Bucks MPs vote against gay marriage bill (From Bucks Free Press)

a brave stance Mr Baker and a very solid and well thought out explanation - I agree!!

I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world.
The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy.
PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems.
RANT over.
:oP

Darren Hayday wrote:
I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world.
The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy.
PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems.
RANT over.
:oP

What exactly is your issue with gay marriage?
How the heck is it hurting you personally?
Is it going to affect you Darren?
Actually as someone who is for gay marriage my MP did not represent my views at all and I am completely disgusted at their attitudes.
If churches do not want to marry gay people then that is their right and that should be respected.
But there is no reason why they should not be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

demoness the second wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world.
The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy.
PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems.
RANT over.
:oP

What exactly is your issue with gay marriage?
How the heck is it hurting you personally?
Is it going to affect you Darren?
Actually as someone who is for gay marriage my MP did not represent my views at all and I am completely disgusted at their attitudes.
If churches do not want to marry gay people then that is their right and that should be respected.
But there is no reason why they should not be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

These are the wrong questions to ask me. The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No.

This is a cheap political tactic to win votes in the next General Election. (yes)

It's the same tactic for the PM to dangle the carrot for a EU referendum.

It's irrelevant on my own views on the subject and I respect that others hold different views to my own.

My point is that we are in very deep economic and social problems in the UK (as are the rest of the world) and I personally want to see something being down to get us out of this mess.

More jobs, people not loosing their homes, families not being torn apart, people getting into easy debt, large companies pushing up their profits - basically a lot of things that in my mind would hold a higher priority rather than if Terry and Paul now have the right to marry each other at their local church rather than hold a civil partnership.

Political parties of all colours - just want to get votes and to stay in power or wait their turn till they get back into power - they are using this in order to get more votes - it's a calculation which would either work or not. Do you honestly believe that the PM cares about gay marriage rights? Of course he doesn’t.

Strange that all the Local MPs voted against Gay marriage -- would have thought some would have voted differently as it was a free vote. Perhaps is something in the southern air of a Shires thing ?????.

I don't even understand why this is an issue and I am deeply ashamed to see that there are still people who are willing to deny others the right to be happy (even though it has NO IMPACT on them at all) based on their sexuality.

I see from the poll above that it seems 2/3 of people are against gay marriage. I am interested to know why? And I am not excepting any argument that uses the bible as a point of reference. I'm afraid that you simply cannot go around dictating to others how to live their life based on a fictitious book about a magical carpenter, because that's what it amounts to.

I defy anyone to come up with a well reasoned, rational argument against gay marriage.

Darren Hayday wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world.
The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy.
PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems.
RANT over.
:oP

What exactly is your issue with gay marriage?
How the heck is it hurting you personally?
Is it going to affect you Darren?
Actually as someone who is for gay marriage my MP did not represent my views at all and I am completely disgusted at their attitudes.
If churches do not want to marry gay people then that is their right and that should be respected.
But there is no reason why they should not be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

These are the wrong questions to ask me. The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No.

This is a cheap political tactic to win votes in the next General Election. (yes)

It's the same tactic for the PM to dangle the carrot for a EU referendum.

It's irrelevant on my own views on the subject and I respect that others hold different views to my own.

My point is that we are in very deep economic and social problems in the UK (as are the rest of the world) and I personally want to see something being down to get us out of this mess.

More jobs, people not loosing their homes, families not being torn apart, people getting into easy debt, large companies pushing up their profits - basically a lot of things that in my mind would hold a higher priority rather than if Terry and Paul now have the right to marry each other at their local church rather than hold a civil partnership.

Political parties of all colours - just want to get votes and to stay in power or wait their turn till they get back into power - they are using this in order to get more votes - it's a calculation which would either work or not. Do you honestly believe that the PM cares about gay marriage rights? Of course he doesn’t.

Darren I think you will find that not all of the bills that are passed do affect the majority of the community but sometimes you DO need to look after the minority of the public! This may be a cheap political tact for the Tories to win votes in the general election but have you actually stopped to think how this vote has a positive effect on the public?
I think you will find that if we waited until we were out of the deep economic and social problems we would be waiting for a long time!!! Things are being done- albeit slowly! I feel that you rant is moving into a personal dig at the Tories now and you are completely missing the point about the fact that EVERYONE is entitled to civil rights! So anyone should have the option to marry WHOEVER they want! At the end of the day what gives anyone the right to say that same sex couple should have less rights than ‘traditional couples’??
This bill will actually HELP people from losing their homes, having their families torn apart and people getting into debt. As this will finally give gay couples the rights that they deserve!!

