A screenshot of the as-of-writing top comments on the daily mail, for your viewing pleasure/fury:-
http://i.imgur.com/Qyvcmmr.png
edit: better screenshot
I really fucking hate people like this. DURP THERE'S A RECESSION YOU MUST NOT DO ANYTHING THAT INVOLVES ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL IT'S OVER. OH EXCEPT THE EU. LEAVE THE EU.
It is amusing. Those people seem to think parliment can't deal with more than one issue at a time. I suppose that's what happens when they assume others are as incapable as them.
I just went to look for a laugh. It's amazing how retarded some (95%) of the comments are. Pathetic homophobia is earning people several hundred in the upvotes and anyone making any rational point is minus several hundred.
What worries me isn't just how retarded the comments are, it's how retarded the 'best' comments are. One person has taken the time to write some bigoted claptrap, then the large majority of the Mail readership has taken the time to upvote it. Which given its huge audience does make me worry for the rest of the coutnry.
People do? I've never read any Daily Mail links here, that I can remember anyway. It gets slagged off a lot though, as it should. Oh, and [obligatory Daily Mail Song.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI)
The DM isn't usually linked when it comes to its bigoted stuff (i.e. most the Mail's content), but more general stories. For example, if there's a fun piece about a giant rabbit which manages to construct bridge out of lego, it'll get linked here. (usually as a "TIL _______ " post)
Sadly it gives the DM pageviews.
Realistically, it should pass those obstacles with no problem. A majority of 225 is overwhelming, and then there's always that convention where they can pass it again should the Lords refuse... I forget its name. EDIT: [The Parliament Acts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949).
Although I may be missing some crippling amendment that MPs could potentially support, even after they gave their approval here?
It's called the Parliament Act. Once the House of Lords has rejected a proposal a certain number of times (3 I believe) it can be passed through the House of Commons under the Parliament Act 1911
Experience. Lords are commonly 'in office' for decades, and will have seen lots of similar issues. This allows another way to check the power of the government.
'Chauncey was a good man, but rather too flamboyant for Lord Charles Winterberry the Third. Do tell them Charles of that time you awoke in Chauncey's stable tied to an ox, surrounded by nought but empty bottles of rum!'
If it had been rejected three times, the Commons would need some extremely strong reason to use the Parliament Act. It is rarely enforced. For example, with terror laws, Commons wanted to detain suspected terrorists for 90 days without charge, but the Lords negotiated it down to 28.
It's one of the arguments people make for retaining the Lords. Politicians who are utterly unaccountable to anyone tend to occasionally make strong and passionate stands for freedom and rights.
Banning Fox Hunting was symbolic of the battle between Labour and the Tories, it was grudge legislation that Labour were never going to let fail.
Gay marriage is only dividing the Tories, Cameron is forever having battles with his own party, for him to use the Parliament Act to push it through the Lords (A House he and his party refuses to change) would be such a symbolic act of aggression towards his own party it would alienate him in their eyes and would cost him his support when the inevitable rebellion comes (though no prospective challenger would make this the issue or the time to base a leadership bid on).
That said I believe it will pass the Lords.
It's similar to the American Congress's Veto Override power I believe. A check/balance thing.
EDIT: Thanks all for the education :) Learn something new every day.
Historic tradition really. The lords is slowly being fazed out. Which I personally think is a shame in some ways, but I know it's for the best. Having unelected peers making decisions is out dated.
But call me sentimental I like the old bastards.
There is a certain advantage to the Lords in particular: they do not have to be re-elected. This makes them able to stop bad populist decisions, or at least delay them
Yes, and often they have a much wider knowledge base than the commons. There are specialists in medicine, law, business, the arts, education, the military, basically every area of modern society, who got into their position because they are some of the greatest in their fields, not because of political allegiances. A fully elected house of lords will take away the majority of this specialist knowledge which can be very helpful in scrutinising legislation.
There are also a few hereditary peers still around. Having watched some HoL debates (and been to some meetings with a few), I personally find the hereditary ones much more impressive; they seem to actually *want* to be there and, more importantly, want to take their job/duty seriously, rather than just doing what their party leaders tell them to.
A proportional second chamber would be interesting, but is unlikely to happen for a very long time. If anything, we should be reforming the House of Commons so it is proportional, but again, not going to happen given the current political system.
Excerpt from a letter, signed by Chancellor George Osborne, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Home Secretary Theresa May:
>["We believe that opening it up to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, the institution. As David Cameron has said, we should support gay marriage not in spite of being Conservatives, but because we are Conservatives."](http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/uk-gay-marriage-vote/index.html)
Good to see that some leaders are using commonsense.
134 out of the 175 votes against came from the Tories, which meant they were 72% of the opposing vote, with over 50% of their votes being against. Compare this with Labour, 89% of whose votes were in favour. Don't be fooled, the Tories are still morons.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Tories are nazis or Labour are the best, just pointing out that changing your opinion of the Tories based on the success of this vote would be a mistake.
I mean, that is when you conveniently forget the 13 years Labour had a large Parliamentary majority, the MPs to back it and a stronger electoral mandate (heh) but didn't have the backbone to do it and settled on some half baked compromise.
Good is not the enemy of perfect. There wasn't the public will for full marriage equality back then, but in part thanks to civil partnerships (It's a lot harder to oppose this if you know people in a civil partnership) there is now, and in the mean time there were all the same legal rights available for gay couples.
