Reader comments · Vince Cable: ‘Difficult’ to justify gay marriage ban · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Vince Cable: ‘Difficult’ to justify gay marriage ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Chester666666 11 Jul 2012, 10:34am

    If he said impossible then he would be correct

    1. Cardinal Capone 11 Jul 2012, 12:18pm

      My thought exactly.

    2. Same here.

  2. Greg Mitchell 11 Jul 2012, 10:38am

    The Coalition for Marriage are grasping at straws. Where in his statement is there a “sense of unease”?

  3. I don’t get why people think that civil partnerships are just as good as marriage.
    Effectively, they may be “marriage in all but name” but the lack of being called marriage is the problem with them.
    That said, I can see why many couples want something other than marriage, so i think opposite-sex couples should be allowed to have civil partnerships as well.
    I can also see why many civilly-partnered couples refer to themselves as married, because they feel married, but it does confuse the issue, and I think emphasises the need for full marriage equality – including the right of same-sex couples to be married in churches & synagogues that want to marry them. And for Pagan weddings to be recognised (Pagans currently marry same-sex and opposite-sex couples, but neither ceremony has any legal standing, except in Scotland, where Pagan opposite-sex weddings have legal standing).

    1. The lack of CPs being called marriage is ONE OF the problems with them.

    2. According to Wikipedia, Mr Cable has been married twice.

      I assume that if he believes CP’s are equal, he’d be happy to swap his own marriage for one.

  4. That There Other David 11 Jul 2012, 10:55am

    I’m not really surprised he feels this way. The Lib Dems have settled for a second best, sort of equal but not quite position in government. He probably has to justify the validity of that place in his head to help him get up in the morning.

    At least he does have the decency to recognise how poor the logic behind his position is though. More than Tebbit ever managed.

  5. Craig Denney 11 Jul 2012, 11:05am

    This is starting to look party political?

    1. Er, what do you base that on Craig?

      1. Craig Denney 11 Jul 2012, 3:17pm

        In Scotland the consultation was finished on the 9th of Dec last year and they still have not published the results of its consultation, dose this mean the coalition is going to take 6 months just to publish the results here. If it is not in the next queens speech in Nov then it obvious the coalition is hoodwinking the gay community because the coalition is not going to last that long and they know it.

        If you ask the (coalition) MP’s did you think the coalition would last this long, they will all reply NO.

        The LIbDems are stirring up trouble after their defeat last night.

        1. Struggling to understand the connections between the various issues that you mention, Craig, or how this makes this issue look party political.

          What does Cables comments have to do with the timing of the Scottish consultation? Nothing.

          What does the timing of the Scottish consultation have to do with the Westminister consultation? Nothing

          Does this sound like Craig is stirring up trouble and unable to link it all together? Yes

          1. New Aussie 13 Jul 2012, 6:18am

            Actually Craig has a point. The trouble with the Lords legislation has led to several LibDems talking openly about bringing the coalition down if it is not sorted by the end of the summer. Smarting from the huge rebellion, Cameron will be reluctant to push gay marriage – another push button issue for Tory rebellions – again so soon. So a scenario where the publication of the report is delayed and the coalition collapses would result in the legislation being shelved. Also, without reform of the lords it is unlikely that a weak government could get this bill through the Lords.

          2. New Aussie

            The difference with the Lords reform and equal marriage is that Labour and some of the other opposition MPs are in favour and will vote in mass in favour. Lib Dems will be whipped in favour and enough Tory MPs are in favour to secure it.

            So you, and Craig are party politicising this without any reasonable or realistic links (and perhaps conveniently forgetting the facts about this particular issue in the hope of scoring political points – disappointing).

  6. He will be whipped anyway and is in support – even if his logic isn’t quite up to scratch on this

  7. I don’t understand the fuss; he says that he’ll support same-sex civil marriage.

    Okay, he doesn’t feel passionately about it. Why should he? There are probably lots of causes that are very important about which I don’t feel strongly.

  8. He says that marriage equality would have “serious repercussions on ordinary people, schools, institutions like churches and charities that oppose the change.”

    Well yes, it would, in that would be expose them as hateful bigots who want to treat a group of people as second class citizens and seek to oppress them and limit their equality. And in that regard they SHOULD be exposed.

