Reader comments · Cameron’s families speech doesn’t mention civil partnerships · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Cameron’s families speech doesn’t mention civil partnerships

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. If Cameron excludes civil partnered couples from the tax allowance, then you’ll know where you stand come election time. I was under the impression that Civil Partnership provide all the rights of heterosexual marriage. If Cameron doesn’t equate gay families with heterosexual families, with or without children, then it will prove that the Tories are not supportive of equality at all. If that’s the case, then why would any gay person want to vote for a party that doesn’t want them?Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  2. What about footnote 94 of the policy document on which says:Maybe Tony Grew could explain how that squares with his article saying: “several phrases were missing, among them ‘civil partnerships.'”

  3. Has this story been written by one of the spotty Lib Dem Researchers filled with anger who you ask to work for free on the website?

  4. IDS was asked about this on TV this morning, he sneered (as he does) and said that it looks like Civil Partnerships are here to stay and that it would be up to the party to decide if they wanted the proposals to apply to Civil Partnerships. He said he wouldn’t oppose the move if they wished to, but it was quite clear that he didn’t approve.This is nothing more than a bribe which will not help the poorest families or those in the most need. It old style Tory politics aimes at the Daily Mail brigade. 200 pages of spiteful shite.

  5. Sister Mary clarance 11 Jul 2007, 12:51am

    As has been noted by Rob, on page 110 of the policy document under the heading “Supporting marriage and encouraging couples to come together”, there is a footnote that quite clearly says, “In this document references to marriage are to be taken as including civil partnerships”. Rather than the headline “Cameron’s families speech doesn’t mention civil partnerships”, would it not have been more appropriate to say, “Cameron’s families speech puts civil partnerships on an even footing with marriage”?Politically biased reporting does nothing to further the good reputation that this site is building for itself. Surely the function of a new site is to provide the reader with facts, enabling them to, if necessary, to make informed decisions. Perhaps the editor would like to comment on a mistake that has put a completely inaccurate negative slant on this story

  6. oh so sister mary clarence is now a tory supporter?how fkin funny

  7. I see that the article has been changed now, which I guess is at least an acknowledgment that it was pretty shoddy to begin with, although the tone is still heavily slanted.I would have thought that the fact that civil partnerships are being accepted as equal to marriage in these proposals and don’t actually require special mention is an achievement in itself.And how facile Ken Livingstone shows himself to be by rushing to call his political opponents “homophobic” when his assumption about the details of the policy were entirely wrong. I wonder if he used the same word when he Yusuf al-Qaradawi round for tea. I somehow doubt it.

  8. Sister Mary clarance 11 Jul 2007, 10:53am

    Absolutely T Welin, and I take it you’re not.It staggers me that so many gay people can turn a blind eye to everything else that is wrong with the country in exchange for a few more equal rights forced on this country (and the government) by the Treaty of Amsterdam, which Labour have (cleverly?) spun to make the masses think was actually their idea.We are about to see the re-introduction of a nuclear fuel programme. Bit rich when Labour wants us fined if we don’t recycle our gin bottles, because it ‘cares’ so much about the environment. Had they invested more heavily in research into sustainable energy sources, things may have been a little different.Millions reaching and recently reached retirement face years of poverty because of the Labour Chancellors mismanagement of pensions.We are seeing rationing beginning on the NHS. The overweight and smokers today, no doubt others with lower survival changes (i.e. those with HIV) tomorrow. Labour have ensured a legacy that we will suffer for the next three decades with its criminal PPP finance deals on new hospitals which will leave PCTs crippled by ‘mortgages’ that will see them pay back often 300-400% of the amount they borrowed over 30 years.The rich poor divide has widened under Labour, who have introduced ‘choice’ into schooling and access to health services. All very well if you, or more importantly your parents have the ability to choose. The poorly educated are immediately at a disadvantaged when arguing against the articulate and well educated for a hospital bed or to get their kids into a good school. so much for breaking the circle of poverty. God forbid you should be on your own and need access to mental health services, difficult to argue for a good hospital when you’ve lost your mind – after all who would listen anyway.I could go on about the all the corruption Labour, its ministers and MPs have been involved in (peerage anyone?), much of it the public knows about, much of it is still to come out. I could go one about where licking the arse of President Bush has got us and the deaths both here and oversees that have been caused as a result.Why do have any immigration policy that says you can come in if you can cut through the wire? We have an enormous skills shortage in this country, why does Labour not make this clear to people (oh, its of their creating), and why do we not have a controlled immigration policy that allows those with the skills that the country desperately needs to migrate legally?This Labour government has betrayed everything that a socialist government should stand for and it will be a cold day in hell before any member of the ‘New Labour’ party gets my vote. It staggers me that anyone with any sort of social conscience whatsoever could ever consider voting for them.

  9. Oh the irony… sister mary clarance and rob calling the article biased. Try reading your comments back, if they aren’t bias i don’t know what is!

  10. You’re comparing articles with comments.Comments are implicitly biased as they are opinion based. I think news articles on “Europe’s largest gay news service” should try to remain news based not opinion based.

  11. Robert W. Pierce 12 Jul 2007, 3:36pm

    Sister Mary Clarence, who will you vote for if Cameron et al suddenly do an about turn on equality issues and side with right wing fundamentalists? Are you going to do what Log Cabin republicans (gay conservatives) do here in the USA, who vote for a government that has legislated a ban on same-sex marriage and other forms of equality and a president who refuses to sign hate crimes legislation adding sexual orientation as a protected class? Violent and fatal crimes against gays in this country is increasing at an alarming rate. If religious and racial crimes are protected, so should sexual orientation when hate speech incites others to commit acts of violence against gays, some of which are often fatal.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  12. Sister Mary Clarance 13 Jul 2007, 6:59pm

    Two points:Jonny. I am not publishing a news site. I am posting opinions on a comments page.Robert, ex-pat Brit. Not quite sure how you connect voting Conservative with ‘right wing fundamentalists’. I think you might have been away from Blighty a bit too long. One of the issues accepted in British politics at the moment is the huge shift to the right we have seen under ‘New Labour’ who arguable have some policies far more right wing that the Tories.What you and so many others on here seem to refuse to understand is that Britain under any government is powerless to prevent the slow but sure march that has seen increases in equality for gay men and lesbians, through the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This country no longer has autonomy over its governance and is forced to comply with policies introduced by the EU.Whilst I don’t knock people for reading the news contained on this site, from time to time reading a bit of news elsewhere, other than Gloria Gaynor leading us all to Christ, wouldn’t go amiss.The article showed clear editorial bias and I strongly believe that any news site should be above that sort of thing.

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.