Excuse the grammar fail in my previous post. I meant accepting rather than excepting.

Opinionated89 wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world.
The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy.
PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems.
RANT over.
:oP

What exactly is your issue with gay marriage?
How the heck is it hurting you personally?
Is it going to affect you Darren?
Actually as someone who is for gay marriage my MP did not represent my views at all and I am completely disgusted at their attitudes.
If churches do not want to marry gay people then that is their right and that should be respected.
But there is no reason why they should not be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

These are the wrong questions to ask me. The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No.

This is a cheap political tactic to win votes in the next General Election. (yes)

It's the same tactic for the PM to dangle the carrot for a EU referendum.

It's irrelevant on my own views on the subject and I respect that others hold different views to my own.

My point is that we are in very deep economic and social problems in the UK (as are the rest of the world) and I personally want to see something being down to get us out of this mess.

More jobs, people not loosing their homes, families not being torn apart, people getting into easy debt, large companies pushing up their profits - basically a lot of things that in my mind would hold a higher priority rather than if Terry and Paul now have the right to marry each other at their local church rather than hold a civil partnership.

Political parties of all colours - just want to get votes and to stay in power or wait their turn till they get back into power - they are using this in order to get more votes - it's a calculation which would either work or not. Do you honestly believe that the PM cares about gay marriage rights? Of course he doesn’t.

Darren I think you will find that not all of the bills that are passed do affect the majority of the community but sometimes you DO need to look after the minority of the public! This may be a cheap political tact for the Tories to win votes in the general election but have you actually stopped to think how this vote has a positive effect on the public?
I think you will find that if we waited until we were out of the deep economic and social problems we would be waiting for a long time!!! Things are being done- albeit slowly! I feel that you rant is moving into a personal dig at the Tories now and you are completely missing the point about the fact that EVERYONE is entitled to civil rights! So anyone should have the option to marry WHOEVER they want! At the end of the day what gives anyone the right to say that same sex couple should have less rights than ‘traditional couples’??
This bill will actually HELP people from losing their homes, having their families torn apart and people getting into debt. As this will finally give gay couples the rights that they deserve!!

What's the difference between this new 'marriage' and the previous civil partnerships? Apart from **** off a lot of religious types?

Isn't the simple solution to ensure seperation between legislation and religion? Amend legislation so that marriage is legal between any two consenting adults, thereby providing equality for all. Then allow each religion the choice of freedom of religious expression to determine whether two people (same or different sex) can be married by that religion's representative.

People should acept that if they want to be part of a particular religious faith then they have to accept any associated rules - just like a christian wouldn't expect to be able to walk up to a Rabbi and say "please marry us within the Jewish faith" then if same sex marriage isn't allowed within a particular faith then too bad....you can't claim to subscribe to a faith and then choose the rules which you wish to obey.

what is the problem with gay marriage? live and let live and all that stuff, why is it so abhorrent to people?

T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.

Darren Hayday says...
2:09pm Wed 6 Feb 13

T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.”

At least you admit your ignorance here Darren. That's a step in the right direction.

Why should 'they' not be allowed to marry in a church when there are churches willing to conduct these ceremonies? Why should gay people of faith be denied their right to a union under a God they believe in, when that church supports their right?
It is currently illegal for ANY church to offer this to a same sex couple.

I agree that no church should be forced to conduct any type of marriage, which is something that is being taken care of in the bill as suggested by Maria Miller.

Personally, I don't understand why religion and marriage are so interlinked, it would make no difference to me. But just because I don't understand it, it doesn't make it wrong.

I believe using the status of marriage, its links to religion and the wording of the bible is a very convenient shield for the bigots in our society to hide behind, clearly exampled by the public comments of our MP, Mr. Baker. The bible defines marriage the union of a man and a woman under god. This same book notes if a Jewish woman is found to not be a virgin when she marries, she should be stoned to death at her fathers door. Does Mr Baker accept all the words noted in the book, or pick and choose as he see's fit? I'm confident it's the latter.

You believe there are more pressing issues facing our country, Darren, so when do you think would be a good time for us to address equality?

There really is very little change to law in this bill, the rights of same sex couples remain the same, but instead of having a specially worded type of marriage to appease those who don't agree with equality, it's bringing the legal and social status of any marriage together, recongnising they are equal and giving rights to religious organisations to conduct these marriages.

