Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Stonewall funds 1000 London bus adverts for equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This is great! The SPAGGOI campaign is Stonewall at its very best.

  2. JakeThePeg 3 Apr 2012, 10:27am

    Good to see. Shame it’s just London though – preaching to the converted there as far as I see it. We could do with this on buses here in Oxford where some people really need to ‘get over it’.

    London folk – please get tweeting as Stonewall suggests to get this great campaign out and about!!!

    1. Still, there are parts of London – around Brick Lane, say – where it’s definitely needed too.

      1. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 8:28pm

        There aren’t any buses through there.
        Try Mile End Road, Lea Bridge Road or Walthamstow.

  3. Does this mean that Stonewall has gone bussed?

  4. Great to see.

    London is an important arena to seek support for equal marriage and Stonewall are wise to use the mobile advertising of buses to create significant opportunities to raise awareness.

    I would like to see similar or other methods being used to reach the population outside of London too.

  5. Mumbo Jumbo 3 Apr 2012, 11:03am

    I look forward to seeing a picture of one as it passes Westminster RC Cathedral on Victoria Street…….

    Any suggestions for other appropriate locations?

    1. The locations I would seek to see one is:

      Bus stop on Marshalsea Road (home to the Coalition for Marriage (aka the phony cover for the anti-gay Institute!))

      Bus stop on Wimpole Street (home to Andrea Minichiello Williams office of the Christian Legal Centre)

      Buckingham Palace Road (outisde the Daily Telegraph registered office)

      Chaseville Parade, Enfield (outside the offices of David Burrowes)

      Romney Street (outside offices for CARE)

  6. Stonewall’s very, very, VERY late arrival to the LGB equality campaign is welcome.

    They still need to get rid of Ben Summerskill – his active campaign against LGBT equality through his despicable activities at the LiBDem party conference, means that until he is replaced by someone without the stain of homophobia on their character, Stonewall lacks legitimacy.

    I would like Stonewall to sack Ben Summerskill (and if he was merely following the instructions of the Stonewall board, then the board needs to be sacked as well), replace him with someone with a longtime commitment to LGBT equalitym and AFTER we get equality, I want to make damned sure that Stonewall don’t try to claim credit.

    When we inevitably gain legal equality, it will be in spite of, and not because of Stonewall.

    1. Give it a rest will you. Actually there is HUGE division amongst gay people about whether we want marriage. I do and I do think Stonewall could have done better with this but they are an incredible organisation who have literally changed our lives. They didnt do it all on their own but it would not have happened without them.
      It was fair that Ben said he wanted to gauge what people wanted. Most of my friends dont really care about marriage though I think they are wrong. He took too long but we’re meant to be fighting together. Dont lets attack our own.

      1. I’m not sure that there is a huge division about marriage amongst gay people. I think its quite clear from research that most LGBT people would like the right to equality and to have the option to marry someone they love.

        Stonewall clearly could have done better. They are back on track to an extent. These advertising displays are a good effort (although I think the message should have been more focussed and direct).

        Stonewall certainly are not the instruments of achieving equality in marriage, although they now have a part in it. We do have a lot to thank them for in the past (and currently).

        Bens approach publically was wrong. What he actually said was ““we know there are quite a lot of gay and lesbian people who wouldn’t want marriage”

        When it was questioned and pointed out recent polls showed 98% of LGBT in favour, he responded “Stonewall has never pretended to be a democratic member organisation. We have never said we speak for all lesbian, gay or bisexual people”.

        It …

      2. … remains divisive that Ben Summerskill remains figure head of Stonewall (whether they intend to represent all LGB (and T?) people or not, there is a perception in society that they do. However, I do think dAVID’s repeated calls for SUmmerskills resignation/sacking detract from the campaign to secure equal marriage and suggest that his personal campaign against Summerskill is more important to him than achieving equality.

    2. Yes, time to ‘get over it’ dAVID. Stonewall is proving its mettle with this brilliant campaign.

  7. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 11:27am

    Too little, too late.
    And typically Metrocentric.
    Apparently there are LGBT people living outside London. Get over it!

    1. Why is it too late?

      1. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 3:47pm

        Because Stonewall had the opportunity right at the outset to step in and represent us properly before the churches managed to get hold of the entire story and force a lot of public opinion against us. If this had been nipped in the bud from the beginning instead of the likes of Summerskill arselicking his way round all the MPs for his and his cronies best interests, then this Coalition for Marriage outfit would have not snowballed into the major problem it has now become.

