Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell: David Cameron’s position on gay marriage looks increasingly isolated

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Cameron did say he’d consider the case for gay marriage. So I suppose he will do that.

  2. Ian Bower (Lincoln) 3 Oct 2010, 4:21pm

    I don’t know what there is to consider.
    You either believe in equality or you believe in apartheid.

  3. As we said at the time, he will consider it, and then reject it.
    Spooky, he’s starting to look like Nick Griffin.

  4. Keith Lynwood 3 Oct 2010, 4:52pm

    You have to remember that, unlike Clegg and Milliband, Cameron is religious . He can not agree to gay marriage. Yet again religion insidiously weaving its way into our lives.

  5. Cameron actually wants more religion in his nonsensical society views

  6. Dave, in Tory language, “consider” is code for “NO”. He only said that to prevent what little gay support he had from defecting to the Liberal Democrats or Labour, nothing more. It was an election ploy, an insincere one at that, dishonest even. He’d rather kow-tow to the religious base in his party as well as those in the House of Lords than support our full equality. His credentials as Peter quite accurately states are wearing very thin and lend less credibility to his commitment to further equality. I predict he will be in office one term and he’ll alienate gay voters even more. He’s totally out of touch on this one issue and so is his party, except for one or two. Nice Clegg you can bet won’t be supporting him in the next election campaign, no question about that. Cameron and Ben Summerskill have a lot in common, do NOTHING to further full equality. Talk is cheap, actions speaks louder than empty words but he won’t go there and will do all he can, first and foremost, to appease his own religious bigoted base and his own discomfort with marriage equality. He has no backbone, pure cowardice and no real friend of our people. His party still has not evolved, its all talk, no action. He’s outnumbered anyway by two parties to one and on the wrong side of history. Just like StonewallUK, the Tory party will be irrelevant to gay rights and full equality because of their stubborn, obstinate refusal to support it.

  7. There is a ban on same sex civil marriage in UK but there is no rationale offered by the Government as to why the ban is in place and neither is there any explanation of who the ban benefits nor how it benefits them.

  8. de Villiers 3 Oct 2010, 8:29pm

    > You either believe in equality or you believe in apartheid.
    > There is a ban on same sex civil marriage in UK
    > Spooky, he’s starting to look like Nick Griffin.

    I am not sure that is accurate. The issue of gay marriage is not such a binary distinction between equality and apartheid. It is more nuanced than that. Apartheid is a loaded term which refers back to the basic denial of the right to life and not to be tortured to which black South-Africans were subjected. It is a little indulgent to compare gays couples with civil partnerships in the UK to black South-Africans who were raped, tortured, beaten and killed by the South-African state.

    It is also not correct to say that there is a “ban” on gay marriage. It is not banned. It is that there is, presently, no statutory power or recognition of such a situation. It is not expressly prohibited such as acts involving drugs or assault which not only are banned but which also attract a penalty for their performance. Gay marriage would be allowed not by ‘lifting’ a non-existent ban but by the creation of statutory powers.

    It is a bit harsh to criticise Right, this early on into its period of government, for not giving gay marriage when not even the Left – the Labour government of 13 years and Stonewall, sought to achieve this. One might add that it is not even a valid criticism of the Right to say that they will not legislate for this insofar as it, up until recently, it really was out of its range. It would be like criticising the Left for not cutting taxes.

    Notwithstanding that, however, given that this would be a ‘free-vote’ issue, it is not now beyond the realms of possibility that the Coalition would give this matter Parliamentary time. To say that Cameron looks life Nick Griffin is to live one’s life at right angles to reality.

  9. “Spooky, he’s starting to look like Nick Griffin”

    …or Ben Summerskill.

  10. @ Polly :D

    Cameron might be religious but what’s that got to do with CIVIL matters? Let him take his ‘religiousness’ to its proper conclusion then and ban ALL civil marriages because NONE of them count as marriage in the eyes of the Christian God….

