Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Exclusive: Gordon Brown tells gay voters that support for Lib Dems will lead to a Tory victory

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Surely the religious freedoms of all LGBT people, as well as basic transgender rights, are being trampled over by the stance against marriage equality?

    Brown: No to gay marriage (but opposed Prop 8???)
    Cameron: No to gay marriage (“not planning” anyway)
    Clegg: Yes, yes, yes.

    Simple.

  2. Stephen Pits 5 May 2010, 11:15am

    Funny piece I saw yesterday:-

    Three ways GB will announce his resignation:
    1) in tears
    2) in a rage
    3) at gunpoint

    Best jobs for GB after May 6:
    1) bailiff
    2) trolley co-ordinator at Tesco
    3) lighthouse keeper somewhere off the Isle of Man
    4) wheel clamper
    5) corpse in Midsomer Murders

    Worst jobs for GB after May 6:
    1) door to door salesman
    2) disc jockey
    3) clown
    4) motivator
    5) customer services manager

    Proposed titles for GB’s memoirs:
    1) Good To See You
    2) Take Care 3)
    A Misunderstanding
    4) I Agree With Nick
    5) That Was A Disaster.

    Five surest ways to make GB thump the seat in front as he is driven away from Downing Street:
    1) ask him how it’s going
    2) tell him Tony Blair asked to be remembered to him
    3) tell him Gillian Duffy wishes him all the best
    4) whistle Things Can Only Get Better.

    Three most likely things for Lord Mandelson to say when taking an urgent call from GB after May 6:
    1) Gordon who?
    2) Ed, I’ve got Gordon on the line. Do you want to take it? 3) This is Peter Mandelson. Your call is important to us. I’m sorry we are busy at the moment. Please leave a message after the beep.

  3. Mihangel apYrs 5 May 2010, 11:25am

    If Brown loses the elcetion, he will be out of the HoC before the inks dry on his application for the Chiltern Hundreds! His commitment to his constituency is about as deep as that which Blair had for his

  4. Thanks for the advice, but I have no intention of voting labour or voting tactitically. I’ll vote for the best person and for someone I trust ie Clegg and for a party that I have had great support from. Your answer to why gay marriage shouldn’t be introduced disgusts me and to think that in this day and age that we should still be segrated from straights is ridiculous … relgious countries (and I don’t regard the UK as one of them) have done it, relgion , what nonsense, it’s more the personal beliefs of the labour party … I’m not going to be conned again for another 5 yrs… conned into going to war with Irag and conned into voting for you ….

  5. theotherone 5 May 2010, 11:38am

    a vote for Labour will support a Party who are reversing Queer Rights to appease the Religious.

    Fvck off Gordo and stop telling people how to vote.

  6. Vincent Poffley 5 May 2010, 12:01pm

    What about interracial marriage then (or “miscegenation” as it is euphemistically called)? There was just as much religious opposition to the idea of interracial marriage during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries as there is towards gay marriage now – so why don’t we just introduce separate-but-equal “mixed-race family contracts” instead of allowing them the same marriage as monoracial couples, to allow religious groups “the right to a certain degree of self-organisation on questions that are theologically important to them”?

    Oh, what’s that you say Mr. Brown? That’d be horribly racist and discriminatory? It’d be superfluous, pointless and cause deep inequalities in society? Silly me. How thoughtless. Entirely incomparable with gay marriage there, obviously…

  7. The above maybe true but in Wantage, my local constituency, it is a Tory safe seat. The Lib Dem’s are more popular than Labour here. So normally I’d vote Labour but in an attempt not to through away my vote and to help Lib-Dem’s win this 58th targeted seat I’ll be voting Lib Den.

    So PLEASE if your in a Labour held or targeted constituency. Vote Labour! The perfect out come would be a Labour win with Lib Den shadow or a Lib-Lab packed.