    BUT if Cable thinks that marriage equality itself would hurt those groups then he is going to have to bloody prove it because that is the kind of statement people have been making but never once actually demonstrated with one single scrap of evidence of any sort. And in the adult world you back up your claims or you shut your hole.

    1. Valksy

      The comments that you attribute as being those of Cable appear to be manipulations of what he actually said by Colin Hart from the CI.

      1. I see that now. My error.

        You’d think I would be surprised that christians are mendacious filth. Frankly, I should expect it as SOP.

        1. They manipulate and deceive so often, its not surprising that a few will sneak through the net on occasion. ;-)

          I am not surprised that Colin Hart is one of the first out to lie and manipulate about this.

  9. Vince Cable has gone down in my estimations.

    I thought he was a man of integrity and honour who valued equality and civil rights.

    Clearly, if he believes that stigmatisation of LGBT people by maintaining a pretence of “equal” whilst separate viz-a-vis CPs is fair or equal, then he should consider which seat on the bus he or LGBT people should sit on.

  10. He does seem a bit behind on this issue, bordering on apathetic (“the status quo is fine”). He wouldn’t have been much cop in the French resistance, would he! Still, a vote in favour of true equality is always most welcome. Let’s just make sure someone wakes him up to cast it when the time comes!

  11. The only thing his letter demonstrated was a lack of understanding. It’s a bit like saying Liberal Democrats – like an MP but not the same

    1. Certainly a lack of understanding on this issue.

      He certainly has shown leadership on other issues.

      Not sure party politicking on this issue is appropriate, Steve M. This issue is too important and we should rise above it. Cable should be condemned on this issue – but that should not be an opportunity to then kick him for other reasons – that demeans the fight for equality and uses the same deceit the anti-gay militants use. I hoped the LGBT communities were better than that.

      1. Condeming him for a clear intention to vote on the side of the angels seems a bit harsh!

  12. Keith Farrell 11 Jul 2012, 12:08pm

    I say that we are married but I have been corrected so many times in government offices to the fact that we are not married but civil partners, I find that unacceptable, and pure discrimination.
    We are married we should have the same rights and the same terminology

    1. The plain fact is that you aren’t married. Fight to change the law, don’t wallpaper over discrimination.

    2. But you are not married rather in a civil partnership.
      When it comes to legal/government matter exact termination is necessary.

  13. Vince Cable has been married twice.

    I assume that if he thinks CP’s are equal, he’d happily swap his marriage for one.

  14. bobbleobble 11 Jul 2012, 12:23pm

    The current system is fine for who? Certainly not me or large numbers of gay people. Or large numbers of straight people who think we should have the same rights. Or Quakers, Unitarians, Reform and Liberal Jews who want the right to marry gay people.

    So who is fine for Mr Cable? Those who want to keep us separate, second-class and ‘other’? Those who think we’re not worthy of marriage. Heterosexuals who couldn’t give a damn about equality so long as they’re ok? Who Mr Cable? Or is it a case that gay people should just put up and shut up now that we’ve got some legal rights?

    I’m glad he’ll be voting in favour but his argument is rubbish.

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Jul 2012, 3:01pm

      Indeed I repeat what I have said before… if it is so fine then lets scrap marriage and replace all with Civil Partnerships….. bet we’ll suddenly see a difference of opinion by the ‘status quo’ mob then! (The Bigots, not the band!)

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Jul 2012, 12:25pm

    If civil partnerships are “fine” , then would heterosexuals prefer one and if not, why not? Nobody has asked that question, especially of the equal marriage haters? I can just imagine the lame responses they’d profer. Even though many of them don’t even want us to have CPs either, they conveniently use them to justify a ban on civil marriage for gay couples saying we have enough rights and that many gays don’t want marriage.

    I would also like C4M to explain in detail what the serious repercussions are on “ordinary” people, schools, institutions and charities? Where is the evidence for this? Why are they ignoring the fact that the consultaton excluded religious denominations from participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies which will be the domain of civil registrars and others to officiate them? Even if some denominations wish to recognise and perform them, why should the opponents be allowed to trample on other denominations’ rights to freedom of belief?

    1. de Villiers 11 Jul 2012, 3:01pm

      In France, quite a large number of heterosexuals choose a PACS rather than a marriage.

