Coffee House

Will the Lords really slay the gay marriage bill?

17 December 2012

6:19 PM

17 December 2012

6:19 PM

Think the Commons is in uproar at the moment over gay marriage? Just wait until the legislation makes its way into the House of Lords. The received wisdom is that equal marriage will go into the upper chamber, but never make it out alive after a savaging from socially conservative peers. But is that true?

If it’s uproar you’re looking for, then you’re unlikely to be disappointed, but the chances of angry words in the chamber translating into embarrassing defeats for the government aren’t quite so high.

Remember that after 13 years of Labour in power, the House has a large liberal-leaning majority. There are 224 Labour peers and 90 Lib Dems. Among them will be a few who oppose the legislation on conscience, but add to that 176 crossbenchers, and even if all 212 Tory peers voted against it, which they obviously won’t, it would still go through on a huge majority.


The most recent activity in this area in the Lords was this time last year, when Tory peer Baroness O’Cathain tabled a motion annulling regulations allowing civil partnerships on religious premises. The regulations only allowed these ceremonies if the governing body of that religion had agreed to them, and the interventions in the debate on the subject made it clear that few peers accepted the Baroness’ argument that this would lead to a slippery slope where vicars and other religious leaders might be forced to conduct the ceremonies. In the end, the motion didn’t even make it to a vote, as it was abundantly clear that it would have been overwhelmingly defeated.

Meanwhile, in March 2010, the Lords voted – albeit with a very low turnout in an evening sitting – in favour of a cross-party amendment which removed sections of the Equalities Bill preventing civil registration in places of worship or religious premises. There was a free vote, and here is the breakdown:

It’s also important to note that the crossbenchers, while independent of party politics, have shown themselves in votes since the Coalition formed to be of a liberal, progressive persuasion. For instance, on 14 March, the Government was defeated three times in one day on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, and each rebellion saw a sizeable group of crossbenchers vote against the government. Similarly, Lord Best was joined by 72 fellow crossbenchers, Labour and a small crop of Lib Dems to defeat the government on the ‘bedroom tax’ in December 2011. These are obviously very different issues, but a source in the Lords tells me that voting patterns like this demonstrate that it is ‘wishful thinking’ that gay marriage will languish in the Other Place for long.

This is important for Cameron, not just because of principle, but because if he gets the legislation through Parliament soon enough, then he can allow tempers to calm, and voters to forget the angry words on both sides by the time they go to the polls in 2015. His hope will be that by then, everyone will have forgotten what all the fuss is about.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Michael Turner

    Ed Milliband must allow a free vote on the intended bill. anything short of this will be a complete failure in our democratic system.

  • RC

    Deut.32-44 >will happen! sick we even have to discuse evil sin in Gods eyes

    • salieri

      Well, you may have an excellent point in this context about “the son of Nun”, but sadly the relevance of the rest escapes me. Did you perhaps mean instead Deut. 32 verse 43 – all that stuff about rejoicing in vengeance?
      By the way, did you know that Dorothy Parker called her budgerigar Onan, because it kept spilling its seed on the ground?

  • Boudicca_Icenii

    It won’t be forgotten. At about the time of the next GE we will be seeing homosexual CofE clergy challenging the ‘ban’ on holding homosexual ‘weddings.’ We will see the first challenges being made to the ECHR and quite probably teachers and other public sector workers sacked for refusing to teach or conduct homosexual ‘weddings.’
    When you’ve been called a bigot and a homophobe for supporting civil partnerships but not homosexual ‘marriage’ you won’t forget it.

  • Hepworth

    How exactly do you sign in so you can have the pleasure of down grading the comments of tele mucus?

  • Hepworth

    I’m not very political, but this transcends politics. It’s both un-natural and is nothing more than a Marxist subversion of the nature of humanity.

  • Kevin

    “by then, everyone will have forgotten what all the fuss is about.”

    Are you talking about when you resign from Coffee House?

