Tory Party spilts, Gays can now marry equals good day

[WindFish]

Opposition parties vote in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) bill so it passed despite a huge against vote by the main governing party

Spoiler :

MPs have approved same-sex marriage in England and Wales in a key Commons vote, despite the opposition of almost half the Conservative MPs.

The Commons voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a full day's debate on the bill.

Prime Minister David Cameron has described the move as "an important step forward" that strengthens society.

Early voting lists show that 136 Conservatives opposed the bill.

Of the remaining Conservative MPs, 127 were in favour, 35 did not vote, and five registered an abstention by voting both in favour and against.

Junior justice minister Helen Grant said: "As Tories we do differ at times. We have squabbles - we're like any other family."

But she described the legislation as "a major step forward for equality and justice".
'We are all equal'

Opening the debate, Equalities Minister Maria Miller urges MPs to back the bill

Deputy Prime Minister and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said: "I genuinely believe that we will look back on today as a landmark for equality in Britain.

"Tonight's vote shows Parliament is very strongly in favour of equal marriage.

"No matter who you are and who you love, we are all equal. Marriage is about love and commitment, and it should no longer be denied to people just because they are gay.

"The Liberal Democrats have long fought for equal marriage. It is party policy and I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are part of the coalition government that are making it happen."

MPs were given a free vote on the bill, meaning they were not ordered to vote a particular way by party whips.

Their decision to back the bill at second reading signifies that they approve of it in principle. The legislation will now receive more detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

Opposition leader Ed Miliband said: "This is a proud day and an important step forward in the fight for equality in Britain.

"The overwhelming majority of Labour MPs supported this change to make sure marriage reflects the value we place on long-term, loving relationships whoever you love.

Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale: ''There are a huge number of people who are very concerned indeed''

"Equal marriage builds on Labour's successes in government which include the repeal of Section 28, equalising the age of consent, the introduction of civil partnerships and changes to the rules governing adoption."

But Conservative MP David Burrowes said: "We do respect the equal value of men and women, but surely that doesn't avoid us looking and celebrating difference, and marriage is a great way of celebrating the difference between a man and a woman."

He predicted that the legislation would receive substantial opposition when it arrived in the House of Lords.

He said the vote result had shown that the party was in touch with the country: "The nation is divided, we have shown ourselves as a party to be divided."

He added: "We have been the ones showing ourselves to have a grown-up, free-vote, conscience issue debate, and we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're going to be divided on this issue."

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Uk#1!

 

[Mise]

There is literally no way I can vote for a party where 50% of its MPs don't think gays should be allowed to marry.

 

[Quackers]

From the BBC:

How does same-sex marriage differ from civil partnership?

Civil partnership is a legal relationship exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage.

It offers the same legal treatment as marriage across a range of matters, such as inheritance, pensions provision, life assurance, child maintenance, next of kin and immigration rights.

Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony, whereas a same-sex partnership is an exclusively civil procedure.

So it's like changing a little detail - the real stuff happened ages ago in the UK when civil partnerships came in. I'm imagining only a few churches will allow same-sex marriages - so for many gay lovers they will still be locked out of marrying in a religious ceremony unless they want to travel to some librul yucky church in Londonistan.

 

[Leoreth]

Great to see this happen. I hope this increases pressure on other European governments to follow the British example.

Also, who introduced this bill? I suppose it's the governing coalition? If so, is it common in British politics that half of the MPs of a governing party vote against a bill introduced by their own coalition? Looks pretty devastating from the outside.

 

[WindFish]

Also, who introduced this bill? I suppose it's the governing coalition?

It was

If so, is it common in British politics that half of the MPs of a governing party vote against a bill introduced by their own coalition?

No because coalitions are rare and they tend to hinge on the thinnest of margins, for example, the last coalition collapsed because of 4 MPs voting the other way

Looks pretty devastating from the outside.

Looks more devastating from the inside.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is literally no way I can vote for a party where 50% of its MPs don't think gays should be allowed to marry.

