Coffee House

Same Sex Marriage Bill: how MPs voted

21 May 2013

8:27 PM

21 May 2013

8:27 PM

This is the full Hansard of list of how MPs voted on tonight’s third reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. It was a free vote, and the Bill passed 366 to 161.

AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Norman
Baldwin, Harriett
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, rh Gregory
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Barwell, Gavin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Brown, rh Mr Gordon
Brown, Lyn
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burnham, rh Andy
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Cameron, rh Mr David
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, rh Greg
Clark, Katy
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Evans, Graham
Fabricant, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, rh Mr Frank
Field, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goldsmith, Zac
Gove, rh Michael
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, rh Damian
Green, Kate
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gummer, Ben
Gwynne, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hands, Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Harris, Mr Tom
Harvey, Sir Nick
Healey, rh John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendrick, Mark
Hendry, Charles
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Herbert, rh Nick
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hollingbery, George
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Howell, John
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Graham
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Lavery, Ian
Laws, rh Mr David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leslie, Charlotte
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewell-Buck, Emma
Lewis, Brandon
Lloyd, Stephen
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Luff, Peter
Macleod, Mary
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, rh Maria
Mills, Nigel
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M. (Easington)
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
Newmark, Mr Brooks
O’Donnell, Fiona
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Onwurah, Chi
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Phillipson, Bridget
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raab, Mr Dominic
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rogerson, Dan
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Simmonds, Mark
Skidmore, Chris
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Iain
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swinson, Jo
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Tomlinson, Justin
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vaz, Valerie
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Walley, Joan
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Watson, Mr Tom
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Mr Rob
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:

[Alt-Text]


Mr Desmond Swayne
and

Sir Bob Russell
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benton, Mr Joe
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackwood, Nicola
Bone, Mr Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Cooper, Rosie
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crausby, Mr David
Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dobbin, Jim
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Dunne, Mr Philip
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Flello, Robert
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gray, Mr James
Griffiths, Andrew
Halfon, Robert
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Henderson, Gordon
Hermon, Lady
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Mr Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Metcalfe, Stephen
Milton, Anne
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mudie, Mr George
Murphy, rh Paul
Neill, Robert
Nuttall, Mr David
O’Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Paice, rh Sir James
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, Mike
Perry, Claire
Pound, Stephen
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Rutley, David
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shannon, Jim
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Simpson, David
Smith, Henry
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stride, Mel
Sturdy, Julian
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Timms, rh Stephen
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Wright, Jeremy
Tellers for the Noes:

Mr John Randall
and

Mark Lancaster


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • AlexanderGalt

    ·
    Cameron may be on the right side of history.

    The virtues of gay marriage can be argued.

    But they shouldn’t be argued by a Conservative. And even less a Conservative prime minister.

    Leave that to the progressive in their agenda to destroy society.

    Incidentally, there’s a pretty good take on that in:”On A Hiding” at:

    http://www.john-moloney.blogspot.com/?view=mosaic#!http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2013/05/cameron-will-lose.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/terence.i.hale Terence Hale

    Hi,
    One simple solution would be to abolish marriage after all we are only monkeys. “You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel”.

  • CHRISTOPHER WHITE

    The killer statistic is that about 155 Tories voted against – 307/2 = 154 – i.e. HALF Tory Parliamentary Party is AGAINST- Some will have voted YES against personal views to be loyal.
    DC HAS LOST THE PARLIAMENTARY PARTY

  • rick hamilton

    If Cameron thinks he will get more votes as a result of a measure which is desperately wanted by perhaps 1% of the population he should get out more. Other issues are much more important to conservatives everywhere.

    Off topic a bit but, for example, among more than 5 million British expats many have been denied the UK vote having lived abroad for more than 15 years. Even if they worked all that time for British companies. Even if they have a home and family in the UK and visit often. An injustice which Cameron seems to regard as perfectly acceptable (I have his useless reply to my written complaint on my desk).