  • Daniel Maris

    The Lords should block it and demand that it be put to the people in a referendum. The institution of marriage is far too important to be sacrificed on the altar of modish politics – let the people decide on this issue of profound importance.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      “The institution of marriage is far too important to be sacrificed on the altar of modish politics…”


      …yes, but if we hung it from the modish idols of windmillism, wouldn’t that be ok?

  • Seepage

    Cameron’s best hope is to put a commencement date into the legislation of after the next election to allow MPs with a mandate to decide on the matter.

  • Baron

    HooksLaw, telemachus, tell us you clever guys, how has the society benefitted from all the homosexual acts put together,
    the aggregate of all the homosexual bonking, where could one see the
    contribution the acts have made to the commonwealth then?

    • HooksLaw

      Well thanks for displaying the colour of your spleen.

      I think when confronted with a pointless question its best to ignore it. We might of course ponder what sort of world it would be if Klara Pölzl had been a lesbian and Alois Hitler a homosexual.

      • Baron

        HokksLaw, when cornered, you chicken out, brave you certainly are not.

        The question’s relevant, in fact, it has the decisive bearing on the case. Heterosexual sex benefits the society, it’s the producer of the mankind, it sits firmly on the asset side of the humanity’s balance sheet. Homosexual sex has nothing to contribute, relies for its existence on the procreative capability of the heterosexuals. If for anything, this should be enough for you to stop messing up an institution that has served many a society before very well.

        also, have a look here, tell us how you define consummation in gay sex?

  • HooksLaw
    • Baron

      HooksLaw, it ain’t Russia, and it ain’t about race, you on the wrong blog, sir, or are you also going to accuse most of us here of a membership of Adolf’s NSDAP? Arghhh

      • HooksLaw

        I’m on the right blog – ranters anonymous.

  • salieri

    “the crossbenchers… have shown themselves… to be of a liberal, progressive persuasion”.

    No doubt some have. But a facile statement like this merely begs the question what ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ actually mean (‘going forward’, naturally). Both words have been subverted, first lazily and then wilfully, and are now synonyms for nothing more than ‘anti-conservative’. The Conservatives’ tragedy is that they too seem eager to call illiberalism liberal and to regard all change, by definition, as progressive.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Excellent comment. The crux of the matter. With subverted and manipulated language honest debate is all but impossible.

  • greysurfer

    “Forgotten what all the fuss was about”……a phrase which has been rising in popularity amongst the pro-gay groups and individuals, in the hope of “shaming” traditional voters into acceptance of this awful perversion of a revered institution.
    Those who support gay “marriage” obviously do not possess the ability to understand what marriage is. It isn’t about “love” and cosying up to each other at night. It is far far more than that, as many intelligent and learned people have already made clear.
    So now the persecution of Christians will begin. Just as foretold. All I can say is that The Lord told us, when we see these things happening, then rejoice, for redemption is near.
    In other words, Mr Cameron and associates, beware…….your downfall will surely come.

    • Colonel Mustard

      The persecution of Christians has already begun. And it has the whiff of deliberate agenda where these sort of issues are just staging posts on the journey of confrontation intended to incrementally de-value the institution and eventually uncouple it from the establishment.

  • Open_Palm

    Hardman is fooling herself if she believes everyone will have forgotten about this by 2015. Certainly not the hard right faction of the party nor the church. Only way they can be distracted from this bone of contention is if Cameron offers an EU referendum before the next then. Judging from his comments in Parliament today, one would have a better chance of seeing Dennis Skinner defect to Ukip than to see said referendum happen before 2015.

    • ButcombeMan

      I am sufficiently cynical about Hardman, to believe she has just written on this subject again to get lots of hits and comments

      For Cameron the damage has been done, it matters not if the issue passes both houses or none. He has messed up and will not be forgotten.

      • HooksLaw

        Thats the point of websites – its no doubt why Wilhelm is tolerated. We should be on commission.

        • HellforLeather

          That really is not the point about websites. Most promote reasoned discussion. It’s Trolls/SpadsCreeps like you that distort the dialogue.

          • HooksLaw

            No, places like the Telegraph and increasingly the Spectator, do not care that their reports do anything but promote reasoned discussion. They want to ferment hysteria and get hits and advert revenue.