  11. @8, Call it a prohibition on same sex marriage if you like de Villiers, the effect is the same as a ban.
    If a same sex couple goes and asks for a marriage license they will be refused one because same sex marriage is not allowed in UK.

  12. a religious person can support marriage equality, many do.

  13. 8, also de Villiers from Wiki:
    “In 1971 the Nullity of Marriage Act was passed, explicitly banning marriages between same-sex couples in England and Wales.[3] This act was later replaced by the currently in-force Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which also declared that a marriage is void if the parties are not respectively male and female.[4]

    Prohibition of same-sex marriages was also included in the marriage legislation of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 and the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 both state there is a legal impediment to marriage if the parties are of the same sex.[5][6

  14. What do you expect from the conservative party?

  15. What I find especially galling is that even bigamous heterosexual marriages are recognised in UK if they were fully legal in the country where they took place.
    However same sex couples whose marriages are fully legal in the country they took place in will not have their marriages recognised when they come to the UK… so unfair.

  16. He could not even bring himself to meet a transgender person at the downing street LGBT drinks reception so what hope do we have of him ending marriage apartheid! This is no surprise he is a church going Christian after all, so he is a paid up member of the Christian Taliban. His faith should not be getting in the way of what’s fair and decent in a secular society.

    We disparately need a atheist like Miliband or Clegg as PM to finally get equality.

  17. @ de Villiers

    How sad that you support a political party and its Christian Taliban leader, over who you fundamentally are as a person.

    But I guess that’s ideology of LGBTory for you!

    Personally I put my sexual identity and my right to be treated fair and equally in society before any political allegiances.

  18. You might notice that the Nullitty of Marriage Act 1971 followed and replaced by Matrimonial Causes act 1973 were deliberately introduced to place a legal impediment to same sex marriage just at the time when Gay Liberation was getting into it’s early stride.
    Anti-gay forces at the time recognised that gays were demanding equality … pre-empting a demand at some stage for same sex marriage equality they made damn sure that gays would not have access to equal legal standing regarding their relationships.
    So the ban on same sex marriage is really quite recent and displayed animosity toward gays and the Gay Liberation movement at a time when gay rights had few supporters or political allies.

  19. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 9:53am

    > How sad that you support a political party and its Christian Taliban leader, over who you fundamentally are as a person. But I guess that’s ideology of LGBTory for you! Personally I put my sexual identity and my right to be treated fair and equally in society before any political allegiances.

    How sad that you trade nasty, vicious insults and compare the leader of a UK centre-right party to an organisation that kills men and women, tortures civilians, murders innocents, denies education to women, stones adulterers, and supports suicide bombing. That shows me who you are fundamentally as a person.

    How sad that you assume me to be morally defective on the basis of your own extreme prejudices. How sad that you assume me to be both British and a member of the Conservative Party. How sad that you your extremist viewpoint of equating the centre-right, and particularly David Cameron, with murders and torturers who wish to destroy the fabric of our liberty define your thoughts and personality.

    Look at how easy it is to throw insults from the privacy of one’s anonymity! How brave! How thoughtful! How persuasive! How Anglo-Saxon!

    In any event, and in reply to Pavlos, something within England is only “banned” if there is a legal prohibition on something which is otherwise lawful. It is not the same in France or in Europe which has a different system to the common-law in England and Wales. Laws in England work in one of two ways. Either it prohibits something regardless of the wish of the person – a law ‘absolute’. The other is two confer a right to something but only if a particular procedure is followed ‘sub modo’.

    The right to get married, as a civil right, is a power created by statute that confers something to which a person is otherwise not entitled. To qualify, one has to follow strictly the requirements before the marriage is recognised. Otherwise, it is void ‘ab initio’. The Matrimonial Causes Act states what must be obtained before a marriage is valid. One of the requirements is that both persons be of the opposite sex. A failure to follow the requirement ‘sub modo’ means that the Act cannot confer the right of marriage.

