I don’t call 61% a large amount. I call that 11% past dont care.
If it had been about 75%+ then I would o cared.
Doesent look like it will be coming any time soon anyway.
If you look again at the article, you’ll see that the don’t cares / don’t knows were 18%. Opposed were 19% and in favour 61%. That’s a more than 3:1 majority of yes over no. It’s a big popular margin by the standards of politics.
Tim, you are right.
There is 2% missing there somewhere so dunno what try will think.
No matter how you look at it I’m afrai polls like this are a load of rubbish im afraid. As it’s a small snippet so it’s impossible to say a sweeping statement such as 61% of scots approve. I know Scottish people and they weren’t asked.
Unless you surveyed every registered voter in Scotland you will not get an accurate prediction of support.
Adam just face it you made a poorly thought through statement in your first comment.
If you don’t this that a 61% result in an attitude study is not statistically significant then one can only assume that you did not do to well at your social science stats class ?
you can make statistics say anything you want to
Nonetheless given the prevalence of opinion polling, market research and other areas where samples are taken and (on occasion) given high regard it is clear that surveying and sampling is a reputable tool.
Indeed, most NICE guidance for the NHS is based on medical research from (sometimes small) samples
This is not an opinion poll, it’s detailed academic survey research.There is a very detailed analysis of the margins of error, in the research report, which not being a mathmetician I don’t fully follow. But suffice it to say that the margin of error seems to be a couple of percent on the main figures.
Nonetheless, with any opinion poll (which are overseen by statisticians and also have low margins of error in theory), academic study, market research, clinical study or other form of reporting on a population where the entire population are/can not be surveyed then it is not certain and a definite true representation of the entire population
I do, however, accept it is authoritative and a good reflection of Scottish opinion
The Christian Institute is beginning it’s scaremongering propaganda ahead of the Autumn marriage equality consultation for England and Wales
*Michael White said: “Aside from all the theological, moral and cultural freight, there’s an important practical distinction here which goes to the root of any society – namely that heterosexual marriage is there to produce and raise children in a more or less stable environment.”
*Mr Leigh said:“Once we have departed from the universally understood framework of marriage, there is no logical reason why the new alternative institution should be limited to two people. Why not three? Or thirty-three?”
Has the introduction of polygamous marriage really followed-on after the legal recognition of civil marriage for same sex couples in all those places where same sex marriage is now already recognised? Or, is Mr Leigh engaging in ridiculous scaremongering?
I have to state the obvious
61% is a huge number!
I think 61% is a significantly higher majority than most general or devolved elections and substantially higher than local elections.
Given recent commentary on PN and elsewhere it appears that momentum is building in Scotland for an introduction of true marriage equality
I think if there was more mementum building in the rest of the UK then I think that would give Scotland a boost..there’s always a danger that something like opposite sex CP , which aren’t recognised in the UK at all, would clobber the whole thing. I’m not sure what tax status they would have. I guess if they brought in SS marriage then the CP act would somehow recognise them as CPs, again a little bit unpopular as well. It’s a shame the UK consultation still has a questionable start date with nothing planned to go any futher apart from a vague promise that we’ll get it by 2015.
Devolution means we have a system of legislatures a bit more like the US. There, LGBT groups in the states are fighting for marriage equality even though at the moment the federal level benefits are not available and your marriage is not reognised in other US states.
We could do better than that in Scotland – we could get same-sex marriage here, with those marriages recognised as a CP if you moved to the rest of the UK, until the rest of the UK caught up and introduced equal marriage too. As you say, mixed sex CP is more complicated until the rest of the UK does it.
But hopefully it will happen quite soon both at Westminster and at Holyrood.
The British govt have (I believe) very recenlty rejected an EU initiative to recognise all CPs within Europe for IHT purposes, this would have been for all types of CP, both same sex and opposite sex. Again a bad omen on the desire of the UK govt to recognise opposite sex CPs…..Gay people want marriage, the epetition on the govt website deals exclusively with this, Stonewall are pushing for this idea only as well. Why complicate it with opposite sex CPs..
