Reader comments · Comment: Tom Brake MP on securing and defending religious civil partnerships · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Tom Brake MP on securing and defending religious civil partnerships

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Will there be a three line LibDem whip in the House of Lords on this measure?

  2. Leading the Tory peers in trying to scupper the bill is Detta O’ Cathain, on the steering committee of the Family Education Trust, which is a viciously homophobic group. It seeks to deny anyone who disapproves of homosexuality the right to refuse services to LGBT people in a host of situations from catering to hotels.

    1. @AdrianT


      I have heard supporters of the Family Education Trust state that they should refuse food, shelter and medication to anyone professing to be homosexual.

      When medication and food was mentioned, they were given the opportunity to clarify (whilst ANY segregation is despicable) and the person involved stated they would not relent and provide food even to a gay diabetic who was hypoglycaemic or give treatment to a gay person in a life threatening situation. This could be extrapolated to be seen as an endorsement (by at least some in the trust) of homosexual genocide.

      This homophobic and damaging trust who couch themselves in name which appears acceptable and genuine, despite being callous and vindictive, must be stopped.

  3. Religious civil partnerships already seem outdated before they have been brought in. Same sex couples getting married in religious organisations that offer this really just want legal recognition for their marriages as marriages. They don’t want to get married and have legal recognition as something else, while their heterosexual counterparts have their marriages recognised as such.

    If the marriage equality consultation fails to take this into account it will have failed. These religious civil partnerships will probably only be needed for two years while we wait for marriage equality to come in, but there is a risk that the government will only introduce partial marriage equality and will leave out religious marriage, while the Scottish government’s separate consultation includes it.

    1. @Dromio

      I agree with you – thats my personal view …

      However, I know some gay and heterosexual people who would prefer a CP (and I suspect there will be some – possibly not many – who would like a religious aspect) …

      I would like to see a scenario where this can be accommodated in law …

      That does not mean I do not passionately seek equal marriage – I do …

    2. Bear in mind that the law behind CPs is a lot clearer and less based on centuries of case law than the laws on marriage – some people prefer it for that reason, even if they are otherwise religious.

  4. Digraceful article by Tom Brake for a number of reasons.

    1. “Freedom to worship and the freedom to live your life in the way you want to, including how you want to marry, are not and must not be mutually exclusive. ”

    Agreed. Although has it slipped his mind that same sex couples are not allowed to marry because they are gay. We have to settle for 2nd class citizenship. CP’s were invented SOLELY to deny us marriage equality.

    2. “On the one hand, many same-sex couples are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Humanists or of another faith. They would like to see their partnership, their commitment to each other recognised in their faith.”

    But the vast majority of religious cults will refuse to recognise their commitment to each other, so stop trying to make this sound like huge progress.

    3. “it should be possible to have a civil partnership take place in a religious setting but only if all involved parties agree.”

    But it remains impossible for gay couples to legally marry?

    1. And notice that he does not explain why it is going to take another 4 years to achieve marriage equality.

      If the will was there it could be achieved by summer 2012.

      Why is it being left to the very last minute of the lifetime of this government to introduce legal equality for LGBT people?

      Could it be, so they can have an excuse of having run out of time?

      Why not summer 2012 Mr Brake?

    2. Don Harrison 24 Nov 2011, 10:35pm

      Are you a homophobia gay dAvID?

  5. I really wish that politicians stopped treating us like idiots.

    Allowing CP’s in cult buildings will benefit ONLY that small handful of LGBT people who belong to that small handful of gay-friendly churches.

    Civil marriage equality benefits everybody.

    But we are meant to get excited about CP’s in cult buildings? Truly pathetic.

    1. Are you even in a relationship?

      1. @Ken

        It does make you admire (if he has one) the patience and tolerance of his partner

        Perhaps, dAVID should recognise where his allies are eg Tom Brake …

        His vindictiveness is the issue that is always at the fore of his comments. Whilst I share his antipathy for religion – I feel he damages the campaign to seek LGBT equality by endorsing severe prejudice against people who hold religious views (some of whom are gay). Its almost like a black person in South Africa seeking to advance their own equality whilst endorsing discrimination or segregation of white gay people. Neither is acceptable. One form of prejudice does not justify another.

        1. Cupid Stunt 25 Nov 2011, 1:14am

          Which is why he may just be a troll trying to make gay people look unreasonable…a deliberate straw man, don’t you think?

          1. I’m no troll.

            That fool Brake is a troll for trying pretend that CP’s performed in cult buildings is anything more than a cosmetic nothing.

            The fact remains that same sex couples are denied access to civil marriage because they are gay.

            Why would anybody with a brain regard allowing us get our 2nd class citizenship in a cult building be progress. It effects such a tiny number of people, yet we remain 2nd class citizens denied equality before the law.

        2. I hold no prejudice against any religion.

          I simply ask that they stay out of my business, stay out of politics and keep their absurd beliefs to themselves. .

          And it is not prejudiced to regard an adult who believes in ‘god’ as wilfully stupid.

