Reader comments · Jacqui Smith ‘happy’ to see civil partnerships make way for equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Jacqui Smith ‘happy’ to see civil partnerships make way for equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hodge Podge 21 Mar 2012, 11:05am

    She is irrelevant. Massive totalitarian, everything that was (past tense?) wrong with New Labour. One of my most disliked politicians.

  2. Apology graciously accepted

    1. She has not apologised.

      She should apologise though. She was the equalities minister when our relationships were granted 2nd class legal status.

      1. You’re right. She should apologise for giving our relationships legal status. After all, we were just pleased as punch before them.

        1. I know that CP segregation was progress.

          But the Labour Party deserves no gratitude.

          I refuse to be grateful to a party which deemed me a 2nd class citizen, even though I welcome the fact that progress was made when legal segregation was introduced.

          1. Well Tory opposition at that time didn’t want to let go of Clause 28, opposed Human Rights Act (introduced by Labour was used against Labour government to challenged other equality issues in ECHR), equal consenting age and Equality Act. You would be lucky if you were treated like 3rd class citizen under Tory

          2. Yes I know.

            The Tories apparent ‘conversion’ on LGBT rights is not to be trusted (the rank and file Tory supporters comprise a very large proportion of horrible bigots).

            But that does not alter the fact that Labour gave our relationships 2nd class legal status in 2005, and since then did absolutely nothing to grant us equality.

            Jacqui Smith is a politician (ie a professional liar). She should be judged on her record, not on her words.

            Why did Labour decide that CP segregation was sufficient in 2005 and do nothing afterwards?

    2. Without that paving of the way of civil partnerships there would be no marriage equality proposal! It was a massive step in the right direction and the most important part of the process towards equality, in some ways a harder step for them to have brought in than the final tweak to provide marriage equality. There is nothing to apologise for – they gave us a victory in a key battle in the war against marriage inequality and they are being gracious in recognising that they didn’t win the war themselves.

      It is quite clear that they would have failed if they had attempted to introduce marriage equality at that stage. Out of the countries with marriage equality or currently pushing for it, I think only one did not have some form of civil union as a stepping stone.

  3. Jock S. Trap 21 Mar 2012, 11:33am

    Glad Jacqui Smith is one side and wanting progressive change.

    Though she is very wrong to suggest Civil Partnerships left no “substantive” difference in the treatment of gay and straight unions when marriage is universally accepted around the world and UK Civil Partnerships are not. That being the case there is one major difference and one to be corrected. Whether countries accept equal marriage or not the term “marriage” is correct and recognized therefore everyone should be treated equally not some as second class citizens.

  4. I found this US paper interesting,
    some say adultery cannot apply to married same sex couples and cite this as a reason they oppose marriage equality

    Applying the Law of Adultery to Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex Conduct

    ” I demonstrate that those decisions holding that same-sex conduct does not constitute adultery do so on the basis of outdated precedents that rely on a gendered concept of adultery that treats sexual dalliances by men and women differently, as well as on heteronormative statutory regimes in which same-sex adultery and opposite-sex adultery were punished differently because all sexual activity between individuals of the same sex was considered unlawful”

  5. Silly woman. Should concentrate on the condition of her own marriage rather than trying to wreck the institution for all.

    1. Someone has put the trash in the wrong place again!

    2. Perhaps you should concentrate on your own life rather than hanging about on a newsite acting like a bit of a douche no?

    3. Jock S. Trap 21 Mar 2012, 5:55pm

      Oh look someone commenting just to get attention.

      Is it because they are too immature to debate? I think so!

    4. You are a waste of space.

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 12:10pm

    I’d rather have a former public figure support us than oppose us, no matter her statement and view of CPs. Would that every MP were of the same mind. I’m confident that marriage equality will be passed in Parliament, probably with a slim majority but what about that bothersome, unelected, undemocratic House of Lords? What if they oppose it by a huge majority? It could well happen.

