I hope very much, he not change his mind on this ‘until end of this month’. And a little longer.
A vote of conscience? About the human right to be treated as equal as anyone else?
Get on your bike Salmond.
Watching how the SNP do anything in the name of government in Scotland is about as enthralling as watching paint dry.
I don’t care what you do now, or how the vote goes in the name of ‘conscience’, you’ve lost my vote either way, on the future of the SNP and independence. In fact, independence scares the hell out of me now.
I had the same change of heart about the SNP and independence 5 years ago – and all because of the SNP’s attitude to gay equality & homophobia.
And the cash they happily took from 1 Brian Souter.
I left my home country after that.
That was the first time I became aware of the SNP’s homophobia – when they happily took his money in 2007. Salmond was asked on tv at the time if he thought about the consequences of accepting Souter’s money and he replied, “Not for a second.” So he couldn’t even give gay people a second’s thought. I stopped voting for them then and I’ve been astonished at the amount of homophobia that goes on in the SNP. A lot of it has been reported in Pink News over the last 5 years or so.
They should have a sodding vote of conscience about the way people with disabilities are treated in this country – what the government does in this regard is beyond immoral, and yet it goes unchallenged on ethical or any other grounds.
Anyone who claims that a law abiding minority’s civil rights is a matter of ‘conscience’ is clearly either an idiot or a bigot or both.
Its a civil democratic matter and should be decided by the people in a referndum.
Why Gemma? If equal marriage is enacted with the appropriate protections for religious bodies then why should a referendum be held?
Equal marriage does not change anything for heterosexuals. Their rights are the same, they can still procreate(for those bleating on about it), in what way does it affect them to need them to vote on it?
Case law, common law. the church (my church and i disagree with them on gay issues and they very well know it) are petrofied they will be sued or worse if they refuse to TEACH there children about in there circulam. I think the SNP have got a bad response from the consulation and know that respondents have said NO. The cardinal has jumped on this and asked for a refferndum. We should have supported the cardinal and with his own brick. The scots people will say on paper they are religious to the hilt however when it comes to voting, in private they very freedom oriantated and are only religious by culture. They would have said YES and that would have gave the LGBT a massive mandate and destroyed the power of the church. But again the government know best…
Marriage is not a constitutional issue
Referenda are only for constitutional matters
Holding a referendum on whether a black person should be able to marry would be disgusting – so is holding a referendum to potentially allow the majority to deny a minority rights when the minority are gay.
You’re absolutely right, Stu. And I’d extend your comparison with race to say that no government would feel the need to decide whether black people should be allowed the right to marry, yet that’s exactly what the SNP are doing with gay people.
He is an oportunist, the same as CaMoron.
Stop making excuses Alex. You shot yourself in the foot yesterday. Better to have just kept your mouth shut until you had a decision to announce.
Since when is a civil right a vote of conscience? From what I read yesterday, only one SNP threatened resignation and brought the entire decision to a halt. Was a woman’s right to vote a matter of conscience? Absolutely not, nor was it regarding reproductive rights that included the right to an abortion. Nothing more than bigotry. If Salmond doesn’t deliver, I hope our Scottish brothers and sisters vote en masse against independence, pay the bigots back back for betraying us.
Just saw the news cast of Salmond about equality. Talk about looking like a dithering blithering idiot. A weak lilly livered joke.
Here’s a vote of conscience for you Salmond. Women should be treated equally. Majority of men in parliament. No vote for women’s equality. There, problem solved. Or what about black people being treated equally. Majority of parliament white. Vote of conscience for black people being equal a no vote.
Get stuffed Salmond.
If you acted the same way in Westminster as in that shameful newscast you would be a laughing stock. what am I saying – you are a laughing stock. And I repeat again, Independence for Scotland is now too scary for GLBT people to contemplate. What will this weak hand wringing clown cave into next?
Alex Salmond, get lost.
Delay after delay after delay.
what a joke for a so called leader.
I’ve said this several times but I urge every Gay Scot to vote against independence as a protest. Maybe when the SNP realises that they can no longer count on the gay vote, they can kiss independence goodbye. Fair is fair.
