David Cameron cops one in the chook over gay marriage

The Poms are clearly not as enlightened as us Kiwis. David Cameron facing a defeat in the House of Commons over gay marriage.

David Cameron is facing the prospect of another defeat in the Commons over his plans to legalise gay marriage.

More than 100 Conservatives are said to be ready to back a “wrecking” amendment to the same-sex marriage Bill that could cost the Treasury £4 billion.

If enough Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs also support the amendment – which would open up civil partnerships to heterosexual couples for the first time – then Mr Cameron’s plans will be in jeopardy.

The amendment, proposed by Tim Loughton, a former Tory minister who opposes same-sex marriage, will be backed by many Labour MPs, opposition sources said.

The Liberal Democrats are known to support such a reform. 

However, Downing Street sources warned that the Prime Minister would not support extending civil partnerships beyond their current application because he believed marriage was the best way to recognise commitment in relationships.

Other government sources suggested that extending civil partnerships would hit the Treasury with an extra £4 billion in pension liabilities.

Senior Tories have urged their colleagues to support the law when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill returns to the Commons today for the report stage and third reading.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, describes in The Telegraph today how the death of his gay brother from Aids convinced him to support moves to legalise marriage for same-sex couples.

He says his views were shaped by the death of his brother Charles in 1993, when “society was a far less accepting place for gay men such as him”.

However, Mr Maude’s view is fiercely opposed by many of his Conservative colleagues who take a traditionalist and often Christian view of marriage. It is understood that Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, is strongly likely to vote for amendments tabled by the Tory MP David Burrowes, intended to prevent the “erosion of traditional marriage”.

  • Andy

    The Conservative Party in the UK is facing complete meltdown as the traditional base leave in their droves and join UKIP.

    “Gay Marriage” is but one issue, the EU and the complete contempt that the political class hold the public in are the main iproblems

  • unsol

    I thought you said you didn’t like the term gay marriage?

    No surprises about the British. They were behind on women’s suffrage & if my memory is correct, they were also behind on abolishing slavery too (including abolishing it in their colonies – didn’t happen in some parts of British ruled Africa until the 1930s!).

    The UK still has a monarch (hugely ironic they happily pay taxes to cover the bludging blue blood yet not the poor – what is it the royals contribute? Oh that’s right, SFA) & a class system – of course they are not going to consider LGBT to be equal citizens.

    • grumpy

      Interesting too, that Labour is not pushing more for “Gay Marriage”. Over 300 Imans have written to both Labour and Conservatives urging the legislation to be blocked. As Labour rely on the Muslim vote, don’t expect much help from them.

      • Andy

        This is where “progressive” politics gets its knickers in a twist. Mark Steyn has plenty to say on this

      • TomTom

        Genuinely curious as to what prompts Muslims in general to back Labour in the UK? Not bashing you or anything!

        • grumpy

          Because Labour is the champion of the unemployed immigrant.

          • TomTom

            Ah. Of course.

            To be honest, it’s not unemployed immigrants you’d be worrying about over there, it’s unemployed loser kids and chavs with their pants below their arses.

          • grumpy

            OK then, children of immigrants…..

      • unsol

        It is very interesting – I always find it fascinating how anyone’s values are up for grabs when it comes to power.

        I wonder if Labour here would do the same….I reckon they would.

        • Phill

          Of course they would. Everyones values are up for grabs at the right price. FTA with China anyone? (Labour party – protecting the workers, protecting the MFTG sector – yeah right) We dont like your political system, your rampant corruption, your censorship of information, your human rights issues…but if you buy our meat and dairy products we’ll turn a blind eye…
          Now that we have $XX Billion worth of trade….no one will reverse the decision.
          For that matter, “Gimmie back my flag” Norman wont care either if he gets his Finance minister portfolio.
          Banks and Co.’s too big to fail…so if your big enough, you can make crap business decisions and rort the system to pay mind boggling bonuses, and not be penalised. This seems to be the way the word works now.

          • unsol

            Aah yes how could anyone forget the FTA with China!

            Not to mention mining…..Labour as a minority govt managed to sign off mining on conservation land (Pike River anyone!) & then there is the fact that all those who protest against mining & capitalism are of course hypocrites….

            Or just incredibly stupid if they fail to know where the every day products they use/wear come from (phones, computers, glasses, jewellery, TVs etc etc)

            Gimmie back my flag Norman…if there was ever any doubt he is a moron there was none after that incident!

    • Mediaan

      That monarchy you dismiss so glibly contributes massively to Britain’s attractiveness as a tourist destination. Just for starters. The Queen’s value as a “brand” would be greater than any other brand in marketing history, if one classified it in such terms.

      Way more valuable than anything like google and coca cola, if you are talking cash value.

      The same monarchy has also provided a stable nominal leadership of the entire political structure for centuries.

      It is loved and trusted by Britons and others, and forms part of their pride in their country.

      It provides a superior behaviour example and a stable background to the entire country’s social dealings.

