Be under no illusion: this would not have even been on the table had the Lib Dems not provided a liberal voice in coalition.
That may be true but thisis still a Tory Prime Minister.
I think Brown would have been against, given his government’s shameful behaviour over the marriage equality case in Europe, where parliament was seriously misled.
Brown was against it. He was asked about marriage Equality and stated that Civil Partnership were “adequate”.
Brown thought he was a one man party however …
I do wonder though whether the gay friendly aspect of the current Tories would survive a change of leadership, or survive if they had a majority without the help of the Lib Dems…there is always the suspicion that a leopard cannot change it’s spots.
I think the ‘aspect’ was there in part. David Cameron had already made his case about relationships being equal regardless of man/woman, man/man or woman/woman before the last general election.
Although I do agree that I think the Lib Dems have accelerated that side of things for the better (I hope) in pushing along this Equality.
As to whether this aspect would survive a change of leadership, agree that is debatable but I would hope once these things are in place we stop being a subject of debate and left to get on with contributing to society in the same way we have always done up to the present day.
I think it would, even Ian Duncan Smith is on board. I suspect there have been more gays in the Tory party than Labour. After all it was the Churchill government who initiated the Wolfenden report.
We would not have a Tory govt without the lib dem
Not entirely true since most of the LibDems in Government are opposed to this move. This is the Prime Ministers personal opinion and it is he who is driving this through in the face of a lot of opposition from in his party both within and without parliament.
The reporter seems to be missing something very important. Do they intend to ban marriages in church, chapel, synagogue, meeting house, mosque or temple, where those sects or congregations decide they wish to perform marriages equally? If so that has very serious implications.
It would mean separate provision, NOT the opening of marriage equally to all adults. That might then contain other discriminatory differences. Would religious marriages overseas be recognised in the UK? Would faiths like the Quakers be punished for holding these “gay marriages”, whilst Humanists would be exempt? Would trans people who married religiously still have to divorce and enter a non-religious “gay marriage” instead, if they are to be recognised as their true gender?
If we are to avoid all that foolishness It now becomes even more vital that people stop talking of “gay marriage” and instead emphasise EQUAL MARRIAGE; nothing less.
“Mr Cameron had “personally intervened” to ensure that …the law is changed within the lifetime of this parliament” So that explains why he has extended the lifetime of this Parliament to a full five calendar years.
Pretty fast change of heart from his 2006 position. It’s not just a repentance of his 1980s stance on Section 28 but apparently an overthrowing of the bigotry he was uttering only 5 years ago. Wow.
He did not vote for Sec 28 in 2003, how many times does this have to be said?
He apologised for Sec 28. End of story.
What other bigotry has he supported? Just cut the crap man. Enjoy the moment, same sex marriage in the UK! I am VERY excited.
He now supports same sex marriage.
Whya re you so surprised people can have change of hearts when it comes to marriage equality?
Most of us have had friends, relatives and parents that have had a change of heart. The whole country has in recent years and that is of course welcomed.
To be fair since 2003, I have changed a number of my views on various policies. Granted my position on racial, LGBT, age and other forms of discrimination has not greatly altered – other views have and some of those moral views. Leaders are entitled to change their minds too.
@ At Stu, indeed, even Prime Ministers can have a change of heart and for the better too. I know most LGBT persons will be ecstatic that we have a Prime Minister, a Conservative one too, that supports my relationships in the same manner as heterosexual. Fantastic!
Isn’t the whole idea of the equal marriage campaign to GET people to change their minds. You are almost there; don’t question why. Build on this.
http://www.labourlist.org/how-truthful-is-david-cameron-on-his-gay-rights-voting-record – his voting record is homophobic no matter how you look at it.
During the Labour government’s repeal of the Section 28 legislation in 2000, which banned local authorities from promoting the acceptability of homosexuality, Cameron accused Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair of being against family values and of pursuing the “promotion of homosexuality in schools”. In 2003, once Cameron had been elected as Conservative MP for Witney, he continued to support Section 28 and voted against its full repeal via a Conservative amendment which would have maintained Section 28 in schools.
In 2002, Cameron voted in favour of a bill that would allow unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children, but which would specifically ban gay couples from adopting.
In addition, in 2008, he opposed giving lesbians the right to in vitro fertilisation treatment.
