Gay marriage: Downing Street pleads with Labour to save bill

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Guardian

Downing Street issued a stark warning that the bill to legalise gay marriage will run into grave trouble – and cost the taxpayer an extra £4bn – if the Labour party joins forces with Tory opponents to vote in favour of granting civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

As David Cameron was accused by the Conservative Grassroots group of showing "utter contempt" for party activists by pressing ahead with plans to equalise marriage, Labour sources voiced fears that No 10 appeared to be trying to find ways of killing the bill.

The row erupted as No 10 braced itself for a loss of face as up to 150 Tory MPs prepare to show their opposition to the prime minister during a series of votes when the marriage (same sex couples) bill reaches its report stage in the Commons today.

>

The government warned of three dangers to the bill if an amendment to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples is passed. It is being tabled by the former children's minister Tim Loughton who opposes gay marriage. A government source said the Loughton amendment would...............



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/19/gay-marriage-bill-amendment-labour

---

Gay marriage bill returns to Commons.

Plans to legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales return to the Commons later, amid continuing opposition from some Conservative activists and MPs.

The Marriage Bill was approved by a 225-vote majority when it was last debated by MPs in February, but nearly half of all Tories voted against it.

One of the amendments tabled for debate involves extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

Equalities minister Maria Miller said this was a "complicated distraction".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Extending civil partnerships: will it really cost £4bn?

So if there is expected to be little demand for civil partnerships from straight couples why would the costs be that high? It's a good question especially given that one of the main reasons why gay rights campaigners want access to marriage is because it offers more generous pension entitlements.

To quote from a gaystar news article by sometime Guardian contributor Ray Filar:

Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.

The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.

For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund.

Now there is a real quandary. Why would extending a less generous pension scheme create a larger liability for the government?

We're going to try and figure this out in the next few hours (and I'd stress try because we don't have our own actuarial advisers to hand). But please do leave any helpful leads below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check/2013/may/20/civil-partnerships-pensions-how-much-will-it-cost

The explanation:

The only way I can see this cost coming is by assuming that there are heterosexual couples who hate the concept of 'marriage', but are OK (or like) the concept of 'civil partnership', and so have been holding back from getting married, even though it would benefit them, but would enter a civil partnership instead. I think the number of people who feel like that must be tiny (there are a few who have said they won't get married until same sex couple are allowed to, and have symbolically applied for a civil partnership as a protest, but that's different - and, again, I think it's a small number, and the government would have to show a proper survey to determine how many there are. And I think that, once same sex marriages are allowed, they'd go for marriage too).

[dipsydoodle]

3. I wasn't aware of the differentiation between state and private pensions.

Pensions are not subject to NH payments. Maybe the figure partly relates to projected loss of NH revenue.

With regard state pension there has been some changes anyway : http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/death_related_benefits/widows_contrib_pension.html Looks a bit complicated.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. That's an Irish site

The press briefing was a model of obfuscation, apparently:

Sometimes the prime minister's spokesman uses the lobby briefing to deliver a clear, newsy message to journalists. And sometimes he uses the briefing to block questions, shut down lines of inquiry and avoid conceding anything embarrassing. Today we were firmly in the second camp. I'm not particularly complaining - press officers are expected to do this - but it did make the whole encounter rather frustrating.

Here are the main points.

• David Cameron will be voting against the Tim Loughton amendment, the prime minister's spokesman said. But the spokesman refused to rule out using the amendment, if it gets passed, as an excuse for dropping the bill, and he refused an invitation to say that the government was willing to use the Parliament Act to get the legislation through the House of Lords. The spokesman kept stressing that the amendment would introduce "complexities" and that he did not want to speculate on the outcome of an vote that has not yet taken place. Nothing he said suggested that there is a strong likelihood that the bill will be dropped, but equally the possibility was left open. Separately the BBC's Norman Smith says that he's been told that passing the amendment would lead to the gay marriage legislation being delayed until after 2015.

Ministers have said that allowing heterosexual couples to obtain civil partnerships, as the Loughton amendment proposes, would increase the cost because of greater pension liabilities to the state. But they have also said that very few heterosexual couples actually want civil partnerships. At the briefing the spokesman was unable to reconcile these two apparently contradictory arguments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/may/20/mps-debate-gay-marriage-live#block-519a09f4e4b0c8e5709f39ab

[dipsydoodle]

7. I'd failed to notice that

UK stuff here : http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/pensions-and-retirement-planning/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension/extra-pension-entitlement/serps-and-the-state-second-pension.htm

Its a sad world if what motivates people to either marry or enter into a civil partnership is biased by outcomes of the death of one of them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Rather buried in all that is that the Labour front bench will support the Loughton amendment

At least, that's what they currently say they'll do. Deep in the BBC report:

Labour's equalities team, led by shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, is set to support Mr Loughton's amendment.