      1. Is that not because it is considered a trial run/test period/convenience thing with a view to a “proper” marriage in the future?

        I wonder how many people with PACS go on to either marry the same person, or end PACS and marry someone else.

      2. de Villiers

        As you point out in your comment, in France a large number of heterosexuals CHOOSE a PACS over marriage – and that’s the point right there, they can choose one or the other, gay people don’t have that option.

        1. Exactly, BennieM

          I want to choose to marry my boyfriend. Hopefully, it will become a reality for me in England (and others elsewhere in the UK, France, Australia etc etc) soon.

          PACS is already a choice in France – I don’t have the choice of marriage – nor does a gay couple in France. Hopefully, that can be put right soon.

          1. I know I’ve pessimistic at times over the last few months, but I honestly now think it will be a reality in England, Scotland & Wales within the next 3 years. NI will probably follow soon after, perhaps another 2 years or so. That’s my prediction, for what it’s worth! I’ve never been so optimistic since the campaigns for equal marriage began.

          2. Good to see you optimistic, BennieM!

            I agree, not sure whether NI will take a little longer – but have no doubt they will get there.

            Even if there is a small obstacle in the way – it will be overcome because this juggernaut is unstoppable and has no reverse gear!

          3. An unstoppable juggernaut with no reverse gear – fantastic analogy, Stu! I’d hate to be an equal marriage opponent like Cardinal O’Brien standing in it’s way!

    2. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 11 Jul 2012, 10:33pm

      A number of mixed-sex couples would prefer a CP, but the majority don’t, which I think is what counts here. The popularity of the PACS in France does help to illustrate that a number of people are uneasy with marriage for a variety of reasons, including its traditional ties to religion, sexism and homophobia. I’m in a mixed-sex relationship with a fellow bisexual so I’m very well aware of this. I campaign for equal marriage, of course, it should be available to everyone, but I wouldn’t want to marry myself. If there were the option of a civil union, something without the nastiness of divorce – well, I might go for that.

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Jul 2012, 12:29pm

    I still think Cameron was wrong in allowing a free vote. If anything is going to sabotage passage of equal marriage, it would be a free Tory vote since it doesn’t appear that the majority of them support it. Then there’s that awful House of Lords hurdle to contend with. Conscience has nothing to do with it, it’s about fairness and treating people equally whether one’s personal views differ. After all, this is a strictly civil matter and has nothing to do with any religion. How much clearer does it get?

    1. I suspect the reason for a free vote is because if it was whipped then the papers would describe the large number of MPs voting against policy as a revolt against the Government. This will mean no difference in the numbers but less bad publicity.

      1. The vote in the Commons will be won in any event

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Jul 2012, 12:32pm

    The portability of CPs is also another problem. Try getting all of the rights they provide by living in another country. At least there are 11 countries where we can marry. How many are there that have identical rights to British CPs, not even Ireland’s do, nor is there any universal standard for them. I wonder if Cable and C4M could explain that?

    1. That There Other David 11 Jul 2012, 3:18pm

      In Spain we had to get married again to protect our rights and property. It meant that my partner had to temporarily relocate to Spain full time, with me coming and going for work, to satisfy the residency requirements. However, with virtually all of our assets over there it had to be done. Our UK CP has the same status in Spain as a French PACS, i.e. it’s not recognised in law.

      1. If you still have a UK CP and have now married in Spain is it all legal?
        Was your UK CP disolved before you married?
        There’s something I don’t understand.

        1. There was also a year or two ago a ‘letter of understanding’ passed between the Spanish and UK governments which in effect creats equality’.
          I’m sure you’ve done your homework but something doesn’t seem quite right as you have written it.

          1. That There Other David 11 Jul 2012, 3:39pm

            This was all done a few years ago. As things stand we have a Spanish marriage and a UK CP. Interesting about the letter of understanding development though guys. I’ll have a word with our abogada and see what she says on that front.

            We could be bigamists with each other….twice over :o

          2. That There Other David 11 Jul 2012, 3:41pm

            Oops. Sorry Paul, didn’t see that it was you posting twice.

          3. That There Other David 11 Jul 2012, 4:01pm

            Having done a bit of reading on this I’m now a bit confused. We did get permission from the Consulate, although apparently we shouldn’t have done according to current material.

