MP to rebel over same-sex marriage Government proposals (From Echo)

why shouldn't they be allowed to marry, whose right is it to stop them??? you or I can marry whomever we please, so gays should be entitled to the same freedom of choice

If we're going on the basis of something not being in the manifesto not having a mandate for implementation then every government MP should be asked to explain why they haven't written a letter to the PM objecting to 99% of what has been passed thus far. It's funny not the economy can stagnate and all the other problems but the biggest thing that drives these MPs is the 'unimportant' issue of gay marriage. If it's that unimportant why put so much effort into objecting to it? Like all of these things there is a tidal wave of change. The Tories now look historically intolerant with their support of Section 28, anti-gay adoption, age of consent opposition and all of that. All stuff they (most) now apologise for. In five years time this issue will be viewed in exactly the same way. They'll all come on TV to apologise, say they got it wrong, that they've 'learned' etc, just like before. Some politicians have no foresight beyond the headlines of the next days papers.

well said pounder !!!

Cover that guys hair over with your hand and that really does look like Adolph Hitler.

He should get rid of that mustache.

Well done Mr Metcalfe, you have the respect and support of many hundreds of people, including mine, in your constituency. It always amazes me how the majority opinion gets ignored by Government while the vocal minority, and it is definitely the minority, who shout their views across the media tend to get heard. The Government is backing the wrong horse on this one

This infuriates me!

I am not gay but I don't see why the love between two men/women is any different from that of a man/woman and why they should have any less rights to marriage! This is the 21st Century not the 12th!

Stephen Metcalfe, you are showing yourself for the homophobic, close minded, selfish, ignorant so and so that you really are and I hope that sense will prevail and same sex marriage is finally allowed!

Denouncing anyone with the temerity to oppose these plans as "homophobes" is, of course, one of this debate's most tedious and intellectually lazy features.

Nobody who has met Stephen Metcalfe would accept that he is even remotely prejudiced. There is a perfectly legitimate argument that says, quite simply, that the political class have no right to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. Marriage is a traditional institution and has been the cornerstone of society for generations and I for one am not sure that it rests within the competency of this present Government to redefine its meaning for us all. Many of us, who were perfectly comfortable supporting Civil Partnerships precisely because we AREN’T bigots, nevertheless cannot support ‘gay marriage’ (and, frankly, all the pontificating, self-righteous hectoring from its proponents are doing little to sway me to their side). For a start, this has nothing to do with ‘equality’ and everything to do with hijacking language. A few people in the militant gay lobby (I say a few because, let’s not forget, a number of high-profile gay men are opposing gay marriage too – including journalist Andrew Pierce, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and Tory MP Conor Burns – are they ‘homophobic bigots’ too?) are simply not satisfied with Civil Partnerships. They want the State to call it ‘marriage’.

Personally, I’ve reached the conclusion the State should get out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether. Leave marriage to the churches, mosques and synagogues and everyone register a ‘civil union’ separately. Then people can call their union whatever they want without dragging the State into it.”

Andrew Schrader wrote:
Denouncing anyone with the temerity to oppose these plans as "homophobes" is, of course, one of this debate's most tedious and intellectually lazy features.

Nobody who has met Stephen Metcalfe would accept that he is even remotely prejudiced. There is a perfectly legitimate argument that says, quite simply, that the political class have no right to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. Marriage is a traditional institution and has been the cornerstone of society for generations and I for one am not sure that it rests within the competency of this present Government to redefine its meaning for us all. Many of us, who were perfectly comfortable supporting Civil Partnerships precisely because we AREN’T bigots, nevertheless cannot support ‘gay marriage’ (and, frankly, all the pontificating, self-righteous hectoring from its proponents are doing little to sway me to their side). For a start, this has nothing to do with ‘equality’ and everything to do with hijacking language. A few people in the militant gay lobby (I say a few because, let’s not forget, a number of high-profile gay men are opposing gay marriage too – including journalist Andrew Pierce, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and Tory MP Conor Burns – are they ‘homophobic bigots’ too?) are simply not satisfied with Civil Partnerships. They want the State to call it ‘marriage’.