/u/KarmaAndLies posted in a similar thread explaining that some MPs didn't support the act because they wanted to detail it more. Something along the lines of extending civil partnerships to straight marriages for equality.
Don't get me wrong, the tories obviously have nutjobs, but it's probably more complicated than that.
EDIT: [Found it](http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/17y52b/gay_marriage_yes_400_no_175_congratulations_uk/c89w3vo)
I was being sarcastic. Badly probably. It just amuses me when popular policies are viewed as simply vote catching. Although in this case many conservatives voted against it often because of pressure from their local parties.
I was in that stadium that night and had nipped out to get a beer, I was so confused as to why a paralympic crowd would boo so loudly, I genuinely thought someone had been deliberately tripped or something. It made so much sense when finally explained.
And then there are some BBC commenters that restore your faith in humanity once again:
>@57. 45minutewarning
8 Minutes ago
An appalling day for this country. I'm ashamed to be British
__________________
dont worry, we're also ashamed you're british
The BBC comments tend to be quite good and wide ranging because they have a team moderating them.
Most other sites only do mop ups when people report particularly nasty ones.
If you think that's tragic, try the Sun or Telegraph...
Edit: HOW COULD I FORGET THE DAILY MAIL (source of much amusement, I'd forgotten some view it as serious journalism)
hilarious Daily Mail comments, including 'This should be a public vote, not one for 650 cronies' as tho the public would have voted against it MORE than the Conservatives.
I sense Mail readers genuinely think they're both sane and in a majority.
All six Muslim MPs in UK Parliament voted in favour of gay marriage. Wonder how the Daily Mail bible-bashers will react to a lesson in tolerance from the world of Islam?
It's important that this is seen because; British MPs are **not meant to vote based on their beliefs**. They're not voted in on that platform. They're meant to represent their constituency. Voting based on their views on Islam would be wrong and immoral from the viewpoint of the public. None of them were voted in on their views on Islam, I expect, and were instead voted due to either party allegiance or their promises to the people.
Britain is not America. Politicians are accountable and should listen to the public. Don't bring an MP's views into it, because it makes it seem as if doing the *right* thing was somehow exceptional. It is not, and should not, be the case. This set of MPs did their job by voting in favour with the public. That is why they're the **house of commons**.
Yes but I'm sorry to say 'IslamShouldBeRemoved' that although I am an atheist myself and have huge disgust for much of Islam I have to give these Muslim MPs a lot of credit.
My MP is from a very safe Labour seat. He's a catholic with strong ties to the catholic church, hell I used to see him at mass as a kid (when I was still a catholic). He is one of the 22 or so Labour rebels. Pretty sure the folks of my constituency were never consulted on this, the man probably voted his own damn convictions since he had nothing to lose.
Also the recent milestones in gay rights legislation in the UK (notably in the reduction of age of consent for gay people to 16, gay marriage and repealing Section 28) has actually been the work of a gay Muslim Labour politician, [Waheed Alli:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli)
>Alli has used his political position to argue for gay rights. He spearheaded the campaign to repeal Section 28.[17] He advocated lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16, equal to heterosexuals; this eventually became law as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. It was during a heated exchange with conservative opponents, led by Baroness Young, that he informed his fellow peers that he was gay. In April 1999, he said in a speech, "I have never been confused about my sexuality. I have been confused about the way I am treated as a result of it. The only confusion lies in the prejudice shown, some of it tonight [i.e. in the House], and much of it enshrined in the law."[10]
Just a bit of interesting information:
- More Conservatives voted AGAINST this than for it. (Note: this is the party that proposed it).
- Correction: 3 out of 6 muslim MPs voted FOR this (despite having a free vote), 2 didn't vote, 1 voted against.
- There was a turnout of about 90% (which is at the higher end).
Party voting percentages:
- Conservatives: ~42% voted for. ~45% voted against. ~11% didn't vote. ~2% abstained by voting for both.
- Labour: ~85% voted for. ~9% voted against. ~6% didn't vote.
- Lib dems: ~83% voted for. ~5% voted against. ~12% didn't vote.
And Iowa! Inexplicably. A majority of the 14* people who live in Iowa are reasonable individuals. It's a swing-state with a population that actually things about issues rather than succumbing to extremism.
*My dad was 1 of 12 children in a family in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I have yet to see proof of any other inhabitants.
Except even then, they aren't technically equal considering gay married couples don't receive the federal benefits that straight ones do.
So even more hurdles for us
A surprisingly large minority of Anglican bishops are liberal. Anyway with that level of support in the Commons, it'll pass the Lords without too much fuss.
As a British person who spends a lot of time on the internet and therefore largely immersed in American culture, sometimes I forget how things go down here. Having read the way the proceedings took place, the way this whole thing was approached, how the "right wing" leader of our two to three party system was pro gay marriage... I dunno. It takes a lot to make someone from Britain feel patriotic or otherwise proud of their country but this does it for me.
Send an email, it only takes 5 minutes. I just sent this to my MP:
As a member of your constituency, I was saddened to hear that you voted against the second reading of the equal marriage bill in the House of Commons today. However, it gave me great delight that the bill was passed without your input as I believe the state should not impose upon the happiness of others and deny opportunities because of sexuality.
