Reader comments · House of Lords votes in favour of same-sex marriage bill at second reading · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


House of Lords votes in favour of same-sex marriage bill at second reading

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Yay – and a huge majority too!

    1. Would you Adam & Steve it! Just a shame that the vile archbigot and the Lords ‘Spiritual’ consigned the CofE to the dustbin of irrelevance…

  2. I watched the debate live for both days, exceptionally glad the wrecking amendment is dead in the water, a 242 majority no less

    extremelly happy right now

  3. casparthegood 4 Jun 2013, 6:55pm

    Softly softly we are getting there slowly but surely

  4. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 6:55pm

    Fan-f_ckingtastic! Well done, my Lords!

  5. Surely now it’s very unlikely that the bill won’t become law at all? Of course bad amendments could be added, but with a majority like that, surely it’s going to pass eventually?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 7:17pm

      I think it will go the way of the Commons vote, same old nonsense with amendments but it will inevitably pass. The vote today was far bigger than the Commons vote, quite significant. I think it will pass into law nearer the end of the month. The biggest obstacle has just been blown out of the water today.

      1. That There Other David 5 Jun 2013, 9:41am

        Robert, well done to you for the huge amount of effort you put into lobbying. I sent some emails and letters, and had a word or two with a peer I know (who voted our way. Woo!!), but nothing compared to the hours you put in. Thanks.

    2. One of the points frequently raised in the debate was that the Lords doesn’t traditionally block the 2nd reading of bills already passed by the Commons, and that doing so would prevent them from debating and scrutinising the bill further. There could be a significant number of peers who are against the bill, or who will only support an amended bill, but who don’t feel it would be appropriate to block it at this stage.

      1. I’m sure you’re right. Hopefully the size of the majority indicates that there are still enough actual supporters of the bill to ensure it passes. If the majority had been less than 100 it would have been more worrying.

  6. Big majority, finally the HoL are progressing. Damn Lord Dear and his supporters…hope he will be shot down in the next stage..I’m not surprise if the anti-equal marriage will come up with the same old rubbish and they will then faced the odds againsts them when each amendments will be voted down one by one. Today majority has given hope again to all LGBT, bravo!

  7. Have been watching the debate most of this afternoon (and yesterday) with a slight uneasy feeling… so the bill hasn’t been wrecked by the House Of Lords. I don’t quite understand what happens next but I look forward to it being signed into Law and for marriage to me equal between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

    Feel like crying with happiness and a young gay guy in a happy two year relationship I hope in time to marry my partner/boyfriend (whatever you want to call it!)

      1. Ok … the UK system is really drawn out isn’t it… but at least today shows its promising the bill will pass and go for Royal Assent… won’t buy the hat just yet :)

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:16pm

          Actually Con, the legislative process itself hasn’t been that long although it seems it. The Bill was introduced in the House in January 2013, so we’re talking about six months of legislating. It was the consultation which took up much of the time, the longest I think in history. It has paid off though.

  8. CH Brighton 4 Jun 2013, 6:59pm

    What a roller-coaster – and with more rides to come as the Lords scrutinise every line of the Bill. So let’s keep the pressure on ’em: we’ve absolutely got to win this one.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:04pm

      We must keep on lobbying non-stop up until the third reading. No room fof complacency now that we’ve overcome the biggest obstacle today. I know I will sleep a lot sounder tonight that I’ve done since January.

  9. Dear God, that was tense.

    I was so glued to the screen to see what would happen that when my dog wanted to go out I ignored her and she peed all over the floor.

    I’ve never been so happy to mop up dog pee.

  10. Great news,

    So for how long will the Bill be scrutinised in Committee by the Lords.

    There needs to be a clear deadline -seeing as they are unelected I think they should be given a couple of days to do this.

    Then we must make sure that never again can an undemocratic institution such as the Lords, be allowed the power to potentially pervert our democracy.

    A fully elected Upper House is desperately needed.

    It is time for Britain to become a democracy.

  11. Thank god, now we can get on with the other issues brought up today, such as the URGENT need for house of lords reform.

