Reader comments · Lord Alli withdraws his pensions amendment to the equal marriage bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lord Alli withdraws his pensions amendment to the equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. GulliverUK 24 Jun 2013, 4:11pm

    If the bill does’ t equalise pension provision then the government will just end up being taken to the ECHR. This is blatant discrimination of the worst kind. It is a key element of equality without which the job is left verry badky unfinished.

  2. This lack of equality in pensions is so glarringly unfair that I suspect it will be righted a little later down the line, after the Bill has become law.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2013, 5:56pm

      I agree. I think it will be corrected after its on statute in the same manner in which CPs for heterosexuals are to be reviewed in the autumn. I suspect Humanist marriages and issues facing transgender people will eventually be part of the Bill once its passed and out of the way. The opposition will continue to traduce the Bill no matter what even if all of their amendments were adopted, you can’t win or please everybody. As much as I’d like to see pensions, Humanist weddings and transgender issues included in this current Bill, be careful because the opposition will exploit or discontent to foment more hostility in the third and final vote saying there are ‘many’ gays against the Bill. There’s a lot of wisdom in the adage ‘be careful what you wish for’, in spite of the frustrations we all have.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2013, 5:57pm

        ..exploit our discontent…

  3. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2013, 4:13pm

    This simply isn’t good enough but I just want to see this passed now.

    They claim more will be coming into the economy from Same sex marriage than it would to equalise pensions so there really shouldn’t be any excuses.

    I know they are planning to scrap survivour pension for all but we really shouldn’t be the guinea pigs in this.

  4. José R. Merentes 24 Jun 2013, 4:13pm

    So tus will be sol de at the ECHR. Great!

    1. Jose R. Merentes 24 Jun 2013, 4:17pm

      So this will be taken before the ECHR. Great!

  5. That There Other David 24 Jun 2013, 4:19pm

    £18m is too expensive is it? I wonder how much money hosting the recent G8 conference at Enniskillen cost. Damn sight more than sorting out the pensions mess I’m sure.

  6. They scuttled death benefits equality because of the 18m pound cost? That’s a piffling amount of money. This fight must be raised again…

    1. That There Other David 24 Jun 2013, 5:06pm

      Having thought about it, the true cost, likely to be a couple of billion pounds, would be the one the pension companies would have to pay out on rather than pocketing OUR money.

      I smell corporate lobbying. Serious amounts of it. And boy, does it stink.

  7. GulliverUK 24 Jun 2013, 4:44pm

    So for heterosexuals in Civil Partnerships and marriage – they will get equal survivor pensions to that of marriage and we won’t? Won’t stand up in the courts, regardless of what the law says – the Walker case already won (government said it will challenge that), but the ECHR will rule in our favor.

    We need to get a list of all those providers who do discriminate and publish it so that everybody knows to boycott them, and force their hand. For those in discriminatory pension schemes already it’s either go to court, or leave, but leaving might involve a penalty – I don’t know, that needs to be looked in to.

      1. That There Other David 24 Jun 2013, 5:35pm

        This comment at the end says it all:-

        “The Government has justified this position in its paper ‘Equal Marriage – the Government’s Response’, published in December 2012. It states that granting fully retrospective spouses’ pensions to same-sex married couples ‘would entail an unforeseen retrospective cost to schemes in a challenging economic climate when schemes are already under significant pressure’.”

        The downturn really ought to be renamed The Great Universal Excuse™…

        1. Mihangel apYrs 24 Jun 2013, 7:02pm

          however, these “retrospecive costs” have already bbeen covered by “restrospective” contributions. They recognise this by paying back the money as a sop and get out

  8. St Sebastian 24 Jun 2013, 5:34pm

    This is outrageous! If the contributions are the same then the benefits should be the same. I can’t imagine a discount being given to gays for a lower benefit, and I’ll be damned if I will subsidise the straights.

    Disappointed Lord Alli, but I would like to see you reasons (perhaps because this will be resolved in/by the ECHR) for withdrawing before criticising.

    1. Tim Chapman 24 Jun 2013, 6:27pm

      Their excuse is pathetic. Any pension scheme that cannot afford to pay the same proportionally minuscule survivor benefits to married same-sex survivors as it does to married opposite-sex survivors is going to fail anyway. And don’t forget we not talking about immediate payments in most cases. In my case, for instance, we’re talking about twenty or thirty years’ time if, in the natural order of things, I predecease my husband-to-be after I retire, by which time the austerity excuse will have worn a bit thin.

      In any event, they didn’t fix this under CP law, and there was no recession then, so I just don’t buy this excuse now. That leaves prejudice.

  9. Tim Chapman 24 Jun 2013, 6:10pm

    This absolutely must be fixed. Another letter about it to my MP, The Home Secretary, is on its way

  10. Straight Pride 24 Jun 2013, 6:50pm

    Those that arnt equal don’t qualify for equal rights. Man and woman all the way.

    1. another closet case

    2. Don`t worry it`ll be taken to the ECHR at some point and whichever government that is in power will be forced to change it.

      Nice try but the law says otherwise and you my friend are not above the law of the land.

      So grow up and get used to it.

    3. Sacre bleu 25 Jun 2013, 2:07am

      Perhaps we should stop subsidising your pension contributions, the schools and medical care for your children, your obstetricians, tax status of your homophobic churches, your divorce courts, your single parent subsidies (because straight men that abandon their families or don’t take responsibility for the fruit of their loins) or anything else for which most gays don’t use/need.

      We might consider the cost of advance funding of therapy to rehabilitate the likes of you for your hate and the damage hateful people like you cause to gay people, but straights will have to repay this cost as a ‘prejudice levy’.

      In fact, you should be grateful that we take less out of the system than we contribute.

    4. gogodontgo 25 Jun 2013, 1:48pm

      Straight pride, you wish

  11. Too expensive, let the HMRC continue robbing same sex couples.

  12. This is another situation in life where if the Equal Marriage Bill is to pass concessions have to be made… if only to lessen the resistance to it.

    That does not mean I am in agreement with concessions. Even though some times perhaps they are a necessary evil. It would be nice to see the bill pass with full equality… but better in part than none at all.

    Unfortunately this leads to a protracted revisit of issues in the future. More acrimonious arguments and defenses. We are not the only people who have to fight for rights, but it annoys me how the response is always that when we do… we are pushing issues down peoples throats, in peoples faces. It provokes more homophobia and resistance and we have to fight adversity all the way to equality.

    1. Sacre bleu 25 Jun 2013, 2:16am

      Unfortunately you are probably right, but we must have the memory of elephants and the tenacity of a badger to correct these inequities in the future. We must remember our present goal, once the community is used to our equality and realise the sky hasn’t fallen in, then these other matters that are secondary to our current goal can be addressed. A case of tortoise beating the hare in the long run.

  13. The majority will always seek to keep some power, however little, over a minority. It makes them feel better.
    What we need to do is what we’ve been doing for decades – keep fighting.

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.