The same goes for the all three parties in Westminster. Don’t ever take our votes for granted if you can’t deliver. Game over.
As a gay man, I stopped voting for the SNP years ago when I realised how homophobic the party was.
There are 2 openly gay SNP MSPs – Joe FitzPatrick and Marco Biagi. And one openly gay SNP MEP – Alyn Smith.
I wonder if they’ll speak out and condemn this. My guess is they won’t.
You’re right, BennieM, they won’t. Their political careers are far more important even if it means allowing equal marriage to fail. Despicable!
I once e-mailed all 6 Scottish MEPs about their support of gay equality and Alyn Smith was quick to reply positively. I later e-mailed them all again about the SNP government helping St. Margaret’s adoption agency avoid the 2007 equality legislation brought in by Westminster, and what do you know, Alyn Smith didn’t bother to reply!
Its OK from Salmonds perspective to delay his decision or to view it as a matter of conscience
He already has the right to choose to marry
He forgets that these delays are continuing to deny equality and civil rights to others
The SNP’s attitude to gay equality has always been reserved at best, and outright homophobic at worst.
What really annoys me is that Salmond still won’t commit to decision.
He’s not just talking about getting the details of a Bill right, he’s still talking about making a decision whether to even go ahead with equal marriage. There is no decision to make, it’s a matter of equality. I’m disgusted that the SNP are even debating it. No other group of people would have their human rights discussed like this – about whether they should get them or not.
I meant to say in my 2nd sentence of my last comment that I’m annoyed Salmond still won’t commit to legislating.
He claims to be in favour of equal marriage yet can’t decide if he should legislate! Completely and utter disgusting! He has no trouble making a decision about all the other policies he supports, so why this?
Would they have a free vote over rights for black people?
I wish someone would directly ask Salmond that very question on camera!
Qyestions are vetted at these things. Its disgusting the people are not really given democracy its all staged.
I even find Salmond’s words reserved. Whenever asked about his views on equal marriage he says things like “I made my views known last year” or the quote ftom this story about not changing his mind. He never just comes right out and says he supports equal marriage. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it annoys me.
I’ve also asked several SNP MSPs in recent years about the party’s attitude to gay rights and homophobia and I got a stock answer word for word every single time saying “I’ve been an SNP member for X years and have never come across homophobia in the SNP, so I don’t agree it’s a problem.” It’s not re-assuring when they can’t even think for themselves! In all cases, everyone I wrote to ignored specific examples of homophobia in the SNP that I pointed out.
Latest from BBC Scotland, leaked E Mail – Salmond waiting for Westminster to enact the Equalities Act first before (or even if) he will consider equal marriage for GLBT people. So that’s it. We’re sunk until the SNP leave office, and not until at least after 2015. Too scared of religions that want special laws in place to protect them from any challenge made to them from GLBT people. We’ve been strung along.
JIM CROW here we come!
Isnt the Equalities Act already in place????
So they must be talking about Section 202, which provides for services on religious premises, and protects religious bodies who don’t want to – see 3A
That would need to be amended for Marriage I guess. I don’t really understand how they have a separate Marriage Act in Scotland anyway – it is weird how many laws are just duplicated for no real reason. Devolution I understand, but right now we’re the UK, we work as one, and almost all our laws as made and implemented by Westminster, for all of us – I would have expected Marriage to be one of those, universal, for the UK. The UK seems to becoming like the UK, with different laws for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the rest, and it’s …. somewhat pointless.
Anyway, I think that’s what they want, the UK-wide Equalities Act to be amended, to make clear the protections needed. Why not create their own version of the Equalities Act, for Scotland !!!
“the UK seems to becoming like the UK” … I mean “like the US” obviously; sorry.
Actually Scot’s Law is a completely separate entity from the rest of the UK. It has always been that way since the Act of Union, as is it’s educational system and health service and police, none of which have ever been subject to rule by Westminster. As a matter of quibble, whenever you hear about what’s happening with the NHS in the UK, that doesn’t include Scotland. It never has.
