This slimey scumbag is desperately trying any trick he can to win over support, now the writing is not just written on the wall, but carved in 20ft high letters. You’re finished, along with the rest of your nepotistic, lying, philandering, stealth-taxing, politically-correct, hypocritical cronies.
Trying to turn a bunch of poofs your direction won’t help anyway, most of them are the few remaining Brits that actually think you are worth voting for because you support LGBT rights. The fact that you have utterly and completely f_cked this country, both figuratively and metaphorically, is irrelevant to these blinkered morons. You are preaching to the converted.
The rest of us will be glad to see the day when you all slope off back to your benches waiting for your expenses claim.
Thanks, Gordon, but I’d rather get married wearing my speedos outside at a gay campground in the middle of nowhere. Don’t ask me why!
Gordy, Gordy, Gordy…..!!! Do you really care or touting for the Gay Vote?… It’s true, to be fair, Labour enabled me and the Man of my Dreams to become Civil Partners in 2006. Now, would Civil Partnerships have happened If Vulpus_Rex’s Party was in Power?…Answer Not on your Nelly my old China!!
HAHAHA, yeah, as if that’s going to make us more likely to vote for the Scab Labour Party. And why should only MPs and peers be allowed to marry in the House of Commons. It should be opened up to everyone. This just reinforces the idea that it is an exclusive club run for the benefit of its members.
What a useless idea. I would prefer to to have the anglican chapel deconsecrated as it has no place at Westminster. I think it is hugely inappropriate to have a cult presence in parliament. Close the anglican chapel; change it into a registry office and everyone is happy (except the anglican cultists I imagine who want to maintain their special status)
Is the House of Commons licenced for civil weddings for straight couples? If so, then isn’t it already licenced for Civil Partnerships, too? If it isn’t, and he just wants the gay ceremonies, there’s going to have to be a backlash from straight couples who want parity!
Seriously, if Gordon cares about LGBT issues, he should read Pink and see how many articles there are about gay people attacked, murdered or generally abused and get some real legislation that will HELP.
actually, I like Simon’s idea better.
RobN, Dose this mean you wont vote LABOUR?
Simon M. You should’nt look a gift horse in the mouth. I’m sure the ‘CON’seratives will make everyones dreams come true. As for the Irish!!! They might have two referendums on it!!!
Yes, or you could just give us proper marriages instead of this ridiculous different-but-equal apartheid arrangement. Then we could get married anywhere that straight people can. Problem solved.
Civil partnerships make us second-class citizens. Every time something like this comes up we are reminded of the fact.
Why not legislate for Same Sex Marriage, then we can all get married wherever we wish!
Vincent/Pete & Michael: You wish. Do you seriously think that even if an equitable gay marriage came about, that the churches would accept it? Excuse the pun, but not a prayer mate.
I would still like someone somewhere to actually define the differences between the two anyway, I seem to suspect that it’s just a matter of semantics to keep the God-bothers away.
I actually agree with RobN there. I knew it would happen eventually. Savour the moment.
The church is entirely irrelevant. The law of the land is what matters.
just give us marriage and equality, you silly man.
I expect our government to give us marriage, equal marriage and nothing but marriage. Until this is offered by one of our poltical parties, in protest, I will invalidate my voting ballot with the words I am gay until we have marriage.
I call on all GLBT people in this country to do this in the next election.
I have been thinking of forming a petition and or a facebook page for this. Let me know what you think.
Civil Partnerships, but not marriage. Nice idea Gordon, and reluctantly apprdciated, but please focus on giving us proper equality here rather than polishing the compromise that was/is Civil Partnerships.
RobN, the thing is, it doesn’t matter if the state cult doesn’t accept same-sex marriage. The seven countries and states in the U.S. legislated quite clearly that only civil same-sex marriages are allowed and that religious cults are not bound to recognise let alone perform them. Civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious marriage. However, I don’t think we’ll ever see full marriage equality in the U.K. for those of us who want it unless we demand it. I just don’t see that happening, but I hope I’m wrong. More countries will get on board, probably Demark, Iceland, perhaps Finland next and more states in America. Its inevitable but I don’t think we’ll be on board unfortunately.