    That a failure to follow the Act renders the marriage void does not mean that gay marriage is “banned”. There is no punishment for performing a ceremony. There is no criminal offence for undertaking it. Similarly, marriage is not “banned” for those who are under 18. There is simply no power for it. The difference between a ‘ban’ and something that is ‘void’ is that a ban criminalises or prohibits an otherwise lawful activity, permitted because it is not prohibited. Civil marriage does not fit here – it requires statutory permission to exist rather than being an act which is permitted in the absence of state non-interference.

  20. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 9:55am

    - to confer

  21. The CP was a lib dem bill introduced during a lab govt. We are a coalition govt without a 1 party majority. If lib dems/lab/greens and a few others back SS marriage then we might get it in this parliamnet without a tory majority support.

    I sincerely hope these parties have the guts to raise the bill now and get some discussion etc going during this parliament. The greens in the Australian coalition govt are raising a marriage equality bill now and they only have 1 green mp in the lower house so I would think it rather poor on the opposition and 1 half of the coalition govt not to do something..

    “On the eve of the Conservative Party conference, David Cameron’s refusal to support same-sex civil marriage looks increasingly isolated…..” – has the topic been raised again since the election with the Tories? – has there been an interview or comment from someone? – why are we expecting them to raise it now in their conf – I’m confused as to what has happenned although I think it’s good that there is an artilce on it?? as far as I know the topic didn’t officially crop up in the lab party conf apart from becoming 13th on their emergency priorty list….

  22. I think the whole marriage concept should be reviewed in the UK. To start with religious organisations should not be allowed to perform ‘civil’ marriages. I mean that their marriage ceremonies should not have any legal effect. To be legally married all should first have a civil marriage. If one is religious, he/she can then get a religious marriage if they want to.
    To avoid any abuse (fake single mothers claiming benefits, for example) religious organisations should only be allowed to perform their own ceremonies if the couple has had a civil marriage first.
    By doing this we would hopefully de-couple the religious and civil aspects of marriage.

  23. de Villiers,
    it was a Conservative Government led by Ted Heath that introduced both The Nullity of Marriage Act 1971 …
    (1971 THE FIRST TIME IN BRITISH LAW THAT MARRIAGE WAS DEFINED AS BEING BETWEEN A MALE AND A FEMALE. A marriage could therefore be annulled if the partners were not respectively male and female.)

    …and it’s subsequent replacement the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, still in effect with some modifications under the Gender Recogition Act 2004.
    Grounds on which a marriage is void
    (c)that the parties are not respectively male and female;)

  24. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 11:32am

    Pavlos, I may be wrong, but I think that you are incorrect. The common-law already stated that such a marriage was void. The statute merely stated what already was the state under common law.

    Holy matrimony under the common law was the estate into which a man and a woman enter when they consent and contract to cohabit with each other and each other only: Book of Common Prayer, Form of Solemnization of Matrimony; Harrod v Harrod (1854) 1 K & J 4.

    According to the doctrine of the Church of England, from which the law on marriage in England and Wales derived, marriage is and was in its nature a union permanent and life-long, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity: Revised Canons Ecclesiastical, Canon B30 para 1.

    The only kind of marriage which English law recognises and has ever recognised is one which is essentially the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others: Nachimson v Nachimson [1930] P 217, CA; Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130; Re Bethell, Bethell v Hildyard (1888) 38 ChD 220; Sowa v Sowa [1961] P 70, [1961] 1 All ER 687, CA.

    If two persons of the same sex contrived to go through the formalities of a ceremony of marriage, the ceremony was not a marriage ceremony at all, but it had been held that the court in such circumstances was precluded from granting purely declaratory relief but had to grant a nullity decree: Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83, [1970] 2 All ER 33.

    A marriage celebrated after 31 July 1971 is void where the parties are not respectively male and female – which is where the statued to which you referred has relevance. It follows a longer line of authority and removed the requirement of a court order granting relief. It created no “new” ban but simplified the legal requirement to have such a relationship declared void.

  25. Not intending to be rude … I take your slightly pedantic point de Villiers that there may be no actual ban.
    A ban was precluded by legally defining marriage as between a male and a female only as recently as 1971, just 39 years ago.