Oh, and we don’t have judges or a Director of Public Prosecutions (CPS) either. We have a Sherrif and a Procurator Fiscal instead.
I think these matters were actually handled by Westminster before devolution in 1999 – by the old Scottish Office, I think. Since then, however, they’ve been under the control of the Scottish Executive/Government & Parliament. And I think it was actually called the Treaty of Union in Scotland.
Gulliver, on your point about Scotland creating it’s own Equalities Act – my guess is that this is a reserved matter which Westminster has responsibility over, not the Scottish Parliament. Although I don’t know for sure. If I’m correct, then the Scottish Government won’t be able to ammend it.
Although equal opportunities are a reserved matter, I understand it is possible for Scottish Ministers to be given power under reserved matters by means of executive devolution. The SG should request it if they feel they need it.
I must admit to not knowing that, Stu! If that’s the case, then the SNP have no excuse – they have the responsibility and power for equal marriage, an overall majority in Parliament, support of more than enough opposition MSPs and support of the public. They have no good reason to back down or delay further.
Just to add to my above post, Westminster think Salmond is using this as an excuse to bloke equality legislation.
Are we sure.
Just seen this, leaked email. (I see Mike also saw it).
This leaked just shows that when it comes to gay equality and religion, the SNP will put the desires of the religious to hate over the right to equality for gay people.
It’s not the first time they’ve done this – St. Margaret’s adoption agency in Glasgow is another example. It remains to this day the only adoption agency in Britain which can legally refuse gay people, thanks the SNP government.
It sounds like they are considering something like the Danish model. However, if they want to amend the Equality Act to allow individual priests to opt out of carrying out same sex marriages if their church opts in, then doesn’t religious liberty equally demand that priests that do want to carry them out, but their churches don’t, should have an equal right of conscience to do so? If religious liberty lies with the individual, which in fact it should, rather than with church officials, then logically it must be even-handed.
Conversely to my above point, if the reply is that if a priest wants to carry out a same sex marriage, but his church doesn’t allow it, then he must follow the rules of his church or leave – then logically the reverse also applies, if his church has a doctrine that accepts it, he also has the choice to accept the rules of his church or leave.
In either of the two approaches, giving the power to the church, or the individual, the principal should be one of even-handedness.
It gets worse.
From the leaked email, it seems Alex Salmond does not want to be seen as the one responsible for enacting equality legislation in Scotland, but rather that his hand was be forced by a decision made in Westminster affecting the rest of the UK.
I don’t live in Scotland, but if I did I might well have supported the SNP, and I had certainly thought quite highly of Alex Salmond. However after the ITV video above and then this leaked letter I would be turning away from the SNP and going with Labour or the LibDems. For for Alex Salmond — I simply cannot explain why I thought he was any different than any other politician, but it’s been confirmed now that he’s just another lying politician.
I certainly wouldn’t vote for him or the SNP after this, if I lived there.
Remember, Salmond was in Wesminster as an MP for over 20 years – it’s probably why he out manouvres other MSPs at Holyrood, a lot of whom are former “toon cooncillors”. We were promised a new style of politics with the advent of the Scottish Parliament but it’s just been more of the same.
I don’t like that we are being denied equality until religions are legally protected from that equality.
There are no legal protections to stop a religion from being sued for refusing to marry a straight couple, so why does there need to be legal protections when it comes to same sex marriage?
Once again, gay people aren’t being treated equally, even when it comes to equal marriage!
I think there are legal protections to stop religions from being sued for refusing to marry mixed-sex couples, actually. They’re allowed to practice their religion as they see fit. If that religion says “no one can be married more than once” or “no one can be married unless they fall into our strict criteria for ethnicity”, they’re allowed to. It’s pretty much carte blanche for religions to do what they want. Of course, they’re required to follow other laws – polygamy, child marriage and incest are all illegal, and I doubt religions would get very far if they refused marriage to someone disabled.
I always thought and believed that a Scotsman word was his bond.