Because equality means CP for all or none. And CP for none would mean same-sex couples only having the choice of marriage, and non UK couples with overseas CPs losing their rights altogether in the UK.
But Tim, that’s not what Stonewall are campaigning for.. they are campaing for the retention of CPs for same sex couples and gay marriage. It’s not our fault CPs were introduced as a carbon copy of marriages becuase we were not allwed the word marriage. Most straight people would want something different to a carbon copy of marriage. Why are you as a gay org campainging for straight people…( I take it back if you’re not an exclusive gay org like Outrage which I think is a human rights org?)
We campaign for bisexual and transgender people as well as lesbian and gay people.
Tim – fair enough but I do hope you realise that in the same way as feminists hate the connatations and history behind the word marriage some gay people also hate the words CP beucase of its hisory of keeping us seperate and inferior….CPs were for gays to keep us seperate
Of course, that’s one reason we’ve been capaigning for equal marriage for years. But it’s also clear there’s a large minority of LGBT people who prefer CP, which is one reason both we and Stonewall want CP retained.
Don’t hold your breath…..
61|% is a high number when you consider not even that amount of people vote.
John, by the rate at which this government is moving, maybe the consultation will begin by 2015 or not at all. I bet if you we see any more civil unrest this Autumn, Featherstone will issue another message…”delayed until further notice.”
Australia has been having a “consultation” on marriage equality for the last year or so and they’ve had countless polls in favour of it. Yet without the PM (Gillard) and her cabinet being in favour of it then nothing is going to happen. The British PM hasn’t said he’s in favour of gay marriage, nor has his party, he’s promised a consultation/a consideration of gay marriage and I suspect that’s all we are going to get…the delay in the consultation without an explanation and without a timetable is a bad omen. Do what the people did with the rioters petitions and petition for gay marriage, it may be our only hope of forcing the issue in parliament:
However the Scottish First Minister has said publicly that he is personally in favour of equal marriage.
I’m so behind the SNP. I don’t want to get too off topic, but I just can’t help thinking Scotland would be so much better off if it wasn’t so held back by the rest of the UK. I’m not hopeful for marriage equality anytime soon in the UK as a whole, but for Scotland…I can’t help feeling optimistic.
I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism, Blancie. The SNP have shown that they are willing to put religion and bigotry ahead of gay equality. They accept Souter’s money (and drop their bus re-regualiton policy a month later) and intervened to help a catholic adoption agency get around equality legislation. Roseanna Cunnigham was made a minister in the Scot Gov after she’d tried to make it illegal for gay people to adopt. The SNP don’t always send out the best message on gay equality.
He said his “personal feeling was to tend towards it” and that he was “very much against imposing it on any religion” – not far off the mark what John Mason said. There is a difference between his personal view and official party policy – which the SNP don’t have. The SNP are the only party in the Scottish Parliament not to have a policy on this issue, saying it’s an issue of conscience and up to individual MSPs, which I don’t agree with at all – it’s an issue of LGBT equality which the SNP are either in favour of or they aren’t.
My comment above was in reply to Tim Hopkins who said the First Minister, Alex Salmond, was in favour of equal marriage.
Well…I didn’t actually say anything about the SNP’s track record with gay rights. I suppose I didn’t really make myself clear. I’m with the SNP on Scottish independence. It’s the morality of the Scottish people (which is what this particular PN article was about) I have faith in, not particularly the SNP itself.
BennieM: everyone working on this campaign agrees that religious organisations should be free to choose whether or not to do same-sex marriages.
The Equality Network is completely party-neutral, but in the interests of completeness, it is the case that you quote rather selectively from Alex Salmond. He also said publicly during the election campaign about same-sex marriage: “I’m supportive, as long as any individual denomination is not forced into the position.” (to STV), and the Sunday Herald reported: “asked if he was personally in favour of gay marriage, Salmond said: ‘I am. I’m very much against imposing it on any religion, but … if a denomination is prepared to accept gay marriage then I’m in favour of it, yes.”
That was during the height of the election campaign. One can be cynical and say that was a vote-getting ploy, but one can also say that having said that in the election campign it’s harder for him to back away from it.
