Reader comments · Nick Clegg: Marriage equality by 2015 · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Nick Clegg: Marriage equality by 2015

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. While I welcome his comments, why should it so bloody long to pass into law?

    This country is so backwards sometimes in taking so long to do something!

    1. The anti-gay campaign by the church is a very good reason why this legislation needs to be fast-tracked

      1. Couldn’t agree more!

        1. Craig Denney 12 Mar 2012, 11:18am

          I would have thought it would be in the governments best interest to sort it out quickly because of the damage this is doing to the church?

          We see it all over Europe and on the TV here in the UK whenever there is a big controversial battle involving the Church, the church always comes off worse with people leaving the church by there tens of thousands.

          1. stuff the church. It made this problem for itself by opposing just and proper legislation for equality.

    2. chris lowercase 12 Mar 2012, 10:07am

      its the longest time they can name before the next election.

      (the only cynical thing ill ever say about marriage equality, and it says more about party politics.)

    3. chris lowercase 12 Mar 2012, 10:16am

      but with a complete coalitionesque u turn from my last post… why shouldn’t they be proud of this chris? if i was the leader of a soft left political party id probably brag about this.

    4. It’s taking so long because second class citizens arent a priority.

    5. My thoughts exactly, 2015 is a long way off, why so long?

  2. Before 2015?

    Get the finger out Clegg and make it happen this year.

    2015 is an unacceptably long delay.

    1. dAVID

      With respect BEFORE 2015 is not IN 2015.

      You keep trying to say this is going to happen IN 2015 – no one in government has made that promise. You can try and twist it as much as you like – but you will not find a single quote from Featherstone, Cameron, Clegg, May or any of the other ministers involved saying this will happen in 2015.

      The commitment has always been (dependent on who is making the pledge) BY 2015 or BEFORE 2015. Thats not the same as IN 2015 which is your constant cry.

      I would have liked equal marriage 20 years ago or before, but it didnt happen. We now have a government who are committed to introducing equal marriage (with a few other commitments too). Now, whilst equal marriage is a priority for many of us – so is the economy, crime, immigration etc. Giving themselves a period of flexibility to handle the debate through parliament is not unreasonable. Your twisting of their words is unreasonable.

      1. “A period of flexibility”?!!… Really? Is that all they need? They have been in power for 2 years… and their only commitment is to steal from the old, poor, sick and disabled. The wealthy criminals who put us in this financial mess are having a ball … What are they gonna be doing until 2015? Can they stretch the gay marriage debate any further when everything has already been said?… everyone knows everyone else’s position on the issue.. there’s nothing else to be added. There’s no reason legislation should be delayed, as there has never been any reason to launch an unnecessary consultation in the first place, just to have it inexplicably delayed twice…

        1. Why didnt labour do it when they were in power, Beberts?

          1. For the same reason they couldn’t instantly get rid of section 28, a piece of legislation created and introduced by the Tories … most of which are still defending that rubbish ’til the present day…

          2. Maybe they couldnt do it instantly by they did have from 1997 until 2010 in order to resolve it. It didn’t have to be “instantaneous”.

            Why could they not manage it in 13 years?

            Why did they think segregation (which they introduced) was an acceptable solution?

            Did they think LGBT deserved second class status?

          3. Until the end Brown claimd CPs were perfectly adequate.

          4. In 1989, Denmark became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex civil unions. In 1996/7, while Tories were actively campaigning to criminalise LGBTT citizens, Labour only campaigned in their favour. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages. Guess what? Right wingers, conservatives, Tories etc… all the lot, in all those countries, have never been responsible for advancing social reforms.

          5. It still doesnt change the fact that Labour did not bring in equal marriage and instead brought in CP apartheid. They segregated gay people.

            The Conservatives and Lib Dems are putting that right and putting gay people first.

            Beberts doesnt like it. He doesnt believe that Conservatives can do anything to help gay people – he lives back in a time machine where the world has not moved on.