    Please comment or Contact me

  8. His answer on marriage equality shows us clearly he is the past. Even Cameron is at least pretending to consider it…

  9. @Vincent

    Why is it that so many in the gay community always feel the need to use race as an comparator? As a gay black man, I find it very annoying. The two issues are quite different.

    And I think Brown is right. I personally do not support ‘gay marriage’. We are not the same as heterosexuals. It’s equality that we should want, not uniformity.

  10. and there’s many who see how homophobia and racism parallel too jason

    why is it religion over-rules equality and is always used to attack others

  11. theotherone 5 May 2010, 12:38pm

    So you support not being Equal do you Jason? Being a Second Class Citizen? You may not want to get married but allot of people do.

  12. What if the Tories win and Callmedave the Salesman doesn’t get re-elected then what …Will Phillipa Stroud, Ian Duncan Smith or Willie Hague become PM…. They made no promises false or otherwise. It was Dave who said “Trust me….we have changed”….they didn’t……………Think On

  13. I have a feeling that His Arch Eminence, Lord Mandleson AKA the reincarnated Cardinal Richelieu, who has been running the Nation since Gordon Brought him back from Europe may well place his divine hand on the shoulder of Young David Miliband and annoint him the New Labour Leader whatever happens tomorrow!

  14. So if I vote Liberal, I make a Tory government more likely. No Gordon Brown. You make it more likely, with your lack of support for LGBT issues, your failure to sort out the House of Lords, your elementary gaffes, your barefaced arrogance, and your climb downs from self-interested businessmen and bankers

    If I vote Liberal it will because they have adopted policies I agree with and principles I share. And because I want them in goverment.

  15. “the provision of marriage is “intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom”.” this response alone guarentees I wont be voting Labour, where’s my religious freedom? Where’s my right to make the same promise to God that others’ do? Just because my future partner might be the same sex as me, I don’t get a religion?

  16. theotherone 5 May 2010, 1:36pm

    spot on Philip and Blondie: don’t be silly – you can’t have Religious feelings as you’re a dirty Ho-mo-sex-ual

  17. AS someone said on another thread sometime ago, what is the big attraction and need to be able to “marry”.
    All this rumpus of CP v. Marriage: what for? Even the hets are abandoning Marriage in their millions.
    What we started out to fight for was to be able to allow our partners to have legal standing in case of death, illness or incapacitation of either partner. Taxes and pensions were exclusive.
    Families could and often did take over in those circumstances and the other partner, even very long term, was out on the street. It was impossible to inherit because relatives would challenge wills, etc, etc. We got all that sorted, so now we want “full marriage” whatever that is, other than a religionist construct, which still requires recognition of the state, which we already got via CP.
    So is it just argument for arguments sake? …………………..
    Aren’t there more deserving needs of our time and concern?

    There are thousands of gay men living with HIV who don’t have anyone to say hello to day after day, there are thousands of old gay people who have no one because of long past family bigotry, there millions of old hets with no-one…and we fight for a construct used by those who detest us, the religionists. A simple question, after taking note of the preceding points, …WHY???

  18. why do some men slag off relegion but demand marriage

  19. theotherone 5 May 2010, 1:50pm

    I don’t want to get ‘married’ but I don’t have the brass neck to tell other people that they can’t get married.

  20. Vincent Poffley 5 May 2010, 2:09pm

    Why do we frequently draw the comparison between racial discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination? Well, quite apart from the fact it’s exactly the same issue, with only the arbitrary marker used for the discrimination being different, we do it in order to point out the differences in social perception. In this country we have a comparatively good approach towards racist discrimination. If you bring up the idea that people should be allowed to discriminate based on race, using ANY excuse, you will immediately be shot down. Even the BNP are forced to alter their constitution so they have to accept people from ethnic minorities, even though their hatred of minorities is just the same as the hatred borne by the religious against gay people. Yet the two issues are not treated the same way. The BNP, because it is racist, is clamped down on hard, while even mainstream politicians kowtow to religious bigotry, simply because it is aimed at gay people. It is still acceptable in mainstream circles to be prejudiced against gay people like this, where it is not acceptable to be prejudiced on ethnic grounds.

