Some excellent comments made!
Yes, but don’t underestimate them Sarah, they have Mr Mugabe backing them now!!
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to comment. As you clearly show here, you understand that your marriage is not affected in any way by marriage equality and there is no evidence to prove any detriment to heterosexual couples. I just wish there was a strong voice to shout down those who are relying on dishonest, logically fallacious and outright slanderous comments – the LGBT community does not need the inevitable backlash that follows. Please understand that what people like O’Brien and Helmer do is dangerous, especially to the young and/or vulnerable. I’m old enough and strong enough to debunk their arguments and shrug them off as fools, but for some, hearing that they are lesser human beings who deserve fewer rights and less opportunities in the future, is hazardous to their wellbeing.
“hearing that they are lesser human beings who deserve fewer rights and less opportunities in the future, is hazardous to their wellbeing.”
Totally agree with you, feel so unhappy reading the news every day and reading people’s comments saying I’m a second class citizen because of who I love and want to marry. It’s so hard to fight EVERY F&*cking Day against that, and sometimes I don’t feel like I’m up to it.
When a homophobe makes these comments he/she doesn’t feel anything; when a gay/bi guy hears someone make homophobic remarks it hurts [me], every time. Think before you (bigots) speak out about something that will only have an effect on gay people, NOT you.
-end of depressing rant.
I know. I really do. And as time passes, you learn to roll with the punches a little. The arc of the moral universe always bends towards justice. It’s just a lot to ask of us LGBT citizens to have to wait and accommodate those who would hate us. Mrs Ludford speaks out for us, but we need more, we need enough voices to drown out the hatred and the sadism of those who do not consider the harm they are doing to others. If Mrs Ludford should drop by, I hope she will take this truth to heart and spread the word. Powerful advocacy is needed.
I was a room-mate of Sarah’s in Pimlico during the mid 70s for a brief period of time. She was as progressive then as she is now. Thank you Sarah for your excellent statement and if you’re reading this, do let’s re-connect after all these years.
Valsky, I agree. We do need a strong voice to take on our opponents, now more than ever.
Sensible views, excellently expressed!
This is why I am, and have been since I was old enough to vote, a Liberal (now Liberal Democrat). Sarah, thank you for your sensible, sound contribution. It is most welcome.
With the greatest of respect, despite all the talk about equality, heterosexual marriage and the (intended) gay “marriage” – have vast differences. The mechanics of sex, for example. The ability to biologically produce children is another. With these two significant differences, why get so hung up on trying to make it the same?
In the eyes of the law, it is already an equivalent legal union. Unfortunately, one cannot change the biological/ physical aspect that comes with nature. It is not equal from that perspective. Why not leave the semantics alone in order to preserve the biological distinctions that are inherent in the different type of unions.
With the greatest of respect are you say that the marriage of a heterosexual couple who are infertile should be annulled because of their biological inability to have children? Are you saying a couple who meet late in life and marry in their 70s should not do so because they can not have children due to biological reasons?
Marriage is not matrimony. Marriage is civil marriage and is licensed by the state and not owned by church, synagogue, mosque, temple or government. It is a celebration of love. Its a celebration of commitment and making vows to each other. It is legally a contract. It is all of these things. Marriage does not make children, heterosexual sex does. Sex does happen outside of marriage, whether you like it or not and the state should not judge people on the basis of some people having theological concerns about others consensual sexual behaviour. There is no reasonable excuse as to why two committed gay men or lesbian women can consent to mary.
Correction (oops typo)
There is no reasonable excuse as to why two committed gay men or lesbian women can NOT consent to marry.
Your arguement is deeeply flawed by claiming that marriage if for pro-creational purposes only!
There are many married straight couples who do not have children, either through choice or because of intertility.
It is also worth stating that children do not always get the love that they need from straight parents, you just need to look at the amount of children in the care system as evidence of that.
Gay couples are more than capable of bringing up children, and in many cases, it would be a better up bringing too as it would not be blighted by the same kind of thoughts and influences that your original comment stems from.
And let’s not forget the millions of children who need to be adopted, all the products of heterosexual unions, some married, some not. Th eprocreation mantra our foes use is nothing more than a red hering to foment opposition and stir up emotions for no reason other than to justify their bigotry, religious or otherwise.
Let me explain why you are wrong. You want to separate marriage on the basis of the sexual activities performed by the couples. However, heterosexual couples perform all of the same sexual activities that homosexual couples do. In fact, the finer details of peoples’ sex lives should be private and this should not be used as a basis for any decision.
You also want to separate marriage based on whether the couple has children. Well many gay couples do have children and many straight couples do not, so the only possible way to separate people would be to allow marriage only for people with naturally conceived children. There could be no legal justification for treating two couples with adopted children differently just because one was a gay couple.
Indeed you have no genuine reason to ban same sex couples’ marriages from being legally recognised and desire to maintain a ‘seperate but equal’ system is apartheid and never genuine equality. I can only conclude that you do not want equality
“In fact, the finer details of peoples’ sex lives should be private and this should not be used as a basis for any decision.”