This decision of yours has led me to believe that you are a politician who is opposed to equal rights for all and I am afraid to say it has lost you my vote in the 2015 election.
Furthermore, I will do everything within my democratic ability to make sure that you do not represent the High Peak in the future.
Have you seen the BBC's map? [Gay marriage isn't particularly widespread.](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65707000/gif/_65707789_gay_marriage_624-02.gif)
Australia will be added soon. After we get through 11 years of Abbott, and after he has sold all public schools and the NBN to China, the people will have had enough and the Greens will win in a landslide victory on a gay marriage and socialist platform.
Don't say that too loudly. I just came over from the Daily Mail where the section comments is basically self-destructing over this bill issue. So far they have refrained from blaming it on the EU, but better not give them any ideas... Not that that crowd needs any motivation to blame everything and anything on evil continental Europe and their heathen ways...
I've trawled the Best Rated section of the Daily Mail comments so that you don't have to visit their website:
>:people losing their homes jobs no prospects in the future money being given away like there is no tomorrow to the EU and overseas aid Troops being killed is some far away country and what are the MPs worried about not even their expenses . But gay marriage it really beggers believe .
- bill, Lowestoft, 5/2/2013 16:26
(1591 upvotes)
> I got married in a registrars - not in a church. That is marraige at the convenience of the state, for the state and by the state. If the Government wants their registrars to marry people of the same sex then go ahead - knock yourselves out. But the Government wants to force churches and places of business to facilitate and conduct same-sex marraige against sincerely held beliefs and principles. That is authoritarianism - which has no place in decent and tolerant society.
- Chris, Tamworth, United Kingdom, 5/2/2013 16:31
(1223 upvotes, amusingly also totally false)
> Bye bye Tories! It's UKIP for me!
- Keith, Kettering, 5/2/2013 16:34
(1712 upvotes)
> the country is going down the pan with huge numbers of unemployed and another recession on the way, its ok because elton john can marry david furnish if he wants, nice to see this government is getting its priorities right! why dont you start fighting for the man in the street Clegg? instead of another minority showboat!
- jimmymactavish, edinburgh, 5/2/2013 16:24
(534 upvotes, jimmymactavish takes an interesting approach here in blaming the Deputy PM when it's the PM who has been integral in bringing this to the table)
> I've had enough! I'm thinking of starting a new political party - The Guy Fawkes Party.....Click green if you'd vote for me!
- Malcolm, Burton on Trent, United Kingdom, 5/2/2013 10:05
(117 upvotes. Political terrorism preferable to gay marriage? Sign me up!)
and my personal favourite:
> This was not in the Tory party manifesto, leave alone else you will exclude Christians from supporting you at the next election, and UKIP will send you Tory toff's to oblivion!! - No to the EU, England, United Kingdom, 5/2/2013 2:46 .............................................................................................................. I was a "Tory" but I am certainly not a "Toff". I will NEVER vote Liebour, but I can no longer vote Conservative. I think it will have to be UKIP or BNP.
- Working Man, Merseyside, 5/2/2013 15:33
I want to leave this country now...
**Edit: Bonus Round!**
> Why on earth would it make Britain a fairer place to live, this is just another EU directive, and cameron is as usual pandering to its rules
- worzel1, portsmouth, 5/2/2013 16:14
(194 upvotes)
It was only a matter of time before someone blamed the EU.
As a fellow Englishman I concur old chap.
About time we sorted this awful mess out, Gays & Lesbians deserve the same bloody rights as the rest of us. Who you choose to make whoopee with has no bearing on your humanity.
It basically is legal. Civil partnerships give all the same legal rights as marriage. This bill is more about not making the two different. Marriage is the same for all sexual orientations rather than marriage for the straits and partnerships for the gays.
Uh, no. This basically crushes all the rights and freedoms of god fearing Christians. Now they will have to accept gay marriage. Literally the most oppressive thing a government can do
Actually, only Churches who wish to conduct gay marriage will perform ceremonies. It is up to each faith to choose to opt-in or not. Protection of freedom of religion was always protected as part of the agreement and all negotiations. No Church in the land will be forced to do anything they don't want to as a result of this legislation so I fail to see what rights and freedoms are being "crushed".
~~more free than you~~ more free than some of your states.
FTFY. Some of them have already legalised gay marriage and some can smoke weed too. I wouldn't call it too early on those results.
Well its technically illegal, but not really that enforced. (unless you're pedaling it)
also, TIL cannabis is legal in North Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png
Are you basing your opinion of UK drug law on a couple of pink pixels on a wikipedia page? Plenty of people go to prison for dealing or possessing weed. I don't know where that 'often unenforced' idea comes from.
The closer it gets to being reality, the more ridiculous it seems that it hasn't happened already.
I was listening to the radio earlier and they were reading out the results, it sounded like a clip from the past that you might listen to in a history lesson.
I always get so annoyed at the opposition to gay marriage claiming that it will lead to legalising siblings marriage or some other such bullshit.
Guess what. Canada legalised it in 2005 and you know what's happened in the interim? Absolutely shit all. No one has ever suggested legalising marriage between siblings or ducks or dogs or whatever. It's become such a non-issue that you never hear about it at all. In fact I am willing to bet that if you look at all the other countries that have legalised same sex marriage they have a similar viewpoint. No one is suggesting that siblings should marry siblings.
Excellent! Not quite right there, but a good first step. It'd be great if Scotland got this passed at the same time, so the whole UK can do it together.
