Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Sunday Times disagrees with sister paper The Times over allowing gay couples to marry

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The Sunday Times are mistaken and clearly do not value equality.

    I knew I had stopped buying their paper for a very good reason

    1. I agree with you, Stu. Unfortunately, Ben Bradshaw is mistaken too, if only in that he presumed to speak for all LGBT people.

      1. Bradshaws comments were hurtful and arrogant in his presumption that he could speak for all LGBT people.

        I sense some pique in his words; as if he is questioning how LGBT people could dare question his integrity on LGBT issues or even consider that they could dare suggest that CPs were “not good enough”.

        Ah but his leader used those exact words. Ed Milliband views CPs as “not good enough”.

        I’m not a big fan of Ed Milliband – but I have to say his assessment of CPs – is good enough for me!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 12:50pm

      As did I, long ago. It’s sad to see very little of our media supporting us. What do we have, The Times, The Guardian and the prestigious magazine, the Economist? Meanwhile, those with wider circulation, the Daily Mail and Telegraph aggressively support C4M’s position and now the Sunday Times. It’s very troubling. I would have thought StonewallUK would have taken a more aggressive role in all this. Posters on 1000 buses are all well and good but what about the London Tube, the major railway stations, airports all with emboldened links to the C4EM and Government petitions and lastly, an aggressive video campaign across the air waves. I can’t believe we don’t have any major hetero celebrity speaking up and participating just like they do in the United States. Only last week, Cybill Shepherd appeared in just such a video. Why is it we don’t have any telling the public why equal civil marriage is the right thing to do?

  2. Seriously, what’s the problem here? They’re denying us a right, holding onto that right as if it was their copywritten invention, this just needs to stop…

    1. katieMurphy - ex cath family 9 Apr 2012, 6:53am

      Wonder how much those Unchristian christians would bitch if all legal laww marriages were turned into civil unions.

      And btw the churches in the USA have the right to marry dogs with cats, etc etc

      Soon old RATZI will be doing that for some reason or other

  3. “Ben Bradshaw … like most other gays in civil partnerships, is happy to call it a marriage.”

    Oh, so they’ve conducted a survey on the issue, have they? Very irresponsible journalism, and very disappointing.

    1. What about the 98% of PN readers who seek marriage rights?

      1. Was this survey accurate? Really important if it was.

    2. Spanner1960 8 Apr 2012, 11:45pm

      Yes, out of survey of serving gay Tory politicians beginning with the letter ‘B’, there was a 100% unanimous agreement.

    3. Why would these people call it a marriage if they didnt want one? Seems fishy.

      1. Another point Bradshaw doesnt answer (nor the Sunday Times) … if they were right (and they are not) that CPs are sufficient and they base this partly on an argument whereby CPs are apparently commonly referred to as marriages – then what is the problem legally and legitimately using that label?

        Of course, informally they are referred by some as marriages, but not by all, and not in formal settings.

        Of course, there is much more than is unequal about CPs and marriage.

        Interesting how they refuse to deal with issues like this “semantic” though.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 12:36pm

      If Bradshaw is happy to call his CP a marriage which it isn’t, then why wouldn’t he strongly support equal civil marriage and have the genuine article, the universal gold standard? Makes no sense. Is he delusional or what? There’s something not right about that or about him. It doesn’t add up.

  4. I suggest PN sends the 374 comments on the Ben Bradshaw story to the Sunday Times to show them what the LGBT community thought about marriage being unnecessary.

  5. GingerlyColors 8 Apr 2012, 10:08pm

    Different editors do have different views – even if the papers are owned by the same organisation, in this case, Rupert Murdoch’s News International who own the Times, Sunday Times, the Sun and the Sun on Sunday which replaced the News Of The World.
    Rupert Murdoch is no friend of LGBT people, having voiced his support for Rick Santorum in the US Presidential nominations for the Republican Party.

  6. That stupid idiot Ben Bradshaw now has even more to answer for…

  7. Ben Bradshaw clearly has no spine to stand up to religious extremists. How dare he dare to speak about how others should legally define their relationships? If the government backs down on this, it will be felt as a massive smack in the face to the LGBT community and the name of Bradshaw will be forever associated with Judas.

    1. I’m not sure BB wants to stand up to the religious extremists. It seems to me he prefers to co-operate with them. He claims the CofE is making rapid progress to celebrating CP’s in their churches by launching a three year re-consideration of their attitude to human sexuality.

      One can’t forget that he is the son of the Church, his father was a vicar at Norwich Cathedral and no doubt he imbibed their teachings with his mother’s milk. Obviously he has great personal loyalty to his own church and, for him, maintaining good relations with them is plainly more important than speaking up for progress.

    2. de Villiers 8 Apr 2012, 10:59pm

      > How dare he

      I’ve heard a few people using this line on these boards. Even if one disagrees with Mr Bradshaw, it all sounds a bit authoritarian.

      1. So you would prefer to argue about the semantics of a persons argument than about the substance?

      2. What, it’s ‘authoritarian’ to question his mandate to define the relationships of people he does now know? I’m not the one dictating definitions and terms here. We have a right to hold politicians accountable and to question them in this country, and that is what I am doing.

        You seem to be suggesting he should not be questioned.

        1. @AdrianT

          Could it be that deVilliers is uncomfortable with someone religious being held to account?

          1. de Villiers 9 Apr 2012, 10:48am

            I have read nothing about Mr Bradshaw’s level of religiosity.

        2. de Villiers 9 Apr 2012, 10:46am

          Not really – I think it is authoritarian to question his right to speak by asking “how dare he…”. It implies that he should have no right to say what he thinks – unless he agrees with you.

