Reader comments · Baroness Deech introduces equal marriage bill amendment to include carers and cohabiting family members · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Baroness Deech introduces equal marriage bill amendment to include carers and cohabiting family members

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. A matter that she could not have cared less about, if not for the fact she thought it might work as a wrecking amendment. Foul, dishonest bigot.

  2. Dan Filson 4 Jul 2013, 6:22pm

    This is certainly a wrecking amendment but also an attempt to create a means by which wealth can pass between generations without suffering inheritance tax, a constant Tory concern.

    1. GulliverUK 5 Jul 2013, 9:41am

      If they don’t have a romantic and/or sexual relationship there this is totally the wrong place. The whole point of inheritance tax is to slice off part of it being transferred between generations, so any attempt to circumvent that is tax evasion. Now whether you believe VAT, stamp duty (originally used to fund the war against the French), or inheritance tax are valid is another matter, but it is what it is, and if people don’t like it there should be changed to that taxation bill, not trying to tag it on to other bills.

      If they are confident they have a case they should put forward an EDM and see where it goes. The government will certainly throw this out, as they did when it was tried with Civil Partnerships.

      Marriage and Civil Partnerships recognise a romantic and/or sexual relationship – is the Church of England or Catholic church really going to marry two sisters?

      It’s a good point Dan, but Tory concerns have never been concerns I’ve been concerned about :)

      1. In your view it is about romantic/sexual relationships, truth is that we are all aware of sham marriages and ‘gay for a day’ civil partnerships where two straight men form one for financial purposes.

        It happens all the time, and, frankly, I pass no judgement: if people wish to marry for reasons other than love/romance, that’s their choice.

        I have no idea why gay people would want government intrusion in their private lives. I’m dead against it. It is almost always better to be considered single by the government. And anything else can be dealt with via a solicitor.

        And I cannot see why sisters should be treated any differently, the Baronness is right. but I don’t want civil partnerships for sisters. Soon the ******* government will be treating us all as married/cp’ed.

        For that reason alone, cp’s, same sex marriage should be resisted. I’d have kept my head down and not asked for them for this reason alone. S** equality.

        1. bobbleobble 5 Jul 2013, 12:07pm

          I’m sure there might be some on here that understand your paranoid ramblings but I’m not one of them.

          And the fact that sham marriages exist (I can’t say I’ve heard of gay for a day civil partnerships outside of appalling Adam Sandler films) doesn’t negate Gulliver’s point that marriage is about a loving sexual relationship. I personally don’t know anyone in a sham marriage.

          1. Paranoid? What are you talking about? If Baroness Deech gets her way- and it pains be to say it, but in principle she is right-the government will have the right to deem ALL people of adult age as civilly-partnered if they happen to live together.

            If a man goes home to live with his mother owing to marital/civil partnerships breakdown and claims benefits as a single person, he will be deemed to be ‘living in a civil partnership’ with his mother. No sexual requirement in a cp, remember?

            Dangerous ground this treating everybody as cp’ed/married.

            In principle, Deech should pass but this is one area where principles can go hang.

            And it is YOUR opinion that marriage is about a loving sexual relationship. Mere opinion.

          2. Bobbleobble 5 Jul 2013, 3:33pm

            You haven’t done anything to dissuade me of your paranoia in your reply.

            And it isn’t my opinion that marriage is a loving sexual relationship it is fact. That people don’t treat it that way is a pity and also potentially marriage fraud if done solely to avoid tax.

          3. bobbleobble,

            You’re not reading this right, are you? Although I agree with Deech in principle, I don’t want cp’s to be granted to anybody other than two unrelated adults of the same or opposite sex.

            I am agreeing with you.

            But, I’m afraid that sex is not a compulsory part of anybody’s marriage. Nor is romance.

            Or do you want to stop impotent people from marrying? Seems like it.

  3. Harry Underwood 4 Jul 2013, 7:08pm

    No. Absolutely a wrecking amendment.

  4. All these types of amendments are disingenous, if the review on straight CPs ever takes off (and I have some doubts) then these people will be the first to object to them , including opening up somekind of new system for “non sexual” relationships…what a joke, what exactly does that mean?