For god sake man, Hamish, this is ridiculous and pathetic. Absolutely desperate to add negative spin to this great news Labour failed to mention whilst in government.
Cameron has stated he is in favour of same sex marriage and pushed the issue in cabinet and on top of that, he want to see it implemented by 2015.
Cameron did not vote for the third reading that would of retained Sec 28.
IVF treatment, Labour’s Andy Burnham also voted against this amendment for instance, what are you doing to get him to change this?
cam seems to be one of those in the Tory party secretly in favour of full LGBT rights but has tried to embrace them in the party quite pragmatically and here we are, in 2011, we have the first Prime Minister that supports marriage equality. Labour’s Brown and Blair didn’t support this.
You sound like an old bitter Labourite. You’re party was incapable of giving LGBT persons marriage rights but the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are going to do it together.
Whilst the rest of us celebrate this great news and await its implementation, you want to moan and whinge at Cameron being extremely homophobic whilst him stating today he supports marriage equality for LGBT people.
It seems like you and Labour don’t like it when people not on their side has a change of heart or is in support of LGBT equality. That is the impression I have got from you. Instead of writing how good this news is, you chose to write a load of political crap on how cam is so homophobic despite pledging his full support for same sex people to marry.
From your logic and indeed Labourlists logic, those that have a change of heart when it comes to LGBT issues, like the British population and many of our friends and family are all actually still homophobic despite having a change of heart. Pathetic.
I was merely pointing out how your statement that he didn’t vote homophobically is completely untrue.
I hope he has changed his views and I’m going to celebrate this with everyone else but I need more than this measly bone before he can start rewriting his previous actions.
Short of telling the Queen to use her sovereign power to bring in equal civil marriage immediately at his next audience with Her Majesty, I struggle to think how Cameron could have used more positive and demonstrative language that shows his intention to change LGBT rights in this area once and for all in England.
I’m not saying he could but all I’m saying is I will wait to see how things pan out before I start praising his name.
Oh and Luke forgot to mention I don’t vote Labour I vote Green as to me Labour are almost as bad as the Tories.
Hamish, you’re a Green, I am not expecting you to start shouting from the roof tops about Cameron’s LGBT record but at least give him a break, rather than saying this is the progress you’d like to see you have chosen to post an article from labour List of all places on his apparently homophobia…. hence my replies to you.
If you’re a Green, great but I do hope you’re a real green that lives up to its name, (i.e meat free Mondays, living on minimum wage solidarity with us workers!, living as clean and environmentally as possible, etc). I lived in a seat that had a significant Green vote and I met so many hypocritical Green voters. I have respect for people who are principled when choosing a party like the Greens – if they live up to them that is. Principles are not that great in the major parties that’s for sure. For the record, I am a working class Tory not blindly though!
Luke I like to think I’m not a hypocritical Green I eat meat but that isn’t exactly one of the foundations of voting Green however I am working class (though I must admit a fairly well off working class) and I stand by the working class when I can. I live as environmentally friendly as I can and I live off minimum wage so I think I fit the bill well.
I posted the Link from Labour List because it was the first link I clicked on that pointed out his voting record however it does not change the evidence of his voting record.
I do truly hope he’s changed and I am not exactly complaining about this happening but is it not fair to say he needs a lot of proof for his change of heart after how we have been treated by the Tory party before.
Hamish, his voting record could be better but surely it matters what he does today and not years ago, surely?
He is prime Minister and pushing same sex civil marriage as that is an area LGBT persons care passionately about. We should be encouraging him and judging by the comments on this board, most people are doing just that. :-)
Sounds like you’re an ok Green voter, good lad :-p
Try reading the full quote from 2006. He said it’s about commitment “whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man”. It was a very roundabout way of saying it, and to avoid upsetting the traditional Conservative base he had to say that he was referring to civil partnerships. But the statement itself was supportive, though ambiguous.
This is an evolution of his 2006 position, not a reversal of it.
Dan, You need to put aside your party politics for the Labour Party and welcome the news. This story is nothing to do with five years fixed parliaments, or section 28. Stop being so negative and rejoice that a party that was seen as against homosexuals is now reforming, and you’ve got a prime minister that is ‘Emphatically’ in favour of gay couples being allowed to marry.