    1. Absolutely – we’d have been the laughing stock of the democratic world had this been defeated.

      A fully elected House of Lords (or Senators) is required. They should be elected for fixed terms (10 years perhaps).

      1. the one good thing about the house is there are a lot of specialists in it, id be happier with a 10% appointed specialist section- scientists, teachers, doctors, sportsmen, etc (BUT NO BLOODY BISHOPS!!) and the rest elected. Non partisan, no party affiliation allowed, etc

        1. bobbleobble 4 Jun 2013, 9:50pm

          I’m not convinced by the argument relating to specialists. Most specialists in the Lords are retired, they were at the top of their game and were awarded a peerage on that basis but now they’re past it. Most of the current specialists that are up to date on latest developments are far too busy in their chosen fields.

          I also don’t see the virtue of having say an educational specialist when a health bill is before the Lords. I’d also question who would decide what constitutes a specialist.

          If a specialist wants to be a member of the legislature then they can stand for election. Otherwise they can advise the members but I don’t see why being an expert at something means they should have a vote on all legislation.

      2. 10 years? Some of the might not live that long!

  12. barrybear1980 4 Jun 2013, 7:03pm

    Have I just read this properly, passed with a majority… I am stunned and amazed, just had to sit down!

    Well a big thank you to the peers who voted on the right side of history!

    One happy bear here :-)

  13. I know that this is only a vote on whether to kill the bill now, but the size of the majority is heartening.

    I remember Ben Summerskill telling me that Stonewall would not support Equal Marriage because it wouldn’t get through the Lords. Chew on that result, Mr Irrelevance!

    1. Well Stonewall only came on board to support equality after Summerskill was caught red-handed OPPOSING marriage equality at the LibDem Party Conference.

      Stonewall deserves absolutely no credit for marriage equality when it is introduced – although it will claim credit of course

      1. Got an email from them, signed by Ben Summerskil. It ends with “At Stonewall, we fight to win”

        1. What a nerve that man has,

          Like the House of Lords, Stonewall is accountable to no-one.

          Unlike the House of Lords, Stonewall is merely a lobby group/charity.

          (Although I’ll bet Summerskill is waiting to be appointed to the unelected Lords – he’ll fit right in there.)

  14. Jacob Dugan-Brause 4 Jun 2013, 7:14pm

    Good results today. To the committee review and beyond!

  15. Congratulations from America to our English and Welch brothers and sisters!

    You’re almost there!

    Hopefully we won’t be too far behind!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:13pm

      Thank you, Hayden much appreciated!

    2. I hope so too Hayden!

  16. Helge Vladimir Tiller 4 Jun 2013, 7:25pm

    I embrace you all—GOOD NEWS !
    Love you- love you-love you all-

    Norway with many, many friends rejoice !

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:18pm

      Thank you, Helge! Keep on sending good karma to our House of Lords, although I think the passage of the Bill is inevitable. Love you back!

    2. Thank you Helge. Am more in love with Norway than ever. Just back from a few days in Oslo where I had an accident and had to spend two days in hospital. Not a question was asked about my partner staying with me and accompanying me to CT scans and the like. And the doctors – are they all so stunningly handsome and charming as mine were? X

  17. Excellent news! A great majority too.

  18. Marcwebbo3 4 Jun 2013, 7:29pm

    Bloody brilliant news….I couldnt be happier….and a vast majority too…

  19. Jon "maddog" Hall 4 Jun 2013, 7:31pm

    Congratulations from New Hampshire, USA!

    I will be in London next week, and hope to find some of you in the pubs still celebrating!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:20pm

      Thank you, Jon. Enjoy your time in our great city!

    2. Thanks Maddog! Are you coming for a Linux conference or something??

  20. Thee BBC is still being incredibly biased in its reporting.

    Despite the massive pro-SSM majority tonight’s 7pm Radio 2 news carried an anti-SSM soundbite but no soundbite in favour.

    The Today programme on R4 has interviewed anti-SSM people with no pro-SSM equivalent on at least two occasions.

    Similarly, the BBC news website has a page with tonight’s Lords’ result. It has a video clip of the Archbishop of Canterbury, but no pro-SSM clip.

