Reader comments · Peers plan revolt against equal marriage bill as it goes to Lords · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Peers plan revolt against equal marriage bill as it goes to Lords

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This is why it is very important to make sure our voice is heard. We don’t get to vote for peers but we can certainly write to them (politely) and point out how we think they should vote.

    Certainly vote looks tight from figures I’m collating but not yes vote looks doable.

    1. So it looks to be defeated in the lords if there are double the no’s ?

  2. Only homophobes are going to stop this and I was surprised by that this has only been illegal since 1971 hence against all this traditional marriage BS

    1. Deus caritas est 26 May 2013, 3:56pm

      You’re quite wrong. I’m gay and I oppose ‘gay marriage’. It is a badly thought out and largely irrelevant piece of legislation. We have equal rights and this takes things too far. It opposes the foundation of our society and is a bill that makes people appear phobic if they oppose it.

      To make your assertion you in turn are being very small minded and judgemental. A trait we should fight rather than join

      1. nixiotemba 26 May 2013, 4:21pm

        Deus, I think youre a not gay, or b an idiot

      2. If there really was equal rights the that would have been acknowledged but you are wrong. Equal rights would be achieved with the option of marriage

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 5:18pm

        You’re really not seeing the larger picture. We do NOT have all of our rights in the UK. CPs are UK centric, carry next to no portability outside of the country in terms of the rights they convey. Compare ours to the French PACS which confer far fewer so there is inequality right there. There aren’t 14 countries using the British model for non-marital legal unions, but there are 14 countries with equal marriage, 12 American states, and growing, as well as Washington, DC, Mexico City and almost half of Brazil’s states. More countries are legislating for it. You’re either in denial or just trying to shill for the opposition. All independent polls show overwhelming support for equal marriage. One YouGov poll even revealed as many as 73% in favour. Two super majorities in the Commons are proof that the voters support it. Stop traducing it and face facts.

      4. I’d love to know….

        1/ why this bill is any more badly thought than any other bill that goes through parliament?
        2/ why it is irrelevant?
        3/ how you think we have equal rights, when we do not have the right to be married (amongst other things)?
        4/ What does it take ‘things too far, and why’?
        5/ how marriage equality ‘opposes the foundation of our society’?
        6/ why you think people who oppose it are not homophobic?
        7/ how someone who writes a comment in support of equality and against small minded bigots is small minded?
        8/ how someone who states a fact is judging someone?

        actually don’t bother, by asking all those questions, I now see you’re either an idiot or homophobe, probably both.

        1. Deus caritas est 26 May 2013, 9:05pm

          I’m not a homophobe (but you prove my point); this is badly thought out because it gives no credence to an institution that is accepted and thus re-writes it. I am gay and quite content.

          Homosexuals have equal rights and if you don’t see that then you must be living in some far off land and therefore not in touch with British society.

          Moreover, I see this as a statement for statements sake. It is only accepting if you agree. If one doesn’t one is seen as a dreadful dinosaur. It’s quite perplexing and rather pathetic really.

          A civil partnership grants all the same rights. This absurd bill is in fact divisive. Thankfully France is a real example to us all. Vive la France.

          1. Eh? Your comments make absolutely no sense at all.

            “It gives no credence to an institution that is accepted and thus re-writes it”? Please translate?

            Homesexuals do not have equal rights. For example, we cannot get married, which is what the marriage equality bill is about, to give us more equal rights, how can you not understand that?

            There is nothing pathetic about the bill, only your comments are pathetic, and very perplexing

            A civil partnership does not grant the same rights, if they did, then we wouldn’t be fighting for equal rights.

            And France have just vote for marriage equality, so why is France the real example to us all?

            I’m even more confused by your explanation.

          2. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 10:16pm

            Gay people do not have equal rights thanks to a Civil Partnership. A CP evaporates the moment you leave the UK, even in countries that have same-sex marriage. A marriage, in contrast, remains recognised when you cross the border.

            Maybe you didn’t notice, but back in the late 1960s someone invented mass air travel. This brought about an explosion in international travel and migration. British couples now live all over the world, and the other gay-friendly places (yes, other countries DO exist) are all dismissing UK-style CPs as discriminatory whilst implementing marriage equality. The government has looked beyond today’s situation to the future, as governments have to, and decided that this is going to be a bigger problem for British gay couples with every passing year. That’s why this Bill is going through Parliament now, and that’s why it needs to pass.

