Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

The PinkNews guide to what happens next for the equal marriage bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jul 2013, 7:42pm

    Delay, delay, delay. So nothing will get done now until later in 2013. The opposition in the Lords will attempt to hold it up for as long as they can assuming they have enough support. Now that amendments have already been included, I question why some in government were saying it was their intention to get this Bill passed into law before the summer recess.

    This very lengthy process is unheard of in any other country were equal marriage has been legislated or faced as much scrutiny. About time that changed and the process cut in half. It’s an absurd system we have and one that needs urgent reform including the Lords that I’d like to see abolished. They represent none of us and that’s just not democracy in my view but mob rule. I’m sick and tired of it all.

    1. CH Brighton 5 Jul 2013, 8:19pm

      The entire edifice of the British constitution is like this from the head of state through parliament and on to the a host of nominated posts across the land – said to be without power; perhaps they are, but they have influence.

    2. Canada legislative timeline through Parliament: “The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Liberal minority government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada
      (Yes, you read right. MINORITY government.)
      The Canadian Supreme Court opinion on the marriage equality questions referred to it was delivered in the first week of December, 2004, following favourable rulings in provincial courts starting in June, 2003. Legislation enacted in less than 8 months from the Supreme Court ruling. (Yes, I know having a State Church complicates matters.)
      The only change has been to allow for the divorce of gay and lesbian couples who were not domiciled in Canada when they married here.

    3. Robert, after just one week in New Zealand, but still following everything back home in the UK, it’s fascinating to watch this process from afar. After just one week here in New Zealand, having already got used to a rather different mind-set that’s in action here, this whole process back in the UK just seems so unnecessarily fuddy-duddy and stunted and held-up, as if any dum-dum who wants to chip in and hold up the bill is given every opportunity of doing so!

      There’s only one advantage it seems to me: if this BIll does eventually succeed and get through then all the bigots and homophobes won’t be able to say they weren’t given every chance to have their say and stop it!

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jul 2013, 12:04pm

        Eddy, they’ve had more than enough accommodation to air their bigotry, far more than any other piece of legislation and the longest public consultation in history. The Lords’ process should have started the first week in May instead of the latter half. This entire process could have been over by the end of this month before the recess begins. They’ve had their say as far as I’m concerned. All they’re doing is re-hashing the same old crap over and over ad nauseum, They’re altering a word here or there so their wrecking amendments can be construed as new ones. Apparently you can’t re-introduce an identical amendment that’s been withdrawn or rejected in Committee so they resort to childish word games and dress it up with alterations, delusional bigoted loons.

    4. “very lengthy process”

      Isn’t it, Robert! It’s driving me mad! While I quite appreciate the need for democratic discussion and checks, I have no idea why this is all taking to long. Add on the time wasted on the consultation and it seems to have been aeons since this whole process began.

      I alos don’t get why these spiteful, idiotic amnedments are allowed to be put forward. There might be the odd reasonable one, but most are just hateful, nonsensical cr*p.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jul 2013, 12:12pm

        Yes indeed, Iris. Some say the reason it appears to take so long is that we have a very vested interest in this one piece of legislation unlike any other. All major pieces of legislation go through the same process but I doubt if the majority of us have bothered to scrutinize any as we have this one. Even so, its far too long. There’s no need to keep on rehashing the crap opponents in the Commons raised and were rejected. The Lords are supposed to improve a Bill but in this case, their improvements are nothing more than deliberate attempts to harm its passage knowing that the majority are in violation of the Equalities Act. The exemptions nonsense for registrars is one example which was not supported by the ECHR in the case of Lilian Ladele. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. But no, theses swivel eyed looney bigots are seeking to defy it which would of course invoke the wrath of the body they fear most.

        1. CH Brighton 7 Jul 2013, 11:52pm

          Worrying, therefore, that the British government wants to repeal the human rights act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights -and replace these with a British Bill of Rights. The right wing nuts must be salivating to drowning point over what they’ll be able to get away with then.

    5. Craig Nelson 6 Jul 2013, 4:27pm

      I predict it will all be over within 10 days. The House of Commons debates were subject to a programme motion (albeit these debates were very extensive) whereas the House of Lords allows more time for debate and their debates go on into the early hours. To introduce a bill in February and have it pass in Juy is reasonably speedy. We will know by Wednesday what shape the bill will be in and whether there will be any need for extensive ping pong between the two chambers (hopefully not).

      As for the rather ridiculous arguments – patience is wearing very thin. Time to just pass the bill. Opponents will not be appeased by concessions therefore no need to make them.

  2. Womandrogyne 5 Jul 2013, 8:45pm

    I’m all for people having the right to their beliefs, so if someone wants to believe that marriage is only real if it’s between one man and one woman, they can go ahead and believe that – but that doesn’t mean their beliefs deserve to be enshrined in law any more than anyone else’s personal beliefs do. There’s plenty of laws already which protect people’s right to hold their personal beliefs – there’s no need to add to that. I’m so tired of hearing people complain about their rights being threatened, when all that’s being challenged is their “right” to have their beliefs considered more important than anyone else’s. Get over it, you people – at last, you get the same rights everyone else does, and no more, for a change.