    1. I’d rather have a former public figure who refused to support equality when she could have done something about it, accept that she was wrong and apollogise for it.

      INstead we get Jacqui Smith bleating on like the hasbeen that she is, defending her mistakes.

      1. INstead we get dAVID constantly bleating on the past

        1. I’m not the one going on about how marvellous CP Apartheid is.

          That’s Jacqui Smith (whose former leader Tony Blair only yesterday refused to defend LGBT human rights when in an interview with the maniacally homophobic president of Liberia).

      2. Do you not understand the idea of incremental progress. This is the way peaceful reform works dAVID.

        1. Spanner1960 22 Mar 2012, 11:45pm

          You mean “we throw you scraps whilst you beg and grovel.”
          Since when were my votes any less applicable than anybody else’s?
          Laws should be absolute, and made for the right reasons, not fudged, compromised and half-baked sit-on-the-fence safe decisions.
          Politicians need to learn that whatever decisions they make, they are going to seriously piss somebody off, somewhere, so they may as well come clean and do the right thing instead of trying to appease everybody but achieve bugger all.

  7. It’s a shame that when she had the chance to introduce civil marraige for same sex couples it was not taken. CP’s I suspect was a way of pleasing everyone at the time.

    I am glad that she is showing her support now!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 1:04pm

      Tony Blair and StonewallUK didn’t want to approach civil marriage quality saying that there would be a showdown with the CoE et al. In a way, CPs have paved the way for marriage equality. The public has had several years to get used to them and have seen that nothing has impaired hetero marriage. Neither will civil marriage equality. It’s not going to deter any heterosexual from marrying in a religious ceremony or in a registry office nor will it do any harm to either. 10 countries have already proved it. I’m glad Jacqui Smith is now on board, better late than never. We need far more to declare support. I wonder why nobody in the entertainment world has come forward?

      1. Fine.

        But Labour needs to accept that CP’s were never adequate and that they were always discriminatory.

        The procession of these Labour hasbeens now supporting equality is very suspicious.

        Especiallly as LGBT legal equality is not even in the Top 10 of Labour prioritues.

        Yes CP segregation was progess at the time.

        But in 2012 it is grotesquely offensive that our relationhips are subject to legal apartheid.

        1. ‘The procession of these Labour hasbeens now supporting equality is very suspicious.’

          On on the other side we have bunch of Tory MP publicly opposing coalition government proposal and what is dAVID most concerned about is support of people that made progress towards equality in the past

          1. I am not defending the Tories, where are you getting that Idea?

            But the fact that a large number of Tory MP’s are bigotted scum, does not alter the fact that the Labour Party legalised segregation in 2005 (under the watchful eye of then Equalities Minister Jacqui Smith) who nowadays point blank refuses to acknowledge how inadequate and discriminatory CP’s are.

      2. Oh and as for Stonewall – I can understand why they accepted segregation in 2005. It was a politically wise move.

        The day after CP segregation became law in 2005, they should have started their campaign for full equality.

        The fact that Stonewall point blank refused to support equality until the group was facing utter extinction due to its support for segregation over equality (in 2010) shows that Stonewall’s motives have never been trustworthy.

    1. They always look so gay

    2. Spanner1960 22 Mar 2012, 8:25am

      If you actually read what he said, I think he was totally in his right to say such a thing. Churches should not be forced into accepting same-sex marriages.

      I think in this particular case the guy didn’t say anything inflammatory, and certainly not enough to have him demoted. The church has been pushing out this disinformation about being forced to try and rally support, and this guy just picked up what he heard and ran with it.

  8. Such a pity that Jacqui Smith lacked the credibility and integrity support equality back when she actually had some infuence as the Equalities minister.

    I find it very strange and disturbing that all these Labour nobodies are crawling out of the woodwork to support equality.

    Civil Partnership segregation was introduced under Labour in 2005.