    But then I suppose many expats would vote UKIP now anyway.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Chrispythegull Chris Bristol

    Extremely disappointed in Alan Beith, Sarah Teather, Steven Pound, and Paul Murphy. Shame on them.

    • Colonel Mustard

      That’s democracy. Nothing to be ashamed about.

      Shame on you for being a fascist.

  • Hookeslaw

    Spectator clearly running out of silly photo headers for this story.

    • rollahardsix

      I preferred the 2 gay cake men from the other stories myself

  • http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ Justathought

    What business have the DUP even voting legislation that does not apply to N Ireland? What does it say when all of them (in a free vote) vote against and all of them Protestant to a man? These men do not represent their constituencies but just a small minority of ‘fleg’ wavers. “Ulster says no to sodomy” “Never, never never” bla bla bla

    • Hookeslaw

      Is homosexuality still illegal in Northern Ireland?

      • http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ Justathought

        This legislation does not apply to NI yet the DUP en-mass fly over here (all expenses paid) to vote on an issue that is devolved to NI.

        Islamic fundamentalist would drag us back 500 years and if this lot had their way they would drag Ireland back 100 years.

        • Daniel Maris

          So what’s your argument against allowing polygamy? Or maybe you think we should allow polygamy for personal fulfilment.

          • JerryBallew

            Daniel Maris is off subject, but his fascination on the Biblical tradition of Solomon’s 700 wives and 300 concubines sounds exhausting. Most men cannot handle one much less two or even hundreds which would provide a financial barrier for almost anyone. Titillating as it may sound, it is impractical.

            • http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ Justathought

              Being off topic also can I ask what is the etiquette when referring to the ‘significant other’ in same gender marriage?

              • Barakzai

                Presumably, ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ used interchangeably as a matter of the personal choice and ‘uman rights so beloved of our metro-wotsit elite. And why not? If ‘marriage’ can be redefined, why not any word?

          • http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ Justathought

            I merely observe that it appears that all of the protestant DUP members bothered to vote on a bill that does not cover NI. It’s the Lothian question.

            As for men marrying men and women marrying women etc I am but a waiter at the banquet of life.

  • Baron

    The proof, if it were needed, that the narcissistic decadence of the societal elite knows no limits. The question is ‘what will the great unwashed do’. Swallow it or spit it out?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003656292847 Mathew Blackshaw

      Be happy as polls show over 70% of people support SSM

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …if that were true, the honorables would be shouting this from the rooftops.

        They’re not, and they won’t be.

      • Baron

        Mathew, if you were to ask hoi polloi of the now defunct Soviet Empire whether they backed the leading role of the party, you would have got an even higher percentage in favour in any year from 1918 through to 1989 covering almost four generations. Will you remind Baron where is the party that led by such acclaim today?

        • Fergus Pickering

          Oh come, Baron. Nobody is going to come for you in the middle of the night because you don’t like gay marriage. I promise.

          • Noa

            They will if as a priest or registra,r you refuse to conduct the marriage ceremony, or as a teacher refuse to condone or equate it with marriage between two heterosexuals.

      • Hookeslaw

        A number of gay people came to my wedding and to the weddings of others of my family. The fact that they too could get married if they choose seems therefore normal.
        Though methinks they protest too much against the charge its clear that the loony tunes and geriatric hobnobs are just ignorant bigots living down a rabbit hole.

  • thucydides

    I guess the interest here is in the Labourites who voted agin.

    You begin to ask their motivation.

    And then you look them up.

    There are some interesting characters.

    Stephen Pound was a boxer in the Merchant Navy, when at sea from 1964–66, leading Private Eye magazine to refer to him as “Ealing North’s tattooed bruiser”. He also played football for Hanwell Town.

    Joe Benton after leaving school in 1949 he received an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner. He then entered National Service in 1955 with the RAF.
    Not your Mandeson types.

