Reader comments · Poll: 73% of MPs support civil partnerships amendment to equal marriage bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Poll: 73% of MPs support civil partnerships amendment to equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why conduct a poll of MPs when they are going to vote on this subject tomorrow, anyway? C4M seems to have money to burn.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 8:32pm

    A survey of 159 MPS, how many are Tories compared to Labour and Liberal Democrats?

    What about the remaining 491? This poll is suspect.

  3. I’m sure that Tim Loughton’s intentions are 100% malevolent, but the bit I really don’t understand is why accepting the amendment should derail the main SSM bill.

    I’d prefer that these second-rate CPs should no longer be available once the SSM bill becomes law, but if they do continue then it would make sense for them to be available to everyone.

    Why can’t it just be approved as being an entirely reasonable minor tweak? I can’t see many people passionately arguing that CPs should not be available to all, so it shouldn’t represent a spanner in the works.

    Or have I missed something ?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 May 2013, 10:05pm

      Gerry, they want all amendments passed including a referendum. If the CP amendment were to be carried and others weren’t, that would give them a chance to block and delay the bill and ultimately defeat it assuming that those who vote yes in the second reading are doing an about turn and voting no on tuesday. Hopefully, that won’t be the case. Most of them who voted against the bill in the second reading are going to vote against it regardless of amendments, including Loughton. It isn’t genuine concern at all about heteros having access to CPs believe me. It’s a deliberate attempt to try to get rid of the bill altogether.

      I’m all for CPs for both orientations but not on the opposition’s terms to use it against the bill’s chances of passing. Heteros can wait, they already have marriage. Let them deal with it after this bill is passed into law when the issue will be reviewed by the government.

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

      The opponents also know that not all if any of the amendments will be carried, so this disingenuous CP amendment is a weapon they’ll try to use against the bill. They just don’t want the bill passed at all. Not one of them had campaigned for CPs for heteros after that law passed in 2004, not even Loughton. This is a trap they want some to fall into. My gut feeling is it won’t work. Lynne Featherstone quite rightly states in another post that many supporting this amendment have long records of opposing equality and equal marriage. It’s ill-intentioned and hopefully it will fail.

      1. Perhaps I’m still missing something because I don’t know all the minutiae of the parliamentary process, but how just long would it take to discuss and vote on Equal CPs?

        Does the bill have to be accepted as it stands, all or nothing, and discussing any amendment at all (no matter how benign) suddenly makes the whole thing unravel irretrievably? If so, then I could see why any discussion would be best avoided because it might turn into a filibuster. But can amendments just be rejected without any debate / vote, and if so, who decides? It’s all a bit confusing for the layman !

        If a time-limited debate and vote could be held, then I’d tend to support the Equal CPs amendment. IIRC the bill has already been amended at least once because it was originally proposed that no religious organisations could conduct SSMs, but now the quadruple lock has been added.

        However, I’m deeply distrustful of Tim Loughton’s motives so perhaps that’s the best guide, even if the logic escapes me !

  4. Barrybear1980 19 May 2013, 9:11pm

    Totally with you Gerry

  5. I wouldn’t be surprised if once civil partnerships are extended to heterosexual couples more and more heterosexual couples opt for civil partnerships over marriage.

    Lots of heterosexual people do not like the religions and patriarchal connotations that come with marriage.

  6. Good on them! Down here in New Zealand, straight couples have always had access to our civil unions since the passage of our Civil Union Bill in 2005. Why not symmetrical reform?

    1. Madeleine Litchfield 28 Jan 2014, 6:18pm

      This country is so far behind the times as to be laughable if it weren’t so serious!

  7. Civil partnerships were a mistake and should always been called equal marriage so civil partnerships need to be converted to equal marriage for those who have taken them up and then be done away with

  8. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2013, 9:27am

    I do question Loughton and Burrowes motive. I don’t believe it purely of equality in Civil Partnership but more about delaying equality in Marriage.

    I suspect they think that if Civil Partnerships are opened to all we should settle because they’ll state we have the same.

    It’s nothing to do with equality, it is an insult to it because their motives are as usual doubtful, bigoted and underhanded.

  9. Madeleine Litchfield 28 Jan 2014, 6:16pm

    I totally support civil partnerships for heterosexual couples! Forcing marriage is contravening human rights and totally outdated. People who don’t want to get married should have the same legal rights as those in this antiquated quasi religious process. We all have rights and should be able to choose which suits us.

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.