Why did libertarians like @DouglasCarswell vote against equal marriage?


8:55 am - February 6th 2013

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Sometimes I feel sorry for libertarians in the UK – all their idols keep betraying them one by one. First it was UKIP, the self-proclaimed libertarian party against the free movement of people, that decided their current policy was to deny homosexuals the right to marry… for some libertarian reason.

Last night it was the poster boy’s turn: Douglas Carswell MP.

When I asked him in response how exactly religious liberty was going to be impinged by the vote, he didn’t reply.

Then he implied he was against the vote because some religious institutions were banned from performing gay marriages. So I asked him – was that his reason? No reply, again.

Here is an MP who waxed lyrically about how the digital revolution brought MPs closer to people and allowed them to explain their decisions. But when it came to the crunch – Carswell didn’t even want to explain why he voted that way.

And neither did he stick to libertarian principles, as the bill went out of its way to please the religious lobby. Of course I have no sympathy for the Labour MPs who voted against, but Carswell goes out of his way to preach about his independent mindedness and his libertarianism. But when it came to the big crunch he folded.

* * *

As an aside, it did amaze me that Cameron didn’t come into the Commons to make a major speech on this, at least for the cameras. It once against illustrated his weakness as he knew it would attract more ire from his own side. But if you’re going to take a hit, why not do it in style?

* * *

As another side point, I owe an apology to George Potter and Andrew Emmerson on this issue. I criticised the Libdems earlier when I said they had let the issue get kicked into the long grass, but both pointed out it was entirely procedural. They were right, I was wrong. Apart from the four who voted no, the Lib dems deserve credit for yesterday’s vote for constantly pushing this issue.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


seems quite clear to me that Carswell voted against because he is wary about the unforeseen impact on religious liberty in the UK.

sounds very libertarian to me. And I don’t see what would be libertarian about voting to redefine marriage.

Why do those who are not Libertarian, seriously try their hardest to NOT understand that Libertarians are NOT opposed to same-gender marriages in principle, but ARE opposed to any change in the UK law which has NO protection whatsoever from the ECHR over-ruling and persecuting religious institutions for their principled and religious opposition to same-gender marriage?

The Government’s so called quadruple lock is no such thing. the ECHR CAN and WILL overule it. Religious leaders WILL be imprisoned for their deeply held religious beliefs. That TOO is wrong in the eyes of Libertarians.

There is NO contradiction in Libertarians opposing this particular law.

It is NOT hard to understand.

Society has NOT evolved at all. It has merely replaced one set of hideous prejudiced bigotry (anti-gay) with another EQUALLY hideous prejudiced bigotry (anti-religion). That is an evolution and social FAIL!

Once churches, Mosques, Synagogues (etc) are given REAL protection from anti-religious bigots, and are allowed REAL and sustainable protection in law to follow their faith, THEN same gender marriage should prevail. Until then, it is not a safe or Libertarian view to change the law to one which will lead to the persecution of those of a religious faith.

That Libertarian view is really easy to understand, unless you are deliberately misunderstanding it, twisting it and trying your level best to be wrong.

3. Chaise Guevara

When did we replace people’s names with their twitter accounts?

I think anti-gay-marriage “libertarians” just don’t like siding with the left. It’s amusing, though – any so-called libertarian who’s against it has lost the ability to claim that they believe in personal freedom above all else.

4. Chaise Guevara

@ 1 mrqblank

“seems quite clear to me that Carswell voted against because he is wary about the unforeseen impact on religious liberty in the UK. ”

His objection is that some churches are banned from conducting them by law.

Whereas, you know, they could totally conduct them when everyone was banned from doing so.

If this is his real objection, he’s a dog in the manger. Personally I imagine it’s a stalking-horse.

@2

the ECHR CAN and WILL overule it.

The evidence thus far out of the ECHR is that it won’t. Indeed commenters on this website on other threads have repeatedly pointed to ECHR rulings that demonstrate that when it comes to religious institutions and sexuality equality it intends to follow individual states, not lead.

Without that the rest of your comment is just an unfounded intemperate rant.

6. Chaise Guevara

@ 5 Cylux

“Without that the rest of your comment is just an unfounded intemperate rant.”