    • David Lindsay

      Ann McKechin switched from voting in favour at Second Reading to voting against at Third Reading. As far as I can tell, no Tory did that.

      I wouldn’t mess with anyone on that Labour list. And I mean that as the highest of compliments.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        …and it’s too bad that the rest of you lefties went to cultural erosion, eh lad?

        • David Lindsay

          Well, no. If only 52 Tories abstained, then that is fewer than half of those who did so.

          But (you’ll not get this, but other people will) we have now been shown exactly what neocon stalwarts such as Michael Gove, George Osborne and Ed Vaizey mean by the Western civilisation that they believe needs to be spread throughout the whole wide earth by force or arms. They mean liberalism, plain and simple.

          • rollahardsix

            How did this thread get from gay marriage to Imperialism??…

            • David Lindsay

              Treatment of those who engage in homosexual activity is explicitly cited as a grounds for invading or even nuking Iran by those who would wish to do so insane a thing.

              For example.

              • rollahardsix

                In all seriousness David who said that? Which nut job ever said ”we must nuke Iran to save Iran’s homosexuals ”???

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I believe you’ll find that came out of that barking moonbat’s fertile imagination.

                • David Lindsay

                  You obviously don’t read Harry’s Place.

                  And give it a year. It’ll probably be Gove who first, among frontline politicians, advances the “Bomb Iran To Save The Gays” argument, the new variant on the “Bomb Afghanistan To Save The Women” argument.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Oh I love it. Gove nukes Iran! What a hard man!

                • anneallan

                  Could have some logic behind it. Thanks to his educational policies, we will again be able to produce nuclear scientists – or at least teenagers who can do joined up writing.

                • Alec

                  Best not try to fathom Lindsay’s thinking processes. He’s positively sublime… just sit back and enjoy the ride.
                  ~alec

            • the viceroy’s gin

              That’s what the Left does when it’s losing the argument, dodge and distract.

              • smileoftdecade

                whereas the right generalise even more than they privatise

                • thucydides

                  The homophobic right are not a joke.
                  They are dangerous.
                  They are coterminous with the mainstream of UKIP and are out to wreck the political system as we know it.

          • dalai guevara

            Hahaha!

            In the meantime, some far-right homophobic whack-job loses a game of Russian Roulette in Notre Dame, allegedly in protest over Michael Gove’s voting habits.

            Viceroy, you still with us?

            • Fergus Pickering

              I gather the chap hated muslims too. Is that far right nut job territory? Or is it sensible discrimination?

  • dalai guevara

    Perhaps it is now time for David Davis to defect to the fruit loops? At least that would guarantee him a seat on the front bench come 2015.

    • rollahardsix

      That would require Haltemprice & Howden (where I live) to vote UKIP in 2015. Two council by-elections here the other week Conservatives held both despite strong UKIP surge. Davis is already guaranteed reelection as a Tory, so it would depend whether he wanted to risk it as a UKIPer.

      • Hookeslaw

        Davis should simply stand down and leave the seat for a loyal conservative. if he does I suggest you put in a bid.

        He has had his chance to serve his nation and blew it. Ironic really since Nick Clegg has done the same.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          …as has your hero Call Me Dave.

        • rollahardsix

          No doubt he will be hovering around when the leadership election happens, and will lose of course. Put in a bid? – I can’t see the old ladies of the local tory party accepting a bid to stand in the seat from this wet, one-nation, right-of-centre scottish tory, the combination would cause heart attacks and at least one fatality. I shall stick to my pleasant annonimity thanks all the same

        • Fergus Pickering

          What has David Davis done that so pisses you off. I think the Tories are lucky to have him. Whereas Liam Fox…

  • the viceroy’s gin

    52 cowardly Tories failed to vote, were there? If they were doing it for survival, they should understand that the people who threaten their survival aren’t likely to ignore that cowardice, officially recorded or not.

