Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

MPs pass same-sex marriage bill in final third reading

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. GulliverUK 21 May 2013, 7:18pm

    Yeah, great, and I’m thinking what a complete waste of time this bill is …. sorry about that. But if you watched ALL of the debate like I did you’d realise they’re not going to sort of the unequal pensions in CPs and since private pensions only pay gay couples a fraction of what heterosexual couples get … we’re still 2nd class citizens. It is, frankly, about time some news outlet did a detailed article on pensions, because it looks like we’re being screwed, and will continue to be screwed.

    Sorry to be un-joyous on this day, but if pensions are unequal, then you are not equal.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 May 2013, 7:26pm

      I understand your sentiment, but the most important thing is getting the bill passed first. Pensions, humanist marriages, CPs for straights can all be addressed once the EM law is on the statute books. It is a day to to be celebrated in spite of not getting everything we wanted.

      1. GulliverUK 21 May 2013, 7:36pm

        Since the government is going to fight the Walker ruling it is unlikely they will sort of pensions any time soon, and it’s bugger all use having a name when your income is a fraction of the heterosexual couple living next door. They promised to sort it out, said it would be part of the consultation and legislative process – and lied. To say they are going to fight against Walker is to say they are going to fight against Equal Marriage rights – it’s the height of discrimination.

        Labour never sort it in all the time after CPs were introduced – why would you think this lot will? Celebrate, and I’m happy for you, but the whole things, for me, has been an utter waste of the last few years. I’m second class, will remain so, the best thing to do is to accept it. As you can tell, I’m rather gutted by this mid-debate revelation. We can both have a glass of wine, you celebrate, I’ll drown my sorrows.

        1. I know it may not be much consolation now, but doesn’t this anomaly disappear automatically over time? Accrual rates from 2005 constituting the shared/joint pension?

          1. GulliverUK 21 May 2013, 8:21pm

            Great, so what about the people who have retired recently, or are coming up retirement, who won’t get but a fraction? People here seem not to care about pensions – incredibly short sighted. I’m not in a CP, I don’t have a private pension, and I don’t expect to reach pension age — it means flip all to me personally, I’m thinking about other people and how it will affect them. It’ll be a very limiting factor for many gay couples.

          2. Interestingly, nobody who previously voted Aye changed their minds and voted No, but some of those who previously voted No did change their minds and voted Aye!

            Specifically these people were Frank Roy, Iain McKenzie, Mike Wood and Pauline Latham.

            The only new people to vote no were those who didn’t show up to the second reading.

            Sadly, John Howell who previously voted Aye did choose to abstain this time, but he’s the only example in that list.

            The point of this is just to show that we’re convincing people on the other side to change their minds, but their side isn’t accomplishing the same.

        2. Beelzeebub 21 May 2013, 8:52pm

          What age are you.

          Were you alive when just “being” was illegal.

          It was not that long ago.

          This is a major improvement.

          Worry about the fripperies later.

          Just getting this in is massive for those of us you call old.

        3. CPs weren’t perfect, but we celebrated them (rightly) because they were a great improvement on what we had before, i.e. nothing. For the first time gay relationships were officially recognised, and some (but not all) very important benefits were won, e.g. relief from crippling inheritance taxes. I trust you celebrated then?

          They now seem imperfect, but they were a welcome degree of progress, paving the way for SSM which would never have passed in one go. We were now allowed on the bus, even if we had to sit at the back.

          Assuming it finally goes through (probably just a matter of time), SSM may not yet represent truly equal marriage, but the glass will be much more than half full.

          True, there may be loose ends to be tidied up, but for all sorts of reasons it’s a very significant milestone. It’ll boost the virtuous circle which has seen incredible progress since the autumn (NZ, Uruguay, US states, Brazil, France) which will encourage more countries to follow suit.

          Celebrate now !