Albeit one livened UP with LOTS of completely RANDOM capitals.

Are you sure Carswell is against Gay Marriage or is he against the bill or something in the bill?

I think he should expand on his reasoning, but I don’t get the nasty, almost personal, pillory from Sunni…

The so-called libertarians of the Conservative party pick and choose when they wish to be libertarians. Mostly they choose not to be libertarians.

They are not libertarians when it comes to immigration, they are opposed to the free movement of people.

They are not libertarians when it comes to funding the Royal Family. Here the state must pay.

The only time they are libertarians is when it means cutting the welfare state.

It would be much better to call them anti-welfarists rather than libertarians as that is what they are.

the ECHR CAN and WILL overule it. Religious leaders WILL be imprisoned for their deeply held religious beliefs.

There’s no evidence to support this, particularly the second.

This idea that just by giving gay people the legal right to marry we open up the possibility of religious institutions being forced to marry them just seems absurd on its face. Atheists, Muslims, divorcees and cohabitees all have the legal right to marry, but there’s no question of the ECHR swooping in and telling the Catholic Church it has to marry them. The requirements for marriage *in that Church* are entirely a matter *for that Church*, regardless of what the requirements are for civil marriage or for marriage in *other* religious organisations. Why would that change if same sex marriage were legalised?

9 – There’s a good review of the case law behind the frothing by my old school friend Dan Sokol:

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/03/29/can-a-homosexual-person-adopt-his-or-her-partners-child-the-case-of-gas-and-dubois-v-france/

Includes the following excellent paragraph:

It is puzzling, therefore, to read an account of the case in the Daily Mail of 20 March 2012. The article, dramatically entitled “Gay marriage is not a ‘human right’: European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance”, notes:

“The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples. It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition’s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.”

The judgment says no such thing. There is no mention of churches, or of the wider legal implications of the judgment on marriage and discrimination. It is perfectly acceptable to use a judgment as a ‘peg’ for a more topical discussion, but this appears to be pure fabrication.

The ECHR tends to be pretty hot on Article 9 freedom of conscience/religion stuff. I’m afraid that this line of argument is just as unconvincing as all the others opponents to SSM have come up with (and I do say this as a Tory, albeit one that’s been in favour of SSM for ages).

12. Chaise Guevara

@ 10 GO

“Why would that change if same sex marriage were legalised?”

I suppose same-sex couples might raise more political pressure than (e.g.) divorcees. Although I’m very much for crossing that bridge if and when we come to it, rather than using it as an excuse to bemoan yesterday’s victory.

As I keep saying, there IS NO SUCH THING AS LIBERTARIANISM. They are all fake, lying sacks of dog muck.

Even their great white dope Ayn Rand ended up on welfare. Carswell is an idiot, and his ludicrous defence of religious liberty shows not only how mind numbingly moronic he is, but also how devious and dishonest these fake libertarians are.

If religious people don’t want to marry a gay person then they don’t have too. Carswell and his Right wing flat earthers are not for freedom. They are are only for freedom for people they agree with. Which is what libertarians really are about. Peel away the fake outer layers of the so called libertarian, and underneath you will usually find an authoritarian streak.

The ECHR is currently examining cases in Holland. There is a danger of religious leaders in Holland being imprisoned.

I am NOT opposed to same-gender marriage. I AM opposed to the oppression of religious freedoms.

The “liberal” left have merely replaced one form of unacceptable hideous bigotry, with another form of unacceptable hideous bigotry. The naked hatred bigotry and prejudice which decent people of faith are having to endure from “so called” liberals, is frankly disgusting. The left have no right to consider themselves as being tolerant so long as they do not condemn such bigotry and hate against people of faith.

By the way, I am bisexual and NOT religious in anyway shape or form. I am a Libertarian who supports the rights of those who I oppose, to have different views and a different way of life to me.

You may wish to bury your heads in the sand about the ECHR, but so long as they CAN and DO seek to overrule national parliaments, then we should not seek to change the law on marriage. With real protections for those of faith, then same-gender marriage should proceed.

Or do you people who support same-gender marriage, no matter what, support and endorse such vile hatred against decent people of faith?

