Reader comments · Secularists say David Cameron’s marriage comments may signal ‘betrayal’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Secularists say David Cameron’s marriage comments may signal ‘betrayal’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2012, 10:42am

    I’ve read it a couple of times now and still can’t get my head around what the issue is.

    He has made his position very clear on gay (equal) marriage, and made it clear that the current proposals do not encroach on church territory.

    1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 11:03am

      @Sister Mary Clarence….
      ………The Law and Justice Homophobic Tories never ever intended to give the GLB community equality and anyone who ever thought they were genuine about it were fooling themselves.The blue haired dowagers in the home counties have spoken and Call me Dave is listening and intends to comply.

      1. Really doesn’t make any difference. When it goes to the vote it will pass, because the entire Labour Party support it, the Lib Dems do and most Tories do. The rebels and all their hot air will be irrelevant in the end.

        1. Absolutely. In the Commons the vote will definitely be won.

          1. Its not the Commons we have to worry about!

    2. First we were told the consultation was about when civil marriage equality would be introduced and not a matter of ” if this goes ahead” or “if it doesn’t”, the language Cameron is now using is very indecisive and gives the anti-gay religious extremists hope that they can sway the outcome and veto civil marriage equality.

      We know we have the UK’s version of US NOM now in the form of C4M, (Coalition for Marriage) an alliance of extremist anti-gay groups and individuals, biblical literalists and evangelicals with a Christian dominionist agenda , their preferred modus operandi of distortion and misrepresentation of facts and issues with which they hope to force their unpleasant and extremist views upon everyone else.

      1. I do agree that Camerons use of “if it doesnt go ahead” seems a step back from where he has been on this issue and that is, potentially, concerning.

        I do think his can be seen as being in the context of having to win a parliamentary vote, and his intention being to win but not having a crystal ball to accurately predict. In the context of all comments made on equal marriage by the entire government, then I find it hard to conceive that the alarmists views that this is the coalition trying to slip on equal marriage are accurate. Its bad wording (LGBT people rightly have concerns that there may be some slip), undoubtedly people like the Archbishop of York will undoubtedly be unsatisfied that the words have not been more reassuring, and there are many other vested interests including those of the NSS.

        Its a difficult balance to get right for a PM to try and appeal to all aspects of the electorate. I do think that human rights i.e. equality should be at the top of the agenda. ….

        1. … I do think religious freedom is important (including freedom from religion). I do think religion should not interfere with state.

          I do think the language Cameron used last night was disappointing, although Downing Streets reassurances this morning that it is HOW and not IF equal marriage will be introduced. I think the disappointing language should mean we are cautious, and be aware of how the campaign develops. Our zeal and determination to secure equal marriage should be ignited further. We should though not over-react or allow other issues to crowd out the important crown of equal marriage. Continue to fight, cautiously welcome the governments plans to introduce equal marriage and hold them to account.

          1. Religious freedom is not under threat but lgbt equalities are.

          2. Actually JON religious freedom is under threat.

            Their are many who would seek to stifle the freedom’s of religions who would LIKE to marry gay people. They think they speak for ALL religions or that other people’s religions don’t matter.

            And Freedom from religion is definitely under threat

          3. Oh sure LGBT equalities are under threat.

            Religious freedoms are not (in the main), although some like Liberal Jews, Quakers, Unitarians and others are having their religious freedom impaired because of other religions bickerings and lies.

        2. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2012, 1:11pm

          “I do think his can be seen as being in the context of having to win a parliamentary vote, and his intention being to win but not having a crystal ball to accurately predict. In the context of all comments made on equal marriage by the entire government, then I find it hard to conceive that the alarmists views that this is the coalition trying to slip on equal marriage are accurate”

          I agree entirely. I know the Labour die hards have be doing all they can to poison everyone else’s view on this issue, and to be fair it must stick in their throats that Labour, when in power were not pushing this issue at all, and the Conservatives/Lib Dems have come in and almost immediately made it into a major issue, but that said it has been pushed very hard and people can twist and mis-read what Cameron said all they like, but the message is still clear, it is the government’s intention for their to be marriage equality.

  2. Please sign this LibDem petition and include a comment to send a message to the Home Office that you want to see equal marriage in the UK!


  3. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Apr 2012, 10:53am

    Bring in CIVIL marriage and I will be as happy as a pig in muck.

    Who cares what the cults think. It’s nowt to do with them.

    And PS. Dave.

    Could you do something about bl@@dy petrol tax.

    1. Could you do something about bl@@dy petrol tax.

      Yes he can increase it. That’s all they ever do and then smug Londoners tell you to use public transport.

    2. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 11:25am

      A typical, introspective selfish attitude from a gay man.
      Even as a confirmed atheist, I see no reason why those of faith should not be allowed to have religious ceremonies if organisations wish to offer them. For the government to attempt to ban them is both thuggish and disrespectful, and they should stay out of religious affairs entirely and leave it up to the consciences of those involved.

      1. Indeed. We need to make more of the “slippery slope” tactics that the anti-gay religions will happily use against us. If we accept the principle that dominant religious sects get to decide how ALL religious organisations in this land conduct themselves, where does that end up? Will synagogues be forced to preach Christianity? Will Hindu temples be banned from accepting children less they corrupt them from following the True Faith™? And will atheists be penalised in the law because they do not attend church?

        We are NOT a theocracy, and most definitely we are NOT a Catholic one. Our politicians need to tell both the Cardinals and the CoE Archbishops to keep their interfering noses out of government business, and most definitely out of how people live their lives.

      2. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Apr 2012, 2:45pm

        As someone fighting this for 40 years it is no longer my fight.

        So F off.

    3. I’d rather have equality. We will still only be second best if the same sex marriages carried out by gay-friendly faiths are given no legal standing.

  4. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 10:58am

    So, the double speak of The Law and Justice Tories is alive and well, as Call me Dave’s speech from the both sides of his mouth at once this morning confirms. I said when they first mooted Marriage Equality, that the Tories had already made plans for an “out” and this is it and just the beginning folks. Next we will have the obsequious T May making a watered down speech in the next few days and then another flunkie will drop a hint and so on until finally they will say CPs wil just have to do and count yourselves luck we are giving you that. Frankly
    I expected some sort of about turn after Cleggs success in getting secret court cases thrown out and it would seem he has thrown the GLB community to the wolves as payment for that .

    1. It you who said the Tories, if they got into goevrnment would be rolling back LGBT rights legislation too? They decided to propose marriage equality instead so your comments have little credability.

      1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 11:16am

        …let’s wait and see then shall we. The Tories will not stand up to their backers in the home counties and that is the nub of the matter.The silent majority have spoken and Call me Dave is listening.

        1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 11:27am

          Oh give it a rest with the “Call Me Dave” crap.
          It wasn’t funny the first time and now it, and you, are becoming tedious in the extreme.

          1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 12:26pm

            Obviously having the desired effect though, as intended, moron. it has exposed you as a Law and Justice Tory troll.