      2. Christopher in Canada 22 May 2013, 7:31am

        All you have to do is replace the terms “husband” or “wife” with “spouse”. That’s what we did. And, the sky did NOT fall (but the US keeps getting hit with tornadoes and hurricanes… hmmm…)

      3. You really are being a tit if you think the most important thing is being called married. Gulliver’s right.

    2. Once we have Equal Marriage it will surely be much harder to discriminate in this way.

      Presumably it might then even be unlawful automatically, under existing equality legislation?

      If not, then it ought to be relatively straightforward to make such discrimination illegal.

    3. I don’t care what they do about CP’s to be honest, I think we’d be better off with a single system of marriage so I hope the promised review concludes we’d be better off getting shot of them than expanding them. I do agree the bill should be amended to ensure that pension rights in a same-sex marriage are given the same protections as hetero married couples. This could still happen as it’s now got to go through the same process in the House of Lords.

      However, it’s worth keeping in mind that even if it passes as it is, this inequality will eventually resolve itself, finally dying after enough time has passed that nobody has started paying into a pension fund before 2005. We should still fight for it to be equalised of course…

      But even if we don’t win that particular battle we’ve still won the war, we’ve just ensured same sex couples will be able to get married. I think that’s worth celebrating.

    4. The UK needs to address the gender bias in pensions. As an American I just can’t understand why Brits have accepted for so long a pension system that pays out to women YEARS before it does to men. Even if the gay/straight issue were worked out male couples would still be doubly discriminated against in having to wait extra years to receive their pension. This is spite of the fact that men, by far, pay more into the pension system.

      1. That There Other David 21 May 2013, 9:55pm

        The flip side of this is that men always received much better rates when purchasing an annuity with their accumulated pension pot. However, a recent European Court ruling means that men can no longer be favoured in this way.

        And before anyone complains about European interference, the ruling only came about because some British men complained about women getting cheaper car insurance.

  2. Fantastic news!

    The 2nd reading in the HoL is on the 3rd June (13 days time!) and Lord Dear is trying to force a vote on the bill on the same day. I suspect the news from the mail and the telegraph will be about this instead of the massive majority the bill got in the commons.

    I wonder if the BBC will make a thing of the good news. They’ve been silent all day , a complete contrast all that negative news yesterday.

    Can PN tells us how the MPs voted?

    1. Terry Eastham 22 May 2013, 8:09am

      Totally agree. I missed the vote itself though had been watching the debate at work, so tuned in to the BBC News to find out what had happened and it was silent on the EM bill, though they found time for a nice piece on the death of Morecombe and Wise’s writer.

      Luckily the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen had the headline – though why they insist on calling it Gay Marriage rather than equal marriage I fail to see – but otherwise, nothing.

  3. Robert (Kettering) 21 May 2013, 7:29pm

    Fantastic news at last but there is still the UNELECTED House of Lords to get through so expect a real fight with the Old Fossils.

    I wonder whether the Parliament Act will need to be used to finally get this through?

    1. Actually, Lord Dear says he is planning what’s called a “fatal motion”. This is an unusual procedure and, if successful, one that can’t be sorted out using the Parliament Act; it would just kill the bill.

      But, the odd thing is that I’m not sure it’s even feasible to use this procedure on a bill: it’s usually used for statutory instruments only. Any other politico types out there want to offer their opinion.

  4. Suddenly Last Bummer 21 May 2013, 7:34pm

    One in the eye for all the hallelujah merchants plonked outside the House of Commons praying and singing and crying. Sweet.

    1. I hope that your news team are busy seeking out the 161 members that opposed and get reasons why they opposed.

      1. Why should it? They’ve made their opinions tiresomely clear over the past few weeks/months/years. Look at some of the other articles on this site if you’re in any doubt.

        1. It would be good to have a list of who not to vote for in the next election. Though not voting Tory is an obvious one.

          1. “Though not voting Tory is an obvious one”..

            Would that not depend on how the individual voted? No harm in encouraging progress in any party?