  • paulus

    The fabled middle ground the one where Miliband claims to
    stand even though he has no attachment or affinity for the ground he covets to govern, the middle ground Nick Clegg is on appears to be ice berg drifting out to sea
    and melting away as his o level understanding of British history and importance
    of institutions appear to be resistant to his deluded appeals and Cameron wants
    to join them.

    The middle ground is the ground you stand and fight on. The
    conservative party is there to defend and implement conservatism, 10 million
    people the back bone of the nation vote and support the conservative party.
    Their values are the middle ground, articulating those values is the job of the
    conservative leader, a leader of a party that is the most successful in British
    politics. A rule of thumb can tell you that this is a good guide to winning and the middle ground. Who would have thought in 1979 that Mrs Thatcher occupied the middle ground.

    Cameron is not a leader to lead and to win, by seeking to
    overthrow the very institution that conservatism and western liberty and law
    and economic and social progress was built upon is not a clause four moments,
    where a defunct economic ideology was discarded, it is a moment of madness. A madness sold on semantics and a corruption of language and its meaning.

    The modernisers sell the corruption of marriage as a step in
    equality, but what can be more equalizing than a coming together of a man and a
    woman joined in harmony and legal parity, in a solemn commitment where rights
    and obligations are extended to the children of that union. Extending this most
    hallow of institutions is not equality, it is a parody, two homosexuals flouncing
    down an isle isn’t marriage, its just two homosexuals flouncing down an isle.
    No one is denying them marriage they just need to meet the requirement of a
    marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexual marriage is by
    definition exclusive so by their own reasoning its inequality manifest.

    When this legislation it presented to the Lords you can be sure these issues will be debated and will need answering, it will be 100n before they are addressed

    • Baron

      good argument, paulus, sadly, rational arguments cannot win in a society poisoned by the pseudo-liberal shibboleth of absolute equality.

      Samuel Johnson got it right, ‘it is better that some should be unhappy rather than none should be happy, which would be the case in a general state of equality’.

      • Davidh

        And exactly why will it reduce your happiness if two gays that you will never meet get married in some place that you will never go? Happiness in this case does not appear to be a zero sum game.

        • Coffeehousewall

          It will reduce my happiness because it will mean that teachers will be getting the sack who refuse to teach about the wonders of sodomy, businesses will be bankrupted by malicious gay activists, churches and many other voluntary organisations will be dragged through the courts, foster parents will be refused children to care for – all in the name of redefining what cannot be redefined to suit a tiny minority who are unwilling to face the fact that their behaviour is not compatible with marriage. It is for this reason that marriage and the family must be destroyed.

          • HooksLaw

            Why do you worry about what two men get up to but ignore what a man and a woman might do?
            I would rather think nothing and leave both groups to it.

        • Baron

          Davidh, you must try to think beyond the tip of your nose, sir, it helps to avoid disappointments later.

          Have a look here, and that’s just the start

          • Davidh

            No, I don’t think the sky will fall down. Just as it didn’t when homosexuality was made legal. We do have some serious social problems and I despair about feral kids and welfare families and crap teachers as much as anybody. I just don’t think gays are a social problem. They are quite harmless. And if the great legal minds of Britain can’t define consummation and adultery so as to be understood in both gay and straight relationships then we really are going to hell in a handbasket.

    • Davidh

      Is it the flouncing that really offends you?

      The “corruption of language” argument is a poor one. Language evolves to reflect usage and progress. 200 years ago there were no “cars”. Not too many years ago “smart phone” would have been a contradiction. To imply that nobody should go beyond the boundries of current linguistic usage is ridiculous. It’s simply spluttering and fails to engage in the real issues as to why you disagree with the proposed development.

      • Colonel Mustard

        There is a difference between language evolving and language being deliberately manipulated for political purposes. Political Correctness has manipulated language and this whole debate is being couched in terms specific to winning it by deploying language chosen to disenfranchise opponents. For an object lesson read any of the troll telemachus’ comments.