          2. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 3:15pm

            Well suck it up Tory troll. ’cause Call me Dave it is whether you like it or not.

        2. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:58pm

          No, it’s just REALLY fcking irritating.
          Grow up.

      2. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2012, 1:13pm

        Well said mate – the sky hasn’t fallen in after all, despite what certain individuals wanted us to think

        1. Sister Mary Clarence

          Well said!

          I wish some people would just get a grip!

          Or is it that power that gay people have again – causing the sky to fall in, tornados in Texas, earthquakes in New Zealand and tsunamis … yeah right.

          Equal marriage is on the agenda and the moral argument has already been won. The parliamentary argument will also be won.

          Do I care whether the government leader who brings it in is Cameron, Clegg, Milliband or someone entirely different? Not one jot, just give us equality – respect our human rights.

          1. Hear hear!

        2. I agree. Its like this thread has been set upon by a group of people who are trying to talk us into believing an entirely distorted view of the situation.

          Marriage equality is very much on the cards at the moment, with strong public support. The two parties proposing it have been screaming from the roof tops about it, and been generally very critical of those opposing it.

          This latest story actually reads to me like Cameron is setting down his territory and reminding the church of theirs, and yet we’ve all these vacuous comments about the end being nigh all over again.

          1. Absolutely, Jose

            One sentence in one meeting seems to be what some people on this thread are worried about.

            I am more interested in the many other comments, words, statements and promises that have been made elsewhere, and the other words in the same meeting, that support equal marriage.

            We are going to win. We are on the right side.

  5. I hope the political apathy in this country will end one day.

    Perhaps we will eventually be so pissed off that we all stand up and say enough is enough. Preferably before we’re taken over by religious extremist and turn into America lite.

  6. Polly Conroy 4 Apr 2012, 11:01am

    If the legal marriage ceremony extends to gay marriages then I will be happy.

    Marriages can be conducted on a number of premises, now, churches, hotels and so on.

    The problem that churches see is that, if a hotel cannot discriminate against people it is providing a service to, then neither should a church be able to. If a church can discriminate, then so should a hotel be able to. It is Gordian knot.

    People may claim that they do not care what goes on in the houses with funny spires, but actually they do and it would only be a matter of time before the issue was pushed again.

    For the churches, I think it is a real fear. The real issue here is whether the churches should have special status and, as a society, we are not ready to say “no” yet, more’s the pity

    1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 11:11am

      @Polly Conroy…
      ….As Alexander the Great proved, the Gordian Knot is not infallible and the Law and Justice Homophobic Tories sorely need to get that into their thick homophobic skulls.
      They are rapidly beginning to look like a one term Government and this will surely confirm that, if the GLB community of GB put their minds to it and put on a concerted effort to bring about a government that recognises that you simply cannot discriminate against a large part of the population in the way they intend to. Marriage Equality will be reality throughout the UK no matter how much the vile Abrahamic cults scream and threaten..

  7. Keith Farrell 4 Apr 2012, 11:01am

    At last the goverment is admitting that the civil parnership are not the same as marrage, that we do not have all the same rights, so if the civil partnerships remain as our only way of being a legal couple, it will mean that we are still being discrimanated against

  8. I do think Cameron was pandering to the religious and I think this is wrong as state and religion should not be intertwined.

    That said I did see Camerons comments as stating that equal marriage is very much the intention of the government and I read his words as saying he was prepared to fall out with religious people to secure equal marriage and prepared to use cross words if need be, although he hoped that would not be necessary. I took it as a barbed (but understated) reference to the cross words of the religious leaders recently. It was him drawing a line in the sand saying this is going to happen, your recent words are out of order, I am prepared to fall out publically with you to secure this, please do not make me have to.

    I do think his cosying up to religious leaders is regrettable.

    1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:24pm

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
      Politicians of all persuasions, and religions, again of all faiths, have some kind of unwritten agreement about not stepping on each other’s toes. It is obvious that Labour knew this when they brought in CP’s, which were as close to ‘marriage’ as they could get without pissing the religionists off.

      Now it seems Cameron has stepped a bit too far and broken the rule, and so is now desperately back-pedalling to make amends, whilst trying to keep face with the equalities crowd. I really can’t wait to see how he’s going to get out of this one.
      One thing is guaranteed: There will be blood.

      1. As long as it is religious blood?

        Our civil rights are not a matter for debate.

        People who make the disgusting lifestyle choice to be religious are not allowed to impose their ludicrous beliefs on the rest of us.

        And if Cameron caves then the Tories should be punished for their sickening bigotry at the next election.

        1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:56pm

          “Our civil rights are not a matter for debate.”
          Says who?

          That is *precisely* what they are debating.
          Do you seriously think they really give a toss? They want to look good offering equalities (fuelled by EHCR directives), but are walking on eggshells in case they upset the religionists who are the Tories core voters.

          If they are not careful, they are going to fall between two stools and drop the lot.

  9. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 11:24am

    It would appear from the thumbs down I have received so far that The Law and Justice Homophobic Tories have succeeded in pulling the wool over a lot of GLB eyes in GB. That or the Tory trolls are out in force today and that is a strong probability and lets hope that is the case. If however, the Tories have succeeded in duping the British Gay community then that is the true Color of the Tory machine and their promises were merely window dressing and proves the tories for what the are Rabid Xtian Homophobes.

    1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 11:29am

      Well whatever you say about the Tories, they have done more for LGBT people in two years than Labour did in 13.

      1. Yes but Labour made that for them dead easy, if anything Tories are guilty of not doing more. Labour had to work in homophobic Britain created by Tatcher years.

        1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:26pm

          Thatcher!!? That was over 25 years ago!
          Please stop dragging her up every time you want to excuse Labour’s complete and utter failure to address a problem.

          Labour only brought in CP’s because they were pressurised by the EU, otherwise thay would have done Sweet Fanny Adams.

          1. What have the Tories done for the LGBT community in the last 2 years?

            That slimy opportunist CallmeDave makes some niice speeches,

            But in terms of actual legislation – what have they done?

          2. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 1:04pm

            Have you any idea how long it takes to pass a bill?
            I hate to say it but there are slightly more pressing matters at the moment including two wars, a collapsing Euro-state and our finances going down the sh|tter.

            They are at least fixing what Labour should have had the balls to do years ago. (or at least, I hope they are.)

          3. Jock S. Trap 4 Apr 2012, 1:30pm

            Indeed Spanner1960 and had Gordon Brown and his ‘government’ won the last election we wouldn’t even be having this consultation on how to bring in Marriage Equality NOT if, this marriage equality debate from a Prime Minister who wants this legislation, this debate in PinkNews because Mr Brown considered Civil Partnership to be adequate. This debate, had Labour remained wouldn’t even be on the cards.