The party, whose support has guaranteed the bill's progress so far, accused the Tories of exaggerating the impact of changes to civil partnerships and their potential cost.

Stonewall, which campaigns for equality for gay, lesbian and bisexual people, said those backing Mr Loughton's amendment were "no supporters of equality for gay people".

And in the Guardian live blog:

9.59am BST

Labour's front bench is supporting the Tim Loughton amendment to the bill. MPs have a free vote, but Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary and shadow equalities minister, is in favour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/may/20/mps-debate-gay-marriage-live#block-5199e5fee4b0bee8c6c2219e

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Update: Labour front bench not to support Loughton, but table amendment for 'review'

On the World at One Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary and the shadow equalities minister, has said that Labour will table its own amendment on civil partnerships. It will be calling for a review.

On that basis, she will be advising Labour MPs not to vote for the Tim Loughton amendment, she said.

That's an important development. It means the prospect of the Loughton amendment being passed (and, consequentially, the bill being wrecked) has now almost certainly now been lifted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/may/20/mps-debate-gay-marriage-live#block-519a1638e4b0c8e5709f39ae

[idwiyo]

6. My message to Labour Party: my vote in exchange for your vote for Equal Rights without any

qualifiers attached to it.
Otherwise my vote goes to the 3rd party and I WILL move my residence to make sure I vote for the most viable 3rd party MP who votes for marriage equality. I will also do my best to persuade all my friends to do the same or go for protest vote.

PS. I will not vote for a lesser evil. Fuck that shit.

[dipsydoodle]

8. That's the paradox

For complete equality without any qualifiers it becomes necessary for hetrosexuals to have access to civil partnerships.

[idwiyo]

9. Easiest way to fix it is to have Civil Partnership as THE ONLY binding contract.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. No, that would sink the entire concept

You'd be saying 'marriage' wasn't marriage any more. Not only would that give ammunition to the "this is attacking our existing marriages" brigade, it would also mean that all the country didn't get its 'contracts' recognised abroad. It really would be one of the worst proposals possible.

[idwiyo]

22. "Marriage" would be a civil partnership, recognised by the state as the only binding contract.

Everything else should be a non-binding ceremony. As it should be in a secular state.

BTW, the "traditional family values" brigade will be pissed off regardless, and I fail to see why it's so damn important to keep them happy to start with. How about for a change we'd try to make LGBTQ community happy and present this issue as Equal Rights issue, instead of just a marriage part of it? How about we start calling bigotry as bigotry, regardless of what the bigotry is based on? Why is it that religious bigotry always bloody gets a pass?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. So what you seem to be saying is the only option should be 'marriage'

What I was saying, but you seem to have accepted, is that getting rid of the term 'marriage' as being what the state recognises would piss off a lot more people than just the "traditional family values" brigade. It would piss off most married people, who are happy with what they did, and are quite happy for same sex couples to do too, but who wouldn't see why their official state would no longer be 'married'. But it would be proving the homophobic activists right - it actually would be affecting existing marriages, whereas starting same sex marriages doesn't.

Saying all current civil partnerships are now marriages is a possibility, but you would have to consider if there are any legal implications. It's not necessarily the simplest option.

[idwiyo]

25. What I am saying is that religion should be taken out of legal binding contracts. Nothing to do with

what you want to call it, nothing to do with how you want to perform a ceremony. If one needs to have a religious person to "sanctify" their state officiated contract, more power to them.

BTW simple change to the existing law(s) that states there are no difference between "traditional marriage" and civil partnerships in regards to all rights and responsibilities, without any exceptions from now on, doesn't seem to be that difficult to me. Call it whatever you like but make it the only legal binding contract recognised by the state.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. It's not about whether there are differences - you're saying there should only be one version

and that therefore all existing civil partnerships are now marriages. This is the kind of thing that lawyers sometimes say "but what about ..." - for example, and I have no idea of the answer, what about an existing will that says "my civil partner"? Can Parliament just say that all legal documents that say 'civil partner' must now be read as 'spouse', or does that cause any problems with contract law?

Or at least I thought that's what you had been saying, because now you're bringing religion into it. You do need to remember that a significant part of this is exactly "what you want to call it", not that Church of England vicars are allowed to perform a marriage ceremony and register signing without a state registrar present. While the privilege given to the C of E is annoying, it's part of it being an established church - and disestablishing it is a major undertaking that could prove very difficult to get through Parliament. Certainly, same sex marriage shouldn't have to wait for it to be sorted out.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Amazing to watch folks suddenly care about 'complete equality without qualifiers'

after centuries of the other thing....

[idwiyo]

16. They will tie themselves in fucking knots to avoid the actual issue. Can't risk offending

bigoted arseholes and just bloody vote for equal rights, can we? Might make religious nutters feel less special. Can't have that! Marriage is Gawd given right for "proper" couples, everyone else should be happy with civil partnerships.