            This Bill is only divisive by exposing the homophobia carried by a minority (yes, they are the minority) of its opponents.

          3. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 10:25pm

            …and really, if their feelings are hurt by people they’ve never met nor never likely to being able to marry then they really need to take a long hard look at their priorities.

  3. If they reject Cameron will use the Parliament Act then start reforming the upper chamber. They know that.

    1. As much as i want this bill to pass, I very much doubt Cameron would dare to use the Parliament Act in this case. I suspect he would get dethroned as leader for even suggesting it.

      1. Stonewall tweeted today that they have been thoroughly investigating the fine detail of how the Parliament Act works… but I’m inclined to agree with you, Chris

        DC would be flayed alive my Lab/Lib for not using it, but he could withstand that. The Conservatives, on the other hand, would tear him a new crapper then just dump is lifeless corpse in the Thames.

    2. Sorry Ged, but that’s wishful thinking.

      Conservatives won’t allow Cameron to use the Parliament Act, and they certainly won’t entertain any idea of Lords Reform! Just look at how Cameron caved in to his backbenchers when his LibDem coalition colleagues tried to get Lords Reform pushed through. The Tory backbenchers are very much stuck in the past, and Cameron is in too weak a position to oppose them.

  4. From a rough look at the 75 peers that are intending to speak on the 3rd June, the average age of the anti SSM peer is around 77 yrs old, with the oldest of them being 89 (Lord Tombs) and the youngest of them (Lord Dannatt) age 62 being the average of those peers who are in favour of SSM, the youngest of them being 45 (Baroness Stowell) and 48 (Lord Black and Lord Alli).

    I’m not ageist but when a group of unelected fossils whose average age is 77 yrs intends to vote down a bill which is intended to benefit mostly the younger generation and will make a genuine impact on how gay people are seen, it really, really pisses me off.

    How can a group whose average age of 77 yrs be representative of the general population? Something should be done with the HoL!

    1. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 4:00pm

      Yes, it needs to be abolished and replaced with an upper House based on PR. Whatever percentage of the vote a party gets in a General Election translates into their percentage of a fixed number of Upper House seats. It’s the only way that the chamber can have any legitimacy in the 21st century.

      1. Do we need a bicameral system at all? One chamber is enough in my opinion.

        1. If the House of Commons remains elected without a PR voting system and a strong whip system. Then as a Democratic and a Liberal, I do believe it’s vital to have a second chamber, elected mid-term, to act as a check and balance on the largest party in the Commons.

          1. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 10:53pm

            100% agree. Having local representatives voted into the lower house with PR in the upper house ensures both that every voter knows who to go to for help and that every vote cast counts towards something. Politicians constantly moan about low turnout and how they need to engage with the public, but fail to admit the obvious:- that the current system means that only swing marginals matter. Why make the effort voting for a different party to the one holding a safe seat when you know for a fact that your vote is counts for nothing?

    2. Please keep in mind that some of these ‘fossils’ will actually vote FOR the Bill.

      1. The word “fossils” is a term I got from one of the pro SSM lords so they know damn well what the public think of them and whether they are representative of people under 70. SSM has been shown to very, very popular with young people and when I say young I mean 65 and under!. The peers are there for life, I’ve had negative replies from 90 and 89 yr old lords that have been there forever. People don’t have jobs for life in the real world and they normally retire at 65!!!

  5. Sad that hate is intrenched in the House of Lords.

  6. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 3:58pm

    This is mostly bluster from those who have been making out there is more opposition than support right the way through this process. However, no room for complacency. Keep up the e-mails and letters everyone. Let the Lords know that the people this Bill affects do want it.

  7. Does warsi actually know what community cohesion means? she seems such an idiot on tv, obviously why she was given this “token” unelected role. And expected hate cult leader welby to add his tuppence of hate.

    1. No, she doesn’t. She’s a talent-free halfwit with no obvious qualifications for this (or any other) post

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 12:34pm

      She’s not the only one he can ask. Doesn’t come across as a very bright either, rather dull. I still cannot accept that an unelected chamber are allowed to play with the lives of people, having a say as to who is entitled to rights and who isn’t. I wish there were more dialogue about how undemocratic our system is and I also wish the British public would become more pro-active in demanding change. My preference would be to abolish this anachronistic mediaeval body altogether. At least it would be a step in the right direction to diminish the power of the state cult.