    Yes, the issues play out different in effect, but the principles behind the push for universal equality are exactly the same. Pretending that there is a fundamental difference between racism and homophobia in moral terms is deeply misguided and unhelpful.

    And we ARE the same as heterosexuals. We are the same in every single particular but one – and that tiny difference in the gender of who we sleep with is utterly negligible in all respects. It is certainly negligible where marriage is concerned, just as one’s cultural background and skin colour are negligible. Exactly the same arguments that people make against gay marriage can also be made against mixed-race marriage, and indeed have been made in the past. It was only in the 1960s that America legalised mixed-race marriage for instance, and many religious people still disapprove.

    And for the thousandth time, marriage is NOT a religious institution. It was not invented by the religious, indeed it predates religion by thousands of years. It is a human social custom, a part of civic life and community living. Just because religious groups have traditionally stuck their noses into it doesn’t mean they have any greater claim on it than anyone else – indeed, since all religions are premised on demonstrably untrue fictions, they should have less claim.

  21. I can’t say I’m any great fan of tactical voting. If everyone voted for the party they wanted, rather than the party(s) they did not want, then I’m sure the overall UK picture would look dramatically different. So, tomorrow, as in previous elections, I’ll be voting for the party I would most want to run Britain.

    Having said that, I certainly don’t blame tactical voters for doing so either. However, tactical voting tends to be rife in countries with fairly corrupt governments where people are desperate to get them out of power. I don’t think, on balance, the same could really be said of the UK, despite all its faults (of which we know there are many).

    No, tomorrow I want to use my vote the way its ‘meant’ to be used, by voting for who I believe in and trust the most to deliver the goods and to help support me throughout the next 4/5 years of my life by actually delivering my human rights – even if I never have need of them, you never know what the future holds.

  22. Vincent Poffley 5 May 2010, 2:33pm

    And why is having full marriage, called marriage, important? Because words are important. They are the means through which we communicate our ideas, opinions and moral positions. “Marriage” is a word redolent with positive connotations in our language. It implies solemnity, commitment, joy, happiness, deep love and compassion, intimate personal relations. It has centuries of respect, admiration, authority and propriety behind it. Marriage actually MEANS something to people.

    “Civil partnership”, on the other hand, has none of that. It is the same sort of phrase as “dog license” or “small business loan” – cinical, anaemic, bureaucratic, cold and devoid of human feeling. We talk about business “partnerships”, tennis “partners”, or “partners” in crime – and would find it distinctly odd to speak of a “business marriage” or a “tennis marriage” or “spouses in crime”. Why? Because we all recognise that “marriage” means an awful lot more than simple “partnership”. Sticking “civil” on the front doesn’t help at all. We have civil servants, civil courts, the civil list, civil engineering and the civil aviation authority. Are any of these things regarded with the same kind of respect, dignity and profundity that the deep and binding sexual love between two men or two women should be?

    Simply having two words of equal cultural prestige would be insufferable enough, but this is so far from the case that it’s just ludicrous. Not to mention that fact that, as well as the language, there are separate laws, separate procedures and separate rights and privileges conferred. This is a cultural issue. It is about securing not just equal legal status, which we almost but don’t quite have, it’s about the far MORE important battle to change the culture and create a world where we are seen as equal members of society in every way. Language and culture are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. Language matters.

  23. @ Jae who wrote “Surely the religious freedoms of all LGBT people, as well as basic transgender rights, are being trampled over by the stance against marriage equality?”

    Surely the wider question is how many religious LGBT people there actually are and how many LGBT people are bothered about having a ‘marriage’ for religious (or any other) reasons?.

    Considering the tiny number of people who go to church these days, along with the fact that we are a small percentage of the population, the number who are LGBT and religious enough to want a marriage for religious reasons must be very small indeed. If it ever happens I reckon we could see less than 1,000 gay marriages a year.

    So the next question is why are those people being allowed to drive this issue which just props up the outdated and oppressive institution of marriage — something that is promoted by all of those who hate us and which most heterosexuals don’t even want these days?

    It’s a bit like being gay in 1930’s Berlin and spending your time complaining that you’re not allowed to join the SS, while ignoring rather more important issues that are going on.

  24. vulpus_rex 5 May 2010, 3:03pm

    New Labour
    1 May 1997 – 6 May 2010
    RIP

    It makes no difference what this dishonest, lying, incompetent fool says now – only 1 day to go to the end of Liebour.

  25. Comment 20:
    I will tell you a few-Interracial marriage was not a religious issue, It was a civil issue, an just one of many things Blacks were deprived of, just by being black. They could not vote, could not go to school, were not allowed to live in certain neighborhoods or even drink from the same public fountains, had no rights at all, because of they were Black, which translated to less than human..,

    Think of something as simple issue as sitting on a bus!! A Black person had to sit at the back to give way to Whites The Gay issue has always been a moral issue, which is why it is usually religious/ cultural. The worst homophobe can cite nothing worse than who you sleep with, or how you do it, as the reason for their hatred. No one can deny that there were Gaysin those mobs killing Blacks and sitting in the front of the bus. That is why, to a Gay Black the issues are different. They may have similarities, but not parallels,. No matter how much it is repeated,

  26. there are paralells Niki – like you can’t change either etc

  27. #22 That is utter rot. We had “marriage” long before the religionists appeared when we went to a quiet clearing in the forest with our friends and committed to each other. There were no creepy men in frocks standing over us telling us how it should or presuming to give us some legitimacy. These people detest us and think we should be put to death … yet we clamour to join one of their dying rituals. As i said earlier, even the hets are turning away from “marriage.

  28. Isn’t this the correct reason why lab does not introduce gay marriage – it thinks , according to this artice, that the right to marry is the traditional one between people of the opposite sex, gay people don’t have that right it seems: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/09/civil-partnership-rights-austria-uk – “ The government attempted to prevent same-sex couples in other countries from gaining the right to enter into civil partnerships, the Guardian has learned. Despite the fact that civil partnerships are recognised under UK law, the government made legal submissions to the European court of human rights arguing that Austria should not have an obligation to provide the same rights to same-sex couples there. The move is at odds with its own professed commitment to equality for lesbians, gay and bisexual people,” … “The government was challenging the claim of an Austrian couple, Horst Schalk and Johann Kopf, that Austria has violated their right to a private and family life, the right not to suffer discrimination, and the right to marry”. …”the government is still arguing that the court should not require European states to allow marriage for same-sex couples. It has told the court that the right to marry refers to “the traditional marriage between persons of the opposite biological sex …

  29. Vincent Poffley 5 May 2010, 3:44pm

    The extent of the discrimination in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries against ethnic minorities, in America and Africa and to a lesser extent in Europe, was indeed far more severe than the homophobia we experience in Britain today. I never said otherwise. That wasn’t my point. My point was that the underlying principle and mentality is the same – that membership of a specific and arbitrarily-defined group entitles one to more or fewer rights than members of other arbitrarily-defined groups. That is the fount and foundation of all bigotry and discrimination, and its effects are always pernicious however mild or severe they are.

    It is not a question of who suffered the most in the past in certain parts of the world . In different places and at different times different arbitrary groups have been picked on for social and cultural (and, overwhelmingly, religious) reasons. In Jamaica, for instance, there is no anti-black feeling but a massive swell of popular and murderous homophobia. Likewise, in the islamic Middle East, being black is commonplace, but being openly gay makes you a social pariah and sometimes the target of religious death squads. In parts of sub-saharan Africa being albino can get you hunted and killed. In Nazi Germany being black, gay or jewish were equal guarantors of a death sentence. Under Pol Pot just wearing glasses marked you out as a dangerous intellectual and could get you executed.

    The selective historical consciousness of specific oppressions, and ignorance of others, is precisely what creates unfair situations in modern societies. It is no accident that Britain’s racial discrimination laws and culture of anti-racism are much stronger and much better provided for than its equivalent protections against homophobia. protections for women are somewhere in the middle, and protections for disabled people lag well behind all three, particularly mentally disabled people.

    We must not allow ourselves to keep our attitude towards equality hostage to a selective historical consciousness – to approach minority rights selectively and piecemeal based on who shouts the loudest and whose past sufferings register most powerfully on the collective unconscious. We must start from the position that everyone everywhere deserves exactly the same human rights, and if we regard ANY minority as somehow less deserving then there is something wrong with the way we think.

  30. There are lots of forms of marriage in the world and there always have been since Mr Caveman thumped Ms cavewoman over the head with his club and said, “you now mine Ugh!” I have a civil partnership and consider it just as valid as a str8 register office wedding!

  31. Gosh that was heavy but I liked the last sentence.. Brown’s response to his question on gay marriage shows clearly that he thinks that gays are less deserving than straights…

  32. Dear Gordon,

    I would love to give you my vote because the Labour Party has done SO MUCH for we gays and lesbians in the UK over the past 13 years. We cannot express our gratitude enough. However, the polls suggest that there is a real danger of the Tories winning this election or of there being a hung/balanced parliament.

    As much as I would like to give my vote to you, Gordon, our priority has to be to try to stop the Tories from seizing power.

    In MY own constituency the only way I can stop the Tory candidate from winning is by voting for the party which has a chance of beating them and in MY constituency that party is the LibDems. Therefore I will be voting for the LibDems – although I am a Labour supporter.

    Yours sincerely,
    Eddy.

    People, please go to the following page, pop your postcode in the box near the top right, and then see how you need to vote to stop the Tories winning in YOUR constituency. Remember, the less constituencies the Tories win, the less chance they will have of seizing power.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/default.stm

  33. people have died over race and sexuality so there’s another paralell

  34. GS No. 23…just because some of you don’t want to marry, why would you be against those of us who want that choice? If you’re for maintaining the ban on same-sex marriage in our country, endorsed by Cameron and Brown no less, all rooted in religious bigotry, then you, like them, are supporting discrimination and inequality. There’s absolutely no logical reason to deny gay people civil marriage which is distinct from the religious component. If you’re content with civil partnerships with some discrepancies, that’s fine for you and your ilk, but as Vincent Poffley No. 22 so eloquently and correctly stated in regard to marriage vs. civil partnerships…”there are separate laws, separate procedures and separate rights and privileges conferred. This is a cultural issue. It is about securing not just equal legal status, which we almost but don’t quite have, it’s about the far MORE important battle to change the culture and create a world where we are seen as equal members of society in every way. Language and culture are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. Language matters…”. Absolutely right!

    This has NOTHING to do with uniformity. Further, if civil partnerships are so great, tell me why there are eight countries who’ve abandonded them for civil marriage and another country, Finland, about to join the majority in 2011? They far outnumber countries with civil partnerships, only two so far including Eire with slightly fewer rights than our own. Neither will ever be the norm for gay people around the world, nor should they. They mean absolutely NOTHING to most straight people here or in other countries. Marriage is and always will be the universal gold standard whether you like it or not, no matter the negative images some of you have of it. If some of you are so anti same-sex marriage and support a ban on it for some of us, then you together with Brown, Cameron and StonewallUK are really no supporters of full equality. Just because you don’t think its necesssary doesn’t mean that others must. I have no objection to straights getting married, civil or religious, so why should you and others who don’t care for marriage, resist those of us who want it or worse, support a ban on it.

    I don’t give a damn if Brown says voting for the Nick Clegg will give the Tories a victory, so what? Either way, we’ll get no full equality from either of the two party majors, they’ve made that quite clear. I really don’t care because it will only embolden the Liberal Democrats to embarrass them and Labour even more where they stand on marriage equality. Its going to become a magnet for those of us who want our freedom to marry.

  35. #22 My cousin is getting married in Central Park NY next week and theres no old guy in a frock. The legal bit will be done at the register office and thats it. All those lovely sentiments you gushed over Vincent will be there for all their friends to see. Why cant gay people do likewise…. We dont need some old guy in a medieval frock to approve, especially as he’s likely to detest our “sin”.

  36. Socialism, leftism, Marxism, collectivism, what ever you want to call it is NOT benign and is not about “looking after ” the rights of gay people or caring about “the vulnerable and poor.

    New Labour’s brand of socialism is about CONTROL.

    Propaganda rather than the truth

    Indoctrination rather than education.

    Dependency rather than independence and personal responsibility.

    Political correctness as opposed to free speech.

    Etc, etc.

    So, before you believe all the bilge they spout about wanting to protect our rights, etc., consider if you really trust them to do so when they have worked slavishly these past 13 years to dumb-down the education system, giving rise to the near-neanderthal gay chav; have decimated the health service to the extent that thousands of patients on wards, among them untold gay people, are dying but not from the illnesses they were admitted for; that gay people are being beaten and murdered because police are too busy box-ticking and hitting PC targets to protect us; that indigenous gay men cannot find employment because the floodgates have been opened to foreigners who are prepared to be exploited and will work for a pittance; and have implemented all the key elements of a fully-fledged police state (and who’s to say a future government won’t use existing databases – such as the civil partnership register – to vent their intolerance against us and have us rounded up?)

    That is the vile legacy of traitors Blair and Brown, who should be cuffed together and frog-marched to The Hague and made to stand trial for their crimes against humanity (1m+ Iraqis dead and counting). And they have the impudence and bare nerve to tell US who to vote for tomorrow? Out! Out! Out!

  37. A vote for the feckless Liberal Democrats is a vote for the Conservatives – no question about it.

    I am not voting for any of the big three (and yes, the Liberal Demotwats are as much a part of the old order as either of the other two are – and only a fool would think otherwise); but if I had to vote for one of the three, it would be Labour.

    The fact that most Liberal Demotwat candidates strongly agree that children should be raised in a heterosexual environment shows just how fork-tongued that tragic shower are on gay rights.

  38. #34 My post at #17 above wasn’t in any way anti marriage.I fully support any one in anything they may aspire so long as it doesn’t hurt any living thing. My post was an attempt to understand the reasoning of the whole thing, but i’m afraid no-one answered which leads this poster to doubt anyone really knows.

  39. Boston, Vincent puts it very well. It is pure and simply inequlity not to have it and not having it is the same as saying that our relationships are worthless or are worth less, I do not want to have to say the words “will you civil partnership me”.

    Not only that but to have this is also religious discrimination against any religious gay people.

  40. Jonathan2 5 May 2010, 9:36pm

    Good reason to vote for The Labour Party
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU2maXfh7Y8&feature=player_embedded

    – the shortest NHS waiting times in history
    – three million more operations a year
    – over 44,000 more doctors
    – 90,000 more nurses
    – GPs open into the evenings and at weekends
    – free cancer prescriptions
    – a two-week maximum wait to see a cancer specialist
    – over 100 new hospitals
    – the Winter Fuel Allowance
    – free TV licences and free bus passes for pensioners
    – the Pension Credit
    – the New Deal for the Unemployed
    – full-time rights for part-time workers
    – the Social Chapter
    – record maternity pay
    – for the first time in history the right to paternity leave
    – the biggest programme of council house building for 20 years
    – the Disability Discrimination Act
    – the Racial and Religious Hatred act
    – the Equalities Act
    – the first black cabinet minister
    – the first Muslim minister
    – the first black woman minister to speak at the Commons despatch box
    – civil partnerships, gay adoption, the repeal of Section 28 and yes the right to book into a bed and breakfast
    – devolution: a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and, yes, even a Mayor for London
    – the transformation of our great cities with bright new dawns for Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle, Bristol, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester
    – the Human Rights Act
    – crime down by a third
    – the hand gun ban
    – domestic violence cut by two thirds and rape convictions up by half
    – more police than ever on our streets
    – the world’s first ever Climate Change Act
    – beating the Kyoto emissions targets
    – the tripling of overseas aid
    – the cancelling of debt of the poorest countries
    – the ban on cluster bombs
    – peace in Northern Ireland
    – a Britain in Europe’s mainstream not in Europe’s slipstream
    – free swimming for kids
    – free museum entry
    – the right to roam
    – banning fox hunting
    – the Olympics for London
    – half a million children out of poverty
    – extended schools
    – 42,000 more teachers
    – the best ever exam results in schools
    – Education Maintenance Allowances
    – record numbers of students – and for the first time the majority of students are women
    – a doubling of apprenticeships
    – a Child Trust Fund for every newborn child
    – Sure Start children’s centres
    – free nursery places
    – and Child Tax Credits

  41. Chester. the reason why black people don’t want to be compared to gay people is that the gay scene is the only place in the uk where it’s ok to be racist.

  42. from some who I’ve bumped with the dissenters are homophobic! it’s like they won’t ever see the paralells as they have a homophobic wordview
    I’ve never seen racism in the gay scene tbh! I don’t like racists any more then homophobes or other ignorant bigots

  43. Chester. there are more out gay people and gay bars and clubs in Brixton than Barking. so the homophobia argument is rubbish. racism on the other hand is still pretty blatant in some bars and clubs.

  44. Jock S. Trap 6 May 2010, 8:19am

    @chester
    I was with a black friend saturday night in a gay bar in soho and experienced, to my disgust, two incidents of racism against him. I was quite shocked I have to say. It is not acceptable.

  45. theotherone 6 May 2010, 9:08am

    We’ve all seen Racism in Queer Venues.

    Racism, Sizisism, Ageism, Disabilisim, Misogyny…we’re Arseholes like the rest of the population not saints :-)

  46. the difference is that other communities are dealing with it. when was the last anti racism event in the gay community?

  47. theotherone 6 May 2010, 12:21pm

    I wasn’t belittling Racism in the queer Community just laughing at the suggestion that there was none.

    Anti-Racism? You’ll never get the Community to face up to it’s failings while people get to scream ‘Victim!’ constantly.

  48. As a gay black man I can tell you that I have experienced racism many times from members of the gay community. Being black is an intrinsic part of my being. Being gay isn’t. As a gay man I could very easily go to a Buju Banton concert and not face any personal homophobia. As a black man I could not go to a Combat 18 meeting and expect no personal racism.

  49. Jason, I find it saddening that you have to put up with racism among gay people, I would be saddened if it was anyone but gay people should know better, being that they also come from a community that’s discriminated against.

    In response to your early comment, discrimination against black people, LGBT people, women, disabled, anyone is just wrong and equally wrong but society don’t see it like that, racism is a thing really hated by society but not so much with homophobia, so when we compare it’s just because we are pointing out the hypocrisy to see racism as worst than homophobia when it’s just as bad.

  50. dean – you mean homophobia and how similar it is o racism? you are wrong and you don’t give any evidence!

  51. Chester racism and homophobia are the same. I said the possible reason why black people don’t like the comparison is that no one may know your gay if your walking down the street. black people deal with negativity 24/7/365 and some gay commentators made some pretty belitiling comments about black people having it easier as they do not have to come out as black to their parents.

  52. yep clegg sold us out.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all