If the next Queen speech in November has not got the legislation for equal marriage as part of it then he’s hoodwinking us.
When I consulted on Police Murder Investigations I was drawn in, by what I was doing to help the Police. I wanted to do anything for them, but over time I realised this is a well rehearsed tactic to get people on ‘their’ side.
I think those LGBT organisations and individuals that got the invite must be wondering if marriage equality will be in the next Queens speech?
Fine with me, but why dragging religion into this? Marriage is a contract between consenting adults, with legal consequences. Just leave it to the religious folk to decide if they want to be side-lined and left behind by progress. If your god disapproves of LGTB’s getting married, you won’t get their business and I’m sure their pink pound is as valuable as the the straight one.
Excellent. I read some time back that Labour and the LibDems were going to table an amendment to add in the religious ceremony part during the Lords debate, so it’s good that the PM has acknowledged that it’s better to do the whole lot in one go — because we would have had to go through this all over again to add religious ceremonies later on.
Doesn’t bother me one bit as I haven’t stepped inside a church since I was 14 and don’t plan to ever again, but for those who are gay and Christian or Muslim or whatever faith, they can find churches that want to celebrate their marriage, and that should be allowed.
First time I’ve actually thought about it hard — my never, ever, going in to a church again. I would go to a Civil Partnership or same-sex Marriage in an affirming church – I’ve changed my mind on that, because I know a few people who want to get hitched soon.
Remember that when John Sentamu was asked on Andrew Marr what he thought about the government’s plans to allow Civil Partnerships in churches and other religious venues, he said;
“I live in a liberal democracy and I want equality for everybody. I cannot say the Quakers shouldn’t do it. Nor do I want somebody to tell me the Church of England must do it or the Roman Catholic Church must do it..”
So, they must accept that nobody is telling them they should do it, and they must NOT tell other religious groups they should not do it.
Amazing how people are evolving on religious ceremonies for gay couples. Not for me personally, but I thoroughly support it for those who want it. Today’s announcement in Scotland is only going to compound the argument to do the same in Westminster. I don’t see how it could not now that Scotland seems likely to pass it into law in 2013. Well done, PM Cameron.
Never trust a Tory!. They will promise the world to win votes. But i hope they prove me wrong and do push ahead with marriage equality in 2015. Guess i just dont trust there record and the way that the government are taking benefits away from disabled people while the rich avoid tax.
I hope im wrong and that they have truely evolved.
Just have a lot of trust issues when it comes to the Tories so sorry again if i went to far.
After Section 28 we all have trust issues, nothing to be sorry about. We will see what happens, and if for any reason it is not done by early 2015, it will be done shortly after — whoever is in power. If I was minded to vote Tory, for other policies (I’m not), if they didn’t pass it by 2015 (ages away) I would not vote Tory.
I guess you have a point there. :)
I’m no fan of this current coalition government or the Tories, but I think on equal marriage for England & Wales, they will go through with it. Remember they said right from the start that they were legislating and the consultation was about the “how” not the “if”.
This latest news about Cameron supporting religious marriage is encouraging especially as Clegg also supports it.
Section 28 was a very long time ago – saying one doesn’t trust the Tories is a bit like someone in the 1970s saying they don’t like Germans or the Japanese. We quite rightly don’t like people generalising about us so we shouldn’t condemn all politicians, members and supporters of an entire political party. I’m sure some of your friends, relations and neighbours are Tories and some are very nice people :~).
It is imperative that the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, includes Northern Ireland in the Marriage Equality Act as the chances of the government at Stormont doing so is remote at this time. As the only party in favour of Equality in the north of Ireland is Sinn Fein, they cannot do it alone. They may become the largest party and be able to govern alone after the next election but that prospect is, while not impossible, speculative to say the least.
Do all the various agreements allow the UK to include Northern Ireland? I agree they should, and hope they will, but would it cause a seismic division due to the heavy influence of religion?
I can’t say to be honest. However the religious aspect is somewhat diminished in that the Roman cult is now a busted flush throughout Ireland, North and South, because of the horrific revelations of the sexual and physical abuse of children by Catholic clergy over the centuries and especially in the last fifty years.
Most of the Protestant opposition will be of a fundamentalist nature as it is fundamentalist churches who dominate the Unionist populations religious ethos. . However even they have seen a huge downturn in their bums on seats scenario since the RC upheaval. However the DUP which is really the political wing of the Free Presbyterian Church, set up by Ian Paisley in the sixties and which is rabidly fundi in the American bible belt sense.
