Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

muriel_volestrangler

(105,933 posts)

24. So far, amendments are proceeding OK

Reply to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Mon May 20, 2013, 06:45 PM

May 2013

Conservative critics had tabled a proposal to let heterosexual couples enter into civil partnerships, if gay couples were allowed to get married.

This was defeated by 375 votes to 70 after a five-hour Commons debate.

Instead, MPs backed a Labour plan to consult on changing civil partnerships - a move criticised by some Tory MPs.
...
A proposal which would have allowed civil registrars to opt out of presiding over gay marriages on grounds of conscience was backed by 150 MPs - including Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Owen Paterson - although 340 voted against.

In a subsequent vote, 148 MPs supported an amendment to protect the religious beliefs of a person who believes that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman but 349 MPs voted against.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gay marriage: Downing Street pleads with Labour to save bill [View all] dipsydoodle May 2013 OP

Extending civil partnerships: will it really cost £4bn? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #1

I wasn't aware of the differentiation between state and private pensions. dipsydoodle May 2013 #3

That's an Irish site muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #4

I'd failed to notice that dipsydoodle May 2013 #7

Rather buried in all that is that the Labour front bench will support the Loughton amendment muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #2

Update: Labour front bench not to support Loughton, but table amendment for 'review' muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #5

My message to Labour Party: my vote in exchange for your vote for Equal Rights without any idwiyo May 2013 #6

That's the paradox dipsydoodle May 2013 #8

Easiest way to fix it is to have Civil Partnership as THE ONLY binding contract. idwiyo May 2013 #9

No, that would sink the entire concept muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #19

"Marriage" would be a civil partnership, recognised by the state as the only binding contract. idwiyo May 2013 #22

So what you seem to be saying is the only option should be 'marriage' muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #23

What I am saying is that religion should be taken out of legal binding contracts. Nothing to do with idwiyo May 2013 #25

It's not about whether there are differences - you're saying there should only be one version muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #27

Amazing to watch folks suddenly care about 'complete equality without qualifiers' Bluenorthwest May 2013 #11

They will tie themselves in fucking knots to avoid the actual issue. Can't risk offending idwiyo May 2013 #16

I'm lost. Grins May 2013 #10

Me too. And I read the entire article. Nye Bevan May 2013 #12

I don't know what would happen dipsydoodle May 2013 #14

Instead of voting for full equality UK government created a separate type of legal partnership for idwiyo May 2013 #13

There's a bit of jockeying for position muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #15

Sounds like Labour were close to allowing marriage equality to be sabotaged Nye Bevan May 2013 #17

I don't know why they had taken their earlier position muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #20

That's a bit ridiculous. Nye Bevan May 2013 #21

I hope they get it right. hrmjustin May 2013 #18

So far, amendments are proceeding OK muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #24

For our American viewers dlwickham May 2013 #26