Reader comments · Archbishop backs Kelly in gay row · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Archbishop backs Kelly in gay row

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I can’t believe this! I think the PM didn’t think things through when he appointed Ruth Kelly to this post.I always voted Labour but this might be the final nail in the coffin.Phil

  2. I know Ruth well, and I can promise you that she hasn’t got an ounce of discrimination in her body.There are dates when Ruth has voted for gay equality legislation, but, conveniently, they are not mentioned.I think if you study the dates around the times of the births of her four children, they often co-incide with the dates when she was absent from votes. Are we really going to condemn women for having children and looking after them?Ruth has a long and proud record of fighting discrimination (long before she entered parliament, she was active in the ant-racist movement).Let’s just give her a chance. A bit like Pope Benedict, she might just surprise you (not me, I know she won’t let us down).Michael

  3. Tiago Figueiredo 9 May 2006, 3:18pm

    To judge Ruth Kelly as incapable to represent LGBT interests, only because she is a fully devout Christian, only demonstrates the kind of ignorance that people have always used to discriminate against the gay community. Anyone who has read the words of Jesus knows he was against any type of discrimination and hypocrite moral judgements, because he knew that not a single person lived without sin. The fact that an Opus Dei member ABSTAINED instead of voting against certain pro-gay decisions, is a very good sign of how her views are balanced and how she’s willing to listen to both sides, always a good quality in someone who is working to resolve a contend. So she’s neutral, since when is this bad?Let’s hear what she has to say first, without prejudice. Isn’t this what we have been looking for ourselves?

  4. You have to give people a certain benefit of the doubt – and clearly a person’s religious beliefs are their own business, but only if they can demonstrate that they’re not going to make judgements looking through the warped prism of religious bigotry or fundamentalism. Kelly’s voting record doesn’t really give us any reason to trust her so she needs to make some visible signs of her commitment to LGBT rights. Of course, she may only be in that job for a matter of months so this could all be academic…

  5. Tiago Figueiredo – I think you just shot yourself in the foot.The report on this page is incorrect and I asked the editor to amend it earlier today. I hope he will now do so.Ruth Kelly voted FOR an amendment to ban gay, but not straight, unmarried couples from adopting.

  6. The M+G+R Foundation 9 May 2006, 7:32pm

    Greetings!What Mrs. Ruth Kelly et al need is a major reality check.They should start at and finish atBlessings!

  7. Ruth Kelly has “never” offered support for the gay community in any of her parliamentary dealings!Click here and key the word search for each page with the word “gay”. As you will see there is a lot about Safeguarding Children, Sex Offender’s Child Protection there and “nothing” about the work with the gay community which she would have been invoved with in her last job.One of the key elements to homophobia is the old fashioned idea that secretly all gay people are paedophiles. So strange that Ruth Kelly should show a keen interest in Sex Offender’s Child Protection, don’t you think?

  8. Phillip hart 9 May 2006, 10:09pm

    I can’t think of anything more offensive to the gay community than appointing this dreadful woman to the post of minister for equality.I was brought up as a catholic and am well aware of their damaging bigoted views which have affected me through out my life.In interviews today she has constantly dodged questions that might have exposed her bigoted views.You cannot have a religious bigot that stands for equality.

  9. ChrisinStalybridge 10 May 2006, 12:19pm

    I think all of this is jumping the gun…let’s condemn Ruth Kelly AFTER she has done something we don’t like!Meanwhile because of her alleged membership of Opus Dei,it may well be that Mrs Kelly will be great deal more careful and more positive in what she does in supporting gay rights and equality rather than some of the dubious not to say duplicitous attitudes of those preceding her including in my experience those in the Government involved in processing the Civil Partnerships Act through Parliament.Those who watched and listened to the debate would have no doubt that the most powerful advocats delivering wonderful speeches in support came from the Opposition benches…namely Charles Hendry (MP for Wealden) and the incomparable Alan Duncan to whom we all owe a special debt of gratitude – and that is praise indeed from a life-long labour supporter!

  10. Ruth Kelly should have had the courage of her convictions and said categorically that homosexual practice is a sin. Indeed a mortal sin. It is not homosexuality itself which is sinful but the practice of it, especially the unashamed practice of it. Some people are born with bad tempers. This does not excuse them from committing GBH or beating their wives. Some people have a natural tendency towards theft. This does not give them the right to go shoplifting or commit a robbery. Likewise some people are predisposed towards homosexuality. This does not give them the right to practice it! And remember that God destroyed Sodom because of the prevalence of this practice. One fears for the future of Western civilisation because of the tolerance towards this sin. Incidentally what a horrible corruption of the English language is that imported American word “gay” when used in the context of homosexuality. My 50 year old dictionary defines “gay” thus: “joyous and lively; merry”.

