Theresa May MP, Maidenhead

voted ambiguously on the policy

Homosexuality - Equal rights

by scoring 58.7% compared to the votes below

Someone who believes that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals, including an equal age of consent and the right to adopt; that same-sex couples should be provided partnership rights equivalent to those of married heterosexual couples; and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be made illegal would cast votes described by the policy.

Crime and Disorder Bill — Reduce age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 - 22 Jun 1998 - Division No. 311
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Mrs Theresa MayNo
Con18109
Lab28314
LDem313
Total338131

The majority of MPs voted to insert a new clause into the Crime and Disorder Bill[1] which read:[2]

The last part was to equalize the age of consent between homosexual and heterosexual acts which at the time was set at 17 in Northern Ireland.

This clause did not survive into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,[6] and finally appeared in Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - 25 Jan 1999 - Division No. 46
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa MayNo
Con7104
Lab27515
LDem283
Total315132

A majority of MPs voted for the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to be read a second time, thus moving it closer to becoming law.

The bill sought to reduce the age at which buggery was legal from 18 to 16. ("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) It also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 130.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill — Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful - 10 Feb 1999 - Division No. 63
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa MayNo
Con12104
Lab28312
LDem312
Total332128

The clause under discussion sought to reduce the age at which buggery was legal from 18 to 16. ("Buggery" is the legal term for anal intercourse either between men or between a man and a woman.) It also sought to reduce the age at which other homosexual acts were permitted from 18 to 16.

The Committee divided: Ayes 330, Noes 126.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - 1 Mar 1999 - Division No. 79
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa Mayabsent
Con666
Lab25612
LDem161
Total28384

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 31, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.

The amendment would raise the maximum penalty for the new offence of abuse of trust from two to five years. It has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and the hon. Member who deputises for the Opposition on these matters, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), so it enjoys the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The amendment follows a detailed discussion in Committee on a similar amendment. We undertook to consider the position further in the light of the cogent arguments made then.

Hon. Members will recall that, on Second Reading,my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South(Mr. Bermingham) made two persuasive interventions to raise the issue of penalties. It is right that his name should be mentioned in relation to this amendment.

We have looked at the amendment tabled in Committee and agree with the views that hon. Members expressed then that the amendment should be made. It may be helpful to explain briefly why we feel that that is so. First, we agree that analogy with the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 13 and 15 is flawed. My view, for what it is worth, is that the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse is too low. I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view. The Opposition spokesman on these matters certainly does.

1 Mar 1999 : Column 777

As we said in Committee, we expect the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse to be sorted out as part of the sexual offences review. However, as we believe that it is too low, we accept that it should not determine the level of penalty for the new offence. Given that we are considering a new offence, it is right to take this opportunity to set that penalty at an appropriate level. We must not be unduly influenced by the inappropriate level of penalty that applies in relation to unlawful sexual intercourse. Thus, we are considering the matter on its merits rather than on the basis of an analogy with what we regard to be a flawed penalty.

There is merit in a maximum penalty of five years for the new offence of abuse of trust. We believe that there could be cases, even of 16 or 17-year-olds with ostensibly consensual sexual relations, where a penalty of five years could be properly justified. For example, if someone in a position of trust in a detention setting had sex with a 16-year-old detainee, that would be a very serious offence, which would merit a maximum penalty of five years.

It is important for hon. Members to remember that we are discussing a maximum penalty, which would be used only rarely. Nevertheless, it is right that the courts should have it at their disposal to deal with the most serious cases of abuse. I hope that that argument will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

We can envisage those circumstances. The Minister referred to detention centres, but we are also thinking of residential institutions, especially institutions for those with disabilities, in which such a maximum sentence could be justified.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 22, after 'full time', insert 'or part time'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.

Amendment, by leave, withdraw.

Amendment made: No. 9, in line 1, after 'which' insert

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.-- [Mr. Boateng.]

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 82.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill - 10 Feb 2000 - Division No. 71
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa Mayabsent
Con1089
Lab2356
LDem163
Total265104

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is based on the principle of equality before the law. It also provides added protection for the vulnerable. I am deeply committed to the Bill, although the Government and, I believe, the Opposition regard it entirely as a matter for a free vote according to individual conscience, rather than a matter for the party Whips.

I am saddened that yet another year has passed without this reform on the statute book. The House has endorsed the principle of equality not once but twice. We included child protection measures as part of the Bill last year and asked the other place to agree. Regrettably, it has rejected the Bill. It has opposed equality and failed to support--indeed, even properly to consider--the child protection measures.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

rose --

and women. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, the Bill will lead us towards a more tolerant, less bigoted society in which all people, after centuries of struggle, will at last be treated as equals. The measure is a small step in that direction. Please let us not put up barriers of bigotry now; let us move on to a more enabling and refreshing agenda.

