British PM Cameron heads off rebellion over gay marriage bill

Tories pulling themselves to pieces. Will be a tragedy if his silliness allows Ed Milliband to become PM.

Tories pulling themselves to pieces.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Once the nasty party, always the nasty party.

Let's hope the Tories do themselves irreparable damage with their infighting.

Gay marriage should be legalised, but the Tory party is doing its best to destroy the country for all but the right wing and wealthy people.

Well I understand (but oppose) the arguments of Hammond and the other Tory, anti-gay marriage/marriage equality MPs who would vote against the bill. I do NOT, however, understand how or why the Labour Party could side with them.

What? Are they just being ornery? They want Marriage Equality, but only if they get credit for being the party that introduced the bill?

That seems too ridiculous. (Alas, in politics, nothing is too ridiculous).

Is it possible that there is something flawed about the proposed legislation? Anyone here in the know? Or shall I just putter off to the BBC...

@taj

The opposition's position according to the article, "the government has not made a convincing case against extending civil partnerships"

On the face of it, the amendment makes a lot a sense. I'd go a step further and make civil partnerships the only legally recognized form of partnership. I don't think it's the governments job to define marriage.

Clearly, it's all about a definition.

Ridiculous.

'Mad, swivel-eyed loons'. Pretty accurate. Cameron has thrown whole carcasses of red meat to the nutty rightwing but they still want more. Watching the Tories tear themselves apart over Europe is a great tradition. Keep it up.

What place does any government have in defining marriage?

The real issue is the financial advantages extended to some, but not to all. Eliminate the advantages.

What place does any church have in defining marriage?

albaleo, thanks for your reply.

I did follow up on the BBC, and it appears to me that the "civil union" was a new category of relationship created recognize single sex unions. To have equality, yes, two gendered and single gendered couples should have the same options.

How much did the creation of a new category cause all manner of hassle? Every set of work rules, all laws related to pensions, etc., hospital guidlelines, etc. would have needed re-writing to allow for the new category of "family member". How much easer it would've been if they'd just gone straight to marriage for all.

(Take note Japan, and other countries, that haven't yet started the process,...)

Interesting out of the 14 countries that accept same-sex unions/marriage 9 are European countries. 1 I know is. African.

Come on Brits and Americans time to move ahead.

@SushiSake3, more to the point, what place does any church/religion have in defining what the State does? Religion and 'The State' should be separate.

The picture with this report says "Liberty for all relationships." Does that include Incestious relationships, Bestial Relationships, and Paedophillia relationships as well, I wonder?