Cameron is beginning to convince me that he may have changed his heart on LGBT issues. I still have niggling background doubts but this story, Kaleidoscope trust support, the Downing Street LGBT sports event etc etc are positive. There is a strong argument that his position may well be significantly influenced by the LIb Dems due to the coalition – but regardless of the motivation – the stance (and hopefully the outcome) are good and encouraging things.
Indeed and in the faceof the recent troubles even Mr Cameron must see that an Equal, stable society makes for a better one.
I have read an article on the Daily Mail about Cameron on how he has always been in favour of full equality but, let’s be honest, this position would of made him extremely unpopular in the Conservative party at one point but he has made it to the top and is now making a difference and that’s what counts. The articles also states George Osborne has always been supportive of equal rights for gay couples.
Let’s hope the timetable will be as described for ths welcome news.Keep as much energy as possible for fighting the fury of the religious and other bigots
It’s still all delayed talk and promises but no action towards marriage equality thus far.
Cameron personally intervened? You mean Lynne Featherstone suggested it and when Osborne lashed out with a load of homophobic bile, Cameron put him in his place?
The tories would NEVER be able to get something like this by their backbenchers – and nor would Labour.
The coalition appears to win at something, at least.
Now, lets see if they deliver on this.
How negative can you be mate?
First of all, as the article states, Cameron intervened in favour of same sex marriage.
Osborne is very socially liberal so your remarks that he is homophobic are rubbish and lies.
You are an example of what ever this government does, they’ll always be homophobic. Bitter to the end.
For the rest of us, this is fantastic news, we’ll be the 11th country in the world. equality is coming closer and yes, a Conservative led government would of taken an active role in that. I am proud of all three political parties in the UK for the progress we’re making. So should you.
Indeed, let’s see if they deliver.
Its looking much more positive. I must admit I remain skeptical of Conservatives and LGBT issues and feel this is only being advanced due to the coalition. However, I am less skeptical than I was and if DC continues to maintain this approach, I may begin to accept that he has changed and this is not mere window dressing. Leaders can change their views, I hope he genuinely has.
@Stu, nothing wrong with the coalition having a positive influence on Conservative views on LGBT issues, indeed they were making advances before the 2010 election, for years now. The government needs to deliver for some LGBT people to not feel ill against the Tories any more, I recognise that as a Conservative. We now have a PM explicitly supporting same sex marriage, and he is a Conservative. He is the first PM to ever support same sex marriage in the UK. More needs to be done though on many issues and of course actually implemented marriage equality. The future is bright for us though, I am really excited!
Do you guys just make this crap up about the Tory MP Osborne has been homophobic in the past – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12053127
Another negative and weak criticism from you Hamish…. sad day for you isn’t it?
The link you posted is a joke, literally, it amazes me how someone can think its homophobic but there are some people desperately trying to score political points here. A Tory government is about to grant is civil marriage rights and Labour failed so of course they’re on the attack. George Osborne has always been in supportive of LGBT rights and is also capable of telling a few jokes too :-) If you’re offended, liven up a bit, it won’t do you any harm.
I’m yet to see any proof of him being pro LGBT rights all I see is his faithful lapdogs holding up his pro LGBT stance without any proof or reason. We don’t accept it off the fundies why should we accept it off you. It is arguable I suppose if he is being homophobic in his remarks here, and I do admit he fails to get the benefit of the doubt because of his party, but what makes you think he has liberal views regarding LGBT rights because at the moment I have proved your arguments against the Tory party being homophobic false.
When you can give evidence for this view, and this does not include him just saying he has liberal views, then I will believe you.
Clear, uncontrovertable and certain language that same sex marriage will be legislated for and brought into effect in England. Thats a significant step forward. Yes, we need action – but no one (even the most strident supporters of Cameron on here) has denied that. Whinging about nothing happening weakens the case for an engaging LGBT population who seek to advance a positive agenda.
Crucially, when you win your argument (as we appear to have done) don’t condemn the people who you have won over. Work with them and hold them to account to ensure they are true to their word.
Hamish, You have shown an article on Osborne making a joke and how Labour tired to make political capital out of it by labelling him homophobic… you must try harder next time because that’s pretty pathetic.