    1. Brian West 6 Jul 2013, 6:40pm

      So what provision do you think should be made, for example, for a hire car driver, and his wife who is a florist’s shop assistant, who believe that marriage is only real if it’s between one man and one woman? Both ask their employers not to have to provide their services for a same-sex wedding, both are refused, and both are threatened with dismissal from their jobs if they do not do the jobs they want to avoid. There will be lots of people in that position, you know.

      1. No provision should be made for them. Or should provision also be made for someone who didn’t want to provide their services for a wedding between a black and white person due to their belief that inter-race marriage should not take place? Or for a wedding between black and Asian people because they just don’t like them very much? I very much doubt it. We need strict laws to protect us, at long last.

        1. Brian West 7 Jul 2013, 4:08pm

          If the Marriage (Same Sex Couples)Bill becomes law, at a stroke something morally highly contentious that was previously not legal becomes legal. But what I believe will not suddenly change at that moment – why should it? I will not have changed, or done anything at all, but will have been put at variance with the law.

          You might say, No problem if you keep your faith to yourself. But faith is not private, it’s for living, and guiding one’s life. If someone who conscientiously says ‘I cannot do that’ about something is allowed to be sacked for it, then lots of people will lose their jobs. And this because the law has been changed contrary to their beliefs and no allowance has been made for their conscience.

          Doesn’t seem right to me.

          1. CH Brighton 8 Jul 2013, 12:03am

            My moral position is that I believe it’s a personal tragedy for you that you’ve allowed yourself to be brainwashed by a superstitious cult to such a degree that you want laws in place that prevent people from living their lives freely. You want this just to satisfy your own oppressive moral position with total disregard for the impact of what you are saying on the lives of others. I believe it is my moral duty to challenge what’s happened to you and help you out of your ignorance.

  3. That There Other David 5 Jul 2013, 8:49pm

    Whenever Royal Assent was going to be granted there would have been a period set before marriage would have become available to us. It gives the civil service a chance to get all their paperwork and training sorted. It also gives Scotland the ability to synchronise the date for introduction there.

    So to me this schedule really is no surprise.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jul 2013, 12:18pm

      I think three months maximum is a reasonable period of time to ready the various civil services to adjust, especially in this computer oriented age of instant information and automation. But no, we’ll have to wait a year. No other country has waited more than three months to enact a SSM law. A year is a very long time and one in which the opposition will make hay out of and continue to traduce the legislation and our relationships. If the rebels on the back benches of the Commons make good on their motion to have a vote of no confidence in Cameron, who knows what will happen with this Bill, already passed or not?

      1. Craig Nelson 6 Jul 2013, 4:34pm

        I agree 12 months is excessive. Across the channel in France people are already marrying. Still, if Scotland could expedite things it would be good to have a single commencement date across the whole of Great Britain. Equally I fervently hope Northern Ireland is not too far behind, though appears a little deadlocked at the moment.

  4. Do all bills go through this? It’s a never ending process. Seems like this is the Lords equivalent of a Darby & Jane Club

    1. Jane McQueen 6 Jul 2013, 1:24pm

      Generally it take about this length of time, 12 months to 2 years is about average for making a new law such as this. They can pass some laws quicker if it’s something that’s relatively unanimous and you don’t have people trying to kill it.

  5. Sean Johansen 6 Jul 2013, 12:41am

    Minnesota
    House of Reps – introduced Feb 19
    Senate introduced March 5
    Passes House May 9
    Passes Senate May 14
    Signed into Law by Governor May 15

    Takes affect August 1

  6. thanks for spelling it out… note tho surely justins new speech should now help or was it just a pretend reaching out to the LGBT community?? At anyrate it is showing a bigger divide in the C of E

  7. Jock S. Trap 6 Jul 2013, 8:02am

    After it completes the Report stage, the bill will go through its Third Reading on 15 July. If passed in its Third Reading, the bill will be different to that which passed in the House of Commons, so will return there to for approval.

    You mean different as in from the Unelected House to the Elected house that has already voted with a large majority on the bill as it stands!

    No changes need to be made esp from those that are privileged not voted for.

    Something deeply wrong with that.

  8. They are unelected, undemocratic people interfering in UK politics.

    Get rid of the house of lords once and for all.

  9. Ralph Farcas-Greaves 8 Jul 2013, 9:35pm

    This Bill for ‘Same sex Marriage’ has gone through the Commons and the House of Lords and as far as I can see should become Law. People have voted for it and it is only right that we as same sex couples are treated equally. So please get on with it and put it on the statute books and move on to more pressing matters. The Civil Partnership Bill was a long and arduous process so why do the same here.

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