    CPs are like marriages, sisters living together or carers living with disabled people are not like marriages one bit! It’s a domestic relationship which means much simple rights and rules not like a massive bill which is what the CP act is and with the subsequent rights and obligations that go with a CP.

    1. How are CPs between childless couples, marriages between childless couples and CPs between sisters ANY different?! Apart from love and sex, but those aren’t really the government’s business. The financial arrangements may be the same.

      No difference. Let the sisters have civil partnerships

      The ultimate difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is that the former perpetuate the human race.

      1. Gays and Lesbians DO have children. Get over it.

        1. Also, where you might want to marry your sibling for whatever reason, please allow LGBT people dignity and joy and don’t drag incest into the same sex marriage bill.

          1. No they don’t, Chris, don’t be daft: same sex couples don’t have children together. They may adopt or use IVF but there’s no way same sex couples could have children in the same way as a straight couple.

            I’ve zero objection to same sex couples having same financial rights as regards pensions, etc etc, but to pretend there is no difference between same sex couples and straight ones is just ridiculous.

            Instead of just accepting equality in terms of financial rights, which would be fair enough and I would wholeheartedly agree with it, you now want to pretend that there’s no difference at all and that is just mad.

            Incest is no longer an aspect as sex is no longer part of marriage.

          2. bobbleobble 5 Jul 2013, 11:50am

            Sex is no longer a part of marriage?! I’d hate to be the person married to you. Sex is a part of marriage but we don’t need the government to tell us that. What marriage is not is a vehicle for avoiding inheritance tax which is what Deech and her cohorts seem to believe.

            Oh and plenty of heterosexual couples use IVF, adoption and surrogacy too so when gay couples use those methods we are having children in exactly the same way as some straight couples.

            Marriage is not just about financial rights, that’s why we want access to it as well. I’m sick of people like you telling me what I should be happy with.

      2. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 12:23pm

        I’m guessing sao, you’ve never loved.

        You mock relationships straight or gay because you clearly don’t have a clue what a committed sexual relationship is.

        It is very tiresome, you clearly devalue love and commitment because you have no knowledge of how they work.

        1. Love and commitment as regards marriage?! Lol. Fifty percent of marriages break-up.

          Plenty of cohabitees are in very, very happy stable relationships-I’m one of them.

          The difference between you and me is that you’re convinced marriage will bring you happiness.

          Man, that is sooo foolish.

          1. bobbleobble 5 Jul 2013, 3:40pm

            A higher percentage of cohabiting couples split up than those married. Marriage shows an intent to commit wholly to someone, perhaps you should ask yourself why you’re not prepared to do that, is it so that you know you can escape quickly?

            Being able to marry will make me feel happy because it will make my partner and I feel full members of society. If you don’t want to marry then don’t but don’t stand in my way because of your beliefs. That’s shameful.

          2. bobbleobble,

            Please when cohabiting couples are compared with married couples whereby the only difference is the marriage certificate (all other things being equal) the break-up rate is the same.

            Escape quickly? Seriously, is this meant as a dig? I’ve got 3 kids with my partner, a mortgage and two dogs, you really think I can escape quickly?! Lol.

            Believe me, a married couple without kids can escape much more quickly than me.

            Full members of society because you’re married. Man, seriously, your self-esteem must be really low. Get help. Really you do need it if you think marriage will make you happy.

            Millions of divorcees out there will say I’m right and you are wrong.

          3. No “full members of society” because we’ll be treated equally.

            If you don’t want to marry for whatever reasons, then that’s fine, but why do you care so much if other people marry? Would you like to be MADE to marry? No? Then stop trying to imply no-one else should be married because you personally don’t think much of it.

            It’s about equality and it’s about choice.

            And by the way, your argument about children makes no sense. LGBT people CAN have children, and, if, for example a gay man and a gay women have a child and that child spends time with both parents, why is that any different than a straight couple who have a child and then split up? If you’re going to suggest that any couple who don’t have their own biological children and stay together aren’t properly married, then you’ll be ruling out huge numbers of people.