            Thanks for the heads up here Paul. Suddenly I’m worried that we’re not quite as recognised as I’d like us to be….

          4. My understanding is that a UK CP is not recognised as a marriage in Spain, just that the partnership is recognised.

          5. UK CPs are afforded “pareja de hecho” status in Spain NOT marriage status.

  18. Don Harrison 11 Jul 2012, 12:38pm

    Well done Vince

  19. Well he’s right isn’t he? I fully support moves towards equal marriage for equality’s sake. But other than that my CP was an amazing day that we and all our relatives CALL our marriage.

    1. But its not a “marriage” either in terminology, acceptance by organisations or in all rights.

      Its separate but (almost) equal which is never equal.

    2. bobbleobble 11 Jul 2012, 1:28pm

      I don’t think he is right no. By saying it’s fine then he’s saying that there’s nothing wrong with the current situation. He’s saying that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is ok and that restricting the civil rights of a section of the community isn’t a problem.

      I’m glad you enjoyed your CP but you can call it your marriage as much as you like it isn’t a marriage and isn’t viewed that way by society or legally. I can call a cat a dog but that won’t make it bark.

    3. To quote Frasier Crane, “You can put kittens in the oven but it don’t make ’em biscuits!”

      (American biscuits)

      Unfortunately calling CP’s “marriage” doesn’t make them marriages in the eyes of the state or most of the population. It makes them “marriage” (in “not really” quotes).

      The official status really does matter in the greater scheme of things.

      1. New Aussie 12 Jul 2012, 8:47am

        In what sense does it “matter”. It is a clerical correction that is all. My relationship will be no more validated by Marriage than it was by CPs and I will have all the same rights and responsibilities.

        Look, I am in favour of gay marriage. Have been for many many years. But let’s just get a perspective on this.

        1. It clearly does not matter to you, and that is how you perceive it – however, it does matter to me in my relationship and to many other people.

          None of it will change the relationship – it does change the perception of some (including me) of the relationship and some of the rights, entitlements and responsibilities.

          I prefer to sit anywhere on the bus, not where I am told.

    4. I think its worth examining this quote in respect of this:

      We do not hate as long as we still attach a lesser value, but only when we attach an equal or a greater value.
      Friedrich Nietzsche

      It is because CPs have a lesser value attached by some (when compared to marriage) that they perceive them as acceptable and claim not to be motivated by hatred or homophobia. However, their fear that equal value to themselves is to be granted to gay people generates fear and hatred.

      I will, personally, not accept anything less than equal value. In line with this other great quote:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
      Thomas Jefferson

    5. New Aussie 12 Jul 2012, 8:11am

      Look, Cable isn’t saying he is against gay marriage. He is in favour of it and cannot see a strong reason against it. In the UK, civil partnerships have delivered substantially what was needed. The fight to get equal marriage is about equality and not about undoing some terrible wrong or monstrous injustice.

      I think some of the colour and vehemenece of the UK campaign takes its inspiration from some of the states in the USA or Australia where activists really are fighting against real injustice and the promise of further injustice when they demand equal marriage.

      1. You might not like to think CPs are an injustice in the UK – because you are in one.

        Cable said he will support equal marriage – but his comments made it clear, he didn’t think it was necessary ergo he thought LGBT people could make do with CPs. He was not enthusiastic and he said he thought CPs were sufficient.

        Firstly, equal but separate is not equal – no matter how you dress it up.

        Secondly, CPs do NOT have the same legal equivalence in terms of rights, responsibilities or entitlements. They may have equivalence under the equality act – but not equality – and whilst many perceive them as “gay marriages”, many do not. That discrepancy along with the issues of rights, entitlements and responsibilities is resolved through equal marriage.

        This is a real injustice in the UK, in my opinion. You may choose not to see it that way. Thats why I would not have a CP until I could marry.

      2. New Aussie 13 Jul 2012, 6:13am

        I know all that and agree that it is probably right to have gay marriage. But I also think some of the shrilled activists need to get a perspective. Those of us who are old enough can remember a time when it was totally illegal to be gay. When muderers of gay people got off with manslaughter by pleading “homosexual panic” and where gay people were routinely attack, fired from their jobs and denied services. This is all within living memory. So forgive me if I do not see gay marriage on the same scale of necessary reforms of human rights by comparison – particularly in a nation where antigay bullying is rife and needs to be a major campaign priority of gay people.