    We should all complain to the BBC about this flagrant bias. If the response is unsatisfactory (as it probably will be) then you can escalate it to the BBC Trust.

    1. It depends how you look at it really. The anti-SSM bunch sound so pathetic, that more coverage of their hate actually helps out cause.

      Intentionally or not the BBC is letting the haters dig their own hole.

      1. Jock S. Trap 5 Jun 2013, 9:17am

        That would be ok if we didn’t have to pay by law the TV license.

        When we all have to pay they should stick to their own rules of being impartial. Something they have refused throughout and I for one don’t see why I should have to risk a £1,000 fine for not paying for what I don’t want!

    2. The BBC seem to be concerned about upsetting certain groups? I can’t think of any other explanation. Perhaps one or more of those groups are in higher management or the BBC trust?

      Pity they can’t rely just on certain groups to fund them. They will still no doubt want and expect our money. Their bigotry doesn’t extend as far as refusing money:-)

      1. I don’t want the BBC abolished.

        I like having a broadcaster not solely motivated by profit.

        Reform it sure, but abolish it no.

        If we get rid of the BBC, some evil old troll like Rupert Murdoch will be only too happy to step in to fill the void.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:23pm

      Perhaps a new grassroots campaign to question the issue of tv licences and why we as taxpayers have to contribute to this biased state-run institution which doesn’t represent any of us. I’d like to see competition, auction the BBC off to the highest bidder and get rid of the haters running it.

      1. And when Rupert Murdoch (or someone of that ilk) buys the BBC then we will all be losers.

        The BBC needs reform sure. But having a state broadcaster which is not answerable solely to shareholders is very beneficial for this country.

        1. COmmander Thor 4 Jun 2013, 10:14pm

          He answers to the CEO of Vatican Inc, instead…

          1. Well it’s clear that Mark Thompson is not fit for purpose as head of the BBC.

            He needs to be sacked.

            The BBC must remain however.

    4. Cardinal O Bummer 4 Jun 2013, 8:43pm

      The BBC director general Mark Thompson.

      Mr Thompson said he was a “practising Catholic” who believed that the “truths of the Christian faith” were objective rather than subjective.

      Do you need to know any more to explain why the BBC is so biased against us?

      1. Cardinal O Bummer 4 Jun 2013, 8:50pm

        “Those of us who have wondered why there is such a ridiculous excess of religion on the BBC now have the answer. It is because Mark Thompson, an enthusiastic Catholic, wants it. Thompson is a great proselytiser for his faith in the mould of Lord Reith, who thought the BBC was “the nation’s church”. And, of course, the BBC gives him a very big pulpit to preach from – one that reaches into just about every home in the country, and which we all have to pay for”.

        1. Thompson needs to be sacked then.

          However don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    5. Midnighter 4 Jun 2013, 9:14pm

      I’ve already complained about two articles today. Its really easy just fill in a form:

    6. Luckily they gave this a lot less publicity than they did with the Commons vote. Nevertheless there’s no doubting that the BBC is institutionally homophobic, and that’s why I started my blog in 2005 –

    7. I just saw a segment on the BBC News channel. It did seem kind of biased (it kept talking about how lots of peers had “raised concerns” about the bill and asserted that they had been “ignored”, which hardly seems a neutral way of putting it), but then they didn’t really seem to understand what is going on, as they said the bill “will now go back to the Commons”.

  21. Robert (Kettering) 4 Jun 2013, 7:38pm

    I’m dumbfounded at the result and the majority was amazing!

    A real poke in the eye for Messrs Dear and Tebbitt et al. Also those bigots sitting on the bishops benches, time they caught up with the rest of civilisation and stopped opposing Gay rights.

    Fingers crossed now for the finale to come.

  22. Wow. Massive majority. I predicted that it would pass but by less than 100 votes or so.

    I think we can say that gay marriage is pretty much guaranteed to pass!


  23. Derek Williams 4 Jun 2013, 8:00pm

    Stunning victory, totally unexpected.