  26. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 11:36am

    Or rather, the 1973 Act removed the requirement of the Court having to grant a nullity decree rather than declaratory relief. It did not create a new restriction on marriage but simplified the manner of having such a state declared void.

  27. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 11:42am

    It is not a pedantic point – it is quite serious in terms of achieving marriage equality. Gay marriage is not “banned”. Marriage as a definition has never encompassed the union of two men or two women or more than one man and one woman. A marriage of three people is not “banned” but there is no permission for it to be recognised.

    To lift a “ban”, one need only repeal the Act of Parliament which imposed it. Here, to allow gay marriage would require an Act to redefine marriage and set aside the existing common law.

    A difficulty is that there is much common law that defines legal relations between spouses on the assumption of a gender difference. Hence much English law on equity and presumptions of advancement apply to a marriage but would have little relevance to a gay marriage where both parties might be thought to be more equal partners.

    A civil partnership side-stepped these difficult issues by creating a new category of civil partner to which the existing common law did not apply. Such problems would not be so great in a jurisdiction such as France or other Napoleonic code countries because legal precedents and authorities do not act in the same way.

    But the main correction to which I wish to point is your suggestion that it was a Conservative government which ‘banned’ or removed the power for gay marriage. This is not the case. All the government did was change the method by which a gay marriage would be declared void. Before the 1973 Act, a judge would have to grant a nullity upon a formal application. After the Act, the judge need only declare the relationship void without anything more.

    The 1973 Act did not ban gay marriage. It simply changed the method by which it would be declared void.

  28. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 11:50am

    - Or rather, a judge might not even need to declare the relationship void. It would be void ‘ab initio’ without a court order.

  29. How far do you want to go back de Villiers?
    Under civil law the definition of marriage restrictively defined as between a male and a woman only happened in 1971.
    There may have been an assumption that marriage was only to be between a man and a woman but it was not spelled out as such in the legal definition of marriage until 1971.
    What is now required is a gender neutral legal definition of marriage. This will not redefine marriage, it will remain as ever the legal union of two persons to the exclusion of all others but the 1971 gender restriction will be dropped.

  30. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 12:24pm

    Pavlos, that is not correct. In the 1866 case of Hyde v Hyde (above), Lord Penzance stated that “Marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

    It is not correct to say that the “there may have been an assumption that marriage was only to be between a man and a woman but it was not spelled out… until 1971.” It was spelled out. It was spelled out by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde (1866).

    In the English legal system, when a judge defines the meaning of a word, that word continues to have that meaning in all subsequent statutes passed by Parliament unless the statute explicitly states otherwise. In every Act passed by Parliament, the meaning of the word “marriage” when used carried the definition of Lord Penzance.

    The 1971 and 1973 Act changed nothing but the method of annulling a gay marriage. Before the existence of these acts, a person could have annulled a gay marriage by applying to a court for an annulment which a court have to grant. After 1971, it would appear that such an order to a court would no longer be necessary – it would be void ‘ab initio’ without such an order.

    The Act did no more than change the method of annulment. It did not change the definition of marriage.

  31. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 12:48pm

    Pavlos, I have tracked down a copy of the decision on the internet. The case relates to polygamous marriage (as do most of the authorities that I have cited) but the ratio remains the definition of the meaning of marriage. You can find the judgment here: http://www.uniset.ca/other/ths/LR1PD130.html.

    It was considered (and upheld) in the case of Wilkinson v Kitzinger [2006] EWHC 2022 (Fam); (2007) 1 FLR 295 found here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2006/2022.html which stated:

    11. The common law definition of marriage is that stated by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde (1866) LR 1 P&D 130 at 133: “The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” This definition has been applied and acted upon by the courts ever since: see for instance Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83. As stated by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Bellinger v Bellinger (Lord Chancellor Intervening) [2003] 2 AC 467 at 480 para 46: “Marriage is an institution, or a relationship, deeply embedded in the religious and social culture of this country. It is deeply embedded as a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex.”

