Excellent perspective from the Scottish youth parliament. Equall marriage and partnerships for all couples regardless of make up is a clearly important step in achieving equality and fairness.
The start of the UK consultation on equal marriage was due July 2011, it’s now AUGUST 2011.
She also replied back in May 2011 (HC Deb 5 May 2011 c778) that discussions would take place over the SUMMER!!! with interested parties.
What’s happenning? BUGGER ALL!!!!
I hope they have more luck in Scotland becuase down here it’s going nowhere. We’ll probably get Gary Streeter’s October inquiry into winding back the equality laws before we get a consulation on marriage equality.
I agree its time to see the consultation happening or have a VERY good explanation as to why it is being delayed and the promises not being kept to.
The discussions can not easily take place without the consultation document. At least not in a formal manner.
I warmly endorse the Scottish youth parliaments actions, but worry they too will not see any dynamism on this from the SNP government who have tragically been mute on most LGBT issues or at best luke warm.
I would be very interested in hearing Lynne Featherstone or Teresa May explaining both the delay in the English marriage consultation and the government view on Streeters recent foray into the issues of erquality and diversity
This is from the Scottish Youth Parliament website:
In their responses to Change the Picture, Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens ‘agree in full’. The Conservatives ‘agree in part’; the SNP have ‘no position’, saying “issues such as same sex marriage are considered a matter of conscience for individual representatives. As such, the party does not have an official policy.”
In their responses to Change the Picture, Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens ‘agree in full’. The Conservatives ‘agree in part’, the SNP have ‘no position’, saying “issues such as same sex marriage are considered a matter of conscience for individual representatives. As such, the party does not have an official policy.”
Ooops! Didn’t mean to post my comment twice!
It is not one single UK consultation as these issues are covered by devolution legislation (which opens the door to the same chaos as in the USA).
I am aware of that but nonetheless and English consultation was due to start and has not. The Scottish govt have made noises about maybe doing something on the issue. Its time for all parl;iamentarians/assembly members (including Wales and N Ireland) to get a grip and sort it and explain why promises (where relevant) have not been kept
Welcome progress that I hope brings results.
Maybe if Scotland start the course England and the rest will hopefully follow.
Did email Lynne Featherstone regarding marriage Equality consultation and still heard nothing back.
Hoping they keep to this!!
JST …Emailed my lib dem MP about the consultation on equal civil marriage which was due to start last month and got the reply that the consultation had ended on 23th June. The stupid bugger hadn’t got a clue about the consultation and was referring to the “relgious” CP consultation. They haven’t kept to thier promise, it’s quite cleat the start date was JULY! and discussion swere due over the Summer. It’s now August and Summer ends sometime in September.
Write back and explain that the Marriage Equality consultations are quite separate from the religious civil partnerships consultation.
Ask would he please tell you why the consultation on Marriage Equality commencement deadline has now been missed and ask what now is the new commencement date for the promised Marriage Equality consultation.
Already done that….but I’m not holding my breath for a prompt reply …I’m very suspicious about the delay and the lack of any announcements/clarifications from Stonewall and the Equalities Office..
Stonewall have already replied to teh consulation:
Now when do we get our turn?
Atheist…When I asked the equalities office about the Stonewall question/answer document they said…..This is not a formal government consultation but a document published independently by Stonewall – not in response to any questions issued by the Government….
When will any of us see any form of consultation, including Stonewall????
Bit worrying that a Lib Dem MP cannot tell the difference between Civil Marriage and Civil Partnerships but hey ho.
I will keep up the pressure to kind out more regarding the Civil Marriage consultation too as all sides need to be keeping to this mandate and provide Equality to all particularly as we all do pay taxes etc.
Also have had no reply from either my Labour MP or the Conservative MP that I have good contacts with
I have had no reply from my Labour MP or the Conservative MP that I have had good contacts with regarding the marriage consultation
We need to keep up the pressure.
Anyone who expects any meaningfull Gay equality moves from the Homophobic Law and Justice Tories are deluding themselves. No seriously, we have seen all the equality we are getting until this crowd are gone again, which hopefully will be soon when the unwholesome alliance of Nick the Toff and Call me Dave falls apart or the next election.