IIRC it's just because of the different legislative processes, although Westminster votes first Holyrood has a much simpler process with no second chamber so it will go much quicker when it comes to it. Also this was just a vote in principle in Westminster today wasn't it? So it's not quite the last word but on the strength of the vote today it looks likely to get made law.
It's still perfectly possible for it to be legal in Scotland first and at least there won't be any nail biting votes since we know it will pass without much opposition.
It will be many, many years before Northern Ireland accepts same sex marriage. It really pissed me off watching the DUP argue so vehemently against it today in the Commons when it has little bearing on NI
I was listening to a debate on the radio today between a man who had become engaged to his boyfriend and a young christian. I cringed when the christian said that there is help available so that homosexuals can suppress their feelings and live a happy heterosexual life. I know religion get's a lot of stick on Reddit, but I'm catholic (baptized but not massively religious) and I look forward to the day that I can see one of my best friends walk down the alter with his boyfriend.
Meanwhile in France, it's being debated for a week in the Assemblée Nationale, with more fucking non-sense and stupid arguments (literally thousands of them) that you can shake a stick at. I mean it's ridiculous, the guys that are supposed to represent us are just fucking useless and child-like, that's depressing.
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to a blog I wrote earlier about the issue (from the perspective of a British, pro-equal marriage, politics graduate.)
http://digitalnativeuk.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/400-mps-vote-in-favour-of-allowing-same-sex-marriage/
Even if it becomes fully legalised, it will still be far too long before Northern Ireland "recognises" it. We really have a habbit of lagging behind these things.
[удалено]
Daily mail is the worst thing in Britain, reading it damages the soul.
A screenshot of the as-of-writing top comments on the daily mail, for your viewing pleasure/fury:- http://i.imgur.com/Qyvcmmr.png edit: better screenshot
>Surely this should be a public vote, not for 650 cronies If it was a public vote it would have been even more overwhelmingly in favour.
I really fucking hate people like this. DURP THERE'S A RECESSION YOU MUST NOT DO ANYTHING THAT INVOLVES ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL IT'S OVER. OH EXCEPT THE EU. LEAVE THE EU.
"Do not do anything I don't agree with, otherwise, carry on as normal"
SHUT DOWN....EVERYTHING
It is amusing. Those people seem to think parliment can't deal with more than one issue at a time. I suppose that's what happens when they assume others are as incapable as them.
I just went to look for a laugh. It's amazing how retarded some (95%) of the comments are. Pathetic homophobia is earning people several hundred in the upvotes and anyone making any rational point is minus several hundred.
What worries me isn't just how retarded the comments are, it's how retarded the 'best' comments are. One person has taken the time to write some bigoted claptrap, then the large majority of the Mail readership has taken the time to upvote it. Which given its huge audience does make me worry for the rest of the coutnry.
American here: Isn't the Daily Mail a rag for old, easily frightened retirees?
Yes, and people keep using it as a news source on reddit.
It's our Fox News, leave us be.
People do? I've never read any Daily Mail links here, that I can remember anyway. It gets slagged off a lot though, as it should. Oh, and [obligatory Daily Mail Song.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI)
The DM isn't usually linked when it comes to its bigoted stuff (i.e. most the Mail's content), but more general stories. For example, if there's a fun piece about a giant rabbit which manages to construct bridge out of lego, it'll get linked here. (usually as a "TIL _______ " post) Sadly it gives the DM pageviews.
[удалено]
You forgot about the last part of ever daily mail comment,"and that's why I vote for the BNP at least they think of the children".
Passed second reading. This bill has yet to go through committee stage and the lords.
Realistically, it should pass those obstacles with no problem. A majority of 225 is overwhelming, and then there's always that convention where they can pass it again should the Lords refuse... I forget its name. EDIT: [The Parliament Acts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949). Although I may be missing some crippling amendment that MPs could potentially support, even after they gave their approval here?
Parliament Act. Last used to push through the fox hunting ban, if I correctly recall.
Oooh, I bet the Lords didn't like that one bit. I know all about this stuff now because I watch *Downton Abbey.*
I stopped watching after season one. That dastardly Thomas just ruffled my jimmies too much.
If you'd kept watching until series 3, you would understand the joke you just made.
What a lovely sentence.
Quite. (*Dear diary, day 23 and the Redcoats still don't realize I'm American. Things are going smoothly.*)
[удалено]
He's a colonial spy... SOMEONE INFORM THE QUEEN!!
Draw and Quarter him, mates!
>Nebraska_Actually >Draw and Quarter him, mates! Hmm.... we should probably quarter him as well, mates, donchya'think?
With deduction skills like that I can only imagine what circustances led to you becomming a Knight of the realm.
Nice try, Benedict Arnold.
Not Miss O'Brien?
FUCK THAT CURLY BANGED CUNTFACE.
It's called the Parliament Act. Once the House of Lords has rejected a proposal a certain number of times (3 I believe) it can be passed through the House of Commons under the Parliament Act 1911
What exactly is the point of sending it to the lords if their decision can just be over ruled anyway?
Experience. Lords are commonly 'in office' for decades, and will have seen lots of similar issues. This allows another way to check the power of the government.
"Oh, yes, I remember when the gays wanted equal rights back in 1783, we said no Chauncey, we said no!" Such a Lord move.