  24. Thank you lords!

  25. Wow! I honestly wasn’t expecting that! Especially the huge majority. I guess there’s some hope left for the HOL after all. I know there’s some way to go yet, but in principle it’s been passed, now there’s just the details. Especially in education where teachers have a great responsibility to their students. Impartiality, and not their sponsored superstitions should be the best way to approach the subject of marriage, if it needs discussing at all.
    That’s one amendment I’ll be keeping a close eye on. Kids should be allowed to attend school without feeling victimized by teachers, it’s bad enough getting it from other kids. The personal faith of the teacher shouldn’t come into it.

  26. Though I live in England I learnt of the news from a friend in New York!!!

    Wonderful! Extraordinary! Fantastic. This is a remarkable moment in British history, and we’ve all been a part of it.

    Well done to everybody who has been contributing in one way or another!

    But as Robert says higher up, we must keep lobbying to make sure there are no exemptions for registrars or for teachers!

    If the form of marriage we are given is not one that registrars and teachers are totally obliged to respect and accept, then it’s useless and I’d rather not have it. Let’s keep up the pressure.

    Ben Cohen, keep publicising that lobbyalord website, and for goodness’s sake sort out its glitches! :-) I used it to lobby 69 peers last night and it broke down halfway through!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:31pm

      Hi Eddy, I managed to get 130 emails to the Lords since saturday. I also contacted Welby directly and received a useless response back….”Thank you for taking the trouble to write so carefully”. I’d let him know in a polite but firm way of my disagreement with the Church and the need for disestablishment. I’m not sure if his curt response was ironic or sarcastic, or possibly sincere. Either way it made no sense.

      But you’re right. It is most incumbent on all of us to continue lobbying, vital to do so. It was working much better today too, managed to get at least 22 more done. After the Bill is finally passed, I’m going to write to all 26 bishops regarding disestablishment.

  27. Congratulations to brothers and sisters in the UK.

    1. Jan Bridget 4 Jun 2013, 9:52pm

      Thank you.

  28. Had a good laugh at colin hart’s intepretation of this massive for vote…

    “lords vote shows huge opposition to gay marriage” Colin Hart

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:32pm

      Denial can often be a funny thing. All of the praying away the Bill did absolutely NOTHING for them. Maybe there is a god after all.

  29. Anthony Sollace 4 Jun 2013, 8:26pm

    I’m soooo proud of this country now..well done my lords!

    1. Time for a reality check.

      In the absence of a democratically elected upper house there is absolutely no way on earth that the existence of the current House of Lords can be defended.

      Just because it voted the right way this time does not exempt it from reform to an elected upper house.

  30. This is a great outcome, but I resent totally this unelected interference in the process of making law.

  31. To hear the BBC you’d think it was a close call – no mention in the news bout the size of the majority. Reporting’s been biased on this all the way through.

    1. Do you think the BBC should remain the state broadcaster?

      Or do you want to see it privatised and taken over by someone like Rupert Murdoch?

      I want an accountable, unbiased state broadcaster which is not motivated solely by ratings and profits.

      1. I’m in favour of an unbiased state broadcaster. But will we ever have one?

      2. The BBC needs proper scrutiny. It employs too many bare faced liars, I’m afraid. And, of course, too many homophobes –

      3. “I want an accountable, unbiased state broadcaster which is not motivated solely by ratings and profits.”

        So you do want to get rid of the BBC?

        The whole thing needs top down reorganisation and streamlining. It is bias, the license fee is ridiculous and out dated and they seem to provide less and less value for money.

      4. Jock S. Trap 5 Jun 2013, 9:28am

        The BBC needs to be privatised… we should only pay for them IF we want them… and I certainly don’t!

    2. That There Other David 4 Jun 2013, 9:59pm

      Totally. Even the website. If you were following the articles every single sub-heading backed the anti-equality side of the argument, often by use of a single negative word in quotes. Really obvious one-sidedness right the way through their coverage.

      1. Benjamin Cohen 5 Jun 2013, 2:28am


  32. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 8:34pm

    Now were is our troll, Keith and all the other loons today? They’ve had a rude awakening. We can all now gloat, point fingers and laugh.