That whent out the window with protections against double jepordy and your right to no comment meaning no comment. We live in a national socalist police state were the party’s word is law. However we asked for it, we voted them in.
With the exception of the Conservatives, more SNP MSPs are still undecided on equal marriage than any other party in the Scottish Parliament. It’s clear that’s there is an undercurrent of homophobia in the SNP. After all, how many SNP MSPs or Councillours have ever spoken out about Souter donating money to party, for example? None. We can only assume everyone in the SNP is happy to accept money from a homophobe.
If Cameron & Clegg are watching the fallout over this in Scotland, then hopefully they’ll learn from it and not repeat the same mistakes south of the border! I now wonder if England & Wales will be first in the UK with marriage equality. It will be Gretna Green in reverse!
It could well turn out that way BennieM. By the way, that twat Gemma Gillon I believe is Aiden. I just had him booted from PN but I’ve contacted PN to make sure the fake C4M shill female will suffer the same fate.
Oh right. Thanks for the warning, Robert!
Not convinced about Gemma, even Aidens spelling is better than hers!
Robert, no need for the verbial abuse. I can assure you im not the guy you seem to think I am. I consider that a slur on my gender, I will be taking screenshot of you comment and passing it on to police.
If you continue. That is.
Now that comment DOES sound like Aiden… Weird.
Changed my mind now, that is exactly the sort of response Aiden would give!
And lie about – because when challenged he would be unable to justify any report to police.
My conscience, uncorrupted by religion tells me that all of this is wrong.
How dare elected governments, elected by ALL even consider that my existence is up to a vote of conscience.
How dare these arbiters of religious cults even have any influence whatsoever.
F U Scotland. I will never be back.
Stupid sectarian dump.
Perhaps Mr Brian Souter threatens to take away his SNP supportive money.
It won’t make the SNP look any better if it’s Souter who decides to stop donating and not them refusing it out of principle. Don’t they realise how it looks accepting his money?
Its a sad truth, the ‘Lawful church of Scotland’ as ‘The defender of the faith’ rules. Islam, Mainstream Judisem, Catholisim, protestantism, Shiekism. All disagree and all hold votes. By rights if the yhold the majorty stake of votes they shoudl be listened to in democracy. Problem is that we are a minority.
‘ He said while his personal convictions had not changed, the decision needed to be made after consideration of all arguments, not his personal feeling.’ Thats what a boos says b4 he is about to fire you LGBT
Get ready to be booted from PN, Aiden!
I can tell you from experience that most SNP members and supporters are not homophobic. Yes there are homophobic members in the party but they are in the minority. If the SNP were truly homophobic i would of handed back my membership and told them where to put it a long time ago . But i will agree on the issue of Gay marriage the party have taken trying to make the decision and getting the best bill to far.!! Making us wait longer for them to get there act together. !
‘Gays are sad and danmed to hell’ Kenneth Gunn SNP
Told the LGBT they would be stabbed in the back and were being used. I was laughed at.
If i remember correctly that Councillor got disciplined for what he said.
Only after it hit the news. The SNP at first said his views were private. Christine Graham also publicly supported him.
Roseanna Cunningham was never disciplined. When I asked my local SNP MSP why Bill Walker was thrown out of the SNP for domestic violence when his homophobia was ignored by the party, she replied ” Personal views revealed during a consultation do not constitute discrimination.” It’s a pity for Bill Walker that the allegations of his violence didn’t come out during a consultation on domestic violence!
The councillor was protected but the scots people voted him out. If you let the people speak and not government you will find they wil lnot betray you. We are bought and sold for gold.
But if at the end of the month they decide not to legislate a bill then they will have just lost most of my respect for them. !!
And if they do legislate a bill and the dinasaurs in the party complain, then i suggest they stay quiet or leave the party.!!!
I do agree with you, Charlie. But the problem is that these decent people in the SNP never condemn the homophobia that goes on like accepting Souter’s money, or Roseanna Cunningham and her “goes against 1000 years of nature’s design” speech, or this equal marriage thing. As long as nobody in the SNP challenges all the homophobia, then it will carry on. You don’t stand back and watch a child being bully then claim that you’re not a bully just because you didn’t take part.
