David Cameron got his way as gay marriage legislation cleared its first hurdle in the Commons - but saw his party split down the middle.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

After the Prime Minister made a last ditch appeal for support, the House backed the proposals by a big margin of 400 to 175.

However, with Labour and Liberal Democrats strongly in favour, it was clear that scores of Tories had taken advantage of the free vote to register their opposition.

The Labour Whips office suggested that 139 Tories had voted against the Bill, with 132 in favour. Dozens more did not vote.

The result followed more than six hours of stormy debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Culture Secretary Maria Miller said it would make Britain “a fairer place to live”, and insisted religious organisations which did not want to conduct gay marriages had protection.

But Tory MPs lined up to condemn the measures - including the chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee Graham Brady, who said he had “serious misgivings” over assurances on religious freedom.

Former defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth said that the Government had no mandate for such a “massive social and cultural change”, which was not mentioned in the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election.

Speaking in Downing Street less than two hours before the crunch vote, Mr Cameron accepted that there were “strong views on both sides of the argument”.

But he said: “I am a strong believer in marriage. It helps people commit to each other and I think it is right that gay people should be able to get married too.”

•AGAINST

Richard Bacon, South Norfolk MP

Therese Coffey, Suffolk Coastal MP

Peter Aldous, Waveney MP

Henry Bellingham, North West Norfolk

George Freeman, Mid Norfolk MP, indicated he intended to vote against

•FOR

Norman Lamb, North Norfolk MP

Simon Wright, Norwich South MP

Keith Simpson, Broadland MP

Elizabeth Truss, South West Norfolk MP

Brandon Lewis, Great Yarmouth MP

Chloe Smith, Norwich North MP

55 comments

  • This is an interesting one. In another situation the PM would be projecting himself as a wholesome Christian sort when courting that type of voter. Or is this just a huge PR smokescreen to keep headline-writers off less palatable stuff? Anyway, here is the dilemma. On the one hand you have the literal truth of Christianity and related (Abrahamic) religions, which is unequivocal on the subjects of marriage and homosexuality. On the other hand you have “progressives”, who with one breath would pronounce themselves Christian, whilst with t’other they look to remodel God in their own image so as to align religious customs with their “modern” views and values. This pick ‘n’ mix cherry-picking is the other side of the coin that is islamophobia. Needless to say these “relaxed” Christians feel threatened by a religion vigorously promoting observance of orthodox principles, and are quite happy for a proxy war to be carried out on their behalf by the EDL and others, whilst of course publicly denouncing them.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Marriage is between a husband and wife not Gay people.

    Report this comment

    dave123

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Furthermore, you say it may be custom and tradition...but for millions of years things have changed, society has changed. We used to use stone tablets and cave paintings to convey scipture, then we progressed to paper and ink...and then onwards to digital text. Things change, it is the way of the world. You can still not like it...but not like it in private and let them get on with it!

    Report this comment

    Elliot Baker

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • The young conservatives locally have alot to learn. Never mind we wont have to put up with them much longer. Men can muck about if they wan,t but to let them into the church is totally wrong

    Report this comment

    sharky

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Good news for the LGBT community but not for David Cameron,who did not even turn up for the debate he initiated.He could not even command the support of half of his own MPs and now has a completely divided party,some of whom are determined to oust him because of his weakness.So much for the party unity his much heralded Europe Speech was trumpeted to achieve.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • @ Mr Cameron Isaliar - First of all, I'm not even going to appease you by talking about my views on David Cameron, since your clearly trying to push me into biting and I was not making a statement on Cameron. Secondly, I'm proud of my "PC-Brainwashed" generation. Very proud in fact. Because it feels to me, I'd rather be "PC-Brainwashed" than hate driven. I feel that some, not all the comments on here, are hate-driven due to the fact that they are basically discriminative remarks, wrapped up into nice little packages of user-friendly buzz words. But it's sad. It's discrimination that has no face-value, it's just hate at the end of the day. Purposeless hate. I don't know if you remember, but black people suffered something similar? You know, they didn't get the same rights as us white people because they were of a "minority" therefore their lives served no purpose to our society as a structure and we were quite happy to make it clear that we were going to straddle them to the side, give them less rights, be abusive to them - that jazz. I should well imagine when government started taking action on this that it was mainly the older people whom had such a huge opposition. You probably complained about your traditions going to waste in a similar way to as you are now. Now for me to use the term "older generation" as a whole body, was wrong. We all have the potential to say things through anger, when things upset us, and we just type away. I know many people of the older generation whom would share my point of view - not all of them being a part of a "minority" you would be surprised to know! :) And no, you're right, everyone needs their say. Again, I didn't sit here and type "shuttup you old farts", I stated my opinion, and you interpreted it as that :)

    Report this comment

    nickikatt

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • It is not a case of hate the gays it is a case of resentment having rights of minorities riding roughshod over rights of the majority.