          There is no problem with holding politicians to account. I am not sure that I have said otherwise.

          1. I would argue that, when politicians make mightily arrogant claims, ‘how dare’ is a valid question. Mr Bradshaw claimed to know best what LGBT people should be satisfied with, aiming all his anger at the government, while maintaining stony silence about the onslaught of bigotry from C4M. The religious lobby are the ones making a massive issue about this, and Bradshaw would rather tell us what our priorities should be. Why isn’t he telling them?

        3. @De Villiers

          So what you are really saying is you prefer not to deal with the issues of the story and prefer to concentrate on your stylistic concerns about language used by those using these comments boards?

          As for Bradshaws religious involvement – its well documented. Including here on PN. I find it surprising that someone so well read and as knowledgeable as you are would not be aware of such things and therefore it is reasonable to surmise that it may form part or all of the considerations when making your comments which seem to seek to barb contirbutors here on their language use rather than content.

          1. de Villiers 9 Apr 2012, 3:33pm

            I see you have reverted to your role as self-appointed moderator and insufferable constable, patrolling and policing the board for signs of dissent.

          2. @de Villiers

            I see you have reverted to your role of English monitor

      3. Possibly. But by the same token it was a bit authoritarian for Bradshaw to state “This isn’t a priority for the gay community”, wasn’t it?

        1. de Villiers 9 Apr 2012, 10:54am

          It is foolish for anyone to try and speak on behalf of a group for which they have no authority to do so. Mr Bradshaw was certainly foolish and his comments ill-judged and disgustingly party-political and partisan. That said, I worry when people start demanding “how dare he say that….” or “by what right does he say that…” – as if they are entitled to foreclose any discussion on subjects about which they feel strongly.

  8. There’s a problem here that the LGBTI organisations are not sending a clear, united and unambiguous message. I think there should be a joint statement by Stonewall, GALHA, LGF etc, supporting the Prime Minister and saying quite clearly that it is necessary and that the vast majority of people want marriage.

    They need to act as a proper coalition and to promote the C4EM petition.

    It is hard not to see Ben Bradshaw’s recent stunt as being made at the behest of his Church leaders, timed for Easter and as a prompt for them in the next step in their opposition. A clear rebuttal from Ben Summerskill, for instance, statng that BB is wrong and that he does not speak for LGBTI people is needed.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 12:40pm

      benji, I agree. Further, I think Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg and other supportive MPs speak out in support of David Cameron. We should contact both as well as ask Miliband to censure Bradshaw who was NOT speaking for the majority of us, but more as a shill for the CoE.

  9. Benji, the clearest and most unambiguous message that LGBTI orgs could give is an acceptance that CPs are not required and redundant once we have equal marriage.

    The only reason to retain CPs is to let the likes of Bradshaw to say that Labour brought them in and for feminist gay people to say they don’t like the patriachial image of marriage.

    Unfortuntely no LGBT org is going to admit to the fact that further new CPs should be scrapped once we have civil marriage and we’re left in a weird sitution where we still have gay only CPs being carried on even after we’ve achieved equality. WHY? Why do we want to continue with an exlusively gay institioun called civil partnership?

  10. I think the Labour movement now needs to make a clear and unambiguous statement that equal marriage is necessary, and that Bradshaw is wrong and in no way speaks for either Labour or the majority of gay people.

    His intervention has been truely shocking.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 4:48pm

      Absolutely spot on. I’ve provided a link for everyone to urge Ed Miliband to speak up and condemn Bradshaw’s statement.

      http://www.edmiliband.org/

  11. katieMurphy - ex cath family 9 Apr 2012, 6:51am

    Wonder how much they would bitch if all legal laww marriages were turned into civil unions.

    And btw the churches in the USA have the right to marry dogs with cats, etc etc

    Soon old RATZI will be doing that for some reason or other

  12. BRADSHAW!!!!!!!!!!! *in style of Kirk from Star Trek II*

  13. What’s The Sun’s position on this question? Anybody know?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 9 Apr 2012, 12:42pm

      Probably against it although we would like to be pleasantly surprised to the contrary.

      1. They called Peter Bone MP their Villain of The Week for his comments on gay marriage as well as calling him a dinosaur on the issue :)

        1. Potentially promising.

  14. Which “higher authority”?

    Harry Potter, C3P0, Kermit?

    All of their tales are as factual as the fictitious “Bible” – and arguably more realistic and believeable?

    Human rights are inate, they do not have to be “written down”

    Closet screaming queen gays who love some man on man action would only engage in the lies that you do.

    Bet you have your collection of sex toys out and a few fetish DVDs whilst you lash out and snarl with homophobic and inhumane venom.

    We all know you are gay and love it, but are in total denial.

    1. Sinnysinsins 9 Apr 2012, 10:35am

      Ben Bradshaw is openly gay…

      1. Yes we know this.

  15. seething trans woman 9 Apr 2012, 1:42pm

    Transgender people’s legal relationships are bedevilled by the separation between CPs and marriage and, while Ben Bradshaw might think of a CP as marriage, it clearly isn’t, because otherwise I wouldn’t have to annul my marriage to the woman I love in order to get my gender legally recognised.

    The proposals for equal civil marriage are as much for transgender people as they are for gay and lesbian people but I don’t suppose that even entered Bradshaw’s mind. We all deserve equal marriage now, however you identify your sexual orientation or gender. The time has surely come for the state at least to do away with discrimination based on these characteristics, and leave each religion to fight its own internal civil war on the matter as each sees fit.

  16. No doubt he will be lionised by that Hell hag Andrea Michelle Williams. Hell mend him!

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all