Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tories to reward couples in marriages and civil partnerships

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. OK, he’s said it. Now let’s see what he does about it.

  2. I don’t know how good marriage is Dave I’m excluded from it!

    “However, the newspaper reported that he said civil partnerships would also qualify.”

    Like the daily mail is a reliable source of information.

  3. Is the flip-side not that this amounts to penalising non-married, non civil-partnership co-habiting couples? People should have the right to choose to live together, without being married or in a civil partnership, without being penalised for such a decision. Who is the state to try and push us into these things.

  4. Cool. In that case he will be supporting legislation to let trans people apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate WITHOUT breaking up the marriage first.

    Oh, no…I forgot…this is the Tories

  5. Jemma Haynes 1 Dec 2009, 11:48am

    Abi – its nothing to do with the tories that there is not gay marraige – who has been in power for the last 12 years???

    Polly – again, labour are in power now and have done nothing about this, how the conservatives can be blamed for things that labour have not done is beyond me!!!

  6. John(Derbyshire) 1 Dec 2009, 11:51am

    This is a case of taking money OFF people who don`t conform to their party political dogma and giving it to people who DO. The well-off already get married for financial reasons- whilst the poorer members of society do not. Its just a pathetic gesture. If you have money-its in your interest to form a civil partnership- if you haven`t-or you are on benefit-its not.

  7. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 11:54am

    And what about the rewards for people who decide to remain single and childless?

    Are these people going to be punished for their choices?

    That religious freak Iain Duncan Smith will probably see to that – him being so active in ‘promoting’ marriage and trying to limit gay rights in his sinister capacity as the head of the Centre for Social Justice.

  8. Matt Sephton 1 Dec 2009, 12:04pm

    This isn’t actually news – David Cameron first made the announcement that both marriage and civil partnership will be rewarded in his closing speech to the Conservatives National Conference on 8th October 2009 in Manchester and it was widely reported in the media then.

  9. Mihangel apYrs 1 Dec 2009, 12:11pm

    married or CP people receive a smaller “per head” pension, have financial obligations one to the other (e.g. they are expected to support the other if that person is un-employed), etc.

    Admittedly, if the DWP believes two people are co-habiting as partners then they can be so penalised, but they need proof; a marriage or CP license is such proof.

    But I do agree that singles end up supporting a lot that they don’t benefit from, and have a raw deal on taking holidays, covering for parents….

  10. Jemma Haynes & Matt Sephton of LGBTory – but I can look at the Tory voting recold over the past 12 years its a nightmare when it comes to LGBT issues.

    You may not of been in power but you where in parliament over those 12 years an your parties voting record did not support LGBT equality over those 12 years.

    Take the equality bill 3rd reading on Wednesday how many of you will vote in favour of the bill? Will the Conservatives be supporting the Lib Dem Amendments 3, 4, and NC12 (new clause 12) replace the definition of gender reassignment with gender identity. Amendment NC8 adding harassment protection for trans pupils in schools.

    If you could not even issue a simple statement of support for transgender day of remembrance on the 20th of November I doubt your party will be voting for equality on Wednesday.

    We don’t want continued words with no action so prove it on Wednesday support the Equality bill with the the trans amendments.

  11. It's illegal 1 Dec 2009, 1:01pm

    It’s illegal for the state to discriminate on the basis of marital status: see ECHR

  12. Justin Hinchcliffe 1 Dec 2009, 1:22pm

    Excellent news! Good on David Cameron! By the way, with her (?) attitudes to political positioning, I think dear old “Abi” is stuck in 1975.

  13. vulpus_rex 1 Dec 2009, 1:28pm

    I don’t think it is marriage per se that is being supported but families, i.e. children and parents within the context of a marriage or civil partnership.

    Children are expensive and therefore some additional support should be welcome – at least a marriage or CP is some evidence of commitment to ones family.

  14. Will the Conservatives support equality for everybody on Wednesday Justin Hinchcliffe? Will the Conservatives support the inclusion of all transgender people in the Lib Dem amendments.

    Come on Justin Hinchcliffe what is the Conservative position on LGBT equality?

    I am not interested in making a personal attack on you like you have tried to on me. I want you to address the issues so where does LGBTory stand on this issue.

  15. “I don’t think it is marriage per se that is being supported but families, i.e. children and parents within the context of a marriage or civil partnership.”

    But Iain Duncan Smith – who will be in charge of ‘families’ if the Tories win the next election, is campaigning to reduce the parental rigghts of non-biological gay parents through his activities with the Centre for Social Justice.

    Is Cameron lying again I wonder?

    By the way Justin Hinchcliffe – are your opinions on trans people ie referring to a transwoman using question marks and inverted commas when referring to that person’s gender – typical of the Tory Party? Why is the LGBTory group called that if it doesn’t believe trans people are equal.

    Or is the LGBTory group just a group created for PR purposes to hoodwink the LGBT population into thinking the Tories have changed?

    Does LGBTory support the expulsion from the party of Iain Duncan Smith because of his active homophobia?

    Does LGBTory approve of the union in the European Party between far-rights extremist, homophobic parties like the Polish Law and Justice Party; or the reputed anti-semitic neo-nazi Michal Kaminski?

  16. Justin Hinchcliffe 1 Dec 2009, 2:16pm

    Liam, what a load of old bull. Which UK party was the first to filed a trans candidates back in 1998?

    I would hope and expect Conservative MPs to support trans people.

  17. Mumbo Jumbo 1 Dec 2009, 2:17pm

    For the record, Justin Hinchcliffe is not just another ordinary punter posting his/her opinions on this site.

    He is a Conservative Party candidate and ought to make that clear to everyone. Not to do so is unethical.

  18. What the Tories are talking about here is incentivising ‘marriage’ through the tax system. They erroneously assume that by doing this they will benefit society be creating more ‘good marriages’. This is a statistical chimera. They assume that the new marriage created will be as ‘good’ as the ones that already exist. What they fail to understand is that the people who have thus far chosen to get married are a self selecting group of ‘good marriage’ candidates – individuals who for whatever reason feel themselves ready and willing to commit to a long term emotional and financial relationship. Good for them. However simply offer couples who would otherwise not choose to marry a few quid to go through a marriage ceremony will not bring with it these same benefits. It will not magically change them into more committed individuals. The most like outcome of financially incentivised marriage will be that some people get married for all the wrong reasons – to get a crappy tax break. However I suspect the real motivation behind these measures is not to fix so called ‘Broken Britain’ rather it’s just a bit of red meat for the hang ‘em and flog ‘em Daily Mail readers. Sadly I suspect even they won’t be impressed by this – seeing how the ‘queers’ will be able to get in on act.

  19. No 16: Justin: “Liam, what a load of old bull. Which UK party was the first to filed a trans candidates back in 1998?”

    Justin – you have not answered my specific questions. I will repeat them for you (this time with numbers so you don’t miss any:)

    1. Are YOUR personal opinions on trans people ie referring to a transwoman using question marks and inverted commas when referring to that person’s gender – typical of the Tory Party? Why is the LGBTory group called that if it doesn’t believe trans people are equal.

    2. Is the LGBTory group just a group created for PR purposes to hoodwink the LGBT population into thinking the Tories have changed?

    3. Does LGBTory support the expulsion from the party of Iain Duncan Smith because of his active homophobia?

    4. Does LGBTory approve of the union in the European Party between far-rights extremist, homophobic parties like the Polish Law and Justice Party; or the reputed anti-semitic neo-nazi Michal Kaminski?

