Reader comments · Live blog: Highlights from the House of Lords committee on same-sex marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Live blog: Highlights from the House of Lords committee on same-sex marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Thanks for this live blog, PN! Very handy for me.

    So for the first hour they’ve been discussing using “union” instead of “marriage”, and I’m glad to hear the point has been made that using “union” won’t bring equality, which is the whole point.

    Looking forward to returning to this blog in an hour’s time!

    1. Or two, or three…

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 4:55pm

      I can’t be bothered to watch the loons today, Eddy. It was bad enough this past Monday. The problem with the ‘union’ thing is it opens up another Pandora’s box. If it were ever carried, Dear, Mackay and others would have to agree and support an amendment that divorced people do not fit traditional marriage stance by any stretch of the imagination. They too would need to be distinguished from the traditional. Not going to happen. Civil marriages are already different from traditional religious marriage as lord Carlile pointed out on monday. No liturgy, no minister or representative of any faith, in fact its forbidden under the 1949 and 1973 law. The loons of course also contend that traditional merely construes a man and a woman regardless of divorce.

  2. Michael Dobbs pointed out that the “traditional marriage” definition in Lord Dear’s amendment describes something that doesn’t exist – marriage without divorce and with perfect fidelity.

  3. i almost lol’d when both Lord Mawhinney and a woman stood up to speak at the same time.

    It is very funny considering Lord Mawhinney’s alleged values, when a man and a woman stand up, and after a short pause, the woman is the first to it down without a word being said. It pretty much sums up what Lord Mawhinney ultimately thinks.

  4. Lord Elton treating Lord Mawhinney’s amendment with the contempt it deserves…

  5. 17:12 What evidence is there that peers are “leaning towards” the Mackay amendment? Is PN in the lobby, or just listening to the vocal peers who are speaking on the amendment?

    Throughout the debates, in both chambers, it is the antis who have shouted loudest but have failed miserably to win any votes. Has something changed?

    1. I doubt the Lords would support that amendment anyway. It opens up legal avenues down which legislators can pass laws relating to only one term but not to the other. It would be civil partnerships all over again.

  6. I’m always a bit annoyed when people get away with talking about the supposed fundamental biological differences between same-gender and opposite-gender couples. When is somebody going to point out that there are none? I would have thought that at least some members of the House of Lords might have grasped that, having passed the Gender Recognition Act several years ago.

  7. Go Lord Alli, excellent speech, stand your ground.

  8. bobbleobble 17 Jun 2013, 5:36pm

    Does anyone have any idea what this report is about Argentina that Dear keep banging on about? It’s all well and good telling us about the report but unless we can read it and understand and/or debunk it then it’s just yet more hot air.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 4:41pm

      It has to do with some of the flawed research touted by Mark Regnerus, an American right wing religious nutter and our own Dr. Patricia Morgan who represents the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child. I just sent that link to Lord Dear for his edification, but I think he’ll probably dismiss it.

      C4M, CI and SPUC all use Regnerus and Morgan’s flawed research. Morgan gave evidence in the Commons Committee I might add.

  9. “He quotes an Argentinian paper which claims homonormativity won over heteronomativity throughout society because of the redefinition of marriage.”

    Lolwut? Is this homonormativity as in “gay people are better than straight people” or homonormativity as in “monogamous cisgender gay people are privileged over other LGBT people”? The former is clearly absurd, and I doubt Lord Dear would be concerned about the latter.

    Seriously, what exactly happened in Argentina and why does Lord Dear keep banging on about it?

    1. Commander Thor 17 Jun 2013, 5:46pm

      Nothing did.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 4:45pm

      It has a lot to do with Dr. Patricia Morgan as I’ve mentioned above who represents the SPUC.

  10. Helge Vladimir Tiller 17 Jun 2013, 7:11pm

    Lord Alli ! You are really a warm and just person. While other representatives dissect gay peoples hearts and minds- YOU believe in us. You trust our nature and believe we are honest in our righteous claims. We love You ! (H.V.T.Norway )

  11. Lots of confusion and amendments! Whatever happens the House of Lords SHOULD PASS the bill or face urgent reform! Those BIGOTS are its best desperation! We will fight and continue to lobby a lord until this bill is done!

  12. I thought one remark in the House of Lords on Monday was particularly disgraceful –

  13. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Jun 2013, 4:42pm

    Just received a nice acknowledgement from Lord Alli telling me there’s a little way to go yet but he’s confident its going to pass, sooner rather than later.