    1. Cardinal O Bumtious 4 Jun 2013, 9:00pm

      Right now I imagine that Keith and his chums in the Christian Institute and associated members of the affiliated hate groups to them are whipping themselves with barbed strings, while shrieking loudly that the big sky fairy in the sky has terribly let them down. Revenge is sweet. They could have a mass protest (no pun intended) and throw themselves off the nearest cross, or better still they could grow the fk up and drop the childish nonsense.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 10:29pm

        Indeed! Praying away the Bill didn’t much for them did it? There idea of a mass protest is 150 turning up outside Parliament today, pitiful. You would think with all their organization and money, they’d have at least 10,000 or more. Laughable loons.

    2. That There Other David 4 Jun 2013, 10:00pm

      I thought of Keith earlier when reading of what the Mayor of Montpelier received in the mail. Wasn’t he obsessed with that sort of thing? :-)

    3. Well, having come back from outside the Houses of Parliament i can attest that there were plenty of them there today ‘defending marriage’. I did ask one, who seemed very familiar with this website, how he could, in all honesty, say that praying for the denial of equality before the law for same sex couples was a better use of his Christian faith than going out and opening a soup kitchen for the homeless or visiting an old person who had no other outside contact. I have to report that in a conversation which lasted for 1h30, he failed completely to convince me that he had a valid point. Clearly the praying didn’t work as they lost the vote. I had pointed out to him that prayer is the perfect example of how to do absolutely nothing and yet convince yourself you are actually helping, so it wasn’t likely to win the day for them. He didn’t listen though.

      For people who thought they had a lot to say about love, those outside the HOP this evening weren’t big on spreading much of it.

      1. That There Other David 4 Jun 2013, 11:22pm

        Sounds like they were busy spreading something a little more agricultural ;-)

    4. Benjamin Cohen 5 Jun 2013, 2:29am

      Please don’t say that! He even came up in editorial meetings!

  33. I would imagine, that since Lillian Ladele and her ilk thoroughly lost their cases in Europe for refusing to perform Civil Partnerships, any such ammendment for Marriage would also be found unlawful.

    1. I don’t think that follows. The ECtHR’s decision was not that registrars must perform civil partnerships, but that it is not a breach of their human rights if the government requires them to. Whether it is a breach of the Convention for a couple to be turned away by a registrar because of their gender/sexuality is a completely separate question, and I imagine it could go either way.



    1. Where it has always been.

      In their imaginations.

  35. Greetings From The Philippines!!! Congratulations To All Britons!! We Will Get There Eventually! I Encourage The British Government To Pass This Law And Be A Role Model To The Rest Of The World. It’S TimE FoR UK To Join The 15 Rainbow Club Of Nations!!! Congratulations! More Power And God Bless UK And The Queen

  36. PeterinSydney 4 Jun 2013, 9:47pm

    Well done “Great” Britain. What a contrast to the miserable meanness of Gillard and Abbott and their mates in the Australian Parliament. They look so medieval compared to the British peers.

    1. Oh please – at least Gillard and Abbott (for all their bigotry) are elected and can be voted out – and hopefully will be.

    2. Some Aussie tourists were passing by the House of Parliament this evening and asked me what was going on (they’d just heard the cheering when the result was announced). I briefly explained, pointed out the ‘one man/one woman’ lot who were stood there in a state of disbelief and then the Aussies asked who was in the horse drawn coaches and were they anything to do with it. Looking behind me there were two hideous ‘Kath & Kim’ wedding style pumpkin coaches. They were filled with scantily clad lap dancers from a club in the West End on a ‘promotional’ drive around central London trying to publicize their tacky club. The Aussies looked a bit bemused at having stumbled across all this British eccentricity. The husband said ‘well it’s about time we caught up with you and passed this law ourselves’. The wife? Totally practical too. She just looked at the women in their negligee and said ‘They’re mad. One little bit of sun and they strip off and ride about in an open carriage? :-)

    3. Colin (London) 4 Jun 2013, 11:22pm

      Thanks Peter…We are excited and overjoyed here but still a way to go.
      Your great countries time will come very quickly so don’t give up at all. It’s just your politicians are out of step with the electorate and it takes leadership. Your elections will sort that out soon enough.
      Best Mate

    4. yes, even a majority of Conservative Peers voted in favour of same sex marriage!!

