Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Equal marriage bill amendment calls for decision to be made in 2015 referendum

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “At present, the law in England and Wales defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Should the law be changed to define marriage as the union of two people—whether a man and a woman, or woman and a woman, or a man and a man?”

    how about “the union of two consenting adults regardless of gender” so we can finally shut the bigoted idiots up who argue equal marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying animals

    1. not that i agree it should go to referendum but if it did then that’s the definition i would think would be best

    2. Redfern Jon Barrett 5 Jul 2013, 1:07pm

      What’s wrong with more than two consenting adults marrying, anyway? I’m in a trio, do we not deserve the same rights as anyone else? The LGBT/Queer community has a long history of polyamory.

  2. Equality is a matter of principle and should not be subject to public opinion.

    1. Exactly right. Human rights are not to be the whim of public sentiment. If a referendum was taken for universal suffrage, i.e. giving women the vote, it would likely have failed. So NO to a referendum.

    2. hoomoodeviance. detector. 14 Jun 2013, 11:29pm

      Equality is not absolute neither are rights.. You have to put restrictions on who can marry otherwise a father would be able to marry his son. You need more than merely adult consent. We currently have equality in marriage since nobody is allowed ro marry the same sex whether heterosexual opr homosexual. In fact, the law does not care about your sexual preference. Marriage is open to homodeviants under the same rules as normals. They just choose not marry under those rules.

      1. I wonder if you are actually as stupid as you appear or if it is just an act. Either way, nothing you say here is taken seriously so why bother?

        Presumably you feel the need to come here and tell us what you think, for some reason of self-satisfaction. What you really need to be asking yourself is why you take the trouble to do that.

        I could stand outside a church on Sundays waving a banner saying god does not exist, but frankly I have better things to do with my time than worry about what stupid people say or do in church.

        So I repeat, why do you have the time and inclination to come here? How does any of this affect you? I can only assume you have same-sex urges which you deny. It is the only thing that really answers why you come here.

  3. It would be a constitutional first, even if it were legal, which is moot, to hold a referendum on a bill that has already become an act of parliament, so I doubt it will fly.

    1. ahh we had a convo on this before actually on something else to do with em, referendums in the uk are a bit weird, you see parliamentary sovereignty means parliament can make no law that restricts a future parliament’s ability to make amend or repeal laws, also it legally speaking referendums because of that principle are NOT legally binding not matter what, example a referendum that’s done that says no can be ignored by parliament because parliament is sovereign in law, same the other way a 1 that comes up as yes they can refuse to make what ever the question is law and any laws that have been passed by referendum can be repealed by the government because they have no standing in british law (think i got that all right but please correct me if im wrong :D)

      1. quick correction, that last part should be no standing in law before paliament heh

        1. Ducky, I would love to understand what you’ve written above but I don’t think it’s the two glasses of wine I’ve had with dinner that disallows me from doing so: I think it’s your breathless lack of punctuation! :-)

  4. Ye gods, just STOP already. It’s beyond pathetic now.

    I am really sick of straight folks debating whether my family is worthwhile, I really am.

    And beyond sick of the House of Lords of all people whinging about the will of the people!

    1. Lord Anderson said this in 1968 when a mere MP. On HOL reform.

      “Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the legislation will be sufficiently speedy to prevent there being a lame duck Session in 1970–71, when the Tory Peers will have a stranglehold over the measures which we were sent here to promote?

      He seemed very concerned then about the HOL interfering with the work of the commons. What an effing hypocrite.

      It is all online in Hansard, everything he ever said in his lifelong career at the taxpayers expense.

  5. I wonder if these lords proposing a referendum have any idea how much one actually costs?

    1. The referendum on Europe is going to cost £100 million.

  6. The law does not currently ‘define’ marriage. It only states who can marry, where, and at what times. Another badly-drafted amendment from homophobes who claimed to be against ‘badly-drawn’ bills.

  7. The more they resist by way of strange, unnecessary and semantic means then the further the cause for same-sex marriage progresses. People will find this whole think amusingly distant from reality. The only argument I can see is that it will ‘persecute’ those who think it should be between a man and a woman. Similar to how all those men who didn’t think women should have the vote were all locked up after universal suffrage, right?