  8. If the house of lords stop equal marriage it will begin the end of the house of lords, and then if the government do not use the parliament act people will revolt against the government. It’s a no win situation for the house of lords if they reject this bill.

  9. “The Parliament Act has been used only three times before.”

    It’s been used seven times (one of which was to amend the Parliament Act itself, so maybe that doesn’t count). I would have thought that a member of the House of Lords might know a bit more about the House of Lords.

  10. Michaelandfred 26 May 2013, 4:38pm

    A little help for those of us across the pond. WHEN is the debate scheduled and when do they vote after…and then what are the options and/or probable outcomes?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 4:47pm

      June 3, 17 and 19.

  11. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 4:46pm

    So, out of 750-800 peers, between 75-100 are going to speak and of those half or more are against the bill?

    Maria Miller had better make good on her statement last December when she said the Parliament Act wouldn’t be ruled out. What makes Lord Dear think it won’t be used? Arrogant tosser.

    It’s important that everyone of us contact the Lords because you can bet the C4M lot have done it in abundance.

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 4:52pm

    I hope Nick Herberts’s optimism pays off. Gary Freer told me he thinks it will pass.

    Of course, this all comes from the Telegraph, so much of it is spin I would think. They were saying it wouldn’t pass in the Commons with massive resistance. Two super majorities in favour. WIth such high figures, the Lords would be woefully foolish to try and scupper the bill, knowing the PA could be invoked.

    1. The Lords is considered a revising chamber, and it would be constitutionally difficult for them to vote down a Bill that has such a thumping cross-party majority in the Commons. The Lords have of course voted to reject Government Bills on very many occasions, including on equal rights issues, but rarely have they done so when the consensus sits so broadly across the political spectrum.

      I cautiously predict they’ll pass this Bill, however reluctantly.

    2. If you follow the Labour whips on Twitter, they seem to be implying that the numbers are in the Bill’s favour, however the bizarre scheduling isn’t

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 6:58pm

        Interesting indeed. I recall immediately after the second reading that there will be same-sex couples marrying by late summer. Others in the House prior to the third reading and after spoke as the they knew it would pass in the Lords. The clue is when they said…’when the bill passes’ into law. It’s been said quite a number of times by many MPs who voted for the bill. Perhaps they know something that we don’t. After all, they have easier access to the Lords than we do. Perhaps many in the Lords have contacted them.

        Then again, this is the Telegraph spinning the worst outcomes just as it did prior to the second reading. I think all of the opposition were totally gobsmacked by the huge vote, not just during the second but third reading. Still a very large majority in favour of it.

        1. From what I’d heard, there was always going to be a time lag of about a year between passing the Act and the first weddings.

          This happened, I dimly recall, with CPs when they were introduced, too. Something to do, at that time, with training registrars, altering other bits of legislation, blah, blah.

          Anyway, let’s just see if this gets past the Lords first. We can fret over the timing afterwards.

  13. I’ve been writing to the lords (focusing on the 75 peers who are going to speak on the 3rd June) and find the 6 email quota on theyworkforyou or ridiculous. It’s virtually impossible to contact these unelected people who are voting on our behalf. If they want their privalaged position in the HoL then they should make their email publicly available and start debating with the general public.

    The only email list I could find for the peers was on a anti-SSM, christian website called SPUC

  14. If Lord Stoddard really doesn’t know understand how gay and lesbian couples would consumate their marriage, it suggests a complete lack of even basic research. Twenty second on Xtube would have answered his question. But that’s beside the point as the bill doesn’t require consumation of a same-sex marriage.

    1. Haha literally LOL’d at this comment! Besides, do we force heterosexuals to consummate their marriages? We don’t force married people who dont have sex to divorce!

  15. If it fails I’m moving to New Zealand

  16. David Lammy spoke really well in the House of Commons Third Reading (on 20th May)

    Here is his speech –

    1. I wish we had more mps like him . its a shame that mp david burrowes made those nasty comments pertaining to his race, but expected from a homophobe.

  17. I feel so alone in being so upset by reading this latest news clip from Pink News. To feel that we got so near and to hear its likely to fail is so upsetting :(
    I have done all I can by emailing everyone and anyone…. :(

    1. Reece

      Cheer up, mate! The paper PN is freely quoting for is one of the most anti-equality rags out there.