        Trundling a bunch of buses around London is not going to make a jot of difference. Half the people living there are either left wingers, gay or foreigners. It is middle England that is the major battleground, and it is there that this war will be won or lost.

        1. OK, its late …

          Why TOO late?

          Surely that suggests this is meaningless – if thats what you think, then I disagree.

          1. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 4:01pm

            Oh right. I’m so glad it’s all cut and dried now. A few buses in ONE city saying “be aware, there are gay people”. (like nobody already knew that).
            I’ve seen better marketing commercials for Cillit-Bang.

          2. @Spanner1960

            Sure, its not cut and dried … so surely some publicity and awareness is a positive and helpful thing?

        2. then this Coalition for Marriage outfit would have not snowballed into the major problem it has now become

          Well, we can’t possibly know that for sure one way or the other – it could, after all, have led to an even more concentrated campaign against equal marriage. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to justify Stonewall’s slackness in this respect, it’s just that the thin-end-of-the-wedge approach does seem to succeed (sometimes surprisingly) in England/Britain more often than not.

          1. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 8:25pm

            Well whatever, they sure as hell didn’t help matters.
            They went against the grain of what virtually everyone wanted, and then come snivelling back by bribing us with a bunch of posters on buses and expect us to all pretend nothing has happened?

            The arrogance of these chinless wonders is unbelievable.

          2. ‘Chinless wonders’? Good grief, could you resort to Daily Express clichés more often if you tried?!

  8. Benjamin Cohen 3 Apr 2012, 12:07pm

    Guys, I was one of the people who opposed Stonewall’s previous stance, which was to be silent on the cause of marriage equality. The fact is it is now being vocal in its support for equality and that is something we all should welcome.

    I think anyone who knows the history will be aware that if marriage equality happens, it will not have been specifically because of Stonewall (in the way that civil partnerships were very much so). It’s because of the politicians themselves, Peter Tatchell’s Equal Love campaign and a little bit because of us.

    But it’s time to move on. Stonewall are a big force with a lot of money. It’s good that they’re doing this. Although I’d have preferred myself for the message to have been the Gay people get married! Get over it! ones not this more generic message

    1. I was surprised also that it wasn’t the “some men marry men, get over it” poster that they have on the site.

      I think it’s the country folk that need these kinds of ads; they’re a bit shut off from diversity of all kinds.

      Still, you’re right – good to see.

    2. I’ve just seen one of these buses go by. The ad very specifically says http://www.stonewall.org.uk/marriage underneath it and this links to a site showing how to respond to the government’s consultation on marriage. (If it had said ‘Gay People Get Married’ no doubt you’d be condemning Stoneweall instead for not telling the truth!!!!!!)

      1. Sure …

        The message Some People are Gay Get Over it has been a powerful message and it is good to see it again, and helps provoke conversation and thinking points.

        Sure, the buses have the stonewall marriage website on.

        When you go to that website it has the messages:

        “Some Girls Marry Girls : Get Over It”,

        “Some Guys Marry Guys : Get Over It”,

        “People are People, Marriage is Marriage …” and

        “Different Couples, Same Love”

        Why could a mix of these messages not have been put on the buses, rather than expect people to take the effort of remembering the website address and then bothering to seek it out and see what it says.

        Its a good campaign. It makes people think.

        It would have been a Great campaign, if they have used marriage as the full on direct message.

      2. Benjamin Cohen 3 Apr 2012, 1:35pm

        Confused,

        I should have said, the “Some girls marry girls”, “Some guys marry guys” wording, as on the Stonewall website which I think is really funny and makes the point brilliantly. I couldn’t remember the exact wording though. Although as it goes that’s not legal either right now, and no we haven’t condemned Stonewall for doing that.

        It’s good that you support marriage equality now though and I think the bus campaign is a good idea.

        1. Agreed that Stonewall is on board now.

          It would be good to see Stonewall have a more gracious approach to other groups which campaign for equality, and to people like Peter Tatchell. We need to set aside our cosmetic differences.

    3. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 3:53pm

      @Benjamin:
      So why have Stonewall not even had the decency to stand up and admit that they were wrong?
      These people claim to represent us and our so-called “community”, yet they have abjectly FAILED to do so, by simply standing on the sidelines and far from even doing nothing, they actively opposed what the majority of us wanted.