My “proof and reason” that George Osborne is not homophobic: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Osborne&mpc=Tatton&house=commons I do not particularly like that website because it calculates MPs voting records strangely but its all we have as proof for now. “77% Homosexuality – Equal rights”… that’s a pretty good record! Osborne has always been pro gay rights: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038729/Gay-marriage-How-David-Camerons-Tories-gay-friendly-party.htm
Well done to David Cameron
My local Conservative association is one of the most gay friendly environments to be in. I volunteer with many Conservative associations throughout south London and NW Kent and I can tell you that I’ve met more gay campaigners and Cllrs than I would have ever imagined before I started. They are a lovely bunch of people and they could not be faulted for their passion and determination in their communities. I couldn’t imagine the local Labour Party associations having the same feel. Before I began helping out with my local Conservative Party three years ago (when I was 20), I was very dubious about getting involved with a party which many people would have you believe is full of homophobic snobs. Now that everybody knows our Conservative Mayor of London and Prime Minister are both fully in favour of gay marriage rights, I really do hope many people’s opinions of the Conservative Party will change.
Tell it to the Conservative Christian Fellowship, which has its own powerbase within Tory HQ!
The ex Conservative chair of this organisation actually started to break the news twitter in a positive way!
Cameron supports same sex marriage yet you’re still complaining.
A few links about the Conservative Christian Fellowship, as AdrianT mentions, lets watch how they begin to flex thier political muscle on this issue.
You really couldn’t be more negative could you?
Let’s lobby these people instead of trying to make political capital.
Join the rest of us, I am really excited by this renouncement. :-D
I genuinely want to be enthusiastic and see this as a non partisan issue. I think there is a great deal of progress to welcome and hopefully we are now in gear to move ahead and celebrate an advancement in equality.
That said, in an intelligent debating forum (which PN can be …) it would be incongruous if we did not consider that there is still opposition and prepared to respond to their arguments and attacks. Lets welcome progress, encourage its development, seek it to be broadened, but beware of the opposition and not forget where some of it comes from …
They can “flex their political muscle” all they want but fact remains that if this is about Civil marriage it have absolutely nothing to do with any Christian Fellowship, which is why I wonder if it’s being done this way for a reason. A ‘foot in the door’ kind of thing.
Wow, you Brits are SO fortunate! Just come to Australia for a few weeks and see what both our Labor PM and our arch-conservative Opposition leader are like? You dont know how lucky you are! Try and get Gillard or Abbott to the opening of a new charity promoting rights for GLBT people? I doubt any MP’s would turn up! Too scared of the Australian Christian Lobby who ‘rule’ Australia!
Sounds like the US…Christo-Fascists run amok here too
best of luck to you, both Aussie and UK;-)
great news! but just to clarify,Nicola sturgeon is not the first minister of Scotland
With all 3 party leaders now in accord and presuming the backing of their parties, it may be politically wise to get a bill before Parliament sooner rather than later. Keep dragging your feet on this until the final days of the Parliament and it will be fresh in the minds of many opponents who will surely use it in the general election. Better it was history by 2015.
I accept that people can change their minds, and Cameron is a ‘nice chap’ but they cut all the services and there are just too many religious loons in the Tory party (Edward Leigh, Gary Streeter, Nadine Dorries, Fiona Bruce and various other CCF members).
Too many Tory fronybenchers and MPs have extreme homophobic voting records – I just can’t believe they have all had some Road To Damascus experience.
What have cuts got to do with marriage equality? Cuts are essential for deficit reduction and to tell those that we’re borrowing 170 billion a year from that we can pay back our bills. There are many religious people in all political parties and LGBT people can also be religious.
You seem to be quite bitter about this. Upset Labour never managed to do it?
Conservative led government is going to bring marriage equality and Cameron is the first Prime Minister ever to support marriage equality. I hope to see a majority from all political parties in the aye voting booth.
Does that mean I have to cough up another hundred odd quid to some council bureaucrat to get my Civil Partnership “Upgraded”.
Its worse than Microsoft.
Progression has it’s cost! lol
I think the government should offer free upgrades since they were the ones who were withholding the right from you in the first place.
Get married and demand a refund of the fee for your civil partnership.
I don’t claim to fully understand the British system of government so I have to ask. When both parties in the ruling coalition and the opposition party are ALL in agreement with their support for marriage equality, why should it take two to three years to get it done?
