a joke and a dreadful inequality.

    Straight couples already have marriage and they can wait for few more years for a new bill to be drawn…it is a disgrace

  62. Oh my. I guess every country has their equivalent of the Republican Party.

  63. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 9:11am

    If it gets watered down, by allowing registrars to refuse to carry out same-sex civil marriages it will just get challenged in a courts, and the ECHR has already rules that the original ruling against Liddell was right – public servants cannot refuse to treat people equally under the law – the proposed amendment would be invalid, challenged in court, and in the ECHR if necessary.

    These wrecking amendments need to be thrown out. The right-wing Tories need to be given a bloody nose and told to put up and shut up. The tail needs to stop wagging the dog.

  64. Maybe I’m being cynical, but I think it’s becoming clearer that the PM doesn’t care about equality. He was peddling for votes from the centre, and now that’s backfiring he’s abandoning his so-called ‘principles’. I’m very disappointed and upset to read the news today.

  65. Cameron seems to be giving in to that segment of the Conservative party that most resemble US Republicans waay more often these days than should be the case.

    1. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 9:45am

      In which case most of us will vote Labour or LibDem and there will be a majority Labour government, or a LibDem/Labour coalition in 2015, and the legislation will pass regardless. Just like the fanatics in the GOP the Tory party is going to tear itself apart, and if they are not careful they won’t even make it to 2015.

      It’s a win-win situation frankly, either they calm down and pass it, without wrecking legislation, and they might pick up gratitude votes, or they delay it for 2 years, in which case they won’t be in power, and won’t have enough MPs to make any changes to it, or defeat it. And it will also be a defining difference between Tories and Labour / LibDems in the next election, and will be brought up ad-nauseam during the campaign.

      They’re loosing support because they’re hurting people with the austerity cuts, being nasty, have upset everyone, and haven’t fixed the economy. Most people are just fine with equal marriage. Let’s see what happens today in Parliament.

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.