    • Mediaan

      And, if you really believe that utter nonsense about Britain’s taxes “not contributing to the poor”, you are most certainly on the wrong blog site.

      • unsol

        No, your inability to read properly means you are on the wrong blog site.

        I said it was “hugely ironic that they they happily pay taxes….to cover the bludging blue blood”

        • Mediaan

          “Yet not the poor,” to quote you. In regard to paying taxes to cover things.

          Mysteriously, you go on to imply that the poor contribute more than some others. (Evidence? Clarification?)

          Quote:
          “The UK still has a monarch (hugely ironic they happily pay taxes to cover the bludging blue blood yet not the poor – what is it the royals contribute? Oh that’s right, SFA) & a class system – of course they are not going to consider LGBT to be equal citizens.”

          • unsol

            Explaining is losing and I’m no loser – so get your glasses, take a deep breath & re- read very carefully.

            I have faith in you mediaan. I am certain you will be able to comprehend my comment properly.

    • Phill

      “Members of the Royal Family carry out public duties; these individuals receive an annual payment known as a Parliamentary Annuity, the funds being supplied to cover office costs.
      These amounts are repaid by HM The Queen from her private funds.
      Though always voluntarily subject to the Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, HM The Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1992, although the details of this arrangement are both voluntary and secret. At the same time it was announced that only HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh would receive civil list payments. Since 1993, HM The Queen’s personal estate (e.g. shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, though bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt.

      Hardly bludgers, and contributing a lot more than S.F.A….
      You need to do some reading…..

      • unsol

        The monarch’s private funds have been amassed via the hard work of net taxpayers; the public duties is not real work any more than a rich housewife running her home & various charities is.

        The monarch are bludgers just the same as public servants. They have a position of privilege because of money originally earned & that is continuing to be earned by others.

    • parorchestia

      I thought that the trade in slaves was abolished in 1807 and slaves were liberated throughout the Empire in 1833 – well ahead of other countries (there are still 27 million slaves today).
      The Brits then forced other countries to follow. The US was slow and did not liberate its slaves until in massive piece of political chicanery Lincoln liberated the slaves late in the Civil War to prevent Europe supporting the South.
      As for the Monarch – economic analysis shows that the country does very well out of them, and what would you rather have – them or a power mad president like the Yanks and Russians seem to get? Give me corgis anytime!

      • unsol

        Can you please reference that? It has been many years since I researched slavery – my understanding that the British were actually behind the US (protecting the sugar cane industry), especially when including all those in the Commonwealth.

        • parorchestia

          Hi Unsol. Here are some refs: The first is about the present day, then I ref Brit history and then the US. Hope it helps.

          The ref below has an account of slavery today though they quote much higher figures than those I found elsewhere. I expect my average of 27 M is conservative.
          http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/default.aspx

          The ref below is a good account of the British slavery record (a pretty spotty record I agree, and slave owning wasn’t finally abolished in Jamaica until the slaves revolted in 1839.) But they were decades ahead of any other country.
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/antislavery_01.shtml

          The US has an even less distinguished history as shown by this time line
          http://www.ushistory.org/more/timeline.htm

          Lincoln’s attitude to slavery is explored (well) here
          http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0027.203/–lincoln-and-negro-slavery-i-havent-got-time-for-the-pain?rgn=main;view=fulltext

          It also corrects the time line (above) in pointing out that the USA was well behind the UK in public attitudes.

          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
          The above gives a more balanced view than is generally available from US sources, since Lincoln is seen as a saint in that country – but he certainly wasn’t! Eg., He could have negotiated a peaceful end to the civil war 2 years or so before he final collapse. And he wasn’t a pacific and peaceful man as many have portrayed him. His hypocrisy is shown by this quote from Africans in America.

          “Though “contraband” slaves had been declared free, Lincoln continued to insist that this was a war to save the Union, not to free slaves. But by 1862, Lincoln was considering emancipation as a necessary step toward winning the war. The South was using enslaved people to aid the war effort. Black men and women were forced to build fortifications, work as blacksmiths, nurses, boatmen, and laundresses, and to work in factories, hospitals, and armories. In the meantime, the North was refusing to accept the services of black volunteers and freed slaves, the very people who most wanted to defeat the slaveholders. In addition, several governments in Europe were considering recognizing the Confederacy and intervening against the Union. If Lincoln declared this a war to free the slaves, European public opinion would overwhelmingly back the North.”
          Cheers

          • unsol

            Thank you – will definitely have a read. I find it an interesting & fascinating topic re how it, colonialism & the industrial revolution has shaped the world we see today

          • parorchestia

            Yes, I may be cynical but slavery was only given up when machines were sufficiently well advanced to replace them and make slavery unnecessary.
            Now we are witnessing wage, or better low wage slavery in many countries.

          • unsol

            Not cynical – being honest! And great point re low wage slavery.

            I always find it hugely ironic when people protest against mining & capitalism & yet fail to make the connection between the things they buy & the things they are supposedly against.

  • Dickie Jones

    “Next.”