Oh and congratulations to my British brothers and sisters. Alas, we in America seem to be decades away from marriage equality; especially since we seem to be constantly teetering on the verge of a Christianist fundamentalist theocracy that would re criminalize homosexuality.
Oh I pray it would never come to that. Don’t American homosexuals stimulate the economy with their purchase of teacup poodles and Clay Aitken CDs? Sorry I’m being silly.
It’s going to take a long time because it’s not as simple as saying ‘OK gays can now marry’. We need to clear up all the questions of where can they marry, who can officiate over the ceremonies, which homophobes are going to be appeased, what will happen to Civil Partnerships, how public records are going to be changed… For these questions I’d prefer we got the right answer than the quick answer.
And that will take four to five YEARS?
Somehow I believe it could be done much, MUCH more quickly.
The only party in the Coalition which supports equal marriage is the Liberal Democrats. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour support equal marriage as a matter of party policy, though their leaders have expressed personal support for the idea.
A little off topic in terms of country, but how long do you think before denmark has marriage equality? my guess is within 6 months now that they have a left majority.
That would be great news! That hideous Danish Peoples’ Party, no longer have their snouts in the trough!
A sign of the apocolypse! Run my children, run for your lives. As much as I have faith in humanity, I cannot help be suspicious.
Your faith in humanity is lost in yourself.
One assumes you dislike love.
That being the case your God hate you.
Well…, hide under the bed and stay there!
I am a staunch Labour supporter… I have been since the bad old days of Maggie ‘Ban the Gays’ Thatcher…
But, I have to say well done to David Cameron! I think he/they are screwing the country in many other ways, but they certainly appear to be keen to deliver marriage equality. … and hoping to do it BEFORE the next election? They certainly aren’t messing about!
Cameron intervened to make sure it is legislated before 2015. Remember when labour said they would legislate civil partnerships back in 2002? It took them two years to legislate it and then it became legal in 2005, it took 3 years before a civil partnership took place. The things we want surely do take a while but at least its happening now.
As a Tory I admit, Labour did many great things for LGBT people (despite spending cash and borrowing it like there was no tomorrow, and now we’re all paying for it), many due to European Court threats but many because Labour really believed in them but now the Conservative led government will introduce same sex marriage. We all should be proud that our three main parties support same sex marriage.
Absolutely, now I used to be a Labour supporter and I think many of the LGBT policies brought in since 1997 were because the government really believed in them such as the equalisation of the age of consent. I concede some may have been due to pressure from the European courts, although at least some of these were also things that would have been in later legislation.
Like many people I have some hesitancy about Tory LGBT attitudes. I concede there are an increasing number of LGBT people in the Conservative party. I also concede that Cameron appears to both have changed his views and had to pave a difficult path with pragmatism to try and unite more liberal views (on LGBT issues) and some with entrenched views within the party – whilst now showing clear leadership on the issue.
This leadership and approach should be welcomed. Of course, if he veers away from this path (which I see no reason to anticipate but we should be prepared for it in case it occurs) then there …
… will be appropriately, considerable scorn of Cameron and his lack of credibility and integrity on this issue should be highlighted in as much technicolour as possible. That said, I welcome todays annoucements and I am keen to see Cameron maintain his positive and dynamic stance and hope to see LGBT equality and integration develop further.
Yes, this could have happened a lot quicker, but then many of us never expected to see it happening this quick.
Can not criticise what you have said there Stu. This is Cameron;s test, marriage equality implementation. We now know he is in favour of it, which is great but now we need action.
Wow I am impressed – I am a progressive conservative supporter and I fully support LGBT equality in civil marriage and opposite sex civil partnership reforms to propose to all of our UK residents. Here in Australia wre are dictated by the outdated, horribel, unloving, bigoted and hateful Catholic, hillsong and Christian lobbies. Once the UK allow civil marriage, then New Zealand next door will allow it too since they have a progressive conservative party coalition in power just like the UK. Australia and the United States federal government will be the last places in the world in 2100 I predict to allow civil marriages for LGBT people – because of horrible influence of money and power by the hillsong and soo on. For those of you who do not know what a ” progressive conservative supporter” is it means low taxes, better management of government budgets and support for progressive polities such as gay marriage, business competition and free trade in goods and services.
David Cameron you are the best – now it is time to turn talk and debate into action and implementation.