    And 15 Lab and even 4 LD’s voted against the Cameroons? So obviously, this wasn’t really a “free” vote for Lab, no matter what they propagandized. Both of those parties wanted a near unanimous vote, to project unanimity and protect their vulnerable members. It’s an open question whether they succeeded in that. This vote will hurt the Cameroons, but I suspect it’s going to leave a mark on the Millipedes as well.

  • http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ Justathought

    The member for Chipping Barnet has retained her AAA+ rating while the eight angry Ulster troughers have voted like true Protestants.

  • Austin Barry

    I dunno, I’m indifferent to gay marriage. In the final analysis I decided that if it annoys the Imams and their ranting acolytes then fair enough.

    • Baron

      Austin, and your evidence that gay marriage annoys the Imams is what?

      Baron reckons they’ll ignore it, push for polygamy for as the great Mark Steyn has it ‘if gender matters not why should numbers do’. The lobby of the followers of Allah will trump the gay pressure group in the end, there are more of them and they have an ace up their sleeve (or is is it their waist), we don’t have long to wait.

      • Fergus Pickering

        His evidence is because they say so. In the Daily Telegraph so it must be true.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Good choice. Good rule too. What Imams wan’t should definitely be illegal.

  • http://twitter.com/jackmustard1997 jack mustard

    Thank you to those who voted for the Bill. The UK will be a better place for it – credit to Cameron for staying the course.

    • andagain

      Not that he will get any – you can’t vote for him without voting for his Party, and they all hate the Bill.

      • Fergus Pickering

        No they don’t. Some do. Some don’t. the real divide is by age.

  • Noa

    Thank you and respect, in the traditional, non gangsta sense of the word, to these MPs who opposed this pernicious and societally destructive legislation,

    • andagain

      What exactly will be destroyed, and how?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Markus-Hayden-Sutherland/1634126207 Markus Hayden Sutherland

        Noa’s sense of privilege and entitlement are two things that will suffer.

        • Noa

          Other than what you can deduce from my posts you have no knowledge of my values and the basis from which they are derived.
          In your case I deduce that your views of me founded on your own beliefs, prejudices and ignorance, are completely wrong.

      • Noa

        The institute and status of marriage as a union between a man and woman.
        As Lord Tebbitt points out, there is no reason why he, or you, cannot marry your brother, whether for tax or other reasons.
        It’s underlying, marxist inspired purpose is the destruction of the social core of western society.
        But of course you already know that.

        • rollahardsix

          Could you explain for me why you believe that two men down the street getting married undermines my relationship with my wife, or my bond with my children, or the quality of their upbringing as part of a married family? Will my son be discouraged from marrying a woman if some men marry men? In what way do you believe that the ‘heterosexual family’ is undermined by homosexuals having married status? As a heterosexual married man I do not feel my status or lifestyle is threatened – no one is trying to stop me doing what I want to. Family breakdown, absent parents especially absent fathers seem far more serious issues – ones that actually do harm to society. The two gay men down the street don’t harm anything.

          • Baron

            rollahardsix, sir, would you then have any objections to Baron marrying his pet Labrador Mutley? The argument you advance would also apply, right?

            • rollahardsix

              Baron – yes i would object, as the Labrador could not be considered to be able to consent! As the Labrador could not chose to object, short of running away and or biting you in a sensitive spot, then you would be forcing yourself on it. My argument wasnt for ‘anything goes’, i wouldnt advocate forced marriage or child marriage for example as these are not between consenting adults and harm or coersion is therefore being done. But what harm is done and to who when two gays marry?

              • Baron

                rollahardsix, but you’ve changed your argument, sir, just try and run the thing you posted earlier for inst, ‘will my son be discouraged from marrying a woman if some men marry dogs….’

                And as for consent, we kill animals without getting their consent, surely copulating would be less of a bother than a slaughter, wouldn’t you think?

                Also, why should your ‘anything goes’ limit what others define as ‘anything’. For you, gay marriage is OK, but nothing else. For others, animal marriage may be OK, but nothing more. When you open the door to marriage to others it’s then only a question of how wide you open it.