    12. So far as statute is concerned, the common law test of marriage is given statutory force by s.11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (“MCA”) which provides “A marriage celebrated after 30 July 1971 shall be void on the following grounds only, that is to say… (c) That the parties are not respectively male and female”

  32. - on an aside to the above it was interesting to see Ben Summerskill comment today about Tim Davie sterotyping gays on the BBC, one of his comments says

    “Davie has rightly identified that structural change – getting commissioners and editors attuned to their audiences – is the only likely route to long-term success…..”

    Could be a good comment to apply to himself and Cameron as well!

    can’t see either of them attuning to their audiences at the moment nor seeing long term success for either !

    – with the above legal argument – hope it’s the political will that will change things and of course we have CPs now as well so you’ve got do something with them

  33. @30 and @31:
    Anyone else see de Villiers subtle switch and shift in the debate.

  34. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 1:12pm

    What was my subtle shift and switch?

  35. I don’t know why allowing civil same-sex marriage redefines marriage in any way or how it would impact marriage as it currently stands in the UK. All this would do is expand and extend the same rights to same sex couples. It doesn’t change marriage at all. Straight couples will continue to marry regardless and marriage will always be in tact no matter if its same-couples or not. In a true democracy, rights are expanded, added even, not contracted and withheld from one specific group because is always been that way. I don’t see the difficulty in any government making such an adjustment if you absent the power and influence of religious cults and their adherents who are at the root of all the prejudice and discrimination on this issue, among others. Cameron’s deferrence to the cults is the hurdle he must overcome if he’s going to persist in claiming that his party supports full equality, which up to now it doesn’t. Let him prove it by supporting civil marriage equality for starters.

  36. Robert -for homophobes/christians etc it alters marriage so they’ll whine and moan, they don’t acknowledge that marriage was redefined to exclude same-sex couples to please their cult

  37. And some Christians whined and moaned about interracial marriage (not God’s will apparently *rolls eyes* Unnatural even – ring any bells?) Christians can believe marriage is what they want and do what they want in their own churches but that doesn’t give them permission to deny others rights in a civil matter that’s absolutely nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

  38. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 4:27pm

    Would it be acceptable if the Government abolished the term “marriage” and declared that all relationships would be known as “civil partnerships”?

  39. MOST unlike Cameron to miss “jumping on a passing bandwagon” … maybe we’ll all get lucky and this one will run over him!!!! ;-)

  40. Steve King 4 Oct 2010, 7:02pm

    Sorry guys but I hold little truck with those being pedantic or claiming that it would be difficult, or a lot of work to change the law on this issue.

    So what? Increasingly it is being shown to be the ´will of the people´ as well as being fair in terms of equality for all.

    If it needs doing, then do it. Are we really trying to say that Parliament would be unable to pass a law making marriage between a man and a woman, or two women, or two men legal? A civil law, nothing to do with church rituals? I think not.

    If other countries, Argentina among them can do it, then we can´t?

    Really?

  41. de Villiers, No. 38, that’s not going to happen, not in the UK or anywhere for that matter. Marriage will always be the universal gold standard in every culture.

    Chester, No. 36, I wouldn’t even go as far as saying civil marriage has been redefined. In my view, its merely an expansion of marriage to include gay people. It doesn’t affect straight marriages one iota except of course if its a whining religious bigot. The problem with the cults is that they think they own marriage, even civil marriage. The day they start issuing marriage licences in their own right, then maybe that will change the equation, but they don’t and never will. Our right to a civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the religious component, after all, they don’t conduct them, nor do they have to recognise them. They’ve lost the argument which was always flawed from the outset. It was nothing more than a red herring. Cameron and his party have unfortunately fallen for it, hook, line and sinker, to their own detriment. So be it, it will only strengthen the Liberal Democrats and Labour when it comes to full equality. The Tories have a golden opportunity to proove they support it but they’ve missed the train, too late. They have no credentials to prove otherwise.