        1. If you are happy with half hearted (in)equality – thats your business.

          If you can only campaign on one issue at a time, then do not assume others can.

          I seek real and meaningful equality and to be able to marry (as well as use any public beach, water fountain, seat on a bus etc etc that I choose).

          I campaign ferociously on anti gay bullying both professionally and personally. I also passionately seek marriage.

  20. It seems to me that Vince Cable thinks CPs are good enough for gay people and if the issue of equal marriage wasn’t being raised at the moment then he wouldn’t necessarily support it – but at least he admits that he can’t argue against the right to equal marriage. He seems to be in a bit of a muddle over it! I wonder if he’d vote for it if the Lib Dems weren’t whipped?

    1. The Insptr Genrl 11 Jul 2012, 1:38pm

      Ahem !

  21. The Inspector General 11 Jul 2012, 1:35pm

    Thought he might. But as we’ve seen last night, the Tories are somewhat sick of kow towing to Lib Dem demands…

  22. Certainly not fine for me. a Civil Partnership is not equal to Marriage. I have to pay a National Insurance stamp every 13 weeks costing £179.50 for my civil partner whom has cancer, cannot work now, and has been refused benefit entitlement. If he was terminal within 6 months , he would have money thrown at him ! So where is the Equality in that ! A married wife claims her NI on her husband’s earnings.

  23. Since there are so many straight people who say that they believe that Civil Partnerships are equal to marriage and don’t in any way denote a second class status, I have a proposition for these people. Instead of equalizing marriage, we should just reverse the two “EQUAL” institutions and call gay unions “marriage” and straight unions “civil partnerships”. If they are truly equal in every way, and not second class, then no straight person should have a problem with that. My guess is, if such a thing were proposed, the very same people who tell us that they are equal in every way would be the first and loudest to scream FOUL!

    1. Its an option and I suspect that if marriages of heterosexuals (or opposite sex couples!) were made civil unions then there would be a massive out cry – it would clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of their claims that CPs are equal.

      However, I don’t want a CP – I want to marry my boyfriend. I should be entitled to that as a civil right. So, I can not support your suggestion as a plan.

    2. I don’t want a CP either, Stu, but Hayden’s suggestion is very tempting :D How I’d love to see the self-righteous outrage on the faces of our married opponents when their marriages were changed to a CP and they were told “Don’t worry! They’re just the same as a marriage, right?”

      Ooh, imagine the seething rage! CPs are “fine” for us when other people don’t have to have them, I suspect. I can’t fathom is Vince’s comment there is disinterest and a lack of understanding of how strongly many LGBT people feel, or whether he really thinks we should be separate. I suspect the former.

      On principle, I object to anyone who’s free to marry telling me that CPs are fine.

      1. Sorry – *WHAT I can’t fathom….

      2. Oh I absolutely object to anyone who is entitled to marry telling me CPs are fine.

        However, I don’t want to play games with this (however, tempting) I want to marry my boyfriend.

        I do agree that Cable’s claim there is disinterest demonstrates his lack of awareness on the issue of equal marriage or any sense of understanding of the strength of determination and feeling on this issue from LGBT people and others.

        1. Agreed, Stu. In all seriousness, I can’t wait until we have equal marriage and I won’t be having a CP ever, even if I have to go abroad to get married. But it’d be nice if straight people who think it doesn’t matter imagined if the situation was reversed and thought about how they’d feel. It reminds me of a poster I saw regarding Prop 8 (I think). It said something like “I didn’t vote on your marriage so why do you want to vote on mine?”
          A little empathy would be nice.

          Of course, some straight people absolutely know that CPs are ‘second class’ and they want to keep marriage as a privilege just for them.

  24. “Vince Cable has said he believes the current system of civil partnerships for gay couples is ‘fine'”.

    The word that he seems to have missed off that sentence is “some”. Civil partnerships are fine for *some* gay couples (in the same way that *some* heterosexuals would be fine getting a CP rather than a marriage if they could).

