All Waltham Forest MPs vote in favour of gay marriage

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

All of Waltham Forest's MPs voted in favour of gay marriage in last night's historic Commons vote.

Chingford and Woodford Green Tory cabinet member Iain Duncan Smith, Leyton and Wanstead Labour MP John Cryer and Walthamstow Labour MP Stella Creasy all backed the proposals.

Overall, MPs voted by 400 to 175 to make same-sex marriages legal, although a majority of Conservatives voted against the bill put forward by their own party.

Campaigners have hailed the vote as an important step forward for gay rights, but some critics say marriage should only be between a man and woman, while others said the bill was flawed.

The bill was agreed in principle and will now undergo further Parliamentary scrutiny and possible adjustments before becoming law.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:10am Wed 6 Feb 13

chingford lad says...

I`m sorry but my opinion is if you have a skeleton in the cupboard, keep it well locked. Duncan Smith can kiss goodbye to my vote.
I`m sorry but my opinion is if you have a skeleton in the cupboard, keep it well locked. Duncan Smith can kiss goodbye to my vote. chingford lad
  • Score: 0

10:46am Wed 6 Feb 13

dlon says...

…. are you sure your not getting your metaphors in a mix?

Maybe between “Skeleton in the closet” which general refers a potentially ruinous secret, and “coming out of the closet” which nowadays refers to some openly identifying a homosexual.

Unless of course your suggesting something libellous about Ian Duncan Smith :)
…. are you sure your not getting your metaphors in a mix? Maybe between “Skeleton in the closet” which general refers a potentially ruinous secret, and “coming out of the closet” which nowadays refers to some openly identifying a homosexual. Unless of course your suggesting something libellous about Ian Duncan Smith :) dlon
  • Score: 0

11:09am Wed 6 Feb 13

sunn says...

Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.
Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision. sunn
  • Score: 0

11:45am Wed 6 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

sunn wrote:
Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.
That is your opinion whilst many thought it was not the right decision.

Accordingly, whilst it may seem as an advance of gay rights by some it may further alienate in the eyes of others.
[quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.[/p][/quote]That is your opinion whilst many thought it was not the right decision. Accordingly, whilst it may seem as an advance of gay rights by some it may further alienate in the eyes of others. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

myopinioncounts says...

So where will these 'marriages' take place? Having assured the C of E that churches do not have to perform Gay marriages, and mosques, Temples and Synagogues are unlikely to, is it only a register office where civil ceremonies are already permitted will do so?
So where will these 'marriages' take place? Having assured the C of E that churches do not have to perform Gay marriages, and mosques, Temples and Synagogues are unlikely to, is it only a register office where civil ceremonies are already permitted will do so? myopinioncounts
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Alan_1976 says...

sunn wrote:
Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.
Indeed. Nice to see a decision that allows loving relationships between two adults to be recognised.
[quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Nice to see a decision that allows loving relationships between two adults to be recognised. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
sunn wrote:
Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.
Indeed. Nice to see a decision that allows loving relationships between two adults to be recognised.
Until the divorce papers start flying like in normal marriage?
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Nice to see a decision that allows loving relationships between two adults to be recognised.[/p][/quote]Until the divorce papers start flying like in normal marriage? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Wed 6 Feb 13

sunn says...

If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.
If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem. sunn
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Alan_1976 says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
sunn wrote:
Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.
Indeed. Nice to see a decision that allows loving relationships between two adults to be recognised.
Until the divorce papers start flying like in normal marriage?
Given that the divorce rate in straight marriage is currently running at 42% and the rate of dissolution of civil partnerships is currently less than 5% that seems unlikely.

That must be that whole "sancitity of marriage" people keep mentioning.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: Fantastic news that all of the borough's MPs supported this Bill at its second reading and that it was overwhelmingly passed. It was absolutely the correct decision.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Nice to see a decision that allows loving relationships between two adults to be recognised.[/p][/quote]Until the divorce papers start flying like in normal marriage?[/p][/quote]Given that the divorce rate in straight marriage is currently running at 42% and the rate of dissolution of civil partnerships is currently less than 5% that seems unlikely. That must be that whole "sancitity of marriage" people keep mentioning. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

sunn wrote:
If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.
And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be.

