Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Chris Bryant MP describes House of Commons ‘gay bar’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. He does look a bit like Wallace, from wallace and Grommit “More Cheese Grommit”, “No thanks I’m not that kind of puppy”

    1. mmmmm

      He’s done more in a few years than you’ll do in your whole lilfe

      1. vversatile 13 Jan 2012, 4:47pm

        Vote for an illegal war was one of things he’s done.

        He was dreadful lickspittle Blairite for much of the last two governments.

        1. Maybe but he took murdoch on and won. Dave was sucking up to brooks at the time

          1. purely for his own vested interests, hardly a crusade for the good of the nation, no matter how he dressed it , is’nt he the one caught in the gaydar poses.

          2. Rapture judgemental much? So what if he posed in his underpants totally undignified but honest.

            Murdoch was about to take over sky and give us Uk Fox, can you imagine the damage he would do to our country? The man deserves a medal

          3. Remind us again, Rapture, what it is you’ve done to presefve a free press…

  2. I wonder what Mr Bryant’s opinion is about the fact that marriage equality is illegal in Britain?

    And that the Labour Party has not made marriage equality its official party policy?

    Until recently Bryant was spouting the lie that same sex couples did not need marriage equality, because the Labour Party created civil partnerships specifically for same sex couples.

    He mentions his husband in this piece. Did they marry in Holland or Spain or Canada?

    1. Because something is called ‘gay marriage’ does not imply marriage equality. Compare gay marriage in Massachusets with UK Civil Partnership for example. If an American enters into a Civil Partnership in the UK, because CP is considered legally the equivalent of marriage, the American automatically receives British citizenship. However in Mass, with its ‘gay marriage’ a gay Britain is not entitiled to US citizenship and whereas CP is applicable in every single inch of the UK you only need to step outside the Mass state line and your marriage means absolutely zilch.

      What is important is not what you call something but what it DOES. Britsh CP IS de facto gay marriage whereas gay marriage in a lot of places like the US or Canada is most certainly not.

      1. CPs are _currently_ equal within the UK. Whilst the legislation is separate from marriage there is no guarantee they will remain that way.

        Also, UK CPs are not recognised as equivalent to marriage in many countries where same-sex marriages occur. Spain for example.

        These are two reasons alone why CPs are not good enough. Marriage equality is, and should be, the goal. Nothing less.

      2. The answer is of course that you need both – the normal word to describe a monogamous lifelong union is “marriage” – and such relationships between gay people need to be called that in order to ensure that the whole population understands that that is what they are. It’s the final piece in the jigsaw of true acceptance of gay relationships as in all respects equal to straight ones. It’s more than just a name.

        That having been said:-

        – Stonewall were entirely right to go for the substance over the from when they pressed for CPs ten years ago – time now has moved on and I hope that Stonewall have too.

        – the name without the substance (like in Massachusetts) is equally pointless although it helps from a social point of view.

    2. He was wrong, as it says he and his civil partner were first civil partners to enter their contract at house of commons, maybe he does not know the difference between marraige and his shoddy , 2 nd best arrangement.

  3. Dan Filson 13 Jan 2012, 2:35pm

    If they married in Canada, are they still married now that Canada has declared illegal marriages where the people come from countries where it is not legal?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jan 2012, 3:13pm

      Probably not. Most countries where same-sex marriage is allowed will only recognise a same-sex foreign couple’s marriage if that couple’s country or countries allow it, reciprocity in other words. The same applies to CPs.

      1. Robert, with respect I believe that’s not right.

        If you get a CP in the UK, the UK recognises your CP regardless of your residency. If you get married in Connecticut, Connecticut recognises your marriage, even if you live in Lagos.

        But your home country (and any third country) is free to reject reciprocity and ignore your marriage if your marriage doesn’t meet that jurisdiction’s definition.

        From 1913 to 2008, Massachusetts banned marriages which would not be valid in the couple’s home state (an anti-miscegenation law), meaning most same-sex non-residents could not marry in MA. But this is an isolated case and this requirement is not usually found in common law systems. A Canadian government lawyer has now suggested that a similar rule might apply in Canada, but he is almost certainly wrong and the Canadian courts are likely to reject his argument. AFAIK, there is no general principle in common law which would support the Canadian government’s position.

    2. Like any marriage or union – it is only recognised in the country in which that union/marriage took place. When anyone marries abroad, they have to complete various amounts of documentation to have the union recognised back home in the UK. However, as same sex marriages are not recognised in the UK, he therefore does not have a legally recognised union under English law.

  4. Well, gay bars are certainly something of a speciality subject for young Chris, non?

    1. Have you nothing better to do, non?

  5. GingerlyColors 13 Jan 2012, 5:02pm

    The job of being an MP has never been so attractive. I wish I could be there, pint of cider in my hand and trying to put the world to rights with the likes of Alan Duncan, Steven Twigg, Nigel Evans, Ben Bradshaw, the list goes on . . .
    Nice work if you can get it. Vote for me!

    1. Nothing stopping you

  6. Regardless of sexuality, I can’t help feeling that an evening in the bar with a lot of MPs wouldn’t be the most enjoyable night out on offer…

  7. damnedfilth 13 Jan 2012, 6:38pm

    He didn’t add that Strangers bar, along with every other of the miriad of bars in the Palace of Westminster, is subsidised by the taxpayer.

    It’s not Rupert Street becasue you are paying two quid a pint rather than the four quid you pay in a “normal” bar in London, Reverend Chris!

    1. Agreed, how noble of him to rub our noses in it during these tough times.

  8. We already know how corrupt, incompetent our mps are, but boasting of their great social life , when it is virtually impossible to get appt. for their constituents at any surgery is another display of their cavalier attitude.

  9. caped crusaider 14 Jan 2012, 12:11pm

    Your Christmas Bonus in the London HIV/Aids Sector

    CRUSAID PAYS HIV POLICE PANEL MEMBER AND STAFF

    COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT

    After Registered Charity Crusaid declaring on the Registered Charity UK Coalition of People Living with HIV/Aids Charity funded website Positive Nation’s Positive Voices “we’ve been upfront and honest” a few months after signing a Compromise Agreement which prevents to Charity from being upfront and honestDated 23rd July 2004 signed by Robin Brady CEO of Crusaid

    “The Charity on its own behalf and on behalf of all Associaciated Companies shall without any admission or liability whatsoever, as compensation for loss of employment,pay to the Employee the sum of £_________ inclusive of his statutory redundancy payment…”

    4. Settlement and Waiver

    The Employee believes he may have statutory claims and therefore could bring proceedings, against the Charity or any Associated Company,or its or their Trustees,employees or officerrs or former trustees employ

  10. JEFFERY HAMILTON 28 May 2012, 6:56pm

    I APPRECIATE THIS ARTICLE,BUT THE EDITOR NEEDS TO BE FIRED FOR MISPLACEMENT OF WORDS,MAKING THIS ARTICLE A LITTLE HARD TO UNDERSTAND AND HAVE TO BE READ OVER AND OVER AGAIN.GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND LEARN PROPER SENTENCE PLACEMENT.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all