  37. Jan Bridget 4 Jun 2013, 9:58pm

    Well done to whoever suggested it to David Cameron, and well done to David Cameron for having the guts to go through with it.

  38. Jan Bridget 4 Jun 2013, 10:00pm

    Well done to whoever suggested this to David Cameron, and well done David Cameron for having the guts to go through with it.

  39. Gay Activist Paul Mitchell 4 Jun 2013, 10:06pm

    A good start, but far from finished!

    Well done House of Lords – however the bill needs to pass the line by line Committee Stage, Report Stage and the Third Reading!!!!!

    I will stop calling it the House of Bigots now!!!!!

    Once the SSM Bill passes the third and final reading in the House of Lords (sometime in 3 months time), the bill goes straight to the Queen for Royal Assent – IF NOT AMENDED!

    IF AMENDED the “ping-pong stage” – meaning the bill has to go back to the House of Commons to pass again!!!!!

    The law will go into effect sometime in 2015!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 10:33pm

      I’m not so sure about that Paul. Maria Miller said that when the Bill passes, she was looking at 2014 for marriages to start taking place but it could well be before that. Don’t forget Nick Clegg, prior to the third reading in the Commons said that marriages could start by this summer once it passes. I very much doubt if they’ll add any amendments. Some may try but will probably end up being dumped just as they did in the Commons Committee. No more wrecking now.

    2. Marriage equality will take effect long before 2015.

      Cameron will not wait until election year to introduce this Bill.

      If it is introduced by this year then it will no longer be an issue come 2015.

  40. KurzanMajere 4 Jun 2013, 10:13pm

    Completely thrilled about this news!!

    After growing up with that dirty little law section 28, it’s wonderful to realise that there are so many in favour of SSM now.

  41. D Morrison 4 Jun 2013, 10:19pm

    No, I am not a follower of Pink News and, by the grace of God, I never will be. A certain Christian group sent me a link of Pink News, to highlight the vulgarity of its comments. I examined and I see that this group was exactly 100% correct.

    Regarding the various discussions over same-sex marriage, absolute truth – as recorded in the Bible – clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination before God and has to be repented of, like every other sin. The law of the land may indeed go ahead and approve same-sex marriage, but the Law of God is wholly opposed to such relationships. Yes, man proposes but God disposes. Absolute truth can never be silenced. Can I commend the glorious truth of the gospel to every comment reader “if the truth sets you free, you shall be free indeed.” This is amazing grace!

    1. And the BuyBull is a badly written book of fairytales designed to give meaning to the lives of desert dwelling illiterate peasants thousands of years ago.

      Keep your moronic ‘god’ in its box please.

    2. Do you support slavery?

      If not then you are going against the will of ‘god’.

      Do you condemn ‘god’ as a genocidal maniac for its premeditated murder of the 1st born children of every Egyptian?

    3. Most Christians believe that the laws of Leviticus (i.e. the book that supposedly calls homosexuality an abomination) were abolished upon Jesus’ sacrifice. Therefore many of those laws are ignored hence why you are permitted to eat shellfish, pork, wear clothes of mixed fibres etc. I would recommend leaving whatever “Christian” group persuaded you that homosexuality was an abomination. If you want to believe that convert to Judaism, but if not get to grips with Jesus’ Christ’s teachings before you go around claiming what is and isn’t an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

    4. “A certain Christian group sent me a link of Pink News, to highlight the vulgarity of its comments. I examined and I see that this group was exactly 100% correct.”

      D Morrison . . . show me a “Evangelical / Fundamentalist Christian Website which does not stereotype LGBT people in the most vulgar terms!!!

    5. Many people now have sex outside of marriage, including the many many people who co habit, this is “fornication” and condemned in the bible.

      Many people divorce , often as a result of adultery, then remarry, often serially. Adultery and divorce are condemned in the bible. How many brides do you think are virgins when they marry? Not many I’m sure you will acknowledge that, and fathers are told they should stone their non virgin daughters to death. Despite the breaches of biblical instruction listed above (and many more too numerous to list) we never hear you people hand wringing about them. Why is that? This not a rhetorical question I would really be interested in your reply. Thank you in anticipation.