I can't for the life of me think of a valid reason as to why anyone would want to deny another person this right.

Darren Hayday wrote:
T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.

I on the other hand am outraged that my local MP decides that he does not feel that it is ‘right’ for same sex couples to get married. As a catholic myself I completely agree with the fact that gay couples should not get married in religious ceremonies, as this does and will affect the specific religious rights but what harm is there in letting a couple that are in love getting married??
The fact of the matter is as a married couple you have a lot more rights than if you are in a civil partnership.
I have a personal friend that lost out immensely due to the fact that the government does not give the same rights to a civil partnership as they do to a marriage. They were together for several years and when his partner tragically died he was stuck, as they were not a ‘married couple’ he had no help and did not get any life insurance (even though they were together for more than 25 years) In the long run my friend lost his house and all of his partners assets were claimed by the government! All because in the eyes on the law they are not a ‘legitimate couple’
Put yourself in that situation you are grieving for your partner who you have been with for years, you are financially stuck due to the rising costs of living and you find out that the insurance you desperately need to survive will not be paid out as you are not a married couple!
Along with several other reasons this is the main reason I agree with this bill- just because you are the same sex DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT mean that you get less rights!
I agree that there are several other more pressing problems in the country but while this subject obviously does not affect you, who give you the right to say what is important and what is not??

The legal part is interesting and I feel that I am learning something new that I was not aware of before.

I understand that people are passionate about this but what gives the right to brow beat and to call anyone a bigot if they do not agree with you?

I see that some people on here feel that equality is important as I can also see that others thing that morality and the Christian faith is also as important.

At least I can admit that we all have our own views on subjects, etc

I will never try to force my own opinion on anyone and I am willing to listen to anybody to then make my mind up on a subject.

Put more than one person in a room and they are bound to disagree eventually on any subject.

I think that there are more pressing problems in the UK and also the rest of the world but I can respect that people feel that its important for equality, etc (Human trafficking, child abuse, drug trade/addiction, debt, poverty, hunger, mental health, our NHS going down the pan, the banks not giving out money, corruption, big businesses screwing the little man, the list goes on and on and on...) So I hope someone here see's where I am coming from?

Darren Hayday wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote: I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world. The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy. PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems. RANT over. :oP

What exactly is your issue with gay marriage? How the heck is it hurting you personally? Is it going to affect you Darren? Actually as someone who is for gay marriage my MP did not represent my views at all and I am completely disgusted at their attitudes. If churches do not want to marry gay people then that is their right and that should be respected. But there is no reason why they should not be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

These are the wrong questions to ask me. The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No. This is a cheap political tactic to win votes in the next General Election. (yes) It's the same tactic for the PM to dangle the carrot for a EU referendum. It's irrelevant on my own views on the subject and I respect that others hold different views to my own. My point is that we are in very deep economic and social problems in the UK (as are the rest of the world) and I personally want to see something being down to get us out of this mess. More jobs, people not loosing their homes, families not being torn apart, people getting into easy debt, large companies pushing up their profits - basically a lot of things that in my mind would hold a higher priority rather than if Terry and Paul now have the right to marry each other at their local church rather than hold a civil partnership. Political parties of all colours - just want to get votes and to stay in power or wait their turn till they get back into power - they are using this in order to get more votes - it's a calculation which would either work or not. Do you honestly believe that the PM cares about gay marriage rights? Of course he doesn’t.

"The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No"

Why isn't it in the interests of the majority of this country? I would have thought that fairness and equality for everyone is very much at the heart of the interests of the everyone in this country.

Opinionated89 wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.

I on the other hand am outraged that my local MP decides that he does not feel that it is ‘right’ for same sex couples to get married. As a catholic myself I completely agree with the fact that gay couples should not get married in religious ceremonies, as this does and will affect the specific religious rights but what harm is there in letting a couple that are in love getting married??
The fact of the matter is as a married couple you have a lot more rights than if you are in a civil partnership.
I have a personal friend that lost out immensely due to the fact that the government does not give the same rights to a civil partnership as they do to a marriage. They were together for several years and when his partner tragically died he was stuck, as they were not a ‘married couple’ he had no help and did not get any life insurance (even though they were together for more than 25 years) In the long run my friend lost his house and all of his partners assets were claimed by the government! All because in the eyes on the law they are not a ‘legitimate couple’
Put yourself in that situation you are grieving for your partner who you have been with for years, you are financially stuck due to the rising costs of living and you find out that the insurance you desperately need to survive will not be paid out as you are not a married couple!
Along with several other reasons this is the main reason I agree with this bill- just because you are the same sex DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT mean that you get less rights!
I agree that there are several other more pressing problems in the country but while this subject obviously does not affect you, who give you the right to say what is important and what is not??