          4. if it wasnt for labour tories would still be denying us equal rights

        2. Actually I thought all the leg work for the Treaty of Amsterdam was done during John Major’s government – the Treaty of Amsterdam being the driver of all the EU origin equalities legislation Labour introduce

          1. It was labour’s introduction of Human Rights Act enforced by EHRC and not EU what made equality laws possible

      2. New Aussie 4 Apr 2012, 11:58am

        Really? Let’s look at shall. Labour equalised the age of consent, repealed the Tory clause 28, brought in civil partnerships, removed the hundreds of gay only crimes or clauses from the statute book, brought in employment protection for gay people, introduced a ban on discrimination in the provision of goods and services, introduced hate crimes legislation specifically with reference to sexuality.

        By contrast, the Tories have only actually introduced a law to wipe spent gay convictions for Crimea that are no longer on the attute book (because labour repealed them all). This is an important reform don’t get me wrong but that and the present consultation is all. They have done.

        By all means go on supporting the Tories if you must but don’t keep making mendacious claims about heir relative track record on gay rights

        1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:31pm

          I admit Clause 28 was wrong, but it was a rushed bill and should never have got to statute, and I think most Tories would agree with that nowadays. As for everything else, it was at the behest of the EU and the EHCR. *Nothing* was implemented as home-grown legislation by Labour, it was all grudgingly taken on as part of the Lisbon treaty, which they so dutifully slipped in under the radar without so much as a remark to the rest of the population.

          1. Clause 28 was the same as that horrifiic anti-gay law in St Petersburg.

            It absolutely should not be forgotten.

            Especially when you look at the monstrously homophobic vioting record of so many of the current Tory cabiinet and MP’s.

            The Tory Party is the natural home for bigotry.

          2. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 1:12pm

            There you go again like some rabid spawn of Ben Elton. Clause 28 is HISTORY. It is gone. It has ceased to be. Gone to meet its maker. It would be pushing up the daisies if you hadn’t nailed it to the perch.

            The Tories have seen the error of their ways and have come to recognise you don’t mess with equalities. (unless, of course the church say otherwise) Because we all know three bishops beats a pair of poofs any day.

          3. New Aussie 4 Apr 2012, 2:23pm

            Spanner you really are a little bit misinformed. The major government had fought tooth and nail against the European court. So Blair sensibly repatriated the EHCR. There were cases at the time relating to age of consent but their ramifications were EU wide. Has it escaped your notice that there are still countries in the EU with differential ages of consent?

            But other than that the screes of other pieces of gay law reform I listed had not a jot to do with the European court. Civil partnerships, removing homophobic statutes, hate crimes legislation, anti discrimination in employment and the provision of services, the repeal of clause and numerous other reforms were introduced because they were settled labour policy and in each case apart from civil partnerships they were introduced in the face of fierce tory opposition.

          4. Yes you are absolutely right, it was Human Rights Act introduced by Labour with strong tory opposition what drove equality laws, the same Act that tories always wanted to get rid of

          5. Most Tories nowadays? David Cameron voted to keep Clause 28 didn’t he?

          6. @Hamish

            Give him the chance to judge he has changed by proving that he can be a statesman on this issue.

            He should be judged (regarding LGBT rights) on a combination of his achievement on equal marriage and the overall context of all his comments on LGBT issues, not on one comment to religious leaders (when he said many others in the same meeting that were clearly supportive).

      3. No they haven’t spanner. They may do something positive and introduce marriage equality but they havent yet and if they do can you please realise this is a coalition government not a Tory government.

        I couldn’t give two sh!ts about party politics. I just want to be able to MARRY my WIFE.

        I’m not going to kiss the feet of David Cameron or anyone else for allowing me to have the same rights as everybody else. Just like black people shouldn’t thank white people for their freedom, it’s assbackwards

        1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:36pm

          Get real. It’s not a coalition, it’s a forced marriage.
          The LibDems are there under great sufferance. This government only exists because there is not a single group of people with sufficient backbone to stand up and be counted. All three major parties are spineless drips.

          I am no Tory, or for that matter any other party political supporter, as I feel they are all as bad as each other. I totally agree that equality should take preference over democracy. People often spout the word “democracy” until they happen to be in the minority, and then all of a sudden, its ‘unfair’.

          1. It’s a coalition government with a Lib Dem equalities minister. This is a point of fact.

          2. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:52pm

            Like that makes a jot of difference.
            Their so-called ‘equalities’ minister is also a staunch dyed-in-the-wool Christian.

          3. A Christian (I have no idea whether Featherstone is or not) but having seen how ferociously she is willing to condemn the vitriol of religious leaders, I think its clear to say she is on the side of equality and wants equal marriage.

          4. New Aussie 4 Apr 2012, 2:35pm

            Er spanner, Lynne featherstone is the source and instigator of the gay marriage legislation and it is thought to have been one of the conditions of the coalition agreement that she have the freedom to do this. Note that it was actually LibDem policy before the election. It has never been Tory policy, not even now, tho Cameron and several leading Tories have voiced support. It IS coalition policy tho and that is firmly down to the LibDems. If you really can’t admit that then there is little hope for you.

          5. @Spanner

            Do you welcome these words:

            “This is about love and commitment and things that are good for society and families; it is a matter of celebrating love and commitment.”

            :“I have heard homophobic language used in connection with this very loving and progressive step … such language belongs in the dark ages”

            “They [the opponents] do not have to agree with this. But we will have to agree to disagree because for those who want to express their love in a civil marriage, then I think the state is here to facilitate that and to encourage it and rejoice in it.”

            “I totally respect religious views but I think that sort of intemperate language has been misjudged,”

            “I think most people, gay or straight, would find the cardinal’s comments offensive. Using language like ‘grotesque’ really only reinforces the fact that there is still discrimination against gay people. I know many many Catholics who are concerned by such vituperative language. I don’t want to get into any kind of …

          6. … argument with the churches or any of the religions.”

            “Anyone who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage should not marry someone of the same sex.”

            They are all comments from Featherstone. Now whether she is a Christian or not, I have no idea – nor do I care. What is clear is that she is prepared to confront the church and religious leaders on ensuring the issue of equal marriage is ensured.

    2. I thumbed it down for clearly being a politically motivated rant against the Tories which I’ve read from you on more than one occasion. Same way I thumb down the usual posts about Ben Summerskill and Stonewall on their stores by that user.

      And I’m Scottish so I think my attitude towards the Tories goes without saying

    3. ahhh Paddyswurds… very quick on the mark to criticise tories at any given opportunity but fails to give equal weighting to the likes of Ken livignstone who wnats make London a beacon of islam, ivnties people who wnat me and you dead to city hall and has lots of friends who would quite happily see LGBT people margionalised. you’d rather haver a rant about Tories who are introducing marriage equality. what a plonker.

      1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 12:56pm

        …. I will always oppose the Law and Justice Tories because they have never been a friend of the Irish and bitterly opposed the Belfast agreement which has turned out to be such an astounding success and is being used as a model for Conflict resolution worldwide.
        They also introduced the rabidly homophobic clause 28 which had effect over the entire UK.
        I couldn’t care less about Ken Livingstone or British domestic politics in general, but this particular fight does have implications for us here in the north of Ireland as it will have undue influence on attempts to introduce Marriage Equality here if it should not become law in GB.