    Between 2005 and 2010 :Labour did NOTHING to end this segregation (possibly on the advice of the homophobe Ben Summerskill).

    They simply kept repeating that CP segregation was sufficient.

    What they fail to grasp is that CP Segregation was NEVER sufficient. It was only EVER a stepping stone to full equality.

    I do not want to hear Labour hasbeenslike Jacqui Smith defending the discriminatory, offensive CP legislation.

    The Labour Party needs to realise that its constant defence of their CP segregation legislation, serves only to alienate the LGBT population.

    Have some some cojones Labour – accept that CP’s were discriminatory and apologise.

  9. It’s easy to forget now how different attitudes were just a few years ago. The recent advances that have been made in public attitudes to same sex couples can be called revolutionary without exaggeration. And that even includes attitudes amongst gay and lesbian couples themselves and campaigners within the LGBT movement.

    Marriage could not have been opened up to same sex couples in the UK in 2004. Nearly everywhere in the world where marriage has been opened, it has been necessary to precede it by offering a separate form of civil partnership to same sex couples instead.

    I left the UK in disgust after the Tories were unexpectedly re-elected to government in 1992. I will not forget which political parties were on our side in those days. That it would take time for all sides of the political spectrum and the general public to come round, was clear. It was also clear that reform could not be achieved in one fell swoop.

    Jacqui Smith deserves praise and thanks.

  10. Paddyswurds 21 Mar 2012, 1:31pm

    Reading the tripe on the “christian institute” page is, were it not so pathetically sad, is hilarious to say the least. The mounting desperation is a delight to behold. did you see the bit about the lesbian Queen and the bit about how a lesbian Queens sperm donor would have to get a peerage.

  11. Yeah, religion has NOTHING to do with marriage and it should be kept that way. It’s a civil legal agreement between two people.

    I personally think that civil partnerships should still be available, for homosexual and heterosexual couples, as well as marriage, but I would much rather do away with them completely to get marriage. I personally want to get married to a woman someday and I can’t wait until that’s completely legal where I live.

    1. They have upped their game by dropping ‘religious ownership of marriage’ claim saying that marriage was always about man and a woman in a union and that we cannot redefine that union.

      1. Marriage used to be
        -Only between white people
        -Only between people of the same race
        -The woman was the property of the man
        -The woman could not refuse her husband sexually

        We move the next step forward in monogamous marriages and legalize same sex marriage, it will come in time.

        But they are eventually going to realize marriage isn’t’ a religious things. Any heterosexuals of any faith can get married, and we should be able to. :)

        (The reason I say the same things a lot is because they say the same things lol)

        1. Ah, I see the religious thing now….

          Well my other points still stand.

        2. Spanner1960 22 Mar 2012, 11:49pm

          Only between white people? That’s news to me.

          Anyway, I think wimmin shouldn’t be married anyway, or given the vote.
          Just keep ’em indoors and know their place.
          ;) (Joke, honest!)

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 4:17pm

    To digress, in another blow to marriage equality, the ECHR has just struck down the French lesbians’ petition to adopt children as a married couple. The court said that marriage for gays is NOT a right.

    Norman Wells of the right wing Family Education Trust response to all this calls Cameron’s marriage equality consultation a “sham”, quote…”‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in imposing their views on the rest of the population by force of law.”

    Hasn’t he heard, the consultation process is the democratic process as it is for most legislation? Government should not be allowing any religious denomination to dictate policy. I’m all for peoples’ opinions, religious or otherwise, but really, who do these idiots think they are imposing religious beliefs on a population that is barely religious?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 4:19pm

      This new ruling will no doubt apply to Peter Tatchell’s case of the gay and straight couples petitioning for marriage and civil partnership equality for both orientations. This was not a good day for LGBT people. Our opponents are rejoicing of course and this will only embolden them to fight us tooth and nail. We have a long hard battle ahead of us.