        • Davidh

          I wouldn’t defend much of what Telemachus says. Sounds like a broken record to me. Judge issues on their merits, not on tribal dogma.

    • Phoenician Romans

      The modernisers sell the corruption of marriage as a step in equality, but what can be more equalizing than a coming together of a man and a woman joined in harmony and legal parity, in a solemn commitment where rights and obligations are extended to the children of that union.

      I wasn’t aware that letting gays marry would bar straights from marrying.

      Either you are able to quote the section of the legislature making it illegal for straights to marry, or you are engaging in rank dishonesty in the hopes of eliciting an emotional response because you have not a single logical argument to offer.

      Which is it?

  • William Blakes Ghost

    Without consummation marriage is just a piece of paper. Boris is right by 2050 I reckon three men and a dog will be able to marry each other…..

  • Theodoxia

    Of course it’s traditional to think that voters have short memories, and on many subjects they do. But not in this case: this is such a fundamental betrayal of Conservative values, and has such potential for moral and social harm, that David Cameron will simply never be forgiven.

    It’s an election loser.

    • biggestaspidistra

      gay marriage is of course the most conservative and conservatising issue to hit us in the history of gay liberation. It sounds like less fun than a couple of decades ago but, what the hell, we live in dour times.

    • Gerald

      How amusing. People like you spend half your time complaining that the issue is of no importance to voters and that the government shouldn’t be wasting its time on such a triviality. The other half of your time you spend screaming about how critically important the issue is and how the government will be ousted from power because of it. Pick one lie and stick with it.

      • Theodoxia

        “People like you”: what people, exactly? You wouldn’t be stereotyping at all?

        I for one do not spend half or any of my time complaining that the issue is of no importance; it has enormous potential to create harm, and that’s without a word of a lie.

  • starfish

    I love the moral relativism

    Gays want to be equal and don’t care whose rights they trample over to get it

    I wonder how they will get on with the mullahs?

    • arklington

      If they’re as pretty as Bin Laden it will be a blast, darling.

  • Baron

    What will the Lords do?

    Way back in the 60s last century, the House debated two private member’s bills, one to decriminalize homosexuality, the other to protect badgers. The former passed, the latter didn’t. When the sponsor of both bills Lord Arran was asked to say why such outcome, he allegedly replied: “Look around. See many badgers here?”

    • 2trueblue

      Love it! The first post in ages to cheer one up. Thanks.

  • John_Page

    Forgotten? But I thought the point was to win centrist votes? If they’re hoping everyone will have forgotten by the election … what on earth was the point?

  • Frank Fisher

    The Lords may block it simply because of the disgraceful way its being foisted on us – no mandate, and all the result of a backroom stitch-up.

    • dalai guevara

      As you well know: it’s not about how the sausage is made, it’s about what’s in it.

    • RH

      Hate to break it to you but the Conservatives were the only party to include gay marriage in their manifesto

  • skinnythreejags

    Let’s hope the Lords do block the nonsense of homosexual marriage. I am in no way religious, but I object most strongly to this perversion of marriage. The proposal is thoroughly disgusting, and no party has a mandate (sorry for the pun!!) for this..

    • telemachus

      Absolutely as UKIP MEP stated Gay marriage is akin to incest and polygamy.


      And we all ascribe to the truth purveyed by UKIP Oxford East Candidate Dr Julia Gasper
      “We ought to reflect that there is a strong connection between male homosexuality and paedophilia”

      • Baron

        it’s arguable whether gay marriage equals to the two other couplings, what is beyond argument though is that sex for mere sexual gratification can ever be the same as that for procreation, the subsequent breeding of the offspring by a biological mother, biological farther, and this, you deluded tosser, lies in the heart of what it’s all about.

        • telemachus

          Deny that outside strict catholicism that all sex is not for sexual gratification

          • Baron

            all heterosexual sex ain’t, some is, for each and every heterosexual couple, the fact that some try, cannot conceive is immaterial, your lot may try till not only the cows come home, but get milked, too, but conceive you will not.