Indeed it is increasingly likely that som eof our hard won rights are going to go through some rough waters as the vile xtians blackmail the homophobic Tories to roll back in favour of xtian fanatasies and allowing them to refuse services which we as Gay taxpayers pay for same as everyone else. Soon we will see signs in business windows that read NO GAYS wanted HERE. Come to think of it just WHY ARE GLBs required to pay the same taxes as everyone else if we aren’t equal to everyone else.??
……..Just noticed the change of tag when posting on another thread…clearly no me and i have no idea how it got there
and this has exactly what to do with the Scottish youth parliament???
Here we go again. Another consultation.
It won’t happen. Especially with Brian Souter to be knighted on the horizon.
What needs to be consulted on?
To keep apartheid in place?
And what does ‘as soon as practical’ mean?
I’ll tell you what it means. It means never because there will always be something else to deal with first.
I admire the youth group, but have been fobbed off.
And what about the consultation exercise in England? where’s that?
See what I mean?
Why don’t we stop waiting for someone else to start the consultation and find a way to get it going ourselves, maybe through gay mps?
If Mr. Streeter can start his own inquiry, why not have a few of our own?
I like your style … friendly gay MPs who might start a Streeter style proposal of inquiry???
The Equality Network has been discussing with some MSPs the option of them leading a consultation on a Member’s Bill for marriage equality.That consultation would take 2 or 3 months to get off the ground in practice, and a Govt consultation would have more clout. But clearly the Scottish Govt consultation, which was a manifesto commitment, needs to happen very soon or people will be losing patience.
Why is it we have no celebrities getting involved, to wake this coalition government up out of its deep slumber? I suppose it’s just not important to them. It worked in New York state. Countless numbers of mostly straight celebrities made a lot of noise about it. We have none in the UK, not one. StonewallUK isn’t exactly aggressive either.
Why do we need celebrities – thats not the sort of government I want …
Bunch of Idiots!…. Shame on you!…..
Fvck off and die.
Stu, engaging celebrities has nothing to do with the type of government we have. Celebrities are also “the people” whose voice should be heard. If it weren’t for them, I doubt if marriage equality would have happened in New York state. There was massive support from them speaking out. When the people speak, the government listens. Every bit helps. We need as much straight support as we can muster and having celebrities on board should be applauded.
I concur that we need as much straight support as we can muster.
I can see that having celebrities on board can be a good thing both in terms of garnering support and being seemly (I think of recent campaigns involving Joanna Lumley, Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan etc)
That said, I do have a reluctance for celebrity endorsement to be the norm – almost a Hello magazine approach to poltiics and policy making …
I do get your point though
Brilliant :-) Well done to the Scottish Youth Parliament :-)
Can we have one of these Youth Parliaments in England as well? They show bucketloads more common sense than the current dinosaurs ‘guffawing’ or nodding off in Westminster.
In fact can we replace our Fascist Tory regime altogether with this Youth Parliament?
There is a UK Youth Parliament. Sometimes it meets in Westminster.
Excellent. Do they have a REAL voice, or does Cameron just patronise them and then totally ignore them?
You’ve got it!
Stu, thank you. I knew you’d understand what I was saying.
For your information the England and Wales consultation on Civil Partnerships closed 23 June and that on Marriages has yet to be issued. However Stonewall has obviously seen the draft template for responses on the latter and their response, though obviously jumping the gun and open to revision should the questions be adjusted, can be seen on their website at the address link given above.
These were the respective questions asked:
PROFORMA FOR CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS CONSULTATION RESPONSES
The consultation closed on 23 June 2011.
Question 1: Do you have any comments on our proposals for requiring
faith groups’ consent for an application to a local authority for a religious
premises to be used for the registration of civil partnerships?
Question 2: Do you have any comments on the three ways in which decisions
can be taken about allowing civil partnerships to be registered on religious
Do they cover the circumstances of all faith groups?