          A 60 year old who believes in Father Christmas would be loudly laughed at.

          There’s no difference between believing in Father Christmas and believing in ‘god’.

          1. @dAVID

            As I said, I share your antipathy …

            If you do not believe you are being prejudiced, then I would hate to see you when you try to be …

    2. Civil marriage only benefits people who want to do a civil marriage it doesn’t benefit “everybody”. LGBT people who want to get married or CPed only make up a handful of LGBT people and only make up a handful of British people. What’s the relevance of the percentage who want to do what. Equality means equality in all things with heteros. I agree this change isn’t going to solve anything. We need marriage for LGBT people, civil and religious. BUT this change is a victory and is independant of the fight for marriage. It’s a victory since the CofE and most people have accpeted that gays are religious and they should be allowed to have a religious ceremony if all are willing. It’s a big acceptance by the church of england not to interfer in someone else religion and that gays can be religious and their relationsip can be blessed.

      1. It benefits everybody in that it means that there is no more legal discrimination against gay couples.

        CP’s were invented SOLELY to deny us equality.

        They are a spit in the face to every LGBT person who believes in equalitu.

  6. “…from a bygone age where you do not give same-sex couples the same rights because you disapprove of them. ”

    That’s the real reason we don’t have full marriage equality, there are those who want to punish gay people and block equality because they don’t approve of gays, it’s time we as a country moved around and beyond these disapproving and sadistic anti-gay dinosaurs completely.
    EQUAL LOVE, marriage equality.

  7. This is a good thing and a step towards true religious freedom in the UK. It doesn’t detract in any way from moves towards equality.

    I don’t understand what argument the Tory peers have against it if they believe in religious freedom. If it’s the “slippery slope” one to religious bodies being forced to carry them out, then that is always a fake argument and fallacy. It’s specifically covered.

    What may really be behind objections is that they can’t stand that there are other religious interpretations relating to gay relationships, that they believe are very wrong, and must be opposed. Which means that their objections are really about imposing a religious orthodoxy, and are contrary to religious freedom.

    1. jamestoronto 24 Nov 2011, 6:20pm

      Sadly, far too many people interpret “Freedom of Religion” as Freedom of MY OWN Religion but not Yours.”

      1. Absolutely, Jamestoronto

        I fully endorse freedom of religion – but not freedom to impose or discriminate against others because of personal beliefs

        1. “Science flies you to the Moon. Religion flies you into buildings” – Richard Dawkins

    2. “I don’t understand what argument the Tory peers have against it if they believe in religious freedom”

      If you read the article below and the links in it, you’ll see what their arguments are going to be. It seems they have a lot a extreme christian nutters on their side with money. I suspect the whole thing is a tester , a pre-run for the debate on gay marriage in the UK.

  8. I hope the liberal democrats aren’t planning on supporting the rights of gays in the same way they supported the students.

    This consultation is a ridiculous waste of money we can ill afford to waste. Stop fannying around with religious civil partnerships and introduce civil marriage now.

    Religions largely govern themselves anyway, so if Quakers or whoever want to marry gay people let them and if Catholics etc don’t who cares. More fool any gay Catholics.

    They seem pretty foolish to me anyway. Anyone who seeks the acceptance of a little old N@z! in a pointy hat has bigger problems than a church wedding.

    1. Incidentally why can you write faggot but not N@z! on these boards

      1. Yes, I spotted that too. Nor can you write sh!t.

        Clearly faggot is not offensive enough to PN’s staff.

  9. Noticed Ed Leigh also has an EDM with more or less the same wording as the peers “prayer”…whose signed this “prayer” anyway? aren’t we allowed to see the signatures

    Registration Of Births, Deaths, Marriages, Etc (S.i., 2011, No. 2661)
    EDM number 2453 in 2010-11, proposed by Edward Leigh on 22/11/2011.

    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that theMarriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(S.I., 2011, No. 2661), dated 3 November 2011, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 November, be annulled.

  10. de Villiers 24 Nov 2011, 9:03pm

    Transparent and insulting political posturing – as if we’re so stupid to be spoken down to. More political merde.

  11. Here a guardian article out today on the issue ….it’s a bit worrying

  12. Haha I will never believe a word Tom Brake says, he only has personal gain in mind as all politicians do. When they were talking about raising tuition fees he promised me to my face that he would vote against them. And then he voted in favour. He will probably screw us over again here. The message is good. But I don’t trust him to deliver upon this

  13. Interesting use of the term “out-of-touch”. Is it not religous ppl who are out of touch? I mean who want to go in a church these days anyway. I had hoped they were converting them all into flats to deal with the housing crisis. Regardless of sexual orientation someone who believes in old fairytales need their head looking at.

  14. Lord Botley 26 Nov 2011, 7:49pm

    There are two fundamental questions here –
    1 – Why is any consultation needed on marriage equality?
    2 – Can either the LibDems or the Cameron clique be trusted to stand up to the Tory bigots on CPs in religious settings or marriage equality?

  15. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 10:20am

    Just give the right to marry already!!

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