      Many other commentators as suggesting that the Bill will pass, so, frankly, who knows?

      C’mon: smile! :)

      Sasha xx

      1. Apologies for my lousing typing!

        1. Argh! Lousy*!!!!

    2. barrybear1980 26 May 2013, 7:05pm

      I feel the same Reece.

      Trying to stay positive though, we are not beaten yet :-)


      1. dontgiveuphope 26 May 2013, 10:58pm

        if we dont get equal marriage , it will not be the first time we have been kicked back and it wont be the last. WE will get their in the end. On a postive note, all what has been said about in the last few months has hilighted how bigoted the church and some members of parliament are. This in the end will bite them in the backside. Church numbers are falling every year and this will make figures drop even more. And the conservative party at the next election will not be able to come to web sites like this and ask for the gay vote. We will all know better. Lastly on the eyes of the world as countries entreched in the catholic church, such as Spain, which has pasted equal marriage, will make us look shameful, backward and out of touch. But the unity it has brought the gay community , is priceless. We still breath ,we still laugh and we still love. Our time will come no matter what.

    3. If it does not pass roll on 2015 when we can obliterate the tories, sorry for the good uns, but we need a labour majority to take down these unelected lords finally. In the meantime , let’s hope it does pass if not Scotland will hopefully and the rep. of Ireland.

      1. What makes you think they’ll take down the HoL? (I’m interested in your response and I’m not looking for an argument)

  18. So much for democracy if the HoL vote down or wreck the Same-sex Marriage Bill.
    In many countries a 2 to1 majority over-rides a negative vote in the other house when the 2 to 1 vote is in the peoples house, in our case the Commons.

    800 Peers – really? There is no reason there should be more than 250 at a maximum, time for a weeding process to be imposed if not total abolition. I favor abolition.

    1. I wouldn’t go for total abolition. Just removing all the hereditary lords, the inheritances, and the priesthood. We should keep appointed non-partisan specialists and experts to use their knowledge of things to help filter out any daft legislation, and not be pressured to parrot constituents and/or lobbyists.
      That should go some way to reducing the numbers.

      1. There’s about 100 hereditories and about 26 bishops. The rest are appointed life peers.

    2. That There Other David 26 May 2013, 11:04pm

      Blame Tony Blair for that one. The hereditary based HoL pretty much had a one-in, one-out system for obvious reasons. When his government reformed it to a mostly life peer chamber they didn’t stop to think that all the parties could now stuff the chamber with as many people on their side as they could possibly get in there. Numbers have ballooned as a result.

      That’s the thing I find hilarious about all this bluster regarding how rushed and ill-thought out opponents find the new Marriage Bill. They were quite happy to pass rushed and ill-thought out constitutional changes like bodged HoL reform and utterly bodged devolution of powers. Compared to those the Marriage Bill is absolutely nothing, so why all the FUD? (Don’t worry, I know the answer).

  19. I sent a letter to Lord Tebbit (the one who went on a sweary rant) and received a reply recently.

    His reply was surprisingly polite, but it’s pretty clear that he is not going to change his mind.

    We really need to be sending messages to Lords who are on the fence.

    1. I had the same experience. He’s a very polite man, and a courteous correspondent. It’s just such a pity that his ideas same revolting.

      1. Should read “are so revolting”.

        I’m ill. Flu has fried my brain and ruined my typing ability. :(

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 26 May 2013, 7:00pm

    What I take away from this is that only a small minority of the Lords have been the most vocal in opposition to the bill. It was the same with MPs. They were the loudest and look what happened. Two very substantial majorities. Lord Dear doesn’t speak for all of them, only the 75+ who will be voicing their opposition out of 800+. If opposition were that strong, we would have heard from far more, at least half of them. We haven’t.

  21. The House of Lords is a veritable time machine.
    It seems to me that when many of the “lords” look at something, they don’t see that thing, they see what it used to be 100 years ago.
    Great circus trick, but not exactly what a nation needs when it comes to legislation and the dignity of human beings.

  22. Lord Stoddart — there always has to be a dirty minded old pig amongst them. It used to that swine Baroness Young, now it Lord Stoddart. Dirty old bugger.

  23. Womandrogyne 26 May 2013, 9:36pm

    “Equal marriage is being introduced across the western world and I don’t believe peers will want to be out of step with changing attitudes.” Nick Herbert doesn’t know our peerage very well if he thinks that.