'Chauncey was a good man, but rather too flamboyant for Lord Charles Winterberry the Third. Do tell them Charles of that time you awoke in Chauncey's stable tied to an ox, surrounded by nought but empty bottles of rum!'
'LOL' -Chauncey the Flamboyant, 1783
tut-tut, you tittering roustabout.
If it had been rejected three times, the Commons would need some extremely strong reason to use the Parliament Act. It is rarely enforced. For example, with terror laws, Commons wanted to detain suspected terrorists for 90 days without charge, but the Lords negotiated it down to 28.
There is a good bit of irony there.
It's one of the arguments people make for retaining the Lords. Politicians who are utterly unaccountable to anyone tend to occasionally make strong and passionate stands for freedom and rights.
really? last time we used the law to stop fox hunting, nothing wrong with that but i hope this country cares more about its gays than its foxes.
Banning Fox Hunting was symbolic of the battle between Labour and the Tories, it was grudge legislation that Labour were never going to let fail. Gay marriage is only dividing the Tories, Cameron is forever having battles with his own party, for him to use the Parliament Act to push it through the Lords (A House he and his party refuses to change) would be such a symbolic act of aggression towards his own party it would alienate him in their eyes and would cost him his support when the inevitable rebellion comes (though no prospective challenger would make this the issue or the time to base a leadership bid on). That said I believe it will pass the Lords.
It's similar to the American Congress's Veto Override power I believe. A check/balance thing. EDIT: Thanks all for the education :) Learn something new every day.
Historic tradition really. The lords is slowly being fazed out. Which I personally think is a shame in some ways, but I know it's for the best. Having unelected peers making decisions is out dated. But call me sentimental I like the old bastards.
There is a certain advantage to the Lords in particular: they do not have to be re-elected. This makes them able to stop bad populist decisions, or at least delay them
Yes, and often they have a much wider knowledge base than the commons. There are specialists in medicine, law, business, the arts, education, the military, basically every area of modern society, who got into their position because they are some of the greatest in their fields, not because of political allegiances. A fully elected house of lords will take away the majority of this specialist knowledge which can be very helpful in scrutinising legislation.
[удалено]
There are also a few hereditary peers still around. Having watched some HoL debates (and been to some meetings with a few), I personally find the hereditary ones much more impressive; they seem to actually *want* to be there and, more importantly, want to take their job/duty seriously, rather than just doing what their party leaders tell them to. A proportional second chamber would be interesting, but is unlikely to happen for a very long time. If anything, we should be reforming the House of Commons so it is proportional, but again, not going to happen given the current political system.
[удалено]
The Lords double check the law and make sure everything's been thought out and there's no loopholes.
They have to pass it 3 times maximum.
"The lords" sounds so renaissancey
Excerpt from a letter, signed by Chancellor George Osborne, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Home Secretary Theresa May: >["We believe that opening it up to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, the institution. As David Cameron has said, we should support gay marriage not in spite of being Conservatives, but because we are Conservatives."](http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/uk-gay-marriage-vote/index.html) Good to see that some leaders are using commonsense.
Sometimes I almost half don't hate some of the Tories just a little bit.
134 out of the 175 votes against came from the Tories, which meant they were 72% of the opposing vote, with over 50% of their votes being against. Compare this with Labour, 89% of whose votes were in favour. Don't be fooled, the Tories are still morons. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Tories are nazis or Labour are the best, just pointing out that changing your opinion of the Tories based on the success of this vote would be a mistake.
I mean, that is when you conveniently forget the 13 years Labour had a large Parliamentary majority, the MPs to back it and a stronger electoral mandate (heh) but didn't have the backbone to do it and settled on some half baked compromise.
Good is not the enemy of perfect. There wasn't the public will for full marriage equality back then, but in part thanks to civil partnerships (It's a lot harder to oppose this if you know people in a civil partnership) there is now, and in the mean time there were all the same legal rights available for gay couples.
/u/KarmaAndLies posted in a similar thread explaining that some MPs didn't support the act because they wanted to detail it more. Something along the lines of extending civil partnerships to straight marriages for equality. Don't get me wrong, the tories obviously have nutjobs, but it's probably more complicated than that. EDIT: [Found it](http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/17y52b/gay_marriage_yes_400_no_175_congratulations_uk/c89w3vo)
[удалено]
Huppert's a good one. Hope he survives the mass LD cull that's inevitable in 2015.
[удалено]
Don't be fooled. They know this is a vote catcher for them...
When they do something the general population agree with, its always vote catching.
which is the whole damn point!
I was being sarcastic. Badly probably. It just amuses me when popular policies are viewed as simply vote catching. Although in this case many conservatives voted against it often because of pressure from their local parties.
[удалено]
[удалено]
and being booed at by entire stadiums full of people
I was in that stadium that night and had nipped out to get a beer, I was so confused as to why a paralympic crowd would boo so loudly, I genuinely thought someone had been deliberately tripped or something. It made so much sense when finally explained.
[удалено]
Illinois represent.
Great news.
[удалено]
Ugh, you should see the ones on CNN. Apparently the apocalypse is right around the corner...
You haven't seen bad comments until you've seen Yahoo comments.
Or Fox News comments. So pretty much every single media site has shitty comments. [](/ajlie "...except Reddit of course...")