  20. Oh and if Justin Hinchcliffe is a parliamentary candidate for the Tories I want to ask him some more questions:

    5. Do you support the expulsion from the Tory Party of religious bigot Philippa Stroud

    6. Does LGBTory support the religious opt-out from the Equality Bill?

    7. Does LGBTory support marriage equality for gay and straight people ie gay people to be allowed to enter civil marriages and straight couples be allowed to enter CP’s

    8. I know I asked this already but it’s worth repeating – is LGBTory just a PR stunt to trick LGBT people into thinking the Tories have changed?

  21. The fact the conservatives have Pinknews under surveillance I find spooky.

    No other party have this organised campaign to tell the LGBT what it should think by using plants.

    Justin Hinchcliffe of Tottenham Conservatives
    Matt Sephton of LGBTory

  22. vulpus_rex 1 Dec 2009, 3:32pm

    “The fact the conservatives have Pinknews under surveillance I find spooky.”

    A trifle pathetic.

    There are plenty of conservative leaning people who post on these websites which is a welcome relief from the tide of pro-labour zombies who usually dominate.

    Justin Hinchcliffe posts under his own name it is therefore reasonably easy to track him down on the internet.

    YOU chose not to so but you could very well be a labour party troll.

  23. Jonny Roland 1 Dec 2009, 3:42pm

    I can’t believe how cynical some people on here are.

    Here is a man trying to do his best for our country, giving completely equal status to our community, and all some of you can do is say that because he is a Conservative it’s not enough.

    As for Matt and Justin, they are two young people who are standing up and fighting for what they believe: they deserve your respect not your condemnation.

  24. I provide a direct link to my blog vulpus_rex, that shows my name and a picture of me and where I live.

    You do not so who is the troll again?

  25. Time and again these posts degenerate into personal insult matches and the original subject gets hijacked! Please try restrain yourselves; as my father used to say, its not funny and its not clever.

  26. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 3:54pm

    Justin Hinchcliffe, you’ve been asked a series of clearly numbered questions.

    As both you and Matt Sephton are Tory candidates, I am curious to know why you are avoiding answering them?

    I suppose it means that the answers to questions 2 and 8 are a distinct ‘YES’

  27. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 3:58pm

    23: Jonny Roland: “Here is a man trying to do his best for our country, giving completely equal status to our community, and all some of you can do is say that because he is a Conservative it’s not enough. ”

    You’re obviously a member of LGBTory as well aren’t you.

    Would you care to answer the very polite and neatly worded questions than have been posed to Matt and Justin.

    The refusal of LGBTory to answer specific questions says a lot about the efficacy of the group.

    Does anyone in the Tory Party actually listen to you guys? Doesn’ look like it.

    Unless LGBTory supports homophobic bigots and neo-fascists like Iain Duncan Smith and Michal Kaminski?

  28. Sister Mary Clarence 1 Dec 2009, 4:12pm

    Isn’t in incredible that one the one hand the Labour trolls are in denial that there are actually an gay candidates standing for the Tories, and allegedly one post on here and suddently we’ve been infiltrated and are being spied on.

    The Conservative party are the most popular party in the country today, not in 2007 and not in 1975. Cameron has reiterated what he has not said on many occasions that marriages and civil partnerships will be treated as equal – what’s the problem? Never happy maybe?

  29. vulpus_rex 1 Dec 2009, 4:14pm

    “I provide a direct link to my blog”

    So you do, my apologies, I shall enjoy a good read later.

    Murphy – just because someone doesn’t answer your leading questions in exactly the way you phrase them doesn’t make the rubbish you put in them true.

    Anyway you constantly miss the point with your Tory-bashing.

    No-one but no-one except desperate lefties gives a hoot about David Cameron’s european partners – it is just falling on deaf ears – the point is he is not Gordon Brown and like it or not people are going to vote anything to sling Brown out.

  30. “The Tory policy is that marriage is first-class and any other relationship is second-class. That is fundamentally not in the interests of children. We should be about supporting strong and stable relationships.”
    Marriages are more often than not strong and stable relationships you dick head
    And keeping a family together is better for the kids than offering more benefits to couples if they separate than stay together!

    Why must labour criticize every other parties ideas rather than learn from them and change things?
    This is exactly why i won’t vote for them again

  31. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 4:23pm

    Just to reiterate – the Tories on this board are refusing to answer concise, reasonable questions that have been put to them.

    Why?

  32. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 4:28pm

    Interestingly the Tories are not as far ahead in the opinion polls as they should be to guarantee victory.

    A hung parliament is quite a likely outcome and a Labour/Lib Dem coalition is possible.

    The Tory refusal to answer clear, concise questions of interest to LGBT voters (coupled with the blatant transphobia of Justin Hinchcliffe) should start ringing the alarm bells for LGBT voters.

    And Vulpus-Rex – the Tories alliance with alleged neo-Nazis may not be of interest to you, but the fact that the Tories are isolating Britain from both Europe and the US, thanks to their extremist alliances, will be of interest to many more people than you think.

  33. vulpus_rex 1 Dec 2009, 4:29pm

    “Why?”

    Because they never are, see point 29.

    Here’s one for you though:

    Even though the labour party have destroyed our economy, started illegal wars, and eroded our civil liberties to those of a tin-pot dictatorship should gay people vote for them anyway?

    Please answer yes or no, anything else will be construed as the evasive, non-commital weasel words they inevitably will be (should you have the guts to respond at all).

  34. Pumpkin Pie 1 Dec 2009, 4:43pm

    My divorced mother worked her ass off to raise me and my brother. So did my dad, actually. He wasn’t legally obligated to do as much as he did, but he was a caring and hardworking father who always thought of us and sent us every penny of spare money he scraped together. Not every child from a “broken” family is as lucky as I was – is Davey planning on sweeping them under the rug?

    Also, I’m getting pretty bored of all this LGBTory tripe. Why do you people think having LGBT candidates is going to impress us? Why is that your answer to everything? I don’t give a damn whether these people are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, cisgendered, transgendered, asexual or whatever – all I care about is how they vote. And the Conservatives have a shockingly poor record on voting for LGBT rights, even up until the present day. Why is this? No amount of hoodwinking you try is going to change these cold, hard facts.

    Here, everyone can go see for themselves how the parties vote: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ or http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/

    And why, if straight and gay married couples are the same, did the Tories oppose the amendment to birth certificates for lesbian couples who went through IVF? And please don’t give me that BS about the birth certificate only listing the biological parents – if a straight couple used donor sperm, they’d still get to put the husband’s name down on the certificate. So, how does this show that Davey thinks they’re equal? Also, it would be super if one of the Tory supporters actually tried to engage with our questions in a meaningful manner, rather than just insulting us or going off on a mad ramble about something else – these are not difficult or tricky questions.

    P.S.: Justin Hinchcliffe and Jonny Roland, if the Tories were paying you guys for this, they seriously deserve a refund. From Justin’s disgraceful gender slur towards Abi, to Jonny’s amateurish mistake in thinking that sticking up for fellow advertisers is how you get customers to like them, you guys are terrible at marketing.

  35. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 4:43pm

    “Even though the labour party have destroyed our economy, started illegal wars, and eroded our civil liberties to those of a tin-pot dictatorship should gay people vote for them anyway?”

    No – they should vote Lib Dem.

    A very likely outcome of the next election will be a hung parliamemt which will result in a LibDem / Labour coalition.

    The Lib Dems are not a homophobic party like the Tories are and did not take Britain into an illegal war like Labour did. Therefore they are the safest bet for LGBT currently. And seeing as a coalition with Labour is a growing possibility it will not be a wasted vote either.

    An LGBT person could not and should not vote Tory because of their homophobia and fascist alliances.

    The Tories STILL haven’t answered the direct questions put to them.

    Guess they are the homophobic party after all.