In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others.
[quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.[/p][/quote]And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be. In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Alan_1976 says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
sunn wrote:
If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.
And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be.

In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others.
We live in a democracy. The majority of people in this country want what was voted for last night. That's how it works.

If you are in the minority then that is entirely your problem.

As to making everyone as "one" what a peculiar way of looking at something which provides equal rights for all. There is a fundamental difference between having a "right" and excercising a right.

My marriage is completely unaffected by the choice of two other adults to marry. The only affected people are the two adults marrying.

To prevent that occurring is to seek to do so through lack of tolerance for the action.

So it means exactly the act of not tolerating others. It is quite simple.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.[/p][/quote]And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be. In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others.[/p][/quote]We live in a democracy. The majority of people in this country want what was voted for last night. That's how it works. If you are in the minority then that is entirely your problem. As to making everyone as "one" what a peculiar way of looking at something which provides equal rights for all. There is a fundamental difference between having a "right" and excercising a right. My marriage is completely unaffected by the choice of two other adults to marry. The only affected people are the two adults marrying. To prevent that occurring is to seek to do so through lack of tolerance for the action. So it means exactly the act of not tolerating others. It is quite simple. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
sunn wrote:
If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.
And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be.

In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others.
People who are "different" from the majority shouldn't merely expect to be tolerated- a word which means "put up with".

I know quite a lot of Christians who have opted for civil partnerships followed by blessings in church. I can't really see that conducting the whole ceremony - which anyway includes a civic element - in church makes a lot of difference as long as the church community concerned is happy to host it.

There's a strong likelihood that many, perhaps the majority, of gay couples will opt for marriage in a register office. All there is asking for is that their commitment to each other is recognised in law in the same way that heterosexual marriage is.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.[/p][/quote]And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be. In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others.[/p][/quote]People who are "different" from the majority shouldn't merely expect to be tolerated- a word which means "put up with". I know quite a lot of Christians who have opted for civil partnerships followed by blessings in church. I can't really see that conducting the whole ceremony - which anyway includes a civic element - in church makes a lot of difference as long as the church community concerned is happy to host it. There's a strong likelihood that many, perhaps the majority, of gay couples will opt for marriage in a register office. All there is asking for is that their commitment to each other is recognised in law in the same way that heterosexual marriage is. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 6 Feb 13

sunn says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
sunn wrote:
If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.
And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be.

In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others.
Why would gay people be alienated by a decision which gives them access to the same marriage rights as straight people? Quite absurd.

The government clearly does not want us to all be the same as this legislation is entirely about embracing and including people who are different than society's perceptions about what is normal'. Nobody is being forced to like same sex marriage.

Unless you start making some more thoughtful points, I'm afraid I'll not bother replying.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: If people are alienated by the decision then that is entirely their own problem.[/p][/quote]And visa versa, we cannot all be the same despite what the Government wants us to be. In the Olympics the Paralympics was promoted to attempt to unify everyone as 'one' it just does not work and does not mean that people cannot tolerate others.[/p][/quote]Why would gay people be alienated by a decision which gives them access to the same marriage rights as straight people? Quite absurd. The government clearly does not want us to all be the same as this legislation is entirely about embracing and including people who are different than society's perceptions about what is normal'. Nobody is being forced to like same sex marriage. Unless you start making some more thoughtful points, I'm afraid I'll not bother replying. sunn
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tmann says...

Problems will arise when the ECHR demands churches marry gay couples despite the vicar not agreeing with gay marriage. Under the Bill, no one is compelled to marry a homosexual couple but that could be overturned by the ECHR. If that happens then all sorts of questions regarding sovereignty will fly.
Problems will arise when the ECHR demands churches marry gay couples despite the vicar not agreeing with gay marriage. Under the Bill, no one is compelled to marry a homosexual couple but that could be overturned by the ECHR. If that happens then all sorts of questions regarding sovereignty will fly. tmann
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Obstinate says...