Wow David Cameron and the Tories are more progressive with being a Coaltion (with the Liberal Democrates forming Government last year) than the Labour party and Stonewall – that speaks volumes!!!!
Both Stonewall and Labour party can both go and get f***ed since they do not support me and my boyfreinds right to get married.
It is because of the Religious and Traditional ‘backlash’ I guess we’re getting just Civil Marriage but I do understand why it’s happening like that. Yes, it means we will have to work harder to get total Marriage but this way it comes in and has nothing to do with religion so get it in first, Then go for the rest.
David Cameron, THANK YOU. People can hound him all they want, however this is a Conservative prime minister who is personally in favour of gay marriage. This is a tremendous step and part of the reason why we have such a progressive Conservative party is down to David Cameron personally. Once more, thank you Mr Cameron.
Very welcome news. I recall from before the election many posts here from Labour supporters that a Conservative government would result in a rolling back of gay rights to the bad old days of the 1980s. I wonder what they have to say now?
I think they’d rather all Equality was cancelled so they can carry on whinging with the “I told you so” attitude.
Your financial management is cr@p but on this I say thanks.
Presumably, his financial advisor needs a calculator that can display more numbers.
Maybe he uses tally charts, since he seems to know a lot about lines ….
The idea that Cameron did this because of the Lib Dems and/ or Lynne Featherstone is amusing. He needs to detoxify, and he’s identified this issue as he’s calculated the elements that will support him will more than offset that section of his party which he no doubt genuinely believes needs to move on.
Great that all three partiand have common ground on this and that they can move the debate on and leave their own homophobes behind. Sweet that LibDem supporters cling to this as “evidence” of their internal influence.
“grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”
And there was me thinking I was human too.
Hang on a minute, all the religious bloggers, like Snail in my Pocket Caroline, are saying that marriage is not a human right, but a gift from God. So which is it? Can the church be consistent please, I’m getting confused!
Good. Now get on with it and stop faffing about with consultations and the like.
No one, gay or straight, should ever get married or have sex, as Paul says, the best thing is for everyone to be celibate.
Paul Gambaccini? Paul McCartney? Paul Weller? Paul Newman?
Hehehehehehe satire be funny! Could we have Fr Jack Hackket’s view next? That’d be worth it’s weight in gold!
Cardinal Keith o’Brien…oh so THAT’s Keith, lol.
Do you think Scots will ever get a Scottish Archbishop?
As a Liberal Democrat, I commend PM Cameron, well done. James, let’s be thankful the PM has evolved, better than devolving and getting NOTHING.
Luke from Canada, actually, I believe Finland has marriage equality legislation pending and is expected to be voted on this year. It will probably pass.
As for Denmark, odd that the first country ever to introduce a form of civil partnership in 1989 is still lagging, but I expect it to get on board, especially now that the UK is going that way. Europe is definitely leading the civilised world on this one. Who would have thought this would happen under a Conservative government, albeit a coaltion? This must be a first. I don’t recall any conservative government in power when marriage equality started to become legalised in 10 countries. Makes me proud to be a Brit.
This consultation was supposed to start in June this year. There no excuse for postponing it until March next year. I am not convinced that there needs to be any consultation at all. The ban on same-sex marriage is homophobic discrimination and should be repealed immediately.
The Scottish government’s consultation on marriage equality began earlier this month. Why is the UK government dragging its feet?
Nearly two-thirds of the public supports marriage equality. According to a 2009 Populous opinion poll, 61% of the public say that lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to get married.
Ending sexual orientation discrimination in marriage law is the right thing to do and it has majority public support. There is no reason for the government to delay in bringing forward legislation to end this legal iniquity.
Agreed. And it would be the right thing to do whether or not it had majority support.
More delays, more talk and more promises of unnecessary future consultations but still no action at all thus far towards marriage equality.
If they carry on like this I see no reason why I wouldn’t vote Tory in 2015… I like what they are doing with gay rights and the lazy arses who don’t work because Labour set up the lazy charter where it pays to be fat and go on Jeremy Kyle. RANT OVER!!! This is GREAT news and to top it off its got The Daily Mail in to a hate spin :D
Yes, indeed the mail religious nuts are feverishly red arrowing all comments in support. Liz from somewhere said in her comment “what a relief this won’t happen until after the next election”. I am genuinely intrigued as to why she is so relieved about something that won’t affect her? Is she worried about being driven into a forced lesbian marriage?:-)
I wouldnt vote Conservative or any party purely on LGBT politics, although it clearly influences my decision making. The fact Cameron has brought in a massively more positive LGBT approach removes one reason why I previously would not have voted Conservative. Its now very much in the balance which party I would vote for ….