        1. Northern Ireland has yet to introduce same sex adoption, unforunately it will be centuries until marriage equality is legal there. At least a right wing government on the mainland is proposing marriage equality.

          1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 3:39pm

            ..What exactly has mainland Europe to do with this. Which government do you mean, German, French Spanish or perhaps the Dutch, none of which have any interest in Irish or for that matter British politics. We are talking about the two islands of GB and Ireland. In the north of Ireland Sinn Fein and the DUP have made commitments to introduce a slew of GLB measures, including Marriage Equality and Gay adoption in the next session as there was too much down for this session and hence a danger of running out of time with all the hassle that would entail, including the necessity to re table the motions. I am however still mystified as to how mainland Europe has any bearing on the matter.

          2. What the hell are you going on about? When I referred to the mainland, I meant Great Britain as Northern ireland, although part of the UK is not the mainland. I was contrasting between mainland Uk and Northern ireland’s attitude towards LGBT rights. On the mainland we have a Tory government promoting equal marriage whereas in Northern ireland, the executive are refusuing same sex adoption rights and same sex marriage.

  10. Peter & Michael 4 Apr 2012, 11:31am

    Seems like another U-Turn by this Coalition Government, if this happens this action will certainly embitter people and with the Pensioners losing out, the conservatives will lose these votes at the next election

  11. Tories are bowing to minority of vocal right wingers ignoring large section of middle ground. They have to modernise otherwise will become a party of dinosaurs. They have a perfect chance to do just that with gay marriages, will they hold they nerve or will they blink first? They have to transform like the Labour party did.

    1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:38pm

      Huh? God help us all if that happens.

      1. And become even more right wing…

        Or go to the left?

        I’m confused.

  12. Paul Power 4 Apr 2012, 11:32am

    I don’t like the way Cameron talks of ‘gay marriage’. I see opened his address to the religious leaders at Downing Street with the term – gay marriage.

    This isn’t about gay marriage, it’s about equal marriage – there’s a big difference.

    All we want is equality, nothing more, nothing less, which is more than we can say for our religious counterparts.


    1. What Paul said.

      Marriage equality

      NOT ‘gay marriage’.

  13. And suppose he does abandon the plans to introduce equal civil marriage- and say to us- well at least you have most of the rights of marriage with civil partnerships.
    Does he think that we are going to say”OK- we accept you’ve done your best- and we will just have to accept that we will never be able to marry”?
    Of course we wont! We aren’t going to just curl up and roll over. We aren’t going to go away and forget about it! we are HERE. And we will always be here. And future generations will always be coming along. We will carry on and on and on fighting until the injustice is addressed. This matter can never be resolved by political capitulation to the religions.
    It’s like anti-semitism and racism- injustices are still with us- but those groups are still fighting- and will always be fighting for their equal rights.

  14. Nurse Gloomyweather 4 Apr 2012, 11:56am

    There’s no issue here. It’s customary for a prime minister to have meetings with religious leaders, just as he or she will meet with any other group of people – some of them far more unsavoury. There is nothing in his speech to suggest that he is going back on his word. This is just the National Secular Society trying to drum up publicity for itself. I’m an atheist, but today I shall be deleting them from Facebook, and from my browser favourites. I hate manipulative, alarmist people.

    1. Paula Thomas 4 Apr 2012, 12:44pm

      The issue isn’t his having the meeting. The issue is what he said at it.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 1:41pm

      I’m an atheist too but instead of saying “If this doesn’t go ahead”, implies that there is potential for ditching the marriage equality issue altogether. “If” always denotes possibility, favourable or unfavourable. He could have replaced “if” with “when” and the uncertainty would have been diffused. It wasn’t a careful choice of words in my view.

      1. You need to look at everything he said in its entirity and not isolate one sentence.

        Of course the Telegraph, Tebbit, Lord Carey, Sentamu, the C4M and the Anti Gay Institute would like us to concentrate on one word “IF” …

        However, Cameron also made it clear he was prepared to fall out with the church over equal marriage.

        Set it all in context. If the PM is having a meeting with religious leaders then he is going to say some words that are acceptable to them. Equally, he said some they did not like – such as pointing out that he was prepared to fight and use strong words if need be. Set this into a context of all the words Cameron has used on equal marriage. Set it into a context of Downing Streets clarification this morning.

        Lets not concentrate on the word IF, until there is evidence there is reason to expect slip. Lets hold the government to account but not predict failure. We are going to win. We are on the right side of history and Cameron see’s that.

    3. The National Secular Society is keeping a much needed eye on the religious right in this country, they do a great job reporting on and confronting those who seek special religious privileges at everyone else’s expense.

      I suspect you are not an atheist at all Nurse Gloomyweather but a troll religionist more likely, your attempt to conflate secularism with atheism is the big giveaway.

      1. They are doing a good job of exposing those religious groups which either act inappropriately, interfere with civil matters etc.

        They need to take care not to damage the campaign for equal marriage by placing unnecessary weight on some concerns.

        Camerons words last night were not ideal, but in the context of the others words he is reported to have said in the same meeting about equal marriage were not necessarily as worrying. In the context of everything he has said on equal marriage they were a minor blip (if that).

        Now, in terms of religious involvement in the state his comments were concerning and the NSS were absolutely right to show that. It unfortunate that equal marriage was where some of the focus has been because this has allowed people like Aiden to suggest that equal marriage will not happen on the basis on one sentence spoken last night and taken out of context of everything else said either in that meeting or on the subject.

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 12:31pm

    It’s definitely the “if” word that really bothers me and implies a possible concession to the religious bigots who are opposed to equal civil marriage which is really none of there business.

    “IF” the equal marriage debate is ditched, Tory MP Francis Maude’s prediction will come to fruition, the Tories will be unelectable in 2015. Stopping the marriage equality debate will guarantee fewer gay votes including mine. The sad part about that is that the Tory MPs who oppose equal marriage are quite prepared to let their party lose for the sake of bigotry.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 12:32pm

      “…..their business”, I meant to have said.

  16. CallMeDave says “If this doesn’t go ahead, to those of us who’d like it to go ahead, there will still be civil partnerships, so gay people will be able to form a partnership that gives them many of the advantages of marriage.”


    Is this a possibility?

    What are Matthew Sephton and LGBTory’s opinion on this.

    Do they unequivocally condemn David Cameron’s hesitattion on this issue?

    Or are they yet again forbidden by Tory HQ from having an opinion on LGBT rights not approved by the government.

    It really is quite simple. religious cults have NO BUSINESS in trying to limit civil rights.

    And if they try they deserve loud condemnation.

    And if the Tories try to accommodate religious bigotry then their hypocrisy and bigotry and opportunism wiill be remembered at the next election.

    In the meantime we are all waiting to hear Matthew Sephton and LGBTory condemn Cameron’s latest comments.

    They pretend to suipport LGBT equality after all.

    1. “IF THIS DOESN’T GO AHEAD??????

      Is this a possibility?”