This is certainly good news and an absolutely correct thing to do. Now perhaps we can have equality for straight couples who would prefer a civil partnership to marriage but do not have that legal right?
This is certainly good news and an absolutely correct thing to do. Now perhaps we can have equality for straight couples who would prefer a civil partnership to marriage but do not have that legal right? Obstinate
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Who is the Bride and who is the Husband? How is that decided?

When the Vicar announces 'I now pronounce you man and wife, does he say man and man?
Who is the Bride and who is the Husband? How is that decided? When the Vicar announces 'I now pronounce you man and wife, does he say man and man? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Who is the Bride and who is the Husband? How is that decided?

When the Vicar announces 'I now pronounce you man and wife, does he say man and man?
In an age of equality or all, the vicar could equally say: "I now pronounce you woman and husband."

I'm sure any priest, vicar, minister, rabbi, imam etc prepared to conduct a gay marriage is capable of coming up with some appropriate wording.

The only part of the marriage ceremony that is bound by law is the civic part, not the religious one. I've been to many weddings where alternative promises are made and alternative words sed.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Who is the Bride and who is the Husband? How is that decided? When the Vicar announces 'I now pronounce you man and wife, does he say man and man?[/p][/quote]In an age of equality or all, the vicar could equally say: "I now pronounce you woman and husband." I'm sure any priest, vicar, minister, rabbi, imam etc prepared to conduct a gay marriage is capable of coming up with some appropriate wording. The only part of the marriage ceremony that is bound by law is the civic part, not the religious one. I've been to many weddings where alternative promises are made and alternative words sed. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Wed 6 Feb 13

sunn says...

tmann wrote:
Problems will arise when the ECHR demands churches marry gay couples despite the vicar not agreeing with gay marriage. Under the Bill, no one is compelled to marry a homosexual couple but that could be overturned by the ECHR. If that happens then all sorts of questions regarding sovereignty will fly.
Only this has actually never happened, despite equal marriage existing elsewhere within the EU.
[quote][p][bold]tmann[/bold] wrote: Problems will arise when the ECHR demands churches marry gay couples despite the vicar not agreeing with gay marriage. Under the Bill, no one is compelled to marry a homosexual couple but that could be overturned by the ECHR. If that happens then all sorts of questions regarding sovereignty will fly.[/p][/quote]Only this has actually never happened, despite equal marriage existing elsewhere within the EU. sunn
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Jeremy_Griffiths says...

In my view it is a simple matter of equal rights. Why should gay couples not have all the rights that straight couples do? I'm a Christian but don't really follow the Bible; the Jesus I pray to is someone who very much stuck up for the oppressed, the disenfranchised etc and it seems to me that He would very much favour two people entering into loving marriage.
In my view it is a simple matter of equal rights. Why should gay couples not have all the rights that straight couples do? I'm a Christian but don't really follow the Bible; the Jesus I pray to is someone who very much stuck up for the oppressed, the disenfranchised etc and it seems to me that He would very much favour two people entering into loving marriage. Jeremy_Griffiths
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Jeremy_Griffiths says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Who is the Bride and who is the Husband? How is that decided?

When the Vicar announces 'I now pronounce you man and wife, does he say man and man?
For goodness sakes, is this really the best you can come up with? What's that got to do with you? What a childish, spiteful little post. Mind you, it's what we've come to expect from the Troll.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Who is the Bride and who is the Husband? How is that decided? When the Vicar announces 'I now pronounce you man and wife, does he say man and man?[/p][/quote]For goodness sakes, is this really the best you can come up with? What's that got to do with you? What a childish, spiteful little post. Mind you, it's what we've come to expect from the Troll. Jeremy_Griffiths
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Sam Hain says...

Lovely comment, Jeremy-Griffiths, and I'm an atheist! I'm delighted that equal rights now means exactly that, not that I'll be rushing to avail myself of this particular equality. As others have observed, this is not an institution that seems to work terribly well for straight people so why would gay people want to join them in all the misery of divorce etc? This is not a club I would ever want to be a member of but it's nice to have to option though.
Lovely comment, Jeremy-Griffiths, and I'm an atheist! I'm delighted that equal rights now means exactly that, not that I'll be rushing to avail myself of this particular equality. As others have observed, this is not an institution that seems to work terribly well for straight people so why would gay people want to join them in all the misery of divorce etc? This is not a club I would ever want to be a member of but it's nice to have to option though. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

11:16pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Sam Hain says...

