Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UK: Government moves equal marriage House of Lords vote to later next day

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. No. It’s actually later the NEXT day!

    1. OK, they corrected it! Well done PN! :)

    2. Technically they’re moving the vote to later the same day – instead of 2am on Tuesday (after a debate starting on Monday afternoon and dragging on till the wee hours), the debate will end at midnight and peers will come back during the daytime on Tuesday for the rest of the debate and to vote.

      1. No. The Monday debate will be sceduled to end before midnight.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 May 2013, 2:55pm

    Well that’s sorted then, good. Although I get very dismayed by the uncertainty and the gloom and doom by some sources to discourage and demoralize us, I have a gut feeling it’s going to pass with a small majority. Hopefully, we’ll be surprised with a larger one.

  3. Gabrielle Anderson 30 May 2013, 2:57pm

    Because the pension cost that you saw off totally wasn’t the equalising of gay with straight relationships, letting a remaining partners make use of the money that the dead spouse had ALREADY PAID IN LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!

  4. Personally I thought it was a rather brilliant strategy of the government’s to schedule the vote so late, by which time the oldest of the old would be snoozing away on the benches while the sprightlier members rushed through the lobbies. We all know youth = support for equality.

    But I trust the government whips have done the numbers and are making the right call. Perhaps bigotry correlates with insomnia.

    1. You’re plain wrong. There are many elderly peers who support the bill.

      The late hours was also disadvantageous to disabled and physically frail peers, many of whom also support equality even tho they can’t sprint anywhere.

      Yes, there is an age division re this equality measure, but over simplifying matters, ageism and making assertions based on ignorance is neither right nor helpful.

    2. PS. The government did schedule a late vote. It’s the anti-brigade who tabled the vote in the first place

      1. Sorry, predictive text changed the first sentence.

        Should read “government did NOT”

        1. Ha! Predictive text. Whoever invented that should diet

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 30 May 2013, 3:25pm

    Have to keep this video in mind amidst all the uncertainty. So beautiful. Notice the photo of Francois Hollande in the background who made this a reality for this lovely couple. possible. Let’s hope we too can have Cameron’s and Clegg’s photos on display during the first same-sex marriage in the UK as a thank you and reminder who it was who made it our reality too.

    http://www.queerty.com/watch-vincent-aubin-and-bruno-boileau-marry-in-frances-first-gay-wedding-20130529/

    1. keith,.:-) 30 May 2013, 6:28pm

      Sca:-) t consensual adult incest & homosexuality. All hurt nobody yet morally clean people are disgusted by them

    2. Good idea, Robert, and it’s up to UK gay couples to be bolshy enough and to make damn sure that there IS a photo of Cameron and Clegg present when they tie knot.

      Let’s hope that the first marriages, the publicised ones, will feature this, that the couples will remember to do it.

  6. GulliverUK 30 May 2013, 3:27pm

    The most laughable think about that statement is that some lunatic is still trying to claim that giving straight couples the choice between marriage or Civil Partnership would cost £4bn – which has been ridiculed … everywehre, by …. everybody. Anyone who would even quote such a figure should even be in government if they can’t use logic, reason, and don’t have a basic understanding of maths.

  7. I think we would have been better off with a 3am vote cos surely its the old crustaceans who can’t hack a late night and still want their slaves back who are more likely to vote against the bill. The younger ones who can still cope with solids and a later bedtime are probably more likely to support civil rights.

  8. It’s best that the Lords can vote when they’re all bright and with-it, rather than dozy or absent. That way whatever decision they reach will be one for which there’ll be no excuse: it will have been reached in full consciousness. And we will know how the House of Lords feels about us in general.

  9. The only thing I can say about the HoL is that it’s a complete joke.

    Having a system where you have to delay the vote becuase the voters are too elderly or sick to attend is daft. Ok, I understand why it might be being done and I know Lord Jenkin is well in his 80s and a big supporter of SSM and we want his vote but honestly these jobs shouldn’t be for life and there should be an age gap.

    And I disagree with Sasha, the majority of those who will vote for SSM will be 65 and under and the majorty that will vote against it will be in their 70 and 80ss. Yes, you’ve got the youngsters like Baroness Berridge who are against it, but she’s the exception.

    Having over 70s voting on this is naff. SSM is big with young people and these peers are old, old, old and not in touch with the younger generations.

    1. Disagree all you wish asI did not I make a claim about age-related majority voting intentions as you suggest. (Tho, I suspect I’ve possibly been involved in a little more polling of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal than you have. Or maybe I’m mistaken?)

      I did, however, counter Atalanta’s obnoxiously blatant ageist assertion that only youthful peers support the Bill. It’s simply untrue.

      And, surely, in a democracy even the voices of elderly, “not in touch with the younger generations” people deserve to be heard. Your comment suggesting that only younger people like us should hold the reins of power reminds me too much of Archbishop Carey asking for Christian courts to decide Christian “persecution” cases.

      The point is, however, moot. Those of us campaigning to have the schedule updated were (somewhat to my surprise) listened to. We can only speculate what might have been.

    2. Still going to give a big green tick, tho :)

  10. I think they are trying to expose what a waste of time having a House of Lords is.

    The House of Lords is nothing but entitlement payouts to older people who should have retired from politics years ago and are now, wasting taxpayers money. They are no longer relevant, to the larger British society, in the 21st century.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all