Reader comments · Downing Street will decide tactics for equal marriage bill after vote on straight civil partnership amendment · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Downing Street will decide tactics for equal marriage bill after vote on straight civil partnership amendment

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Right folks-here it is-couldn’t be put plainer.

    If the Tim Loughton’s amendment to extend Civil Partnerships to straight couples-is passed today-then the Gay Marriage Bill is dead in the water.

    Its a simple choice for ALL MP’s- especially Labour ones!

    1. Tim Loughton can’t have it both ways. He insists that his amendment is about equality for all. So if his amendment passes he MUST vote to support the legislation. Otherwise he will be a proven LIAR

      1. Harvey Milk 20 May 2013, 1:59pm

        He has already said he will vote against equal marriage even if the amendment is passed.That is why it is a wrecking amendment.

    2. I don’t understand why you are criticising Labour MPs for voting in favour of equality under the law (for both marriages and civil partnerships).

      The government haven’t given one good reason for why the whole bill would need to be withdrawn if the civil partnerships amendment goes through, other than some ludicrous claim that it would take 2 years to implement and cost £4bn (yeh, right.)

      It looks to me as though the government is looking for an excuse to withdraw the bill and then trying to pass the blame onto Labour who are doing the right thing. Shame that some people seem to be falling for it.

      1. Do we have a good source for the £4bn alleged cost yet?

  2. And if this happens, I will never vote for the tories, EVER. And if Labour support the amendment, I will never vote for them either, EVER.

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2013, 1:38pm

      Here, Here!!

  3. And if Downing Street do withdraw, there needs to be some serious protests and demonstrations organised against this government.

  4. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 1:22pm

    Don’t think there’s any danger in the government withdrawing support, and I never listen to tittle tattle from No. 10 sources.

    I’m going to make a prediction.

    The amendment will be defeated and the bill will proceed. The government will give assurances to bring forward a bill to consult on extending Civil Partnerships within this parliament.

    I wonder if Labrokes are taking bets ! And I don’t even bet !!

    It starts on Parliament TV in a few hours, probably some time after 2:30.

    1. You have the same inside info as me, Gulliver :-)

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 May 2013, 1:48pm

      I think it’s scheduled for 3:30 according to the UK Parliament website.

      1. BBC Parliment says approx 4.15 pm

        1. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 2:07pm

          ^^^ some time today then ! :D

  5. This is now all down to the Labour and Liberal benches. The Tories are out of control, but this amendment can easily becdefeated if Libs and Labs do the right thing.

    Obviously the threat of withdrawl is brinkmanship, but Loughton and co have their best chance yet at wrecking this whole thing.

  6. I don’t see why the Bill should be abandoned whether or not the amendment is passed. There’s simply no reason to drop it.

  7. How does this even relate? If straight folks are allowed to have civil partnerships, then gay folks can’t get married? What?

    1. bobbleobble 20 May 2013, 1:41pm

      Cameron can’t support civil partnerships for straight people. His whole ideology behind the current mess is that marriage is good and therefore should be available to all couples. Civil Partnerships completely undermines that and Loughton et al know it. He simply can’t support a bill which can be seen as undermining marriage.

  8. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2013, 1:37pm

    This is as I suspected the real reason for Loughton’s Bill. Someone who acts badly to equality then suddenly backs this equality clearly to stall all progress.

    Set us back years and I for one will be very unforgiving.

  9. From Sky News Twitterfeed:

    Sky News Newsdesk ‏@SkyNewsBreak 7m
    Lab not supporting Gay Marriage Bill amendment for civil partnerships being extended to hetrosexual couples which could have halted Gov bill

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 May 2013, 1:50pm

      How reliable is that, Sasha?

      1. Robert

        It’s backed up by a couple of other sources, now. Reliable enough.

      2. They are doing iton condition of a review of CPs in 12 months

  10. Pavlos Prince of Greece 20 May 2013, 1:47pm

    For me the idea itself that civil partnership can exist even after same-sex marriage became a law was all ways very strange and indeed not helpful for gay rights at the pure political level (what a sense have gay marriage if gay couples already have the very same rights ?). And Mr. Loughton with his clever amendment understand this too. Its indeed very ironic, that perhaps for some gay activists like Mr. Teatchell civil partnership for straight people still is a sign of “equality”, now it looks very much that all of this has became an horse of Troy in the epic fight against true equality. Its ironic and even cynical, but its politics.