I guess your right it just really frustrates me that those damn dinosoars open there months speak hate and give the party a bad name. !!! I just wish they’d leave, making the party much more fairer without them.
Well if i were Alex Salmond , id stand up to the bullying and make a zero-Torrance policy to homophobia and tell the objectors to keep there hateful views to there selves.!!!
I wish he would too, but he doesn’t and it makes it appear that he doesn’t mind or even agrees with the homophobic views of some people in the SNP, whether that’s true or not.
He wouldn’t tolerate racism within his party, yet he does tolerate homophobia.
I wouldnt say he agrees i met him once and he didnt come accross as the type to support homophobia. He probably just tolerates the homophobia which i think someone his position should look to stop. I bet the real reason as to why homophobia is not challenged is because there to scared that they hurt the political and religous feelings of the dinosoars. ( i just wish they wouldn’t torrerate homophobia, even religious freedom has its limits. Discrimination is Discrimination and should not be tolerated!)
Well, I’ve never met Alex Salmond, but I saw Nicola Sturgeon having a coffee in Glasgow Central Station when I was at college there years ago and I was thrilled! That’s when I supported the SNP.
I certainly wouldn’t like to think Salmond agrees with the homophobes, but by not challenging them or not taking action against them, it sends out the message that he doesn’t see homophobia as a problem. Doing nothing about it just isn’t good enough, if you ask me.
To be honest I think Nicola Sturgeon would make a better leader. Both Sturgeon and Salmond have their strengths and weaknesses. But I think that if Nicola Sturgeon controlled the helm of the party, rather than being second in command, she would not put up with homophobia in her cabinet.( Could be wrong but that’s just the feeling I get.)
Now that iv gave matter some thought, i don’t Samond tolorates homophobia I think he just respects that not everyone agrees with his views. So he tries to be professional and agrees to disagree.
now that i think about it i don’t think Alex Salmond Tolerates Homophobia as such. I think he tries to accept that not everyone may share his views. (I know i sound like iv changed my tune a little bit.)
I’ll have to disagree with you, Charlie. Salmond does tolerate homophobia simply by not speaking out whenever it occurs such as with Councillor Gunn, Bill Walker, or Roseanna Cunningham. As leader of the SNP, and in 2 of those cases First MInister, he should have publicly said they were wrong yet he didn’t. So he does tolerate it. And only Gunn was disciplined, after it hit the news. The other 2 weren’t.
And in the case of Cunningham, he actually gave her a Ministerial job a year or 2 after her comments. So not only was she never disciplined, not only did Salmond never condemn her views and actions (tabling an ammendment to ban gay people from adopting), he rewarded her with a plum post in government.
What does that say about his attitude to homophobia?
Whilst I do not think Salmond is intrinsically homophobic (in that this is his own motivation etc), and by that regard I have sympathy with Charlies view – I do agree (particularly in the case of Bill Walker) that in some cases Salmonds failure to act appears to endorse and support homophobes
Ahh i see, i honestly forgot about that. I was just trying to see things from his view just thought he didnt want infighting with in the party as it would give the opposition a field day in taking the mick out of the SNP for not being united in there own party.
But i must agree he needs to speak out against the homophobs in the party (like for example not giving them any posts in his cabinet.)
They never looked at this properly. They did not count on too legal facts.
1. If it was passed the church of Scotland have the power to invoke a royal veto.
2. If it was passed it would be out of the remit of the scottish parliment and the scotland act as it would need to be passed by westminster, a huge humilation for the snp.
Looks like the part used you to get re elected and then dumped you liek a cheap whore. The LGBT should have not flirted with these people. But of course the charity that you entrusted to carry your name is bought and paid by £1 millon of scots government investment.
I didn’t vote for them, I haven’t done so in years since I discovered how homophobic the SNP is. I’ve been called a liar on these threads before for pointing it out.