Then I guess voting Republican in the US is completely out of the question.

This is a very positive sign. I think it won't be long now before homosexuals are treated by modern society exactly the same way as everybody else no matter where they live. Baby steps.

 

[Tee Kay]

If only Gillard and Abbott could learn from David Cameron.

 

[Crezth]

This is a very positive sign. I think it won't be long now before homosexuals are treated by modern society exactly the same way as everybody else no matter where they live. Baby steps.

If this actually occurs in my lifetime I will be an extraordinarily happy man.

 

[classical_hero]

So society is going down the toilet very fast indeed. history is full of such things happening when society turns it's back on marriage being simply between one man and one woman for life.

 

[Archbob]

This is a very positive sign. I think it won't be long now before homosexuals are treated by modern society exactly the same way as everybody else no matter where they live. Baby steps.

Don't bet the farm on that one. How long has it been since the North won the civil war?

history is full of such things happening when society turns it's back on marriage being simply between one man and one woman for life.

Lets not kid ourselves, the divorce rate is so astronomically high these days that the "for life" part is false these days. Sad, but true.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

So the legal status is the same and the only difference is that the UK now officially uses the M word ?
I honestly don't see where the big deal is.

So society is going down the toilet very fast indeed. history is full of such things happening when society turns it's back on marriage being simply between one man and one woman for life.

Please name some examples so others can show you where you went wrong.

 

[filli_noctus]

There are a few additional changes, the main one being that same-sex couples can be legally married in a religious service if the religion in question is A) sufficiently enlightened to opt-in and B) not the Church of England or Church of Wales.
There are a few other benefits that civil partnership didn't provide, one that I have heard mentioned is that some forms make a distinction between marriage and civil partnership and that filling them in honestly can out someone to an organisation they would prefer didn't know their sexuality.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

There are a few additional changes, the main one being that same-sex couples can be legally married in a religious service if the religion in question is A) sufficiently enlightened to opt-in and B) not the Church of England or Church of Wales.

I don't think the ceremony should have anything with the legal procedure of marreid in the first place, but whatever.

There are a few other benefits that civil partnership didn't provide, one that I have heard mentioned is that some forms make a distinction between marriage and civil partnership and that filling them in honestly can out someone to an organisation they would prefer didn't know their sexuality.

OK, this one actually makes sense.

 

[Leoreth]

No because coalitions are rare and they tend to hinge on the thinnest of margins, for example, the last coalition collapsed because of 4 MPs voting the other way

Okay, coalitions are rare, but shouldn't that make it even more necessary that each partner can trust the other to support their agenda? Especially since the Tory leadership was behind the plan.

 

[WindFish]

Okay, coalitions are rare, but shouldn't that make it even more necessary that each partner can trust the other to support their agenda? Especially since the Tory leadership was behind the plan.

Yeah except the Tory party is a big tent party between social liberals, economical liberals and social conservatives in a coalition with the Lib Dem party which is a big tent party between social liberals and market liberals.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, but both need to rely on the other to pursue their agenda. If I was a Lib Dem, I'd reconsider continuing the coalition if half of the Tories just says "yeah, you should've known in advance that we're social conservatives!" whenever they try to pass a part of their social liberal program.

 

[WindFish]

Yeah, but both need to rely on the other to pursue their agenda. If I was a Lib Dem, I'd reconsider continuing the coalition if half of the Tories just says "yeah, you should've known in advance that we're social conservatives!" whenever they try to pass a part of their social liberal program.

Can't do that because the Lib Dems know they are toast at the next election and dissolving the coalition will probably mean fresh elections

 

[Tee Kay]

It's one of those issues where MPs have a "conscience vote", where the party either does not have an official or a strong (or a conflicting) party line, and it is agreed beforehand that MPs are free to vote however they feel like. It was the case with the Labor Party in the gay marriage vote last year (but not with the Liberal Party, whose leader forced his MPs to vote against).

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I think I'm going to be hearing a long rant in the near future.