The report also stated that, last year, of the 1,070 heterosexual people living in Britain who contracted human immune deficiency virus--many of whom underwent HIV testing because of increased concern among women about the disease--only 62 contracted the disease in this country. When I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) that the great majority of the women in that group came from the sub-continent, she jumped on the statement and said that it simply showed that heterosexual populations in other countries are severely affected by the disease.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:--

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 102.

Local Government Bill [Lords] - Prohibition on promotion of homosexuality: bullying - 5 Jul 2000 - Division No. 253
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'No
Mrs Theresa MayAye
Con1240
Lab3269
LDem234
Total135307

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

(b) prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying.'.-- [Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.

a proper statement on what should be the role of local authorities.--[ Official Report , 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 990.]

It is not right for pupils to be taught, in any school, that homosexuality is the norm.

I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.

In the Government's view, objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality.--[ Official Report , 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1019.]

I have a view about young people being able to sort out their own ideas in a supportive environment in which they are not subject or vulnerable to bullying because they are unsure about themselves. That is what the measure is about.

The repeal will remove discriminatory and confusing legislation from the statute book.

I think that I am quoting the right hon. Lady fairly. She also said:

People have suffered far too much fear and intimidation . . .--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A , 20 June 2000; c. 541-2.]

we don't have any concrete evidence . . .

My own experience is that there is no evidence that section 28 has had a negative effect on teachers' ability to deal with bullying. No head teacher has raised it with me in all the school visits I have made.

Jointly, we can say to you that bullying goes on in every school . . . whatever its causes, Eastbourne Schools, in common with other institutions, are not prepared to accept it . . . In our experience, there is no single, major root cause of bullying, however, we do work hard through social and moral education to eradicate prejudice.

Matters of bullying are about demanding dignity and respect for the individual as a human right.

If I deal with a pupil who has bullied a boy because he is wearing a turban, there is no suggestion that in doing so I am promoting Sikhism . . . The claim that Section 28 prevents schools from dealing effectively with bullying arising from homophobia says more about a school's policy on bullying than it does about Section 28.

We believe . . . in getting rid of section 28. That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life.--[ Official Report , 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 840.]

there has been enormous confusion about how the section applies in schools.

of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship,

This prohibition applies to the activities of local authorities themselves, as distinct from the activities of governing bodies and staff of schools.

A local authority shall not--

(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.

Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

Try experimenting--

with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

They are just part of life, as common as colds and flu.

Sexually transmitted infections don't just go away, they are not like colds.

Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.

local government that listens to what people really want--how they want to be governed and how they want their services to be delivered.

the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

learning the value of family life, marriage and stable and loving relationships for the nurture of children.

The second is

learning to make choices based on an understanding of difference and with an absence of prejudice.

learning the reasons for delaying sexual activity, the benefits to be gained from such delay, avoidance of unplanned pregnancy.

no-one shall be enslaved by conformity.

The climate was such that homosexuality was a taboo subject and so there was no support system for me to turn to when I was raped at 13 by a "heterosexual" man of 30. When I confided in another

pupil, I was then repeatedly seriously assaulted by gangs of older pupils and no help, guidance or support was offered by the staff. I also felt unable to involve my family, due to the general hostility and ignorance which prevailed in society at that time.

resources which advocate monogamy or marriage as a solution to HIV.

I can never forget as a Jew that homosexuals were sent to Auschwitz just as Jews were. Therefore if our society has become more tolerant that is a good thing. However, the current proposal is based on a fundamental confusion between tolerance and moral

judgment. There is a real danger that the abolition of section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage.

Our objection is that a small and unrepresentative pressure group appears to have seized control of the government and is attempting to change the law in order to thrust on our children--and on the children of the rest of society--lifestyles and values which most people reject.

seeks to prevent the promotion of a gay lifestyle as a moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. It recognises that education is a formative experience and has a unique role in the development of not just individual pupils but of society as a whole.

Governments, both Conservative and New Labour, put the family at the heart of a stable society. Section 28 is the logical out-working of that policy in the education system.

I do have a little knowledge of the subject.

a lifelong supporter of the Labour party . . . a parent, a doctor and a Christian.

I have seen a variety of leaflets and promotional literature originating from gay rights groups, some of which are in receipt of grants from their local authorities, which have already been issued to schools despite the existence of Section 28 as it stands at present. This material not only encourages children very frankly to experiment with a homosexual lifestyle to "determine their sexual orientation" at a time when they are very vulnerable and impressionable.

Repeal would open the door, not just to the very proper factual and unbiased teaching about homosexuality which should form part of a sex education programme, but to this very overt encouragement--

More importantly still, has the likelihood of this access to children being used by covert paedophiles been fully thought through? I ask this as someone who has spent time working in prison with sex offenders. Surely we would all wish to protect our children from this kind of risk?

I doubt very much whether adequate procedures to prevent such exploitation could ever be guaranteed.

We should be very wary of using public funds to promote any kind of ideology, whatever its origin, but especially one where the targeted group is so young and vulnerable.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.-- [Mr. Waterson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:--

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 305.

Relationships (Civil Registration) - 24 Oct 2001 - Division No. 41
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa Mayabsent
Con440
Lab13010
LDem400
Total18161

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for civil registration of a relationship between two people who are cohabiting, and for such registration to afford certain legal rights; and for connected purposes.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):-

Those voting Aye in this division were in favour of bringing a bill before parliament that gave additional rights to unmarried, cohabiting couples.

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 59.

Adoption and Children Bill (Programme) — Consideration and Third Reading - 29 Oct 2001 - Division No. 45
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa MayNo
Con065
Lab2990
LDem180
Total31972

4.-(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

(2) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.-<[i>Mr. Sutcliffe.]

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 70.

Adoption and Children Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — Applications for adoption - 16 May 2002 - Division No. 244
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa MayNo
Con4110
Lab25119
LDem282
Total289135

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill allowed unmarried couples (both heterosexual and homosexual) to adopt children. Those voting aye were for the amendment.

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 28, line 41, leave out "married".-[Mr. Hinchliffe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:-

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 133.

Adoption and Children Bill — [3rd Allotted Day] — Clause 131 — General interpretation, etc. - 20 May 2002 - Division No. 246
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'No
Mrs Theresa MayAye
Con1270
Lab35263
LDem432
Total173301

This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill would have allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children. (Homosexual couples were specifically excluded.) The no-voters defeated this amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 301.

Adoption and Children Bill — Suitability Of Adopters - 4 Nov 2002 - Division No. 345
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Mrs Theresa MayNo
Con8118
Lab28819
LDem440
Total346147

Whilst in the commons for the first time, the Adoption and Children bill was amended to allow unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt children. However, when the bill went to the Lords, they rejected the amendment and reinstated the original "married couples only" rule. Back in the commons, the aye voters in this division sought to reject the modification in the Lords and allow umarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt.

The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 145.

Local Government Bill — [2nd Allotted Day] — New Clause 11 — Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986 - 10 Mar 2003 - Division No. 108
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'No
Mrs Theresa Mayabsent
Con1227
Lab3304
LDem039
Total129358

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 356.

Local Government Bill — Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality (Section 28) - 10 Mar 2003 - Division No. 109
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'No (strong)
Mrs Theresa Mayabsent
Con7123
Lab3301
LDem038
Total78370

The Majority of MPs voted to keep a clause in the Local Government Bill[1] designed repeal the section in the Local Government Act 1986 that says:[2]

  • A local authority shall not
  • intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
  • promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

The insertion of this section into the law had been as a result of the controversial Section 28 which was part of the Local Government Act 1988.[3]

Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] - 12 Oct 2004 - Division No. 256
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Mrs Theresa MayAye
Con6636
Lab3082
LDem420
Total42750

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill represents a historic step on what has been a long journey to respect and dignity for lesbians and gay men in Britain. It is a natural progression in our vision to build an inclusive society. As such, it builds on reforms that began back in 1967 with Leo Abse's private Member's Bill, backed by the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins. The Government's commitment to equality has been strong and unequivocal. We have equalised the age of consent, outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation, secured protection from homophobic hate crimes and supported the abolition of section 28.

In creating a new legal relationship for same-sex couples, this Bill is a sign of the Government's commitment to social justice and equality. It is also a recognition of the realities of modern Britain. Across this country today thousands of same-sex couples have made the decision to share their lives, their home, their finances and the care of their children or of older relatives. They may have loved and cared for each other for many years, yet their relationship is invisible in the eyes of the law. The Bill sends a clear message about the importance of stable and committed same-sex relationships.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-

Those voting Aye in this division voted to move to Bill for recognising same-sex partnerships to the next stage.

The House divided: Ayes 426, Noes 49.

Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples - 9 Nov 2004 - Division No. 314
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'No
Mrs Theresa Mayabsent
Con6134
Lab2300
LDem240
Total76383

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause in question is as follows.

'(1) Two siblings, both of whom are aged over thirty years, shall be eligible to register as civil partners provided that they have lived together for a continuous period of twelve years immediately prior to the date of registration.

(2) In this section "sibling" means a brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister.

(3) Chapter 2 of Part 2, Chapter 5 of Part 3 and Chapter 2 of Part 4 shall not apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.

(4) Section [Termination of civil partnerships other than same sex couples] shall apply to civil partnerships formed by virtue of this section.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The Civil Partnership Bill sought to give homosexual couples the equivalent rights to those of married couples. This clause sought to additionally give those rights to brothers and sisters who were living together. Those voting Aye in this division were voting for the clause.

The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 381.

Civil Partnerships Bill [Lords] — Third Reading - 9 Nov 2004 - Division No. 315
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Mrs Theresa Mayabsent
Con4337
Lab2972
LDem410
Total39149

The majority voted to pass the Civil Partnerships Bill, completing its stages in the Commons.

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations - 19 Mar 2007 - Division No. 79
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Theresa Mayabsent
Con2983
Lab24810
LDem294
Total311101

The majority of MPs voted to approve a set of regulations[1] that were made under the Equality Act 2006.[2]

This Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation, create criminal offences, and provide for exceptions.[2]

The Regulations define discrimination by a person A against a person B, on grounds of the sexual orientation of B or any other person except A, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances).

According to the Regulations it is unlawful for a person A concerned with the provision of goods and services to the public to discriminate against a person B who seeks to obtain goods and services by refusing to provide B with goods and services of a quality which is similar to the quality of goods, facilities or services that A normally provides to the public.

The exceptions include matters concerning a person's home and family relations,[3] insurance,[4] blood donation,[5] Parliament and anything to do with GCHQ.[6]

As stipulated in the Act, the House of Lords also had to debate and pass the Regulations before they could come into force.[7]

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill — Fertility treatment requires father and mother — rejected - 20 May 2008 - Division No. 197
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'No
Theresa MayAye
Con14412
Lab50232
LDem740
Total219294

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the need for both a father and a mother to be considered when taking account of the welfare of a child who may be born as a result of fertility treatment. Instead, the law will stipulate the need for "supportive parenting".

The current text in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 says:[1]

  • A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill under discussion will substitute "a father" for "supportive parenting".[2]

The vote, which was lost, would have instead changed "a father" to "a father and a mother" as it was written in the 1990 law.[3]

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill — Fertility treatment requires male role model — rejected - 20 May 2008 - Division No. 198
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'No
Theresa MayAye
Con14313
Lab51233
LDem1336
Total224292

The majority of MPs voted against requiring a father or male role model to be part of what the law interprets as "supporting parenting" for a child who is born as a result of fertility treatment.

The current text in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 says:[1]

  • A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.

The new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill under discussion will substitute "a father" for "supportive parenting".[2]

The vote, which was lost, would have instead changed "a father" to "supportive parenting and a father or male role model".[3]

A previous vote to change "a father" to "a father and a mother" instead of "supportive parenting" was also lost.[4]

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — Second Reading - 5 Feb 2013 - Division No. 151
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Theresa MayAye
Con126135
Lab21822
LDem444
Total397172

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

Under the law as it was at the time of this vote marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Same sex couples (and only same sex couples) could register a civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004[1]

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill[2] ought be given its second reading; i.e.. if they approved the core principle of the Bill and wished to see it proceed towards becoming law.

Key elements of the Bill (from the explanatory notes[1]):

  • provide that same sex couples can get married in England and Wales;·
  • provide that such marriages are to be treated the same as marriages between a man and a woman in England and Wales;
  • permit marriage of same sex couples by way of a civil ceremony;
  • permit marriage of same sex couples according to religious rites and usages and on religious premises where a religious organisation has opted in to that process (with the exception of the Church of England and the Church in Wales);
  • provide a process by which the Church in Wales can request legislative change to allow marriages of same sex couples in their churches if they wish to do so;
  • provide that there will be no obligation or compulsion to carry out or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple;·provide protection under equality law for organisations and individual ministers of religion who do not wish to marry same sex couples.

Religious organisations and their representatives who do not wish to marry same sex couples are protected from being compelled to do so through a series of religious protections.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill (Money) - 5 Feb 2013 - Division No. 153
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Theresa MayAye
Con21524
Lab2171
LDem430
Total48336

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

MPs were technically voting to approve spending arising as a result of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill[1].

The text of the approved motion was:

  • That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  • (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  • (a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a person holding office under Her Majesty or by a government department, and
  • (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and
  • (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of that Fund

==

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — (Carry-over) - 5 Feb 2013 - Division No. 154
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Theresa MayAye
Con20729
Lab2111
LDem400
Total46640

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill ought continue in the next Session of Parliament if its consideration was not concluded.

The text of the motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

  • That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

==

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill — Third Reading - 21 May 2013 - Division No. 11
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Theresa MayAye
Con117127
Lab19414
LDem434
Total361156

The majority of MPs voted in favour of allowing same sex couples to marry.

Under the law as it was at the time of this vote marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Same sex couples (and only same sex couples) could register a civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004[1]

MPs were voting on if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill[2] ought be given its third reading; i.e.. to approve the Bill as it stood and support it becoming law.

Key elements of the Bill (from the explanatory notes[1]):

  • provide that same sex couples can get married in England and Wales;·
  • provide that such marriages are to be treated the same as marriages between a man and a woman in England and Wales;
  • permit marriage of same sex couples by way of a civil ceremony;
  • permit marriage of same sex couples according to religious rites and usages and on religious premises where a religious organisation has opted in to that process (with the exception of the Church of England and the Church in Wales);
  • provide a process by which the Church in Wales can request legislative change to allow marriages of same sex couples in their churches if they wish to do so;
  • provide that there will be no obligation or compulsion to carry out or participate in a religious marriage ceremony of a same sex couple;
  • provide protection under equality law for organisations and individual ministers of religion who do not wish to marry same sex couples.

Religious organisations and their representatives who do not wish to marry same sex couples are protected from being compelled to do so through a series of religious protections.

Same Sex Marriage — Enabling Courts to Deal with Divorce or Annulment Proceedings - 5 Mar 2014 - Division No. 216
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Theresa MayAye
Con12583
Lab18312
LDem471
Total360104

The majority of MPs voted to enable the courts to deal with proceedings for the divorce of, or annulment of the marriage of, a same sex couple. The majority of MPs also voted to allow the courts to make decisions in relation to the recognition of judgements in respect of a marriage made in other European Union states.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

Amendments to Acts of Parliament in Light of the Introduction of Same Sex Marriage in Parts of the UK - 5 Mar 2014 - Division No. 220
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye
Theresa MayAye
Con12584
Lab18410
LDem471
Total365103

The majority of MPs voted in favour of various amendments to acts of Parliament in light of the introduction of same sex marriage.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

Key elements include:

  • Requiring those in a same sex marriage be treated under the law of Scotland for the time being as if they were in a civil partnership (as same sex marriage is not lawful in Scotland, though there is legislation to bring it in going through the Scottish Parliament.)
  • Consequential amendments to many acts of Parliament following the introduction of same sex marriages.
  • Many exceptions to the principle in Section 11 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 which states: "In the law of England and Wales, marriage has the same effect in relation to same sex couples as it has in relation to opposite sex couples" are made, including some relating to royal titles, rights to peerages and associated titles, EU laws, some pensions regulations, and the defence of marital coercion.

Make Same Sex Marriage Available to Armed Forces Personnel Outside the United Kingdom - 5 Mar 2014 - Division No. 221
Policy 'Homosexuality - Equal rights'Aye (strong)
Theresa MayAye
Con12879
Lab18410
LDem471
Total36898

The majority of MPs voted to make same sex marriage available to armed forces personnel outside the UK.

The motion approved in the vote was:

Key elements of the proposed law[1]:

  • The law enables members of the UK armed forces serving overseas, and relevant civilians, to marry in the presence of an authorised person. This includes marriage of both opposite and same sex couples.
  • The law applies to armed services personnel, civilians who are subject to service discipline, as well as dependents of those people.
  • The law limits same sex marriages to taking place in those countries or territories which have notified the Secretary of State in writing that there is no objection to such marriages.
  • The regulations replace existing provisions so apply to the marriage of both opposite and same sex couples.
  • There is a requirement to nominate a part of the UK in which the marriage is to be registered (Marriage of same sex couples is not lawful in Scotland, though there are proposals to introduce it going through the Scottish Parliament, and there are no plans to introduce it in Northern Ireland.)

==

How the number is calculated

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, no points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, no points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Questions about this formula can be discussed on the forum.

No of votesPointsOut of
Most important votes (50 points)   
MP voted with policy5250250
MP voted against policy20100
MP absent250100
Less important votes (10 points)   
MP voted with policy33030
MP voted against policy8080
Less important absentees (2 points)   
MP absent*6612
Total:336572

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

agreement score
MP's points
total points
 = 
336
572
 = 58.7 %.


About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive