With all the hooha about same-sex marriage, are we not seeing a small example of how the Conservative party cannot be dragged either out of the 19th century or into the centre-ground?

El Barbudo wrote:With all the hooha about same-sex marriage, are we not seeing a small example of how the Conservative party cannot be dragged either out of the 19th century or into the centre-ground? To be fair, it's not the Conservative party per se. Anyway thoughts on swivel-eyed lunacy, including the homophobic variety.

El Barbudo wrote:With all the hooha about same-sex marriage, are we not seeing a small example of how the Conservative party cannot be dragged either out of the 19th century or into the centre-ground? To be fair, it's not the Conservative party per se. Anyway thoughts on swivel-eyed lunacy, including the homophobic variety.

Well that is the point really isn't. A bill to legalise same sex marriage isn't one to legalise civil partnerships whether the latter is a good thing or not.

It's quite funny in a way as traditionally the Tory party has always promoted marriage as an institution so you might think with it being possible for all to marry if the bill goes through the logical next step for them would be to ban civil partnerships for anyone not introduce them for all. That is you either "live in sin" or marry and only if you marry do you get all the legal recognition that goes with it. Surely for a party that promotes marriage, civil partnerships become redundant once this bill goes through?

If they adopted this stance then the scare mongering about how much allowing hetrosexual couples to have a civil partnership would cost vanishes.

Mind you I think the financial implications are way overstated anyway because I don't believe there would be rush from hetrosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships. It's still a formalisation of a relationship which is a step some people never want to take even if it does grant certain legal privileges. It would be very little different to a registry office wedding as I assume similar formalities would be required with witnesses etc.

Not sure about that - one of the major reasons touted when civil partnerships were introduced was the fact that it gave gay partners a definite legal status in circumstances where a partner may die and a family would in the past have stepped in and claimed an estate, possibly because they never "approved" of a gay partner or even refused to accept that their relative could be gay - examples were given at the time of the introduction of the bill.

Same-sex marriage debate bingo card

Only because marriage wasn't on the cards for gay couples. That is there was a way for hetrosexual couples to get the legal status (get married) whereas the gay couple could not. If gay couples can marry then there is no longer a need for civil partnerships to grant them the legal status.

I am not saying I agree that there isn't a case for civil partnerships for anyone gay or not but rather a party like the Tories who value the institution of marriage could logically adopt this stance to dismiss the amendment being put forward to wreck the bill.

Are we to assume the Lords will vote against it? Meaning Cameron would have to use the Parliament Act to force it through.

I think this would factor in a time-delay of about a year, if not longer.

Assuming it is several months before this gets debated and voted on in the Lords, I can see the Bill getting pushed into the next parliament, or ditched completely.

Unlikely. Only 71 out of 212 Tories would need to support the bill as that figure in addition to the Labour + Lib Dem votes outvotes all the remaining Tories plus all the cross benchers and various other odds and bobs such as Plaid Cymru.

And that would assume absolutely everybody else objected which is not very likely.

In my view in the very unlikely event of all the 212 Tories voting against the bill there would easily be enough cross-bench support to pass it.

Lab+Lib = 99 majority over the Conservatives so you would need over half the cross-bench peers (182 of em in total) to vote against it plus ALL of the 212 Conservatives.

I can't see the entire Tory contingent rebelling against the government and even though there are other Lords (total of 58) including 25 "Lords Spiritual" (clergy) I can't see them all voting en-masse against the bill if they even turn up!

I can't see the point in civil partnerships once all couples can marry. What's the difference between a low key, non religious registry office wedding and a civil partnership?

If there was no difference, there'd have been no campaign for equal marriage.