O RLY?

"The position of civil partners in relation to financial arrangements mirrors that of spouses. For instance, Section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 applies to civil partnerships; thus, money payable to a surviving partner under a policy of life assurance no longer forms part of the deceased partner's estate.

The laws governing wills, administration of estates and family provisions also applies to civil partners as to spouses; thus, provisions governing financial relief under Part 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Court Act 1978 also apply to civil partnerships. Tax exemptions available to spouses under s.18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 are available to civil partners under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. In Scotland the centuries-old system of minimum legal rights to a deceased estate for a widowed spouse were expressly extended to civil partners by section 131 of Act.

In any dispute between civil partners as to title or possession of property, either partner may apply to the Court, which can then make any order in relation to the property, including an order to sell such property. Contributions by either partner to property improvement are recognised if the contributions are substantial and in actual money or money's worth."

Bill Taxpayer wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote: I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world. The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy. PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems. RANT over. :oP

What exactly is your issue with gay marriage? How the heck is it hurting you personally? Is it going to affect you Darren? Actually as someone who is for gay marriage my MP did not represent my views at all and I am completely disgusted at their attitudes. If churches do not want to marry gay people then that is their right and that should be respected. But there is no reason why they should not be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

These are the wrong questions to ask me. The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No. This is a cheap political tactic to win votes in the next General Election. (yes) It's the same tactic for the PM to dangle the carrot for a EU referendum. It's irrelevant on my own views on the subject and I respect that others hold different views to my own. My point is that we are in very deep economic and social problems in the UK (as are the rest of the world) and I personally want to see something being down to get us out of this mess. More jobs, people not loosing their homes, families not being torn apart, people getting into easy debt, large companies pushing up their profits - basically a lot of things that in my mind would hold a higher priority rather than if Terry and Paul now have the right to marry each other at their local church rather than hold a civil partnership. Political parties of all colours - just want to get votes and to stay in power or wait their turn till they get back into power - they are using this in order to get more votes - it's a calculation which would either work or not. Do you honestly believe that the PM cares about gay marriage rights? Of course he doesn’t.

"The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No"

Why isn't it in the interests of the majority of this country? I would have thought that fairness and equality for everyone is very much at the heart of the interests of the everyone in this country.

"I would have thought that fairness and equality for everyone is very much at the heart of the interests of the everyone in this country" this is an assumption on your part. Similar to myself saying that "surely we live in a democracy in the UK" or that the UK Justice system is fair, or that we have an outstanding NHS, that big companies are fair to its customers, that banks are lending to businesses or that they are helping people that are in debt, the list goes on and on - all with assumptions…
The only true way of answering that question. (plus the others) is with quantitative research data.
Finally I don’t know what you are looking to achieve, the bill is looking likely to be passed, so you should be happy not pointing fingers and wondering why everyone in the UK doesn’t agree with you – the majority of the MP’s do.

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:

Opinionated89 wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.

I on the other hand am outraged that my local MP decides that he does not feel that it is ‘right’ for same sex couples to get married. As a catholic myself I completely agree with the fact that gay couples should not get married in religious ceremonies, as this does and will affect the specific religious rights but what harm is there in letting a couple that are in love getting married??
The fact of the matter is as a married couple you have a lot more rights than if you are in a civil partnership.
I have a personal friend that lost out immensely due to the fact that the government does not give the same rights to a civil partnership as they do to a marriage. They were together for several years and when his partner tragically died he was stuck, as they were not a ‘married couple’ he had no help and did not get any life insurance (even though they were together for more than 25 years) In the long run my friend lost his house and all of his partners assets were claimed by the government! All because in the eyes on the law they are not a ‘legitimate couple’
Put yourself in that situation you are grieving for your partner who you have been with for years, you are financially stuck due to the rising costs of living and you find out that the insurance you desperately need to survive will not be paid out as you are not a married couple!
Along with several other reasons this is the main reason I agree with this bill- just because you are the same sex DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT mean that you get less rights!
I agree that there are several other more pressing problems in the country but while this subject obviously does not affect you, who give you the right to say what is important and what is not??

