Half of an interview with a government MP talks about gay marriage and attacks Stonewall. One paragraph at the end mentions the public spending cuts which will decimate the public sector. Mmmm ……
Well this is a gay news website and the lack of marriage equality is a major current concern of the readers of this website – and the LGBT population in general.
Of course it’s going to be discussed.
He’s actually quite polite about Stonewall’s pathetic failure to represent the case for full legal equality.
Good to know that politicians are no longer regarding Stonewall as the voice of our population.
Are Stonewall still ignoring questions by the press, and the LGBT population, about why it refuses to support equality?
One simple question.
On whose behalf is Stonewall working?
Some clarity on that would be appreciated.
Oh that England was a couple months ahead on the movement to gay marriage.
The only reason the pope came to Britain is he knows if England goes to marriage, its all over for most of the english speaking world.
Au looks like it may have gay marriage via the new coalition govt. New Zealand could prob do the same. Canada did 5 or so years ago.
The US is moving slowly.
And when its all over it will be all over for the church of the molestation.
the lib dems still dont get there shouldent need to be a case put forward or a vote. these are fundemental rights.
as for the pope he is outdated and full of hate, i aint taking sexual advice from someone who believes uou shouldnt have sex if you join the church.
the man is a plauge
“”And by the law not recognising those people as having equal rights, we almost give a wink and a nod that there is something different, something not entirely right, that there is something you should be concerned about. And that’s why for me, equality is the first step towards tackling some of the other social problems and cultural problems facing the gay community.”
Absolutely right. It’s refreshing to see that an MP actually understands the problem and has clearly described it. Sort out equal marriage, then remove any opt-outs for religions – that’d be great. I just wish the government would hurry up and get on with it.
Agree with Iris, in the uk in 2010 we shouldn’t be telling people that you can’t do something because you are a gay – marriage is a fundamental right in society all around the world – as can be seen with each new LGBT legislation the attitudes towards LGBT people has improved…marriage equality can only improve that attitude further, it certainly wouldn’t make it worse…
I can think of a lot of other reason why marriage equality would be improve my life. I can’t think of any valid reason not to have it…
I’m also glad that he too is curious as to why Stonewall is so reluctant to say anything on marriage equality. I’m also curious to know why Summerskill was so delighted by the house of lords vote for cp church cermonies, while he does nothing to campaingn for the choice of gays and churchs to do gay marriages…
Iris, I agree. Actually, if marriage equality becomes official party policy for the Liberal Democrats, you can bet Labour will be taking note. If both parties get behind it, its going to have serious implications for Cameron. If he wants to remain in power when the next election rolls around, pragmatism has to happen or else he’ll face defeat with fewer gay votes going to the other two parties. Lets not forget, he’s only in power because of the Liberal Democrats, hardly what one could call a mandate. He’s walking on very thin ice if he ignores the need for full marriage equality. In all of the ten countries that have it, the law stipulates that civil marriage is gender neutral with no compulsion for any religious denomination to recognise or perform same-sex marriages. The C of E, the Roman cult and others can no longer use that red herring to maintain the ban along with all that procreation nonsense as the reason for marriage. Civil and religious are two totally different things.
Simple . . . Stonewall speak for Labour . . . if you don’t agree, then you’re against them and ‘equality’ . . . however when are Stonewall going to speak up for full equality and for trans equality?
Considering that all the Labour leadership candidates and the Lib Dems are more supportive of equality for LGBT people than Stonewall; are Stonewall even necessary any more?
Stonewall’s reason for existence at the moment is their anti-bullying campaign.
But that’s a campaign that can be just as effectively managed by another LGBT group – a group that actually supports full LGBT equality for exanple.
Has anyone been able to find out who Stonewall are meant to represent in 2010?
Surely they can’t claim to represent the LGBT population any more?
Well done Stephen, there are too many stuffy MPs’ who still play the holier than thou card.