@2

So an actual restriction of liberty (of same sex couples) is trumped by an imaginary one (an improbable, if not impossible, prosecution of some recalcitrant cleric)? Curiously, you make no mention of the liberties of those clerics wishing to conduct SSMs but barred from doing so until yesterday. If they believe that marrying gay couples is part of their ministry, have their religious freedoms not been impeded?

The contorted libertarian case here is reminiscent of the arguments in favour of the second amendment in the US. A child’s very real right not to be shot by some armed madman is apparently trumped by imaginary fears of a Government conspiracy against its citizens, or us sneaky redcoats making another attack.

Many laws are a compromise between someone’s right to do something and someone else’s right not to suffer as a consequence. The libertarian con-trick is to employ a fabricated standard of absolute freedom as justification for invariably siding with the wealthy and powerful interest (The Vatican, arms manufacturers) in these conflicts.

The line about how the ECHR is to blame and is restricting religious liberty is absolute tosh.

It was taken apart here: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/01/14/ukips-opposition-to-gay-marriage-is-based-on-half-truths-and-ignorance/

Ken, precisely who is being oppressed?

The ECHR is currently examining cases in Holland. There is a danger of religious leaders in Holland being imprisoned.

I don’t suppose you’ve got a link for that, I’ve tried looking but not come up with anything. I did find this, but that’s a different country with a very clearly different vote to how same sex marriage will work in their state churches – “The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages… Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.” So I’m obviously quite interested to see the Holland cases.

@13, Sally, you have described all the left wing hypocrites who preach diversity and tolerance, then embrace their own “acceptable” hatreds and prejudices, against people born into wealth or those of a strong religious faith, and you have described those lefties who refuse to tolerate different views or extend diversity to include diversity of thought or opinion.

You cannot have authoritarian libertarians. You can have right wing, or centrist or left wing libertarians, but not authoritarian libertarians, they are opposites.

There are many authoritarians on the left as well as the right.

In my experience, it is those on the left who seem to be most in favour of legislating to control opinions and thoughts. Outlawing freedom of speech is something labour did in power.

I am a firm believer in “I may vehemently oppose what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it”

Sadly it is a left wing government who outlawed the right for people to say things which some other person may find offensive and it was a left wing government which decided what was, and was not, to be considered offensive to the extend of requiring a prison sentence.

Thankfully, we are now moving back towards some semblance of sanity from the authoritarian left wing Blair and Brown governments on the freedom to express a contrary point of view from those the left deem “acceptable”.

20. Richard Carey

Libertarians do not generally believe that the state should have anything to do with marriage. Therefore it is not contrary to principle to oppose the government’s interference with the matter. Those libertarians who have supported this measure will say, I think, that it is a step in the right direction, i.e., of getting the state out of marriage, but that it is not, in itself, a libertarian solution, because it merely continues state interference. Some of them will also say that polygamy and polyandry should also be permitted. On this last point, Stonewall etc,. reject most strongly even the comparison.

Sunny Hundal is not the arbiter of who is and who isn’t permitted to call himself or herself a libertarian, and, as Chaise notes @3, there probably is indeed a dislike of siding with the left, due to the distasteful habit of this latter to slag off those who disagree with emotive, debate-stifling insults.

Sunny just because you express your freedom to believe whatever you want with regards to the ECHR, does not make it true.

They are still trying to overturn our laws with regards to votes for prisoners. Once politicised groups intent on hurting the church, who are insistent upon imposing their own illiberal views on the rest of society take clergy, priests, bishops and churches to the ECHR, the ECHR WILL attempt to over rule our Parliament again.

As a useful aside, in addition to what I wrote to Sally above, looking at the comments policy for this site, I notice a typical left wing, “Acceptable” and “not acceptable” hypocrisy.

Where it is understandable to wish to stop abusive comments on the blog, it is only applicable to SOME forms of abuse. Presumably there is nothing to stop hatred against heterosexuals, men, or the British/English on this site?

Either have a policy of banning abusive comments, or allow all comments. Why only ban certain forms of abusive comment? Why is Misandry, heterophobic, bi-phobic, inverse snobbery and hatred against those born into wealth NOT covered by the comments policy?