            Beberts doesnt like it. He doesnt like admitting that labour policies hurt and harmed gay people.

            He likes it even less that Conservatives are putting labours injustices on gay rights in order.

          6. What I really don’t like is watching the Tories and their gang, some of whom frequent these very message boards, throwing the poor, old, sick and disabled under the bus. The Tories haven’t done anything to advance gay rights. On the contrary, most of them are still actively campaigning to keep homophobia healthy in this country. If you think the NAZZIS can suddenly clean their act by supporting israel, think again…

          7. @Beberts

            I notice you still have not responded to the comments made by Tom, myself and Richard where we ask you to explain why in more than a decade Labour did not introduce equal marriage and worse still introduced a form of apartheid against gay committed relationships?

          8. You should know the answer to that. The homophobic culture promoted and implemented by the Tories still permeates legislation to this very day. Labour managed to undo most of the damage. Anyone rising to the top of the NAZZI party, pretending to be friendly, cannot be trusted. That’s a no-brainer.

    2. Beberts seems to still cling to a bizarre view that Labours failures to ensure marriage equality is somehow better than the coalition introducing marriage equality. Odd.

  3. Nick Clegg speaking about marriage equality yesterday

  4. What Clegg actually said was:

    “Before 2015, because of us there will be:
    the first gay marriage …”

    That was not IN 2015 or BY 2015 but BEFORE 2015 …

    Also gay marriage was the FIRST issue in a line of commitments that he listed. It clearly is a priority to him and to the LIbDems.

    I look forward to Lynnes Featherstones announcement this week and thank Clegg (on this issue) for his commitment and support.

    1. Shock Horror: Isn’t this the same person you are talking about?

      “No more broken promises”…

      1. Lucas O'Brien 12 Mar 2012, 1:51pm

        Wasn’t it Labour that failed over 12 long years to introduce same sex marriage?

        Wasn’t it labour that reinforced the sense that LGBT people were second class citizens by establishing a legally recognised form of apartheid that is called civil partnerships?

        1. In 1989, Denmark became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex civil unions. In 1996/7, while Tories were actively campaigning to criminalise LGBTT citizens, Labour only campaigned in their favour. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages. Guess what? Right wingers, conservatives, Tories etc… all the lot, in all those countries, have never been responsible for advancing social reforms..

          1. @Beberts

            Did Labour introduce segregation of gay relationships?

            Did Labour have the opportunity to introduce equal marriage in a period of over a decade in power and choose not to?

            Did Labour introduce CP apartheid?

            Are the Conservatives and Lib Dems introducing equal marriage?

            Are the Conservatives and Lib Dems repairing the damage that labour did to LGBT people with regards marriage?

            Did Labour have the courage to stand up to the lies of the church?

            I think the answers to these questions are perfectly clear and obvious.

            Labour had the opportunity to make the differnce where equal marriage is concerned – and failed. The Lib Dems with the Conservatives are putting that right.

          2. What is clear and obvious, the Tories are trying to portray themselves as liberals while pursuing conservative and socially damaging policies, and LibDems are just pathetically surrendering their promises, just to keep their foot on the power door.

          3. @Beberts

            What is clear is the Conservatives are joining with the Lib Dems to both do what Labour should have done in their long 12 years in power and resolve the apartheid that Labour created.

  5. Justice delayed is justice denied – Martin Luther King.

    1. Exactly!

      Labour had from 1997 to 2010 to sort it out but denied justice for that period!

      1. In 1989, Denmark became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex civil unions. In 1996/7, while Tories were actively campaigning to criminalise LGBTT citizens, Labour only campaigned in their favour. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages. Guess what? Right wingers, conservatives, Tories etc… all the lot, in all those countries, have never been responsible for advancing social reforms….

        1. This is the UK and Labour failed in their opportunity to provide equal marriage. They provided a sub standard form of relationship registration. They created apartheid.

