Gender Recognition Bill — Allow Marriages to Remain Valid If They Become a Same Sex Marriage — 25 May 2004 at 17:45
The majority of MPs voted against allowing mixed sex marriages which become a same sex marriage to remain valid as long as neither party objected.
MPs were considering the Gender Recognition Bill.
The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Successful applications: married couples and stated:
- 'If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person under section 4(3) an application may be made to the Secretary of State to award a full gender recognition certificate without the provisions of Schedule 2 or section 5 having effect if—
- (a) neither party to the marriage wish the marriage to be dissolved or annulled,
- (b) both parties to the marriage can show they intend to continue living together, and
- (c) the marriage took place before the date of Royal Assent of this Act.
Clause 4 of the Bill was titled Successful applications and began:
- (1) If a Gender Recognition Panel grants an application under section 1(1) it must issue a gender recognition certificate to the applicant.
- (2) Unless the applicant is married, the certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate.
- (3) If the applicant is married, the certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate.
Schedule 2 of the Bill allowed for a marriage to be voided on the grounds of an interim gender recognition certificate being issued to either party (with similar provisions allowing for divorce in Scotland).
Section 5 provided for the subsequent issue of full gender recognition certificate after a marriage involving a party with a interim gender recognition certificate is voided or ended by divorce or the death of a party to the marriage.
Had the rejected new clause become part of the Bill it would have enabled two people legally recognised to be of the same sex to remain married, if they had been previously married as a mixed sex couple.
At the time of the vote same sex marriage was not legal in the United Kingdom
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||9||38 (+1 tell)||0||29.4%|
|Lab||294 (+2 tell)||4||0||73.5%|
|LDem||0||36 (+1 tell)||0||68.5%|
|Tim Boswell||Daventry||Con (front bench)||no|
|Mr James Cran||Beverley and Holderness||Con||no|
|Mark Field||Cities of London and Westminster||Con (front bench)||no|
|Eric Forth||Bromley and Chislehurst||Con||no|
|Peter Luff||Mid Worcestershire||Con (front bench)||no|
|John Randall||Uxbridge||Con (front bench)||no|
|Michael Spicer||West Worcestershire||Con (front bench)||no|
|Mr Teddy Taylor||Rochford and Southend East||Con||no|
|Angela Watkinson||Upminster||Con (front bench)||no|
|Jeremy Corbyn||Islington North||Lab||aye|
|Lynne Jones||Birmingham, Selly Oak||Lab||aye|
|John Martin McDonnell||Hayes and Harlington||Lab||aye|
|Mr Paul Stinchcombe||Wellingborough||Lab||aye|