The Church of England is the established church for the United Kingdom – it does not recognise Civil Partnerships and as the Archbishop of Canterbury has only recently written,it will not bow to modern law or popular sentiment and recognise them.It is illegal to perform even a blessing for a gay couple in a church let alone a civil partnership ceremony – both the Anglican and Catholic Bishops saw to that in November 2004.Also Brown has a very bad record on gay rights legislation-he has never voted int the Commons for any part of it – and strong rumour is that he actually strongly opposed civil partnerships in cabinet and to show his displeasure that Tony Blair overruled him ,delayed their implementation as Chancellor for 6 months until December 2005.Sadly this move to allow civil partnership ceremonies in the Houses of Parliament seems like a cheap ploy for the gay vote which is very important to all the parties (except the BNP!) because the Office of National Statistics now calculates that 6% of the electorate is LGBT.That is an electoral segment that could give victory or defeat to a party and it will be vigorously courted.
@gendy Just a slight correction – The Church of England is the Established Church only in England, Welsh Anglicans constitute a separate Church within the Anglican. The Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1870s and in Scotland the Established Church is the Church of Scotland [the Presbyterians]
… as if anyone really cares!!!! ;-)
Robn Comment 11: We don’t want the church to accept Same-Sex Marriage, we certainly do not wish for a church ceremony, it is a very long time (26yrs) since we both stepped into a church. We wish for full equality, the church should be banned from performing Marriages and the law should be changed to allow Civil Marriage in a Registry Office only. The church would perhaps be only allowed to give a blessing!
I agree with Pete & Michael (20) absolutely. The Church can add a useless frill for those who want it, but with no legal standing.
I agree that we don’t need the “church” to recognise our Partnerships/marriages! I thought that Rowan was going to be a really progressive archbish but he’s just weak willed when the African anglicans threaten him with splitting the church. Perhaps its time for another reformation with a liberal church that allows Women clergy and gay marriage! As for the RC, I just give them up as a lost cause (by the way sign the ban the pope petition; number 10 website!)
Oh god, another sound bite.
Gordon, listen…give us equality with hetros, give us gave marriage and give hetros CPs.
Anything less is slime of tongue.
(Did they HAVE to include a picture of him trying to smile?)
For more pandering that is, not for the actual move itself having any impact.
Still months to go until the general election; if the Tory bid of hot air has already been raised by Labor bid of hot air + gesture, then at least there’s a slim chance that someone will commit to an actual LGBT policy by manifesto time.
What You Blind ignoramouses cannot get through your Thick (repeat)Thick heads is: People, whoever they are, when they have a full Church wedding is because they are joined in Holy Matrimony by GOD, the Priest is just the instrument. Now have you no-nothig bollicks for brains people got it?
The only solution is to burn a church down every Sunday until we get marriage equality.
Prove your god exists Brian Burton!
Abi1975, Like I said, you have bollocks fore brains!
Dear, dear, I’ve never known Brian Burton to get into such a tizzy.
Calm down, dear!
Getting worked up like this won’t do you any good, love. Neither will saying rude things to people who don’t know any better.
When you take away the colourful language and rather insulting rude words, Brian’s point is very valid; the generations of men who have ruined the church in the past have tended to be frustrated, unmarried, closetted (well, invariably) bigots who have promoted themselves and their own translations of the Bible. They have done this for self-agrandisement, rather than promote the intentions of God as writ in the oringinal manuscripts.
To Christians, God is behind all things so believers in this, and non-believers should have grace enough to accept another’s point of view. Solidarity comes from sticking together on the main points; bickering and mud-slinging gets nobody nowhere, fast!
Pete & Michael, exactly. Actually, the French have the best marriage system of all as well as the best health care system in the world. Since there is no state religion, although the catholic cult is the largest major player, all marriages MUST be performed via a civil ceremoney conducted by the local mayor or other so designated. If couples want the religious ceremony, they are free to do so and its not mandatory, but the civil ceremony must take precedence. If any country had a good shot of getting marriage equality its definitely France and I’ve no doubt it will one day, but we won’t. The state cult is too firmly and comfortably entrenched in both parties. There will be NO discussion of full marriage equality when Cameron is in power, make no mistake about that. Rowan Williams will nix any semblance of it and just like Blair, Cameron will kow tow to the bigot and his parasitical cult.