  8. If straight marriage is the saviour to all mankind, how come there are so many children in care?

  9. I am fed up with those who think that this should be put to a referendum.

    We have voted for our politicians to put laws such as the Same Sex marriage bill through parliament, in a democratic way. And the fact that it has already passed through with such a huge majority should already be telling the lords something. But as usual they have their hands covering their ears.

    If they want a referendum fine, but at the same time ask the question “should divorce be illegal” after all, they keep harping on about marriage being one man & one woman.

    On a second note, how about we also ask the populace whether we should keep an un-elected upper house too. I am sure that there are many people in this country who think that the house is no longer needed. I bet you then, the lords would soon change their tunes.

    1. Colin (London) 14 Jun 2013, 4:47pm

      Yes and at the same time can we ask the electorate if we can get rid of the HOL please

  10. Oh for heaven sakes…. It was bad enough having to suffer all the bigotry during the consultation process.

    It’s inconceivable that at this stage (although indicated) that these some of these old fossils whose lives it will never impact are so hateful and intent on wrecking this bill. After the almost 2-1 majority vote in the commons can’t they just get on with it? Talk about doing some this stupid downwind! This has to be exasperating even for the Lords who are not bigots and support it.

    A referendum? NEVER! human rights are a government issue not ballot issue.

  11. That There Other David 14 Jun 2013, 4:33pm

    The only people who think this needs to go to a referendum are those who mistakenly believe they speak for a silent majority. It’s about time those people grew up and realised they really speak for nobody but themselves. The referendum would be a waste of time and money, as well as undermining the sovereignty of Parliament (or the Parliaments) to legislate.

    If they really disagree with the law passing through without a popular vote, why don’t they form a “We hate gay people” Party and fight the next election? I’m sure if they’re right they’ll sweep to power in a landslide, so what do they have to lose?

    1. Colin (London) 14 Jun 2013, 4:46pm

      Good Point…very good point.

  12. Colin (London) 14 Jun 2013, 4:44pm

    Please excuse me…Bloody minded old gits… Get shot of this load of old “has beens”

    Look forward not back. This country needs radical change….Fume

  13. It’s gobsmacking to watch this parade of bigotry towards the homosexual people of the UK.

    The homophobes are marching. And the extraordinary thing is these aren’t brainless yobs and thugs from some deeply deprived place. These are the “finest” ladies and gentlemen of the realm! They’re all Lords because of fine hereditary breeding or because they’ve been stuck there for having manifested exemplary behaviour.

    But look at them! The haters! Desperately grasping at every last straw to “save” themselves from the most hideous and vile situations of having to acknowledge that the “queers” in the house down the road are just as married as they, part of the same “sacred” institution as they!

    We are seeing now how they really feel. We must never forget it. Whenever anyone jumps up in future and says the UK is totally liberated on gay & lesbian matters: REMIND THEM. No more delusions.

    We have a great deal of homophobia to fight once this battle is over.

    Lobbyalord.org now!

  14. Even if the Lords passes one of these, the Commons could overturn it on it’s return there for final ascent (even using the Parliament Act if need be).
    Then to Betty Windsor for the signature.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Jun 2013, 10:48pm

      That’s right, but the drift I’m getting from almost all of the Lords I contacted is these wrecking amendments won’t be supported. Betty Windsor doesn’t actually sign a bill into law, it’s automatic which is why it’s called Royal Assent.

  15. This blizzard of anti-equality amendments is getting increasingly petty, ridiculous, childish and desperate… what’s next, an amendment stating that any person in a same sex marriage be legally defined as “a poopy-head”? Or perhaps an amendment that requires same sex marriage ceremonies to end with both participants being struck with a cream pie?

    1. I actually wouldn’t mind a the cream pie one, so long as I got a say in how it was delivered. Being struck by it sounds painful.

  16. So they feel its only fair that the country gets to vote on a measure that only a few weeks ago they themselves voted to try ensure never saw the light of day? I’m no mastermind but that seems a bit flawed to me. Could there be an ulterior motive perhaps? Hmmmm….

  17. This is depressing , that these evil people are so consumed with hate that they will stop at nothing to deny us basic rights. I just hope they don’t succeed in their evil .