PS: I was referring to your previous comment, Jeremey_Griffiths but Cornbeefur insinuated himsel. I entirely agree with this commet too. Troll-lol-lol-lol-lo
l!
PS: I was referring to your previous comment, Jeremey_Griffiths but Cornbeefur insinuated himsel. I entirely agree with this commet too. Troll-lol-lol-lol-lo l! Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Sam Hain says...

PPS: Forgive all the typos - time to lie down in a darkened room I think!
PPS: Forgive all the typos - time to lie down in a darkened room I think! Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

1:00am Thu 7 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

I am so glad the Gay/Homosexuals are enjoying their positive motions through Camerons (Tory Party) Blair in all his money making years avoided like a plague.

At least the Tory Cameroon has proved he is not the nasty party as often quoted by his own member?

The address of the main motion was clarified in the vote and that is what counts?
I am so glad the Gay/Homosexuals are enjoying their positive motions through Camerons (Tory Party) Blair in all his money making years avoided like a plague. At least the Tory Cameroon has proved he is not the nasty party as often quoted by his own member? The address of the main motion was clarified in the vote and that is what counts? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

7:33am Thu 7 Feb 13

everoptimistic says...

Going back a bit Obstinate has a good point.

'This is certainly good news and an absolutely correct thing to do. Now perhaps we can have equality for straight couples who would prefer a civil partnership to marriage but do not have that legal right?”
I am one half of a straight couple who have no wish to 'marry' but would like some kind of civil recognition of our long term partnership in the eyes of the law. At the moment there is only equality for some. Non- married man/woman partnerships have no standing in the eyes of the law. Could this not be added to the bill, even at this late stage?
Going back a bit Obstinate has a good point. 'This is certainly good news and an absolutely correct thing to do. Now perhaps we can have equality for straight couples who would prefer a civil partnership to marriage but do not have that legal right?” I am one half of a straight couple who have no wish to 'marry' but would like some kind of civil recognition of our long term partnership in the eyes of the law. At the moment there is only equality for some. Non- married man/woman partnerships have no standing in the eyes of the law. Could this not be added to the bill, even at this late stage? everoptimistic
  • Score: 0

8:14am Thu 7 Feb 13

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
I am so glad the Gay/Homosexuals are enjoying their positive motions through Camerons (Tory Party) Blair in all his money making years avoided like a plague.

At least the Tory Cameroon has proved he is not the nasty party as often quoted by his own member?

The address of the main motion was clarified in the vote and that is what counts?
Another load of drivel!

It's hard enough to ignore you when you post your idiotic and often incoherent comments on stories about dumpling-eating contests and pancake races (on the Epping site), but when you have nothing of any value to say on issues that affect thousands of people's lives, do us all a favour and don't say it.

If what you are trying but failing to do effectively is have a pop at Cameron, the fact is that he has probably made a massive political error in introducing a matter that was not in the Tory manifesto when it was bound to alienate a large swathe of his own party members.

But hey ho! Opinion polls indicate that the majority of the population are either in favour of the move or indifferent so at least he hasn't acted in opposition to the public mood.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: I am so glad the Gay/Homosexuals are enjoying their positive motions through Camerons (Tory Party) Blair in all his money making years avoided like a plague. At least the Tory Cameroon has proved he is not the nasty party as often quoted by his own member? The address of the main motion was clarified in the vote and that is what counts?[/p][/quote]Another load of drivel! It's hard enough to ignore you when you post your idiotic and often incoherent comments on stories about dumpling-eating contests and pancake races (on the Epping site), but when you have nothing of any value to say on issues that affect thousands of people's lives, do us all a favour and don't say it. If what you are trying but failing to do effectively is have a pop at Cameron, the fact is that he has probably made a massive political error in introducing a matter that was not in the Tory manifesto when it was bound to alienate a large swathe of his own party members. But hey ho! Opinion polls indicate that the majority of the population are either in favour of the move or indifferent so at least he hasn't acted in opposition to the public mood. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

9:58am Thu 7 Feb 13

myopinioncounts says...

