Justice will prevail …
A voice of reason! Go ‘The Times’ – a newspaper of our times!!!
How about this front page story in the Economist:
Note the date of publication.
Yes, that’s January 4 1996.
The Economist has always been in touch with social issues as well as business, so it’s no surprise to find it’s another of its excellent, well-written articles.
But it’s utterly awesome and far-sighted considering that it’s from w-a-a-a-y back in 1996 when marriage equality was hardly on the radar anywhere !
Indeed. It was the very first mainstream news publication to “come out”. The front cover had a wedding cake topped off with two little plastic grooms and it’s never looked back since.
Is it too much to hope that common sense and rationality is beginning to emerge? Those who want to be on the right side of history and progress should speak up now.
Its not too much to hope Ray
Its happening … but we need to maintain the pressure until its a reality … but its going to happen
A newspaper that listens to it’s readers!
Fabulous to see a newspaper standing up strongly to those who seek to undermine humanity, such as the Archbishops and the Cardinal.
“It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive. Because it is so beneficial an institution it should be enlarged rather than fossilised. Whereas some people see the gay marriage issue as primarily about equal rights, I see it as about social solidarity and stability. Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don’t mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together. Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing parents.”
Fantastic. Dave Cameron was absolutely right to say he supported gay marriage, not despite being a conservative but because he is a conservative. For obvious reasons really. Dismayed that it has taken so long for the penny to drop.
This would have been more of a newsstory if you’d just posted a link to the editorial rather than numerous Ctrl+C Ctrl+V efforts
You can’t link to The Times as it’s behind a paywall
What a fab job your doing, Ben!
Although I think while this story is going on, you should not plan any weekends off.
Donate to PinkNews.co.uk to support the award winning news service : http://tinyurl.com/7fqxz7p
Its a fantastic news story, Harry
Would you have expected The Times to speak out so forcefully in favour of rights for LGBT people and against senior leaders in both major churches, perhaps 5 years ago? I wouldn’t.
A news story about a newspaper? It’s like inception, newsception.
Fantastic editorial, but this is from a paper owned by the same firm that owns Fox Almost News in the states who are being the GOP (Republicans) and every homphobic candidate they are fielding who are backing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage lol
behind, not being
Perhaps they should send a team from The Times to educate Fox News on equality?
just remembered, its Faux News, not Fox News lol
Too right James. Murdoch is getting his ass kicked in the UK so he will take our support. I will never trust that snake some of these guys are too easily convinced.
compare this to the daily hate.
Ridiculous article. But what can you expect from that rag.
It’s been said many times before, but why oh why do people who are against gay rights always use such ridiculously hypocritical statements.
“I am a libertarian believing that people should live their lives freely” – really?
“I am not homophobic” – I don’t believe you.
“I have many gay friends” – yes that’s a classic.
“the extreme gay lobby will win the day on this one” – sorry what extreme gay lobby is that – the majority of the general public who are in favour?
Just beyond stupid.
compare this to the daily hate….
I asked the of the author in the forum to explain why she wants to prevent me having rights and equality.
Needless to say it did not get past moderation.
This rag only mostly publishes those comments that suit its own editorial agenda.
I never get anything past moderation on that site when it’s in favour of gays & lesbians. Toss paper that it is.
That’s not entirely true. There are a lot of pro-gay comments on there, but they seem to get heavily red-arrowed, so one can guess at the rabid religio-politicals that go on there (many from the US, say no more).
Right now (5 hours later) there are far, far more pro-gay comments than anti, and it’s very noticeable indeed that literally all the pro-gay ones have green arrows and all the anti-gay ones have red arrows.
Seems the Hate Mail is out of touch even with its own readership on this one !
Why would a “right wing” publication be so against individual freedom, small government and greater social stability?
Perhaps they should rename themselves the Religious Wing Blog”
Written in the Daily Hate Mail by one JANICE ATKINSON-SMALL-MINDED.
I asked how he can compare legalizing something we find abhorrent (slavery) to equalizing civil marriage. Especially as slavery is perfectly acceptable according to the book he lives his life by
Thanks for this link. And have you noticed how they ALL have gay friends?