      Since that time there has not been so much as a statement, let alone an apology for this pathetic stance and signal failure to support the people for which it supposedly exists. Frankly, I don’t give a toss about their power or their money. Summerskill should be summarily sacked and an apology made to all concerned. Only then will it be time to, as you put it, ‘move on’.

      1. Spanner1960

        I agree Stonewall should admit they got it wrong.

        They should apologise.

        The argument about Stonewalls conduct in 2010 is a distraction from the campaign for equal marriage.

        I doubt they would claim to represent all LGBT people, they did say when this controversy kicked off after the LibDem conference comments by Summerskill “Stonewall has never pretended to be a democratic member organisation. We have never said we speak for all lesbian, gay or bisexual people”. Even if they do not claim it, thats how they are perceived – I would agree.

        However, arguing and carping about something that happened 10 years ago when they are actively campaigning for equal marriage is a distraction that the battle for equality does not need now.

        1. oops – something that happened in 2010 (not 10years ago_ sorry for typo

        2. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 8:22pm

          I don’t expect them to speak for everyone. No political party can claim to do that. Stating it is just verbal padding and hogwash. What *IS* important though is they listen to the majority, and virtually everyone to a man, (except Christopher fcking Biggins) was demanding same-sex marriage, and they blatantly side-stepped, ignored and huffed and puffed until they were actually forced to stand up and do something. And I am not talking about ten years back, I am talking about LAST YEAR!

          1. Ok, I have already pointed out that my 10 year comment was a typo.

            This matter dates back to 2010 (if not before).

            Therefore, waiting until after the campaign has been won in parliament for equal marriage will not make any difference, to any debate about personalities in Stonewall.

            Its clear Stonewall acted wrongly in 2010 and for some time afterwards and their leadership made serious errors of judgement and arrogant comments. Concentrating on that now, when we are close to securing equal marriage is damaging the campaign for equal marriage IMHO.

            Stonewall are not a political party. Lets work with allies (including Stonewall) to ensure the law is changed to ensure human rights are respected.

            Then, if there must be a debate (internal, external, both) regarding Stonewall personalities and failures – have it – its damaging to do that before the battle has been won, now that we are where we are at. Would it be better if this had been sorted earlier? Yes, but it hasnt. The …

          2. … prize of equality, marriage and securing human rights is much more important than any individual personality in any organisation or any sense of upset of a group of individuals or one individual because of anyones failures (be they Stonewall or Summerskill or anyone else).

            Lets keep focussed. Marriage is what matters not personalities or errors. They can wait.

          3. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 10:37pm

            The problem is the media, the press, the church and most of the straight public assume that Stonewall is the “Official voice” of LGBT people, and are unaware they are just some bunch of unelected no-names running a charity and acting as self-appointed mouthpieces, and frankly I resent that. The fight so far for same -sex marriage has been fought by many, whilst they stood back and did bugger all, and now at the eleventh hour they expect to step in and steal everyone else’s thunder. Well fck them!

            This has nothing to do with in-fighting or lack of solidarity; they chose to stay out, so they can damn well stay there.

          4. @Spanner1960

            I probably almost entirely agree with you about Stonewall (although I welcome this advertising as it may be beneficial to the campaign for equal marriage).

            I certainly agree that much of the government, press, public and other organisations take the view that Stonewall democratically speak for the LGBT population of the UK – and Stonewall do nothing to suggest otherwise to these organisations other than when cornered for their having a view which is not representative of most LGBT peoples views.

            That said, marriage is more important than what you or I think about Stonewall.

            We need to park our concerns about Stonewall and deal with marriage – its too important.

    4. Hodge Podge 3 Apr 2012, 8:54pm

      “Stonewall are a big force with a lot of money”

      That’s why it’s scary as hell when they nominate Julie Bindel for an award.

      Apologies for being slightly OT.

    5. Is there any recent evidence that Stonewall has “a lot of money”? Arent they facing the same tough times as all other charities at present?

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2012, 12:43pm

    I would also like to have seen “Equal Civil Marriage for all”, something to that effect displayed prominently. Not everyone has a computer or subscribes to Twitter or Facebook. At least enforce the argument by spelling it out with the word “Civil” emboldened in a different colour perhaps to help debunk the myth that it has nothing to do with religion.