  18. This is a sneaky American tactic that should be avoided. It will stir up hate speech and hate incidents leading up to the Ballot vote, and if not passed, will lead to litigation that will be wrapped up in the European Courts for years. You should contact No. 10 and your MPs and tell them not to do this.

  19. Cool. Can we have one about ‘if we should have a house of lords’ while we’re at it? I predict a very few people would be in favor of a bunch of old bigoted unelected religious zealots.

    1. Do you mean the “bunch of old bigoted unelected religious zealots” that voted overwhelmingly in support of the Equal Marriage bill earlier this month?

  20. John Smith 14 Jun 2013, 6:35pm

    Just get on with it, some of us are waiting to get married!

  21. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Jun 2013, 6:37pm

    More useless posturing and desperation. These outlandish amendments are only going to expedite the Bill into law with a larger majority than they bargained for. They will all be shot down as they were in the Commons.

  22. The only referendum in the next election should be to abolish the unelected undemocratic house of lords.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Jun 2013, 8:09pm

      Two referenda. Fully disestablish the CoE.

  23. Commander Thor 14 Jun 2013, 7:24pm

    I propose the following questions:

    1) Choose one of the following:
    a. Allow gay marriage and divorce.
    b. Protect traditional marriage between one man and on woman for life, and ban divorce.

    2) Do you wish to keep an unelected house of lords, with bishops and hereditary peers?
    a. YES
    b. NO

  24. Not going to happen you sad old man!

  25. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Jun 2013, 8:07pm

    I’ve managed to contact 330 Lords via the http://www.LobbyALord.org website since this past monday. There are intermittent problems with it, the screen freezes preventing any further use until an hour or so later.

    It’s frustrating given the number of wrecking amendments ahead of us and not being able to get to those Lords who matter most, especially the limitation of only six a day who have no direct email address.

  26. We as tax payers are actually paying these people to oppose equality. They are being paid tax payers money to, in some cases, impose their religious beliefs. That can’t be right whatever your religious beliefs.

  27. Very devious unelected bigots

  28. Here we go again, these peers need to take a civil government class. I mean, why would you do a referrendum on this kind of issue???? This is beyond appalling. But I feel that every single of those amendments tabled will fail next week! Goodluck! Pass this bil NOW, and let the Queen sign it!

  29. Yeah, well, that’s a total non-starter. Cameron wants this done and done now, so he can take credit BEFORE the election, in fact if it was passed now and people were able to marry in January, so the whole thing evaporated in peoples minds, that would not be a bad thing for him.

    So there is zero chance this will ever be put to a referendum, even if the entire House of Lords wanted it to be.

    Most of these amendments are vicious and/or just plain stupid, and have little hope of surviving.

    But … let’s have a referendum of abolishing the House of Lords and replacing with a senate made up of elected members — because most people already like that idea, and they know it. And their actions are going to make that a reality.

  30. Not again! Our ‘phobes tried exactly the same thing with our Marriage Equality Act earlier this year. It was shot down in flames, given that it was proposed by our equivalent to UKIP, “New Zealand First.”

    And how much will this bigot’s referendum proposal of theirs actually cost, at a time of brutal social service cuts?

  31. GingerlyColors 15 Jun 2013, 7:19am

    Human rights whether it is race issues, votes for women or marriage equality should never be subjected to a vote of the majority of people. Did Australian Aborigines have their rights voted on in a referendum, for example? There are exceptions: In Lichenstein in 1984 the male population voted on whether or not make their tiny country the last one in Europe to grant women the vote. In Switzerland there was the highly publicized referendum concerning minarets on mosques, in which just over half the population voted and just over half of those who did bother to vote to favour a ban on minarets, something like 30% of the electorate which meant that 70% opposed the ban or wern’t bothered.
    The problem with referendums is that hardliners on both sides of the political divide will vote and while most people are happy to see us being able to marry, marriage equality is way down on the list of political priorities for most people.

  32. Laws are not made by general consencus but by (God) and law makers ( we are a Christian nation folks let us stick to the script!!!) God is Gay Friendly by the Way…

  33. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2013, 10:55am

    This was defeated in the elected chamber so don’t why we have to take note of it from the Unelected chamber!

    Also the question itself is bias towards marriage between and man and a woman, so the question itself is unfair… but then what do you expect from a bunch of bigots.

    Let’s hope this gets thrown out in the same way the House of Commons did.

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