  14. In the HOL Monday, mention of the SPUIC sponsored Morgan submission. It was nowhere near a paper, that would be to dignify it.

    The author herself states in the document: “This is not saying that same sex marriage is the reason for marital decline anywhere – simply how it does nothing to prevent it. ”

    A number of Lords spoke about the precitious decline, lifting the words from this document.

    Hello correlation, meet causation.

    The rate in Spain is now more or the same as Itlay, a country with the worst record of LBGT rights of any large EU country.

    The Portland University found no such correlation across the US.

    Patricia Morgan, this is a REAL scientifc paper.

    The whole paper is here:

  15. More ammendments in the house of lords – solutions looking for problems while in the process attempting to advantage religion over innate human characteristics like sex and race, gender identity, sexual orientation, handedness, skin and eye colour.

    1. GulliverUK 24 Jun 2013, 5:25pm

      Oooh, just had a thought. Can I put in an amendment that only allows left-handed people to get married, and right-handed people to have a Civil Partnership – orientation would be irrelevant but handedness is the deciding factor ! :D

      ps. I am ambidextrous :-p

      1. ps. I am ambidextrous :-p

        So am I

        But this blog page does not start today Monday 24th -but is a continuation of the previous one -Just reposted.
        Sloppy —Pink News.

  16. The idea that registrar’s should be able to opt out because they disagree in their hearts and consciences is rediculous. Who are they to dictate who marries whom? What if they didn’t like mixed race marriages? They are paid by tax payers to provide a service for all equally. If they don’t like that they should find another job.

  17. I really hope we start to see the discussions on these mostly ridiculous amendments drawing to a close – if they ask for yet another day can someone just say no please.
    After this we need to wait 14 days at least for the agreed amendments then to be reported and commented on – and so it drags on.
    I appreciate that the Parliamentary system needs to be followed to the letter so their are no ‘holes’ for the bigots to pick away at but if I have to listen to ‘black hearted bigoted loons’ talk utter rubbish for much longer I’m going to have to take stronger medication.

  18. GulliverUK 24 Jun 2013, 5:22pm

    Marriage and Civil Partnerships are about romantic and sexual attraction – so, wrong bill to be talking about two sisters or carers and relatives, since those are forbidden from getting married or a Civil Partnership, because they don’t have romantic and sexual attraction.

    That’s just the same amendment they tried to use to scupper Civil Partnerships back in 2004.

    1. There’s no law that says that marriage and civil partnerships are about romantic and sexual attraction.

      There’s no compulsion to have sex, is there? Or maybe there is.

      If there is, then we must come up with a definition of consummation for same sex couples and a definition of adultery, too.

      1. Bobbleobble 24 Jun 2013, 6:54pm

        No there is no compulsion to have sex, a marriage is not void but rather voidable if consummation doesn’t occur. If both parties are happy not to have sex then the marriage continues as valid.

        However, that is not to say that marriage is not bound up with sex. Marriages is a vehicle in which a loving sexual relationship is given legal status. We don’t need government to tell us that marriage should have a sexual element to it however, I think we can figure that out for ourselves.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2013, 8:47pm

          Quite right, and civil marriage for heteros doesn’t mandate procreation either and is not the primary reason why people marry unless they happen to be a religious nutter.

  19. PN this comment page relates to the coments about the committee session LAST WEEK.

    Can we not have a comment page for what is happening TODAY = Monday the 24th of June!!!!!!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2013, 6:40pm

      Yes, I too noticed that, very odd.

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2013, 6:39pm

    Same old crap they raised in the Commons. It’s an exercise in futility, running around in circles and getting nowhere and they won’t. Next….

  21. One of my favourites is

    Baroness Knight asked “how is it that registrars who will not perform these marriages because of [objections] in their hearts and in their conscience have been sacked.”

    Lord Wallace denied that was the case, reminding Baroness Knight that the legislation has not yet been made law, so that could not have happened.

  22. Since it appears on the live feed they have moved on does this mean we are now finished at this stage and moving on next to the report stage in 2 weeks?
    I’m confused – doesn’t take much with this though.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2013, 8:44pm

      The committee stage is supposed to end today. Report stage is July 8th and 10th I believe, 3rd reading and vote July 15th, then Royal Assent, then on to statue before the end of July.

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.