My apologies, I spelled “ceremony” incorrectly in the last post.
Why should I have the “grace” to accept the point of view of people who believe in gods when there is not a shred of evidence to support their view? It is a demonstrably false claim about the nature of reality, on a par with belief in the tooth fairy. To treat such people as if they have a valid contribution to make on this subject is to pander to ignorance. It is exceedingly patronising to all concerned. Face it, religious truth claims are entirely unsustainable in the face of the evidence. The sooner everyone realises this, the sooner we will all be able to have a grown-up conversation about ethical issues.
Very well said dear boy, yours is the voice of reason. I am a Gay Christian, I have stated this fact many times on these threads and feel I have the democratic right to be Christian. I never attempt io impose my Christian views on any one, I cannot stand Fundamentalists either. Vincent Poffley would deny me my rights but I expect he would want me to accept his belifes (Whatever that is?)
You are perfectly entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want in the privacy of your own head. Just like anyone else. But when you try to claim some additional modicum of esteem, and special treatment of your nutty ideas, you go beyond what is acceptable. You do not get to claim that your beliefs be respected in the public sphere without evidence to back them up. You have none of this. They are mere opinions, and demonstrably false ones at that.
Like I said To Abi. You too have Bollocks for brains..Get Stiffed!
Aha. Such a high-quality rebuttal! Well, I can’t really expect anything more – after all, you haven’t got any actual evidence to back up your position, so childish name-calling is probably the best weapon left to you.
The intellectual paucity of the religious mind is quite amazing…
There is a petition for marriage equality here if people want to sign and spread the word:
I had a wonderful Civil Partnership in the Registry Office in Southampton in 2006. Then we had a Wonderful reception with all our Church and none Church friends. The Feast was in the restaurant of South Western House. This was where the Passengers on the Titanic had their breakfast before boarding for their fatal voyage to New York. All this was made possible by the Labour Government. Would the ‘CON’servative party give us anything?
AndySam, no-one really cares but Welsh disestablishment dates from about 1920, there’s no established church in Wales.
“I have the democratic right to be Christian.” Brian Burton
It is not your democratic right to impose a theocracy on everybody else. Marriage is just a legally recognised contract that existed long before Christianity and will still exist long after your cult has been wound up.
Will he not need to get Jan Moir’s permission first. She’s the authority on civil partnerships in this country now.
I thought civil partnerships were EXACTLY the same as marriage except for the name. That’s what I keep hearing from gay people and the government of the UK. So why is it that every other month or so we have one of these stories that clearly shows that they aren’t the same. They aren’t respected the same. They don’t have the same legal, social or cultural value. So why do so many gay people believe and spread the lie that civil partnerships are acceptable? Are they willing to be satisfies with “almost as good” or “almost equal”? Gay partnerships will never have the same legal and social significance until the apartheid system of separate but “equal” (which NEVER is) is disbanded and everyone is given access to the same civil institutions, whether that be marriage or civil partnerships. And that will never happen as long as gay people in the UK are willing to settle for second class.
Will this constant propaganda on behalf of the Labour Party on Pink News ever stop?
Civil Partnerships are a waste of time.
They reinforce the notion that a gay couple is NOT equal and LESS worthy than a straight couple – who can marry under the Law.
For Brown and Labour to claim anything else is a lie.
They are WRONG to do so.
Pete & Michael et al: I can go with your attitude towards the church, but then this opens one huge can of worms that I for one had not even considered until now. One of the big arguments gays throw back at the Bible-Bashers complaint about ‘the sanctity of marriage’ is “What difference does it make to heterosexuals if we get married?” to which the answer quite obviously is ‘none’.