This is a pretty major story but will it get a mention on BBC news this evening?
Its all propaganda aimed at nfluencing the attitude of the would be voters, they wont actually do it. Remember you can never believe what they say.
BBC News channel marriage equality debate earlier this evening.
Mike Weatherley MP spoke in favour of marriage equality, Ella Leonard spoke against.
NOTE: Ella Leonard says at one point that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very clear that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In fact the Declaration actually states that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. “
Promises of jam tomorrow are all very well, mercy drops from heaven etc, we are supposed to be ever so grateful.
The lack of urgency shown by the government, on this issue of equality, stinks quite frankly
There are a few more pressing matters currently like the implosion of the economy, housing market, banks, Europe, etc
At least we have a set date now
Dave, the interview between MP Mike Weatherly and Ella Leonard really missed out on a golden opportunity. Leonard kept on insisting that marriage both civil and religious is reserved for one man and one woman to raise children. Weatherley should have asked her if that’s the case, does she think hetero couples who choose not have children or who can’t should also be barred from marrying, but should have a civil partnership instead, to sustatin her claim. I’m sick and tired of these religious ninnies interfering in what are purely civil matters. None of their damned business. No religious cult will be forced to recognise or perform same-sex marriages. Stupid bitch.
Well done David Cameron. In the real world it can’t have been so easy for a tory prime minister to announce despite the fact that parties to the right often pay lip service to the freedom of the individual
Marriage equality is long overdue already, get on with it, another 4 years is an unacceptably long delay.
If black or Jewish people had been banned from marriage, the government would act swiftly to ensure marriage equality. There would be no long drawn out consultation period. Why the double standards?
This announcement is clearly an attempt to head off the Equal Love legal case in the European Court of Human Rights, where four gay couples and four heterosexual couples are seeking to overturn sexual orientation discrimination in civil marriage and civil partnership law. We are confident that the government’s decision to retain the prohibition on opposite-sex civil partnerships will be ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.
Would forbidding religious faiths from performing marriage ceremonies according to their beliefs not be illegal restriction upon religious freedom? The European Convention on Human Rights only allows states to decide who may marry, not whether their religious faith can be involved. The UK government could get away with that discrimination with civil partnerships because they were not envisaged in the convention, but marriage is. Once they say a group of people may marry, it seems to me, the convention then requires it be on equal terms to everyone else.
I think that a refusal to allow those religious bodies that want to, to conduct same sex marriages, will be unsustainable. Especially in Scotland, where Humanists conduct marriages under the “religious marriage” legislation, and are the third largest provider of marriages after state registrars, and the Church of Scotland. The Scottish Govt’s consultation, unlike apparently the forthcoming England/Wales one, does propose that religious bodies that want to should be able to conduct same sex marriages.
I am sure Peter is right – if same sex marriage is introduced, continuing to restrict CP to same sex couples only would be unsustainable. The only solutions would be to abolish CP or open it up to all. We need to ensure it’s the latter, not the former, both to maxmise people’s choices, and because a significant minority of people prefer CP and should not be forced to decide marriage or nothing, and also because without CP, people who move here with foreign registered partnership will lose all the rights they currently have, as they are currently treated as if they have a CP.
The Equality Minister Lynne Featherstone has said that the consultation will explicitly exclude religious same-sex marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships. She is defending discrimination. Perhaps Lynne should be renamed the Minister for Inequality?
The Times on Saturday of Lynne Featherstone
“She will say: “I will continue to push everyone from allies to adversaries to recognise what we know is true: that gay rights are human rights. No excuses, no exceptions,no compromises”
I don’t know if, in the event, she did actually say that but clearly there are to be no excuses, no exceptions and no compromises except as usual for those still privileged to discriminate by dint of their unpleasant, anti-gay, religious tradition. An institutionally homophobic tradition that is not supported by scripture.
I am not sure of your point here Peter. Clearly religious folk are divided on the issue. Some will support same sex marriage and some will view this as to be an oxymoron because it goes against their understanding of the definition of marriage. Are you wanting to force the issue such that those whose conscience won’t recognise such a union as being allowed by God should either be forced either to go against their conscience or incur the penalty of the law?
Though I support CPs for hetero couples, I think for now, Lynne Featherstone should concentrate on getting same-sex marriage legalised first and foremost. By going all out for hetero access to CPs will ignite huge opposition by our opponents that this too will diminish marriage and all that nonsense about procreation between one man and woman mandate of religious marriage. Who needs that right now?
As for religious recognition of CPs, I think this is an exercise in futility. Currently, not even heterosexuals having a civil marriage have that option, so why should we be demanding it? It will send a message that we are asking for special rights to the exclusion of everyone else. Ammunition for the religious nutters and others opposed to our marrying. Don’t throw fuel on the fire before getting same-sex marriage legalised.
Do they intend to ban marriages in church, chapel, synagogue, meeting house, mosque or temple, where those sects or congregations decide they wish to perform marriages equally? If so that has very serious implications.
It would mean separate provision, NOT the opening of marriage equally to all adults. An extra law instead of adding us to the Marriage Act. That might then contain other discrimination. Would religious same-sex marriages overseas be recognised? Would faiths like the Quakers be punished for holding these “gay marriages”, whilst Humanists would be exempt? Would trans people who married religiously still have to divorce and enter a non-religious “gay marriage” instead, if they are to be recognised as their true gender?
If we are to avoid all that foolishness It now becomes even more vital that people stop talking of “gay marriage” and instead emphasise EQUAL MARRIAGE; nothing less.
I agree. The answer to your question about whether overseas religious marriages would be recognised is probably yes – the international law rule is that marriages are recognised by other countries if the ceremony was conducted in accordance with the rules of the country it was conducted in (and if the two people had the right to marry under the law of their countries of domicile, and if there is no serious public policy objection to the marriage in this country).
However, you’re quite right that not allowing those religious bodies (and in Scotland, Humanists) that want to, to conduct same sex marriages is likely to result in court challenge and to be unsustainable. The Scottish Govt’s consultation on same sex marriage does propose allowing those religious (and Humanist) bodies that want to, to conduct same sex marriages.
I don’t quite get your drift here. This would be like a vegetarian restaurant being forced to serve meat if it was asked for. Marriage should be available to everyone, but I see no reason why religious organisations cannot opt out if they feel it goes against their beliefs. Instead of people DEMANDING what they should and shouldn’t have, why can’t people simply be offered a choice, as long as everyone is happy?
You seem not to have understood the situation at all. We are, it seems, not to be offered that choice, and so we are pushed into a position of demanding we, and varied religious sects, have a choice instead of the homophobic faiths dictating to everyone.
I’m not sure I understand, does that mean religious organisations should have to perform gay marriage by law? I think that’s a different proposition to getting civil gay marriage legalised.
The BBC News discussion shows that, at last the BBC has decided that same-sex marriage in this country is worth airtime. This is a first!
But we probably see the beginning of a pattern. The Roman Catholic opponent, Ella Leonard, lies that European law requires that marriage be between a man and a woman. The Convention on Human Rights says that men and women must be allowed to marry, it does not say it must be to each other.
That woman also says we have all the legal rights already. Since we do not have marriage that too is nonsense. She then says we promised to never ask for marriage, which seems an invention. And finally she claims this is intolerance of her views, citing Peter Tatchell as agreeing with her. In fact it is opposing her right to impose her views on others.
We have to brief people to counter those lies.
You need to read the bible to see what God says about it, after all he’s the great judge of all, whether you believe it or not.God ordained marriage between one woman and one man, (Genesis in bible).for the procreation of human kind. and if it meant two men, then none of us would be here to-day. (Think about it). Ella leonard does not lie as most of our Laws are based on the bible anyway, until unethical governments decide otherwise, then they do it at this countries loss. God will always bless a country, or peoples who honour him.and this country is so far from God, it’s frightening We would do well to learn from Australia. they’ve got it right . Ella Leonard is right when she says, you are intolerent to her views, she has every right to her views, just like you and I. I suggest you learn to be more tolerant to other peoples views. All I ever hear is Gay rights, well what about our rights as Christians. I love gay people, but I can;t condone what they do. it is against nature.