O RLY?

"The position of civil partners in relation to financial arrangements mirrors that of spouses. For instance, Section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 applies to civil partnerships; thus, money payable to a surviving partner under a policy of life assurance no longer forms part of the deceased partner's estate.

The laws governing wills, administration of estates and family provisions also applies to civil partners as to spouses; thus, provisions governing financial relief under Part 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Court Act 1978 also apply to civil partnerships. Tax exemptions available to spouses under s.18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 are available to civil partners under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. In Scotland the centuries-old system of minimum legal rights to a deceased estate for a widowed spouse were expressly extended to civil partners by section 131 of Act.

In any dispute between civil partners as to title or possession of property, either partner may apply to the Court, which can then make any order in relation to the property, including an order to sell such property. Contributions by either partner to property improvement are recognised if the contributions are substantial and in actual money or money's worth."

If you are going to take the time to reply at least have the decency to write in proper English? How can I take anyone seriously if it is their prerogative to write in ‘text talk’

Copying and pasting a paragraph from Wikipedia is hardly the start of a winning argument! The full civil partnership act was not passed until 2005, I would like to point out that at no point during my above notations did I mention WHEN this happened!
If you read through (just scroll down a bit more!) You will find that the law is overridden by blood relatives………�
�….

Opinionated89 wrote:

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:

Opinionated89 wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.

I on the other hand am outraged that my local MP decides that he does not feel that it is ‘right’ for same sex couples to get married. As a catholic myself I completely agree with the fact that gay couples should not get married in religious ceremonies, as this does and will affect the specific religious rights but what harm is there in letting a couple that are in love getting married??
The fact of the matter is as a married couple you have a lot more rights than if you are in a civil partnership.
I have a personal friend that lost out immensely due to the fact that the government does not give the same rights to a civil partnership as they do to a marriage. They were together for several years and when his partner tragically died he was stuck, as they were not a ‘married couple’ he had no help and did not get any life insurance (even though they were together for more than 25 years) In the long run my friend lost his house and all of his partners assets were claimed by the government! All because in the eyes on the law they are not a ‘legitimate couple’
Put yourself in that situation you are grieving for your partner who you have been with for years, you are financially stuck due to the rising costs of living and you find out that the insurance you desperately need to survive will not be paid out as you are not a married couple!
Along with several other reasons this is the main reason I agree with this bill- just because you are the same sex DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT mean that you get less rights!
I agree that there are several other more pressing problems in the country but while this subject obviously does not affect you, who give you the right to say what is important and what is not??

O RLY?

"The position of civil partners in relation to financial arrangements mirrors that of spouses. For instance, Section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 applies to civil partnerships; thus, money payable to a surviving partner under a policy of life assurance no longer forms part of the deceased partner's estate.

The laws governing wills, administration of estates and family provisions also applies to civil partners as to spouses; thus, provisions governing financial relief under Part 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Court Act 1978 also apply to civil partnerships. Tax exemptions available to spouses under s.18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 are available to civil partners under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. In Scotland the centuries-old system of minimum legal rights to a deceased estate for a widowed spouse were expressly extended to civil partners by section 131 of Act.

In any dispute between civil partners as to title or possession of property, either partner may apply to the Court, which can then make any order in relation to the property, including an order to sell such property. Contributions by either partner to property improvement are recognised if the contributions are substantial and in actual money or money's worth."

If you are going to take the time to reply at least have the decency to write in proper English? How can I take anyone seriously if it is their prerogative to write in ‘text talk’

Copying and pasting a paragraph from Wikipedia is hardly the start of a winning argument! The full civil partnership act was not passed until 2005, I would like to point out that at no point during my above notations did I mention WHEN this happened!
If you read through (just scroll down a bit more!) You will find that the law is overridden by blood relatives………�
�
�….

So your reasoning for the new proposal being a good idea is based on something that was no longer relevant?

All moral / religious / legal arguments aside, gay weddings are great for anyone in hospitality, catering or any other industry tied into the wedding trade.

The average spent on a civil ceremony is £4000, the average spent on a wedding is £21000!

More money spent, more jobs, more tax money for HMRC...

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:

Opinionated89 wrote:

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:

Opinionated89 wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.