    Report this comment

    John Bridge

    Saturday, February 9, 2013

  • So the MP's are happy to offer this type of 'equality' at the same time as ensuring that heterosexual couples are financially penalised through the tax and benefits system. How equal is that? Plus there is the added bonus of creating further problems for the Church of England and Catholics. I wonder how many gay couples will ask to get married in mosque?

    Report this comment

    andy

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Frankly we need to get this better framed. Increasing numbers of people do not accept any religious faith. So surely the time has come for 'partnership' to replace 'marriage' anyway? Why should not everyone regardless of race, gender and orientation have the right to a civil partnership service that involves the same promises and commitments and confers the same rights as 'marriage'? I am sure many who are in what they see as common law partnerships would thus be tempted to undertake the new partnership commitment. This would leave it open for anyone of any faith or orientation to add to this a religious marriage blessing. If you think this is a good idea tell people, especially your MP. And especially those who voted against this measure!

    Report this comment

    Richard Woods

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • I'm sad that Richard bacon seemingly did not feel fit to vote for this bill, given that the older generations who were brought up with gay bashing of the worst kind and who are still 'aghast' with what is to emerge from the Elms Guest House inquiry can't see that a new generation has values different to their own. The omnipotence of church and establishment has failed a long time ago, this has taken far to much time and publicity, lets move on to more important issues, like the NHS and failing watch dog.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Nickikat - that you do not share the views of others does not make them old or ignorant. Indeed, by your remarks,you seem to expose your own lack of understanding,by your apparent inability to differentiate between marriage and civil partnership.There is little among the blogs to suggest homophobia, and the law already provides for legal recognition of the status of gay partnerships through the introduction of civil ceremonies.What the present legislation seeks is to allow solemnisation by religious marriage, which, should be a matter between a man and a woman. Equality does not enter into it, unless, spurred on by the present activity in parliament,somebody decides that this entitles them to marry an animal.

    Report this comment

    midnorfolkman

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • I strongly disagree with everything written below. The comments show opinions of, what I believe to be, an older generation. How can you "not have a problem with gays" and then go on to define homosexuality as "two men mucking about"? The government has already stated that church's wishing not to partake in same-couple marriages are allowed to step back, so where's the problem? This isn't something forced, it's a new option to churches as individual bodies if they wish to bless two men, or two women who wish to seek that. It makes me so upset when people write out things about a community they clearly have no idea about. You write as if homosexuality and other sexuality types other than heterosexuality is by choice. You write as if these people go out of there way to hurt you - yet you've probably never properly encountered someone of this background. Newsflash - If homosexuality was a choice, why would people choose it? That's ridiculous. Take a look at countries other than ours, where young men get stoned to death for "choosing to be homosexual" How much pain and suffering do you people need to see before you subside on your ignorance? -.- Look into something before you make stupid, spur of the moment comments... As for the younger MPs making these votes - That would be exactly my point. The older generation wouldn't vote for such a thing because again, at the end of the day it's just discrimination. Doesn't matter how nicely you wrap it up... One day we'll live in a world where stuff like this doesn't matter because people will get wise to the world, just like these YOUNG MPs are doing

    Report this comment

    nickikatt

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. Sorted.

    Report this comment

    GoodRockinDaddy

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Bye bye 1st comment, EDP has pulled you retrospectively. Clearly not 3-2-comment(dot blogdotuk).

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Frankly we need to get this better framed. Increasing numbers of people do not accept any religious faith. So surely the time has come for 'partnership' to replace 'marriage' anyway? Why should not everyone regardless of race, gender and orientation have the right to a civil partnership service that involves the same promises and commitments and confers the same rights as 'marriage'? I am sure many who are in what they see as common law partnerships would thus be tempted to undertake the new partnership commitment. This would leave it open for anyone of any faith or orientation to add to this a religious marriage blessing. If you think this is a good idea tell people, especially your MP. And especially those who voted against this measure!

    Report this comment

    Richard Woods

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • EB I think you missed his point. Maybe the plot as well. As you say things do change, but is it always for the better. I dont think so

    Report this comment

    sharky

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Deary me, reading some of the comments you would think the main reason to get married was to confirm your heterosexuality, is it really that fragile for some? The vote would seem a purely academic gesture as churches haven't been forced to accept applications for same sex marriages and quite frankly, with the kind of hipocrisy, bigotry and hatred taught and prevelent in the church, today and in millenia past, who in their right mind would want to express their mutual love for one another in such an institution anyway? Oh, that's right, "..because the photo's will look nice..". Bah.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Thursday, February 7, 2013

  • @ Mr Cameron Isaliar - The moderator is removing comments for being offensive, including one from me. I don`t know whether it was my suggestion that this is one occasion when wiser counsel would have dealt with this subject in a more sympathetic way or daring to mention the long term ramifications of the act of sex between men. Whichever it was there is no doubting that the Prime Minister was very unwise in rushing this bill through and as a result has started the beginning of his own demise. The forth coming May elections will show him how increasingly flawed his judgment is becoming.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Brandon Lewis has sufficient problems in Yarmouth without his adhering to his leader's ill-conceived and non-manifesto-included bill.Like the lobby-fodder representing Norwich,I anticipate all three will be adding to the ever-growing list of the unemployed,come the next general election. (Is it not strange that parliamentary time can always be found for such politically-correct laws, when populist issues, such as the squandering of monies on immigrants,and their families abroad,can invariably be deferred?)

    Report this comment

    midnorfolkman

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Call it what you will political correctness or cultural marxism, everytime you let standards slip in the name of equality you take away onother tiny piece of the working mans right to speak his mind. This is quite deliberate as it allows the faceless people behind the wars and the greed to manipulate the masses, think about it the only opposition we will have soon will be the political children on the left.

    Report this comment

    John Bridge

    Saturday, February 9, 2013

  • Seems like the majority here says it all.

    Report this comment

    sharky

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • You are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. If you don't like homosexuality...that's fine. The problem is when you start opressing people because of your beliefs. If they want equal rights in the eyes of the law to married hetrosexual couples, what is the harm in letting them? Surely the less moralistic thing is to say "No...you can't do that...this doesn't effect me at all cause I'm hetrosexual...but you can't be homosexual because I say so...even though its none of my business..."

    Report this comment

    Elliot Baker

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Furthermore, you say it may be custom and tradition...but for millions of years things have changed, society has changed. We used to use stone tablets and cave paintings to convey scipture, then we progressed to paper and ink...and then onwards to digital text. Things change, it is the way of the world. You can still not like it...but not like it in private and let them get on with it!

    Report this comment

    Elliot Baker

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Good result for people's equality

    Report this comment

    NorthCity

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • A response! One feels so very honoured. So it's even worse than I first suspected. Not only are the "negative" contributors bigots, but their views are "hate-fuelled" as well. What a terrible world we live in! But don't worry, in law these swines are no longer permitted to bash gays or indeed black people, unless that is you happen to be a gay, black muslim.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Friday, February 8, 2013

  • @Elliott Baker. I think you're confusing loving someone with marriage. There is nothing in my post that suggests I have a problem with anyone loving anyone else. Marriage is a precious institution that involves a man and a woman marrying one another and producing a family(usually) and maintaining that family. That can never happen with a homosexual partnership so marriage can't be an option for them.

    Report this comment

    Johhny Reggae

    Thursday, February 7, 2013

  • @sharky Not once, anywhere did I say that change is good. I merely stated that change happends and has happened for millions, nay, billions of years. Change is even part of the natural order of things. Over the millions of years the bodies of animals and man have adapted to survive, this comes about through change. Good change and bad change does occur. However in my opinion making marriage an equal oppotunity for all is a good change. People complain that it is 'redefining marriage'. Hello?! Marriage was redefined many many many eons ago. Unless you asked your wife's father for her hand in marriage in exchange for 2 goats and some sheep...

    Report this comment

    Elliot Baker

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • What's a 'Crunch vote'?

    Report this comment

    Thoreauwasright

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • How many MPs should have declared an interest and not voted?