            Get it now, or still in doubt? If the latter, call the NHS, get examined, sanctioned. You may miss Christmas, but then isn’t getting sanity back worth the loss of a few drinks when in a state of near permanent delirium?

        • Rahul Kamath

          Hope u have a guilty conscience for whenever (if ever) u do the act without intending procreation (oh pls god, don’t let Baron procreate)!

          • Baron

            Rahul, sorry, missed you earlier.

            Still, if your posting intended to offend it failed badly, it lacks wit, my sparring partner, it’s crude and relevant only inasmuch as you wanting to show that tying up a pair of laces marks the extent of your mental ability (this is meant to be a compliment, cmpared to telemachus you positively radiate genius).

            What we are comparing here is the benefit of hetero as opposed to homosexual coupling. The former is the producer of humanity (including your lot) whether with or without Baron. What does the homosexual aggregate bring to the party, then?

            • Rahul Kamath

              Hedonism Baron hedonism! If you were a true aristocrat you would know that thats what life is lived for.

            • arklington

              Not so much the invisible hand as the invisible cock, then?

            • arklington

              The homosexual aggregate work harder, rise further, pay more tax, use fewer public services, break fewer laws, smell nicer and have a better shoe collection, and we still managed to do all of that in the days before so-called political correctness.

              And I hate to disabuse you, but those of us who are somewhat pendulous by orientation also get a lot more flange-action.

        • biggestaspidistra

          although Baron, and I say this respectfully, you are without doubt the most carousing old flirt to ever hit the Coffee House. Any dumb bimbo from california and you lose any sense of proportion. This seems a relevant observation in view of your sudden sense of piety in regard to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.

          • Baron

            biggestapidistra, my blogging friend, what’s this all about, the blue veined barbarian from the East has always been on the side of truth (and he enjoys even more a good skirmish, ruckus, brawl, scrap, call it what you will, he’ll be in it).

            you in the team of urnings then?

      • Chris

        You are presumably rubbishing Julia Gasper. (Who I do not know and am not defending in any wider context)

        There is quite a lot of scientific research and papers suggesting your last line has more than a grain of truth. If you search on Google Scholar you will find it.

        Last time I looked The Home Office itself had one or more papers on its website suggesting much the same thing.

        So Gasper may have this correct and if I have correctly discerned what you were trying to say, you have it wrong or at least have discounted the evidence without looking at it.

    • HooksLaw

      Time to abolish divorce then. And of course mere co-habitation.

    • HooksLaw

      A perversion of marriage? Some perversions are more accep[table it seems

      ‘A TOP Tory politician who claimed marriage could only work ­between “one man and one woman” is today exposed as a cheating husband.’

      • Daniel Maris

        Have you never heard the aphorism that hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue? You shouldn’t confuse hypocrisy for contradiction. If he had been frequenting gay bars and telling the people there that there was no reason why gays shouldn’t get married to each other, then he would have contradicted himself.

        • HooksLaw

          He said marriage was between one man and one woman. Then he cheats on his wife for 11 years.
          That is some aphorism.
          Marriage is so wonderful that people regularly spit on it. You wonder why homosexuals want to be involved. At least in one sense, hypocrisy, they show they are as normal as the rest of us.

    • Aardvark

      Quite right.

    • biggestaspidistra

      ‘mandate’, how clever. Although I’m as strongly in favour,

  • MirthaTidville

    I think what you overlook is that a lot of those in the `other place` dont like or trust our `Dave` and the thought of putting one over on him again must be delicious…..We shall see but I think this issue might just run and run, and if he thinks it wont be mentioned at the time of the next election he must be deluded.

    • telemachus

      They ought to be careful
      Dave stuck it into Nick uver their Lordships
      He could just change his mind

  • Adrian Drummond

    Unfortunately for Cameron (and by default the rest of us with higher minded principles), this issue will not be quickly forgotten; it is now seared in the minds of many conservative activists who will be needed in 2015.

    • HooksLaw

      ‘higher minded’ oh – you should be topping the bill at the palladium.

