Hi, Gender Neutral Marriage, Good Luck
My view of Equality is base either on the US constitution or those of the Free west where Homosexuality is legal and especially on the EU Human rights Act, that prevents discrimination,or “inequality”
In the UK LGBT’s are not given the same rights as fellow Heterosexuals, an thus provides a uneven balance or makes “us” second class nationals, where we are not treated similarly to our fellow human beings.
In addition, it provides so many conflicting “rights” an “laws” that makes it confusing an also produces “inequality”.
Everyone is the same in the free west, or should be by the fact that we are all born human an should apply to everyone equally, an nobody should be above the law, an why i have fought to change laws an have several name after me in the House of Lords in England, that inshore that every part of society and individual should not make anyone above the law.
I appreciate that we live in a world that different, races, religion an cultures, make this unrealistic to becoming a world wide phenomena, but at least in the “free West” we all should be treated Equally, irrespective of our sexual orientation, an grantee the same rights and freedoms as our fellow Heterosexual Human Beings, by the mere fact that when born we are all but the same an thus should have the same an similar rights as everyone else.
So please explain to me why, i am not treated or feel equal?
Or do i have to the government to the House of Lords again, to get equality?
The “d” key on the laptop is sticking again. Sorry.
Lord Lester now supports marriage equality.
Now that his party are in power, what are they doing to achieve it?
The next election is in 4 years. They have PLENTY of time to achieve it. Let’s hear their plan of action.
Angela Mason would appear to be a far better leader of Stonewall than its current leader Ben Summerskill, whose silence on marriage and civil partnership equality is deafening, and rendering Stonewall a completely irrelevant and basically worthless organisation.
Lord lester said, “I don’t see any reason why there should not be complete equality.”
Quite, what other kind of equality is there?
I thought Lord Lester had always supported gay marriage….in the debate in the lords in 2004 he said “I personally would very much like to see gay marriage, for all kinds of reasons.On the other hand, at this stage, are the Government and Parliament not entitled to say, “At this stage in our lives, we will respect the strong feelings of the population about the use of the word marriage…..”
I think since his party is now part of govt and that most of the parties have moved towards the idea of marriage equality, and also since 61% of the population are in favour of marriage equality, then it is NOW TIME to use the word marriage for same sex couples.
In addition I’m baffled why there hasn’t been a human rights case or european case brought by a different sex couples, say France, who are currently in a PACS and who in order to get any recognition and rights in the UK, if they move here, must first “divorce” in France and then get “married” in the UK. Surely this goes against the principle of free movement of people in the EU….
I also personally can’t see what the point of having relgious elements in civil partnerships is all about. Why waste time on this?
Out of interest what difference were there between his CP bill and is 2008 cohabitation bill? Is the cohabitation bill open to same sex couples as well? He mentions straights couples only, which I sincerely hope he doesn’t mean…gay couples also cohabit and don’t necessarily feel a CP or marrigae is suitable…
John, there are NO religious elements in a civil marriage ceremony. The problem is, marriage has always been defined by religious cults which actually believe that they own marriage both religious and civil. The fact of the matter is, they don’t anywhere in the western world. I’ve attended several civil marriage ceremonies at registry offices and not once was there any invocation of or reference to any deity whatsoever. The two are essentially different. Civil rights and marriage are rights and privileges granted by a government and enshrined in the law of the land, not by religious cults who will always use their beliefs to uphold the ban on our marrying for a variety of reasons, the two primary being procreation and the one man one woman as allegedly ordained by the entity they refer to as god. Politicians prior to the current debate on marriage equality have always deferred to the cults for fear of upsetting them, actually a convenient excuse to avoid doing anything about marriage for same-sex couples. Now that ten countries have allowed us to marry, many of our politicians can no longer hide behind the religious component, especially the Tories. Three of those countries are overwhelmingly catholic. More importantly, all ten have gender neutral laws in regard to marriage and all exclude and do not compel any religious cult from recognising and/or performing same-sex civil marriages. Another red herring that they’ve used to uphold the ban in every one of them. Now that’s all been debunked of course. As a right, it should NEVER be put to any referenda since it is a purely civil matter. Religious non-religious people alike have NO right using their chosen beliefs to justify discrimination in a matter that is purely civil. It would be different if we were demanding religious marriage equality, but the fact of the matter is, we’re not and why would we? The sooner they learn that, the better, including our politicians and present government. Fortunately, Labour just like the Liberal Democrats are beginning to evolve on this while the Tories from the top down have remained silent and inactive. I don’t think they’re going to be in a position to ignore it now that the Liberal Democrats and probably the majority in the Labour party will endorse it as official party policy. If Cameron wants to gain more of the gay vote, he’d better pay attention and get on board of face the consequences. Having two major parties supporting it is going to siphon away a lot of gay votes for the Tories in the next election. I don’t think they can afford to lose just one vote because I don’t think the Liberal Democrats will be supporting them next time around and more likely to side with Labour on this one issue alone. The odds are stacked against the Tories for sure.
“President Clinton passed the Defence of Marriage Act”… correct me if I’m wrong but I thought Bush did this?
correct me if I’m wrong but I thought Bush did this?
It was Clinton
Lord Lester would help push gay rights forward if could get an amendment to the Lib Dem Conference motion. The motion needs to include a time limit for the government to introduce marriage equality legislation.
> Lord Lester said his 2002 private members’ bill initially
> sought to give legal rights and protection to straight unmarried
> couples but he was persuaded by the-then Stonewall chief Angela
> Mason to include gay couples. The following legislation applied
> only to gay couples.
> He said that to push for civil marriage at that stage would have
> been “hopeless” and so it was a “political necessity” to call
> for civil partnerships, as the main opposition to the bill came
> from religious groups.
> “For my part, I see no reason why we can’t have civil
> partnerships recognised as marriage. It’s a matter of symbolism,
> as is religious civil partnerships.”
Most useful interview. Now one sees the extent of our problems.
Of course the noble Lord has forgotten that, by the time the Civil Partnerships Bill was being framed Angela Mason had moved on to government employment and Ben Sumerskill was in her place, and opposing equal marriage. So, when he says that it would not have been possible to pass equal marriage back then he is talking about a situation in which Stonewall, representing itself as the one and only true word of all LGB people in the UK, was telling everyone that equal marriage was neither wanted nor necessary, and totally failing to point out that other countries already had it, liked it, and their LGB people wanted it. Totally failed to use the powerful and persuasive arguments that had already been documented and successful elsewhere.
Yes with that opposition, it would have been difficult. But that opposition would not have been there.
And when Lord Lester says that Labour lost its nerve, perhaps he is being careful not to say that by then Tony Blair had carefully installed fellow ardent Roman Catholics in all the relevant government posts. Best for a politic barrister to draw a veil quietly across that explosive but departed truth.
Effectively Stonewall and Blair shafted us.
But the failure of even our friends, such as this honorable peer, to speak out then may also be down to his remaining belief that equality is “symbolism”. Say what?!!!!!
Why does he think those that hate us as so determined we shall not have marriage equality? Is it not the fact it imposes of inequality, the “othering”, the suppression? And then there’s the exclusion of love, romance, sex, and faith from “civil partnerships, deliberately, to assuage the hate-mongers. And the separate registers providing a public list of homosexual couples. And the lack of international recognition. All of those are real disadvantages.
Not to mention his erroneous belief that “The following legislation applied only to gay couples”. For a man who has represented transsexual people at the European Court of Human Rights that’s a pretty massive blind spot. Even more so when dealing with civil partnerships and the huge problems lack of marriage equality caused to account for a massive chunk of the Gender Recognition Bill that went though in parallel. Did he not notice that? Has he forgotten? Does he not see that needs changing?
Oh dear, and thats probably the top human rights barrister in the UK.