Reader comments · David Cameron called ‘marriage wrecker’ and warned of ‘long battle’ over equal marriage in House of Lords · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


David Cameron called ‘marriage wrecker’ and warned of ‘long battle’ over equal marriage in House of Lords

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I didn’t realise Dave had been sleeping around or have I been living in some alternate universe?

  2. So now some unelected bigots get to decide my future ! ……..get rid of the house ofLords it’s an anachronism..we need an elected second chamber !

    1. Godric Godricson 23 May 2013, 7:56am

      The anticipated action from the Upper House will ‘out them’ for being fossils and we’ll see them for what they are

    2. We don’t need a second chamber at all! New Zealand Government is modeled on Westminster, the abolished their upper house many years ago and manage perfectly well without it and we could certainly do the same.

  3. The common human condition of shifting blame. Wrecking of marriages is caused by couples who can’t/won’t work through their problems – not by gay people who wish to commit for life. If these people think that gay marriage is going to wreck hetero marriages, then maybe they need to look at their own relationships.

  4. “Marriage-wrecker”

    The only group “attacking other peoples marriages here, are the bigoted opposers of the same sex marriage bill. No one’s preventing heterosexuals from marrying. But some bigots ARE trying to deny gays having the same rights.
    Who’s the hypocrite now?

  5. Yeah, like female suffrage wrecked democracy. Not. (Although the dinosaurs in the Lords probably think it did)

  6. Colin Hart should focus on his own damn family.

    1. But he is. Can’t you see how much his family will be damaged if this “wrecking” bill passes?

      For a start, both he and his wife will now have to share the category of “married” with “those people” (although of course he has no problem whatsoever with them, as long as they accept their place as 2nd class citizens). Also, his children may be taught about SSM at school in a non-negative way! Oh no! They may grow up not to be bigots like their father!

      There are many other equally good reasons why this poor victim of the “gay agenda” must fight to protect his marriage and family from the evil gays who want to “destroy society”. Why should our legislation be based on reason, thus treating gay people equally, rather than on the hateful personal prejudices of people like brave Mr Hart? Why must the gays be so “aggressive” in trying to reduce violence and unpleasantness against gay people by achieving equality in law? What if poor Mr Hart never gets to see a gaybashing on the news again?

  7. “..just wait for the Lords. It will be a long, protracted battle which will only remind the voters that the Government isn’t listening.”

    It will remind the voters that the ageing and unelected HoL should be reformed/abolished and has no authority to overturn or scupper a huge majority passed by the MPs that the voters elected in the commons.

    Does PN have a list of the 65 peers who are going to speak. I wouldn’t mind writing to them!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 1:41pm

      You could start with this link. You’re allowed up to six. I chose the random option. One of those who popped up was none other than Lord Carey who of course never responded. I received one positive support, Baroness Beverly Hughes of Stretford and the other three didn’t respond. Probably computer challenged and relying on carrier pigeons to communicate.

      1. barrybear1980 25 May 2013, 11:37am

        Thank you for this, I’ll also do six.

  8. The only group not listening is the Coalition for Marriage, which refuses to listen to independent polls and to the House of Commons.

  9. The conservative lord norton has a blog on this, saying the debate will go for 10 to 15 hours on the 3rd June. He’s a supporter of SSM.

  10. “Marriage wrecker” is this a reference to some of the prominent opponents of SSM?

  11. “..warned that a bill to legalise it will face a “long, protracted battle”, in the House of Lords.

    In fact “an amendment to the motion that the bill should be read a second time has been proposed, if this amendment is successful it will decline the bill a second reading in the Lords.” so in fact if the lords vote for this amendment there will be no debate at all in the HoL and the bill will be killed off on the 3rd June. Why PN isn’t reporting this little gem is beyond me!

    1. Surely that would save us all from some ghastly speeches, and Maria Miiler could go straight to the Parliament Act.

      1. Yeah, I’d kindda like Lord Dear’s “fatal motion” to be successful on the 3rd June. It would throw the HoL into chaos! An unelected body throwing out the principle of SSM despite a huge majority in the commons. It would be a good excuse to abolish them I think.

    2. barrybear1980 25 May 2013, 11:43am

      I don’t get what you mean by “the bill will be killed off on 3rd June” and “little gem” is it to say that it will be automatically passed or that it will never happen?

      Please say the former?
      Thanks… Barry

  12. Chatting online with the folks who run the Labour Lords Twitterfeed, it seems that their Lordships are aware of the issue.

    The simple solution is to allot a second day for the second reading, but (for some unfathomable reason) there is resistance to this idea form some cabinet members.