  36. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 4:50pm

    And Pumpkin Pie – I agree that it is truly shocking that Justin Hinchcliffe (a member of LGBTory group) should engage in transphobic comments.

    What does that say about the agenda of LGBTory – never mind their refusal to answer any questions (preferring as they do to try to insult the people asking the questions)

    If Justin Hinchcliffe is a member of LGBTory then I have another question to ask him.

    9. In your transphobic response to Abi1975 , were you speaking in your official LGBTory capacity? Or was your transphobic response merely evidence of personal transphobia?

  37. vulpus_rex 1 Dec 2009, 4:51pm

    “No – they should vote Lib Dem.”

    Thank you – and in return I stand by mine. I can’t speak for the other Tories here but I simply don’t care about accusations of homophobia. Such accusations may be true or not (I think on the whole not) but they cannot possibly outweigh the truly dreadful idea of another five years of Brown.

  38. Simon Murphy 1 Dec 2009, 5:00pm

    “I can’t speak for the other Tories here ”

    Justin Hinchcliffe, Matt Sephton and Jonny Rowland are apparently all members of LGBTory.

    One of those guys should be answering the questions put to them.

    Waiting…

  39. So they will discriminate against people who choose not to marry!
    Same old Tory nasty party. Still jabbering on about family values
    Remember last time they rammed all this crap down our throats most of them got caught with their pants down.

  40. Justin Hinchcliffe 1 Dec 2009, 6:16pm

    Am happy to answer your questions. You may not like my answers, but tough. For the record, I am NOT a Parliamentary candidate or a member of LGBTory (yet)and nobody asks or expects me to post on here. I always post on here using my own name and never give the impression I’m anything but a Conservative. This is the first and last time I shall answer questions – please see my answers in capitals.

    1. Are YOUR personal opinions on trans people ie referring to a transwoman using question marks and inverted commas when referring to that person’s gender – typical of the Tory Party? Why is the LGBTory group called that if it doesn’t believe trans people are equal. I AM NOT TRANSPHOBIC – WASN’T SURE OF ABI’S SEX. APOLOGIES FOR THAT.

    2. Is the LGBTory group just a group created for PR purposes to hoodwink the LGBT population into thinking the Tories have changed? NO

    3. Does LGBTory support the expulsion from the party of Iain Duncan Smith because of his active homophobia? NO. WE’RE A BROAD CHURCH. IDS HAS CONSERVATIVE (WITH SMALL C) VIEWS ON THE FAMILY. THAT SAID, WE’RE NOT AFRAID TO CRITICISE OR CHALLENGE HIM.

    4. Does LGBTory approve of the union in the European Party between far-rights extremist, homophobic parties like the Polish Law and Justice Party; or the reputed anti-semitic neo-nazi Michal Kaminski? THEY ARE NOT FAR-RIGHT OR HOMOPHOBIC. THE LAW AND JUSTICE PARTY HAS A COMMITTMENT TO GAY EQUALITY IN THEIR CONSTUTION. FACT. LOOKS LIKE YOU’VE SWOLLED LABOUR’S NASTY LIES HOOK, LINE AND SINKER. SAD.

    5. Do you support the expulsion from the Tory Party of religious bigot Philippa Stroud. NO – SEE Q3. WHAT IS A ‘RELIGIOUS BIGOT’, BTW? SOMEBODY WHO HAPPENS TO BE A CHRISTIAN? AS A PRACTICISNG CHRISTIAN I FIND THAT DEEPLY OFFENSIVE.

    6. Does LGBTory support the religious opt-out from the Equality Bill? NOT SURE – HAVEN’T READ WHAT’S IN THE BILL. MATTHEW SEPHTON CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

    7. Does LGBTory support marriage equality for gay and straight people ie gay people to be allowed to enter civil marriages and straight couples be allowed to enter CP’s. DON’T KNOW, BUT YOU’RE FORGETTING THAT MANY *GAY* PEOPLE OPPOSE THE NOTION OF ‘GAY MARRIAGE’!

    8. I know I asked this already but it’s worth repeating – is LGBTory just a PR stunt to trick LGBT people into thinking the Tories have changed? NO

  41. Justin, thank you for taking the time and trouble to give your answers. I stumbled across this website by chance when looking for something else and I have to say I can’t believe the hatred espoused on here. I am a Christian too, and I am going to vote for the Conservatives, but not if they continue to pander to the LGBT lobby. And just before you all start throwing your hatred and insults in my direction, I’m not a bigot..just someone who realises that God’s laws will always win through in the end. I have no problem with equality, but pushing for more than that, especially in schools and with children, and you’re on dodgy ground. BTW Justin, it would be nice if you would frequent some Christian forums and talk to us as a fellow Christian. There might be something called a pink pound and it might have some power, but there are far more Christians in this country who are looking for a party who will put God’s principles first.

  42. Brian Burton 1 Dec 2009, 6:52pm

    Listen you ‘CON’servative Knob-heads. Labour will win the next General Election, Cameron is trying to be all things to all people and you know (If your inteligent) that it cannot be so. I am not prepared to hand this country over to people fresh from the playing-fields of Eaton. They would probably ask Ex-KGB Russians as advisors!

  43. Justin Hinchcliffe 1 Dec 2009, 7:03pm

    Dear Holly, thank you for you message. As I said, the Conservative Party us a very broad church (excuse the pun) and long may that continue! I’ve never known anyone wanting to push ‘more’ in the relationship to school children. David Cameron was right to apologise for Section 28. Teachers can now support gay children and adopt anti-gay bulling policies. We don’t want more rights than straight people, we want the SAME rights as them. Justin

  44. “But just as you begin to despair, up crops hope in the pale, adolescent form of Justin Hinchcliffe. Justin, a 14-year-old delegate to next week’s Tory conference, is one of life’s rebels. Staring into the camera with the implacable self-confidence of extreme youth, Justin has revolted against his left-wing teachers (“But I don’t … See more want to do my own thing!”), told his single-parent mum that he thinks her benefits should be cut (presumably there is still time for him to be forcibly adopted by, say, John Redwood) and though living in Tottenham, is a Chelsea fan. In a tribute to John Gummer’s policies on the environment, Justin urges the homeless to stop living off the state and feed themselves with fish from the Thames and fruit from road-side trees. His love for animals, particularly pit bull terriers, marks him out as being a young man of sentiment – one who wears other people’s hearts on his sleeve. Justin has never thought the thinkable.”

    David Aaronovith…The Independent, reviewing the Tory party conference back in 1995…

  45. Justin Hinchcliffe 1 Dec 2009, 8:24pm

    What a load of crap!

  46. It would be interesting to see what Caleron’s so-called “friends” in Poland (the Polish Law and Justice Party) think of his intention to treat CP in the same way as marriage for British tax purposes.

    Personally I think Cameron is only saying things like this to win gay support/votes for next year’s General Election and then do an u-turn.

  47. whoops, butterfingers! That should read Cameron, not Caleron! lol

  48. Hodge Podge 1 Dec 2009, 10:18pm

    Justin, you say that many gays are against gay marriage, I’m certain that’s a minority. And if they don’t like the idea of gay marriage, they shouldn’t get a gay marriage- their ideas of what the gay community should look like shouldn’t be enforced on other people.

    While I’m unsure about many Tory policies, and think they’re part of the populist crap status quo, at least they have some respect for civil liberties (though hardly as small government as they’d make out). The fact that your group exists within it can only be a good thing.

    PS Do not forget transpeople. If I see the tiniest hint of transphobia in LGBTory, I’ll do everything I can to let people know.