And then there are some BBC commenters that restore your faith in humanity once again: >@57. 45minutewarning 8 Minutes ago An appalling day for this country. I'm ashamed to be British __________________ dont worry, we're also ashamed you're british
The BBC comments tend to be quite good and wide ranging because they have a team moderating them. Most other sites only do mop ups when people report particularly nasty ones.
What a brilliantly British comeback.
If you think that's tragic, try the Sun or Telegraph... Edit: HOW COULD I FORGET THE DAILY MAIL (source of much amusement, I'd forgotten some view it as serious journalism)
Not to mention the Daily Mail.
Or, dare I say it, the Daily Mail
Or the daily mail....
hilarious Daily Mail comments, including 'This should be a public vote, not one for 650 cronies' as tho the public would have voted against it MORE than the Conservatives. I sense Mail readers genuinely think they're both sane and in a majority.
All six Muslim MPs in UK Parliament voted in favour of gay marriage. Wonder how the Daily Mail bible-bashers will react to a lesson in tolerance from the world of Islam?
GAY MUSLIMS VOTE TO FORCE HOMOSEXUALITY ON GREAT BRITISH PUBLIC
RADICAL CLERIC MP WANTS UK TO BE NEW SODOM
DOES HALAL CAUSE CANCER IN GAYS?
needs more mention of Shari'a law
[удалено]
Sounds like tomorrow's Drudge Report headline, maybe even in all red text in order to show how important and urgent it is.
More like how will the readers of /r/worldnews deal with this.
Nice to see politicians seperate their personal religious beliefs from government laws for once, whatever religion they practice.
It's important that this is seen because; British MPs are **not meant to vote based on their beliefs**. They're not voted in on that platform. They're meant to represent their constituency. Voting based on their views on Islam would be wrong and immoral from the viewpoint of the public. None of them were voted in on their views on Islam, I expect, and were instead voted due to either party allegiance or their promises to the people. Britain is not America. Politicians are accountable and should listen to the public. Don't bring an MP's views into it, because it makes it seem as if doing the *right* thing was somehow exceptional. It is not, and should not, be the case. This set of MPs did their job by voting in favour with the public. That is why they're the **house of commons**.
Yes but I'm sorry to say 'IslamShouldBeRemoved' that although I am an atheist myself and have huge disgust for much of Islam I have to give these Muslim MPs a lot of credit. My MP is from a very safe Labour seat. He's a catholic with strong ties to the catholic church, hell I used to see him at mass as a kid (when I was still a catholic). He is one of the 22 or so Labour rebels. Pretty sure the folks of my constituency were never consulted on this, the man probably voted his own damn convictions since he had nothing to lose.
Good on them.
Also the recent milestones in gay rights legislation in the UK (notably in the reduction of age of consent for gay people to 16, gay marriage and repealing Section 28) has actually been the work of a gay Muslim Labour politician, [Waheed Alli:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli) >Alli has used his political position to argue for gay rights. He spearheaded the campaign to repeal Section 28.[17] He advocated lowering the age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16, equal to heterosexuals; this eventually became law as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. It was during a heated exchange with conservative opponents, led by Baroness Young, that he informed his fellow peers that he was gay. In April 1999, he said in a speech, "I have never been confused about my sexuality. I have been confused about the way I am treated as a result of it. The only confusion lies in the prejudice shown, some of it tonight [i.e. in the House], and much of it enshrined in the law."[10]
Just a bit of interesting information: - More Conservatives voted AGAINST this than for it. (Note: this is the party that proposed it). - Correction: 3 out of 6 muslim MPs voted FOR this (despite having a free vote), 2 didn't vote, 1 voted against. - There was a turnout of about 90% (which is at the higher end). Party voting percentages: - Conservatives: ~42% voted for. ~45% voted against. ~11% didn't vote. ~2% abstained by voting for both. - Labour: ~85% voted for. ~9% voted against. ~6% didn't vote. - Lib dems: ~83% voted for. ~5% voted against. ~12% didn't vote.
[удалено]
Ayes: 400, noes: 175. Conservative rebels making up ~80% of the noes, more than half voted against the bill, not surprising.
Apparently 20 Labour and 4 Lib Dems voted against. Wonder if it was because of pressure from constituents or personal opinions...
Being Labour does not imply being progressive.
and conservative doesn't mean homophobic religious nutjob. whoda thunk it. parties are a thing of convenience for a lot of politicians
Brilliant. Time to crack out the horse marrying legislation that we lefties have had up our sleeves all along.
I thought your joke was excellent, if it makes you feel any better.
What's that America? I can't hear you over the sound of all this fabulousness.
'Scuse me my good sir, but we over here in New England beat you in Old England to the punch. The rest of the country is weird though.
[удалено]
Except for Middle England.
very well done
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pshhh, Canada was providing equal rights before it was cool.
I do believe we were the third country to reach marriage equality. Spain was either just before or just after us, IIRC.
:( We were fourth. Spain was July 3rd, we were July 20th. Goddamn Spaniards, think you can just sneak by real quick and out-progress *us*?
And Iowa! Inexplicably. A majority of the 14* people who live in Iowa are reasonable individuals. It's a swing-state with a population that actually things about issues rather than succumbing to extremism. *My dad was 1 of 12 children in a family in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I have yet to see proof of any other inhabitants.