                • rollahardsix

                  Open marriage to ”others”? No, open to other consenting adult human beings. I am unsure quite now they count as ‘others’ in any meaningful sense. They are not animals, others, outsiders, misformed abominations, they are human beings. You say that to me gay marriage is ok but nothing else – how many options are there? I dont mean daft ideas like marrying Mutley the Labrador – you might have your way with a dog but its not marriage, no consent no agreement no contract. I mean actual groups of concenting adults in our society that are currently excluded from marriage. No its not a question of ‘opening the door then it can be opened ever wider’ – you think today the gays tomorrow the animals, the robots, the children? This is ludicrous exageration.

                • Hookeslaw

                  Thank you for your patient exposition. You know when the nutjobs bring in Muttley that you are up barking creek without a paddle.

                • rollahardsix

                  Delighted to be of service.

                • Baron

                  But Hookeslaw, why?, in Baron’s book everyone is free to do whatever he wishes to do unless it limits someone else’s freedom (and not only when it comes to sexual gratification).

                  You see, my blogging friends, you are enlarging the pool of those who can marry to those of the same gender, Baron’s expanding it to those where only one is required to give consent. You seem to disagree with his position as he does with yours. What’s the difference then?

                  (Listen, Baron’s rather busy today, hasn’t got he time to take you on some more)

                • Noa

                  Sentience may be necessary to establish the concept of marriage or indeed any other idea, such as democracy.
                  But only one party needs to be able to consent for it in order for the relationship to exist.

              • Hexhamgeezer

                Surely if doggy wags its (male or female tail) it consents?

                Many mad old bats will their money to pets. That would provide ample encouragement for marriage proposals.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Why is it mad to will your money to your pet if the pet has been nicer to you than your ghastly family?

            • Scott Mason

              Wrong.

              You could apply the same logic to any aspect of ‘non-traditional’ marriage. “A black man and a white woman getting married? Whatever next, a man marrying his toaster?”

              • Andy

                Depends if it’s a Dualit.

            • JerryBallew

              Baron, now you’re just being stupid. Beastality is not being discussed here, but somehow your fascination with the subject just got interjected.

              • Baron

                We are discussing an enlargement of the definition of marriage, it fits here.

          • Andy

            The problem is that Marriage is not just a civil institution: it is a Sacrament of the Church. As the Book of Common Prayer says ‘we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency’. It does not say ‘we are gathered together here . . . to join together this man and this man in holy Matrimony. . . ‘

            Those who object to Gay Marriage maintain that the State does not have a right to redefine marriage merely because it wants to. And I can quite see that before you can say knife some Gay couple will scream blue murder because they were refused a wedding at the Parish Church or some other religious building and will take the case to the ECHR who will, in their usual stupid manner, declare that their human right have been violated.

            So we go from Gay Marriage to suppression of freedom of religion. And that is basically the problem.

            • rollahardsix

              Andy it seems quite fair to me for CofE or anyone else to refuse to conduct a religious gay wedding – to me it is a matter for members of the church to decide their view and ministers shouldnt be forced to conduct a ceremony, they should be able to hold to their principles and not be forced to act against their beliefs – so i wouldnt want the right to gay marriage to stop freedom of religion either. I appreciate that our understanding of marriage is hugely shaped by christian heritage and teaching – but marriage of one form or another was around in the Roman days and the Iron Age and before, to me the government can change the legal definition because I dont consider marriage a purely religious institution or creation. That said I’ve no issue with gay marriage being a ‘civil’ constuction that religions can opt to refuse, as for homosexuals the legal civil route would exist anyway

              • Noa

                Following that logic there is no purpose or reason for marriage.

                So, better to abolish it completely and allow any and all relationships, in any combination and number.

                That will ensure maximum individual freedom.
                It will however materially assist in the destruction of society as ever more mothers and children struggle to identify fathers and so the state is forced to take ever increasing responsibility for their care.