No-one asked me how I felt! If MP's are supposed to represent their constituents why did they not approach them to ask, especially as this topic was not in the manifesto and could have influenced how an individual would vote in the general election. MP's show a staggering disregard for the public once they have got into power and presume they "know what's good for us".
No-one asked me how I felt! If MP's are supposed to represent their constituents why did they not approach them to ask, especially as this topic was not in the manifesto and could have influenced how an individual would vote in the general election. MP's show a staggering disregard for the public once they have got into power and presume they "know what's good for us". myopinioncounts
  • Score: 0

10:03am Thu 7 Feb 13

Sam Hain says...

Obstinate wrote:
This is certainly good news and an absolutely correct thing to do. Now perhaps we can have equality for straight couples who would prefer a civil partnership to marriage but do not have that legal right?
Good point indeed, and one that was often raised during the consultation period. One can only speculate why it didn't make it into the final Bill but there does seem to be a problem with the word equality. Maybe poiliticians should look it up in the dictionary. One can no more be partially equal.than one can be partially pregnant or partially dead!
[quote][p][bold]Obstinate[/bold] wrote: This is certainly good news and an absolutely correct thing to do. Now perhaps we can have equality for straight couples who would prefer a civil partnership to marriage but do not have that legal right?[/p][/quote]Good point indeed, and one that was often raised during the consultation period. One can only speculate why it didn't make it into the final Bill but there does seem to be a problem with the word equality. Maybe poiliticians should look it up in the dictionary. One can no more be partially equal.than one can be partially pregnant or partially dead! Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

10:34am Thu 7 Feb 13

tmann says...

sunn wrote:
tmann wrote:
Problems will arise when the ECHR demands churches marry gay couples despite the vicar not agreeing with gay marriage. Under the Bill, no one is compelled to marry a homosexual couple but that could be overturned by the ECHR. If that happens then all sorts of questions regarding sovereignty will fly.
Only this has actually never happened, despite equal marriage existing elsewhere within the EU.
True, I should have said "if" and it's pretty hypothetical but contingencies should be made all the same. Also the ECHR is not the same thing as the EU, leaving the EU would not change Britain's relationship with the ECHR.
[quote][p][bold]sunn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tmann[/bold] wrote: Problems will arise when the ECHR demands churches marry gay couples despite the vicar not agreeing with gay marriage. Under the Bill, no one is compelled to marry a homosexual couple but that could be overturned by the ECHR. If that happens then all sorts of questions regarding sovereignty will fly.[/p][/quote]Only this has actually never happened, despite equal marriage existing elsewhere within the EU.[/p][/quote]True, I should have said "if" and it's pretty hypothetical but contingencies should be made all the same. Also the ECHR is not the same thing as the EU, leaving the EU would not change Britain's relationship with the ECHR. tmann
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 7 Feb 13

sunn says...

myopinioncounts wrote:
No-one asked me how I felt! If MP's are supposed to represent their constituents why did they not approach them to ask, especially as this topic was not in the manifesto and could have influenced how an individual would vote in the general election. MP's show a staggering disregard for the public once they have got into power and presume they "know what's good for us".
If you want your MP to take your opinion into account you go and see them or write to them. I don't think it's very practical to expect an MP to contact every single person in their constituency to ask their opinion on every single Bill that comes up in Parliament.

Either way, MPs had a very good idea of public opinion on this matter as several opinion polls showed that the majority of the public are in favour of this change to legislation.
[quote][p][bold]myopinioncounts[/bold] wrote: No-one asked me how I felt! If MP's are supposed to represent their constituents why did they not approach them to ask, especially as this topic was not in the manifesto and could have influenced how an individual would vote in the general election. MP's show a staggering disregard for the public once they have got into power and presume they "know what's good for us".[/p][/quote]If you want your MP to take your opinion into account you go and see them or write to them. I don't think it's very practical to expect an MP to contact every single person in their constituency to ask their opinion on every single Bill that comes up in Parliament. Either way, MPs had a very good idea of public opinion on this matter as several opinion polls showed that the majority of the public are in favour of this change to legislation. sunn
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Fri 8 Feb 13

mdj says...