  24. Listen all of you- In my (humble) opinion -this Bill has HAD IT!!

    Its a growing feeling of rejection I am beginning to feel. There is now far too much against it- this country is veering fast to the right-VERY fast! Conservative donors are pulling out in droves- UKIP is growing and there are talks of pacts to the RIGHT. Its like the Tea Party movement in the States- grew very fast almost ovrnight but now has sunk without a trace. The time is now all wrong for equal marriage-we have just missed the time it would have passed. SORRY all-but I just know that its over.

    1. It’s not over till the fat lady sings. There was a a lot of hot air just before the third reading.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 1:45pm

        Yes indeed. Opposing MPs were echoing the same nonsense not expecting to see such a large majority voting yes in the second and third readings. They’re outnumbered and they can’t accept it, ditto the Lords.

    2. billforsyth 27 May 2013, 1:33am

      The history of equality is littered with opposition from those in authority whether it is the abolition of slavery or universal suffrage .The point being that the reactionaries do not give in without a fight but, they are defeated in the end and the world moves on .

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 1:41pm

      You’re playing into their hands. It’s what they want the rest of us to do. It’s al part of the brow-beating into submission, a popular tactic used by ignorant bullies.

      Donors pulling out in droves? What, two or three thus far? Don’t buy into the hype or spin.

  25. Tom (Winnipeg) 26 May 2013, 9:51pm

    I knew the House of Lords would rear their ugly conservative head. It’s not for me to air my views about another country’s political structure, but many think that the Lords are passe.

  26. If they reject this bill, they show clearly they’re out of touch with the rest of society.
    I propose we start a petition to remove those, especially the twenty something Lords whose sole attribute to be there, is their religious position.

  27. I don’t get how the House of Lord is put together if nobody voted for them. Do they inherit their position? And if that’s so, do people really think that this is ok?

    1. They’re “appointed” now, although they used to inherit their positions. Some hereditary peers remain.

      And yes, some complete idiots are absolutely fine with this. They seem to have convinced themselves that an elected senate would not know what’s best for the country, as if the current lot of “peers” give two sh¡ts about anything other than their own self interests.

  28. It’s a sad irony that these homophobes are called Peers. They are by non- elective privilege hardly equal too or representive of any one.

    “a person who is the equal of another in abilities qualifications age background or status Category Sociology a person of the same legal status as another”

    Their exclusivity as Peers only makes them representative as hypocrites.

  29. Common sense 27 May 2013, 2:39am

    The Lords have tried to block nearly every piece of gay legislation. They are NOT and never have been an essential body of scrutiny. They are just an impediment to progress, needlessly adding time and money to every single piece of legislation. Time to abolish the upper house and adopt a unicameral parliament. Church all these bloodsuckers out on their ears.

  30. well we look forward to the battlefield and last for the consummation of same sex marriages –exactly the same as the hetero one.., as for what constitutes infidelity –the same as –if a LGBT has an affair with another LGBT person..Am i the only one to find this” trying to figure it out” patronizing? I unlike others however dont believe in divorce i believe that marriage is till death do us part!

    1. Where is it written that it is until death? It cannot be that you got this from the bible or else you would realize that divorce is allowed in the bible so on which authority do you speak?

  31. The edcated middle class populus of yesteryear knew that the peerage were bonkers dinosaurs! What I find perplexing is well over 100 years later we still have them!

    And with regards to consumation… no-one enforces annulments for opposite sex partners where they haven’t consummated… nosey old busybodies

  32. As a former Australian PM Paul Keating once called the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia (upper house of the Australian Parliament), ‘Unrepresentative swill’. This is the Lord opportunity to prove him and the British public wrong. If they don’t respect the strong majority in the commons, there will be rightfully calls to democratise the House of Lords.

  33. bobbleobble 27 May 2013, 10:32am

    It’ll be interesting to hear how many peers come out with the tired old ‘no mandate’ line. Perhaps those peers who do use it can tell us exactly where their mandate comes from since nobody voted for them either.

    1. I had a reply from the Bishop of Bristol who said the whole thing was a complete abuse of the democratic process, no white paper , not in the Queen’s speech, not in manifesto, not in coalition agreement, blah, blah , blah

      A bit of a joke considering we have 26 unelected Anglican bishops sitting in the HoL, what democratic process put them there!. Makes it even more of a joke considering the govt has spent the last yr and half talking to them and giving them a quadruple lock so that they can ban us from their churches.