I on the other hand am outraged that my local MP decides that he does not feel that it is ‘right’ for same sex couples to get married. As a catholic myself I completely agree with the fact that gay couples should not get married in religious ceremonies, as this does and will affect the specific religious rights but what harm is there in letting a couple that are in love getting married??
The fact of the matter is as a married couple you have a lot more rights than if you are in a civil partnership.
I have a personal friend that lost out immensely due to the fact that the government does not give the same rights to a civil partnership as they do to a marriage. They were together for several years and when his partner tragically died he was stuck, as they were not a ‘married couple’ he had no help and did not get any life insurance (even though they were together for more than 25 years) In the long run my friend lost his house and all of his partners assets were claimed by the government! All because in the eyes on the law they are not a ‘legitimate couple’
Put yourself in that situation you are grieving for your partner who you have been with for years, you are financially stuck due to the rising costs of living and you find out that the insurance you desperately need to survive will not be paid out as you are not a married couple!
Along with several other reasons this is the main reason I agree with this bill- just because you are the same sex DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT mean that you get less rights!
I agree that there are several other more pressing problems in the country but while this subject obviously does not affect you, who give you the right to say what is important and what is not??

O RLY?

"The position of civil partners in relation to financial arrangements mirrors that of spouses. For instance, Section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 applies to civil partnerships; thus, money payable to a surviving partner under a policy of life assurance no longer forms part of the deceased partner's estate.

The laws governing wills, administration of estates and family provisions also applies to civil partners as to spouses; thus, provisions governing financial relief under Part 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Court Act 1978 also apply to civil partnerships. Tax exemptions available to spouses under s.18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 are available to civil partners under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. In Scotland the centuries-old system of minimum legal rights to a deceased estate for a widowed spouse were expressly extended to civil partners by section 131 of Act.

In any dispute between civil partners as to title or possession of property, either partner may apply to the Court, which can then make any order in relation to the property, including an order to sell such property. Contributions by either partner to property improvement are recognised if the contributions are substantial and in actual money or money's worth."

If you are going to take the time to reply at least have the decency to write in proper English? How can I take anyone seriously if it is their prerogative to write in ‘text talk’

Copying and pasting a paragraph from Wikipedia is hardly the start of a winning argument! The full civil partnership act was not passed until 2005, I would like to point out that at no point during my above notations did I mention WHEN this happened!
If you read through (just scroll down a bit more!) You will find that the law is overridden by blood relatives………�
��
�
�….

So your reasoning for the new proposal being a good idea is based on something that was no longer relevant?

I would disagree here Ivor

You ask if "your reasoning for the new proposal being a good idea is based on something no longer relevant".

The person posting here is referring to equality, giving same sex couples the same rights to marry as mixed sex couples, this new proposal as you put it will give same sex couples the right to marry in churches which accept homosexual relationships - and to have their union defined as a marriage.
Yes many of the things referred to in that post no longer stand, as big steps were taken in 2005 towards equality, these final acts look set to truly level the playing field.

All of this is clearly relevant, Ivor.

I think we all need to face the facts here - some people are not tolerant of homosexuality and do not believe same sex relationships are valid and that they should not have recognition or equality in the eyes of the law.
It's fine to think these things, it's fine to believe them, it's fine to say them - I would defend anyones right to voice their opinion, but what is not fine is affording a set of rights to one group which are not afforded to another.

Those against are the same folk who I'm sure, many years ago would have stood against votes for women - and have long since passed. We look back from the modern world on these opinions with a sense of amazement and shame and I am sure our childrens children will think the same of those speaking today against equal marriage.

It wasn't so long ago that it was a crime in this country to be a homosexual, to find yourself imprisoned for being who you are. It wasn't so long ago a Tory Government outlawed the teaching of homosexuality in schools. It wasn't so long ago our government arrested, imprisoned and chemically castrated Alan Turing (the father of modern computing), the man credited by Winston Churchill for having the largest single contribution to the Allied victory in WWII by breaking the enigma code, ultimately leading to his suicide.

Gay people have much to contribute to society, but this society needs to be accepting and tolerant of differences and at the very least give equal rights to its members.

Times are changing and I for one am immensely proud to live in a Country that is continually making steps towards viewing love between consenting adults as equal and recognising this in law..............we are almost there.

Good post bucks 123, couldn't have put it better.

bucks123 wrote:

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:

Opinionated89 wrote:

Ivor'sbestfriend wrote:

Opinionated89 wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:
T o be honest it wasn’t meant to be a pop at the Tories – all of the other parties voted for it – I just can’t stand political party politics full-stop. I’m glad that Steve Baker voted against. I do believe that religion and the institution of marriage should have been separated in this bill.
I have no problem with x2 gay people marrying but they shouldn’t be able to get married in a church – in my ignorance I don’t know what difference that exists between a civil partnership and a gay marriage.
Also I wanted to make the point that there are many other pressing problems in our Country that need to be solved.