Tim – I simply quoted from a single interview in the Herald Scotland website without checking other sources, which I admit wasn’t thorough research. I do see your point, but in all of these quotes, Salmond is stating his personal view, not that of the party. I’m afraid I do think it was a cynical ploy for votes from gay people, but I’ll admit to being wrong if his government ever manage to legislate for equal marriage, especially if he votes for it. Although, I feel he could do a “Gordon Brown” and be absent from Parliament when the vote goes ahead – he did exactly that when the Equality Act was voted on in 2007 at Westminster.
Blancie – I see what you mean now, I did take what you said the wrong way!
Tim – I agree that religious organisations should be allowed to chose if they want to carry out same-sex marriage, but my point was that Salmond, in his interview, said the same as John Mason – that he didn’t think religions should be forced to carry them out. Nobody campaigning on marrige equality has ever suggested that religions should be forced into it. Salmond, as Mason did, was confusing the issue by bringing it up and you’ve got to question why he did so.
Tim – I get the feeling that when it comes down to a choice between suporting gay equality or religion the SNP will choose religion – they did so over the catholic adoptin agency, which I’ve brought up so many times before! In the quote you provide from STV, Salmond says, “I’m supportive, as long as no individual denomination is forced into the position.” Once again, this suggests that he’d favour religion over gay equality, but in this case it’s irrelevant as it’s not a straight (no pun intended) choice between the 2 as marriage equality has nothing to do with forcing religion to take part in it. Why would he even raise this issue of a religion being forced, as John Mason did?
BennieM, I would disagree with the suggestion that Salmond and Mason were completely saying the same thing. Alex Salmond said to STV at the same time as he expressed his support for same-sex marriage: “Well you wouldn’t have, and incidentally I don’t think the gay community are advocating, a circumstance where a denomination would be forced to have a marriage in church, and, you know, some people are confused about that position, but that’s not what’s being advocated.”
That’s a pretty clear statement of our position, whereas John Mason’s motion was a lot less balanced, although he later said that he supports same-sex marriage.
But you’re right that the striking thing is that the actual points people seem to be making: “I support same-sex marriage but don’t think religious bodies should have to do them if they don’t want to” are remarkably similar, whether they’re from Salmond, Mason, the Equality Network, Stonewall, the Greens, the LibDems etc etc
Tim – Thanks for that full quote. You see, all the other quotes attributed to Salmond, that I’ve seen anyway, have been much shorter and suggested that he’s only in favour of marriage equality if religions weren’t forced to take part. I’m really glad that he does see it’s not a choice between the two and he knows that no religion will be forced into it. It gives me hope now that marriage equality could become a reality.
Salmond has made luke warm support of equal marriage and has failed to condemn the bigotry of certain SNP members
Stu – You make a good point, and I too remain cynical about the SNP’s commitment to gay equality especially with all the other homophobia that goes on in the party and is not challenged. I would have a lot more confidence in Salmond and the SNP if they stamped out every instance of homophobia, starting with giving Souter his money back. As for marriage equality, I dont think anyone can stop it now if it gets as far as a vote in the Scottish Parliament. But there’s still the consultation to get through, and Peter Tatchell said that a consultation is a way for a government to put off dealing with an issue. I guess time will tell if the SNP will try to hold it up or stop it getting any further than the consultation.
I agree. The first indication of the Scottish Govt’s approach to this will be wording of the consultation. The second will be what happens after the consultation.
I received a letter from my new SNP constituency MSP. She says she will vote for marriage equality but not for forcing religious organisations to take part in the ceremonies.While I’m glad she’s in favour of marriage equality and will vote for it, I’m still annoyed at this idea that religions will be forced into it. The opponents of marrriage equality have done a good job of confusing the issue to say the least. As I’ve said above, I’m still not convinced that the SNP are 100% committed to LGBT equality, but on this particular issue, I think there is a good chance of it happening within the next couple of years.
