| We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce
| Marriage Equality.
|
| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Gay-Marriage/
|
| We ask the Prime Minister to bring in equality for all British
| citizens regardless of sexual orientation with regards to
| Marriage. This means extending the rights of same sex couples to
| become legally married as is legal in Canada, Belgium, 5 states
| of the USA, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain and South
| Africa. Civil Partnerships should also be open to heterosexual
| couples who do not necessarily want to get married.
|
| Equal but different is NOT equality. Love is Love.

Some homophobic and sexist idiot at No.10 has labeled the page "Gay marriage"

Report this comment to us

You are sadly misinformed. Please see my reply to you http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=15085#comment-84272 and subsequent posts.

Report this comment to us

Report this comment to us

Do you think other apartheids have ever been abolished because they were seen as "silly and pointless"? If you bothered to read up properly on this you would know that exactly this issue has been thoroughly examined by eminent judges in several jurisdictions overseas, and it has always been judged harmfully discriminatory and illegal. That's a lot heavier than "silly and pointless" on any rational scale.

Perhaps its that you are so enamored of your CP that you cannot see the many serious deficiencies you signed up for, and endorsed for others. Like their overseas marriages only being seen as CPs in the UK. Like trans people being forced to end their CP or marriage before they are allowed to change their legal sex (if they are transitioning that late in life), simply because same-sex marriage and opposite-sex CPs are barred (that was deliberate, since the two pieces of legislation went through together). Like CPs not being recognised abroad. Like religion, romance, love and sex being clearly seen as an accepted part of marriage but not CPs. CPs are nothing but financial contracts, yet most married couples would be horrified if anyone were to relegate their marriage to such a sordid and mundane status.

Report this comment to us

No, when the government legislated Civil Partnerships it was very clear they were to prevent same-sex marriage, to prevent equality. Stonewall and others had smothered debate on same-sex marriage here, but The Netherlands, Belgium and Canada already had it, and it was a very hot topic in the USA. Spain adopted it as the UK legislation was under debate. Civil partnerships were intended to remove enough fire from lesbian and gay inequality to ensure full equality never arrived. And the government made very clear in the parliamentary debates that it was the personal religious beliefs of relevant ministers, and the Blairs, that mattered.

| More likely they like the funding they receive and and worried
| that if they upset their political masters in parliament they
| will lose access to those in power.

Most of Stonewall's income comes from the UK's governments, and staff from Stonewall go on to very nicely paid government jobs. Then there are the very cosy personal friendships with the politicians.

| Who gave Stonewall the authority to speak on behalf of all LGB
| people? Why it was the government.
|
| But that is not the same as a mandate from the people they are
| meant to be representing.

The government did the same with Press for Change. Always question why leaders of "pressure groups" get awarded honours like MBE's.

Report this comment to us

Marriage is the only universally recognized protection of the pairing of two human beings. For many, perhaps most people such a coupling is their best hope, their ideal. In some circumstances it is as you describe, but only some. When it is that should be condemned. It would be wicked to advocate that only such situations be termed marriage. It is also not easy to see how male ownership of women would transfer to same-sex marriages.

Hardly. How would marriage ensure that?

Err, newsflash, marriage is not owned by religions. It long pre-dates religions and takes place without religious involvement. And not all religions are as you describe anyway. You seem to have very narrow views.

Stonewall betrayed us, and continues to betray us on marriage, which is a crucial equality issue (as indicated by the homophobes strong stand on it), and have become establishment fat cats, not to be trusted at all. That means they cannot be trusted to save lives either.

A major reason kids suffer at school is that they can be considered second class. Every socially sanctioned relegation assists that. Kids can taunt that they will never marry. And families can say the same. Its the ultimate "Billy no mates" taunt. Stonewall wants that to continue. And so, it seems, do you.

Report this comment to us

Report this comment to us

. . . and this is the only thing we can be certian of in life.

I too think the more we are able to grasp this reality, the more we will be able to live a life worth living. This reality ultimately brings a sense of urgency, the after life may bring denial of the true facts of life . . . since the after life may or may not exist

Carpe Diem

Report this comment to us

You're born, you live, you die, you rot. Get over it.
People spend way too much time worrying about what happens when their dead rather than what they should be doing whilst they are still alive.

Report this comment to us

Report this comment to us

No-one is proposing that churches be forced to do anything that goes against their ethics. The proposal is that those churches that agree with it, and only those that agree with it, should be able to register same-sex partnerships.

Your attitude to same-sex couples with a religious faith ("there is no reason why they can't be held in a registry office") is selfish and dismissive. And I'm an atheist with no personal interest in a religious wedding at all.

Report this comment to us

This sort of antagonistic attitude by that bunch of apathetic f_ckwits at Stonewall is just the sort of stupid leftie attitude that gets the rest of us a bad name. I'm all for gay marriage, but there is no reason why they can't be held in a registry office.

Report this comment to us

It is valuable to allow THOSE CHURCHES WHO WANT TO to effect civil partnerships to do so, if only to bang home the point that SOME but not ALL religious people have homophobic views.

The main objections to reform are represented as being on behalf of religious people/faith/the Bible and so on. If this bit of law were removed, it would significantly undermine that sort of objection.

(And don't forget that religious and non-religious people campaigned against the clause that prevented civil partnerships on religious premises when the bill was first going through the Lords.)

Report this comment to us

Report this comment to us

So the analogy with the segregation of marriage and CP is not 100%, because same-sex couples don't have to give up their CP because marriages have run out! So I suggest using the analogy with care.

Another analogy I have sometimes used is the one of segregated drinking fountains in some US states, side-by-side, labelled "Whites only" and "Coloured". Again the analogy should be used with some care, because the "Coloured" fountains were generally smaller and more rickety than the "Whites only" ones, although the quality of the water from the two side by side fountains was presumably the same.

Report this comment to us

What does religion's views on gays have to do with whether or not we should be allowed access to civil marriage? I don't see anyone advocating that (heterosexual) atheists and divorcees should be denied the right to marry because "religions don't like them", this argument is only ever applied to gay couples to deny them of their rights. Religion doesn't own marriage, certainly not in the civil realm, so their views on it, as well as your own personal dislike for the institution, are irrelevant to whether or not we should be allowed to marry.

The fact is that marriage is the best form of legal recognition for couples and the only form where same-sex couples can be treated fully equal under the law and by society as a whole. Why do you think that Sweden and Norway, both countries which had registered partnerships for over a decade, decided to discontinue them and introduce marriage equality? Because they found that preventing gays from marring and instead forcing them into a separate institution, was inherently discriminatory and inherently harmful.

Studies have shown the same in the US examining the civil unions of New Jersey and the (now defunct) ones in Vermont. Civil unions, not matter what legal rights they purport to have, are not equal to civil marriage. And until gays have the right to marry here in Britain we aren't being treated equally.

Report this comment to us

Report this comment to us

By the way, slagging off Stonewall is taking the ultimate piss. They are not perfect but they've done a hell of a lot more for us in this country than the bleating pains that try to do them harm – leave that to the homophobes please, we have enough people to fight.

If just one kid is less suicidal because of their work in schools then they deserve all of our support, not some self serving, whining bitchfest.

Report this comment to us

Report this comment to us

Report this comment to us