Reader comments · Campaigners welcome Stonewall’s support of gay marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Campaigners welcome Stonewall’s support of gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Mike Savant 28 Oct 2010, 11:56am

    This strategic mess created by Stonewall’s lack of leadership, influenced by radical elements and compounded by erratic and erroneous PR, has not gone without creating considerable resentment within both the LGB community. Now that Stonewall has caught up, at least strategically, can they now display competence?

  2. Angry Bisexual 28 Oct 2010, 12:00pm

    Of course, equal rights of civil partnership affect bisexuals too. But Stonewall only represent bisexuals when asking us for money. At least they have the decency to screw over trans people and not milk them for cash at the same time!

  3. Ben Summerskill really needs to go.

    I fail to see how Stonewall can even begin to restore their credibility while Summerskill remains in charge.

    Is Summerskill going to offer a full apology for his barefaced homophobic lies at the LibDem conference – where he pretended that equality would cost the taxpayer £

    What are Stonewall’s immediate, short and medium term plans to introduce equality?

    Has Stonewall clarified who it is accountable to, and how they decide their agenda.

    I am happy that Stonewall are FINALLY supporting marriage equality (granted they should have been doing this 5 years ago, but whatever).

    However Stonewall has a LOT of work to do to rectify the damage that Summerskill has done to the marriage equality movement.

    Unless there is a clear plan of action by Stonewall (with timelines) then I think that this support of equality may be a meaningless PR stunt to try to woo back the thousands of LGBT people who have stopped funding Stonewall.

    So come on Stonewall – we are waiting to hear your plan

  4. Paul, London 28 Oct 2010, 1:31pm

    Oh, give it a rest David. You are getting a reputation for being a bit of an anti-Stonewall bore. It won’t be long before you become a parody of yourself.

  5. I’m no fan of Summerskill, but if he is sincere, then I’d like to see marriage equality placed alongside bullying as the two number one issues on the agenda. Its up to all of us to make sure that we hold Stonewall’s feet to the fire 365 days, every year to make sure it becomes a reality. It will be interesting to see just how proactive Summerskill will be as proof of his sincerity and commitment to this very important issue.

  6. too little too late Stonefail.

  7. Omar Kuddus 28 Oct 2010, 5:28pm

    Stonewall had to change its stance as it no longer representated the majority of LGBT views and interests.
    The LGBT community in the UK have for far too long accepted all the crumbs thrown in their direction, and taken them as victories.
    Equa…lity in all aspects of life, irespective of ones sexuality is but a fundemental right, by the mear fact that we are born Human.
    Thus to allow segregation and treat its citizens as 2nd class or inferior to other due to their sexual orientation, is nothing short of Aparthide.
    It is long over due that the British LGBT communitty demanded to move from the back of the bus and be excepted as equals in all respects of life.See more

  8. The four things that would regain my faith in Stonewall as a LGB organisation.

    (1) Acknowledge and apologise for its five years of inactivity on marriage and civil partnership equality.

    (2) let Ben Summerskill go or move him sideways.

    (3) Reform its practises so its more transparent and accountable to both its members and the wider LGB community its actions effect.

    (4) Except trans people can be gay, lesbian and bisexual too. Stonewall should allow them to join the organisation instead of denying transgender people a LGB sexuality.

  9. How can Stonewalled go from campaigning against gay marriage to supporting gay marriage in one fell swoop? Something fishy is going on quite frankly, and I for one don’t buy it. I said it when they were trying to put the boot in to gay marriage and I’ll say it again now that they are trying to save their skins: OUT! OUT! OUT!

  10. I agree with Helen.

    It’s great that when BS has his “private” meetings with ministers or is called up as an expert witness/leader of LGBT rights in the house of lords etc that he will now be saying that LGBT people do want marriage equality and that CPs are NOT “adequate”. But Stonewall ,and in particular BS, have not covered themseleves with glory. It will be difficult to forget or understand why they have so slow in supporting equality. Still none of it makes any sense to me…..what exactly was going on in this organisation/company ? I’m sorry I’m still finding it difficult to call it a LGB charity…

  11. Pink News: ‘Campaigners welcome Stonewall’s support of gay marriage’

    I no longer care whether Stonewall supports gay marriage, as the organisation, despite some excellent work in the past, has made itself irrelevant.

  12. Paul, London 29 Oct 2010, 8:16pm

    Sorry Dave, are you the same Dave that at October 29, 2010 @ 14:55 on another Pink News story about Stonewall and gay marriage sad:
    “My ignorance – but, though I see the difference between CPs and marriage, why would a couple who are entitled to a civil marriage (in a registry office) want instead to have a CP? What would be the difference? Or the advantage to that couple? Surely it would leave the couple with the (comparatively minor) disadvantages of a CP and no benefit. It can’t be the lack of religeous involvement as the civil marriage has none, does it? What have I got wrong?

    I don’t believe you’re ignorance or that you can’t see why people might even ask the same questions about why gay people might be asking for marriage when they can have a civil partnership!!! – It shouldn’t matter what their reason for wanting it is – it’s about Civil Partnership equality for heterosexual people.!!!

  13. Paul, London 29 Oct 2010, 8:18pm

    Excuse my spelling misakes – sad=said, you’re=your

  14. “Sorry Dave, are you the same Dave that at October 29, 2010 @ 14:55 on another Pink News story about Stonewall and gay marriage said”


    That wasn’t me.

    And I’m not an anti-Stonewall bore.

    I’m a pro-equality bore.

    Do you support LGBT Equality, Paul Cann?

    Or are you simply a Stonewall apologist?

  15. Paul, London 30 Oct 2010, 9:14am

    Not you David – The person signing of as “dave”.

    If the last two points of your post are directed at me though, I’m not Paul Cann (and I don’t know who he is). But I do support LGBT Equality and I am not a Stonewall apologist. I have simply taken a step back and looked at the issue a little more widely and in more detail than some. I’m also a pragmatist. I think it’s entirely reasonable for Stonewall to wait and establish its position on gay marriage, what to do about Civil Partnerships and whether they should be allowed in religious premises etc in consultation with its supporters. I think its fair that they waited until the result of their annual survey was completed before announcing the result of it. And I think it is absolutely ridiculous that some people on here are saying that Stonewall are anti-LGBT equality when you consider all of the work that they have done and are doing. That’s all.

  16. their hand has been forced because they were losing donors. they didn’t consult widely, they don’t do a biennial survey and it was basically a desperate attempt to claw back from a summerskill-generated pr disaster. given the choice he’d have continued to be anti gay marriage. they look like right idiots now. cynical? moi?!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.