    6. *Sigh* Here he is, folks….The Spectre at The Feast.

      Go away you annoying little person and spread your intolerance and bigotry someplace else. I am a believer….but I also believe in love, acceptance, justice and equality for EVERYBODY. Some of you fundamentalists obviously don’t pray to the same God I do.

      1. Always remember that it was the fundamentalists of Jesus’ time that had Him crucified. In this, one cannot be fundamentalist and Christian at the same time. It’s either one or the other.

    7. Cardinal Bumptious 4 Jun 2013, 11:21pm

      By the grace of god? Which one, the god of peanuts, bandicoots, cargo cults, dark chocolate, teapots, crumpets, what particular childish nonsense does your tiny mind obsess on? Not that I care to know really because you are delusional, a 100% card carrying feckwit. So go beat yourself on the arse with a rolled up copy of the Catholic Herald, whip yourself with a stout rosary, and splash yourself all over with “holy water” and guess what? WE STILL WON.

    8. That There Other David 4 Jun 2013, 11:21pm

      LOL. There’s always one isn’t there?

    9. Gestalt theory 4 Jun 2013, 11:30pm

      D Morrison of the Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia. We are watching you, now we know just how bigoted you are and the driver of your bigotry. I respect your right to your religious beliefs, but not your wish to impose those beliefs on others. Surely the so called eternal resting place of my so called soul is my business, not yours. Your lack of Christian charity may well be the decider of your final, very hot resting place.

      1. Despite having all of the relevant qualifications he’d have a job getting into hell. Like heaven it’s just a figment of his bizarre imagination….

    10. The “grace of God” didn’t prevent you from posting such drivel though, did it, pet?

      The greatest vulgarity ever seen on these forums was from an individual who considered himself a true follower of the bible, an obsession that was equalled, if not surpassed, by his obsession with the rectum.

    11. Beelzeebub 5 Jun 2013, 7:53am

      Rearrange these words.

      Yourself. F*ck. Go.

      The days when you brainwashed fools hold sway over society are over.

    12. Jock S. Trap 5 Jun 2013, 9:33am

      Mornin’ Keith

  42. GulliverUK 4 Jun 2013, 10:31pm

    That’s fantastic. I knew that chances of him [Lord Dear] winning was very small, quite unlikely, unrealistic, improbable – I was 99% sure he would be defeated, but I had no idea his loss would be absolutely massive, this is beyond anything I’d imagined. I worried it would be a small majority in favor of continuing, but this is … decisive and I think it bodes well for the final outcome, really well. I was also really happy to hear they will look at pensions because that is absolutely essential to calling this equal marriage.

    I’m still so stunned by the majority it hasn’t quite sunk in.

  43. Caution- good news but there are pitfalls yet and the opposition will try all kind of tricks to scupper it. Until signed by HMQ – watch every move carefully

  44. Lord Patten, Chairman of the BBC Trust, voted for the wrecking amendment. Says it all about the BBC really

    1. My sincere apologies, as I made a mistake about that. The BBC Chairman is Lord Patten of Barnes, not plain old Lord Patten. Sorry for the confusion

    2. CH Brighton 5 Jun 2013, 9:35am

      Patten is a catholic. He’s been ordered to vote against SSM and a range of other proposals that are contrary to vatican policy. So I wonder who he thinks he’s representing in Parliament?

  45. Congratulations from Colorado! This is FABULOUS news! We look forward to celebrating with our British sisters and brothers the ultimate victory soon! And with the Scots, as well!!!

  46. Bloody fantastic news, and with such a huge majority as well.
    I wonder, though if they’ll drag the scrutiny of it out for as long as possible. There should be a deadline for it I think.
    But I’m very happy right now. :)

  47. Does anybody know roughly how many calories you burn if you walk briskly for one hour? Thanks.

    1. 3578. There you go, now you can eat as much cake as you like.

  48. I have to say that I was genuinely (and pleasantly) surprised by the outcome after all the hype about how the equal marriage bill will get a battering in the Lords and have far more opponents.