                • Scott Mason

                  What is the purpose and reason for marriage?

                • Hexhamgeezer

                  Are you asking because you think it has no reason or purpose?

                • dalai guevara

                  No, he is asking because when you attempt to answer it, you will be digging a hole.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …can we stuff you in it after he’s done?

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Logic? What has logic got to do with it? What did it ever have? Logic is a game professors play. Life is quite another thing.

                • Noa

                  Fergus, it’s a useful tool for thinking with. And don’t be so coy. I’ve seen you using it, occasionally.

              • Andy

                Marriage is defined by our Christian heritage. For all the comment here this country is still a Catholic Country, with Catholic Law and a Catholic Sovereign. It is not for you, nor those who are pressing for this measure, to try to redefine the Doctrine of the Church (it is not ‘principles’, it is belief and Church Doctrine) but there is this attitude abroad that any one who opposes Gay Marriage because of the effect it has on the Holy Mother Church is somehow evil, homophobic and all the other crap that is flung around.

                As I said in my earlier post this is really a very badly thought out proposal. Homosexual couples through Civil Partnerships enjoy all the material benefits of Marriage, so I simply do not understand why this is necessary. What the State should have done was surrendered Marriage to the Church (and other faiths) and messed around with Civil Partnerships. I believe someone commented that he wanted to marry his labrador. Well he can’t: he will have to make do with a Civil Partnership.

                • rollahardsix

                  Andy perhaps it would shock you then that I am a practicing Christian. Perhaps it is my presbeterian background, but i just dont share your view on this being a catholic country, nor to I think my faith is under attack because of this measure. I dont believe that marriage belongs to the church only or to christians only or to people of faith only. Christian marriage – the kind of which I took my vows under, the kind of which I strive to live each day – is not in my view the same a marriage per se.

                • Andy

                  I’m not shocked nor surprised that you are a ‘practicing Christian’, but I think it is rather sad that you are not more willing to defend the Church as a whole. I confidently predict that when this measure becomes law we wont have to wait all that long before someone challenges the right of the church not to conduct Gay Marriages. They will be paraded on the BBC moaning that ‘its not fair’ that they can’t get married where they want to. Some clever lawyer will then pevert the Human Rights Act and the ECHR to force the Church to accept this daft measure.

                • DrCoxon

                  Recently a supporter of SSM declared in an exchange of posts that the act would demonstrate the full legality and equality of homosexuality and that any Catholic teacher who advocated heterosexual marriage would find life very difficult.

                • JerryBallew

                  Andy, I think Elizabeth Tudor would take you to task about English Catholicism. Wars and many deaths preceded the Church of England which defied the “Deity Pope” ruling English Religion theory.

                • Andy

                  You need to look up what the term ‘Catholic’ means. I did NOT say ‘Roman Catholic’. And Queen Elizabeth I remained a Catholic. What she was not was a Roman Catholic.

                • http://www.facebook.com/billcam Bill Cameron

                  It is simply not true that Civil Partnerships provide all the same rights as marriage, for example in relation to pensions and a number of other areas..

                • geoffreysmith1

                  Then make CPs provide all the same rights as marriage!
                  Just don’t continue with this vaudeville act of SSM.

              • JerryBallew

                We have the right to reject religious orders and beliefs, so why not their right to reject non-beliefs of their “reality” structure even if based on a forgery? The “Rights of Man” is the ultimate in any case.

            • Hookeslaw

              Thanks for demonstrating you are barking mad.