      I thik the thought of the Bishops in the HoL is the most annoying, secondly the 90 or so hereditary peers, then the rest of life peers who are there for no reason at all eg ex house speakers, ex archbishops and all the rest of the unelected lot who are there for life.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 1:38pm

        But let’s not forget, MPs in opposition were chanting the same mantra in the Commons during the second and third readings and look at the results. Two very large majorities voting in favour. The ‘no mandate’, ‘no green or white paper’ are red herrings. I don’t think any of them quite expected to see they were all outvoted by 2-1 and probably thought it would be a very close vote. They’re having temper tantrums because their views are in the minority. They’re on a sinking ship and no rescue in sight as well they know. It’s all desperation, clutching at very thin straws.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 12:27pm

      They don’t seem to understand that the government doesn’t necessarily need a mandate for any piece of legislation and it doesn’t always require mention in a manifesto. The NHS reforms weren’t either but they didn’t complain about that. There will be some who will use the ‘no mandate’ nonsense but I can’t imagine there won’t be any who will stand up and defend the Contract for Equalities contract prior to the election which is public knowledge anyway. Clutching at straws is what their desperate rants are all about.

      1. bobbleobble 27 May 2013, 1:46pm

        I agree with with you completely Robert. My point was simply the hypocrisy of those with no mandate complaining about something else they perceive as having no mandate. Presumably all those who are so concerned about this will immediately leave the HoL never to return.

      2. Commander Thor 27 May 2013, 3:25pm

        I think when they say:

        “The government doesn’t have a mandate for gay marriage”,

        they mean:

        “I didn’t think David Cameron *really* meant it – I thought it was a great idea to make us appear more in touch with the 21st century, which is why I didn’t oppose it at the time, but I never thought he would *actually* go ahead and make good on an election promise!”

  34. “Warsi, Minister for Community Cohesion, refused to lead the bill through the House of Lords”? Outrageous refusal! That’s her completely finished in my book! To hell with her. She’s made her position on homosexual people plain by this action.

    We are heavily reliant on our supportive MPs mobilising supportive peers to speak out, and to speak out with great persuasiveness and power, when this matter is debated in the Lords.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 1:34pm

      Gary Freer tweeted me last week in regard to the Lords. He said MPs have no influence over them but he was confident they’d pass the bill.

      For what its worth, those who have already not done so, can contact six Lords with the help of the link below. I received only one positive response from Baroness Beverly Hughes, the remaining five didn’t respond.

      1. bobbleobble 27 May 2013, 1:47pm

        I hope I’m not showing my ignorance too much but can I ask who Gary Freer is?

        1. Robert meant Mike Freer.

          (Robert’s been doing so much excellent lobbying he made a simple slip.)

          1. Bobbleobble 27 May 2013, 2:27pm

            Oh right! I know who he is! I thought Gary might be someone new in all this that I hadn’t come across yet!

            I agree with Eddy Robert you’re doing a great job and I’m very impressed.

  35. Calling ANYONE who is related to member of the House of Lords!

    Even though your relative in the House of Lords may be a total loon and homophobe, the LGBT community NEEDS YOU (and your friends and your close family members) to approach that Lord and tell him or her firmly how you expect him or her to vote on the Same Sex Couples Bill.

    Most Lords have grandchildren and they love those grandchildren. We need those grandchildren to tell their Honorable Grandparents to vote FOR SSM!

    The Lords have got to consider this Bill from a position of personal responsibility to the young generation.

    So, “If you love me, Grandma/Grandad, you know how to vote . . . “!

  36. Commander Thor 27 May 2013, 3:25pm

    I think when they say:

    “The government doesn’t have a mandate for gay marriage”,

    they mean:

    “I didn’t think David Cameron *really* meant it – I thought it was a great idea to make us appear more in touch with the 21st century, which is why I didn’t oppose it at the time, but I never thought he would *actually* go ahead and make good on an election promise!”

  37. Is there any actions, links or petitions we can go onto to get more voices heard and support for equal marriage bill, I want to add a link to my facebook for friends and family to sign?

  38. Lord Stoddart wants to know how gay people would consummate their marriages?

    Let him Google it.

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.