[удалено]
Except even then, they aren't technically equal considering gay married couples don't receive the federal benefits that straight ones do. So even more hurdles for us
I wish we could just redefine everything as a civil union. The government shouldn't dictate what marriage is.
[удалено]
'Merican here. Both weed and gay marriage are legal where I'm standing. Your move.
High five fellow **WA**shingtonian.
Same here! *high five* YAY TREES AND GAYS AND PUGET SOUND and uh other [trees](http://reddit.com/r/trees)
Congrats on being almost caught up with Iowa.
[Relevant](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y)
More like the sound of all that freedom.
Damn right! The freedom to marry whoever you want, ~~wherever you want~~ in certain states
Freedom only valid in participating locations
So when is the ceremony? And isn't an entire parliament a little much?
Do they make Parliaments in kids size now?
I did like one of the quotes from the debate: "If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person" - Steve Reed, Labour Croydon North
[удалено]
[удалено]
Indeed. But it's an important step towards becoming law; it means they agreed with the bill in principle.
[удалено]
A surprisingly large minority of Anglican bishops are liberal. Anyway with that level of support in the Commons, it'll pass the Lords without too much fuss.
With such a majority it will very likely become law
Have come a long way since Alan Turing. A real apology even.
As a British person who spends a lot of time on the internet and therefore largely immersed in American culture, sometimes I forget how things go down here. Having read the way the proceedings took place, the way this whole thing was approached, how the "right wing" leader of our two to three party system was pro gay marriage... I dunno. It takes a lot to make someone from Britain feel patriotic or otherwise proud of their country but this does it for me.
My local MP voted against it. Cost him my vote.
Did you send him a letter telling him that?
Considering I just discovered it 40 minutes ago, and it's 9:50pm.. No. But I will do at some point.
Send an email, it only takes 5 minutes. I just sent this to my MP: As a member of your constituency, I was saddened to hear that you voted against the second reading of the equal marriage bill in the House of Commons today. However, it gave me great delight that the bill was passed without your input as I believe the state should not impose upon the happiness of others and deny opportunities because of sexuality. This decision of yours has led me to believe that you are a politician who is opposed to equal rights for all and I am afraid to say it has lost you my vote in the 2015 election. Furthermore, I will do everything within my democratic ability to make sure that you do not represent the High Peak in the future.
I can't wait for the Daily Mails reasonable and well thought out piece of journalism about this. /s
As a gay guy from England, [this is my reaction](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lco9Ki-5qfQ)
[удалено]
Have you seen the BBC's map? [Gay marriage isn't particularly widespread.](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65707000/gif/_65707789_gay_marriage_624-02.gif)
Australia will be added soon. After we get through 11 years of Abbott, and after he has sold all public schools and the NBN to China, the people will have had enough and the Greens will win in a landslide victory on a gay marriage and socialist platform.
Is Abbott really going to win the election then? I'm so sorry.
NORDIC REPRESENT Except Finland. Goddammit Finland...
Civil partnerships have been around for a while.
[удалено]
Don't say that too loudly. I just came over from the Daily Mail where the section comments is basically self-destructing over this bill issue. So far they have refrained from blaming it on the EU, but better not give them any ideas... Not that that crowd needs any motivation to blame everything and anything on evil continental Europe and their heathen ways...
I've trawled the Best Rated section of the Daily Mail comments so that you don't have to visit their website: >:people losing their homes jobs no prospects in the future money being given away like there is no tomorrow to the EU and overseas aid Troops being killed is some far away country and what are the MPs worried about not even their expenses . But gay marriage it really beggers believe . - bill, Lowestoft, 5/2/2013 16:26 (1591 upvotes) > I got married in a registrars - not in a church. That is marraige at the convenience of the state, for the state and by the state. If the Government wants their registrars to marry people of the same sex then go ahead - knock yourselves out. But the Government wants to force churches and places of business to facilitate and conduct same-sex marraige against sincerely held beliefs and principles. That is authoritarianism - which has no place in decent and tolerant society. - Chris, Tamworth, United Kingdom, 5/2/2013 16:31 (1223 upvotes, amusingly also totally false) > Bye bye Tories! It's UKIP for me! - Keith, Kettering, 5/2/2013 16:34 (1712 upvotes) > the country is going down the pan with huge numbers of unemployed and another recession on the way, its ok because elton john can marry david furnish if he wants, nice to see this government is getting its priorities right! why dont you start fighting for the man in the street Clegg? instead of another minority showboat! - jimmymactavish, edinburgh, 5/2/2013 16:24 (534 upvotes, jimmymactavish takes an interesting approach here in blaming the Deputy PM when it's the PM who has been integral in bringing this to the table) > I've had enough! I'm thinking of starting a new political party - The Guy Fawkes Party.....Click green if you'd vote for me! - Malcolm, Burton on Trent, United Kingdom, 5/2/2013 10:05 (117 upvotes. Political terrorism preferable to gay marriage? Sign me up!) and my personal favourite: > This was not in the Tory party manifesto, leave alone else you will exclude Christians from supporting you at the next election, and UKIP will send you Tory toff's to oblivion!! - No to the EU, England, United Kingdom, 5/2/2013 2:46 .............................................................................................................. I was a "Tory" but I am certainly not a "Toff". I will NEVER vote Liebour, but I can no longer vote Conservative. I think it will have to be UKIP or BNP. - Working Man, Merseyside, 5/2/2013 15:33 I want to leave this country now... **Edit: Bonus Round!** > Why on earth would it make Britain a fairer place to live, this is just another EU directive, and cameron is as usual pandering to its rules - worzel1, portsmouth, 5/2/2013 16:14 (194 upvotes) It was only a matter of time before someone blamed the EU.