    “Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”

    “Names?”

    “Tim and Jim Jones.”

    “Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance.”

    “Yes, we’re brothers.”

    “Brothers?? You can’t get married.”

    “Why not?? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender
    couples?”

    “Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”

    “Incest?” No, we are not gay.”

    “Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?”

    “For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.

    Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”

    “But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve

    been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you

    can get married to a woman.”

    “Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I

    have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a

    woman. I want to marry Jim.”

    “And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us

    just because we are not gay?”

    “All right, all
    right.. I’ll give you your license. Next.”

    Keep going…

    “Hi. We are here to
    get married.”

    Names?”

    “John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”

    “Who wants to marry whom?”

    “We all want to marry each other.”

    “But there are four of you!”

    “That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,

    Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves

    June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that

    we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”

    “But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”

    “So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”

    “No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that

    it’s just for couples.”

    “Since when are you standing on tradition?”

    “Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”

    “Who says?? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.

    The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the

    constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a

    marriage license!”

    Still going…

    “All right, all
    right. Next.”

    “That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of
    marriage!!”

    • Andy

      Monty Python was here before ..

    • BJ

      Yes a mockery indeed. So it’s little wonder that Britain is upholding higher standards resisting the slide into a laughable social situation as you describe.

  • Changeiscoming

    Lets hope John Key “cops one in the chook” at the next election also over his support of same sex marriage.

    • TomTom

      Funnily enough, there haven’t been a sea change in poll numbers. In fact there hasn’t been any freaking change in the polls so he isn’t going to cop it because of his support of marriage equality.

      • unsol

        Given most people do actually support marriage equality if anything passing this Bill has given him a buffer re the other dramas (Gilmore included).

        Further the whole threat of poll numbers – means nothing. Swapping to CC = Nat led govt, swapping to the left means Labour led. For a conservative to vote in a way that results in Labour getting back in – a party with more rainbow than not, well the irony would be priceless.

        I despise Labour & if I didn’t think they could cripple this country in 3 short years I would wish for it as the post election entertainment re handwringing & wailing of the so-called hard core right (who, like most families, are probably feeding off the taxpayer’s tit via WFF!) would be almost worth it. :-)

        • TomTom

          Entertainment. I definitely wouldn’t mind a bit of country wrecking for a spot of entertainment.

        • BR

          How do you know that homo “marriage” is supported by “most people”? Every opinion poll shows the exact opposite.

          Bill.

          • grumpy

            Correct!

  • Mediaan

    Thank goodness the Brits have enough brainpower to consider added pension liabilities. Well done, the Brits.

    Don’t remember a word on that matter here, when it was coming along the tracks towards us. It was all witless flapping mouths and talk of kindness and equality, (cf. the articulate and noisy GayGuy on this blog site). Totally left out effects on children, too.

    • unsol

      Effects on children? Love to know what these are – care to share oh enlightened one?

      Let me get you started:

      98% of all child molestation is committed by males. Of those that offend against girls 100% of them are hetero as are 80% of those who offend against boys. So that means 20% of less than half of all child molestation cases are committed by gay men. Hmmmm.

      Lesbians – of which there are more of as in NZ women outnumber men by around 70,000, don’t seem to molest kids. Go figure.

      But NZ hetero women on the other hand, like to assist in beating, abusing & neglecting their kids including failing to provide them with proper nutrition.

      Seems to me that heteros are the biggest threat to our children….20,000 children being abused, neglected & maltreated in NZ each year would agree with me.

      Opus probandi now shifts to you – my info is easily verified ….feel free to check out statistics NZ, MOH, & organisations like Rape Crisis et al.

      • unsol

        P.S cameron – you’re welcome re page views :-)

      • Mediaan

        Adoption. It brought in the second partner, legally sharing the adoption for the first time. The child was adopted by one homosexual partner, prior to that.

        Which meant that anyone who had previously thought, “Partner Two is in my opinion unfit to be a parent, but that’s okay I guess because only Partner One is herewith adopting”, suddenly had the ground swept away from under their feet.

        It retrospectively (I think) changes that.

        It was one of the most significant matters changed by the legislation, as was widely acknowledged by those who had studied the wording of the Bill.

        • unsol

          Adoption – news flash it was already happening. The law merely meant that instead of being a permanent guardian the second spouse can now adopt.

          And by using this as a potential objection you are still implying that being gay means the child is more at-risk.

          So prove it.

      • Mediaan

        Quote from you:
        “Of those that offend against girls 100% of them are hetero as are 80% of those who offend against boys.”

        Wrong, actually.

        You couldn’t be expected to know, but the homosexual molesters tell the female child to look the other way and not say a word, and then they take them from the back.

        • unsol

          Saying I am wrong means nothing if you can’t prove it.

          So prove it.

    • TomTom

      Sooooo. You think that one reason that same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry is because of increased pension costs. Excellent! You demonstrate much regard for basic equality between all human beings!

  • LesleyNZ

    And what would Maggie T have done?

83%