Same. I was called a ‘conspiracy theroist’ and ‘metnally ill’ for saying this when I stood as councillor on the LGBT scottish national youth council (which the lgbt host by the governments investment) I got sent verbial abuse for calling out this (got the evidance) I brought cases of serious homophobia to these people and said dont trust the SNP and of course I was hounded. In London some LGBT traitors took government money and destroyed the parade. Its all money boys and girls. You can be married, you have human rights but you dont need a chairty or government to tell you this. The power is in your hands get out there and protest peacefully. Refuse to go to work, stage sit ins, kick up a stink, make an issue march like martin luther king, dont let people in your own ranks exsplote you and DONT GIVE UP.
I guess your right just wish the dinosoars in the party would leave. They give the party a bad reputation, of being looked in the past on LGBT issues.
The Percy case would suggest that the Veto would be questioned by civil courts and potentially challenged (or seen as unnecessary and irrelevant). The Human Rights Act did not deem any special requirements were needed for the CoS – and many commentators believe this will be the case with equal marriage.
Posted by the Equality Network not long ago
“We don’t think the BBC report of delays to #equalmarriage is justified by the leaked email. No need to panic at the moment!”
Thank gosh, i guess all that panicking was for nothing. Cant believe someone could be as sad as to create a hoax email to antagonize us.
It’s not a hoax email; it’s genuine. But it does not, of itself, indicate any delay. The BBC have interpreted it slightly wrong – it does not say the Equality Act must be amended by the UK Govt before the Scottish same-sex marriage bill can go before Holyrood.
It does say that by then – perhaps 6 months from now if the Scottish Govt do actually commit to do this – the UK and Scottish Govt must agree the type of amendments needed to UK legislation including the Equality Act. The amendments don’t need to be made until the same-sex marriage act is coming into effect, perhaps 18 or more months away.
Weren’t we discussing the timing of equal marriage in Scotland a few weeks ago on these threads and suggesting it could come into force sometime in 2013? Now it’s 18 months or more because of the changes to the Equality Act which puts makes it 2014 at least.
The fastest the bill could be passed at Holyrood is the second half of 2013. But there will be a delay before it comes into effect, for secondary legislation, changes to documents etc. For civil partnership that delay was 12 months. In this case it should be possible to do it in 6. Therefore, first half of 2014 for the first marriages. That’s not because of this Equality Act business, it was always the case.
I’m not saying that we know this will happen – just that that could be the timetable if the Scottish Govt fully commit to it and the UK Govt cooperate. If either of those things don’t happen it would be a betrayal of our rights as LGBT people – but you don’t need me to tell you that!
If there are needs to amend the Equality Act at a Westminster level then could these either be carried out by a SG request for executive devolution on this matter or via a Westminster Statutory Instrument?
Yes exactly. Most likely it would be done with a statutory instrument at Westminster called a “section 104 order”. That’s an order by the UK Govt that makes consequential amendments to UK law in consequence of an Act passed by the Scottish Parliament. There are 2 or 3 section 104 orders a year – it’s standard practice.
So there is an important issue – that is, will the UK Govt cooperate with the Scottish Govt to enable the Scottish same-sex marriage bill to be prepared. That would mean the two govts agreeing what (small) amendments will later be made to UK legislation if the same-sex marriage bill passes. One would hope that the two govts would be able to agree – after all, the UK Govt supports same-sex marriage so presumably would not want to block the progress of a Scottish same-sex marriage bill. And if the Scottish Govt is committed to it, one would hope they would cooperate with the UK govt on the UK amendments.
But if the two govts can’t agree, the bill would stall.
These ammendments to the Equality Act will be to ensure churches can refuse to carry out same sex marriages, is that correct?
At the moment, churches can refuse to marry straight couples without fear of reprisal, so why should there be a fear that they’ll be sued or forced to carry out same sex marriages?
I just don’t understand why there’s a double standard here.
It’s not the legislation for equal marriage that appears to be the problem, it’s changes to the Equality Act to ensure churches won’t be forced to comply with the equal marriage legislation.
Why is it that my rights as a gay man always seem to come second to the church’s right to hate?