You have presented there yet another prima facie example of Left wing hypocrisy and intolerant tolerance and rigidly limited diversity.

They are still trying to overturn our laws with regards to votes for prisoners.

Because the government hasn’t justified the blanket, indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners. If the government justified it (which includes having a substantive debate in Parliament that leads to the law, instead of just nodding it through), or the disenfranchisement was discriminate (that must be justified too), the ECHR wouldn’t overturn the law.

As for the specific issue of gay marriage:

The Court cannot but note that there is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes (see Courten, cited above; see also M.W. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 11313/02, 23 June 2009, both relating to the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act in the United Kingdom). … States are still free, under Article 12 of the Convention as well as under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples.
SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 30141/04) June 2010

8. Patrick

” They are not libertarians when it comes to immigration, they are opposed to the free movement of people. ”

I can see the logic of libertarians saying the state should stay out of the marriage business. However, the anti-immigration stance that some of them take is inconsistent or as the acerbic Sally would say in her forthright manner blatant hypocrisy. Company in Birmingham wants to hire workers from country X and the government refuses them permission. Implicitly suggesting the state knows best in the allocation of labour. They may even buy somewhere to live which apparently would be a bad thing. Something about immigration turns free marketeers into raging Bolsheviks where the government owns all jobs and property.

” Sunny Hundal is not the arbiter of who is and who isn’t permitted to call himself or herself a libertarian,”

And niether are you or your band of lying, dishonest, fakes the arbiter of who is and who isn’t permitted to call himself a libertarian.

Libertarians DO NOT EXIST except in the batty minds of conservative intellectuals. (Which tends to be an oxymoron) It is revealing that on the American Right someone like Newt Gingrich is lauded as a Conservative intellectual. Only listening to this mans drivel for a few minutes to convince most people of his true profession as snake oil salesman. Conservatives often confuse snake oil salesman and intellectuals.

And speaking of Newt Gingrich , he is an opponent of gay marriage on the grounds that it interferes with the sanctity of marriage. Which is a bit rich for someone who has had 3 marriages. And one of his marriages was so deep with sanctity, he asked his then wife if she would allow him to sleep with his lover on a regular basis.

The “religious liberty” canard has been comprehensively demolished. Those voting against did so through homophobia, not necessarily their own but of those whose support they court. Many on the right like to use the term libertarian as it makes them sound edgier, but in most cases it’s basically a tory on a driving ban.

and hatred against those born into wealth

I had noticed the furtive attempts to try and portray the wealthy and powerful as some sort of persecuted minority. I believe Ian Bone gave that argument the level of worthy consideration it deserved.

It’s weird to claim support for religious liberty but oppose the bill in that specific regard because the bill frees religious institutions to marry gays – they are currently prohibited from doing so.

28. Churm Rincewind

@ 14 Ken

“You may wish to bury your heads in the sand about the ECHR, but so long as they CAN and DO seek to overrule national parliaments, then we should not seek to change the law on marriage.”

I’m not sure that I understand your point here. Is your point specific to gay marriage, and if so why? Or do you object to any changes in UK law which might be subject to later over-rule by the ECHR?

25 ” Those voting against did so through homophobia, not necessarily their own but of those whose support they court.”

Yup,

I’m reminded of that old right wing rouge and devout Christin Jerry Falwell, who is reported to have said in the late 80’s …..”if the gay did not exist, we would have to invent him.”

The tory right hate this policy for 2 reasons. First, most of them and the voters they court hate gays. And second, the tories have now acted into law rights to a class of people they love to demonize.

30. Shatterface

Libertarians do not generally believe that the state should have anything to do with marriage. Therefore it is not contrary to principle to oppose the government’s interference with the matter.

If that were the case you’d see libertarians opposing secular straight marriages too.

Libertarians believe in what Tom Robinson Band called “freedom from the likes of you”

32. Shatterface

You may wish to bury your heads in the sand about the ECHR, but so long as they CAN and DO seek to overrule national parliaments, then we should not seek to change the law on marriage.

Very strange that you should uncriticslly support national parliaments when you choose to – as in the case of disenfranchising people imprisoned for behaviour (such as drug dealing or prostitution) which reals libertarians would be arguing should not have been criminalised in the first place.