  • 2trueblue

    This is a very different issue, and the fact that Liebore polluted the HoLords does not mean it a given that it will come about.

    If it does become law Cameron can not expect the electorate to forget it in 2015. It has a lot deeper meaning to most people, irrelevant of their religious beliefs. To think that because the census tells them people do not perceive themselves to be Christians does not mean they are in agreement about the proposal. Why Cameron feels he has to go along with it right now when the country is in real trouble for survival beats me. He needs to concentrate on finding what binds the electorate not cause divisions.

    • HooksLaw

      The polls say otherwise. I sometimes wonder if any of you have ever met a homosexual.

      • 2trueblue

        Ah, well we all know about polls. Why do you think that you have the monopoly of living a normal life, encountering the real world? Do you think that the rest of us live in a bubble? That is the wonderful thing about real life, we accept our friends for themselves not for their conformity to the convention of bigots. Acceptance and tolerance is everything, even ones opinions.

        • HooksLaw

          I certainly think the rest of you live in a bubble. It sticks out a mile.

          YouGov say 55% to 36% support gay marriage. CON supporters are split 45-45.

          Do you think Bob Blackman should resign from parliament now he has been exposed as a hypocrite?

          • 2trueblue

            Your judgement is all? You can ask questions to get the answer you want. That is the reality of how polls work. You also chose the area you ask the questions in. Not rocket science.

            • HooksLaw

              Oh no I verily accept that YOUR judgement is all….

              Mail commissioned poll shows support for gay marriage

              ‘strong support’ for gay rights
              60% support gay marriage

              Even Redneck Americans…


              ‘A majority of Americans surveyed this week say they support gay
              marriage, just days after voters approved pro-gay marriage ballot
              initiatives in Maryland, Maine and Washington. The votes in those three states, coupled with the rejection of a constitutional amendment in Minnesota that would have banned same-sex marriages, marked the first occasion that voters directly approved pro-gay marriage initiatives on the state level’

              • 2trueblue

                I have no objections to everyone having rights, just do not believe that we should change something that has been in place for centuries because a small pressure group demand it, and it was not in the manifesto. It may be inevitable but I do not agree with it. That does not mean that I live in a bubble, or that I am a bigot. We had 13yrs of a government who did so much harm with their political correctness and their ‘initiatives’, which marginalised a lot of people. They then walked away not having improved anything but initiated change for changes sake and the rattle of their own importance. All that whilst the country in real terms was devalued in every way. Cameron for some reason is treading the same path. This has the potential to cause untold unforseen consequences, and are we really prepared for that?

                • RH

                  It was in the manifesto…

              • Hugh

                And a poll in March showed 70% opposed:

                However, the polls tell you little if nothing about what impact it will have on people’s vote. It’s perfectly possible it will make those in favour not the least more likely to vote Conservative while making those opposed very much less likely to do so.

                And it’s interesting to see from your reference to “Redneck Americans” that you clearly don’t oppose all bigotry.

                • HooksLaw

                  Turn on your irony meter.

                • Hugh

                  No, I’m afraid it would make no sense if you were using it ironically.

              • jimbo

                please google the YouGov analysis of all the polling on this matter and the chief of Com Res’s letter to David Cameron suggesting he was wrong to suggest polls showed widespread support for gay marriage. the best impartial polling shows a small but significant majority AGAINST gay marriage and furthermore, polling taken anonymously shows substantially higher opposition!

      • HellforLeather

        Care to cite which polls? And their results?

        • HooksLaw


          • HellforLeather

            No, you said pollS – plural

            • HooksLaw
              • HellforLeather

                Funnily, I am one-eyed. How do you and your lot know that?

                You still have not answered how poll results, using a couple of thousand replies equate with public opinion expressed by half a million.

                I’m happy to debate once you’re finished with my physical deformities

                • HooksLaw

                  My lot?

                  Dipstick – a representative sample. Since no petition was set up in competition then there is no ‘score’ to judge it by. Sadly the world is clearly moving on and leaving your lot behind.