I really hope Salmond doesn’t blame Westminster in the end and say he can’t legislate for equal marriage because Westminster won’t change the Equality Act.
As I understand it, the SG could legislate for marriage equality without the changes to the UK Equality Act.
The changes to the Equality Act are simply to protect the churches who don’t want to carry out same sex marriages.
If I got this right, then I’m really annoyed that it could take longer because of this.
Surely a minor amendment to the Equalities Act could be carried out by a Statutory Instrument (therefore take a week or so if deemed urgent) or via an SG request for executive devolution on this matter?
Yes it can be done by a statutory instrument. Consequential amendments to UK law in consequence of acts of the Scottish Parliament are made in that way. The Westminster statutory instrument can’t be made until after Holyrood passes the act, and the act can’t be brought into effect until the Westminster statutory instrument is in place. It takes a bit more than a week, but no longer that the devolved Scottish Govt statutory instruments that will be needed anyway to implement the act before it can come into effect.
I think if i remember correctly Teresa May complained about the equality act and nicknamed it Harmans law. I cant remember weather she wanted it streamlined or expanded??. But i guess we will have to hope she makes a minor ammendment in the Equality Act to make a marriage bill work.
A SI can be signed into law by any Westminster Secretary of State – it does not have to be Theresa May – although I am sure she would support the SG in their request if it were to ensure equality and fairness in marriage.
That appears to be good news, Kris. But the SNP could stop all this second guessing and rumours by just telling us exactly what’s going on!
I’ve been very critical of the SNP on this thread, but I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong if it meant they go ahead with equal marriage legislation at the end of July.
Maybe they will prove us all wrong and announce that the will pass a marriage bill??? :) until then i guess we should try and stay positive until they make there decision
I really hope you’re right! I’ve got a feeling there will be more headlines about this before the SG announce their decision – good and bad headlines, and who knows if they’ll be true or not!
The SNP Government wants to allow religions to continue to discriminate. This would still be no reason to delay making civil marriage open to all and civil partnerships open to all. If they delay equality in these civil matters, they are using religion (and Westminster) as an excuse.
Salmond is a fool. If he doesn’t deliver, he could well ruin any hopes of independence from England. There are a significant number of gay voters in Scotland to make that a reality. Bring it on.
Well in that case what if the westminister coalition fails. And Cameron drops his promise of marriage equality ? Then even England would lose there hopes of marriage equality. Independence is an issue with lots of different issues to consider. LGBT rights in Scotland could get better with independence. The Greens and Socialists would be let down to if Pro- independance LGBT voters said NO just because of the SNP. But I’m sure we will have a better idea by 2014 when the referendum date draws closer :)
Referendums are disastrous because every nasty religious tactic would be employed to discredit and villify GLTBI people!
But if I’m honest I don’t think Salmond agrees with the oppoinents of gay marriage in his party. But he accepts that members in his party may not all share some of his views.
Presumably, all the procrastinating will only continue as I read they now want Westminster to amend the Equality Act – and that is never going to happen is it, not with Clegg recently proposing a religious element to the proposed England and Wales legislation.
I think that it is obvious by now that gay marriage isn’t going to come about anywhere in the British isles. Expect there to be no more about this and the dithering to continue.
They’d be better off scrapping the same sex marriage idea and introducing civil partnerships for all.
The simple fact is that it is impossible to have same terms for consummation and adultery that applies to both types of couple.
It cannot be done.
Get the state out of people’s sex lives -why are gay people so keen to have their genitalia and sex lives discussed in court? To suffer the same indignity as heterosexuals? Madness?- and have cp’s for al.
Equality will be achieved.
If people -of any gender- need to have the pat on the head from society and validation it gives, they’re pathetic and need to grow up.
For a minor amendment a simple statutory instrument (made executively by a minister) is all that is required.
Or the SG could request for executive devolution on this matter
Legalizing Gay “Marriage” is institutionalising decadence. It is politically correct nonsense. I hope that Alec Salmond comes to his senses fast and sees that this proposed legislation defies propriety. It’s crazy.