  13. Here is the list of speakers in HoL Debate
    Monday, 3 June 2013
    Clancarty / Brinton / O`Loan / Royall of Blaisdon (Opposition opener) / Stowell of Beeston (Minister) / Wheatcroft / Aberdare / Black of Brentwood / Blair of Boughton / Collins of Highbury / Cormack / Dannatt / Eden of Winton / Faulks / Pannick/ Lothian / Alli / Anderson of Swansea / Astor / Barker / Birt / Brabazon of Tara / Browne of Madingley / Caithness / Carlile of Berriew / Bishop of Chester / Cobbold / Colville of Culross / L Dear / Deben / Edmiston / Elis-Thomas / Fowler / Garel-Jones / Glenarthur / Harries of Pentregarth / Hylton / James of Blackheath / Jay of Ewelme / Jenkin of Kennington / Jenkin of Roding / Kennedy of The Shaws / Kerr of Kinlochard / Knight of Collingtree / Bishop of Leicester / Lister of Burtersett / Luce / Mackay of Clashfern

    1. List of Speakers continued :

      …Mayhew of Twysden / McAvoy / Miller of Hendon / Montrose / Murphy / Naseby / Neuberger / Noakes / Norton of Louth / Plant of Highfield / Rennard / Shrewsbury and Waterford / Singh of Wimbledon / Smith of Finsbury / Tebbit / Thornton (Opposition winder) / Turner of Camden / Waddington

  14. Jock S. Trap 23 May 2013, 8:26am

    “If he thinks he got a rough ride in the Commons, just wait for the Lords. It will be a long, protracted battle which will only remind the voters that the Government isn’t listening.”

    Er…. He didn’t have a rough ride, it was a free vote and democracy voted in favour.

    The religion is banking on the non-elected to give them what they want.

    Religion is not only evil but extremely misguided and here we have proof that religion wants dictatorship not democracy.

  15. When will these idiot realise that when this bill becomes law, if their is an issue within their own marriage then it has nothing to do with anyone else but them.

  16. I wrote to Lord Dear rebutting his ridiculous assertions in the Queen’s speech debate. (i.e. about it being introduced against public opinion, likely to result in untold problems that have occurred in other countries etc. etc).
    He wrote back saying that I’d missed the point and his objections were all to do with its hasty introduction and lack of scrutiny.
    If that’s the case, why did he base so much of his speech on other issues? It’s the disingenuous nature of so many opponents to this legislation that I find so frustrating. They can’t say that they are anti gay so they try to look for other arguments to oppose it. When these are shown to be baseless they resort to arguments about procedure.
    It’s very hard to take from unelected Lords who we can’t boot out if they go against public opinion.
    Sorry for the rant!

    1. It’s not a rant, Andy.

      Lord Dear (despite what I think about his politics) is an intelligent man, and a very shrewd political operator. Compared him, to Detta O’Cathain and Norman Tebbitt are just a pair of rambling old farts. Dear is by far the Bill’s biggest obstacle in the Lords.

      He is relying on the fact that his ‘fatal motion’ will be considered in the wee small hours, when the HoL is emptier, more tired and not paying attention. Yes, it’s sneaky and woefully undemocratic – it’s also pretty clever. However, he can be reasonably easily out-manvoevered.

      Many peers are seeking a second day of debate. Some Cabinet members are resisting this (I have no idea why).

      Please consider contacting your local MP (or, indeed, Maria Miller or the PM himself) suggesting that a second day of debate would be good for democracy and the health of the Bill. I’ve just written to my MP (who is also, usefully, in the cabinet) and I’ll post any reply he makes here.

      1. When I tell you that my local MP is Bob Stewart, I think you’ll see that that would be a waste of time. I’ve already done battle with him a few times.
        But I’ll certainly write to Maria Miller and the PM – thanks for the tip!

        1. Andy

          Oh, yeah. That would be a tad pointless! :D Bob Stewart, bless him, is beyond hope.

          Hope your emails to MM and DC get some attention. It’s a long shot, I know, but worth it.


    2. Could you share Dear’s reply here? It would be interesting and useful.

      1. This was his reply :

        I appreciate the time that you have taken to write to me, and recognise the strong feeliongs that you hold on this subject.

        Perhaps you have missed the main point – namely that my objection to the Bill is that all the procudures/steps that should have been taken, before an issue as contentious as this was included in draft legislation, were not taken. Had they been, my stance would have been very different.

        Have you read the full report of my remarks in the House yesterday? A careful reading might be helpful.

        You might know that it is a primary function of the House of Lords to ensure that legislation passing from the Commons has been properly considered, and that all the evidence and consequences have been explored and balanced. We have (rightly) made such progress in recent years to advance homosexual rights and equalities, and hasty and ill-considered legislation could well reverse that situation. I would regret that, and so, I think, would you.