        • HooksLaw

          France is due to pass a gay mariage bill.

          Latest polls show that about 60 percent of the French support the legalisation of marriage for homosexuals,

          And the wonderful people at Wikipedia say
          ‘As of 22 October 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has ruled that all the rights and obligations of marriage be extended to same-sex registered partners’

      • arklington

        Oh, they have; frequently. But they only see the “visible” ones; not the majority of us.

      • jimbo

        the polls show consistent small majority against gay marriage, with rogue polls showing either large support or large opposition to it. See head of Com RES’s letter to David Cameron, there is no majority support for gay marriage.

  • David Lindsay

    What on earth makes you think that all Labour or Lib Dem peers, or even most of the former in particular (the majority, yes; but not most), would be in favour of same-sex “marriage”? Would you like a list of names? You can have it. But if I have to do your basic research, then I shall be requiring a fee.

    • telemachus

      Only the rabidly homophobic Tory right are opposed
      The rest either are strongly in favour or passively approve
      The electorate remain supremely indifferent.

      • Daniel Maris

        One thing is certain – there’s a telephobic majority on this forum.

        • David Lindsay

          As there should be.

      • David Lindsay

        Rubbish. But at least you are not being paid out my subscription to write rubbish. Unlike Hardman.

        • HooksLaw

          Its because of what I perceive as rubbish from Hardman etc that I refrain from committing to a subscription.
          Plus I see no benefit in giving my money to the odious Barclay Bros.

      • Colonel Mustard

        What an inane post, even for you, the Master of Inanity. Your extreme left-wing tribalism makes you blind as well as stupid.

        In this age of low turnout half a million signatures on a petition is not indifferent. And look at these threads. Any on gay marriage attract the most number of comments.

  • Joe marjoram

    Although this ignores the likelihood some Lords will object to the manner in which this has been handled, especially the sham consultation and ignoring a half million petition.

    • HooksLaw

      We don’t have government by petition. And a petition is not a referendum, you have no way of judging how many signatures an opposite proposition would attract. Your argument is facile fatuous and flawed.

      I could rustle up a sizeable petition to bring back hanging in no time at all. But there would be no corresponding legislation.

      • Joe marjoram

        Alright, how about the home office web form being filled in by overseas residents. Regarding hanging, all the more reason for people like you to pay attention to the objectors; the fact that the public are apparently in favour isn’t a reason to legislate and undermine religious freedom. Perhaps a moment to think through your argument before posting would help. Pip pip.

        • HooksLaw

          I would not be bothered about a return to hanging. But its not going to get passed. I note you singularly fail to address the flaw in your argument. toot toot.

      • HellforLeather

        HooksLaw, in defending your argument, you cite pollS (plural) in favour of this, but cite only one — I’m referencing your response to trueblue).

        Polls rarely cover opinions of more than 2,000, but you reckon (in your response to Joe marjoram) that a petition on behalf of 500,000 people should carry no weight.

        I invite a rational explanation.

        • HooksLaw
          • HellforLeather

            HooksLaw says: “And I point above to 4 full blooded elections in the USA which supported gay marriage”

            Ah, You’ve been working for Boy George on this one.

            May I suggest that America is irrelevant to what society here wants.

            You’re a fraud of the worst kind. Supposedly intellectual, with no common sense or feeling for what our society leans to?

            • HooksLaw

              You may see what Osborne has to do with 4 states in the USA voting to legalise gay marriage but I cannot. Polls show that society here is the same as in the USA and in France and other places. Same sex marriage has been legal in Holland since 2001. Same sex marriage has been legal in Spain since 2005. And Belgium and Canada.

              Feel free to ignore polls and real events which do not suit your prejudice.

              The UKIPers on here are howling mad and frothing over the issue but it is not so worrying to most.

      • Chris

        Your last sentence encapsulates the reason why, polls or not, Cameron may have made a political error. It is just wrong to do it as it would be to bring back capital punsihment

        • HooksLaw

          No politician is bringing back hanging, even though you could get a million petition to say the opposite. Lots of polls show majorities supporting gay marriage.