I on the other hand am outraged that my local MP decides that he does not feel that it is ‘right’ for same sex couples to get married. As a catholic myself I completely agree with the fact that gay couples should not get married in religious ceremonies, as this does and will affect the specific religious rights but what harm is there in letting a couple that are in love getting married??
The fact of the matter is as a married couple you have a lot more rights than if you are in a civil partnership.
I have a personal friend that lost out immensely due to the fact that the government does not give the same rights to a civil partnership as they do to a marriage. They were together for several years and when his partner tragically died he was stuck, as they were not a ‘married couple’ he had no help and did not get any life insurance (even though they were together for more than 25 years) In the long run my friend lost his house and all of his partners assets were claimed by the government! All because in the eyes on the law they are not a ‘legitimate couple’
Put yourself in that situation you are grieving for your partner who you have been with for years, you are financially stuck due to the rising costs of living and you find out that the insurance you desperately need to survive will not be paid out as you are not a married couple!
Along with several other reasons this is the main reason I agree with this bill- just because you are the same sex DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT mean that you get less rights!
I agree that there are several other more pressing problems in the country but while this subject obviously does not affect you, who give you the right to say what is important and what is not??

O RLY?

"The position of civil partners in relation to financial arrangements mirrors that of spouses. For instance, Section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 applies to civil partnerships; thus, money payable to a surviving partner under a policy of life assurance no longer forms part of the deceased partner's estate.

The laws governing wills, administration of estates and family provisions also applies to civil partners as to spouses; thus, provisions governing financial relief under Part 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA) and the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Court Act 1978 also apply to civil partnerships. Tax exemptions available to spouses under s.18 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 are available to civil partners under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. In Scotland the centuries-old system of minimum legal rights to a deceased estate for a widowed spouse were expressly extended to civil partners by section 131 of Act.

In any dispute between civil partners as to title or possession of property, either partner may apply to the Court, which can then make any order in relation to the property, including an order to sell such property. Contributions by either partner to property improvement are recognised if the contributions are substantial and in actual money or money's worth."

If you are going to take the time to reply at least have the decency to write in proper English? How can I take anyone seriously if it is their prerogative to write in ‘text talk’

Copying and pasting a paragraph from Wikipedia is hardly the start of a winning argument! The full civil partnership act was not passed until 2005, I would like to point out that at no point during my above notations did I mention WHEN this happened!
If you read through (just scroll down a bit more!) You will find that the law is overridden by blood relatives………�
��
��
�
�….

So your reasoning for the new proposal being a good idea is based on something that was no longer relevant?

I would disagree here Ivor

You ask if "your reasoning for the new proposal being a good idea is based on something no longer relevant".

The person posting here is referring to equality, giving same sex couples the same rights to marry as mixed sex couples, this new proposal as you put it will give same sex couples the right to marry in churches which accept homosexual relationships - and to have their union defined as a marriage.
Yes many of the things referred to in that post no longer stand, as big steps were taken in 2005 towards equality, these final acts look set to truly level the playing field.

All of this is clearly relevant, Ivor.

I think we all need to face the facts here - some people are not tolerant of homosexuality and do not believe same sex relationships are valid and that they should not have recognition or equality in the eyes of the law.
It's fine to think these things, it's fine to believe them, it's fine to say them - I would defend anyones right to voice their opinion, but what is not fine is affording a set of rights to one group which are not afforded to another.

Those against are the same folk who I'm sure, many years ago would have stood against votes for women - and have long since passed. We look back from the modern world on these opinions with a sense of amazement and shame and I am sure our childrens children will think the same of those speaking today against equal marriage.

It wasn't so long ago that it was a crime in this country to be a homosexual, to find yourself imprisoned for being who you are. It wasn't so long ago a Tory Government outlawed the teaching of homosexuality in schools. It wasn't so long ago our government arrested, imprisoned and chemically castrated Alan Turing (the father of modern computing), the man credited by Winston Churchill for having the largest single contribution to the Allied victory in WWII by breaking the enigma code, ultimately leading to his suicide.

Gay people have much to contribute to society, but this society needs to be accepting and tolerant of differences and at the very least give equal rights to its members.