      Ultimately this will go before parliament for a vote and as has been said before it’s likely this will not be a whipped vote so it it entirely possible that it could fail. Although it would certainly be due to MPs of all parties, rather than just the Tories

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 12:44pm

        Yes, indeed, but the Tories would probably be the majority to see it fail even if it means losing the election to it in 2015. They’re quite prepared to see that happen. There have been very few of them declaring support for equal marriage. Sad, very sad.

        1. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2012, 1:22pm

          “They’re quite prepared to see that happen.”

          Do you know anything about politics whatsoever?

          I hardly think they proposed it, expecting to lose the vote, particularly when they have banged on about it so much.

          This story seems to have bought the numpties out in force today

          1. They gained 9% of the LGBT vote at the last election (despite polling 38% of the LGBT vote, 3 months before the election).

            If they Law and Justice Bigot Tory Party causes marriage equality to fail then I expect their level of LGBT support will be even lower at the next election.

            They really are a party of morons if they allow that to happen. Through the horrific bigotry of certain segments of their party, they are happy to alienate millions of voters who could otherwise quite happily vote for them.

      2. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:50pm

        I’m not so sure it will go for a free vote.
        If the Tories voters think their party was ultimately responsible for instigating “gay marriage”, (even if it was the whole house that voted), then they could lose big numbers. If they were to simply make some decision that ‘CP’s are quite suitable and marriage is a step too far’, it would quell all the potential vote-shifters.

        I really wouldn’t hold your breath on this one.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 1:36pm

          The only one who is intimating uncertainty in all this is David Cameron when he said…”If this doesn’t go ahead”. He should never have said it.

          1. What else did he say in the meeting about equal marriage, though?

            What else has he said on the subject in the last couple of years?

            One comment, not too concerned particularly given the audience he was speaking to …

            But, lets hold Cameron to account but lets not assume we have lost because of the use of one sentence or one word.

        2. If the Tories introduce marriage equality this year then by the time the next election comes round, equality will be almost univerally accepted and won’t be an election issue.

          Waiting till 2015 is another story entirely as the christo-fascists who usually vote Tory will want to punish the Tories for introducing equality.

          And people who support democracy and civil rights will want to punish the Tories if they fail to remove civil parthership Apartheid.

      3. @Kris

        Before a vote can be held in Parliament, a Bill has to be brought forward, so if the Coalition Government DID drop it, then it wouldn’t even get to a vote in Parliement, unless an MP brought it in as a Private Member’s Bill. I think that’s how it works, but I’m not an expert on Parliamentary procedure!

        1. I’ve just noticed that I spelled Parliament wrong at one point in my previous comment – perhaps “Par-lie-ment” is rather apt, though!

        2. Neither am I but I believe you may be correct so that would be two ways this could not go ahead but I think it likely it would get to a vote stage due to the Lib Dems if nothing else if this was indeed part of the coalition agreement

          1. If and when it does go to a vote, I think it will get through as there are enough MPs in favour of marriage equality, from all parties, especially if it’s a free vote like you mentioned earlier.

          2. @BennieM

            Cameron could not afford to not bring a bill forward. I think Featherstone is so strong on this she would resign and bring forward a private members bill or support the opposition (If they were to bring a bill)

            I think WHEN a bill is laid before parliament that it will succeed – the majority of MPs is there. The Lords might be a different kettle of fish, but all LGBT measures of the last few years have been problematic and most of them (including some controversial measures) have been won.

          3. @Stu

            I think you’re probably right, I just never like to count my chickens before they’ve hatched and I tend to expect the worst! Probably not my best trait!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 12:42pm

      dAVID, yes it most definitely is a possibility. For him to have said “If this doesn’t go ahead” seems to suggest that it may not which would clearly translate into a cave-in, not that it would surprise me. I wonder why he said it though? Religious denominations are already aware that there is no mandate to compel them to participate in same-sex marriages, so this makes no sense. The House of Lords could quite easily issue a suspensory veto to kill it and there are people in that unelected, undemocratic house of bigots who would be more than happy to do it, 26 of whom are CoE clerics and many more of their mindset.

      1. If marriage equality is not law by 2015, then it is quite clear hat no LGBT person can ever again trust the ToryScum Party.

        Why has LGBTory not been contacted for their (lack of) opinion on this matter?

    3. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 12:44pm

      Of course it is a distinct possibility.
      The middle-England, church-going, blue-rinse brigade are the Conservative Party’s core voters. They piss them off at their dire peril.
      What is hoped is that the party will be more convincing than the church and they can be persuaded to put up with the changes. What I think the Tories hadn’t counted on was the Churches vociferous backlash, and this could jeopardise everything, so if push comes to shove, if its a choice between Outraged of Tunbridge Wells vs Mr & Mr Smith, I’m afraid the poofs will get the big elbow and have to put up with their second class status.

      1. The OBVIOUS solution is to cancel the unnecessary ‘consultation’ on equality (which serves basically serves as an invite to get the christo-fascists angry and start a campaign).

        I think CallmeDave needs to introduce equality legislation before this summer parliamentary break.

        By the time the next election comes round even more of the blue rinse christo-fascists will be dead, and if the Law and Justice Party are relying on christo-fascists for their support, then tts days as a viable political party are numbered.

    4. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2012, 1:15pm

      “Do they unequivocally condemn David Cameron’s hesitattion on this issue?”

      Let me help you here. There was no hesitation. You’re a Labour troll, of course you want to breed uncertainty.

      Question for you … why didn’t the Labour Party introduce marriage equality?

      1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 1:45pm

        Because, as it would have to go to the entire house for a vote it had little hope of success…..The law and justice homophobic Tories would have gone all out to defeat it.

        1. Bull….they didn’t have the stomach to take on the religious. Regardless of who introduces the bill it will have to go into the house for a vote. If labour had had the fight to do it themselves and it was voted down by the opposition then they could at least say well we tried and they blocked it. nInstead a second rate system was put in place. I ain’t a fan of the Tories but fair play to them for going for it. If indeed it is voted down then Cameron can still say he was the one who went for it and it was blocked by the House, not just Tories

        2. It is impossible to have any rational debate with the likes of you here.

          Cameron has been about modernising the Tory party and shedding its uncaring reputation from day 1. He is on record pre the election and coalition as taking a strong view on equality and gay rights.

          He has made this a very high profile issue and the government very clearly laid out their position early on.

          Again in this article, he is putting the church in its place.

          It is very clear that marriage equality has strong public support, and therefore it is a good policy for them to push, and I’m absolutely sure it will help them as a party to shed some of the negative opinion gay people have towards the party in general.

          With Labour and the Lib Dems also supporting it, its not that they are going to be pushing disaffected voters into the hands of their opponents either – therefore its actually a pretty safe one for them to back.

          1. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 3:59pm

            …”.It is impossible to have any rational debate with the likes of you here” Typical comment of a fascist loser. It is called democracy and just because you don’t like my comments doesn’t mean I’m going away any time soon, quite the contrary in fact.