  49. John(Derbyshire) 1 Dec 2009, 11:35pm

    Simon-I hate to say this-but we WON`T be having a hung parliament next May. The tories are way ahead in the marginals- and if they win them-then they WILL form the next government. God help us. I have Stevie Wonder`s song “Heavan Help Us ALL” lined up for election night!

  50. Sister Mary Clarence 1 Dec 2009, 11:48pm

    Hodge Podge, I am totally against gay marriage as I have said on here many times before. I am not straight and I don’t want my lifestyle shoe horned into a pseudo straight one.

    If my partner and I enter into a civil partnership I wasn the world to know its a male-male relationship. I want to make that statement clear to the world. I don’t want anyone to be able to brush that statement I’m making about a life long commitment to my partner under the carpet and assume or pretend its not a homosexual relatioship.

    Glad to see such a strong showing by Conservative voters on here. The standard of debate amongst the Labour trolls has deteriorated considerably, so we’ve obviously hit a nerve.

  51. Jonny Roland 2 Dec 2009, 12:24am

    ‘Justin Hinchcliffe and Jonny Rowland are apparently all members of LGBTory.’
    I think Mr. Murphy needs to check his facts. Just because you want something to be true doesn’t mean it is.

    As for Pumpkin Pie suggesting I’m paid to post on here: grow up. I post my personal opinion on here, not that of the Conservative Party or LGBTory. The idea the Party pays people to post on sites is just stupid.

    Another point needs clearing up: that of the name LGBTory. Matt Sephton has made it clear time and time again that it is a pun – mixing the T of Trans with that of Tory. LGBTory is not transphobic.

    Finally, I think the point needs to be made that surely it can only be a good thing that the Party likely to form the next government has such a strong gay group. Those of you who slate LGBTory know very little about it and should actually stop and listen or read what Matt Sephton has to say.

  52. Sister Mary Clarence,

    It’s one thing to say marriage isn’t for you, it’s completely another to say that you’d happily deny every other gay person the right to marry just because you’re content with having a CP.

    The only effect of giving gay couples access to marriage is that more people will have the freedom to marry who otherwise didn’t have it before, you won’t be “shoehorned” into doing anything you don’t want to do.

    And by the way CPs are pretty much worthless outside of Britain so I doubt the world cares very much about you and your partner being in one.

  53. Still, the tories will open faith schools all over the place, and that appalling Conservative Christian Fellowship has its tentacles throughout the party. I still think there are far too many religious crackpots in the party.

    I’d love to go to this LGBTory social on thursday evening – I have some serious questions to the organisers.

  54. Patrick James 2 Dec 2009, 2:47am

    Simon Murphy is absolutely correct when he writes “Interestingly the Tories are not as far ahead in the opinion polls as they should be to guarantee victory.”

    No they are not, and I don’t think they understand why either.

    David Cameron is thrashing about now trying to find some way of regaining the respect of the electorate but I don’t think he will be successful.

    The Conservatives, and poor David, think that the problem is due to those terrible blunders, the Cast Iron one, the Muslim Schools one and his friends at News International with their grimy journalism over that poor woman who lost her son.

    These great errors have certainly had a huge impact on the publics’ perception of the Conservative party, but there is a much bigger problem for the Conservatives which is that the public by and large don’t believe them about the economy.

    I think the Conservative party was outsmarted by Brown/Mandelson over that “cuts” debate. Remember it? There was David Cameron being all brave and “honest” tell us about cuts. There was Brown and Mandelson apparently frightened to say the word “cuts”. So then we had all the Conservative spokespersons saying “cuts”, “cuts”, “cuts” every day…

    They thought they had the Labour party. They actually thought that they were on to something. In fact they were just being fed a lot of rope to hang themselves with.

    The problem is that the Conservative party has become very identified with cuts, with a sort of enthusiasm for it. We know the Labour party will be making cuts of course, but the Conservative party seem to really relish the idea.

    The announcement of an emergency budget after the election has only strengthened the belief that they can’t wait to get started. In fact, they are even cancelling their summer holidays to get started :)

    What arrogant schmucks they are.

    The British public doesn’t believe their economic strategy. Cutting people’s income will only depress the economy and risk the return of the recession.

    The British public has also noticed that the national debt is apparently to be paid off with cuts. No increases in taxes for the wealthy of course.

    We are told that the cuts will only be to red tape. We must have some very expensive red tape if the national debt can be paid off by cutting it.

    So, as the election draws nearer I think we might a greater move away from the Conservative party.

  55. Patrick James 2 Dec 2009, 2:50am

    I have very good friends who are not married nor do the have a civil partnership. The do have children. Why should that family be treated differently from one that has a marriage or civil partnership?

    I am certain there are many families just like the one I’ve described. Why should their financial status be made subject to their marital status?

  56. Patrick James 2 Dec 2009, 3:07am

    Justin Hinchcliffe answers this question (in block capitals)

    4. Does LGBTory approve of the union in the European Party between far-rights extremist, homophobic parties like the Polish Law and Justice Party; or the reputed anti-semitic neo-nazi Michal Kaminski? THEY ARE NOT FAR-RIGHT OR HOMOPHOBIC. THE LAW AND JUSTICE PARTY HAS A COMMITTMENT TO GAY EQUALITY IN THEIR CONSTUTION. FACT. LOOKS LIKE YOU’VE SWOLLED LABOUR’S NASTY LIES HOOK, LINE AND SINKER. SAD.

    I wonder how the LGBT Conservatives sleep at night?

    What is it like to be like them?

    This whitewashing of extreme right-wing parties in this way is truly disgusting.

    No LGBT Polish person, or indeed any that have direct experience of the Polish Law and Justice party would consider them anything other than the enemy of LGBT rights in Poland.

    Poland has an appalling level of homophobia fuelled by, amongst others, the party members of the Polish Law and Justice Party.

    Their constitutional “commitment” quoted by Justin is a joke and everyone knows it.

    I have taken an interest in politics and LGBT rights for many years but I find this duplicity by the LGBT Conservatives to be without doubt the most reprehensible I have ever seen.

  57. Mr Cameron is till trying to pull the wool of everyone’s eyes again – it is just window dressing and PR in trying to get the Pink vote – his words do not mean a thing. The Tories track record is proof of that.
    I shall vote Labour, at least I know what I have got then and shall continue to fight for our full rights. I do not trust or believe the Tories at all. They are trying every ploy they can. A man is judged by his history and so is a political party.

  58. Mihangel apYrs 2 Dec 2009, 12:47pm

    @Patrick James:
    your straight, unmarried friends want the cake and the bun: they do not want to register their relationship with the State but they want the benefits that State recognition of their relationship will bring. Their choice, their result.

    I know “marriage” is still seen as a symbol of patriarchy, or as an unnecessary step to legitimise a perfectly happy relationship, but if you want the cash youi pay the price. The same goes for “next of kin” rights etc – if you’re not married or CPd you have to jump through hoops to get them. That’s the real reason for Civil Partnerships: to get the security!

  59. This shows what a reactionary policy the whole “gay marriage” was and is – it’s all about social control and state approval for people who conform to conservative social norms.

  60. Nobody should be fooled by Cameron’s desire to extend tax incentives to same-sex couples who have a civil partnership as well as married people. This old Tory idea – that that marriage and the nuclear family are the solution to our ‘broken society’, saving us from everything from paedophilia to gun crime – is complete nonsense. It implies that unmarried and single people are to blame for social problems and should therefore have to pay compensation through higher taxes to anyone living the married-with-children lifestyle.

    Cameron’s so-called ‘pro-family’ agenda is nothing of the sort: record numbers of marriages are failing and the nuclear family is where women and children are most likely to be physically, emotionally and sexually abused. Ironically the safest place for a child to grow up free from sexual and physical abuse is with two women (but you will not hear Cameron talking about the merits of same-sex parenting). Cameron’s policy is really a smokescreen for policies that would redistribute wealth from single, divorced and unmarried people (who are more likely to be from poorer backgrounds) to richer married people and as such is shameless theft.

  61. Sister Mary Clarence 2 Dec 2009, 5:18pm

    moamaom – actually I’m with most people who took part in the consultation exercise at the time that opted for a separate but equal status relationship, and I’m not aware that there is any evidence to suggest that the majority of people (gay or otherwise) want gay people to be forced to adopt a heterosexual institution.

    We should have the self confidence as a community to say we have this thing and it is good, rather then bemoaning the fact that we have something equal, but that it has been given a different name.

    Your argument about CPs not being recognised elsewhere is an old one, and I have made the point before that legislation in hundreds of countries around the world does not change every night. I said then, and have been proved right, that over a period of time, individual countries will change their internal laws to recognise our CPs in the same way as heterosexual marriage.

    Cameron has done what Labour have made clear they will not. He has repeatedly said that he will consider marriages and CPs as one and the same, and when he is referring to marriage he means both marriage and civil partnerships – those who are so keen for the two to become one appear to be too stupid to see that it represents a large stride towards getting what you want.

  62. Simon Murphy 2 Dec 2009, 5:39pm

    “4. Does LGBTory approve of the union in the European Party between far-rights extremist, homophobic parties like the Polish Law and Justice Party; or the reputed anti-semitic neo-nazi Michal Kaminski? THEY ARE NOT FAR-RIGHT OR HOMOPHOBIC. THE LAW AND JUSTICE PARTY HAS A COMMITTMENT TO GAY EQUALITY IN THEIR CONSTUTION. FACT. LOOKS LIKE YOU’VE SWOLLED LABOUR’S NASTY LIES HOOK, LINE AND SINKER. SAD.”

    That’s a barefaced lie on your part.

    In 2006 the leader of the Law and Justice Party in Poland gave a direct quote ‘Tolerance of homosexuality will lead to the destruction of civilisation’ .

    He claimed to be ‘misquoted’. Michal Kaminski routinely refers to gay people as faggots. He has been a member of a neoNazi group.

    They are fascist extremists.

    If the Tories have no issues with fascist extremist in Poland, I wonder why they are engaging in such double standards towards the BNP. Why is Polish fascism acceptable to the Tories but not British fascism.

    “7. Does LGBTory support marriage equality for gay and straight people ie gay people to be allowed to enter civil marriages and straight couples be allowed to enter CP’s. DON’T KNOW, BUT YOU’RE FORGETTING THAT MANY *GAY* PEOPLE OPPOSE THE NOTION OF ‘GAY MARRIAGE’! ”

    But many gay people DO support marriage equality. Those are people who should NOT vote Tory then I assume? I mean if the laughable LGBTory group (a PR exercise if ever I saw one – and I’m basing this assessment on the ridiculous responses you have given to questions posed to you in this thread) cannot even pretend to represent LGBT interests then stop pretending that the Tories have changed their decades old homophobia.

    1 question more for you Mr Hinchcliffe.

    If LGBTory has no problem with Iain Duncan Smith being in charge of Tory family policy; and if he is already working to reduce the parental rights of non-gay parents then why on EARTH would ANY LGBT person vote Tory.

    A vote for the Tories is a vote to reduce LGBT rights.

  63. Simon Murphy 2 Dec 2009, 6:22pm

    Thanks for the reply by the way Justin.

    In summary you are saying the following:

    1. The LGBTory group has no problems with their party allying themselves to far right, homophobic parties in Europe, because you choose to believe their denials of homophobia (despite evidence to the contrary.

    2. The LGBTory group has no problem with homophobes like Iain Duncan Smith and Philippa Stroud being parliamentary candidates for the Tory party despite their opposition to gay rights.

    3. The LGBTory group ‘does not know’ if it supports marriage equality for gay relationships because ‘some’ gay people don’t want to get married.

    I have some additional questions:

    1. Will the LGBTory group be opposed to Iain Duncan Smith being in charge of government family policy if the Tories win the next election in light of the fact that he is already campaigning for the reduction of the parental rights of non-biological gay parents.

    2. What areas (if any) is the LGBTory group opposed to in terms of overall Tory policy.

    Your responses so far would indicate that the LGBTory group is fully and entirely in sync with Tory Party policy when it comes to LGBT rights.

    If that is the case then you are admitting that the purpose of the LGBTory group is merely to trick the LGBT electorate into voting Tory despite the serious shortcomings of the Tory Party when it comes to LGBT rights?

  64. Sister Mary Clarence 2 Dec 2009, 7:43pm

    Simon, let me answer some of those points as a fully paid up Tory Party member. I have no problem whatsoever with the Tory Party aligning itself to the Polish Law and Justice Party. I have no doubt that the Tory Party will help to bring the Polish Law and Justice Party round to more inclusive politics. On that note I would also say a do have a problem with the NuLabour-US ‘special’ relationship, that has made us a target for terrorists around the world, led us to flout the Geneva Convention, engage in torture, and take part in illegal wars.

    I have no problem with Duncan Smith and Philippa Stroud being parliamentary candidates. They will tow the party line or they will be out, as a number have already discovered, and a number more are shortly to discover. Prejudice is bore out of ignorance often, so I would rather we educate them rather than discard them.

    LGBTory most likely, I would guess, wants to find out what most gay people actually think about formally combining marriage and civil partnerships as one, rather than being brow beaten by a few loud mouths.

    can’t be asked with the rest right now, but I’m guessing if you’re blowing a gasket about it, I’m probably not. Although of course I do reserve the right to come back on that after I’ve read further through the list of things you’re banging on about.

  65. Matt Sephton 2 Dec 2009, 7:47pm

    With regards to the European Groupings for all those expressing concerns above, the Polish Law and Justice Party reject homophobia. As one of Law and Justice’s leading MEPs, Adam Bielan, has said, ‘We are fully committed to human rights and equality under the law, and object to all forms of discrimination, whether on grounds of race, sex or sexual orientation’ (Guardian, 7 May 2009).

    I agree that European Groupings are not perfect, however, and even the Lib Dems and Labour sit with people who have said or done distasteful things on the issue of homosexuality. The Lib Dems’ Latvian allies in the European Parliament, Latvia’s First Party/Latvian Way (LPP/LC), have banned gay pride parades in Riga, attempted to ban discussion of gay issues in the media (Agence France Presse, 7 September 2006) and one of their leading figures, Janis Smits, whom they succeeded in appointing as Latvia’s human rights commissioner, described homosexuality as a ‘plague’ (Guardian, 1 June 2007). Labour’s German allies recently had to apologise for a homophobic slur against Guido Westerwelle, gay leader of the German Free Democrat Party, by Peter Langner of the Social Democrats (Pink News, 30 September 2009).

    Homophobia and prejudice is NEVER to be defended and people are right to say this. However, I happen to believe that homophobia is not to be defended no matter which Party or individual is responsible. And that is why we ALL need to be working to end both homophobia and transphobia in the UK and around the world.

    The Conservatives are more likely to form the Government after the next General Election. Let’s grow up about the LGBT debate and realise that it’s not an issue for Party Politics but an issue for Politics as a whole and one on which we can all work together to further the issues, concerns and objectives of the LGBT community, no matter where individuals are or to which part of the community they belong.

    After the next election, in Ben Summerskill of Stonewall’s words, “we are probably going to have more out lesbian and gay MP’s from the Conservatives than any other Party”. ( see http://www.lgf.org.uk/why-should-gay-people-vote-conservative/ )

    The Conservatives already have three out shadow ministers and the Party Vice Chair, also likely to be the next MP for Stourbridge, is openly lesbian. All these facts are a real step forward for the LGBT community in the UK and should fill us all with hope for a change of Government under the Conservatives.

  66. Matt Sephton 2 Dec 2009, 7:52pm

    With regard to gay marriage v civil partnerships, I can announce that LGBTory has begun a study to get all the facts together and will consider those when the information is complete.

  67. Sister Mary Clarence 3 Dec 2009, 1:12am

    Thank you Matt, I was right on that last part then … Jesus Christ is like I’m Doris Stokes sometimes … honestly I amaze myself ….

  68. Pumpkin Pie 3 Dec 2009, 2:33am

    (60) Neil:-
    Excellent post. The logical conclusions that Cameron’s policies seem to be inferring are absolutely preposterous and not enough people are questioning them.

    With regard to gay marriage v civil partnerships, I can announce that LGBTory has begun a study to get all the facts together and will consider those when the information is complete.

    Thank you Matt, I was right on that last part then … Jesus Christ is like I’m Doris Stokes sometimes … honestly I amaze myself …

    The “holier than thou” cowardice on this subject is exasperating. Who the **** do you people think you are to “research” whether or not we deserve equality with straight couples? Stop trying to hide behind your pathetic lies about how many people want what. It does NOT matter. Should marriage be banned if most co-habiting straight partners aren’t very interested in it? DO you realise how ridiculous this **** sounds? Do it because it is morally the RIGHT thing to do.

    I’ve never been all that interested in marriage. I would feel more comfortable if my partner felt free to leave the relationship at any time, without having to worry about red tape. If they stayed, it would make me feel secure that they’re doing it for the right reasons. Yeah, it is perhaps a bit juvenile, and I will probably capitulate for the sake of financial and legal security, but it’s just the way I’ve always felt. So, why do I make a big fuss over this? Because I’m not self-centered: if that’s what other people care about, they should have it. Furthermore, even if I don’t choose it, it insults me that I don’t even have the choice.

    And don’t start trying to fob me off with how Labour started it. They were arrogant, bigoted cowards to do that, and you will be arrogant, bigoted cowards if you don’t decide to reverse their decision.

  69. Sister Mary Clarence

    Yes, the majority of people do support giving gays equal marriage rights.

    Populus June 2009,

    “Please say if you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

    Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships”

    ALL AGREE 61%
    ALL DISAGREE 33%

    http://www.populuslimited.com/the-times-the-times-gay-britain-poll-100609.html

    Even the majority of Tory voters said they supported marriage equality for gays. But even if the majority said they opposed giving gay people the right to marry it shouldn’t make any difference. We live in a representative democracy which protects the rights of the minority and an individuals personal choices and no-one (straight or otherwise) should advocate infringing on the right of another person’s freedom to marry the person of their choice.

    As for saying that the number of countries that recognise Britain’s CPs may increase. Well the only ones that currently do so I’m aware of are Spain and France. This is despite the fact that gay marriage is legal in 7 countries and around 17 others have CP-like legislation.

    Recognising a marriage is a lot different than recognising a CP. When a country makes their marriage laws gender-neutral then every other foreign marriage between a same-sex couple is recognised on the same basis as one between an opposite-sex couple. CPs are not like that, they aren’t portable and need additional legislation to recognise. If gay couples were allowed to marry in Britain then their marriage would immediately be recognised in all countries where gay marriage is legal (as well as a few jurisdictions where it’s not).

    And it doesn’t matter that Cameron groups CPs in with marriage when speaking, they’re two similar but separate things and unless he plans to introduce marriage equality then it doesn’t matter what he calls them.

  70. Sister Mary Clarence 3 Dec 2009, 12:12pm

    moamaom – it was always a policy of Tony Blair to base government policy of the views of a 1000 people answering one question on the subject, maybe topped up with a focus group of two now and then in exceptional curcumstances BUT it isn’t a good way to dertermine government policy.

    Asked a question about bringing back hanging, the answer always comes back in favour.

    However these things when gone into in a little more depth often result in a different outcome when people are making INFORMED decisions with the full facts in front of them.

    Otherwise good government would come pretty easily wouldn’t it? We could just get on the phone to Populus or ICM and ask then to phone a thousand people and ask what they think we should do about the war in Afganistan, how we should handle the potential threats arising from Iran’s increased nuclear programme, or the pluses and minuses of technological increases in the field of stem cell research.

    Personally I think its a teenie tweenie bit more complicated than that

  71. After watching the equality bill debate yesterday its strange how all the homophobic comment came from the Conservative and Ulster Unionist benches.

    So the Tory party say its LGBT inclusive but in the house of commons when it comes to representing us the revert to homophobic language. Look up the contributions of Ann Widdecombe, Mark Harper and Philip Davies in the equality bill debate in hansard when its published.

    Stop patting us on the back in PinkNews interviews Mr Cameron while your party is stabbing us in the back in the House of Commons. We want the Conservative parties actions to match their words for once.

  72. Sister Mary Clarence,

    No, that’s why I said the that the views of the majority are irrelevant went it comes to the rights of a minority. However, contrary to your claim, there clearly is evidence that the majority of people do support allowing gay couples to marry.

  73. Matt Sephton 3 Dec 2009, 6:48pm

    @ Pumpkin Pie – It is most certainly NOT the case that ALL gays are in favour of gay marriage and that is why there needs to be an informed debate on the subject.

  74. @ Matt Sephton – Not all straight people are in favour of straight marriage so should marriage be abolished? The only debate needed is that of equality of relationships whatever your sexuality be that bi/homo/hetro. The equality of choice should be the same whatever your sexuality and that should also include gender identity as well.

  75. Matt Sephton 3 Dec 2009, 8:23pm

    @ abi1975 – I respect your opinion on equality of relationships. I am simply pointing out that not all people agree with it, whether LGB or T.

  76. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Dec 2009, 12:24am

    I just can’t get my head around why we have this pathetic argument on here every couple of months. Civil parterships are not inferior to marriage that are equal to it and David Cameron has made it very clear the Conservatives intend to ensure that they treat both heterosexual marriages and gay civil partnerships as entirely equal.

    The only thing inferior seems to be the complex that some people with a victim mentality have when ranting on about rubbish on here. There are more important things in life to campaign over than whether two equal institutions have diffferent names, particular when the only proper research into what people actually wanted showed decisively that equal but separate was what people preferred.

    Whine on all you like, snivel and complain, the further we move towards equality the more the victim brigade will be marginalised. Maybe that is the real problem. One of the biggest hurdles still to overcome in us reaching full equality is a hard core of spoilers who don’t want it because it will give them nothing to complain about when it is finally achieved.

    If you can’t be happy, why must you insist on directing so much energy to ensuring that no one else can either? Go somewhere and be bitter on your own. Some of us want to retain a gay identity and exist happily with our straight counterparts. Some of us have the self confidence and self respect to enable us to do so. That doesn’t make us bad homosexuals. Why do you work so hard to ensure that others are prevented from acheiving that with constant undermining, half truths and disinformation?

    Its like having some lunatic whispering in your ear constantly, “Don’t trust them”, “They all hate us”. It diverts those who are working towards a more equal and fair society from achieving their goal.

    You will clearly never be happy.

    Nothing will ever be enough.

  77. SMC: I totally and wholeheartedly agree with you. You have summed up in a nutshell my sentiments precisely. These people have a permanent paranoiac chip on their shoulder and no matter how you try to appease them, they will always find something to f_cking moan about.

  78. then don’t appease them and don’t court their votes. (yawn)

  79. Pumpkin Pie 4 Dec 2009, 2:26pm

    One of the biggest hurdles still to overcome in us reaching full equality is a hard core of spoilers who don’t want it because it will give them nothing to complain about when it is finally achieved.

    Says the tame collaborator.

    If you can’t be happy, why must you insist on directing so much energy to ensuring that no one else can either?

    Says the one who wants to deny gay people marriage because they don’t want it personally. I’m not trying to deny you CPs.

  80. Pumpkin Pie 4 Dec 2009, 2:29pm

    One of the biggest hurdles still to overcome in us reaching full equality is a hard core of spoilers who don’t want it because it will give them nothing to complain about when it is finally achieved.

    Says the tame collaborator.

    You know, I missed an opportunity to make a bigger point here. You are working with a party which constantly votes against gay rights. I’m not talking about Section 28 or two decades ago, I am talking about now – I’m perfectly capable of checking voting records, as is anybody else. They still do it, and you support them. Therefore, I think it is blatantly clear that people like YOU are the final hurdle on the road to equality.

  81. Sister Mary Clarence

    What I can’t get my head around is why anyone would want to deny anyone else of merely the choice of getting married, no-one is seeking to deny you of anything yet you attack others for even daring to ask for that option.

    There are ways a CP is legally deficient to a marriage and I explained one of them, in the scope of international recognition, this isn’t “disinformation” it’s a fact with real consequences. But again, if you’re happy with a CP then fine, no-one is stopping you from having one, but this is not what every gay person wants and they should have the same right as everyone else does to have access to the civil institution of marriage.

    And no, gay people aren’t ever going to achieve full equality by shutting up and merely being grateful for what they already have.

  82. Moanmoan: “There are ways a CP is legally deficient to a marriage”

    There are three: Not having to say vows, not having to consummate the partnership with sex, and not having to cohabit. That’s it.

    The business of international recognition is nothing to do with our government, but whether international ones recognise it. For f_cks sake, the USA won’t even recognise gay marriage interstate, let alone internationally. Stop putting every stone in the road firmly at the feet of the Tories, like they are some big, bad childhood monster that is responsible for all the ills of the world.

    People like Pumpkin will continue to whinge and squabble about the tiniest of matters not because they important, but because that’s all they can f_cking do. I said it many years ago, but it’s even truer today, that even if we lived in perfect gay-land where everyone was equal and lovely and nobody could complain, you could bet your arse that some moaning, fat f_cking queens out there would still have something to mince on about.

    Nothing is perfect in this world, not everyone is going to like you, certainly not everyone is going to like gay people. Sh!t happens. Get over it and get a Godamn life with what you have instead of constantly moaning about what you haven’t.

  83. RobN “The business of international recognition is nothing to do with our government”

    Exactly, that’s why a CP can never be equal to a marriage simply because marriage is the universal gold standard for recognition of relationships.

    There’s a reason why countries like Sweden and Norway, who had CPs, got rid of them and introduced marriage equality instead because they’re a fundamentally bad idea and only equal access to marriage can ensure full equality.

    And I’m not going to ‘get over’ being treated like a second class citizen.

  84. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Dec 2009, 9:49pm

    moamaom/pumpkin – I think the issue is here that the world does not revolve around us, or at least not as often as you both would like it. Governments around the world are having to deal with fire, pestilence and flood, not to mention credit crunch, financial meltdown, international terrorism and the nuclear threat faced from Iran. Perhaps they might work in a bit of legislative amendment to recognise civil partnerships when they have time to do so.

    On the subject of the selfishness of my personal preference, I do draw considerable comfort from the face that the only comprehensive consultation on the subject came to the same view as mine, and I have to say that the view expressed in the public consultation has to a degree helped me form the opinions I have on the subject.

    Whinge and whine all you like, a large percentage of people want nothing to do with the failed heterosexual institution of marriage, not least because of the religious overtones, and not to mention the a sky high failure rate touching 50%, as opposed to a failure rate for civil partnerships under 1%.

    Actually you have a point in that respect about them not being equal. The figures would seem to suggest that civil partnerships are more successful, that people think more carefully before committing to once and people take the life long commitment that it signifies considerably more seriously. Yes, you’re right boys, they are better by a mile, and how dare we have something better! Doesn’t fit in with the victim mentality at all!!!!!!

    Pretend to be straight all you want boys if it helps you, but don’t expect the rest of to follow in line.

  85. Sister Mary Clarence

    Sorry but that’s just a bit stupid. The failure rate for CPs obviously has more to do with the short length of time it’s been in existence (the divorce rate for couples taken 2 years after their marriage is obviously lower than taken after 20) and the fact that many gay couples who entered into them were already in long-term relationships. The form of legal recognition is irrelevant to the longevity of a relationship, the divorce rate for same-sex marriages in the Netherlands was similar.

  86. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Dec 2009, 3:12am

    moamaom, civil partnerships have been around about 5 years – divorce rates for those married under 5 years is about 18%.

  87. Sister Mary Clarence,

    Actually CPs have been around for 4 years (first CP took place 6 December 2005) but regardless I would say the statistics say more about the relationships of the people in them, I can’t imagine the numbers being worse if these were married gay couples.

  88. Pumpkin Pie 5 Dec 2009, 7:03am

    moamaom/pumpkin – I think the issue is here that the world does not revolve around us, or at least not as often as you both would like it. Governments around the world are having to deal with fire, pestilence and flood, not to mention credit crunch, financial meltdown, international terrorism and the nuclear threat faced from Iran. Perhaps they might work in a bit of legislative amendment to recognise civil partnerships when they have time to do so.

    Haha, I love the faux naivety. The House of Commons is not “Action Central!”, where fiesty go-getting politicians spend every waking moment laying down action(!) plans on how to deal with world hunger and Osama bin Laden. Sure, they do a bit of that, but they also discuss speed limits and disabled access ramps. If they can find time to discuss the finer points of CCTV and dog fouling, I think they can find the time to discuss matters of social equality.

    On the subject of the selfishness of my personal preference, I do draw considerable comfort from the face that the only comprehensive consultation on the subject came to the same view as mine, and I have to say that the view expressed in the public consultation has to a degree helped me form the opinions I have on the subject.

    “The Tories: Telling you how you should be living, whether you like it or not!”

    Like the new slogan? I think it catches the smugness well. Still waiting on a response to why you think people should be denied access to marriage based on a survey. There are people who want it. You know that. You see them a lot around here. Why shouldn’t they get the choice?

  89. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Dec 2009, 10:55am

    Ok pumpkin, you could be right. Can you talk us through the implementation of Euro legislation in relation to disabled adaptations in say …. Italy and maybe Poland? Are they fully compliant yet with EU law, or is it still work in progress?

    And I see your only comment in relation to the results of the last official consultation was, well, there wasn’t actually a response. So, on the basis that you don’t like something, you want all the rest of us to concede to you will. However you twist that round mate, that’s actually the more right wing view. In any case Labour introduced civil partnerships. They comply with European legislation. Again, rather than selfishly plugging change in the UK only, why aren’t you plugging for change across the whole of Europe, so that everyone in the single state your beloved Labour signed us up for can enjoy the ‘benefits’/ bend to your will.

    Is there anything else you’re not happy with in the world that you’d like us all the change to? You okay with the sky being blue? What about 7 days in a week? If there is, just let us know and I’m sure we can all felt tip our holiday snaps and rip a few pages out of our diaries, or whatever suits you best.

    Unlike you I am grateful for the changes that we have seen in society over the last few years, political and social change. Unlike you I do understand that change takes time and ideas may have to be refined over time. Unlike you I don’t think that screaming and stamping my feet will triumph over reasoned argument. Unlike you I’m glad that the Conservatives have now repeatedly affirmed their commitment to ensuring a more fair and equal society for all of us.

    Having apparently a slightly better understanding of politics than you I anticipate that in the next 15 years it will be Labour doing what an opposition party does, opposing legislation that the Conservative government will seek to introduce. Labour will be tabling amendments to government introduced equality legislation and attempting to vote down Conservative proposals to ensure greater equality.

  90. Sister Mary Clarence 5 Dec 2009, 11:01am

    moamaom – will the overwhelming majority of people taking part in the only propoer consultation on the subjest being heavily against marriage, so the difference would probably be far fewer people actually entering into them.

    Civil Partnership Act 2004 received Royal Assent on 18th November 2004 – that’s 5 years by my count.

    And of course another of the advantages of having the two different names is that all can see with the blink of an eye how much more successful civil parnerships are than marriages – though you don’t believe the figures anyway.

  91. Sister Mary Clarence

    Yes the act received royal assent in November 2004 and the first CPs took place a year later. Bills don’t immediately take effect the day their passed.

    As for the consultation, this took place when there was no legal recognition for same-sex couples and others have made the point here before (in defence of CPs) that most gays at the time didn’t care what form of legal recognition they got and simply wanted anything and were more than willing to take the more expedient road of CPs than push for something they knew they were never going to get at the time. However could you back up your claim that the consultation was “heavily against marriage”? I’m sure some held this view however I would like to see evidence that this was the “overwhelming” one.

    I don’t know much about the consultation but a few seconds on google showed clearly that many gays did want marriage equality but were willing to go along with CPs as the government made clear from the start that marriage wasn’t on the table.

    One submission by the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association,

    3.5. The Netherlands opened marriage to same-sex partners with effect from 1 April 2001. Belgium opened marriage to same-sex partners with effect from 1 June 2003. The Canadian province of Ontario opened marriage to same-sex partners on 10 June 2003. The Canadian province of British Columbia opened marriage to same-sex partners on 8 July 2003. Canada as a whole is expected to follow suit in the near future. The European Parliament, in adopting the Report on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union (2002) on 4 September 2003, has called on member states to “abolish all forms of discrimination – whether legislative or de facto – which are still suffered by homosexuals, in particular as regards the right to marry and adopt children”.

    3.6. In the light of these developments, the majority of which have occurred since the preparation of the consultation document, the opening up of marriage can no longer be disregarded as being too radical. The creation of yet another makeshift “registered partnership” scheme as an alternative no longer serves any useful purpose.

    3.11. We note that the Government has “no plans” (paragraph 1.3) to introduce same-sex marriage. It is significant that the consultation paper offers not a single argument or justification in support of this position.

    3.12. We urge the Government nevertheless to continue to monitor international developments closely, and to bring forward plans to introduce same-sex marriage as soon as this is politically feasible.

    http://www.galha.org/submission/2003_09.html

    And while not gay organisations the consultation papers of the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association made the same point. Also in the run-up to the implementation Peter Tatchell and the Green Party reiterated their desire for marriage equality.

    I think you’re trying to manufacture a false consensus on this. And frankly I can’t see even many of those who actually did prefer CPs taking your position which seems to be that even if marriage was offered it should be refused and CPs should be the sole option whether gay couples want them or not.

    The gay rights landscape has changed immeasurably since 2003. Countries which had CPs at the time now have full marriage equality. It would be nice for the government, today, to ask for our views.

  92. Sister Mary Clarence 6 Dec 2009, 5:23am

    moamaom – I know it indicated that there was heavy opposition to marriage because the bloody thing has come up here some many times in the past, that I took the trouble to read it. It was the religious associations that killed it for a lot of people if I remember rightly.

    “I think you’re trying to manufacture a false consensus on this”

    That’s a bit rich isn’t it? You haven’t actualyl sighted the document, but because it coesn’t say what you want, I must be making it up.

    What sort of a naff argument is that? Are you eight years old by any chance?

    As for what it would or would not be nice for the government of the day to do, the government of the day is finished, so you’d be better off asking the government of tomorrow whether they will re-consult. Perhaps you might want to consider stoppig slagging them off whilst you do so.

    Of course, if they agree, and the consultation is infavour of a separate but equal arrangement, so that mean you’ll shut up on the subject?

  93. A tad disturbing that we should vote Labour just because they may (or may not) fight for our full rights. It apparently doesn’t matter that the country is close to bankrupcy, that even though loads of gay people will lose their jobs, homes, pensions… We will all pay the price for Labour being in power and ‘paying our way out of a recession’. Doesn’t matter who gets in it’ll be bad. Guess the real question is how long do ya wanna keep paying? Wake up people, there’s more to politics than ‘are they supporting gay rights’ I don’t believe for a minute gay rights will cease under the Tories. They have changed and it seems a lot of people need to get with the present day and stop living in the past.

    We’ll see a sudden increase in small parties doing well. People feel let down by Labour. Most who Would have voted Tory, including myself, now feel betrayed because of the Euro’ referendum broken promise. Lib Dems… need I say more? Small parties I hope will start to do well. Maybe we’ll start to get some real politics again.

  94. Sister Mary Clarence

    I’ve read the consultation report and it does state that many of those who responded in support of the government’s plan, while supporting CPs as an increase of rights, were disappointed that the government were not legislating for same-sex marriage.

    It was clear that many of those who supported the
    principle of a civil partnership scheme would prefer that marriage was made available to same-sex couples.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20071012091530/http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/publications/CP_responses.pdf

    It does say that some didn’t want marriage however nowhere is this suggested as being a majority view let alone an “overwhelming” one. The government reiterated in the report that they had no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry.

    Yes, I would love for the “government of tomorrow” to hold a consultation on marriage equality but frankly I can’t see the Tories even opening up the idea of gay marriage.

  95. Sister Mary Clarence 6 Dec 2009, 1:46pm

    “I can’t see the Tories even opening up the idea of gay marriage”

    Have you actually bother to read anything that David Cameron has has to say on the subject? He made the point some time ago that whenever using the word ‘marriage’ he is referring to both marriage and civil partnership.

    Therefore I think you’ll find he’s probably fair well down the road of ‘opening up’ to gay marriage.

  96. Pumpkin Pie 7 Dec 2009, 11:49pm

    And I see your only comment in relation to the results of the last official consultation was, well, there wasn’t actually a response. So, on the basis that you don’t like something, you want all the rest of us to concede to you will. However you twist that round mate, that’s actually the more right wing view.

    The “fingers in ears” approach is always hilarious, but seldom helpful. I’ve already responded to your little survey many times. My response was that it is not right to deny people rights based on popular vote or opinion. If there are people who want it, and it is in no way damaging, they should not be denied it.

    And where do you get the idea that I want everyone to do what I do? I already said that I’ve never been a big fan of marriage, yet I think everyone should have the choice. You’re the one who’s glad that everyone is being forced to get used to your beloved CP’s, whether they like it or not.

    your beloved Labour

    I can’t remember if I mentioned that I’m not a fan of Labour in this thread, but even so, you still shouldn’t assume. There are people from plenty of different camps who hate your party’s policies. Right now, I support the Lib Dems, but only because their policies most closely match my own. If they turned their backs on something I cared about, I’d turn my back on them.

  97. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Dec 2009, 11:37am

    ok cool Pumpkin, you’re going to waste you vote on the Lib Dems – a bit of pie in the sky politics from a party that is never going to be running the country.

    They can of course lie through their teeth about what they would or would not do in power, on the basis that they haven’t got a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected to do so.

    Live on the moon? Yes, you can all go and live on the moon.

    Bionic leg? Yes, we’ll give everyone a bionic leg as soon as we get elected.

    Fingers in ears … head in the sand more like mate.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all