I think our biggest problem with this could be to make sure that the exemption for religious bodies (which there is wide agreement on) doesn’t spread, to become a broader exemption allowing any individual employer or business or public service provider with anti-gay religious belief to discriminate against same-sex married couples compared to mixed-sex ones.
Today’s Herald editorial suggests that all individuals should have an opt-out on grounds of religious belief, although they may just not have thought it through – see last few lines:
So give it already and stop dithering!
Let’s hope the SNP keeps its promise and holds a consultation.
The postponement of the UK government’s marriage equality consultation plans is disappointing. Is the Coalition in Westminster waiting to see what happens in Scotland? Do they want the SNP to take all the political risks? If so, we can expect to see the UK consultation postponed repeatedly until the Scottish one takes place.
Whatever the coalition’s intentions, moves towards marriage equality in Scotland will put pressure on Westminster, and vice versa. This poll is good news for all the UK.
John, I’m certain Cameron and the Tory party won’t adopt marriage equality as official party policy to appease the bigot base in the House of Lords and their fellow christo-fascist supporters who want us marginalised from marriage permanently. I’d be very surprised if after the consultation begins, if and when, that Cameron will declare full support. He’ll get around it by saying the consultation supports legalising it for same-sex couples short of endorsing it himself to get him off the hook with the rest of the Tories.
That said, Ed Miliband could be a catalyst if his party joins the Liberal Democrats in supporting it officially, putting Cameron in a very embarrassing situation. In fact, he would be in a corner and the only way out would be to declare support to keep what little gay support he has. Let’s face it,the gay vote didn’t exactly give his party a mandate, let alone a full Tory government. He’s treading a very thin line and opposing it will be at his own peril.
Opposing gay marriage does not make someone a fascist.
Fascism is an authoritarian, dictatorial and nationalistic form of government.
The governments that in the past have been described as fascist are the Franco regime in Spain, the Mussolini regime in Italy and the Nzai regime in Germany. It requires the dismissal of democracy and the concentration of power in the hands of one leader.
Opposing gay marriage may be discriminatory and unjustified but it is unlikely to be “fascist”.
I wonder what you would call all those people signing the new epeitions on the govt website calling for the total ban of “gay” marriage in the UK…
Lets hope these “wankers” don’t outnumber the ones calling for gay marriage!
All fascists government have opposed homosexuality and would oppose marriage between same sex couples. So it would be right to say that opposing gay marriage was a part of being a fascist. And it would be ‘unlikely’ that a ‘fascist’ would not oppose gay marriage.
All communist governments have opposed homosexuality and would oppose marriage between same sex couples. So it would be right to say that opposing gay marriage was a part of being a communist. And it would be ‘unlikely’ that a ‘communist’ would not oppose gay marriage.
i agree. but i wasn’t talking about communists. and neither were you. you said that opposing same sex marriage was unlikely to be fascist. when in fact it is a 100% percent certainty that a fascist would oppose same sex marriage. just as the chairman of the tory party would. did you vote for that party?
Stop trying to run away from your overblown and faulty comments. You have implied a direct link between opposing gay marriage and being a fascist. The logic is unsound and basic.
I have voted both for the UMP and the PS at various times in France. I have not voted for the Conservatives in England, where I am not entitled to vote although I would have done at the last election in 2010. I would have voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 and probably abstained in 2005. To compare voting for the right, however, with being a fascist is, as I said to someone on another board, is disgusting. Truly disgusting.
It is a disgrace for any gay person to compare fascist regimes in which gays were slaughtered or tortured or experimented upon to the European or English centre-right. No person who is happy to identify as gay could make such a revolting, vile or wicked comment.
Still, its bad logic.
If Scotland gets same-sex marriage before England, can we got get hitched up there?
Probably but if you want to retain your marriage status you will have to live there permanently becuase once your cross that border you’d be downgraded to a CP…
Yes, if Scotland legislated first, non-Scottish couples could marry in Scotland. Your Scottish marriage would be recognised as a
marriage in all countries that have same-sex marriage, and as a CP in the rest of the UK until the rest of the UK gets equal marriage.