            .Call me Dave is still in bed with the bigoted xtian homophobic Polish Law and Justice Party in Europe. If he is suddenly all for GLB rights why has he not rejoined with other moderate conservative groups in Europe?

          2. Jose says: “Cameron has been about modernising the Tory party and shedding its uncaring reputation from day 1.”

            How many of the bigotted scumbag MP’s has he censured for their continuing homophobic bigotry.

            Surely you haven’t failed to notice that on average, every 2 weeks, yet another Tory MP reveals that he is a neo-fascist homophobic pig.

            CallmeDave seems to be all PR and no substance when it comes to basic LGBT civil rights.

          3. And what has been done about Labour MPs signed up to C4M petition? Or the LibDem ones? This isn’t just a Tory issue

      2. Labour SHOULD have introduced marriage equality but didn’t and they should be condemned for the homophobic half meaure that CP Apartheid was (and they need to stop going on about CP’s as it they are something more than an offensive stepping stone to equality – I suspect that the homophobes at Stonewall like Ben Summerskill persuaded them that Apartheid would be adequate for the LGBT community).

        However the Labour Party is not stained to the same appalling extent as the Law and Justice Tories when it comes to horrific homophobic bigotry.

        The Tory Party will no longer exist within 20 years unless they expel the christo-fascist element running through the party.

        It’s conveniient enough for the party to be the natural home of homophobia in 2012.

        But unfortunately for them their christo-fascist base is old and dying.

        And the Tory Party’s contempt for equal rights is nauseating to a younger generation which it needs to attract to survive

      3. And by the way – the Labour Party has nothing to do with the fact that the LGBTory group is nothing but a worthless PR gesture to hide the sickeningly bigotted nature of the Tory Party.

        Surely LGBTory and / or Matthew Sephton are appalled that LGBT human rights are being held to ransom by their own party.

        Or is LGBTory so worthless and populated by people who hate themselves so much that they will jump under a bus to protect their own hate-filled political party.

  17. I have said all along that it will never happen, the cracks are starting to show.. first the spy on people bill has had a set back, redefining of marriage will be next..

    1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 1:17pm

      I hope you are wrong, but I have the feeling that we will end up witha watered-down compromise yet again.

      1. Of course we will .

        The Law and Justice Tory Party is the natural home of bigotry.

        Kind words by CallmeDave does not hide the Tory Party’s contempt for equality and human rights.

        1. if anything gets watered down it will be down ONLY to tories, labour support it inc. allowing churches to hold SS marriages and lib dems support it

    2. Downing Streets comment this morning “The government remain entirely committed to introducing legislation to ensure same sex couples are able to marry.”

      That coupled with all mainstream political parties supporting equality, I remain convinced that the right thing will happen – human rights for LGBT people will be restored.

      Its only really a minority of bigots who have views such as (to quote Aiden on PN yesterday) “minorities do not matter” who believe that human rights and equality are not important and that this will not happen. Cameron was very clear last night that he is prepared to fall out to ensure equal marriage,

      Fighting talk might be needed, bring it on.

      The militant anti-gay bullies like Aiden will not win.

      They are on the wrong side of history.

      1. As I said, Minorities do not matter thats why they are minorities.
        If they did matter, they would not be.

        It’s not about winning for me. We dont need to ‘win’, there will just be no change to the current deffination of marriage.

        The militant gay bullies like Stu + Co will not win, as there is a big risk for Dave, and I dont think he wants to leave Number 10 yet, so he will backtrack. Local elections soon, so he has to please us the majoriaty in hope that we will vote for him, which we wont. Its BNP or UKIP for me and my Family..

        The cracks are starting to show and it will soon fall, as will the Government.

        1. “We dont need to ‘win’, there will just be no change to the current deffination of marriage.”

          You’re right in one sense, you won’t win. But WHEN equal marriage is granted you won’t lose either. Men and women will continue to marry, they will continue to have children, the world will keep spinning and life will go on. You obviously see a minority as something not worth recognising, and I’m sure white people used to think the same of their black slaves, or men thought about women before they were granted equality. But look how those fights turned out.

        2. Says so much about you, Aiden that you support the BNP or UKIP … probably not UKIP (because you would need to have a clear CRB check or mortgage to join them!)

          Militant anti-gay bullies like you (in a minority yourself, as a BNP/UKIP supporter) won’t lose or win. LGBT people will win human rights. The change is happening. The change is coming. Your days of being able to treat LGBT people as irrelevant, sub human and unequal are gone.

          I look forward to seeing how you try and explain your comments away the day same sex couples are able to marry in Britain as in many other countries of the world (and many more to come). You will either pull some vault-face or (more likely) act like a militant anti-gay bully can be predicted to and hide.

          Why a militant anti-gay person would want to be on a gay website? Bullying and trolling … exactly what Aiden the antigay militant bully is.

          The moral argument is won. Parliaments will vote for equal marriage. Can’t wait to marry my man!

  18. It’s not just the Church that Cameron is facing opposition from, but also his backbenchers. I don’t think he’ll back down, though. There would be a big uproar from the LibDems and Labour if he tried to, and it would be hugely damaging to his “Tories aren’t homophobic anymore” rhetoric.

    However, maybe I’m being optimistic, so if he does back down then I hope that every LGBT person, and straight allies, sends him letters, goes on protests marches, and just makes a lot of noise about it. Tell him that we refuse to be treated as second class citizens any longer.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 1:33pm

      We should withhold our votes in 2015 if that turns out to be the case.

      1. Robert

        Do you honestly believe that Cameron could make a U turn on this policy and not be damaged? Of course not.

        DId he realise that this was a policy that would instill some debate? Absolutely, he has made this crystal clear

        So, last nights comments were about pouring a little oil on the waters of the religious, big deal … perhaps not what I would like as I prefer state and religion to be separate but nonetheless hardly an impact on coalition policy on equal marriage …

        Does this mean we should be complacent? No, we must hold Cameron to account on this – but equally we should not be alarmist and allow trolls like Aiden to pretend its some minor victory – its not – Cameron made it clear he is prepared to fall out over equal marriage.

      2. Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2012, 1:54pm

        @Ribert S Kensington…
        ….What if the Callme Dave decides to put it off till after the election in the hope of winning a second term. If that happens we can kiss goodbye to any chance of meaningful equality under the Law and Justice homophobic Tories.. To put it mildly we will be well and truly phuct over.

        1. If there is not legal equality before the next election then of course no-one should vote Tory at the next election.

          CallmeDave has a self-imposed deadline – BEFORE the next ellection.

          With Labour and LibDem support this will not fail – unless he is willing to sacrifice our legal equality for his own political gain,

          And if he does that then I think direct action and street protest and massive civil unrest would be an appropriate response.

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 3:38pm

          Paddywsurds, assuming he wins re-election which I doubt if he were to cave-in before it takes place. He’ll garner more votes from the gay voting bloc if it is passed in Parliament. He’ll need every one of them either way.

  19. Ace- he could just keep postponing it? Indefinitely?

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2012, 1:24pm

      Or they could just carry on as planned, and as stated, and it could be that the Tories are again responsible for another one of the landmark gay equality decisions in this country.

      1. Absolutely.

        A statesman does not give in to outdated and outmoded bigotry – wherever it comes from.

        Cameron tells us he is a statesman, let him prove it.

        The evidence so far (in numerous speechs, press comments and articles) strongly suggests he will. The small number of words last night (amongst many others clearly stating equal marriage was a policy he would push even if conflict was necessary) do not make me believe Cameron is changing, merely marking his territory and challenging the religious to behave within integrity (something they have failed to demonstrate so far). Cameron was drawing a line in the sand and saying “I will fall out with you if I have to, please do not make me have to”. Understated but barbed warning is how I took Camerons words.

    2. I suppose he could, but I doubt that would fly either, people would realise pretty quickly what he was trying to do. People are already impatient for marriage equality, asking why it’s going to take so long, and if he attempted to postpone it too long then people would soon start making noise about it – not just LGBT people, but also the LibDems and Labour.

  20. Ed Johnson 4 Apr 2012, 1:22pm

    Don’t be stupid. This government will not just give in to religious pressure.

    1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 5:02pm

      Watch them. Many governments have in the past.

      1. No government has faced the backlash that would occur if they fail to deliver on a gay issue, as this one now has.

        The Tory parties image of being inclusive depends on this.

        Cameron has been determined to show the party has changed, if he fails to deliver those who either are convinced the party has changed or are willing to give them the opportunity to prove it will be lost for generations. That will not just be LGBT voters but other pro gay people.

        Never before have all major parties supported an LGBT manner in quite such an obvious way. Cameron can not afford to climb down on this. He has to succeed in bringing about equal marriage – and he will.

  21. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2012, 1:26pm

    Has anyone actually looked at any of the opinion polls on marriage equality. There is absolutely no reason for there to be any back down of any sort whatsoever.

    1. Exactly!!

      1. one would think

        1. Why thats not obvious to other people, beats me!

  22. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 1:32pm

    I voted Tory for the first time in my life in the last election. Let’s be honest. If it weren’t for the Liberal Democrats forming the coalition government, the only party that officially endorses marriage equality as official policy, there would be NO consultation underway and Cameron would probably have not declared support last October. I bet if a poll of the Tory MPs were taken today, the majority would NOT be in support. If this does fail, then the party won’t be getting my vote in 2015 or in any other election.

    1. I agree with everything except your opinion that the maority of Tory MPs are against this. As the Conservative party has more openly gay MPs than all other parties added together, and there are a number of pro-gay heterosexual Tories, I doubt a majority do not support equality in this matter (certainly in the past, not today).

      I have never voted Tory in a general election. I considered it last time as a tactical vote, but did not. They certainly would not even be a consideration if equal marriage slipped by the time the next election comes. They have made some strides in LGBT comments and policies – they need to prove it is not mere words by the demonstrating that the most important change that they have proposed as part of a coalition is achieved. I believe they will – its our task to hold them to account on that.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 2:13pm

        Stu, I hope you are right about that. The Tory party needs every gay vote it can get when you consider the result of the last general election. It needs every gay vote it can get if it expects to be re-elected in 2015. Failure to pass equal marriage will guarantee its demise.

        1. I agree. They will need every vote. If they fail in this they will not only lose some votes (but I suspect several MPs and many members would resign for the party).

          One sentence does not make a campaign – particularly when many more in the same meeting were clearly supportive of equal marriage and the particular sentence of concern was not anti equal marriage, and virtually everything Cameron has said in the last couple of years on LGBT issues has been clearly pro gay couples being able to marry.

          If he does a U-turn, which I have absolutely NO reason to suspect that he will, then he will face a significant party political and public rebellion both in terms of how he patronised LGBT people, broke his promises and caved in to theocrats. That said I do not believe the alarmist speculation that suggests there will be a capitulation by Cameron on equal marriage.

          In fact I find the idea of proposing that there is a risk to equal marriage is damaging to the equal marriage campaign.

          1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2012, 5:46pm

            You’re probably right about that. I’m just going to keep my fingers crossed that we will succeed in spite of the opposition. I think as time passes, some who are currently opposed may in the end evolve as the spurious claims coming from C4M and others become even more absurd and irrelevant something I think which will fire back on them once equal marriage passes into law.

          2. @Robert

            I think you are right that sound anti equality MPs will evolve as the desperation of deceit of the C4M campaign becomes more visible.

            I think we have to continue to be determined, hold the government to account on the issue, but not allow ourselves to be wallowed in a sense of horror at some comments which are not worded the way we would like them. One off comments to a particular audience in the context of the campaign do not matter a great deal. Lets keep focused on the goal.

          3. correction (typo sorry) some (not sound) anti equality MPs

    2. You voted Conservative – ye Gods sir, I thought lunatics were not permitted to vote.

      No offense intended…BUT WHY?!?!?!?!

  23. chris lowcase 4 Apr 2012, 2:19pm

    its the one good thing to come out of the coalition. i fail to see how promising values are not at threat. i know they arent, but many who are anti marriage equality do. but if one size should have to comprimise on this it should be the oposition. if they cant be convinced to open their minds a little bit then im sorry but its gonna have to be tough **** because there is no rational argument. thats from somebody who is often remarked on for being too soft on religion.

    there is a part of me that always believed the PM was just jumping on a lib dem idea to be the face of it (most people i know are surprised to hear it came from the LIBERAL coalition in this party.. i dunno). im constantly telling myself its left wing paranoia, as to which im sure a lot of you will reassure me.

    i dont think anybody will accept the ‘sorry, we tried speach’ in five years. so the PM better see this through to the end. …or at least keep momentum for the party who takes over in 2015.

    1. I dont think there is going to be a “sorry we tried” speech at the next electoral campaign – because they are going to succeed.

      1. They wont succeed too much risk for them.

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

          Do you really believe those Tories in opposition are prepared to see their party lose over this issue alone? Pragmatism taking precedent over one’s religious beliefs is going to have to play a role if they want to win in 2015.

        2. Well then in that case the Tories can kiss goodbye to potentially millions of votes at the next election.

          If CallmeDave issues a ‘sorry we tried’ speech before the next election, we shouild respond by not voting Tory.

          It’s that simple.

          1. chris lowcase 4 Apr 2012, 4:25pm

            free icecream at red lights for cyclists couldnt get me voting tory. but generally speaking, that would be the reaction i would expect. the public is getting better at translating party lines and if im really honest i dont think many people would fall for that.

            if any party should get people’s votes over this issue alone, i think it should be the lib dems though. its unfair to see them have to break all those promises and let cameron take the shine for this one.but by that same note, id have a great deal of respect for him if he was to stick to his guns on this.

        3. If there was too much risk they wouldn’t have promised it. If it fails they lose the gay vote and the religious looney vote* (whose vote they’ve lost at this point already for even suggesting the idea).

          There is more risk in failure.

          *not all religious people are loonies that’s not what I’m saying.

