Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

New UK culture secretary supports equal marriage, saying marriage should be for ‘everyone’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There is no inconsistency in being tory and being in favour of marriage equality, quite the opposite.

    1. There is no inconsistency in being a libertarian Tory and being in favour of marriage equality. But that is not the only type of Tory. Lots of Tories are social reactionaries and authoritarians.

      1. Marriage is a socially conservative value. Feeling that ideally gay couples should settle down and raise a family instead of… whatever they think unmarried people get up to that is so scandalous… is a socially conservative value.

        She said everyone should get married, not just that everyone should be allowed to. That is not a libertarian attitude.

    2. The feeling of guilt by association can show itself for what it really is. Those who voted Tory can only regret now.

      1. That doesn’t even make sense – even for your normal anti-Tory bile.

  2. I don’t care if, on a personal basis, she loathes or loves the idea. So long as she extracts her finger, gets the law changed, she can think what she likes.

  3. Andrew Paul Landells 10 Sep 2012, 9:49am

    We had exactly the same drama when Theresa May came into office. She had a poor track record on LGBT rights but has moved with the times. There’s no reason to assume Maria Miller won’t be the same.

    Whatever else you might think about the Tories, David Cameron is desperately trying to make the party accept equal rights.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 10 Sep 2012, 10:12am

      I agree – he has too much riding on it to allow it to fail and therefore as I have previously said, he would be extremely unlikely to put in post someone who is going to block him. Can’t imagine that Clegg would be too up for it either (assuming he does have a say)

    2. Although at least under Theresa May, the equalities brief was held by Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone – without the Lib Dems in Government, I doubt we’d seeing so much action towards equal marriage, and without Lynne I fear that some of the nuances (such as same-sex civil partnerships, the trans divorce problem etc.) will be overlooked.

      1. My hope is that those pledges previously publicly made are a given and the new people and ministry will open additional areas to equalities attention that Lynne Featherstone and the Home Office disregarded. Featherstone’s exact replacement has an excellent personal record on work against domestic violence, and is herself Black. The need for assistance against violence and menace in the home, and attitudes in some ethnic minority communities were gaps previously. The appalling track record of the media and OFCOM should receive attention with the Culture and Media now being responsible for equality too.

  4. I just wish they would set a timetable for equal marriage (FULL equal marriage!). The constant reference to the next election date worries me.

    That aside her comments about equal civil marriage is welcome. Althought still a little bit secptical about what she and Helen Grant really think since until they got their new jobs it was awfully hard for them to come out in favour of it.

    Perhaps Cameron needs to give the post of equalities to a different Tory MP each week and then we might get them all to agree marriage equality is a good thing.

  5. I am very cautious of this woman, given her previous track record on LGBT matters.

    I will only have faith in her when she put money where her mouth is in terms of equal marriage.

  6. Fine.

    But that does not address the other areas of concern about Miller.

    Does she STILL believe that gay couples be denied access to fertility treatment and adoption.

    It’s not only SS marriage that is a cause for concern regarding this bigot.

    1. What’s it with the abbreviations I see people use? SS marriage is another dreadful one, given who the SS were. Others I’ve seen like SSM, which looks like a disease, or ME for marriage equality, which is a medical condition. What’s wrong with just typing ‘equal marriage’?

      1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 1:33pm

        Who equal with who? That could indicate you might want to marry your goldfish.

        Same sex marriage says it all. If some people are too lazy to type it in full, that’s their problem. Stop getting so uptight about a few acronyms.
        If you want to have a moan about that, how about LGBTQI for starters?

        1. Have you really fallen so far behind that you don’t realise that the issue is adding us to the marriage law in full equality, ending the discrimination that matters most to our enemies? “Same-sex marriage” could be a different law, with any number of discrimination, as has always been the case elsewhere. We’re fighting to get only those religions that wish to discriminate excluded from marrying us, and then only as long as they wish that; we don’t need someone dragging their heels even about wanting equality.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Sep 2012, 2:51pm

        William, I understand but I’d rather have positive acronyms than “gay marriage” banded about which I think is far worse and code for right wingers in opposition to foment intolerance and hatred.

        1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:09pm

          Exactly. The usual bollocks is “Gay people can get married”
          (the subtext being ‘but not to each other’)
          Hohoho! How we chortled at their brilliant play on words.

    2. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 1:41pm

      There’s always something else for you to complain about, isn’t there?
      let the woman cover this hurdle first and we can address that issue when we come to it.

      The only time you ever manage to get a foot out of your fat gob is when you’re changing feet.

      1. “There’s always something else for you to complain about, isn’t there?”