  11. I will give her the benefit of the doubt, but believe her religious tendencies make her unsuitable for this job. I am a lesbian who has been in a serious relationship for 3 and a half years and don’t want something like this to affect the rights of myself and my partner.

  12. The thing is Brian, how does my lifestyle affect you and other people? Unlike GBH and shoplifting – IT DOESN’T!Live and let live sweetie pie!xxx

  13. ruth kelly…it’s a bit like putting a nazi in charge of a jewish prison…I’m under no illusions regarding her decision making, prescott was an out and out thug…welcome back to the good ole days of bigotry kids…

  14. Brian, for us atheists your Bible bashing comments mean absolutely nothing. Why not keep your religious clap trap to yourself, eh?Ruth Kelly definitely is not the person for the job of advocating gay rights. Only a gay person really is capable of advocating gay rights. Labour says “we have delivered on gay rights,” but they have not. They tell us that civil partnerships are equality then contradict themselves by telling Christians that it is nothing like marriage. Having Ruth Kelly on our side is about as useful as having Nick Griffin advocate rights for ethnic minorities.We’re all stuffed and I suggest we move to Canada before it’s too late.

  15. Tiango, if every MP lived by your definition of neutral, no MP would EVER vote.

  16. Proposals to outlaw Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Provision of Goods Servicesconsultation closes 5th June

  17. Christopher Robert 18 May 2006, 3:17am

    Ruth Kelly – Accomplished, capable, sincere and a person who prays and listens to her conscience. We need more like her! But who is it who says homosexuality is wrong? God most certainly does. So it comes down to: A) Belief in God–a gift given to us which we can refuse or accept–and then B) Whether you want to beleive in His laws and live by them. In my life, there was a time I could have easily “fallen in love” with a man and, had that been my fate, I would have found myself defending it all the way. But intellectual pride, whether right or wrong, runs very deep. To change that sort of stand is moving a mountain — I know. If you are blind, spiritually speaking, you cannot see. I trust Ruth Kelly, not to advance the homesexual agenda, but to support anti-discrimination. The holiest of people, after all, have compassion for the sick and the vulnerable. One day, we’ll all know what “truth’ means–and that Ruth was right!

  18. Phillip Hertford 27 Oct 2006, 7:04am

    I appreciate the fair coverage of Opus Dei — I have a good friend that is a numerary and have nothing but fantastic things to say about him. They are not judgemental, but live a life of purity in the midst of this world — quite admirable.Napier

  19. I always laugh at the fact that the churchs think that we choose to be gay. I was born gay, test thought-out time after time have proved that. Mother nature made me with the help of my Mum and Dad. I also think that those out there that say I did choose to be gay. Then they choose to be straight , ying and yang and all that. Which means at one point, with that hain of thought we all must start out bisexual?? Also relgion is a choice of mind, thats why there is so many different churchs and different gods. So they can change there minds. Gay is Gay. But I tell you what nothing will stop me getting all revved up when Craigy baby walks out of that sea in Casino Royale, No teachings, no punishments, no bad comments and no electric wires attached to my private parts.

  20. Struggling to find a words a bit at the moment after reading some of the blinkered opinions being spouted on here.Whilst I don’t have a problem with people having membership of a church, as it can have some positive outcomes (much in the same way as membership of the scouts, the Air Training Corp, or even the Church Lads Brigade does), I do however view them as weak willed people who cannot accept responsbility for their own destiny.I do not need anyone to tell me its wrong to kill, wrong to steal and even wrong to have sex with another man’s wife (or in my case …. husband). I didn’t learn these things from a book, these were views that I developed as I grew through childhood to adulthood. I would not like any of these things done to me, and therefore I do not do them to others. I am not a Christian, but these things are nonetheless relevant to me and the people around me.I do however shave, eat shellfish and sleep with men (although not as many as I would like to be fair). Each time I do these things it does not negatively impact on others (in fact I like to think that the sleeping with men has a positive impact – I’m assured I am fantastic sex!!). In modern times I am unlikely to cut myself shaving a die from an ensuing infection for want of antibiotics, or die from food poisoning from a dodgy prawn. The world’s population is too great, so if a few of us start settling down with a buff bloke instead of a nice young lady, its probably a good thing. These were concerns at the time they were written in the Bible, but they have long since ceased to be relevant. The work has moved on, its a pity Ruth and it seems quite a number of bigots on here have not.Christianity is (supposed to be) about forgivenss, kindness and tolerance, about thinking of others, giving a helping hand and of thinking of others.Surely gay people who want to adopt are guilty of all of these things, and those in the church who oppose it are not!!It is one thing to use religion as a crutch to help you along life’s road, it is another to start beating other passers by with it as you go.

  21. Interestingly, Michael Cashman is Britain’s only out MEP. Check out this listing of Britain’s for details…

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.