        1. bobbleobble 23 May 2013, 1:15pm

          This reply seems to be saying that he wants to kill the bill because it hasn’t followed a set pattern of consideration that he deems necessary, not because there’s actually anything wrong with it. Simon Hughes said similar stuff during Miller’s appearance before the Human Rights Committee.

          If there is something wrong with the bill then say so but it’s the height of pettiness to try to kill it because it hasn’t gone through your favoured process.

      2. I’ve had a reply from Dear as well , here it is:

        “Of course I recognise your feelings of deep concern over this issue. Personaly, I do not consider the matter to be anti-gay, but rather pro-marriage, following the definition adherred to by all the major religions for at least the previous two thousand years. Civil partnerships now (properly) offer rather more benefits to gay single sex couples than those available to other cohabiting couples eg: two brothers living together, or two sisters, or brother and sister (taking tax advantages into account).

        One of my major concerns is that the issue could well set back puiblic attitudes to homosexuality, after so much progress has been made in the last few decades; progress that I have on all occasions firmly supported. I do not recognise your contention that there is widespread support in the country – rather, I think I see widespread concern and opposition, though quietly expressed.


      3. continued

        “Perhaps the greatest problem is that the Bill has been introduced without any of the usual preliminary steps that could have been taken eg: Inclusion in a Manifesto; Royal Commission; Scrutiny Committee; public enquiry; white paper; green paper etc. All, or any, of these could have looked at the issues and consequences in a measured fashion, which is not being offered now.

        On the issue of Free Speech, may I suggest that you are seriously adrift if you link my views on the Bill with the “insulting” amendment late last year. I commend to you Hansard for12 December last year, where you will see my address to the House of Lords during the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill. Your fears will, I guarantee, be completely assuaged.

        1. bobbleobble 23 May 2013, 1:17pm

          Awww, you see. It’s not anti-gay bigotry, he’s just looking out for us.

          What utter twaddle.

  17. That There Other David 23 May 2013, 9:21am

    The Gay Agenda (Part MCXVII)

    * Break up every straight couple in the world, even non-human ones. Swans, for instance.
    * Relax and have a cup of tea.

  18. The House of Lords is an absolute joke, get rid of it. And while you’re at it disestablish the Church of England too.

  19. I didn’t realise that Colin Hart was a Lord. Being a bit presumptuous, I think, to tell us what’s going to happen in the debate!

  20. Never mind a referendum on the EU, there should be a referendum on abolishing the unelected lords.

  21. .....Paddyswurds 23 May 2013, 10:46am

    Why is it that it is always morons who hear these people making statements like this one about Marriage Equality wrecking marriages all over the country. What i mean is why is there never anyone there who will pull them up short and demand to have specifics.? Time and again we hear these statements have been made but never what the hack noting them down had to say or what questions were asked in response. Is it against the law to question these people….surely not, but it bloody well looks like it from where I’m standing……

  22. These unelected people in the lords house thing , always look like they are dropping off into a coma. Just use the parliament act and ignore these clueless fools.

    1. The HoL does actually provide a useful function, when it’s not hyperventilating over the latest moral panic.

      In its “probing and questioning” mode, it often improves legislation by tidying up areas that the Commons has spent insufficient time and care on.

      There are many Liberal, Labour and cross-bench peers who do a great job. And, yes, even some Tories when they are not too busy clutching the bible to their bosom.

      However, I agree that Lord Dear and his lot are a menace. Sadly, there’s not much we can do about it.

      1. This legislation has been picked over by both sides. If there was a hole it hopefully would have been seen by now.

  23. Polls regularly put David Cameron at a higher approval rating than his own party.

    1. Totally justified, I think David Cameron is doing a good job overall, I live in Enfield and would have to vote for that vile bigot Burrows!!!!

  24. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 1:49pm

    You can bet that the C4M lot, and opposing MPs such as Burrowes, Louhgton et al are doing their utmost to influence the outcome in the Lords and a large email and letter writing campaign.

    Yvette Cooper said Labour will fight to get this through the Lords. We need every bit if help. Contact the Lords.

  25. If the Lords go against a clear majority it will bring a call for Reform and they know that, there may not be a big battle, I suspect a bit of grandstanding.

  26. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 3:03pm

    Everybody if they can should contact all of those MPs who voted for the Marriage Bill to ask for their help in fighting the mischief makers in the Lords. I’ve started tweeting them. If not doable, at least contact Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and others such as Yvette Cooper, Diane Abbott, Harriet Harman, Chris Bryant, Julian Huppert, and any others in your constituency who voted for the bill on Tuesday.

  27. Robert in S. Kensington 23 May 2013, 3:24pm

    Just received a tweet from Mike Freer MP. He said he has no inlfluence in the Lords but is confident a majority of Peers will support the bill.

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.