    2. de Villiers 16 Mar 2012, 3:04pm

      That quote is from William Gladstone.

  6. Not wishing to be pedantic, but the Sunday Times poll did not show more in favour than against gay marriage. 43% were in favour, 32% pro civil partnerships not marriage and 15% anti both. That is 43% pro and 47% against. The Telegraph poll was more positive though.

    1. Equality Network 12 Mar 2012, 10:12am

      Although in Scotland, where the Government consultation happened last Sept to Dec, and the issue has been aired more, the Sunday Times poll showed 52% in favour of equal marriage, 27% pro civil partnerships and 10% anti both, That’s 52% pro equal marriage and 37% against.

      The Sunday Times question also had an in-built bias against equality, because the question wording said that CPs offer the same legal rights as marriage (which is not 100% true) and did not mention the disadvantages of a segregated system.

    2. Locus Solus 12 Mar 2012, 10:13am

      You beat me to it! I think it’s sad that there is not more support out there for equal marriage, but one should never be surprised by the levels of human stupidity and/or ignorance. Still, I now know my family has got my back on this one, which feels really great. ^_^

      “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” – Albert Einstein

      1. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 4:38pm

        “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Albert again.

    3. Not that rights should be decided on the basis of polls

      The Ipsos/MORI poll was more supportive though.

    4. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 1:45pm

      The Daily Telegraph poll shows over 75% in favour out of over 18,000 votes.
      Not bad for right-wing Toryist paper.

  7. I would like to thank Nick Clegg, Lynne Featherstone and most of the Lib Dem’s on the issue who are really passionate about it. I also want to thank David Cameron, Francis Maude and the increasing number of Tories out there supporting same sex marriage. Labour also have a good record. What a great country we live in, left, right and centre of the political spectrum there are vocal numbers wanting same sex marriage equality.

    1. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 11:57am

      Labour have a LOUSY record!
      It was them that got us into this CP mess in the first place. They wouldn’t have even done that unless the ECHR hadn’t kicked them up the arse and even then they kowtowed to religious right, because they knew the sh|tstorm it would invoke, which is now just occurring. Whatever you say about the coalition, at least they had the balls to face up to the conflict they knew was on the cards.

      1. Darling, Labour has made promises to the gay community during their election campaign in 1997. They promised to get rid of section 28, they promised to introduce some form of civil union, etc. All of their promises to the gay community have been fulfilled.

        1. Thats right they promised to bring in a second class treatment of LGBT partnerships NOT marriage.

        2. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 1:41pm

          er.. that was 15 years ago! An awful lot has changed since then, and basically they have done bugger all since except revoke an unworkable law and done the bare minimum to appease the Europeans.

          1. In 1989, Denmark became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex civil unions. In 1996/7, while Tories were actively campaigning to criminalise LGBTT citizens, Labour only campaigned in their favour. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages. Guess what? Right wingers, conservatives, Tories etc… all the lot, in all those countries, have never been responsible for advancing social reforms….. just to let you know. Another thing you should also know is that you’re also a Europeeean…. darrling

          2. @Beberts

            Thanks for the information on Denmark

            This is the UK – what did labour do about equal marriage in the UK?

  8. I love Cleggy, except the Libdems want to bankrupt pensioners in London who own their own home and spent their working lives paying off the mortgage, by taxing the property they spent their life paying for. How is some one in a property that has substantially increased in value in or around London, which is far from being a “mansion” supposed to pay an additional tax from a fixed modest income? Can’t pay, won’t pay! Stupid b@stards . Tax should only ever be related to ability to pay.

    1. Father Dougal 12 Mar 2012, 4:05pm

      Yes I can’t believe they have been stupid enough to propose another poll tax – same principle.

  9. Pink News,

    Please can you correct the Clegg quote. He did not say that gay partners would marry by 2015, he said before 2015.