    1. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 1:53pm

      It may have been designed to give us all the rights but not the title, but it now has a lot of interest from heterosexual couples — it new, …. it doesn’t have baggage. Traditional marriage has had religious overtones, with religious dogma incorporated in to law, and that dogma has had to be stripped out. The role of women as objects, as property, to be subservient to men, the inequalities – these are mostly lacking in modern relationships, but the very word “marriage” has overtones for many heterosexuals – they would like a term to use which more honestly described the equality of their relationship, of equal, and “partnership” does that. For gay people it’s less of a problem, our relationships have mostly been totally equal, so calling them marriage won’t be a real problem for us, although some may want to have a Civil Partnership.

      1. I’d be surprised if it had “a lot” of interest. Most straight people would choose a civil wedding surely if they wanted something non -religious and non-traditional? I think there are only a few people who can’t get over the ‘patriarchal’ bit. It never enters my head or that of anyone I know. Maybe it’s an age thing? (not implying that you’re old, GulliverUK! :D )

        Seriously, I think the ‘straights want CPs’ has been talked up big time, and not only by pro-equality people sadly…

        1. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 2:12pm

          If they had followed the debate closely they might not be quite so keen, given they were told, and MPs know, that having a Civil Partnership here in the UK won’t be worth much overseas. It’s at that point they suddenly realise why Civil Partnerships need some reform, and marriage needed to be opened up to us.

          When we have equal marriage and equal civil partnerships we will have to make sure that overseas countries are quite clear that both are considered as marriage in this country, in law, and that they should treat couples as married regardless of which certificate / title they use.

  11. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 1:48pm

    Labour abandons support for gay marriage “wrecking” amendment | New Statesman |

    1. Thanks for sharing, good to read.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 May 2013, 2:40pm

      Encouraging to hear, GulliverUK, thanks for posting. Now on to safe passage of the bill tomorrow.

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 20 May 2013, 1:55pm

    Cameron is playing a very wise card. What this does is neutralise Labour. If the amendment passed with Labour support and the bill failed to pass because of it, it would have no leverage to use for equal marriage as a campaign issue in 2015 which would lose vital gay votes. Labour and the Tories need as many gay votes as they can because the next election is going to be a tight one either way, although I don’t think we’ll be seeing another coalition whoever wins.

  13. Robert in S. Kensington 20 May 2013, 1:59pm

    Loughton and I had a nasty email exchange over the weekend. I ended up calling him a bigot. In some ways I wished I hadn’t but he made me so angry. He’s very arrogant, pompous and a bully in my view.

    I told him if he’s so enthusiastic about expanding CPs for straights, why didn’t he champion a campaign and a separate bill immediately after the legislation passed in 2004? After calling him a bigot, he ignored my third email. So I’ll never know what his response would have been although I can imagine.

    1. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 2:19pm

      You shouldn’t contaminate your inbox with replies from filth like that ! :)

      His comeuppance is coming – I’m sure. He’s already the former disgraced Children’s minister, and I wouldn’t be surprised if something is revealed about him soon. I’m busy with photoshop and copies of PentHouse at this very moment ! :D

  14. GulliverUK 20 May 2013, 2:08pm

    Apparently the amendments (according to the BBC) aren’t expected until late tonight, he said 10pm !

    Long day. :(

    1. I was told that the vote would be around 10pm, but the debate earlier. God knows, really :)

  15. Labour confirming that they will

    a) not support this wrecking amendment and

    b) that they will table their own amendment that will not wreck anything.

  16. Labour’s Yvette Cooper refusing to support the wrecking amendment, and tabling an alternative.

    1. Apologies for accidental double-post

      Sasha xxx

  17. marriage should be available to all and so too Civil Partnerships. So what’s the connection. Install Marriage for all and agree that partnerships will follow soon after. Equality is equality. Bill sabotage is sabotage.

    1. Why don’t we have the French model where I believe the legal requirement is for a civil ceremony – which can then be blessed afterwards in a religious ceremony if the couple want it to be.

  18. Brilliant – then they will have backed it and not backed it, pleasing everyone

  19. The bottom line:
    We are talking about racists, xenophobes and homophobes who usurped power in 2010 and are being supported by their kind, some of whom are right here among 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.