    2. Beelzeebub 21 May 2013, 8:55pm

      Clearly their deity did not give a flying f\/ck.

      Brain washed idiots.

  5. Xavier Bongibault 21 May 2013, 7:34pm

    Last time was 400 in favor of this. An important message for the members of House of Lords.

    1. CanadianChris 21 May 2013, 7:42pm

      Last time 175 voted against, this time 161. Try harder.

    2. Yes – the message is: 2 to 1 in favour.

    3. Laughing at you Xavier le rat du skip you lost we won. Here is an important message for you, you lost.

  6. Great news! Where do we check how our M.Ps voted? Are the votes up yet anywhere?

    1. Thank you for that, KC :)

  7. Get writing to all those lovely Lords!

  8. Marcwebbo3 21 May 2013, 7:54pm

    This is great news…..

    Does anybody know the date when the Scottish Goverment are debating it here?

    1. Equality Network 21 May 2013, 8:25pm

      We’re expecting to see the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament before the summer recess begins at the start of July. It takes 9 months for a bill of this size to go through the Parliament though, so plenty of lobbying time, which we will publicise widely! The first key vote of all MSPs is likely to be around November, as there is a lengthy Committee evidence-taking process first.

      1. Marcwebbo3 21 May 2013, 8:53pm

        OK thank you…..gonna take most of this year before a result here

  9. This was kind of expected due to the second reading. I really wonder how the House of Lords are going to vote on this.

  10. GulliverUK 21 May 2013, 8:33pm

    I think someone was asking for a list of the b’tards (those who voted against)

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/05/same-sex-marriage-bill-how-mps-voted/

    I see Pound and Teather are in there.

    1. Thanks for that, looks like they’re still in the process of updating it. Hope they also show the ones who abstained or were absent (by party). They can’t hide behind a sickie note!

    2. Simon Hughes stuck the knife in, but was then too cowardly to actually vote

      1. CH Brighton 21 May 2013, 11:11pm

        Yes. And although she’s made us angry at what she has done, at least his colleague, Sarah Treacher , has been open about what she’s done.

    3. Don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but some of the comments on that page are seriously entertaining :D

  11. can we have a name and shame list of the fascists who voted against the bill?

  12. Hoorah! This is great news. Now we just need to get it passed those in Deaths Waiting Room aka The Lords!

  13. A list of those extremist bigots who voted against is needed.

    We need to know who our enemies are and to do our utmost to see that they are not re-elected at the next election.

    Voting against equal civil rights for a minority group is 100% indefensible

  14. Congratulations from America to all of our English and Welsh brothers and sisters!

    Mazel Tov!

  15. Robert Flello MP Stoke on Trent South …. Labour voted against this bill. He was my MP when I lived in the UK. I hope he gets deselected by the constituency party. He won’t get voted out as this is a Labour stronghold. What a git..

    1. London Gay 21 May 2013, 9:49pm

      He voted against because he’s a Roman Catholic – I think the same is true of all of the Labour MPs who voted that way (and probably the Lib Dems who did too)

      1. I guessed he was taking his orders from Pope Francis. These people have no place in government. They should take the orders from the party or the constituents not the Vatican.

        1. What is worse is that Robert Flello MP (Labour) is the Shadow Attorney General and so if Labour were to be the largest party at the next election, provided he is not-sacked and he doesn’t have the decency to resign before then, would be the Attorney General, Like Mr.[ tidley-winks] Dominic Greive is in the present lot.
          This would not be good. If an Attorney General cannot support equal civil and human rights for minorities (whatever his personal views in his own life) he shouldnt be in that job – in my opinion.

  16. So happy the third reading passed for same sex marriage, I just hope that Scotland passes it as well

    1. Glad Cam stuck to his guns on this. The thought of a bunch of jumped-up straights in Westminster having the power to decide who can and can’t get married angers me beyond belief.

  17. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2013, 8:51am

    This is Excellent news.

    Now for the unelected Lords…. can they really oppose democracy?

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all