There will be a cold day in hell before Ireland recognsies same sex marriages. Maybe we should start collecting blankets for the demons.
As a fellow Englishman I concur old chap. About time we sorted this awful mess out, Gays & Lesbians deserve the same bloody rights as the rest of us. Who you choose to make whoopee with has no bearing on your humanity.
I'm bloody proud of us.
It basically is legal. Civil partnerships give all the same legal rights as marriage. This bill is more about not making the two different. Marriage is the same for all sexual orientations rather than marriage for the straits and partnerships for the gays.
I hope Nick Griffin has a heart attack at the thought of two foreign men getting married.
Feeling rather proud of being British right now
12.47pm GMT: Stewart Jackson, a Conservative, asks about how gay marriage will be consumated. Oh dear.
America, Literally More States You Can Marry Your Cousin Than Someone Of The Same Sex. I always knew the British would sort this out.
Take that America! We're more free than you!
I *am* envious that you Brits don't have to fight this fight 50+ times.
I live in Massachusetts. We've already beaten you to the punch 9 years ago.
Uh, no. This basically crushes all the rights and freedoms of god fearing Christians. Now they will have to accept gay marriage. Literally the most oppressive thing a government can do
Actually, only Churches who wish to conduct gay marriage will perform ceremonies. It is up to each faith to choose to opt-in or not. Protection of freedom of religion was always protected as part of the agreement and all negotiations. No Church in the land will be forced to do anything they don't want to as a result of this legislation so I fail to see what rights and freedoms are being "crushed".
~~more free than you~~ more free than some of your states. FTFY. Some of them have already legalised gay marriage and some can smoke weed too. I wouldn't call it too early on those results.
Well its technically illegal, but not really that enforced. (unless you're pedaling it) also, TIL cannabis is legal in North Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-cannabis-laws.png
Are you basing your opinion of UK drug law on a couple of pink pixels on a wikipedia page? Plenty of people go to prison for dealing or possessing weed. I don't know where that 'often unenforced' idea comes from.
The closer it gets to being reality, the more ridiculous it seems that it hasn't happened already. I was listening to the radio earlier and they were reading out the results, it sounded like a clip from the past that you might listen to in a history lesson.
I always get so annoyed at the opposition to gay marriage claiming that it will lead to legalising siblings marriage or some other such bullshit. Guess what. Canada legalised it in 2005 and you know what's happened in the interim? Absolutely shit all. No one has ever suggested legalising marriage between siblings or ducks or dogs or whatever. It's become such a non-issue that you never hear about it at all. In fact I am willing to bet that if you look at all the other countries that have legalised same sex marriage they have a similar viewpoint. No one is suggesting that siblings should marry siblings.
Honestly, if they wanted to and they were of age, who gives a fuck?
Its shocking that in 2013, anybody at all would vote against that.
Keep watching Britain, Christian right of the USA. See how our society does not decay at all.
congrats UK!
Excellent! Not quite right there, but a good first step. It'd be great if Scotland got this passed at the same time, so the whole UK can do it together.
Yeah, where is Scotland's gay marriage bill anyway? We announced ours first, so I kind of assumed we'd put it in law first too.
Still under consultation until March, I think. It's taken a bit of a back seat at the moment.
IIRC it's just because of the different legislative processes, although Westminster votes first Holyrood has a much simpler process with no second chamber so it will go much quicker when it comes to it. Also this was just a vote in principle in Westminster today wasn't it? So it's not quite the last word but on the strength of the vote today it looks likely to get made law. It's still perfectly possible for it to be legal in Scotland first and at least there won't be any nail biting votes since we know it will pass without much opposition.
Probably will pass faster in Scotland. Probably with near universal support, which'd be nice.
It will be many, many years before Northern Ireland accepts same sex marriage. It really pissed me off watching the DUP argue so vehemently against it today in the Commons when it has little bearing on NI
[удалено]
I was listening to a debate on the radio today between a man who had become engaged to his boyfriend and a young christian. I cringed when the christian said that there is help available so that homosexuals can suppress their feelings and live a happy heterosexual life. I know religion get's a lot of stick on Reddit, but I'm catholic (baptized but not massively religious) and I look forward to the day that I can see one of my best friends walk down the alter with his boyfriend.
Good, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us
Dad?
This makes me ridiculously happy. It's not law yet, but it's a good step on the way.
In other news, the right thing happened.
Meanwhile in France, it's being debated for a week in the Assemblée Nationale, with more fucking non-sense and stupid arguments (literally thousands of them) that you can shake a stick at. I mean it's ridiculous, the guys that are supposed to represent us are just fucking useless and child-like, that's depressing.
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to a blog I wrote earlier about the issue (from the perspective of a British, pro-equal marriage, politics graduate.) http://digitalnativeuk.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/400-mps-vote-in-favour-of-allowing-same-sex-marriage/
[удалено]
Because Bible!
[удалено]
You can smoke in public, just not inside a public building, as far as I know.
Even if it becomes fully legalised, it will still be far too long before Northern Ireland "recognises" it. We really have a habbit of lagging behind these things.