    However there are plenty of LGBT people who certainly do not consider CPs to be fine for them, and want to be able to legally marry. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that. It’s not “difficult to justify” why we shouldn’t be able to get married, it’s impossible to justify.

    I am disapponted to hear Vince Cable talking this way, but glad to see that he says he’ll be voting in favour of equal marriage anyway – despite some of his wonky logic on the issue.

  25. Jock S. Trap 11 Jul 2012, 2:58pm

    Indeed there isn’t an argument but the ‘status quo’ isn’t fine and enough.

    Whilst I do accept he is agreeing in a round about way for marriage equality I do question why those that oppose can’t see the differences even though they are blatant.

    It’s not Just about the name it’s also the recognition. How can it be right that someone’s Civil Partnership isn’t recognised once they leave the UK? That suggests Civil Partnerships are not equal, fine nor dandy.

  26. Things will not be equal until there is one way that two people who wished to be legally attached can do it.
    Civil partnerships are not equal to marriage and marriage is not equal to a civil partnership.
    As for wanting to be ‘married’ in a church then it should be noted that some of these cults already discriminate as to who they will ‘marry’…divorcees or regular attendees etc..

    1. Exactly right, Paul! Religions have never been under any legal obligation to marry a straight couple and to my knowledge there’s never been a court case over it, successful or otherwise. So this idea that they’ll forced to marry gay couples is a deliberate attempt to cause misinformation and provoke opposition to equal marriage.

      1. In any event I trust the Law Society’s legal opinion over that of Sentamu or the CI. The law society have said that churches would not be forced to marry couples they did not wish to but legal challenge may enable those who do wish to marry same sex couples but the law prevents.

  27. Pavlos Prince of Greece 11 Jul 2012, 3:51pm

    When a Tory say this, its a nice step forwards. But for a Liberal Democrat its a little too…moderate?

  28. I’m not that impressed by Vince Cable’s reply. OK he will vote for it but he could try sounding a bit more enthuisiastic. I absolutely hate the IF this comes to a vote line, it should be WHEN it comes to a vote.

    Why exactly does he think the status quo is fine? Does he believe in inequality based on sexual orientation? Surely he must understand what the arguments are or is he too thick to understand?

    1. You make a good point, john, about Cable’s lack of enthusiasm. That’s something I’ve accused the Scottish Government of too as their attitude has been very muted, even reluctant at times, despite the fact they support it. It’s especially clear when compared to their enthusiasm for other policies. I think this tells us whether a politician really believes in it or is just going along with it because they have to.

  29. Graeme (@Graeme_xxy) 11 Jul 2012, 5:19pm

    Getting married is a sure fire way to ruin a relationship.

    Why no ban marriage all together?

  30. Compare his attitude with that of right wing Tory MP Desmnd Swayne. He was FAR more supportive- even apologised to gay people for his previous opinions. Just shows- this is NOT an entirely PARTY POLITICAL topic at all!

    1. Absolutely.

  31. Leave the Coalition, Vince.
    You know you want to.

  32. I think civil partnerships made absolute sense at the time because I don’t think full marriage would have made it through the Lords. But I saw it as a step towards equal civil marriage for all. Its the way change happens here – incremental, one step at a time. There are enough MP’s to see it pass with ease

    1. With the sizeable majority that Labour had and the use of Parliament Act, Labour could have introduced equal marriage if they had wanted to – instead they chose a substandard version of equality that was never truly equal.

  33. I think people are being a bit harsh on him. Yes, his thinking’s a bit rusty and inadvertently offensive. But the point he’s trying to make, that there’s no logical reason not to have gay marriage, is a good one.

    And it’s also good that straight blokes from his generation are making it in a way that other inadvertently homophobic men will understand.

    It’s annoying, but I think he’s really helping the cause. If not a little reluctantly.

    1. I think it’s more the ‘CPs are fine’ that people are objecting too:

      ‘Dr Cable wrote: “On the issue of same–sex marriage, my own personal view is that the status quo is fine, with same–sex couples being able to commit in a civil partnership.’

      That gives the impression that, Vince Cable, believes separate is equal. It also p*sses me off because he’s commenting on something that doesn’t affect him. It’s OK for him because HE’S allowed to get married. He’s being presumptious by saying CPs are just fine for us.

      1. *objecting TO!

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.