[Grins]

10. I'm lost.

"...if the Labour party joins forces with Tory opponents to vote in favour of granting civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. "

Hetero? I'm lost. Anyone....?

[Nye Bevan]

12. Me too. And I read the entire article.

My guess is that this is some kind of sneaky sabotage attempt against Cameron's bid to legalize full gay marriage. Once there is full marriage equality, the whole "civil partnerships" concept would seem to be superfluous.

[dipsydoodle]

14. I don't know what would happen

if they ok'd marriage for all and at the same time nullified civil partnerships for anyone. Its the issue of the civil partnerships which appears to be a possible cause of delays. See what happens when they vote later.

[idwiyo]

13. Instead of voting for full equality UK government created a separate type of legal partnership for

LGBTQ couples only. That bill is an attempt to "fix" that bullshit.

Our government is too friggin chicken shit to vote for equal rights.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. There's a bit of jockeying for position

A recap:
The current situation is: Heterosexual marriages are allowed. Same sex 'civil partnerships' are allowed - these have most of the same rights and duties that marriages do, but there are a few differences in some situations, such as the length of time of contributions taken into account for a survivor's pension, or recognition by other countries - see the video above.

The Conservative government has put forward a bill to allow same sex marriages. This has the support of the Labour and Lib Dem parties, so almost all the leadership of parties support it; nearly all the Labour and Lib Dem backbench MPs do too, but about half of the Tory backbench MPs don't. So far, the bill has passed all votes. The bill, unamended, would mean heterosexual couples have the option just of marriage; same sex couples would have the choice of marriage or civil partnership. It wouldn't be surprising if some civil partners, who aren't affected by the differences with marriage, opt to stick with it, just to avoid another ceremony and paperwork. Other will change to marriage. I think very few new couples would opt for civil partnership after the bill becomes law.

One of those Tory backbenchers has proposed an amendment, to allow heterosexual couples to have the new option of a civil partnership as well. Desire for this is probably tiny; most people see it as a 'wrecking amendment', since it could mean further investigation before the bill becomes law. There are vague murmurs from the Tory government that it would mean extra cost, but no-one understands that yet (some think they are preparing an excuse to stop the whole bill, if they think too many of their supporters are pissed off at the whole idea of same sex marriage).

While there is no 'official' party way to vote on this bill (it's 'free'), the Labour front bench were saying they'd vote for the amendment. Now, they've said that, instead, they will put forward their own amendment that a review about heterosexual civil partnership should start at once (the bill currently says a review will happen in 5 years). Hopefully, this is a good compromise - it gets the main aim (same sex marriage, as soon as possible), while allowing MPs to say they want to look at the 'completely even' option too - ie everyone can go for marriage or a civil partnership.

It may be worth noting that in France, their version of civil partnership is quite popular with heterosexual couples - I'm not sure of the details, but maybe it requires less commitment, or is easier to dissolve.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Sounds like Labour were close to allowing marriage equality to be sabotaged

in order to embarrass the Conservative leadership politically. Nasty stuff.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. I don't know why they had taken their earlier position

Maybe they had naively thought that the amendment wouldn't slow down the overall passage of the bill.

It is worth pointing out Peter Tatchell, who is, after all, one of the best known gay rights campaigners, supports the Loughton amendment - http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/05/20/peter-tatchell-mps-should-vote-for-heterosexual-civil-partnerships/ .

He says: "Some straight couples don’t like the sexist, patriarchal traditions of marriage. They’d prefer a civil partnership. They regard them as more modern and egalitarian. Why shouldn’t they have the option of civil partnership?"

However, I don't know anyone who feels that way, but thinks a civil partnership is worth having.

[Nye Bevan]

21. That's a bit ridiculous.

Once we have full marriage equality, it's hard to argue that marriage is "sexist and patriarchal".

But when you think about it, it must be a bit strange for campaigners like Peter Tatchell to see the Old Etonian leader of the Conservative Party fighting for something that Tatchell has spent most of his life campaigning against the establishment for!

[hrmjustin]

18. I hope they get it right.

Marriage Equality forever!

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. So far, amendments are proceeding OK

Conservative critics had tabled a proposal to let heterosexual couples enter into civil partnerships, if gay couples were allowed to get married.

This was defeated by 375 votes to 70 after a five-hour Commons debate.

Instead, MPs backed a Labour plan to consult on changing civil partnerships - a move criticised by some Tory MPs.
...
A proposal which would have allowed civil registrars to opt out of presiding over gay marriages on grounds of conscience was backed by 150 MPs - including Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Owen Paterson - although 340 voted against.

In a subsequent vote, 148 MPs supported an amendment to protect the religious beliefs of a person who believes that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman but 349 MPs voted against.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22588954

[dlwickham]

26. For our American viewers

Remember that "tabling" in the UK means the opposite of what "tabling" in the US

Tabling something in the UK mean to put it forward

Tabling something in the US means to remove it from consideration