    Pavlos, No. 7….the reason why the Government are unable to provide a logical rationale as to why we’re prohibited from marrying has more to do with appeasing religious bigots and the various cults throughout the country. There really is no rationale or excuse to continue the ban. They can no longer use the procreation nonsense because if they did, they’d have to ban straights who choose not to or cannot procreate. They couldn’t even provide one shred of evidence as to how same-sex civil marriage impacts marriage in a negative way, not one. Its religion and homophobia supporting the ban and in the case of gays who want the ban to remain by their inaction, self-loathers who have a lot of internalised homophobia of their own. People of the Summerskill ilk if you will.

  42. But it’s no surprise that Call-Me-Dave isn’t supporting gay marriage. Have people forgotten how the Gay News reporter, Martin Popplewell, revealed Call-Me-Dave as being totally skin-deep in his pro-gay opinions shortly before the recent election??????

  43. PAUL Cann 4 Oct 2010, 9:21pm

    I never understand how a gay person could support the tories. Could one of the gay tories, like de villiers, explain to me how they can vote for a party that has treated them like criminals since their inception. Everyone knows the tory party track record on gay rights, and yet there are gay guys on here sticking up for them. That is just weird, and very sad.

  44. Keith Lynwood You hit the nail on the head. Again, we have the automatic privileging of religion over everyone else’s rights. It’s amazing that in 2010 in a modern secular democracy, we still have people who believe in demons, fantasy realms and Gods watching from beyond the stars taking away our rights because of their book of magic and fairy tales. In ANY other area of discourse,this would be completely unacceptable. If I said black people cannot marry white people because the magic juju of the skies told me so, I’d be arrested for racism and rightly so. What’s different with Christianity?

  45. de Villiers 4 Oct 2010, 9:52pm

    > I never understand how a gay person could support the tories.

    I’m not a gay Tory. But I am on the centre-right both here and in France. I support sound money, limited state action, the importance of equal processes, market policy to support rather than supplant competition, fiscal discipline, monetary policy to control growth in the supply of money. That puts me closer to the English Conservative party.

    Insofar as I support civil liberties and social liberalism, that takes me closer to the Liberal Democrat party.

    The Labour party appears to me to have been one of the most illiberal governments in British history. It’s shocking to me how much freedom in England has been taken away.

    If I had a vote in the UK, I would vote for either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. In France I would vote for the UMP. If I had a vote in Germany, I would vote for the Free Democrats.

  46. You’re certainly brave to say you’d support the UMP party in France. At least in the UK we are more or less treated equally, in France gays are definitely treated as second class citizens and I doubt whether the UMP party will do anything for gays unless they are forced to by the EU or the legal system. I think you may have some suspect priorities….

    When is LGBTory having their fringe meeting and when will we have another set of excuses coming from BS at this meeting on why we can’t have marriage equality.

    Just looked back at LGBTory’s statement on marriage equality and it wasn’t at all convincing

    “…question of how much of a priority the achievement of such a change in the law is where, we believe, the difficulty lies. We believe that gay marriage (or, more precisely, our wish for non gender-specific marriage, as highlighted earlier) should be achieved as part of a package of reforms on LGBT issues…”

    Yeah right, that sounds like an excuse to do nothing!!!!!

  47. Robert – I don’t believe that any marriage has been redefined either but the bigots would, many don’t even know there used to be same-sex marriage anyway so they should logically support same-sex marriage as that was tradition before the christian’s cult stole marriage

  48. The Bible includes god-arranged incest (the only way the children of Adam and Eve could procreate to continue the human race) and polygamy (just look at the men in the OT who had more than one wife). I don’t see why we should base our modern standards on it by blindly following every single word with no adjustment to the time in which it was written.

    We don’t base our laws on the Bible (killing your children would be just fine if they answered you back, for example). So why can’t we have equal marriage? Because some people don’t agree with it? Some people don’t agree with women working but we hardly listen to them when we draw up employment law, do we?

    It’s about what’s right and fair.