            And why would you care anyway as it seems you don’t like marriage. Forget it and move on then. Live your life and let others live theirs. Marriage isn’t compulsory

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jul 2013, 12:29pm

      The Church of England sanctions and demands celibate CPs for gay clergy which means they are advocating sham CPs. SICK!

  5. Oh look, another derail. More wrecking amendments from the homophobes

  6. Tax arrangements for carers, family, and long-time housemates should be dealt with through proposing amendments to tax law, not marriage law.
    As one of the others in the House of Lords (I can’t remember which one) said in committee stage, Were this amendment to pass, it would mean that if a carer or a living-together-sister decides to get married to someone they love, they would have to cancel the civil partnership they have with their money saver buddy. Such action would leave one of the former couple as “burdened” by tax as they were before.

  7. This will surely be seen for what it is. A blatant and homophobic attempt to sabotage.

  8. Sacre bleu 5 Jul 2013, 4:54am

    A truly dreadful, disingenuous woman who should understand and know better given that her family fled Vienna to escape Nazi persecution of the Jewish people – persecuted along with the homosexuals. Her callousness is even more astounding given that she is a lawyer and bioethicist, professions which would clearly understand justice and that homosexuality is not a choice. Shame, shame, shame Baroness Deech – may your ‘soul’ burn in the hell of your own religious fantasy.

    1. Sadly being a bioethicist is NOT a guarantee of understanding equality and justice.
      Before marriage equality came into law in Canada, one of the loudest opponents to it was one Margaret Sommerville, “Margaret Anne Ganley Somerville, AM, FRSC (born April 13, 1942) is a conservative Australian/Canadian ethicist and academic. She is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine and the Founding Director of the Faculty of Law’s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.” (from Wikipedia)

      So law, ethics, medicine… none of them are guarantees of “understanding”.

      1. Sacre bleu 6 Jul 2013, 12:33am

        You are right Mikey, but failure to understand with the background in higher education (which encourages clarity, understanding, unbiased starting point upon which the facts lead to clearer understanding) is pure obduracy. Somerville’s failure to start with a neutral, unbiased starting point is clearly an indicator of wilful and obstinate obduracy and a waste of the education resources she has consumed.

  9. One minute the homophobes can’t stop obsessing about what we do with our genitals, the next minute they’re seeking to demean our relationships by implying we’re ‘just good friends’.

    What a spiteful amendment. She should be ashamed of her hate and ignorance.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jul 2013, 12:37pm

      Indeed, and for a Jew even more shameful. She of all should know better but then the old testament, the Jewish part of the bible, is rife with hetero polygamy, adultery, incest (the fictitious Adam & Eve and their progeny populating the planet with one another and who else could it have been?). I suppose she’s caught up in that mindset, but after all is said and done, the Abrahamic cults are extremely primitive especially since two of them require genital mutilation (circumcision) against all male children against their will and that’s just one example just how very primitive they are.

  10. CH Brighton 5 Jul 2013, 8:18am

    What about a household where there are five unmarried sisters , three unmarried brothers, two elderly parents and three caring cousins. Do they get a ‘marriage a treize’?

  11. Jock S. Trap 5 Jul 2013, 9:18am

    Another one who just doesn’t get it, so instead spews vile discrimination because her tiny little mind cannot compute.

    Absolutely shameful!

  12. Absolutely , two, three or four sisters living in the same home should be able to form a polygynous civil union exactly as Baroness Deech is arguing for here with her humorous repeated attempt at a wrecking amendment, she’s certainly a funny woman.

  13. Does Baroness Deech agree with Charles Moore that people should be allowed to marry the dogs they care for if same sex couples can get married.

    Aren’t these people (Baroness Deech and Charles Moore) with their disgusting bigotry and hateful offensive comments simply showing us how very low they are prepared to go, they really are smuggest and filthiest low-minded dregs of society and should be shunned and excluded by all decent and fair-minded folk…vile.

  14. So, she’s trying to pass an amendment that -were it to pass- would make marriages from the UK be not recognized in other countries that presently have full marriage equality?

    Because I can assure you that while Canada has full marriage equality, it does NOT accept incestuous marriages.

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.