    I was angry at Ben Summerskill for not supporting equal civil marriage equality prior to getting on board, but I’m prepared to put it behind me. We need every bit of help we can get. The opposition is relentless, well organised with a well-planned stratgegy. I just checked the C4EM petition and it’s just more than 38,000 signatures compared to well over 300,000 for C4M. This is why Stonewall’s participation is vital.

    1. Why just ‘civil’? There is a very strong argument being made which says that those religious institutions that want to conduct marriages for same-sex couples should be allowed to do so. I agree with that even though I’m not religiously-minded. The choice should be there for those that want it.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2012, 6:48pm

        Well, I agree, but I think the most important thing right now is to get civil marriage equality passed. Just like the recent religious component for CPs came after the fact, I see no reason why a provision for those denominations who wish to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies shouldn’t follow the same path. It would of course be wonderful if that were already included in the consultation and hopefully, as the consultation concludes and the debate continues, maybe an amendment will be made.

        1. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 10:41pm

          The government asked for a ‘consultation’, but they seem to have decided before any questions were asked what they wanted and the whole thing is a foregone conclusion.

          Bugger all this halfway house business, we should demand that religious ceremonies be available to those that wish to offer them, rather than this constant kowtowing and forelock tugging to appease the Church.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2012, 1:02pm

    If anyone hasn’t yet done so, sign the Liberal Democratic petition in the link below and spread the word.

    http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/marriagewithoutborders

  11. Mr.Integrity 3 Apr 2012, 2:07pm

    Most people are Not gay and that’s the way they want Marriage to stay.

    1. No but minorities matter.

      In the same way that the minority of people who attend church matter and the change of law that will occur will not impose anything to restrict religious freedom of those who have reasons to believe they should not engage with same sex couples marrying. Although it could be better at facilitating Quakers, Unitarians etc who have their freedom of religion restricted by being unable to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple.

      A minority of people may wish to prevent equality and subjugate LGBT people – their inhumanity will not win.

      1. Minorities do not matter, that is why are minorities!

        1. Well church goers clearly do not matter then, or BNP-lite members?

        2. Says it all about you “Minorities do not Matter”

          Says it all …

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2012, 2:37pm

      Then explain why 10 countries have legalised it and one more in June 2012? Also, please provide the factual evidence as to why it shouldn’t be legal in the UK and the reason(s) why.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2012, 2:47pm

      Assuming you are straight, can you please explain to the readers how allowing same-sex couples to have access to a civil marriage will impact yours and others’ ability to marry? Could the majority of straight people in the UK provide examples of any negative impact on marriage. There are 10 countries allowing it, surely they or you can find something to support the spurious claims some are making? Facts please?

      1. Robert

        Its more than the current 10 sovereign states though.

        Its also Mexico City, one state in Brazil, 7 states and 2 tribes in the USA.

        Its also going to be Denmark shortly.

        Its also likely to be Ireland, Finland, Australia, Colombia, France, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Nepal, Mongolia, Uruguay, the rest of Brazil, more of the US and Scotland and England …

        Mr Integrity may claim to have “integrity” – he doesn;t, if he supports denying equality.

        People like him and Aiden may believe it will never happen – its happening. It will continue to happen. They don’t like it. Tough!

      2. I fear our Mr Integrity may be just another spit-and-run, so to speak.

        1. It would be nice to see him swallow instead – ie deal with the facts ;-)

          1. I think the essential problem with trolls is that they find reason in general too hard to swallow!

          2. They have no idea how to reason. Their indoctrination means the reasoning element is absent – in the same way as an unconscious person has no gag reflex.

    4. Another pathetic closet case. You do realise that most people are either in favour of marriage equality, or just don’t care enough to have an opinion either way as they recognise that it doesn’t affect their lives in any way at all.

      Those noisy, but still a minority, “straight” people who are making a big issue out of it need to take a long hard look at themselves and work out why they wet their pants over how other people live their lives.

  12. Paul Halsall 3 Apr 2012, 2:47pm

    Peter Tatchell has done a better job here than Stonewall.

    Peter needs to be honoured nationally. I expect he might turn down a knighthood, but (until we reform the Lords), I hope he would accept a life peerage – that would give him a permanent and real forum.

    1. By his own account he has turned down peerage twice.

      Also, by hiw own logice he cannot join in with the democratic process simply because, again by his own account, he is a sexual subversive out the destroy the foundation of the family.

      .

      1. Now where have I heard phrases such as “sexual subversive” from before ….

        Trolling again I see …

      2. I seriously doubt the sainted PT has been offered a peerage. A knighthood perhaps. And his logic in turning it down is, I believe, that as a republican he doesn’t believe in honours from the monarchy.