    Report this comment

    richguyb

    Sunday, February 10, 2013

  • I strongly disagree with everything written below. The comments show opinions of, what I believe to be, an older generation. How can you "not have a problem with gays" and then go on to define homosexuality as "two men mucking about"? The government has already stated that church's wishing not to partake in same-couple marriages are allowed to step back, so where's the problem? This isn't something forced, it's a new option to churches as individual bodies if they wish to bless two men, or two women who wish to seek that. It makes me so upset when people write out things about a community they clearly have no idea about. You write as if homosexuality and other sexuality types other than heterosexuality is by choice. You write as if these people go out of there way to hurt you - yet you've probably never properly encountered someone of this background. Newsflash - If homosexuality was a choice, why would people choose it? That's ridiculous. Take a look at countries other than ours, where young men get stoned to death for "choosing to be homosexual" How much pain and suffering do you people need to see before you subside on your ignorance? -.- Look into something before you make stupid, spur of the moment comments... As for the younger MPs making these votes - That would be exactly my point. The older generation wouldn't vote for such a thing because again, at the end of the day it's just discrimination. Doesn't matter how nicely you wrap it up... One day we'll live in a world where stuff like this doesn't matter because people will get wise to the world, just like these YOUNG MPs are doing

    Report this comment

    nickikatt

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Right on nickikatt, you are so with it. A perfect illustration of what this is really all about. Forget the rhetoric, the Cameleon doesn’t give a stuff about gay equality. Yes, he may attract gay voters, but the bigger prize is to show he is in touch with the attitudes of the youth, and shares their values borne out of a decade of pc-brainwashing. Imagine how many first time voters in 2015 will be impressed by someone so apparently compassionate and on-trend. They will think all those “oldies” raging about the nasty party are bonkers. That’s why he is called the Cameleon after all. And in any case, the older generation do not have valid opinions as such because first and foremost they are bigots, ha ha. But steady on, what has happened to the free vote to repeal the ban on fox hunting that we were promised, you know the ban that was going to destroy the rural economy and plunge us all back into the dark ages. Is it going to be like the EU – vote for me again if you still want what we promised you last time.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • I notice that Nickikatt is using the usual practice of combining quotes from different contributers to attempt to rebut a point that has not been made. This is then taken further by setting up Aunt Sally comments that have not been made, at least on this forum. EB is doing more of the same. Hardly honest debate but typical of those here who advocate so called change on this matter. One is reminded of Groucho Marx who said that he had principles but if you don't like them he has others! The comments by Nickikatt in particular are a disgrace and show prejudice at its worst but probably not in the way that was intended. There is nothing wrong whatsoever being gay so I don't see how you can justify your comments or write off thought out and long held beliefs held by others as being spur of the moment.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • I think Andy's absolutely right. It's almost Orwellian the way that the word is being redefined to suit modern political fashions.

    Report this comment

    LittleYellowBirdie

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Opinions of an older generation? Or just the opinions the EDP haven't ruled out for being "offensive".

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • @ Johhny Reggae How is marriage de-valued because some people wish to love someone of their same gender? Do those many many years with your wife suddnely mean nothing? If so I would like you to tell her that and see how she feels.

    Report this comment

    Elliot Baker

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Thank you Chloe for asking our opinion before you voted! The North Norwich M.P. votes according to her own opinion, nobody else matters, how very worldly wise. Make the most of it, you are I'm afraid, backing the wrong horse now.

    Report this comment

    Cannot Say

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Daisy, it is also equally true that those who want marriage for all should not bully others including the majority of CofE, Catholics and Muslims into accepting their beliefs. After all, to use your arguement, if you want marraige between gays, find a religion, etc that does support you! Why should a minority usurp the majority? Marriage was alive and well long before the 1700s. A further inconvenient fact for you is that ALL the evidence shows that children prosper, in every sense of the word, better where their parents are married.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Friday, February 8, 2013

  • Last nights vote in the house of commons just about sums up the type of people who rule over us.

    Report this comment

    John Bridge

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • It's time that MPs voted in accordance with the wishes of their constituents who they are elected to represent. But no they vote as they themselves feel. Yet another example of parasites feathering their own nests.

    Report this comment

    beverley

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • God created Adam and Eve not Bill an Ben. Just a thought.

    Report this comment

    Jack

    Thursday, February 7, 2013

  • Not being allowed to hate the gays anymore is really putting some people out.

    Report this comment

    Menendez

    Friday, February 8, 2013

  • Deary me, reading some of the comments you would think the main reason to get married was to confirm your heterosexuality, is it really that fragile for some? The vote would seem a purely academic gesture as churches haven't been forced to accept applications for same sex marriages and quite frankly, with the kind of hipocrisy, bigotry and hatred taught and prevelent in the church, today and in millenia past, who in their right mind would want to express their mutual love for one another in such an institution anyway? Oh, that's right, "..because the photo's will look nice..". Bah.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Thursday, February 7, 2013

  • Marriage was only really regularized by the state in the mid 1700s. Until then it had been a church matter or an arrangement between individuals. Marriage laws meant that churches had to marry people by licence or banns so that the marriage could not be completely secret, and to record the marriage. This was to sort problems with forced marriages, under age marriages without parental permission , bigamy and to sort the matter of legitimacy. Where there was a succession or inheritance, the heirs being legitimate in law was important. It also allowed a man to take possession of his wife's financial assets. Since all of these matters are now either irrelevant or addressed by other laws or by civil partnerships, there really is no need for marriage, especially if civil partnerships are permitted for all. If the religious want a religious marriage ceremony fair enough. If members of a church have views which do not accept gay marriage then it is up to them to find a faith which does and not bully people into changing their beliefs.Plenty of churches were founded by those who did not agree with those already around eg the Methodists or Mormons.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Friday, February 8, 2013

  • Cameron you had the same problems as me. Seems we are not able to say what we feel.

    Report this comment

    sharky

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • But John, the rights of the majority remain unchanged - they are still allowed to get married too, if they wish.

    Report this comment

    GoodRockinDaddy

    Saturday, February 9, 2013

  • I know DC has been coy about his alleged "experience" with whackybaccy, but exactly how many fags did he "have" at Eton?

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Sunday, February 10, 2013

  • Interesting to see a lot of local vicars wont sigh up to having there churches used for Gay marriage......i wonder if they will be prosecuted like Guest house owners who decline bookings! Everybody should be allowed free speech and to run there lives as they see fit,not to be bullied into accepting something they don't agree to!

    Report this comment

    dave123

    Friday, February 8, 2013

  • The equality bit is a joke as there is only one view point permitted when discussing anything to do with homosexuality. If you don`t go along with it you are automatically branded as being homophobic. What I haven`t worked out yet is how this group of individuals have embarked on enacting a Bill to overturn a millennium of custom and practice in that marriage was always between a man and a woman, never between two people of the same sex. Where do they get their authority to do it when no party had it in their manifestos at the last election. Quite how a minority (Gays) has gotten such a hold over this country in the past few years is totally beyond me.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Oh dear, did I go to far with my 2nd comment, which is nowhere to be seen? It would be most helpful, EDP, if you sought the usual soundbites from each of the above-mentioned local MPs, not least to see what populist prattle they come up with to justify their respective positions.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • But John, the rights of the majority remain unchanged - they are still allowed to get married too, if they wish.

    Report this comment

    GoodRockinDaddy

    Saturday, February 9, 2013

  • Almost 40 years of marriage de-valued at the whim of Mr Cameron and his cronies.

    Report this comment

    Johhny Reggae

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Interesting to see a lot of local vicars wont sigh up to having there churches used for Gay marriage......i wonder if they will be prosecuted like Guest house owners who decline bookings! Everybody should be allowed free speech and to run there lives as they see fit,not to be bullied into accepting something they don't agree to!

    Report this comment

    dave123

    Friday, February 8, 2013

  • I respect your views, opinions and beliefs. However...since you are hetrosexual, you are part of the 'in' crowd who are permitted to love thier partner. What is the harm in letting the homosexual people out there love who they want and have that formally recognised with all the equal rights that a hetrosexual couple have? Surely the less moral thing to do would be to opress them and say: "You can't be gay because I say so!" well...with all due respect, it has nothing to do with you because this is about them and their love. Furthermore since your hetrosexual (I assume) you are permitted to love your partner and get rights for doing so...an act you take advantage of without realising it.

    Report this comment

    Elliot Baker

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • Just to clarify, I meant married heterosexual couples. I don't have any problem with gay people and whether they wish to enter into a formal relationship or not but I do object to redefining of the meaning of marrige.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

  • @ NorthCity - "Good result for people's equality" Please tell me you were being ironic! There`s nothing equal about this whatsoever.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Wednesday, February 6, 2013

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Overcast

Overcast

max temp: 18°C

min temp: 12°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT