If the Conservatives actually legalise marriage when they are in office – a move which would be supported by Labour, LibDem, Green and SNP MPs i.e. almost the entire House of Commons – then this whole issue of lack of trust with the Tories regarding the issue of gay civil rights will be put to rest.
However, I’m not sure how likely it is to happen.
And what does that actually MEAN?!
“Hey we’re in power! We considered it and decided no. But we considered it! Give us votes now.”
Personally, I think it’s rather insulting that it NEEDS considering
Good intentions but no policies or specifics
In other words – they’ve got speeches, lies and spin but don’t expect anything more substantive.
And, WOW Pink News, are you being paid by the Tories or something? Even the Daily Mail isn’t this focused on one party
I doubt it’ll happen. Doesn’t change my mind in voting for them though.
First thing Mr Chameleon. To consider and deliver anything to the gay community, you need to get rid of the homophobes in your party. To start with Chris Grailing, and carry on until everyone who sympathises with bigotry is out of your way. Second you must have a very strong gay rights platform, embedded in your manifesto. Third you must NOT give a free vote on matters concerning equality. Then, only then, you can start to think of wearing the gay-friendliness badge.
obviously squidgy you value your right wing views more than you do your freedom. sad.
With the LibDems supporting marriage equality, and the Tories saying they’ll ‘consider’ it, now I think is a good time to press Labour, and in Scotland, the SNP, on what their position is on it.
AS IF they haven’t already considered gay marriage, and gave a resounding NO to it. From now on, every self-respecting gay person should work towards unmasking this bunch of manipulative homophobes.
Make no mistake, considering same-sex civil marriage is just that, a consideration. Its political speak for “NO”. Now if the party had truly evolved, Cameron and Osborne would unequivocally come out in support of it to garner more votes and an assured success at the polling stations, but they haven’t and they won’t. The C of E and the Roman Catholic cults have their ear and that will be the end of it.
…oops I forgot to mention the Greens. The England and Wales Green Party supports marriage equality (at least for civil marriage) and the separate Scottish Green Party’s MSPs have been very supportive of the campaign here.
Found this buried in the comments of an old story – PinkNews doesn’t think it worthy of proper coverage.
Letter to Pinknews from Martin Popplewell who interviewed David Cameron for GT magazine.
Hi hope you are well. I’ve just been reading the comment piece on pinknews and was concerned about the reporting of the GT interview.
We advised DC’s press team 10 days before the interview that we would like to film it. As soon as he sat down to do the interview the 3 cameras present would have made it clear that we were filming. Before we started there was no request to just do a press interview. It was only when he started floundering on a number of issues – not just the Lithuania vote – that he then tried to wriggle out of the situation with the “thoughtful print interview” line. This has been the line from Conservative HQ after the interview and has been appearing on a number of Conservative blogs but I think the reality is they’ve been trying to find a way to explain away an interview which went badly.
On the Lithuanian vote. It’s wrong to focus on the fact that David Cameron didn’t know about the vote. The fact was that not one of his MEPs voted the right way to condemn a piece of legislation that Amnesty International had raised concerns about. MEPs from both the Labour and Liberal Democrats had voted against the legislation.
After the interview we were told that Conservative MEPs wouldn’t vote on a nation state’s domestic issues – hence the Conservative decision to abstain. This is simply not true. A month after the Lithuanian vote the Conservative group themselves tabled a motion regarding Italy and press freedom. This was confirmed by Cathy Newman at Channel 4 News. So the Conservatives do vote on other nation state’s domestic issues but only when they choose to do so. On this occasion they choose not to despite the concerns of Amnesty International. This says something about the priority that the Conservatives put on gay issues when they think they’re not being watched. It’s something I’m sure your readers would care about.
At the moment it appears that the interview we did – which raised legitimate questions about the Conservatives commitment to LGBT issues – is being dismissed with lines spun by the Conservative Press Office. I’m sure you wouldn’t want that to be the case.
Is there any chance we could have the above comments reflected on your website. It would also be appreciated if your team could take on board the above when covering the GT interview in the future.
Of course the Tories should consider introducing “gay marriage” – it is a thoroughly reactionary policy already supported by may conservatives in the lgbt movement. Didn’t Peter Tachell used to be a fellow-traveller of the Left? I don’t recall it being a GLF slogan “what do we want – to be as straight as straights; when do we want it – yesterday”.
Later in the interview Osborne tells Tatchell that the Conservatives would also consider financing a manned mission to Pluto; consider making Buddhism the State religion of England; consider dissolving the monarchy and consider making England a Province of France.
One has just about as good a chance as the other. But hey, the important thing is that they’ll “consider” it.
I’m with SimonQQ. If some gays get the idea that they can CHOOSE to have the kind of relationships that make them personally happy with “gay marriages” they might have the audacity to believe that “gay love” has value or that gay couples with children are really “families”. Heck gay kids might even grow up thinking that they are “first class” citizens and have “real” value.
That would be horrible.
NO gay person should be allowed to want to pattern their idea of “happily ever after” after their heterosexual parents or other heterosexuals that they admire. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to have a “marriage” just because that is the choice that would make them personally happy. No, everyone should conform to SimonQQ’s idea of what a good queer should be. Bathhouses, cottaging, circuit parties, one night stands and drug abuse should be required for all gay people, regardless of what they might want for themselves. And by the way, it’s the governments duty to ensure that gay people don’t have access to this disgusting straight institution of marriage just in case any gays stray off of the path and dare to pursue their own idea of happiness.
Thank you SimonQQ for keeping us all straight (oh, I mean “sorted”) on that.
I have taken a great deal of interest in each election since the 1979 election.
The Conservative party fought the 1979 election with a level of dishonesty previously unknown in British politics.
The best known dishonesty being the Geoffrey Howe VAT dodge.
In the run up to the 1979 election, Labour were obsessed with the Tories planning to double VAT. Howe and Thatcher dismissed it as a smear. Howe was pretty explicit: “We have absolutely no intention of doubling VAT.” The Daily Mail was so convinced, it included the “double VAT” charge in a splash on “Labour’s dirty dozen lies”, just days before the campaign concluded.
Once elected the Conservative party increased VAT from 8% to 15%.
The Conservative party is not to be trusted in what it says prior to elections.
I don’t know of any political party which will knowingly lie to the general public like the Conservative party to win elections.
Poor MIchael thinks that happiness (or as the French have it, _A_penis) lies with state approval and assimilation; sometimes you really are our own worst enemy! You can just hear her shout, “I’m as straight as my mum and dad”, I’m so reactionary in my personal life I deserve the approval of David Cameron.
The Pink News front page is in danger of looking obsessed about the Conservatives – ask the other parties questions too. The Conservatives are taking Pink News and Peter Tatchell for a ride – all these warm words will be instantly forgotten if they get in to power, it’s simply not a priority for them and any moves on this issue will mean an uncomfortable fight with their backbench dinosaurs.
I say GLBT people should have the choice. If marriage makes them happy, fine. If running about, cottaging, one night stands, etc. then fine for those who want that. I really do not want any wing of the GLBT community dictating (or even trying to dictate) to me what I should and should not like. I personally would be happiest married. Others may like different arrangements. To each his own, but yes, I will fight for our right to legal marriage.
“Shadow chancellor and Conservative general election campaign manager George Osborne met gay rights campaigner and Green party activist Peter Tatchell earlier today and promised to ‘consider’ gay marriages”.
People, PLEASE, would each of you take 10 minutes to email the link to this story to every newspaper, magazine, radio station, and TV channel that you can!
Here’s the link! Copy it and paste it all over the internet NOW!
Let “The Great Ignored” hear what Osborne has told Peter Tatchell and then let’s see, when the sh*t hits the fan (because it surely will) whether “The Great Ignored” (the Tory voters of Britain) will stand for it!
We’ll see THEN how sincere this promise from Osborne is!
Go on everybody. Email it all over the place right now! Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, everywhere . . . but particularly in Tory places! Let the ranks of Tory voters hear this!
And let people know we’ll fuc*ing RIOT if the Tories get in and don’t give us complete and equal marriage!
always thought PinkNews was a LGBT site not part of the Tory party propaganda machine!
But it seems I was very wrong :(
Why is it George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, that met Peter Tatchell and not Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary.
If the Conservative party achieves a majority at the general election this issue, and indeed, all the LGBT national issues will be the responsibility of Chris Grayling, not George Osborne.
Abi, yes, it’s pretty clear now that the owner of PinkNews is partial to the Tories, but the majority of his readers clearly do not agree with him. So let’s maintain our presence here everyday and keep exposing the Tories for who we know they really are.
Osborne’s promise to Tatchell is now all over the internet! Do a Google search! The BBC have put the story up. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s been advised, and The Christian Institute. What other staunch rank-and-file Tories who would like to keep this country clean and decent need to hear pronto? Email them now!
People, please go and add your comments at Buzz! There is the usual mass-homophobia likely to break out there!
(If you’re not a member of Yahoo, it’s easy to sign up, and it’s useful too. There are tens of thousands of Yahoo groups to join, for instance.)
Forget the thread above, comments have already started on Yahoo’s report of this news!
Read what “The Great Ignored” think of Osborne’s statement!
And now, ladies and gentlemen, roll up, roll up!
We have for you now the first reactions from Call-Me-Dave’s “Great Ignored”. This is what the great British public think of Georgey Osborne’s notion of dignifying us with exactly the same marriage rites as heterosexuals have:
“He would give all the woofters a BJ in the ballot box if he thought it would get him into number 10 . . . . Anyone showing any concession to the shirt-lifters loses my vote!”
“FOR GODS SAKE I WANT TO VOTE FOR SOME NORMAL PEOPLE THE ONES THAT PUT THE VICTIM BEFORE THE CRIMINAL THE ONES THAT CHILDREN GROW UP KNOWING IT TAKES A MAN AND WOMAN TO HAVE KIDS AND BRING THEM UP”
“Vote for us, even though we have zero intention of ever doing anything positive for gay rights.”
“Ok and if you are bi and want too you can marry both a man and a woman. And if you are so inclined you can marry your dog or cat. Can we have multiples and do it as offten as you like and cut down on divorce. Save going round to your mates when the other partner is out.”
“IF TWO GAYS MARRY AND ONE OF THEM IS AREADY MARRIED TO ANOTHER GAY,WOULD HE/SHE BE BROUGHT TO COURT FOR BIGAMY LIKE US NORMAL PEOPLE ? BECAUSE THIS WOULD NOT BE CHRISTIAN,WOULD IT !!!”
“Is there no limit to what the Tories will say or do just to get a few more votes.The Tories are now courting “single sex marriage.” Are they also advercating tax relief for such couples.”
“Cameron can marry himself then!”
SimonQQ, where did I ever say that I was dependent on the government to give my life meaning or to make me happy.
What I said was, people should be free to make their own choices about what makes them happy and the government shouldn’t be in the business of legally denying any group of people a right that is given to another group of people.
If marriage makes a gay person happy then the government should deny it to them. If CPs make a straight couple happy, it shouldn’t be denied them. If sleeping about and staying footloose and fancy free makes a person happy then the government has no business denying that to them. As long as something does not pose a danger to people or threaten the rights of other people to BELIEVE what they want it shouldn’t be withheld by government.
I’m not advocating marriage for anyone who doesn’t want it but I don’t think it should be denied to someone who does want it, no matter what their reason for wanting it and no matter whether or not I agree with their reason. I, and you, shouldn’t be in charge of determining, and shouldn’t be ridiculing, what makes someone else happy.
Certainly you’re not going to tell me that you disagree with that.
Actually Jay I value the state of our disasterous economy The most important thing over anything else. Gay issues are important but knowing someone with ‘a pair’ is going some way to stabilize the economy, knowing I have a money coming in so that I can shelter myself, feed myself etc is My priority. I choice that than being homeless, hungry with no means of income etc, from a Labour party more interested in their own wealth and using cancer patients for political gain.
Again Jay, Emotional Blackmail really doesn’t work on me. If you want to feel gay rights over Anything else is more important then that is totally your choose but not every gay person wants to live in a country that is not only bankrupt but has no prospect of improvement. Whoevers in it’ll get worse before it gets better, I’m sure Labour have seen to that. My choice? getting out of this tougher and quicker, not longer and longer and getting even deeper in debt. Labour refuse to sort it out so they need to step aside and make way for someone else who does.
Our rights ain’t going nowhere. When the economy starts to improve, well I suspect it’ll be General Election time again and then I can vote accordingly to gay rights issues.
What a great why to swing votes towards the BNP Eddy. These people you encouraging won’t vote for either three and will be more inclined to vote for the next loud voice… The BNP.
Idiots really don’t think about there actions do they, I mean vote Labour, Tory, Lib Dem sure but alienate them and you pander to right-wing groups. Trouble is you take the whole of the gay community with you without a care in the world. Yet if the BNP do gain ground… where will that leave our gay rights? You worry about the Tories yet deliberately encourage homophobia without giving a sh*t about the consequences or who they effect.
Your a moron and seriously if thats what your aim is then I hope you can live with what happens. Of course I’m sure someone’s Mummy will be there to tell you it wasn’t All your fault.
If thats what you want… Fair enough.
Actually stuff it, you know the Tories won’t take our rights away.
You know the BNP would, they have said as much.
If thats what you want, cool you do your worst. Just live with what you sow. We’ll leave it for you to explain to our future that actually you didn’t want them to have what you didn’t.
I’m sure they’ll understand. Good luck with that :)
Squidgy says: “The Tories won’t take our rights away”
How naive. Taking our rights away is their speciality.
Speaking personally, I would not want to get married. To me, it has a rather sexist and homophobic history. But I defend absolutely the right of other LGBTs to get married, if they wish.
The issue is equality. I resent the homophobic discrimination that says same-sex couples can’t get married. We’re banned. That’s homophobic and it should be opposed, even if we are critical of marriage, as I am.
The ban on same-sex marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships is sexual apartheid: one law for straights and another law for queers. If we would not defend a ban on black people getting married, why should we excuse the ban on gay couples?
If the black community was banned from marriage and offered civil partnerships instead, most of us would condemn it as racism and apartheid. So why are some people defending civil partnerships for same-sex couples?
Separate laws based on race or sexuality are not equality. They are forms of apartheid.
Actually now that the likes of Eddy are happily encouraging homophobic hatred I see that our gay rights mean nothing to some as they seem happen to ‘gamble’ them. For all their bleating they have shown any gay rights/issues nothing but contempt.
I don’t feel the Tories will ‘abandon’ us but now I know it’s not really that important anyway what do I have to worry about, I mean their nothing compared to the BNP and what they want to do.
Of the 15 stories appearing on the front page of Pink News, 12 are about the Tory Party.
Yet Pink News claims not to be biased.
How stupid do the editors and reporters regard us?
@Squidgey, sorry, mate, don’t want to offend you but do you have a history of learning difficulties? Because it’s pretty clear why Eddy posted those quotes from a homophobic website but you weren’t able to “get it”. I think you ought to be a more cautious before you open your mouth. Seems like you easily get the wrong of the end of stick and don’t get what’s going on. Sympathies.