    To see it pass second reading with such a large majority has lifted my spirits and restored some of my faith in the Lords (although it does still need reform).

  49. GingerlyColors 5 Jun 2013, 7:28am

    This is even better than our most optimistic projections on how the vote was going to go. Now that this major hurdle has been cleared it will only be a matter of time before gay marriage will become a reality in the UK. It has to go through the Committee Stage on the 17th and 19th of June but giving the size of support for the Bill in what was considered a hostile arena there should be no problems.
    The passage of legislation through Parliament is quite a complicated process, involving readings in the Commons, passage through the Lords, committee and report stages. While it may slow the process of legislation such this Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill, it also stops bills being hurried through Parliament as a knee-jerk reaction to certain events.

  50. Both Baroness Knight and Lord Hylton gave speeches that amounted to no more than vulgar displays of hackneyed prejudice and disinformation.

  51. postopgirl 5 Jun 2013, 8:46am

    yeh, but with a big BUT, its so watered down, its a worthless piece of legislation, churches won’t have to do gay marriage, transsexuals marriages will not be back dated in line with Carol Lucas’ amendment, because a transwoman has to anul her marriage in or order to attain gender recognition, and a registrar won’t have to undertake to carry out a a gay marriage ceremony in a registrar office if it conflicts with their religious beliefs, so well done parliament, they will pass a very watered down useless p[iece of legislation, sorry to the party pooper, but its not a good piece of legislation as it has more holes than swiss cheese, with so many amendments to appease the religious right and the tory right wingers.

    1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 9:18am

      Why should churches be forced to go against their religious beliefs? If it’s that important to you to be married in a church then the Quakers or the Unitarians will accommodate you but to force a religion to go against its teachings is not something we should be encouraging.

      As far as I’m aware there is no exemption for registrars in the bill. The amendment put forward in the Commons was voted down and whilst no doubt it will rear its ugly head again in the Lords it certainly isn’t a part of the legislation as yet.

      I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the transwomen issue but if things are as you say then that is disappointing as is the anomaly with regards to pensions.Hopefully those issues can be sorted out in the Lords and if not then at a later date or possibly in the courts. However I honestly never expected to get even as much as we have especially from a Tory government.

      The bill isn’t perfect but to claim this is some kind of defeat is just bizarre.

      1. The C of E should “be forced to go against their religious beliefs” because it’s an arm of the state – the state church. If it were a private religion then it should have no compulsion – but it isn’t!

  52. Just to be clear, BBC Chairman Lord Patten of Barnes DID NOT VOTE last night. I’m sorry for the mistake

    1. The Lord Patten shown in the Division –

      Is NOT the Chairman of the BBC.

  53. Jock S. Trap 5 Jun 2013, 9:12am

    Absolutely pleased about this. It’s a Brilliant and positive way forward.

    I look forward to seeing this through and finally getting on with adding the bill into law.

    I do have to add though that I have to question what kind man makes a of Chief Constable who is clearly so homophobic and how that must have effected those during his term as Chief Constable in the West Midlands. Did his personal belief effect his job in anyway that meant that the LGBT community suffered as a consequence?

    1. ” Did his personal belief effect his job in anyway that meant that the LGBT community suffered as a consequence?”

      I guess that must be a rhetorical question Jock.

  54. Godric Godricson 5 Jun 2013, 9:42am

    I watched this for two days and it was great TV. The old prejudices flowed like poison from some Lords. Other Lords were inspirational. I am delighted and shocked at the outcome. I was impressed how many Lords mentioned the email lobbying so “Thank you” to those who set up the ‘Lobby a Lord’ site. It was very useful. What a relief all round!

  55. WooHoo! Now I can start planning Wedding 2.0! All that money on the Civil Partnership down the drain….. Oh well, at least it will help the economy!

  56. on the Other Hand 5 Jun 2013, 10:44am

    I was interested to see Lord Lloyd Weber sitting there, and happy to find that he voted for equality.

    1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 11:55am

      Julian Fellowes voted down the amendment too as did Tanni Grey Thompson AND Floella Benjamin!!!

      1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 5:00pm

        Who are the last 2?

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.