Reader comments · Live Blog: Highlights from the House of Lords Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UK Marriage Bill

Live Blog: Highlights from the House of Lords Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Tina Stowell – Baroness – deserves the biggest hug and kiss I can muster- you are and from now will be always be my superhero. I luv you.

    1. bobbleobble 10 Jul 2013, 9:59pm

      Couldn’t agree more, in fact with Maria Miller in the Commons and Baroness Stowell in the Lords I don’t think we could have asked for a better team to take the bill through Parliament. I still shudder at the mess that would have ensued had Warsi actually been in charge as Cameron originally wanted.

  2. Thank you for doing this live blog. Excellent reporting; useful and important.

    1. Seconded.

      1. colin (London) 10 Jul 2013, 11:09pm

        And the rest

  3. Re your gloss on 16:03 “Mammon, in the New Testament of the Bible, is material wealth or greed, most often personified as a deity, and sometimes included in the seven princes of Hell.” Yes, mammon = material wealth or greed, but no, “the seven princes of Hell” is not a Bible concept. By all means quote it, but please don’t misquote it.

    Re 16.31 The ‘physiological and biological’ recognition of ‘fundamental’ difference” referred to is why same-sex marriage cannot and should not be called ‘equal’ marriage, and indeed why two people of the same sex can not marry. If it becomes the law that they can marry, the meaning of the word has been changed, which surely is not within parliament’s competence.

    1. bobbleobble 11 Jul 2013, 11:08am

      So marriage is about what genitals the parties have huh? Who’d have thought?

      Marriage is defined in this country by various acts of Parliament. It is totally within Parliaments purview to change those acts of Parliament as they see fit. What makes you think they can’t? Plus 15 countries and 13 states of the US can attest to the fact that marriage can indeed include gay people quite equally. Or did you think we were the only country partaking in this legislative change?

      1. Brian West 11 Jul 2013, 2:28pm

        (a) Well, that’s always had quite a lot to do with it.

        (b) True, Parliament has laid down laws to regulate marriage, but marriage long predates both Parliament and England. In passing marriage laws Parliament is managing, on our behalf, something we and it inherited from our ancestors. If it wants to provide for interpersonal arrangements that were never part of marriage it would be more honest to call them by a different name.

        (c) The fact that others have done it does not make it right. They might yet come to regret it – in fact I am sure they will.

        1. bobbleobble 11 Jul 2013, 3:34pm

          (a) so you think marriage boils down to what the parties have between their thighs and it’s gay people that get accused of devaluing marriage? How bizarre.

          (b) marriage is older than England or Parliament you are right but it is still a man made entity which can be altered as Parliament sees fit. We also inherited slavery from our ancestors, was Parliament wrong to get rid of that August institution? There is evidence that same sex marriages were conducted in the past but in any event during the vast majority of the time that same sex couples have been excluded from marriage it has been because same sex relationships were illegal. Now that has changed marriage is able to follow suit.

          (c) just because you don’t like the idea doesn’t mean it’s wrong. And how and why will they come to regret it or are you like everyone else issuing vague warnings of spooky potential problems?

          1. Brian West 12 Jul 2013, 2:54pm

            You’re almost seem to be saying that I’m degrading marriage by introducing sex into it!

            Nice to be in debate with you, Bobbleobble; be in touch again, no doubt.


    2. bobbleobble 11 Jul 2013, 11:09am

      Oh and it’s not going to be called equal marriage, just marriage.

      1. Brian West 11 Jul 2013, 2:43pm

        I wouldn’t have made the point if the proposed changes were not all the time being called ‘equal marriage’ by their supporters, including all over this website. I would never use the term myself, for reasons I explained above.

        1. bobbleobble 11 Jul 2013, 3:37pm

          There will be no new institution of ‘equal marriage’. What we want is equal access to marriage.

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.