Do not feed the troll. (Just getting this in now because I know fine well who and what will be posted on this one so just ignore him when he does) :)
Try living outside the UK with a civil partnership that has NO universal standard with the same degree of rights and standing as marriage. 10 countries, soon to be 11 with Denmark, now allow it. I can’t name 10 countries with civil partnerships. There are only 2 and Ireland’s isn’t identical to the UK’s, nor are the varying degrees of legal unions for gay couples around the world. Take a poll and see how many straight couples would rather have a civil partnership. I doubt if there would be that many takers since you seem to think they are equal. On this you are dead wrong.
Please remember however that there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’.
I think you meant to write ‘civil marriage equality’.
I’m disappointed that Ms Ludford did not address the issue of the timing of marriage equality.
It is utterly unncessary to wait until 2015 for equality.
There is not reason on earth why civil marriage equality should not happen this year.
Thank you Sarah
Great article. Good to see people who get equality explaining why it matters!
“The very fact that those opposed to same-sex marriage cannot have a reasoned debate about the issue just proves that they are bereft of any real arguments.”
Since when have our religious opponents like Cardinal Keith O’Brien engaged in reasoned debate? Religion is the very antithesis of rationality.
“If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.” (Dr Gregory House MD, fictional character, much like Jesus in that regard).
Churches -they are incurably homophobic.
They dress up their homophobia with weazle words. Why aren’t they honest enough to say they fear an African backlash so they must be homophobes
“I do in fact agree with Cardinal O’Brien that the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society.”
Why ? Why is marriage a fundamental building block of society ? Why is two consenting adults living together privileged above all other relationships ? It really shouldn’t be so.
“for some, hearing that they are lesser human beings who deserve fewer rights and less opportunities in the future, is hazardous to their wellbeing.”
You mean like all those unmarried, who don’t get special status and are then told they are not any significant part of society ?
That’s the real problem, that we even have this concept of “marriage” in the first place.
I think marriage is a key celebration of commitment, a formal contract of intention to commit to each other – share resources and care for each other in good and bad, and declaration of love. It is a public event. It is celebrated throughout the ages (when it has any religious context or not). Significant research has shown that couples who engage in commitment to each other in a formal manner that celebrates their love and forms a public contract are psychologically happier and more productive.
I support marriage. I support marriage for all legally consensual couples.
“I think marriage is a key celebration of commitment, a formal contract of intention to commit to each other – share resources and care for each other in good and bad, and declaration of love. It is a public event. ”
Why should it be public or publicly given special status ? It might be special to you and your partner, that is for you and your friends and aquantainces to share. Not to demand a better status for yourselves than the “unmarrieds”
“It is celebrated throughout the ages (when it has any religious context or not). ”
It has been used through the ages as a means to take ownership of women and elevate the status of men. It is a very artificial institution.
“Significant research has shown that couples who engage in commitment to each other in a formal manner that celebrates their love and forms a public contract are psychologically happier and more productive.”
Actually marriage has been shown be of detriment to women’s well-being than being able to live independently. Though the choice for women is usually marriage or worse, independence is rarely on offer.
“I support marriage. I support marriage for all legally consensual couples.”
We disagree, clearly. I think formally and legally endorsing any one particular type of consenting relationship is an act of discrimination. You don’t seem to care as long as you get to be on the “right side” of that.
I just typed two long replies which seemed to have vanished ?
Summary, why is it OK to discriminate in favour of one particular kind of consenting relationship. Is it OK as long as you get to be on the right side of it and stuff everyone else ?
Also, marriage is not good for women and never has been. Good for men of course.
Great to see another politician publically nailing their flag to the mast to support equal marriage:
As a gay man and as a gay catholic I have problems with Stonewall’s Draft Marriage Bill
I think they have deliberately chosen words and phrases to assist me as part of a minority that will offend the majority.
I believe Stonewall who have done and who do great work have chosen to upset the majority by removing Husband & Wife by amendments completely from the marriage bill. ( see )
Extension of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Bill 2012 [HC] a husband and wife” substitute “parties to a marriage”.
For those who have been married and see it as an institution, and as Husband & Wife are part of the worlds accepted married status I feel it will create far too much upset to achieve marriage rights for gay people by removing the majority’s right to continue to be called Husband & Wife.
Stonewall should achieve equal marriage rights without upsetting the majority.
It is issues like this that gets people to believe we are going too far when we denigrate others rights to achieve our own right
So they are going to try it one more time………………..
“Sixtus IV promulgated a new bull categorically prohibiting the Inquisition’s extension to Aragon, affirming that,
many true and faithful Christians, because of the testimony of enemies, rivals, slaves and other low people—and still less appropriate—without tests of any kind, have been locked up in secular prisons, tortured and condemned like relapsed heretics, deprived of their goods and properties, and given over to the secular arm to be executed, at great danger to their souls, giving a pernicious example and causing scandal to many.”