However, what you are proposing is an entirely different kettle of fish, by essentially disestablishing the church from the law, and removing the church’s legal ability to carry out a marriage. Much that I agree personally that the two should be separate, it’s going to kick off a HUGE argument, and then the churches will have a genuine axe to grind and armed them with a weapon with which to beat us with. At present, their arguments are illogical and irrelevant, but by doing this, you will change the whole reason for not wanting gay marriage. I can’t see why Registry offices cannot do this, as they already perform non-religious but legally binding marriages for straights, so it would be a simple matter to change man/woman to man/man or woman/woman.
Most churches don’t want to marry gays, and most of us wouldn’t want to be married in a church either, so what’s the problem?
Let them do their straight thing, and leave the rest to the Registrars to perform.
The problem with RobN’s proposal is that it’s not full equality. Some churches and other religious bodies DO want to be able to conduct same-sex marriages on the same basis as they conduct legally effective mixed-sex ones. The Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) for example.
So what we need is an extension of ALL of marriage law to same-sex couples, allowing those religious bodies which are allowed currently to legally solemnise marriages, to do so for same-sex couples if they want. While at the same time, allowing those religious bodies that oppose same-sex marriage to decline to conduct them.
That’s the way the law seems to be formulated in other states that have legally effective religious marriage, and same-sex marriage.
Maximum religious freedom means allowing churches and other religious organisations to choose for themselves whether to do same-sex marriages. At the moment, the law discriminates against LGBT people of faith in faiths which support their equality, like the MCC and the pagans, by disallowing them from having a legally effective wedding conducted by their faith, even though both they and their faith organisation want to be able to do them.
Nice idea – Prime Minister, but do it with full marriage and full rights for all gays in Britain.
I think the headline of the article is a bit misleading, as are Chris Bryant’s words confusing. The Prime Minister was saying that Civil Partnerships should be able to happen in the Palace of Westminster, such as Westminster Hall (a lovely venue I might add). However I don’t think anyone is seirously considering using the House of Commons chamber (or for that matter the House of Lords) so why put it as “Gordon wants CPs to be held in the House of Commons”? I believe the chambers are there for a purpose and not for anything else. By all means I think it’s a wonderful idea to allow civil partnerships in parts of Parliament, and for that matter I think we should also be allowed to marry in a church, but not, as the artcile misleadingly suggests, in the chamber.
Zeke, indeed they’re not the same as marriages, hence the name. If they were, the British government would desist from refusing to recognise a British same sex couple’s legal marriage performed outside the country or their “certificate of marriage”, but instead downgrades them to civil partnerships once the couple steps foot on British soil. As an expatriate living in New York, my state actually recognises same sex marriages for what they really are and doesn’t downgrade them to domestic or civil partnerships, entitling those couples to the more than 700 privileges and benefits to straight married couples in the state. Further, there is nothing in British law that says says otherwise. A new tory government wil uphold the same interpretation. These partnerships provide most of the rights of marriage using a different label for them, legal segregation if you will which is what they are. Lets keep in mind that seven countries now allow us to marry, countries that provided their own versions of civil partnerships long before we ever conceived of them but came to the obvious conclusion that after several years, they were indeed not equal to marriage or viewed and treated as such. There are many here who would argue that its just a case of semantics, it most certainly is NOT. I think it has a lot more to do with denial of the obvious when you consider that with seven countries and more to follow, a few states in America far outnumber them. That trend will continue, thankfully. Personally, I don’t see full marriage equality happening in the UK, but there will be more EU countries moving ahead of us.
Abi Chrisrtopher of Milton Keynes,
I don’t give a flying Toss about your life-style in your Milton Keynes Bubble. So leave mine alone! (You realise your surname is Biblicle? Christ..opher)
“Abi Chrisrtopher of Milton Keynes,
I don’t give a flying Toss about your life-style in your Milton Keynes Bubble. So leave mine alone! (You realise your surname is Biblicle? Christ..opher)”
Leave her alone you , Nazi transphobic idiot! You’re the one who said I ‘loved the Nazis’ when my family died in the holocaust – you’re nothing but a lying pile of evil scum, ‘Brian Burton’.