33. gastro george

“Libertarians” are a laugh. They’re the kind of people who would be sat on a pile of food surrounded by the starving while demanding that the latter protect his property rights (and it usually is a him).

@ Ken

“Thankfully, we are now moving back towards some semblance of sanity from the authoritarian left wing Blair and Brown governments on the freedom to express a contrary point of view from those the left deem “acceptable”.”

What I find amusing in this is how you think Tory Blair is even remotely leftwing…

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
The graphic at the top shows where this country’s political parties are now. At the bottom, how the big 3 (Labour, Conservative & Liberal Democrat) have altered over the past 40 years. All have become right wing authoritarian to a greater or lesser extent. Try doing the test yourself btw. Mine came back as -6.7, -7…

On the subject of same sex marriage. The actual purpose marriage has become from a couples perspective is to demonstrate to their peers and family their own commitment to each other. Within wider society that also gives each member of the couple certain legal rights and protections regarding any possessions or family said couple have.

Why are you so determined that such legal protections should be denied?

You defend such denial of those rights on the basis of an imagined religious right. Explain to us all what adherents of all the world’s religions have done throughout the history of our species. Lets limit it to say Christianity, as this country has had a Christian history for thousands of years. What key words best describe the way self proclaimed Christians have behaved? Are those key words attached to admirable concepts in your mind? Do you like the idea of heresy purges, crusades, witch hunts, inquisitions etc. in which Christian types have repeatedly revelled when they have the freedom to behave in the way they see fit…

…especially when such religious freedom is the slippery slope to acts of evil and oppression.

“On the subject of same sex marriage. The actual purpose marriage has become from a couples perspective is to demonstrate to their peers and family their own commitment to each other.”

Sorry everyone, astoundingly bad grammar here. It should read:

On the subject of same sex marriage, what they want is no different to heterosexual marriages. For the couple in question, whatever their sexuality, they see marriage as demonstrating to their peers and family their commitment to each other.

I agree with Dissident (if that’s not a contradiction).

One of the most obvious manifestations of Blair’s right-wing authoritarianism was his acceptance of Tory employment law. – yet another issue where conservatives and libertarians are in accord.

In theory, libertarians should have equal respect for the employee’s freedom to strike and the employer’s freedom to make a profit. The true libertarian would call for the scrapping of the Tebbit union laws to create a truly deregulated labour market, where employers compete for the best employees by offering the best terms and conditions. But nope, yet again, the libertarian only values one freedom – that of the corporate interest.

Simply this individual is Twat of the first order

You have faintly missed the point.

You are of course quite right that UKIP’s thoroughly anti-capitalist stand on immigration is incompatible with its position on everything else. But both on that and on the definition of marriage, both it and “the libertarian poster boy, Douglas Carswell” do not really mean a word of it.

The number of real opponents of same-sex “marriage” on the Conservative benches is no greater than the number of Labour and Lib Dem opponents combined, those parties having far fewer MPs overall. There may not even be as many as that. This privatisation of marriage is the ultimate in Thatcherism, in neoliberalism, in anarcho-capitalism, in everything for which most Conservative backbenchers, and not a few frontbenchers, now stand. As does UKIP.

Every Labour or Lib Dem MP who voted against this really is opposed to it. Every Labour or Lib Dem MP who abstained, including by being absent in the full knowledge that this vote was going to be held, really does have grave misgivings about it. As have many more who made thoroughly unhappy speeches and who will certainly oppose the extremely unlikely Third Reading of this Bill if it remains in its present, and only possible, form.

But many, probably most, of the Conservative votes against were for show, and designed to prevent Constituency Associations from moving to replace the MPs in question with Tories. I am not fooled. Nor ought they to be. And nor, dear reader, ought you to be. The same goes for UKIP.

39. Robin Levett

@David Lindsay #38:

The number of real opponents of same-sex “marriage” on the Conservative benches is no greater than the number of Labour and Lib Dem opponents combined, those parties having far fewer MPs overall.

Why are we supposed to take you seriously? Tories: 303 MPs; Labour 255 MPs + LibDems 56 MPs = 311 MPs.

40. Lord Stranger

Hang on, I thought libertarian meant anarchist, at least here in Britain.

@david Lindsay #38

“Every Labour or Lib Dem MP who abstained, including by being absent in the full knowledge that this vote was going to be held, really does have grave misgivings about it.”

Does that include the lib dem that was giving birth at the time?

Robin Levett, each, obviously. My mistake, if it was one.

Yes, Lord Stranger, it does. That is rather the point.

43. Richard Carey

The anarchist point is there should be no state control of private civil unions. As the new law is no further toward this goal, it is a matter of indifference. Some libertarians have celebrated the vote, believing it to achieve something. Others see no merit in it. I want to see what the Lords do to it. If civil partnerships were made available to hetero couples I’d be more likely to support it.

Why are you lefties not celebrating the record Tory rebellion? Isn’t 400 to 175 enough for you? Must everyone agree? March in lock-step?

Those of you insulting libertarians are mostly fools making wild accusations, or lazy thinkers with unprovable theories, or socialists, in which case possibly with all these dents in your puny points, which I scorn to rebut.

@40 Given British anarchists still say ‘property is theft’, no they’re not. Some libertarians do call themselves anarcho-capitalists, which only manages to wind up anarchists and little else.

“Some libertarians do call themselves anarcho-capitalists, which only manages to wind up anarchists and little else.”

A worthwhile aim in its own right, surely?!

Carswell, meanwhile, has indeed been exposed as (at best) either a coward or a hypocrite.

46. Chaise Guevara

@ 43

“I scorn to rebut”

That means “I’m out of arguments”, IIRC.

I am really quite enjoying people telling each other what a libertarian is. Not that it matters as self identification is an important part of belief, but I thought I would state my position as I do identify as a libertarian.

(1) I support gay marriage;
(2) I support the right of religious groups to refuse to marry gays;
(3) If the government has a democratic mandate to change the law to recognise gay marriage then thats fine;
(4) Church and state should be seperate in all ways;
(5) I don’t believe that the government actually has much to do with marriage anyway because after all it is about two people who love each other and commit to that relationship;
(6) I don’t support the bill in its current form. Not from a content point of view, but from a drafting and technical point of view. It is riddled with loophools and errors that are just going to cause a huge amount of litigation.
(7) I identify as a libertarian because I am fiscally conservative and believe government regulation and taxation impeads on personal freedom, and I am social liberal because I believe that people should be free to pursue their own destiny and make their own choices and incur their own risks in making those choices.

It is really not too difficult.

48. Chaise Guevara

@ 47 Freeman

“It is really not too difficult.”

Just to check, based on your normal position – you’re with the people calling Carswell a fake libertarian, right? Because the definition you use (and the one I recognise) is what’s at odds with banning gay marriage, see the bit about letting people make their own choices.

Obviously there isn’t one set meaning of the term, but if ‘libertarianism’ can be stretched to prevent gay couples from marrying then I honestly don’t know what it means. It would be like a someone calling themselves a ‘socialist’ while calling for healthcare and education for the poor to be financed entirely out of voluntary charitable donations.

@48

I really can’t comment on carswells move, he has not provided the reason for it, and as always these decisions are not as black and white as people like Sunny like to make out. I would point out though that despite my beliefs I would have voted against this bill as I said because it’s I’ll prepared, I would have tossed it back and said bring it back when its better drafted and someone had actually given it some thought.

Despite the press this was not just an argument about supporting gay marriage or not. There were some with genuine concerns over the bills drafting. So without hearing Carswells explaination it’s hard to say, but I would indeed find it odd if the decision was made on the basis of the question of allowing gay marriage solely.

I would also say that we also have to be mindful of the mp’s basing their vote on their constituencies feelings, and them aligning their vote to match those feelings. It may answer why there were a rather large number of labour votes against the bill a well.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Sunny Hundal and the lies about Equal Marriage |

    [...] *Update* It seems that The Same Sex Marriage Bill has now passed its second reading in the commons  and indeed myself and George were right, it was a matter of due process. I could make a habit of gloating about it to Sunny, but I shan’t as he’s been gracious enough and big enough to apologise for getting it wrong here.  [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.