I don’t understand why a straight couple would want a CP when the universal gold standard is marriage. I don’t oppose them having another choice but really, why would they want to be treated as second class citizens in the first place and CPs do just that. We’re still facing discrimination with or without them.
Plenty of French straight couples choose a PACS. It has none of the historical baggage of marriage.
I agree, however PACS gives you a lot less rights than Civil Partnerships and are really easy to dissolve. A lot of non-EU citizens use it as a means of getting a work Visa (quite brazenly it seems as they are willing to talk openly about it in blogs and forums ie http://guiriguidetoparis.com/2011/04/what-the-hell-is-a-pacs-and-why-did-i-get-one/)
This may well be skewing the figures somewhat for hetro PACS I don’t know. Also a lot of straight people seem to say things like it’s a stepping stone to marriage (but not in those exact terms).
I kind of see my CP as a stepping stone to marriage in the same way, except the next stone isn’t there yet even if I want to step on it and that is currently making me really angry and bitter.
de villiers …you know damn well that PACS is a contract, you don’t have that awful divorcing problems which both marriage and CPs have in the UK. I know a lot of divorcees who would love to do a PACS style contract in the UK but no way would they want to do a British CP which comes with the same marriage baggage obligations….This survey is on gay marriage, we have no survey on straight CP or bisexual people who want to do a CP, so we don’t know the stats at all!!
I agree – the PACS has no ‘divorce’ obligations. But it is seen as not having the baggage of marriage – particularly for those on the left.
Because not everyone sees marriage as the gold standard. People have different views on that and there’s no good reason not to respect that, in our view, and give people the choice.
New Zealand, different to the UK, adopted Civil Partnerships that are open to different sex couples as well. Different sex couples who don’t like the tradition of gender inequality that used to go with marriage and continues to be advocated by some group of social conservatives wanted a different type of relationship. Form Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who has strong views on how bad marriage traditionally was fro women, but felt she had to marry to further her political career, went on record saying if CP had been available she would have chosen a CP. However all of that said the biggest problem with the NZ CP is the same as the UK CP in that it has very limited international currency so does not grant CP couples with the protections outside the country that a marriage certificate does. I believe at the end of the day New Zealand will extend marriage equality to same sex couples cause the current system is not in fact equal.
But the difference is that CP in NZ and Holland were always for same sex and different sex couples. The same with France and probably other countries. CPs were introduced in the UK has a system of aparthaid, we only had them becuase the govt and CofE could bare to give us the new marriage. Taditionally CPs have a bad name here with some gays becuase of their treatment towards gays as being something to keep them seperate and inferior. Scot and the UK are retorspecitively trying now to give CPs to straights with no figures behind it as to whether straight people want it in the first place. Instead of fihting for marriage they now have to push straights CP thru parliament.
It’s not just straight people who are interested in mixed-sex civil partnership – bisexual and transgender people are too, for example. The main groups campaigning on this in Scotland are LGBT groups not lesbian and gay groups, plus the Scottish Youth Parliament, which represents straight people as well.
There’s no “instead” for us – it’s not one or the other. We are campaigning for equality in both marriage and CP, as well as against hate crime and bullying in schools, for better equality laws, for better gender reassignment health services, and many other things.
PACS are open to all in France because the Left thought it could not pass a gay-only form of partnership.
Val, probably, but when you return to England, your marriage won’t be recognised as a marriage, but as a CP which it isn’t anyway, Sorry to disappoint you. It’s proof enough they’re not equal to marriage.
Good news – now get it made into law.
Can someone explain/link to some articles explaining why straight people want CPs and why marriage is an awful word?
You could just google it for yourself and do your own research but I’ll give you something to start you off:
Yeah I could but since this is a forum I thought I’d ask for some opinions and first hand experiences, you know what they call in education “primary research”.
Thank you for the article, though I’ve actually read it before it seems a little bit shallow and dumbed down, unless there isn’t anything more to it than that (although I strongly suspect there is).
Any legal union other than marriage does not carry as much portablility as marriage. We now have 10 countries allowing gay couples to marry, six states and one city in America, and Mexico City. The list is growing. There is NO universal standard for other forms of unions outside of marriage and it’s a waste of time. They will NEVER be equal to marriage, baggage or no baggage. It’s not going to change.