….will be the main stumbling block for marriage Equality in Ulster. The leader of the Party, Peter Robinson, the cuckolded husband of the vile Iris Robinson, has already voiced opposition. Several other influential members of his party such as Jeffery Donaldson and Gregory Campbell will be fiercely against any such move as Sinn Fein might propose. This is not to say that there isn’t scope for a seismic move on the DUPs part were they to strike some sort of an advantageous deal with Sinn Fein on some other matter which might suit them. However I am deeply sceptical and would rather it were tacked on to the British move were it politically possible..
Ah! Peter Robinson is ok with adultery, but not with equality. That figures. :(
Paddy, the Scottish Parliament can use a Sewell Motion which means they adapt Westminster legislation for a subject which is devolved to cover Scotland too. In 2005, the Labour/Lib Dem Scottish Executive (Government) didn’t legislate for Civil Partnerships despite it being their responsibility. They waited for Westminster to do it and applied that legislation to Scotland using the Sewell Motion.
Could something like that work for NI with equal marriage?
….unfortunately that scenario also requires agreement between the coalition parties and would be unlikely to be carried. The best option is direct imposition of the Westminster law for Northern Ireland as it applies to England and Wales. This is how previous laws on sexuality, such as the age equality and further back to 1972, the abolishment of the Law making Homosexuality illegal. At that time Paisley threatened UDI if it was applied to NI but chickened out when the British Prime Minister, who I think, was Edward Heath at the time, called his bluff.
I suspect that it is not possible for Cameron to Include NI, and as i don’t have access nor am I willing to trawl the various agreements made since the Belfast Agreement I am in the dark in that regard. Perhaps there are other contributors from Ireland who may be familiar with the scenario and will enlighten us further…. Maybe even Stuart Ross may know? Stu?
I can`t stand that friken frik Cameron , to be honest I`d like to slap the frikwit accross his smarmy friken public schoolfrikers ugly fat porker face , he should have BO . Sorry that`s the way it is , and has nothing to do with the subject .
Well done Cameron and well done Cameron in trying to deal with the Church upfront. Can’t really see how religious weddings can be avoided anyhow. I’d also feel more comfortable if someone said something about straight CPs and what they intend doing about CPs in general. Another inconsistency that’s not going to go away.
However, the C4EM support board still shows 178 cons still undecided with 57 against. If the cons want to show they have changed then they are going to have to get these MPs to start singing from the same hymn book as their leader!
And the nicest thing in this – I really believe, that David is absolutely hearty, then he speaks about gay rights. Yes, the final achievement is important – but its so beautiful, when its doing not because of political pragmatism.
Let’s see an Out4Marriage video from David Cameron saying, what he is reported as saying.
Okey, but it doesn’t actually mean anything until he DOES something. He is quite literally the person in the country with more influence than anyone on this issue. Joining in with some trendy publicity campaign is nothing.
Yvette Cooper has also said that churches should be able to have the choice – perhaps she could bring forward an amendment?
The reception for LGBT community was held at Downing Street 10 at the same day, when official dinner for The Queen Elisabeth, Prince Philip and some recent Prime Ministers was in the same rooms too, I am right? Nice surprise from beautiful David, I can say.
this is incorrect Pavlos… The GLB party arrived after the Royal Party and former PMs had left. However were they all to be there at the same time it would be unlikely they would be in the same room. 10 Downing street is quite vast and there are several state rooms where functions can take place at the same time and guests from one function would never be allowed access to another. The time allowed for these sorts of do’s is also very limited.
Yes, I understand, that it was two separate receptions. But both held on the same day at Downing Street 10. Nice and symbolic timing. Good enough for me.
Everyone is being very sensitive about the church’s right to discriminate. I feel that they should not be allowed to turn Gay couples away if their celebrants are authorised by civil law. If people want a wedding in a church that discriminates they should have to have a civil marriage also to make it legal. Religious freedom should be tolerated as long as they abide by the law.
If you enjoy laughing at bigots, you really do need to take a glance at the comments underneath recent SSM articles on the Christian Institute’s FaceBook page.
Note the impotent fury. Marvel at the barking-mad, dark-age mentality! Wonder why the majority are incapable of constructing even basic English sentences.
It’s a joy to wallow in their own misery and crapulence.