        (A little more logic than you seem capable of, Flush.)

  13. Staircase2 3 Apr 2012, 2:57pm

    Great campaign idea by Stonewall

  14. SOME PEOPLE ARE EX-GAY, GET OVER IT

    1. No such thing as ex-gay – brainwashed or in denial … but not ex gay, orientation can not be changed.

      Not that this is an issue re equalising marriage – just a distraction you are seeking to drop in “Loo”

      1. Orientation can be changed, you have no proof that I can not be?

        I have been chatting with someone over the last few days, who has changed his sexuality, he is not brainwashes, or in denial, he said he realise it was wrong, and he has changed, he said it took a lot of work, but has fought it and is now dating a woman. So it is posiable.

        1. He is just in denial.

          Who is this person? Figment of your imagination?

          A two-year study conducted by the American Psychological Association on the effectiveness of “conversion” therapies in turning gay people straight has concluded what most rational people already knew: It cannot be done.

          The panel reviewed 83 peer-reviewed journal articles that appeared in English between 1960 and 2007. Most were conducted before 1978, and only a handful had been conducted in the last 10 years. “Unfortunately, much of the research … contains serious design flaws,” said psychologist Judith M. Glassgold of Rutgers University, who chaired the committee. “Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms” from the conversion efforts, she said. Potential harms include depression and suicide attempts.

          “Scientifically rigorous older studies in this area found that sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this …

        2. … purpose,” she said. “At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted, or its long-term mental health effects. Potential harms include depression and suicide attempts for those falsely told their orientation has been changed”

        3. he realise[d] it was wrong … has fought it?!

          Is that what you did too, Aiden? And yet, look at you – can’t keep away from these forums. Not very successful, if you ask me.

          1. It certainly sounds like Aiden likes to pretend he doesnt like man on man action, we have seen his type before!

        4. you are a retard if you believe that are you some brainwashed man that comes from a religion that preachers false of hope of a sky god

    2. Prove it.

    3. SOME BISEXUAL PEOPLE SUPPRESS HALF OF THEIR SEXUALITY AND CLAIM TO BE EX-GAY.

      There, fixed it for you.

      You’re welcome.

      1. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 3:58pm

        Oh dear. Now I’m getting a headache…

      2. Actually you haven’t fixed it at all.

        Lots of “ex-gays” are gay people living miserable lives whilst suppressing their innate sexuality and spreading the misery around.

    4. Lying closet cases.

      If you are one of them, go ahead and hate yourself and self-flagellate all you like. Mental competent (a stretch in your case) adults don’t have to collaborate with the utterly de-bunked – and largely geared towards sales – ex-gay movement. If you want to spend your life being a miserable jack@ss, go ahead – but please stop expecting the rest of us to give a tinker’s cuss or think that you are anything other than a mendacious, easily manipulated, simple-minded nimrod.

      1. Spanner1960 3 Apr 2012, 3:58pm

        Nimrod?

        1. Yes, inadvertently complimentary there, aren’t you Valksy?

    5. Always the most critical like ex smokers

      1. The difference with an ex smoker, is that they are someone who no longer smokes. An “ex-gay” person is still gay, they are just in denial or brainwashed – or were in denial/are still in denial about their bisexuality. Their orientation has not changed. An ex smoked has changed their smoking status though.

    6. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Apr 2012, 4:41pm

      Prove to us that ex-straights exist? Until such time, you will remain delusional. The ex-gay myth and all that ridiculous and dangerous aversion therapy has been debunked by the leading medical and scientific organisations in America, the UK and elsewhere. Even Exodus International has claimed it cannot guarantee a person’s natural orientation can be changed. Remaining celibate doesn’t make you straight either.

    7. Jock S. Trap 4 Apr 2012, 2:52pm

      Yeah but look how bitter and twisted they become.

  15. Don’t stonewall receive donations nationally and not just London….why is it always London that benefits from Everything ?

    1. Isn’t it London where the MPs and peers are based who need to be influenced?

      1. Yes, but they are also influenced by their constituents (who don’t all live in London – unsurprisingly!)

        Or are you saying that we only needs to convince the people who live in London, the other 34 million who live in England – its irrelevant what they think?