Your right of course that civil partnerships / civil unions / registered partnerships / PACS etc will never be equal to marriage. That fact is the main basis of the equal marriage campaign.
However, a lot of people want CPs even though – in fact, because – they are not equal to marriage. In our surveys of LGBT people in Scotland, just under half of people already in a CP said they would prefer to keep their CP, even if they could esasily convert it to a marriage. And 1 in 4 of single LGBT people said they’d consider a CP in future if both were available, with the rest saying they’d consider a same-sex marriage.
If you disapprove of CP, don’t do one. But don’t take away the option from those who prefer it!
Below is a link to an e-petition to legalise gay marriage, thought people would be interested in signing it
Signed this, there are 2 epetitions just started to ban gay marriage. Daft wording but nevertheless they are there.
THIS PETITION JUST REACHED 1000 SIGNATURES (WHICH IS QUITE A GOOD START
COME ON JESSICA GEEN, DO AN ARTICLE ABOUT IT & GET THE NUMBERS UP!!!
Thats correct everywhere, This is why when you find out it is really just a handfull of mostly republican biggots, and hate groups and religions who are also repubican bigots and tied together secretly if you check in the conspiracy of hate and satanic occultism and almost every finding will reveal they also fights against womens rights as well, like bachnams ignorance, the only thing that has her there is her money, she is nothing more than a outside pretty face and a peice of ass , to the republican party, they care nothing for her, they care about their agenda, against humainty, of others, and will use who ever will help launch their conspiracies into effect, thats why all of the nations human rights people must stand up for their families and others human rights joining hands to protect peace and harmony in the communites, geting rid of hate and malice, and protecting their children from it,, so they can become better people for tommorrows,
Tim, I’m not advocating for the abolition of CPs, by all means keep them for those who prefer them, but my problem is with people in CPs who don’t support civil marriage equality for those of us who do. I think they’d be singing a different tune if we campaigned for getting rid of CPs altogether. For them it’s a one-way street, and it shouldn’t be that way. Just because some don’t want marriage, doesn’t mean they should oppose it for the rest of us. If straights want CPs, fine, let them have it, but please, let us have equal access to marriage. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Maybe straights should start their own movement for access to CPs if they feel so strongly about it. We should support that too. I don’t see any straight organisation campaigning for same-sex marriage equality.
Robert I agree with most of that. Our survey of LGBT opinion in Scotland indicates that LGBT people who oppose equal marriage are a small minority.
Some of the organisations campaigning for both marriage and CP to be opened to people regardless of gender are not LGBT organisations by the way, including the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Youth Parliament for example. There are lots of straight people involved in this, both through involvement with LGBT organisations, and other organisations.
Tim – I can see why Stonewall isn’t one of those orgs pushing for straight CPs. Didn’t straight CPs get discussed when the CP act was in parliament. I fear that bringing in straight CPs will distract from the main issue which is “gay” marriage. I don’t see any survey on straight CPs, what happens when the Tory lords bring in a wrecking amendment like CPs for bros and sisters, carers etc. Will Stonewall’s argument about extra costs etc be brought in, no-one has actually done a proper cost estimate on straight CPS. I just wish things could be kept simple and keep the issue to gay marriage which is what gay org should be doing. I think Stonewall for once is right in this. And I agee with Stonewall CPs should be kept for those that already have them. CPs were always meant to be marriages for gays, not an alternative concept to marriage. The only difference was to seperate gays from straights , to make them non religious , a sham!
Tim, tha’s very interesting. I’m unaware of any straight organisations who are involved with it in England. Maybe there are some, but I haven’t found any. Maybe some of the readers here know of some. I’d like to know who they are.
The LibDems have promised cross-GB marriage for gay people in the lifetime of this parliament. Thank goodness.
Where can I find this promise?
Serenity – As I said on another thread, marriage equality is the responsibilty of the Scottish Parliament, therefore the British government consultation is not UK-wide, I think it only covers England and Wales.