            • JerryBallew

              For the first thousand years of Christianity, there were no religious marriage ceremonies, it not being any concern nor a matter of the church, but there were secular public ones based on the Roman pagan way of an oath publicly said from one partner to the other. If one male wanted to have a male partner he had only to pronounce publicly in front
              of the other male and one witness that he would “adopt” him and the mate would then have rights of inheritance (even before one’s wife). The first thousand years of the church marriage was not considered a tradition of progressing births but coitus of any kind was considered burning for desire which was not to be any part of ritual for religion. “Traditional” marriage is not so traditional. We no longer believe the earth is flat and the universe revolves around our puny little planet. Pagan marriage was purely a matter mostly of common law marriage with no ceremony other than a simple Roman pagan oath and certainly not in front of a Priest or Priestess nor a governmental entity. 5,000 year old “Biblical” marriage was like Solomon’s: 700 wives and 300 CONCUBINES! Marriage was purely for the transfer of property and was often between family members to keep the loot in the family. Many marriages were never consummated in fact, the man choosing a concubine OR a male lover over his “wife.” The concept of “love” with no dowry took form in the Victorian Era only and that is the “Tradition” of today which is less than a couple of hundred years old.

              • dalai guevara

                the period of Romanticism

                • JerryBallew

                  Actually it was more the age of ignoring the Pagan Beliefs of the “Faithful” before the Church started realizing the startling parallels of Christianity to the Pagan Faiths which became alarmingly apparent to the Priests. The Pagan Faiths had to be attributed to the “Devil” in order to not lose any faithful to the Plagal Notes that tied the precepts of Christianity to the almost identical precepts of Pagan Religions. “Serving Two Masters” was not allowed in Christianity who wanted pure and total allegiance from the masses.

                • dalai guevara

                  yes indeed, my comment was meant to be a clarification to your latter ‘love’ part.

                • JerryBallew

                  Oops I misunderstood. My reply was concerning the first 1,000 years of Christianity. Yes, the last two hundred years can be considered the “Age of Romanticism.” However, the latter 20th and early 21st century seems to be the “Age of Raging Hormones” the way many couples seem to throw away their union in frightful easiness over minor hindrances, or in little regard to fidelity.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …and why wouldn’t they? Many seem to encourage shallowness in such unions, as this entire discussion demonstrates.

            • dalai guevara

              You would have a point if it was indeed a church redefining the *religious* aspect of that Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but none of the churches are – it is the state redefining the *societal* aspect of marriage.

              These would be two entirely different matters, in detail and outcome, and it strikes me that they are so often confused.

            • anneallan

              That is my real concern. If gays wish to marry, so be it. But I give a year, maximum, before a pair of aggressively activist gays take a religious organisation to the ECHR.
              Ignore all the assurances that this will not happen; we have seen too many ‘assurances’ from British governments to know their worth.
              The one thing I am equally sure about, the religious organisation won’t be Islamic.

          • Noa

            “Family breakdown, absent parents especially absent fathers seem far more serious issues – ones that actually do harm to society.”
            Then perhaps you will also explain whether and how you think the further societal degradation of the unique status and responsibilities of marriage, by equating it with homosexual partnerships, will assist or materially aggravate the breakdowns you use as an example?

            • rollahardsix

              Noa I don’t believe that gay marriage will have any bearing at all on heterosexual family breakdown or absent heterosexual fathers. I got married so yes i do see the value of course, but i think being married is of benifit to me and my family for reasons specific to us – stability, close bonds and identity, support – but I dont use that view of my own marriage to then think that my marriage is of more worth than a gay marriage – no more than i would think my marriage is of more worth that a childless marriage

              • Baron

                So what about polygamic marriage? Is it worth more or less? On your argument it should be allowed, right?

                • rollahardsix

                  Possibly, but the debate will have to wait, as married life calls – baby to get back to sleep, wife to keep warm, dog to put out. PS if your dog is really called Mutley you must, sir, be of the same generation as me, as there could hardly be a better name for a canine!

                • Hookeslaw

                  polygamic marriage is no different for hetro or homosexuals so its merits or demerits can be safely debated outside this argument.

                • rubyduck

                  polygamic?

                  polygamous marriage would have to include women

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Well only because of the Greek derivation of the word. Nowadays it would mean marrying more than one person. I’m against it. If a muslim ‘marries’ four wives then only the first one counts. The others are concubines.

