It’s about the quality of care you can provide, not your sexual orientation – so, this news from Florida is good for children in need of a loving household.
What with this and the debate over gay marriage, it seems to me that, in America, the judges are doing more and more of the politicians’ jobs for them. I guess that’s what happens when one of your parties revolves around hate and the other revolves around spineless cowardice.
Please put back the Ben Summerskill story PinkNews
With this comment from Brian Paddick still in place.
“The story published by PinkNews yesterday about Stonewall was, sadly, a largely dishonest account of what took place at Monday evening’s meeting in Liverpool. We deeply regret that PinkNews chose to publish the story late at night without… double-checking and without having troubled to attend either the meeting itself or a party conference at which such an important issue was being discussed.
Ben did not say that Stonewall objected to the motion that would be debated on Tuesday because it would cost £5bn. For PinkNews to publish and fail to correct a story in this way sadly brings the whole of the pink media, which serves our minority communities uniquely well, into disrepute.
Can I say, I was at the meeting and that the original Pink News report, which I read before it was amended, was not ‘a largely dishonest account’. On the contrary, I formed the impression that it was a fair reflection of what took place, even if it was not 100% accurate in every detail.
Pink News, if you want to put the original back, I will give evidence in any subsequent proceedings to that effect. Maybe “Ben did not say he objected to the Lib Dem conference motion.” What he did say was that an impact assessment on the proposals produced by the Treasury, that apparently says the changes would cost £5bn over 10 years, should be published. He also said that some female members of Stonewall objected to gay marriage. Whatever Stonewall or Summerskill’s views actually are, the clear impression he gave was that he, who was not there as a private individual but as the head of Stonewall, was against gay marriage. He may not have said it but he certainly gave that very clear impression, so much so that I was astounded and sought clarification. For Stonewall then to say the original Pink News account was ‘largely dishonest’ is quite clearly false.
I asked Ben, in open forum, to explain why the changes would cost £5bn and why some members of Stonewall objected to equality in marriage – “I want to understand Ben, I really want to understand but I don’t understand”. He accused me of shouting across the room at him (there was no microphone in a crowded hall and he was then heckled by people saying I was not shouting). He failed to explain why it would cost £5bn and he said I should ask the people he had referred to, why they objected. People in that meting, including me, did not get angry with Ben for no reason.
Pink News we’ve had our differences but on this one I’m right behind you.
Comment by Brian Paddick — September 23, 2010 @ 21:43
I just read this and am so very happy about it..I am not gay , nor am I American.I am a woman from Canada whom fully supports gay & lesbian marriage, adoption , coverage for health benefits or wills or whatever everyone else is entitled to..I do have friends that are gay and lesbian and I do not look as that, I look at them as my friend(as a human being, with no title ahead of that).I am happy to see that finally the ban is gone and now maybe all these children can be adopted by both and the issue of so many kids looking for a loving home will diminish.. Congrats.