    The distinction is extremely important.

    1. By, before, whatever. They mean the same thing, so dont be so friggin petty.

  10. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 11:54am

    Three years to effectively tick a box?
    This is British politics demonstrating what it does best – Sweet Fanny Adams.

    1. Robert Cassidy 12 Mar 2012, 12:58pm

      Stand for parliament then and do something about it rather than whinging on the sidelines.

      1. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 1:42pm

        Why should I have to be a politician to get things done?
        I thought I lived in a democratic society where I voted for people to do the things they fcking promised, instead of wheedle out of them at the first opportunity whilst feathering their own nests.

        1. Lucas O'Brien 12 Mar 2012, 1:53pm

          You do.

          If you disagree with the politicians, the beauty of a democracy is that you can stand and show them how to do it.

          Could you?

          1. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 4:36pm

            Quite easily, but most people wouldn’t approve of my approach of hanging every murderer in our prisons and getting everyone else breaking rocks in chain gangs.

            Like I said earlier, what is democratic and what is right are two very different things.

            Apart from that, I don’t want to be a politician, I am interested in my life, my work and my livelihood, not some fat gypsy traveller on benefits with 10 kids and a Range Rover.

          2. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find a gipsy, as one of your own ancestors… would you?

        2. William Quill 12 Mar 2012, 8:44pm

          Actually, the Liberal Democrats didn’t have this in their manifesto, so it’s not an election promise. It became party policy in autumn 2010, and then the following year David Cameron announced his support.

          Of course it should happen tomorrow, but the process has very clearly been started, something that hadn’t been considered in any serious way by the previous government. My guess is that it will happen before 2015, his mention of a date was to confirm that it would be within this term of government.

  11. nice. why is it taking so long? it doesnt exactly fill me with confidence.

  12. It seems labour are keen to add their voice to the campaign (although the length of the comment doesnt seem to give any sense of passionate support – do labour feel they are being left behind? or embarrassed that they introduced the divisive CPs?):,2012-03-11?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LabourPartyNews+%28The+Labour+Party+-+Latest+news%29

  13. I hope it’s true. I don’t plan on getting married or moving to England before 2015 so it’s all good for me. I agree that before 2015 the government will remember the people have freedom of religion :P

    To the people who talk about the polls, it shouldn’t matter what people say. If you polled people on interracial marriage way back then went by it, there would have never been interracial marriage.

    1. Father Dougal 12 Mar 2012, 4:11pm

      I presume you’re in the US. I don’t think inter-racial marriages were ever illegal or a crime in the UK, but your point holds true for many social and political reforms.

  14. I am glad to read his words…but it’s bloody amazing how quick the government will ‘push’ a law through that benefits them!

  15. Patrick Mc Crossan 12 Mar 2012, 8:23pm

    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

    1. Is that how desperate the RC church have come, that their opposition comes down to semantics of “parties to a marriage”

      Perhaps that is something you could raise with the consultation, and your views could be considered. After all, Stonewall will also be making their representations!

  16. I take it you have been campaigning for same sex marriage equality then John?

    What have you been doing other than raising red herrings?

  17. de Villiers 16 Mar 2012, 3:08pm

    Gay marriage benefits society as it encourages stability and monogamy. As was said of Parliamentary reform in 1831, “Reform that ye may preserve… I support this because it will improve our institutions; but I support it also because it tends to preserve them.”

    Polygamy destroys the fundamental two-person nature of Western relationships, it is incompatible with the rights of women and female equality (usually one husband and many wives) and it undermines all major Western thinking on the most suitable environment for human flourishing.

    The restriction on incest protects family life and the non-sexualised environment between siblings and parents to their children. It is also protects against the medical complications that arise from siblings procreating.

    Those are reasons for extending marriage to gay couples but denying it to others. It upholds the primacy of two-person relationships, strengthens existing concepts of the family and creates a coalition in defence of Western values.

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.