I think I might be.. Sorry. I have a friend who thinks he might be gay….
Fantastic! Kudos to The Times! Well done.
Woah. Absolutely brilliant editorial, succinctly putting forward many reasons why this would enhance the institution of marriage, some that I had never considered before. Excellent.
Incidentally, marriage is an institution I have no interest in at all, not having had very positive examples of it in action within my family. However I absolutely respect how it could be a positive framework for a loving couple to honor and affirm their commitment to each other, and so I completely support *any* couple that wishes to partake of this archaic institution.
I am pleasantly surprised by this, coming from The Times!
Blimey! Good one, Times – Back to the days of being The Thunderer, I see!
“Earlier ages considered that allowing women to own property was against God and nature. Changing the law abolished a gross injustice and thereby enhanced the legitimacy of marriage. It is time to lift another form of discriminatory treatment.
Beautifully said. Take that, Cardinal O’Brien!
LOL! Don’t worry about The Times, Keith, its far, far above your slack jawed capacity to read. Especially while you are drunk – which is more often than not. You stick to your cowardly rants on the internet, they’re more your level of comprehension, there’s a good little inbreed…..
still cruising the gay sites r we? can you really not see why?
I dont have time for idiots who seem to think we are not alloed human rights, this ass hole says “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”, well I have new for him, we are human and we will get our rights, thanks Times for backing us, seems the cathlic church is still stuck in some sort of time warp, better all the idiots die than infect young people with their stupid ideas. children need a loving home. I have seen too many cathlic family’s unhappy but stuck together because of their church, Anyhow the cathlic church used to perform same sex marrages.
sorry a few spelling mistakes and dropped letters.
“The Times backs gay marriage”
-While the Daily Fail attacks it with all their bigoted writers:
Bigot of the year anyone?
From the Daily Fail – “I have gay friends who don’t want to get married”
Did any other stupid bigoted people ever try using that similar argument when slavery was being abolished?
I know many straight people who don’t want to get married too. When bigots in the Daily Mail and elsewhere say they have gay friends, don’t believe them. They think it gets them a free pass from the homophobia accusation. It doesn’t. It’s like falsified signatures on a petition to ban us from marrying. Same difference.
Yes, funny how they never think of non-gay people who choose not to get married, isn’t it? Or actually not funny at all, just pathetic.
I have a friend who wants to keep some slaves. Is this OK?
“I have gay friends who don’t want to get married”
Elton John and David Furnish?
Who gives a f@£k?
I have gay friends who like Mariah Carey, what does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
Janice Atkinson-Small for bigot of the year!
The Daily Mail on the offensive again
And every one of these articles always seems to have someone with a “gay friend” who doesn’t think we should have the right to get married
Well done The Times!
The bit: “…to affirm [...] that they love and are loved in return.” actually made me tear up. Exactly! That’s what it is about.
When will those religious types understand that they have no right to talk about who is entitled to civil marriage – they can do what they like with their holy unions and things, but leave the rest of us to support our friends, family, neighbours and colleagues. Keep your noses out of what doesn’t concern you.
Well done again!
I wonder what Rupert Murdoch thinks about this.
Wouldn’t you just love to have been a fly on the wall when he heard the news.
don’t be silly. the times is not independent from NI. Murdoch approves all the stories. Thats why there is nothing about phone hacking in the Times
Please do report the Times to the police Keith and if they don’t take you seriously relentlessly and doggedly pursue it until they arrest you for wasting police time.
I find some of the commentators a bit weird. It’s 2012 and finally the times agrees with most of the world. The times cannot be seen to be siding with the loonies even the telegraph will endorse our marriage before the end of the year. News International owns fox who are creating hell for our LGBT family in the US.
Don’t praise anything to do with murdoch while he is indirectly causing attacks, murders, suicide and premature deaths of LGBT Americans.
In the age of the internet there is no excuse for this kind of ignorance.
and finally the times agrees with most of the world.
With ‘most of the world’? Really?
Wow-Go Times. A bit of surprise this from one of the Murdoch papers (though 1 with a certain amount of respectability). But a pleasant one. Well done Editors :-)