'I am one half of a straight couple who have no wish to 'marry' but would like some kind of civil recognition of our long term partnership in the eyes of the law.'
Is there a legal difference between the rights and responsibilities created by civil partnership, as opposed to marriage? I thought CP came in simply because the practicalities of gay marriage were not felt to be workable.
'I am one half of a straight couple who have no wish to 'marry' but would like some kind of civil recognition of our long term partnership in the eyes of the law.' Is there a legal difference between the rights and responsibilities created by civil partnership, as opposed to marriage? I thought CP came in simply because the practicalities of gay marriage were not felt to be workable. mdj
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Alan_1976 says...

mdj wrote:
'I am one half of a straight couple who have no wish to 'marry' but would like some kind of civil recognition of our long term partnership in the eyes of the law.'
Is there a legal difference between the rights and responsibilities created by civil partnership, as opposed to marriage? I thought CP came in simply because the practicalities of gay marriage were not felt to be workable.
http://www.findlaw.c
o.uk/law/family/marr
iage_and_civil_partn
erships/500385.html

The summary...

"The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. In fact, religious institutions are not legally permitted to perform civil partnerships."
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'I am one half of a straight couple who have no wish to 'marry' but would like some kind of civil recognition of our long term partnership in the eyes of the law.' Is there a legal difference between the rights and responsibilities created by civil partnership, as opposed to marriage? I thought CP came in simply because the practicalities of gay marriage were not felt to be workable.[/p][/quote]http://www.findlaw.c o.uk/law/family/marr iage_and_civil_partn erships/500385.html The summary... "The difference exists principally due to protests from religious groups about recognising same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in the same way. In fact, religious institutions are not legally permitted to perform civil partnerships." Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Fri 8 Feb 13

myopinioncounts says...

sunn says.. -several opinion polls showed that the majority of the public are in favour of this change to legislation.
Exactly my point! No-one I know was asked and it is very easy to rig a poll by asking only the people who will give the answer you want!
sunn says.. -several opinion polls showed that the majority of the public are in favour of this change to legislation. Exactly my point! No-one I know was asked and it is very easy to rig a poll by asking only the people who will give the answer you want! myopinioncounts
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Alan_1976 says...

myopinioncounts wrote:
sunn says.. -several opinion polls showed that the majority of the public are in favour of this change to legislation.
Exactly my point! No-one I know was asked and it is very easy to rig a poll by asking only the people who will give the answer you want!
Good job they were independent polls then
[quote][p][bold]myopinioncounts[/bold] wrote: sunn says.. -several opinion polls showed that the majority of the public are in favour of this change to legislation. Exactly my point! No-one I know was asked and it is very easy to rig a poll by asking only the people who will give the answer you want![/p][/quote]Good job they were independent polls then Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Fri 8 Feb 13

mdj says...

This was on the web:
' a couple who form a civil partnership have the same legal rights as a married couple.

This is because it would clearly be prejudicial and discriminatory if individuals of different sexes could marry and have more legal rights and protection than two people of the same sex who entered a civil partnership.'

So there's no logic at all in wanting a civil partnership rather than a marriage. Now that we seem likely to have gay marriage, the category of civil partnership will presumably become redundant.
There's likely to be a complex development of common law on the questions of child access in the case of gay divorce, depending on whether children are adopted and/or surrogately conceived.
This was on the web: ' a couple who form a civil partnership have the same legal rights as a married couple. This is because it would clearly be prejudicial and discriminatory if individuals of different sexes could marry and have more legal rights and protection than two people of the same sex who entered a civil partnership.' So there's no logic at all in wanting a civil partnership rather than a marriage. Now that we seem likely to have gay marriage, the category of civil partnership will presumably become redundant. There's likely to be a complex development of common law on the questions of child access in the case of gay divorce, depending on whether children are adopted and/or surrogately conceived. mdj
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree