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

Debate in Parliament | Historical Hansard | Source |

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con9 38 (+1 tell)029.4%
DUP0 3050.0%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab294 (+2 tell) 4073.5%
LDem0 36 (+1 tell)068.5%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 50100.0%
UUP0 3060.0%
Total:303 94062.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Tim BoswellDaventryCon (front bench)no
Mr James CranBeverley and HoldernessConno
Mark FieldCities of London and WestminsterCon (front bench)no
Eric ForthBromley and ChislehurstConno
Peter LuffMid WorcestershireCon (front bench)no
John RandallUxbridgeCon (front bench)no
Michael SpicerWest WorcestershireCon (front bench)no
Mr Teddy TaylorRochford and Southend EastConno
Angela WatkinsonUpminsterCon (front bench)no
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye
Lynne JonesBirmingham, Selly OakLabaye
John Martin McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabaye
Mr Paul StinchcombeWellingboroughLabaye

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive