The title of this article is a little like the BBC’s “Should gays face execution”
“When will UK gays be allowed to marry” would have made much better wording.
Should gays be allowed equal rights?… I mean.
Why isn’t Stonewall doing a survey?
I think the lib dems new proposed policy sums it up for me…just wish all the parties would do the same!
Not only solves the problem of the inequality in Britain towards gays and straights but also solves the problem of not recognising gay marriages from abroad for what they are and also the ridiculous sitution where straight CPs from other countries have to first divorce/dissolve their CP in their own country in order to get married in the UK – without doing this they can get no rights at all here! Amazingly straight CPs from abroad are in a worst sitution to us – how can the UK recognise foreign gay CPs and not their equivalent straight counterparts ….
Internationally CPs are NOT necessarily a gay thing and marriages are NOT necessarily a straight thing.
How can our parties call for the recognition of the CP abroad when the UK refuses to recognise foreign CPs – WE ONLY RECOGNISE GAY CPs!!!! why should foreign countries reciprocate and recognise the British one when Britain choses to discriminate and only recognise gay CPs..
The wording is a bit weird, I think we shoud have the option of marriage (as well as Civil Partnerships) those who have a faith. Personally, it’s not for me.
Agree with Julian re wording – I think CPs give gay couples equal rights but would not be against gay marriage. Where’s option for that?
I’m wondering if Pink News could clarify what this gay marriage will look like? It’s not like gay couples will be walking down the aisle of a church!
Do you really not realise that gay couples already do ‘walk down the aisle of a church’? Gay marriages in churches ALREADY take place, but the ban on their legal recognition means that those same sex couples married in churches have zero legal standing.
“Why isn’t Stonewall doing a survey?”
Because Stonewall is an irrelevant group from a bygone era who are too afraid to upset their political masters, to actually represent the LGBT constituency they pretend to represent.
Stonewall need to disband – they are long past their sell-by date and are now actually damaging the quest for legal equality for LGBT people.
Is Pink News of all sources actually legitim,ately asking a question about whether gays should have full equality or not? Really? You’re asking this as a QUESTION?
“Stonewall need to disband – they are long past their sell-by date and are now actually damaging the quest for legal equality for LGBT people.”
I agree with you that their refusal to support gender neutral marriage laws is a disappointment, but Stonewall do a huge amount of good work on homophobic bullying. They have their purpose.
Due to circumstances, there is a religious connotation to marriage in the UK (and the US). On the continent, under the influence of Napoleonic law any ‘church’ marriage has no legal value. When couples marry, they first marry at the town hall where they are ‘civilly’ or legally married. Those who wish to can then have religious marriage.
So the solution is dead simple, it is to remove any legal rights from any religious marriage and instead have civil partnerships (or civil marriage) for all at the town hall.
For information, in Belgium (and I guest in France as well) religious organisations can only marry couple who have first been legally married.
I am surprised this even needs to be asked on this website!
I think the question that should be asked is how should the lifting of the ban on same sex marriage be handled. The answer is that cross party support and a vote would deal with it quickly and efficiently. The coalition government is planning a consultation- that’s a necessity and it would be impossible to go ahead without one. They will also have to carry out an equalitiy impact assessment, EqIA, on the proposal. I can’t see how the EqIA could fail to wholeheartedly endorse the change. The EqIA will have to take faith groups into account, but if handled correctly that could be a presuasive pro-equality argument because of the current situation whereby faith groups such as the Quakers are being denied religious freedom. The EqIA can argue that there will be no impact on anti-equality faith groups because they will be free to choose not to provide meddings to all couples. Indeed they already do not and many churches will refuse toprovide weddings to divorcees etc. so fair enough.
It seems like the ball has started rolling towards an inevitable conclusion. It’s unthinkable that they would go down this road and decide against marriage equality.
BUT… In order for it to be done correctly and without dragging delays anyone who is pro marriage equality needs to write letters to their MPs, to party leaders, to Lynne Featherstone, Simon Hughes, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Brothers Miliband etc and keep the pressure up, explain why it is neded. It’s easy to find their email addresses.
The anti-equality mob will be EXTREMELY active on this. They will be working hard to bombard everyone with emails and letters. If we don’t do the same this issue will be dropped.
Banning gay marriage on the basis it restricts religious freedom, the equilivent of us demanding the ability to kiss every straight guy (or gender reversed depending on your gender) on the basis it restricts our freedom of being gay to not be able to do it.
“It’s not like gay couples will be walking down the aisle of a church” It’s my plan (assuming I meet the right guy and get a chance), you don’t have to be straight to be a Christian and you don’t have to belong to a religion to believe in God and want your marriage to be in a church. Actually, it is more religious discrimination to ban gay marriage then it is to allow.
The LibDems announce a vote on gay marriage at their conference on the same day it leaks out that they’re going to introduce a graduate tax. Mmmm
Yes, we are asking this question. We support marriage equality. A number of politicians have said recently that it is not clear how many gay people want the right to marriage so the results of this poll should give them an indication.
“I agree with you that their refusal to support gender neutral marriage laws is a disappointment, but Stonewall do a huge amount of good work on homophobic bullying. They have their purpose.”
Well in that case then they need to change their name and rebrand themselves specifically as an anti-homophobic bullying charity. They need to focus entirely on that. At the present time they are hindering LGBT equality and as such are not fit for purpose as an equality charity.
As for the question used in the article. Well sure it’s offensive that a gay news website thinks that LGBT equality is a topic where there are 2 sides to the arguement.
However remember that Pink News despite claiming to be neutral is a very pro-Tory site. Perhaps they actually think that the Tory position on marriage equality has some merit. And also remember that the editor of this site – Jessica Geen is a heterosexual woman, so perhaps she is not personally bothered by the homophobic CP laws in Britain.
> Banning gay marriage on the basis it restricts religious freedom, the equilivent of us demanding the ability to kiss every straight guy (or gender reversed depending on your gender) on the basis it restricts our freedom of being gay to not be able to do it.
Although I am sympathetic to equality in civil marriage, the post above appears to be a misunderstanding of the distinction between a claim and a liberty. A claim right is something to which one is entitled. A liberty right is something to which someone is not entitled but which is permitted behaviour not prohibited by someone else’s claim.
We all have a claim not to be assaulted. That imposes an obligation upon the behaviour of others not to assault us. It is our claim not to be assaulted that prevents a person from kissing us when that is something that we do not want. This is what makes up the right not to be assaulted – the obligation on the other person to behave or not to behave in a certain way.
We also all have a liberty to kiss men (who consent to this) in the street. We are permitted to do this because no person has a claim that we not do it. However, having this liberty imposes no positive obligation on anyone to do anything. If there were no men who wanted to be kissed, then we would have the liberty but the performance of the right would remain unfulfilled. We could not have a claim to kiss men because that would impose an obligation on any all men submit to being kissed unwillingly.
Similarly, we can all choose to dye our hair blonde. This is a liberty insofar as no-one has a claim that we not dye it. But a person can interfere with this right by refusing to sell blonde dye or another by buying up all the stocks so that there is none left for us. We have the liberty insofar as our claims to be protected from assault and not to be discriminated against protect and permit the secondary activity of our dying our hair.
The right to marry is a combination of two rights. A claim against the state and a liberty as regards each other. If we should have the right to marry then we are stating that we have a claim against the state that they provide us with the legal apparatus and opportunity to do so. As against each other, however, we have no more than a liberty to marry as any person asked is able to say no. Their claim rights not to be assaulted or to be forcibly married interfere with the liberty.
The fact, however, that the state currently infringes our declared claim right to marry (and therefore indirectly the related liberty to marry also) does not lead logically to a demand that because these rights are infringed we should be able, ourselves, to infringe upon the claims of others not to be assaulted by forcible kissing. This claim right not to be assaulted or touched inappropriately is a justifiable infringement upon our liberty right to express our sexuality in this way.
“A number of politicians have said recently that it is not clear how many gay people want the right to marriage”
But where do the politicians go to for their news on the LGBT community.
I’ll bet it’s Stonewall.
If so then it’s little wonder the politicians have no idea about the wishes of the LGBT community, seeing as Stonewall don’t represent us.
As a matter of fact, not only should there be gay marriage, but I think our lovely C of E should be forced to officiate gay marriage ceremonies. Why? Because they are an established state church, not an independent religious organisation.
If the church receives the protection and sponsorship of the state then it should accept state policy. Henry VIII thought so, as did Elizabeth I. I’m siding with the Tudors. (I’m an atheist, by the way.)
marriage in Curch, here or in the US, still requires the license to be issued and register signed: the ceremony itself is so much persiflage (as is what is held in a registry). Therefore the civil and legal parts of the event still have to be undetaken, complete with witnesses.
should BBC executives be executed?
What really pisses me off is that the results of all these online polls will then be trotted out as “THIS IS WHAT THE GAY COMMUNITY IS SAYING ON THE ISSUE OFF etc etc” when in reality it’s just the thoughts of about 20 crazies who actually bother to fill in the form.
Marriage equality is essential. I can only speak as a US reader, but here, and I am making the assumption that the average general public is not necessarily enormously more astute in other places, that people do not understand that second class status is not second class no matter what the law actually says. In other words if it is not called marriage you will constantly have to litigate to get the rights you already have. In a crisis in particular by the time you do that it may already be too late. This has happened multiple times in the US, CP is not adequate. It is only better than nothing, it is not the same as marriage and it will not be treated the same even if the law demands it. Gay people should not constantly have to run to the courts to get the their rights enforced because of the ignorant public who does not understand that CP carries the same rights, but that is what happens. We have real marriage in Massachusetts, called marriage, it is very clear to everyone what rights we have. You go to New Jersey, where CP is supposedly the same, and you will have to fight for everything that is taken for granted in Massachusetts. Words matter, people are stupid. Take what you can get, but keep fighting till you get full equality, including the language.
I couldn’t complete the survey correctly as my partner and I had a civil marriage in Canada therefore we’re not in a CP…
Well done Jessica and co. (sorry, that was not meant to sound like a Top of the Pops dance troupe) – not only for keeping a critical eye on the politicians, but also on those who claim the authority to fight on behalf of LGBT people.
Sometimes, one wonders whether those with gay interests most at heart are actually organisations like the National Secular Society.
Keep it up ;-)
As a german gay guy I wish that Great Britain legalizes same-sex marriage.It would be a great signal to our government and for all other states throughout Europe.
I keep my fingers crossed you that your government decides that same-sex marriage is the only way to accomplish equality and not religious blessings for civil partnerships.
Dromio, I don’t see why religious cults should be consulted on this issue since this is NOT a religious issue. CIVIL marriage is NOT religious marriage, the two are totally different. Have you ever attended a civil marriage ceremony in a registry office? There is not one word or invocation of any deity. The sooner they learn that the better. Nobody is going to force any of them to officiate or recognise same-sex marriages, so they have no argument. Deferring to them in a discussion of civil marriage equality is pointless, we all know what their reaction will be. If they’re offended, so be it, I’m equally offended by their stubborn opposition to civil marriage equality and quite frankly, its NONE of their business. Even though CPs confer most of the rights of marriage, why should we be banned from marrying if we so choose? Relegating an entire group of people to a different category in order to get similar rights is nothing more than morally unjust and legal segregation under a different name. It is wrong. If it isn’t, why have 10 countries forgone the varying degrees of same-sex unions for full marriage? Lets face it, its the universal gold standard. CPs never will be. Now that Argentina has become the first Latin American country, a catholic country I might add to lealise same-sex civil marriage, and Chile and Uruguay are mulling it, its going to become increasingly difficult for other western countries to resist or ignore it. The writing is on the wall, same-sex marriage is moving ahead, CPs aren’t. However, I do not want CPs to be abolished for those who want them, and they shouldn’t be, but we should have the choice to enter into a marriage. There is absolutely no rational argument to oppose lifting the ban on marriage for gay couples, none. Whether some of us don’t want to marry is irrelevant, just please don’t oppose our right to marry the one we love, to be treated fully and equally under the law without exception. The fact that Pink News is posing this question is absurd. Its beginning to morph in to StonewallUK with that line of questioning, illogical.
“A number of politicians have said recently that it is not clear how many gay people want the right to marriage so the results of this poll should give them an indication.”
Oh please… the way this question is worded makes it beyond pointless.
Robert: “CIVIL marriage is NOT religious marriage”
I just wanted to quote that again – and I wish I could do it in neon pink inch-high letters. Will people please STOP saying that marriage is religious – it’s NOT. And people who simply want to get married do NOT have to ‘have faith’. You’re repeating the brain-washing of religions. They do NOT own marriage; they didn’t invent it; and civil marriage is none of their business.
Should straight couples be allowed to marry?
The sooner this ridiculous fascist agenda against gay marriage is over the better. Gay people will eventually be able to marry, it’s inevitable, but in the meantime we have to put up with continuous illegal inequalities unheard of for any other minority in the civilised world. The fact that any government allows a debate of ignorance in this way and pussyfoots around doing nothing, whilst religion is left free to blatantly spread homophobia and hatred in the name of an imaginary bearded man in the sky, is shameful.
Religion will eventually die. Every generation it loses more people. If not for marriage, christenings, and funerals it wouldn’t exist. In the future there’ll be school trips to the few church buildings that are left, they’ll be museums and they’ll learn lessons of the stupidity of their ancestors. The children of the future I’m sure will find it very amusing that anyone back in the day was so gullible, ignorant and hateful, and wasted their entire lives on fantasy.
All legal unions will be then be equal and without hypocrisy.
We fought against fascism in World War II, yet we still allow a fascist religious communion in every city, town and village, and give them tax breaks to spread their hate.
Perhaps gay people could join together in a civil partnership in their living rooms with the curtains closed. But be careful, don’t come outside and hug and kiss for the photographers and your guests, as there may be children passing by and you could make them gay, you could enrage the local fascists, put them off their Sunday roast, destroy civilisation, and the world would end.
Even more interesting is Pink News’s other article today asking gay groups to submit their position on civil marriage equality.
I suspect that the LGBT community is almost unanimous in their support of civil marriage equality (whether or not everyone wants to get married or not is irrelevant, I think that vast majority will support the right of gay couples who wish to marry to be allowed to do so, on the same basis as opposite sex couples).
The likes of Stonewall however are damaging the fight for equality, with absurd red herrings like religious CP’s and other such nonsense.
I want to read Stonewall’s response to Pink News’s request. It’s time they were exposed for being a group more suited to the 20th century.
I had the most extraordinarily patronising and offensive email from Stonewall last week.
I had mailed them asking them why they were campaigning for religious CP’s but not civil marriage equality.
They replied by saying that civil marriage equality granted no extra rights to same sex couples.
I responded by asking what additional rights religious CP’s granted. Their response was (and I quote): “those couples who want to have their partnership blessed in a religious setting will be able to do so”
I replied by saying that in effect they were confirming that religious CP’s have zero practical benefit on anyone. And I asked them whey if they were so willing to spend their time and money on religious CP’s which grant zero additional rights, then why could they not actively support the right to civil marriage equality for those of us who want it.
They did not respond of course. How can they though. There is no reasonable explanation for their position. They just make themselves even more idiotic and irrelevant every day.
It seems that the general consensus among LGBT people (and increasingly among the political parties) is that CP’s are inherently discriminatory (even if they offer most of the same rights as marriage).
I suspect Stonewall will be changing their position on marriage equality soon. If even the political parties are more in favour of LGBT equality than Stonewall, then there really is no need for Stonewall to exist.
I just hope Stonewall haven’t irreparably damaged their reputation within our community, as they still do good work in other areas (as already pointed out)
Pinknews reported Stonewall’s (summerskill) position on gay marriage just about a year ago, here is what Summerskill said then, I sincerely hope he has changed his mind, his comments now and then sound naff.
Remember Milliband in his interview said it was stonewall that he most admired and it’s is them who I suspect will be the first at the consultation table, so it is important that they start speaking out for us.
I agree with the guy who said write letters, I don’t agree with the guy about 20 crazies interested in gay marriage and the fact that pinknews and other papers and all party leaders are talking about this is that it is probably the main gay issue in the UK and also the one with votes behind it…
comment by summerskill last year
“Another criticism often levelled at the organisation is its acceptance of civil partnerships as opposed to marriage, something some critics have described as “sexual apartheid”.
“Well, the issue on marriage is that again, there are a lot of vocal supporters, but the thing they’ve always focused on is actually the real rights and entitlements. As I said, we know there are quite a lot of gay and lesbian people who wouldn’t want marriage, and some have explicitly said so. I think Antony Sher [the gay actor and playwright] gave an interview a while back where he said ‘If it was marriage, I wouldn’t want it. It recognises what’s special about me and my partner.’ And we know there are lots of lesbians who actually don’t want marriage.”
When questioned about those who do want gay marriage, Summerskill said: “Well, someone people do and they’re perfectly entitled to express their views. We are one of many, many organisations but at the end of the day, in terms of our priorities, what we’ve always focused on, is absolutely practical hard outcomes which make a real difference to people’s lives … The reality is half the population already call civil partnerships marriage anyway.”
“It’s one of Stonewall’s ways of working. We’re always more interested in things that make a real, practical difference to people’s lives than perhaps just an intellectual and academic name. And my own view is that civil partnerships have been quite a remarkable piece of what used to be called in the old days ‘political education’.
“We can never go back to the days when I was young, even just 30 years ago, when MPs would stand up in parliament and say ‘Well I don’t know anyone who’s homosexual’. Forty million people are getting a tax return that acknowledges that laws for gay people exist in long term relationships, they’re actually kind of learning something that they wouldn’t if all you had to do was ticked a ‘married’ box. They would have continued being able to be in denial.”
Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians
The UK Government has failed to provide a rational basis for singling out gay men & lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Denying marriage to UK same-sex couples does nothing more than enshrine in law that opposite-sex couples are superior to
What interest does the UK Government have in discriminating against gay men & lesbians?
@The truth, the light, the way (Comment 29)
“Religion will eventually die. Every generation it loses more people.”
If only! I fear this might be optimistic. Thomas Aikenhead – the last person in the UK to be executed for blasphemy (in 1697) – predicted that Christianity would be utterly extinct by 1800.
I’m going to be a pedant and point out that the UK didn’t exist in 1697! I’m glad to say that Scotland has moved on since Thomas Aikenhead was executed here at the age of 18 for saying the Bible was untrue and Jesus was an imposter.
We have had a Scottish Parliament campaign going here for marriage equality for 18 months. And we have already done a number of surveys of LGBT people in Scotland on this issue. 85% say they want equal marriage.
In our most recent survey, at Pride in Glasgow last month, 380 LGBT people filled in a form prioritising seven key equality issues. Equal marriage was the third highest priority, after bullying in schools and hate crime.
Tim Hopkins (Comment 35.):
Indeed, you are of course right – the UK did not exist until 1707. As a fellow pedant, I doff my metaphorical cap to you. (Bertrand Russell defined a pedant as ‘A man who likes his statements to be true’.)
To de Villiers, I apologise for my inaccurate metaphor, too be honest, I didn’t really look that hard at the metaphor when I thought it up, it just seemed a nice and simple way to show how wrong and silly it is to ban gay marriage on the basis it affects religious freedom. I will try to think up a more accurate one.
Should Jewish persons be allowed to ask questions?
C’mon… answer that one
Sure – it must be a given. Civil partnerships already exist so therefore marriage should surely be the next logical step…
Ben @9 wrote:
“So the solution is dead simple, it is to remove any legal rights from any religious marriage and instead have civil partnerships (or civil marriage) for all at the town hall.”
Have to say I support that emotion Ben but is there any chance of that happening? I don’t really see why not.
The religious wedding ceremony has no standing in law until the register is signed in any case, so why not relieve the church celebrants of servicing the legal obligation altogether, let the churches continue to do their woo religious ceremonies but require all couples to go sign the marriage register at the Council chambers to make it all legal.
Civil marriage equality is the really important and totally achievable aim.
Tim – Bullying and hate crime will always have a huge support from all people , the vast majorty of normal people would not want to see any form of bullying or hate crime especially to children at school. There is no argument here, everybody is in agreement – Great – all parties are in agreement, all gay org are in agreement and as far as I know a large amout of gay org and govt time and campaigning has already gone into these issue….no legisilation etc is necessarily required….
The campaign should be on the more difficult subject of gay marriage where there is no full agreement and there is no legislation and perhaps it is now time for govt and gay org to spare more time on this subject…
Gay marriage is far more difficult thing to get support on from all parties and all gay org. I can only think some gay org and parties etc don’t want to support it because it is too difficult …
As you rightly imply I think, John, if we only campaigned on the things we can get quickly and relatively easily, we would never have started the campaign for decriminalisation in the 60s and 70s, or for an equal age of consent, and for repeal of section 28 in the 90s, to name just some examples.
The Equality Network has prioritised hate crime as an issue since 2002, and it took us 7.5 years to get the legislation we wanted here in Scotland. We’ve been prioritising equal marriage for 1.5 years so far, but I hope it won;t take another 6 years to get it!
Having lived in gay culture for a couple decades, this is an issue for a very small part of the gay community. Misled activists who think they know what gays want took it upon themselves to decide for the community that gay marriage is now a sudden requirement and you’re a homophobic bigot if you don’t agree! The reality that most gays live but won’t publicly admit is gay marriage is an ideal that only a few in the community find important. Marriage is seen in most gay circles as a burden and the end of the fun that is gay life. Yeah, I see the point the activists are going for but that doesn’t mean that the radical gay political activists need to pull an Obama and call gays stupid and not knowledgeable of their own desires as a community and force the “you must support gay marriage or you’re a bigot” narrative. Sure, some people do desire gay marriage and confused gay-friendly people rally for it because it the new thing to be supportive of in the politically correct landscape. Certain repeals of things like end of life decisions, property rights and hospital visitation are steps in the right direction and just because I don’t want the same vast sweeping change the radical gay activists demand does NOT mean I am against the gay community or a bigot. That’s gays hating against gays for political purposes and is anything but tolerant-a trait espoused by the gay community but not often given by them. Their knee jerk reaction to blame everything on a homophobic society and bigotry while the gays themselves spew hate and bigotry towards people but use the gay card to deny that truth. It’s been over 30 years since Queen’s Freddy Mercury and Elton John coming out of the closet on the world stage. You don’t hear Elton bemoan at every turn how bigoted evil straight people keep him down endlessly and it’s because of that his life is full of problems. Those excuses are no longer valid and gays shouldn’t be allowed to behave like their enemy while no one calls them out on it! Shame on those gays who blame everyone and everything on society when the real issue is inside themselves. Yes, gay bashing is alive and well in the world and always will be until the end of time. It NEVER excusable when a gay bashing occurs and justice needs to be sought for those who experience that. For the remaining 99% of gay people who don’t experience that in their life need to face the facts and take responsibility for ourselves and issues as a community and stop demanding government handouts as a reward for being gay. This is to much truth for the shallow, lemming-like and vacuous gays but those who do have a clue know that compromise is better than an ultimatum as a goal to bring different groups together.
“Misled activists who think they know what gays want took it upon themselves to decide for the community that gay marriage is now a sudden requirement and you’re a homophobic bigot if you don’t agree!”
For those gay couples who wish to enter a civil marriage then opposing their right to do so is indeed homophobic bigotry. Civil marriage ABSOLUTELY should be available to those couples who want it, on the exact same basis as straight couples. To argue otherwise is toxic homophobia.
“The reality that most gays live but won’t publicly admit is gay marriage is an ideal that only a few in the community find important. ”
So you think that the Scottish survey which showed that civil marriage equality is 1 of the most important topics for gay people is lie?
How can YOU possibly know what most gay people want?
What research have you done to reach this conclusion?
“Marriage is seen in most gay circles as a burden and the end of the fun that is gay life.”
Your evidence to support this. Or are you merely guessing?
It is an undeniable fact that if you think that gay couples should be denied equal access to civil marriage for whatever reason, then you are a homophobe.
Having the right to marry does not mean that everyone will avail of that right or even want to avail of that right.
Denying people access to the legal contract of civil marriage because they are gay is homophobia.
“For the remaining 99% of gay people who don’t experience that in their life need to face the facts and take responsibility for ourselves and issues as a community and stop demanding government handouts as a reward for being gay.”
So you believe that being treated equally in the eyes of the law is a ‘handout’.
If I were you I would book and appointment with a shrink. You seem in dire need of some counselling.
Ricky Lee – many STRAIGHT people don’t wish to get married for various reasons. However, I don’t see straight people trying to get marriage banned for other straight people just because they personally don’t want to get married.
If YOU don’t want to get married, that’s fine – your decision is just as right and just as valid as an LGBT person’s who DOES want to marry. However, to deny others that choice is wrong.
> To argue otherwise is toxic homophobia.
To oppose this political policy is not causally linked to homophobia. Homophobia is an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. One can disagree with gay marriage without having an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality.
Where one considers that CPs are valid for now and that it is better as a matter of politics to use energy securing other rights in the short term when there is a centre-right government in power but perhaps to argue for civil marriage a little later when the left again hold power, this may be a rational response to the state of current politics.
but de villiers Lab didn’t bring in gay marriage and as far as I know haven’t adopted gay marriage as part of their future policy. In any case there is no indication that labour will get into power for a very long time even if they were to adopt this policy and from past experience labour do dither whenever it comes to bringing in any major bill like this so we would probably have wait another 8 yrs after they were in power. This is the time they took to bring in CPs after they first got into power. So what future year do you think we should rationally expect to be campainging for gay marriage, on my calulcation from what you suggest it could be not for another 15 to 20 yrs!
I’d prefer to fight for gay marriage now while the issue is a “hot” topic rather than than go through another 13 yr of being brainwashed on how wonderful the British CP is …
What other legal rights are you suggesting we ask for in the short time. Gender neutral marriage and CP are the next legal milestone. We already have agreemnet on shcool bullying and hate crime.
We can’t make more rugby and football stars come out, we can’t force gays to not “underachieve”, we can’t force politicians to be less spineless and admit they are gay , after all we’re supposed to feel symphathtic to them. Look Stonewall already have these raher whooly things as their main priorites fro 2009/2010 already and I’m not sure they need huge added govt intervention or legislation ……
John, I have your point and it is a valid argument to advance. I do not necessarily agree with it – but it is a fair
That to which I have objected is the suggestion that no person can hold a view, honestly and firmly, in disagreement for reasons other than which are explained by homophobia.
Ricky Lee obviously thinks others have a right to pass a moral judgment on loving committed gay relationships, and have that judgnent enshrined in law. If you don’t want marriage, fine – you are welcome to it; others have higher ideals. Compromise with bigots on your behalf thanks, leave me out.
18,000 same sex marriages were performed in a few months in California during 2008 – showing marriage is by no means an ideal for a tiny minority.
This lib dem campaign has probably been posted before and most have probably signed it but here it is again…
de villiers – I know the French PACs is painfully slow at progressing and most of the amendment to it gets rejected desipte support from la halde and the mediateur but I don’t think we are in the same sitution …. I thinking living in the hope that labour will get back into power soon and that they will bring in gay marriage is naive!
I also think it’s wrong to see gay marriage purely as a response to what the majority gay people are perceived to want. Clearly some people will want to avail themselves of it, others won’t – or will never find Mr or Mrs Right. Rights should not be decided primarily on the basis of demand.
I support gay marriage not just on grounds of equality, but because I support marriage in general. For all its faults and some dubious forms of historical baggage I believe it offers the most successful and durable form of relationship, especially, but not only where children are involved. I believe that it has shown a remarkable capacity to adapt, and that at its best it encourages social cohesion, and benefits even people who chose not to get married. A key point is that if anyone gay or straight wants the privileges of marriage – and yes it is a legally and socially privileged state – then you should accept the social obligations that go with it – including for example monogamy. Not for everyone but if you don’t want that then marriage is probably not for you.
If you want heterosexual marriage to work then it strikes me as totally perverse to exclude people who want to take on the rights and responsibilities of marriage just because they are gay.
Hence I see it as a sign of rather dim pig-headedness that so many self-styled social conservatives are anti-gay marriage.
Hence I say yes to gay marriage and a definite yes to getting married.
The shirt I read says it all, “Silly homo, legal marriage is for bigots.”