      1. I think French model where CPs are available to both gay and straight couples but CM available only to straight couples and proposed UK model where CM available to all couples but CP only available to Gay couple can be challenged as discriminatory while current UK system according to ECHR latest ruling where gay marriage rights are not automatic, not discriminatory

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 4:52pm

          The ECHR is a rather useless organisation. I’d like to see the religious affiliation of the body of people who make these rulings. I wouldn’t mind betting the majority are catholics. By ruling that CIVIL marriage for gays isn’t a right but a right for straights, it proves it does in no way support and uphold equality for LGBT people. In this case, it is a sham of an organisation.

          1. “By ruling that CIVIL marriage for gays isn’t a right but a right for straights, it proves it does in no way support and uphold equality for LGBT people.”

            I think it has a lot more to do with them being afraid of setting the precedent in case it upsets the stability of the EU, than it does with personal religious affiliations, although I don’t rule that out as a motive.

          2. Gutless as much as useless

  13. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 4:54pm

    The Daily Mail and the Telegraph will have a field day with the latest ECHR ruling, not ot mention C4M et al. A very, very bad day for LGBT and marriage equality in the EU.

  14. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 5:39pm

    What is so alarming is that while Jacqui Smith is supporting marriage equality, CM4 is urging its petition signers to contact their MPs to oppose marriage equality which mens they’re going to threaten them by not supporting them in the next election if they vote against them. I wonder how many of our supporters are doing the same to urge our MPs to support marriage equality? We are so disorganised, unlike our opponents. They’re spreading lies and disinformation about marriage equality and about us, often quite offencive and nobody on our side is countering any of them with the facts. I wish more would follow Theresa May’s example and speak out, incessantly. Currently, our opponents give the impression that they’re side is winning because of all the attentiont they’re getting, yet our side isn’t getting much play.

  15. I’d go for the ending of new CPs once we have equal marriage and perhaps retain CPs for those already in them.

    Unless we (probaly Stonewall) compromise on CPs then the question of not allowing straight CPs as well could really complicate things and I can’t see the govt or the churches wanting straight CPs ever…

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 9:12pm

      I agree. In fact, campaigning for straight CPs could justify the religious nutters’ contention that allowing civil marriage for gays undermines marriage, the same argument used when CPs were about to be introduced, although personally, I do think they should be available. That said, I don’t think there would be many of them clamoring for it if they had a choice. Maybe after civil marriage equality has been legalised for several years, some straights may want to start their own campaign for access to CPs, but again, I don’t think there would be any significant numbers while marriage remains the universal gold standard.

    2. I also agree. There are other countries which have got rid of civil unions when marriage equality came in. We will not need it any longer and it should cease to be offered,

    3. Spanner1960 22 Mar 2012, 8:31am

      No, I think CPs should be completely shut down and everyone already in them upgraded free of charge. There is no point in having two parallel systems running that do the same thing, and CP’s should be relegated to the dustbin of crap political legislation along with Section 28.

  16. It might be better to allow heterosexual couples to form civil partnerships – and to do so in place of civil marriage, which should cease to exist. All civil marriages should automatically be converted into civil partnerships.
    Religious married couples could be given the option of converting to civil partnerships or to relinquish all the tax and other privileges of being married.
    If the churches wanted to continue having ceremonies to solemnize civil partnerships, they would of course be free to do so.

  17. Many don’t see why Christians have a problem with re-defining marriage. It isn’t necessarily homophobia – though some Christians may have been gratuitously offensive. In Mark’s Gospel Jesus says ‘From the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

    For married couples marriage provides a primary identity and one to which they are irrevocably committed. To redefine marriage after the event offends against the most basic principles of natural justice.

    The Church of England’s marriage service also says ‘Marriage is a way of life made holy by God.’ No one is obliged to agree with that, but is it not possible to see why Christians might object to the re-definition of marriage without just accusing them of homophobia?

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.