@Dan – Stonewall haven’t seen any draft template as there is no draft template. They’ve just adapted the template used in the religious premises CP and I’m sure they’ve done so purely because the consultation (scheduled in the Government Equalities Office’s own LGB & T plan – check out page 12 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/equalities/lgbt-equality-publications/lgbt-action-plan ) is overdue in relation to its commitment to start in July.
f you’re concerned, you should write to both your MP and to Lynne Featherstone as Minister for Equalities and ask why.
From my point of view, however, the Stonewall template is LGB only and trans issues will need to be covered too, particularly getting rid of the hated ‘marriage bar’ to gender recognition, which is a LibDem commitment.
Question 3: Would your faith group want to have a specified body or person to take the decision whether or not to consent to civil partnership registrations on its premises? If so, what or who would this body or person be?
Question 4: Do you have any comments on our proposals for ensuring that faith groups’ consent is demonstrated in an application to the local authority for a religious premises to be approved as a place where civil partnerships may be registered?
Question 5: Do you agree that, taken together, the arrangements we propose
will prevent religious premises being approved as places where civil partnerships may be registered if the faith group concerned has not consented to it?
Question 6: Do you have any comments on our proposals for enabling faith groups who had given consent to reverse that decision?
Question 7: Do the arrangements proposed above cover all the premises which meet the definition of religious premises in the Civil Partnership Act 2004?
Question 8: Do you have any other comments on our proposals for identifying
religious premises that may be approved for hosting the registration of civil
Question 9: Do you agree with our proposals for enabling faith groups to
decide who should be able to register civil partnerships of their premises? Do
you believe further safeguards might be needed? If so, what might these be?
Question 10: Do you agree that religious premises should be open to the public
while a civil partnership is registered?
Question 11: Do you agree that religious premises should be subject to the
same conditions that apply to secular approved premises about the layout of
the building and the use of the room in which the civil partnership is registered
before the registration takes place?
Question 12: Might the requirements cause difficulties for particular faith groups who wish to opt in to the measure? How might these be resolved?
Question 13: Do you agree that religious premises (cont)
that religious premises should be able to keep their religious symbols, decorations and objects in place while civil partnerships are registered?
Question 14: Do you agree with our proposals for arrangements for religious
services following civil partnership registrations?
Question 15: Do you agree with our proposals for the process for applying for
a religious premises to be approved for civil partnership registrations?
Question 16: What fee might need to be charged to enable local authorities to
cover their costs?
Question 17: Do you agree that the local authority should be able to revoke the
approval of a religious premises that ceased to meet the conditions on which it
Question 18: Do you have any comments on the proposals for keeping records of the location of religious approved premises?
Question 19: Do you have any comments on the proposals for training and guidance?
Question 20: (continued)
Question 20: Are there other administrative issues for which special arrangements may be required for religious premises? What might these arrangements be?
Question 21: Do you have any other points or issues you wish to raise about enabling civil partnerships to be registered on the premises of faith groups who permit this?
Question 22: Does this approach sufficiently protect faith groups and ministers of religion, or is additional protection needed?
Question 23: Can you provide any evidence of the number of individuals in
England and Wales who might wish to register their civil partnership on religious premises each year?
Question 24: Can you suggest whether or not specific religious premises,
congregations or denominations will seek to make use of this provision? If you are responding on behalf of a faith group, is your faith group likely to allow civil partnerships to be registered on its premises?
Question 25: Can you provide any additional evidence of the (continued)
Question 25: Can you provide any additional evidence of the possible costs
religious premises will incur when hosting a civil partnership, in addition to those discussed in the impact assessment?
Question 26: Can you provide any further data or examples of costs and benefits which have not already been included in the Impact Assessment? Do you have any comments on the assumptions, approach or estimates we have used?
Question 27: Can you provide any further information or views to help us calculate the economic benefits of this measure?
Question 28: Does the equality impact assessment properly assess the
implications for people with each of the protected characteristics? If not,
please explain why.
The DRAFT question in the England and Wales consultation on marriage were as follows:
EXTENSION OF MARRIAGE CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Question 1: Do you think that the legal form of marriage should be extended to include same-sex couples?
Question 2: Is it necessary to extend the legal form of marriage to same-sex
Question 3: Should religious organisations or premises be obliged to marry
Question 4: Are there any other practical implications for extending the legal
form of marriage to same-sex couples?