        I understand London is important. London centric arguments are frustrating, arrogant and demeaning to those who live in “the provinces”

      2. I think it is also important to change the hearts and minds of people who are prejudiced about LGBTs, usually through ignorance and lack of contact with things LGBT. A campaign like Stonewall’s brilliant SPAGGOI campaign helps raise levels of visibility and representation of LGBTs through the whole community. That has positive implications on lots of matters, not just political considerations.

  16. I think this a great campaign, one that draws a thick black line under the undoubted mistakes of the past (and we ALL make them). I do agree, though, that London is not necessarily the frontline of the fight for LGBT equality and diversity any more. It would be good to see Stonewall expanding its wings a bit and getting out in the shires where large numbers of people still don’t quite understand that some people really are gay and are nowhere near getting over it. That’s a bit of a bland generalisation but large-scale advertising campaigns do tend to deal in them.

    Anyway, well done Stonewall!!

  17. I can’t get too excited by Stonewall’s recent enthusiasm for marriage equality given their previous position of opposing it. The Coalition for Marriage and other like minded hate groups keep throwing up Summerskill’s previous statements. The ship has sailed for them on this one.

    1. The ship may have sailed David, but the buses are being driven too. This is an amazing ‘in yer face’ campaign, you can’t deny that.

  18. I remember when NY got “gay” marriage someone commented and said it happenned becuase everyone got together to fight for it. Organisations, not only LGBT ones, were advocating for it and were coordinated.

    Is stonewall actually working with all these orgs. The NUS, trade unions movements etc should all be fighting for gay marriage. The C4M campaing is a coalition, lots of money and co-ordinated. The nus, trade unions etc do have a lot of money and members etc but are Stonewall getting them on board. Where is the coalition of marriage equality? and I don’t mean 2 guys running a petition!

    1. Well john, the fact is that marriage equality (please, not gay marriage) does appear to be a bit of a done deal politically. To be sure, several individual politicians oppose it but they do seem to be the oddities. Remember, this is happening under a Tory PM, unthinkable a generation ago. I think a lot of people are just a bit dazed and are not sure what is going on! Is it really all done and dusted politically? Does the Church opposition – so obviously held up by US dollars and signatures – really matter when their spokespeople come across as being so barmy? If we become apathetic as a result of these things, will it all fall through or by becoming more militant and staging a bigger all-in-it-together campaign as you suggest, will we all just look a bit overdressed for the occassion? I do find the whole thing very puzzling but very heartening too!!!

  19. Shoving it in peoples faces will not get support, just build up hostility.

    1. You can only dream it will …

      because the reality is the opposite

      You have chosen which side of history to be on, Aiden – and its the losing side.

    2. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 9:11am

      And you think the Pope, his cardinals, the Archbishop of Canterbury and his lot are *NOT* shoving it in people’s faces? The Church dictates to many people precisely how they should lead their lives, vocally disapproves of anything that isn’t in their books, often hypocritically does precisely those things it tells others not to do and then as soon as anybody returns any form of criticism back at them, they plead persecution.

      Sorry, but the worm has finally turned and God’s supporters are now in the minority, so go find some other witch to burn.

    3. Jock S. Trap 4 Apr 2012, 2:58pm

      Yeah well bigots like you are like that.

    4. That’s what white people in America said to black people during the Civil Rights movement. Didn’t work like that there then, won’t work like that here now.

      1. @Rehan

        That argument won’t wash with Aiden – because he thinks “minorities don’t matter” and he would prefer that inter racial marriage was criminalised again.

        1. Why do we even bother replying to that troll? I suppose hope springs eternal that, despite all evidence to date to the contrary, some element of reason will sink in against all the odds. Best to live in hope, I guess.

  20. If Stonewall supports marriage equality then that is what the banner on the bus should be saying. This logo isn’t clear.

    Last week Ben Bradshaw stated that gays didn’t want marriage and it wasn’t a priority. This echos back to BS’s 2009 statement. All gays org should be clearly stating the majority of people want marriage and NOT CPs. At the moment some of them are stating the opposite and they need to “get over it”!

    Stonewall’s campaign continues to be low key, half hearted, unconvining and a little bit confused.

  21. It would be good for Stonewall to campaign a bit more across the country, not just cities. SPAGGOI ads in quality shire newspapers (e.g., Bucks Herald, Oxford Times etc.) would be wicked. Should warn local cardiac units first though!

  22. What a terrible shame! Hopefully somebody like Coalition For Marriage will respond and place opposing adverts on the buses.

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