                • Noa

                  Why are they only concubines, Fergus?
                  If they deem themselves wives why shouldn’t you accept that view?

                • Fergus Pickering

                  There’s a character in P G Wodehouse who deems himself a fried egg. Doesn’t cut much ice with anyone else, though.

                • Noa

                  Novel, but not real life.
                  In a variation of the Clapham Omnibus test how would you address the niqab’d dame loading her pram on the bus?
                  ‘Would it be as ‘harlot, out of my way?’
                  Or ‘Madam in the absence of your spouse, may I assist you?’

                • DrCoxon

                  Islamic law decrees that the husband should treat all the wives equally. Some jurists/theologians have ruled that no man is capable of treating four women absolutely equally. They conclude that marriage to four women is only a theoretical possibility.

                • Noa

                  It doesn’t take a jurist. I’ve been advised by such husbands that the wives themselves tell the husband of the lack of equal treatment in no uncertain terms.

              • Noa

                Regretfully my detailed consideration of your argument appears to have been moderated- for reasons unknown.
                In summary though:-
                – heterosexual and gay marriage cannot be equated because the former carries responsibilities to children.
                – gay marriage is a liberal progressive concept which will materially assist in the breakdown of the basic values of western civilisation.
                -Individual freedoms; of thought, religion and speech will be eroded as the new law, and successors such as polygamy and polyandry are successively introduced and enforced by human rights, equality and hate legislation introduced to enforce such socia engineering.

                • rollahardsix

                  To be fair to you Noa at least you structure your arguments rather than simply write the standard dismissive insults that pass for debate on this site alot of the time. In brief I don’t accept your first point as true, I think your second is half right however the third does concern me too, on the basis that any new freedom can often be used as the justification to erode existing ones.

                • Noa

                  I conclude likewise in your case.

                  Whist we may disagree a courteous and objective exchange of views and reasons is both more informative and thought provoking than the brainless abuse for not sharing another’s opinions which often passes for on-line debate.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  What about heterosexuals who have no wish for children?

                • Noa

                  Or older people who cannot have children?

                  Of course not.

                  But then I never argued that having children was the sole primary purpose of marriage.

            • Scott Mason

              Again. Sounds terrible.

              What evidence is there for the connections you make?

            • JerryBallew

              Quite a speculative principle to a belief system you have there; however married homosexuals will probably adopt the progeny of those absent parents and why disallow the children the dignity of family’s rights just because two fellows or two ladies were kind enough to give them a hand up but don’t fit your personal idiology, personal belief system, and theory of what construes a “proper family” in spite of your “morality” distinctions?

          • Hookeslaw

            The answer of course is it does not. You are too level headed for here mate.
            I am a bit of a prude and I do shy away from public displays by people – I find mothers breast feeding distasteful, but none of us are undermined in the slightest.

            • Noa

              Your view of course, with no rationale explanation as to why, or what you believe the eventual societal consequences will be.

              You always seem content to take the received CCHQ line on whatever subject they pronounce , without applying any critical analysis or personal judgement, resorting instead to abusing those who don’t share your view, rather than seeking to persuade them by the strength of your arguments.
              But then, perhaps your not capable of doing so

            • Fergus Pickering

              I take it you mean you find you seeing mothers etc etc. Well shut your eyes old fruit. If it’s good enough for the BVM then it’s good enough for me..

          • Noa

            Again, it seems my reply has been moderated for reasons unknown. At least Telemachus posts received the courtesy of a statement to that effect, rather than just vanishing without trace.
            I’ve summarised my reasons elsewhere, below.

        • http://www.facebook.com/scott.mason.52 Scott Mason

          That sounds terrible and horrific.

          Could you specify what the damage will actually be though?

          • Alec

            Artificially inseminated hair? Like ‘Something About Mary’.
            ~alec

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here