Question 5: Should civil partnerships be extended to heterosexual people?
Question 6: Should civil partnerships be retained for same-sex couples?
Question 7: If the government adopted these proposals, do you have views
on the timings to extend the legal form of marriage to same-sex couples?
I imagine the delay in issuing this is to give time to enable the questions to satisfy the religious right and to get them organised to respond!
I rather hope the Scottish authorities will issue the two consultations together in one template so those responding clearly grasp the possibility of equal marriage. However I doubt the SNP are all that radical – but who knows pigs might fly!
Dan…The equalities office have said that this has nothing to do with them, we ca’t assume that Stonewall have seen a draft and that the delay is as you have said. The facts are that the consultation was due to start in July and the LF replied to Stephen Gilbert in May saying that discussions would happen over the Summer. WE DON”T KNOW WHY the consultation has been delayed, nor do we know what the questions are, nor do we know who the interested parties are or when she will be having discussions with them. What we do know is that they have had plenty of time to get ready for all this. I ‘m sure someone knows some of these answers but I really don’t think it is you.
Stonewall must have seen a draft but they sent in their response using the draft template. I don’t think that was a figment of their imagination. I’m also sure that someone knows some of the answers but whilst I am just a retired civil servant having only recently worked in Whitehall you may be right that I don’t know it all; but ask yourself why would the draft have got out to interested parties – cui bono?
Dan….I suggest you send a quick email to Stonewall or the person on the Stonewall questionnaire Ruth Hunt and get an explanation…it’s not that hard to get the correct explanation and not a made up one!
It is only a matter of time before Civil Partnerships become full-blown marriages, much of it will be through the changing of the wording. It is important though to point out that tolerance is a two-way thing and officials or vicars who do not wish to conduct such ceremonies should have the opt-out – after all, would I go to a Methodist – run hotel if I want a pint of cider before going to bed? While some people may not wish to conduct gay weddings, there are plenty of folk who are happy to do so. Unfortunately there are people who object to our lifestyles but I am prepared to cut them a bit of slack as long as they are prepared to allow us to do what we want behind closed doors.
“…only a matter of time…”…well I guess that’s sufficiently vague enough to cover all timescales!
If the Methodist run hotel was serving cider to the rest of its guests then I hope you’d be offered a pint as well, also if a registrar was already doing civil marriages then I really hope you won’t be left there standing while they find someone willing to do your gay one (assuming we ever get to that stage). As for church refusing to do your religious marriage, then heck, don’t they already do that for straight people sometimes anyway…who’s asking them to change? That’s an internal church rule anyway..
Gay Daily Mail Reader – I don’t agree with you that people should be allowed to opt-out of performing same-sex marriage ceremonies because it could lead to problems. As John points out, gay couples could end up waiting for months to be fitted in as only one registrar at their local office wants to conduct the ceremonies, for example. What if all the registrars at one office want to opt-out? It also sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to extreme examples such as religous nurses and doctors not wanting to treat a patient at the hospital A&E department, or more trivial examples such as the religious checkout operator at the supermarket not wanting to serve you because you have a copy of Attitude amongst your frozen peas and cat food – where would you draw a line? Also you would never suggest people should be allowed to opt-out of serving customers because of their skin colour or religion, so why do you say they should be able to opt-out of serving people because of their sexuality?
Being an SNP supporter all my life, and from their heart land of Morayshire; I was so proud not only of celebrating my sexual orientation, equality and diversity during Glasgow Pride of 2008. That day when Nicola Sturgeon stood on stage in George Square, my heart filled, when she bellowed out, how the SNP would fully support our paths to equality and acceptance.
Of course no one can forget the payment the SNP accepted from Stage Coach Boss Brian Souter, of over 500,000 pounds to keep Section 28.
Now again the SNP, is sending out mixed signals. Where do they truly stand on this issue?
”issues such as same sex marriage are considered a matter of conscience for individual representatives. As such, the party does not have an official policy’
is clearly sending out mixed messages from a party that my life term support is now foundering. Was Nicola Sturgoen, simply being a typical politician, using the day of 08 to promote her own self, forgetting all she promised, afterwards.