Times are changing and I for one am immensely proud to live in a Country that is continually making steps towards viewing love between consenting adults as equal and recognising this in law..............we are almost there.

It is interesting charting societal norms as they evolve. We've seen equality between the sexes, races and age. What I'm curious about is what will be the next accepted "norm"? Polygamy? Incest? Lower age of consent? I ponder this as a real interest and not to be inflamatory. Anyone have ideas about what's next?

If anything (ANYTHING) is put in the the hands of or left to politicians , it will nearly always all go wrong and a lot of people always will suffer because of their idiocy , bad judgement and interference in people's lives. Whether the people are gay , straight or other.
.
People should be left to live their lives, without meddling of any kind from these self-interested , cheating, lying , arrogant gangs of sanctimonious political toads.
.
Politicians are the source and cause of nearly strife , danger and turmoil in the world. Especially ones who are overly ambitious or have their backs against the wall. They are a threat to public health and peace of mind. Past and recent History proves this is so.
.
And this issue has the toxic mix of politics and religion in it.
Set the people free from these posturing prat(t)s
.

Darren Hayday wrote:

Bill Taxpayer wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote:

demoness the second wrote:

Darren Hayday wrote: I think that it’s good that none of the Bucks MP’s voted for this bill – however I’m greatly concerned as to WHY the Conservative party has gone along with this bill? I can’t remember that its one of the Coalitions agreements and I don’t think that it was in any previous manifesto’s and although I understand that the gay community would want to lobby for this Bill I can’t start to imagine that the majority of the Country would be interested or think that this is as important as abolishing slavery (past) or perhaps fixing our very bad economy (present!). This seems to be an attempt by David Cameron to attract the pink pound for the next general election. It’s like voting to ban fox hunting – a great waste of everyone’s time and more proof (as if we ever needed it) just how much the Westminster village is out of touch with the REAL world. The whole system is a joke. Democracy? Elected representatives for the people? – pppppplease don’t insult us. Perhaps it should be time that we got rid of MP’s and ‘us’ the people go to decide on what to vote for, what to legislate and how to spend ‘our’ taxes – rather than waste millions on new laws that do nothing other than to keep Brussels/EU happy. PS – if you think that UKIP are going to ride in and save everyone – think again.. they will not, they will merge into the system and replace the LibDems. RANT over. :oP

What exactly is your issue with gay marriage? How the heck is it hurting you personally? Is it going to affect you Darren? Actually as someone who is for gay marriage my MP did not represent my views at all and I am completely disgusted at their attitudes. If churches do not want to marry gay people then that is their right and that should be respected. But there is no reason why they should not be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

These are the wrong questions to ask me. The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No. This is a cheap political tactic to win votes in the next General Election. (yes) It's the same tactic for the PM to dangle the carrot for a EU referendum. It's irrelevant on my own views on the subject and I respect that others hold different views to my own. My point is that we are in very deep economic and social problems in the UK (as are the rest of the world) and I personally want to see something being down to get us out of this mess. More jobs, people not loosing their homes, families not being torn apart, people getting into easy debt, large companies pushing up their profits - basically a lot of things that in my mind would hold a higher priority rather than if Terry and Paul now have the right to marry each other at their local church rather than hold a civil partnership. Political parties of all colours - just want to get votes and to stay in power or wait their turn till they get back into power - they are using this in order to get more votes - it's a calculation which would either work or not. Do you honestly believe that the PM cares about gay marriage rights? Of course he doesn’t.

"The right questions would be = is this bill in the interests of the majority of the Country and the answer is = No" Why isn't it in the interests of the majority of this country? I would have thought that fairness and equality for everyone is very much at the heart of the interests of the everyone in this country.

"I would have thought that fairness and equality for everyone is very much at the heart of the interests of the everyone in this country" this is an assumption on your part. Similar to myself saying that "surely we live in a democracy in the UK" or that the UK Justice system is fair, or that we have an outstanding NHS, that big companies are fair to its customers, that banks are lending to businesses or that they are helping people that are in debt, the list goes on and on - all with assumptions… The only true way of answering that question. (plus the others) is with quantitative research data. Finally I don’t know what you are looking to achieve, the bill is looking likely to be passed, so you should be happy not pointing fingers and wondering why everyone in the UK doesn’t agree with you – the majority of the MP’s do.

I just countered your claim that it is not in the interests of the majority of this country - a point which you have failed to answer.