Personally, I’ve reached the conclusion the State should get out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether. Leave marriage to the churches, mosques and synagogues and everyone register a ‘civil union’ separately. Then people can call their union whatever they want without dragging the State into it.”

It becomes very hard to believe someone isn't a bigot when they're entire argument is 'you cannot have that word - it's ours'. It's hardly the most compelling of cases, is it? As for the argument of the redefinition of marriage - that has been redefined before. Why is there not retrospective outrage over the changing of the definition that took place in 1929 when the minimum age was changed to 18? Surely the law, before that, defined marriage as being between a man and a woman of a different age. This redefinition of marriage was surely something we should not stand for and what right did 'the State' have to interfere? Of course nobody would make that argument, because what matters isn't the 'redefinition' of marriage, is it? Oh no, what really matters is letting gays get married. The whole 'redefinition' argument is just the last desperate straw to grab onto. As for removing state from marriage - I'd fully support the state withdrawing legal recognition of religious ceremonies. However I'd suspect the 'keep the state out of marriage' lot would soon despair if the state truly did withdraw from the debate. The argument of 'The law has nothing to do with my marriage - now I demand you legally recognise it' - again, isn't the strongest case in the world.

Andrew Schrader wrote:
Denouncing anyone with the temerity to oppose these plans as "homophobes" is, of course, one of this debate's most tedious and intellectually lazy features.

Nobody who has met Stephen Metcalfe would accept that he is even remotely prejudiced. There is a perfectly legitimate argument that says, quite simply, that the political class have no right to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. Marriage is a traditional institution and has been the cornerstone of society for generations and I for one am not sure that it rests within the competency of this present Government to redefine its meaning for us all. Many of us, who were perfectly comfortable supporting Civil Partnerships precisely because we AREN’T bigots, nevertheless cannot support ‘gay marriage’ (and, frankly, all the pontificating, self-righteous hectoring from its proponents are doing little to sway me to their side). For a start, this has nothing to do with ‘equality’ and everything to do with hijacking language. A few people in the militant gay lobby (I say a few because, let’s not forget, a number of high-profile gay men are opposing gay marriage too – including journalist Andrew Pierce, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and Tory MP Conor Burns – are they ‘homophobic bigots’ too?) are simply not satisfied with Civil Partnerships. They want the State to call it ‘marriage’.

Personally, I’ve reached the conclusion the State should get out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether. Leave marriage to the churches, mosques and synagogues and everyone register a ‘civil union’ separately. Then people can call their union whatever they want without dragging the State into it.”

It becomes very hard to believe someone isn't a bigot when their entire argument is 'you cannot have that word - it's ours'. It's hardly the most compelling of cases, is it? As for the argument of the redefinition of marriage - that has been redefined before. Why is there not retrospective outrage over the changing of the definition that took place in 1929 when the minimum age was changed to 18? Surely the law, before that, defined marriage as being between a man and a woman of a different age. This redefinition of marriage was surely something we should not stand for and what right did 'the State' have to interfere? Of course nobody would make that argument, because what matters isn't the 'redefinition' of marriage, is it? Oh no, what really matters is letting gays get married. The whole 'redefinition' argument is just the last desperate straw to grab onto. As for removing state from marriage - I'd fully support the state withdrawing legal recognition of religious ceremonies. However I'd suspect the 'keep the state out of marriage' lot would soon despair if the state truly did withdraw from the debate. The argument of 'The law has nothing to do with my marriage - now I demand you legally recognise it' - again, isn't the strongest case in the world.

Sorry for double post. I tried to amend something but it posted twice.

Well said Andrew Schrader!

This is not about gay rights, it is about where the limits of Government are and how the powers invested in the Government should be used.

Government should not meddle in this sort of thing.

Good on you Mr Metcalfe!