      2. chris lowcase 4 Apr 2012, 4:15pm

        stu i hope im wrong. im not joking when i call it left wing paranoia.

        but as i said, it is the religious oposition to marriage equality that will have to back down. so many different groups of society dont see the logic in the argument. from the stuff i read and the people i’ve met in my life i think it may even be a minority within the faiths.

        i think there is plenty time before the next election to overcome this, or at least be well on the way.

        1. The religious groups do not have to back down on marriage within their organisations. They do not have to change anything.

          They have no power or influence on civil marriage – nor should they.

          This argument will be resolved before the next election and I will be one of the same sex couples marrying my bf. It is going to happen. The government have too much to lose to fail in securing equality.

  24. Should Prime Minister be quite so aggressively Christian? Vote here

  25. you fix and mend society for fairness and equality and civilizations, ensuring humantiy , and humaness, go thru, if you dont have a backbone, and a spine , you should never run and be elected to any office t;he people need officials they elect, to be honorabale, caring and genuines , not terrorist, promoting other terrorist and abusers to harm families and children , like the bigots in our society, doing others wrong instead of tending your own home and making loving and safe, and teaching others including your kids how to get along with others, acting in courtesy and kindness, if you dont have a heart and empathy ad sypathy for a hurting and ailing nations riddled with wars unwarranted and violaence unjustified, and defamations an lies, to harm others an children and all you do is sit back and look at it, and pat others on the back that cause it, your are monster too,. you must get angry at injustice, you must be able to drop tears at other pain, bleeding and hurtful like your pain

  26. This is becoming more than a same sex marriage issue it’s becoming do we live in a theocracy or not issue. Something that should be of concern to everyone irrespective of sexuality or personal views.

    These are, after all, *civil* marriages that are proposed.

    1. I’d rather deal with the issue of equal marriage first, but we might be forced into the culdesac of preventing theocracy.
      Both battles will be won.
      Britain is not and never should be a theocracy,
      Britain do respect gay people in society and (predominantly) believe in full equality for LGBT people.
      Minorities might not matter to some (like Aiden) but then he is only a bigot (and there arent that many of them – they just make a loud noise). But, you know what even though he is a minority (a bullying militant anti-gay minority), his thoughts matter – and thats why PN let him express them. We just laugh at them.

  27. there are no such thing as a christian bigot, if you are a bigot , you are bad person, an demonic soul, abusers of young and old, harm and malice is your goal, and that false cross and long dress stole , means nothing , it may glitter and shine but it still aint solid gold, if your heart aint right , day and night, your simply just another terrroirst good people and human rights have to fight, washing ones eyes they too will realize , the hidden evils come to life when you dissect the defamations an find they are spiteful lies, get your mind instead on the children cries, and take action and lose the traction, that what you do, and then roll your sleeves up and wash your face put back on your best pointed boots , because their are more kick ass things for humanity you must do, and now you no euality fairness and goodwill meas;ures is the only right way to go, and these things you should already no, so let it flow,

    1. Spanner1960 4 Apr 2012, 5:03pm

      Wossup Carrie? Bust your capslock?

  28. Craig Denney 4 Apr 2012, 5:10pm

    Is it OK for prime ministers to ‘do God’ in public?

    Vote here:

    1. Religious people have a right to express their faith just as gay people have a right to express who are also

      I`m not too happy with David Camerons Comments on same sex marriage he is sending out the wrong signal here

      Do I believe Marriage equality will happen yes it will in the near future but I cannot say for if it will be this current government that does it.

      Not all religious people are against Civil same sex marriages and not all religious people are homophobic there is too much anti religious bigotory and there is too much homophobia from the hardline religious folk also.

      There are those of the hardline religious who want influence secular law which should not be allowed but there are also those secular fundamentalists who want to ban religion completely two wrongs don`t make a right i`m afraid

      For quite a few religion is an important part of their lives and they should not be forced to give up their religious freedoms at the request of radical secularlist fundamentalists!

      1. There is too much anti LGBT and anti religion rhetoric, facts would be better on both sides.

        Equal marriage is the goal we need to keep focused on. Its going to happen.

      2. “Religious people have a right to express their faith”

        Except that he is not just a random religious person, he’s the Prime Minister, and there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. I have no problem with him being religious in his private life, but when he’s meeting with Christian groups, and using language like “us Christians” and “restoring Christian values to this country” that makes me very uncomfortable. Religious people shouldn’t be forced to give up their religion – and they aren’t, despite what a some people would have us try and believe – but at the same time other people shouldn’t be forced into following laws based on religions they don’t believe in.

      3. @Ciaran

        I was wondering what you meant be a “radical secularlist fundamentalists”

        1. @JohnK

          Thats not a phrase I can quite grasp – sounds like a few too many dichotomies in the same label!

          I do think there can be militant secularists, but fundamentalist – probably not, and radical might be pushing it a bit.

          I am secularist to the extent that I think church and state should not be intertwined. In my personal approach to ideological and theological issues I am agnostic. I value the work of many people in and connected to NSS and others, but as I have said above – they need to take care that some of their justifiable comments about state intertwining with religion are not seized upon and twisted negatively by those seeking to campaign against equal marriage.

          Yes there are some secularist people who are more militant than others – extremists, radicals, fundamentalists – probably not – that sounds like the words someone like Aiden of someone from C4M or the CI would fabricate about them.

  29. Wake up- are they dithering ion face of onslaught. Well make a counter onslaught write to your MP- write to all the anti’s in Parlaiment. Flood them with emails. Don’t let the opposition have it by default

  30. He is just patronising them

  31. Civil partnership is not equality! How can we be equal when the simplest thing of sharing our commitment to the one we love is not equal nor the same as our straight friends of family who are married!?

  32. as said before if marriage equality isnt introduced the tories are out at the next election. as for religion its out of date with 21st century britian we are not a religious country anyway. religion= RETARDS

  33. how to appear to have changed your party, gain LBGT votes and yet arrange to deliver no changes – we would have done it but we couldn’t … i can hear the sorry coming. let them be judged on results.

    1. Clearly the reporting of one sentence in a meeting by those with vested interests against marriage eg CI, Telegraph, Mail, religious people (who the meeting was targetted at), is more important than everything else that was said in the same meeting about equal marriage or the Downing Street statement the following morning or the entire presentation of the PM or government on equal marriage for the last couple of years?

      Yes that one sentence which is being twisted to mean things it does not, is more important than all the rest of it – to those who are religious and seek to build barriers and prevent change to marriage and who seek to subjugate LGBT people.

      Some LGBT people have gone along with that … but use your intelligence and look at the entire picture … yes, hold the government to account – but this does not say the government are making a U turn – they can not afford to do so.

  34. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Apr 2012, 12:53pm

    If civil partnerships are so equal, how many straight couples would clamour for one if they were available to them, including those in opposition to equal civil marriage? Nobody has ever put that question to our opponents. I can imagine their responses.

  35. also he mentions having an eventual vote. wtf my equal rights are not open to a vote. just do it.

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.