  49. don’t forget that the bible says God loves babies bashed on rocks but shaved hair at temples is condemned and so is other wierd stuff
    unfortunately rationality is the last thing to be expected from many religious folk

    Science flies you to the moon but religion flies you into buildings

  50. Chester and Iris, you’re both right on target!

    As I’ve said on other posts….Cameron saying he’d “consider” marriage equality prior to the election is “tory-speke” for NO. If he’d emphatically said no before the election, he wouldn’t be in number 10 Downing Street if you look at the dismal election result. Every vote counts, especially ours. His silence is deafening but not surprising, he doesn’t want to upset his bigot base. He’s nothing but a coward, no backbone, no leadership material just like Summerskill and besides, he really doesn’t believe in full equality, just like Brown and Blair before him. Ditto Summerskill!

  51. de Villiers 5 Oct 2010, 5:54pm

    > You’re certainly brave to say you’d support the UMP party in France. At least in the UK we are more or less treated equally, in France gays are definitely treated as second class citizens and I doubt whether the UMP party will do anything for gays unless they are forced to by the EU or the legal system. I think you may have some suspect priorities…

    That is true. France is much more conservative than England. And the Left is better when talking about gay rights but really, they are no better than the Right. The difference is presentation – nothing more.

    The PS (Parti Socialiste) pay lip-service to gay rights but there is no real action. They did not bring in gay civil partnerships. They introduced PACS but they are for both gay and straight people. It is not even separate but equal. Many people high in the PS are totally opposed to the gay lifestyle. All the talk is just for show.

    The Left in France say that they are for the poor but really they are for the rich. At least the Right are honest about it. The Left when in power with Prime Ministers such as Fabius or Jospin privatised everything they could. Even the 35 hour week was for the benefit of protected white workers at the expense of poorer French-Arabs in the banlieues who could not find jobs and found it even harder to find them afterwards.

    But also, being gay in France is different to being gay in the England. In England, it is more of an identity – much more than in France.

  52. Where is the report of the gay meeting at today’s Conservative Party conference? Or doe PinkNews only report people it agrees with?

  53. Yeah it would be interesting to know if the Stonewall/LGBTory fringe mentioned mariage equality at all. I’ve noticed this link but no mention of marriage equality – was’nt the editor of this article the previous editor of PN?

    http://www.epolitix.com/1832-blog/blog-post/newsarticle/lgbtory-and-the-grayling-question/

  54. Nick Herbert said at the meeting that he didn’t really see the point of it

  55. What do you expect when you put homophobes in power? Duhhhh

  56. de Villiers 8 Oct 2010, 11:49am

    Homophobia is an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. A failure to see the benefit of gay marriage over civil partnerships does not equate to homophobia.

  57. I don’t know what depresses me more, the homophobic bigots in the news, or the gay men who leave comments like de villiers above.

  58. de Villiers 10 Oct 2010, 11:27pm

    Then, Leo, you have faulty perspective and an inability to understand views other than your own.

  59. Then, De Villers, you don’t understand Leo’s depression. post.

    “But I am on the centre-right both here and in France. I support sound money, limited state action, the importance of equal processes, …” – De Villers

    If you were truely centre-right and abided by your standards of limited government, then you would believe in marriage equality. This is because the government should not interfere in ones life. Limited state action, or in this case, all the action they have taken to ban things that cause no harm to others. Even if you suscribe to a major religion, you should believe in equality for a number of reasons. One, not all religious bodies are so venomous to gays; I live in America for example and one tribe can perform gay marriages. Two, you can’t argue “I am only limited government” to a point since this isn’t like we’re talking about legalizing drugs or something. Three, because the separation of church and state is needed in a democracy – this isn’t arguable, since otherwise it becomes a theocracy.

    He is depressed because you don’t realize these things.

    P.S. I am not English either, I am American nationality wise, but my last name is French. So. You really can’t play the racism and “shame on your anglo-saxon” card.

  60. This is rubbish.
    Cameron looks increasingly out of step with British society.

    Gays have got civil partnerships.
    Very few will support marriage.

    If it does come people will call it fake marriage or sham marriage.

    Be content! Stick with civil partnerships and save yourself a lot of grief.

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