        The pot, the kettle, the blackness.

        You’d swear you were a ray of sunshine, instead of the Tory knobhead you actually are.

        1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:08pm

          Except I’m not a Tory supporter.
          I just don’t support socialist crackpots like New LieBor like you quite obviously do either.

    3. dAVID,

      I’m gay, I don’t think I have a homophobic bone in my body, and believe that certainly a gay couple is better than care for any child. However I haven’t been convinced that the lack of male or female role models isn’t a bad thing.

      My issues don’t just rest on parenting, but also the lack of male role models in primary schools and cub scout packs – primarily caused I have to say by the tabloids throwing about accusations of paedophilia.

      I think that I feel that there are already too many people in the world, and that we shouldn’t use non-natural methods (including IVF for straight couples) to bring more children into the world.

      I guess I just don’t think it’s as clear cut as maybe we’d like it to be.

      1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:13pm

        I’m in total agreement here.
        People tend to look at these things in totally polarised ways, either you are a pro-human-rights socialist type that wants it all, or you are a nasty, baby-eating homophobic Tory scumbag.

        There is a huge grey area in-between, and every demand has to be viewed on its merits rather than a blanket cry of “but it’s not fair!”

      2. But to me that’s a completely separate matter, Ian. All the things you’ve raised there apply equally to straight couples. The majority of people raising children without both male and female role models are straight single mothers. Some of those are excellent mothers, but many sadly are not.

        An LGBT couple who choose to go to the trouble to have children are far more likely to have put real thought into it, and to have considered access to both male and female role models.

        The problem of overpopulation isn’t going to be affected by some LGBT people having children. The causes of overpopulation are far more complicated than that (as I’m sure you know anyway).

        We should all be able to marry; we should all be able to have children if we choose to; and we should all be able to be considered as adoptive parents. One’s sexuality shouldn’t come into it.

        1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:20pm

          “An LGBT couple who choose to go to the trouble to have children are far more likely to have put real thought into it.”

          That is SO biased an argument!
          If two men were able to get pregnant, this world would be awash with unwanted babies.

          1. Not sure what you mean there, Spanner. Do you mean if men were able to get pregnant by accident?

            Anyway, my point was that, male or female, having to choose to get pregnant, would mean that people would put more thoght into it. They couldn’t just get pregnant by accident; even if they couldn’t be arsed to use contraception they couldn’t get pregnant; and they couldn’t leave it to chance.

          2. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 4:54pm

            @Iris:
            You were intimating that straight single mothers were less responsible than gay couples. One assumes that in most of those cases the pregnancy was accidental.

            My argument here is there are a huge number of unwanted children out there, and as it is currently impossible for same-sex couples to conceive, rather than the ‘one-in, one-out’ scenario, wouldn’t it be better for both parents to be on an even footing and adopt a child instead?

          3. Spanner, yes, I was suggesting that some women do have children by accident or without a great deal of thought (note that ‘some’ there – obviously not all). What I meant was that it was all too easy for a straight woman to become pregnant ‘on the spur of the moment’ but that wasn’t something that applied to lesbians.

            Thank you for explaining – I get what you mean now re adoption. But first, adoption isn’t for everyone. A number of the children needing homes come from backgrounds that have caused them damage, either in the womb or during their childhood. It’s no easy job to look after them, and I completely understand people who feel unable to cope with a child with such issues.

            Also, there aren’t as many children for adoption in the UK as there used to be, and certainly far fewer babies and younger children.

            Finally, the drive to have one’s own children is an actual strong biological drive for many women and men, and one’s sexuality shouldn’t preclude one from doing that.

          4. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 10:56pm

            @Iris: I admit I am not a children person personally, but If I was, I would much prefer to have a fully-grown, semi-autonomous version than the small pink things that emanate foul-smelling fluids from every orifice whilst making ear-splitting howls at all hours.

            Why does having children have to have a baby phase?

          5. Some people actually like babies, Spanner! :D Sorry, but your comment made me smile.

            But seriously, adopting a baby may be easier than adopting an older child who is more likely to have emotional or psychological problems. That’s what I was referring to really when I mentioned the shortage of babies now. It’s not just a case of babies being ‘cuter’ (to many people :p )

            Adoption isn’t an easy option. The child might be older but that doesn’t mean they’re easier to look after (nor that they sleep at night!). I’ve worked with children who’ve had fractured family backgrounds and I’d never want anyone to think all they need is a bit of love. Not that I’m saying you think that, but I think in general many people don’t realise that fostering and adoption are no picnic.

          6. Spanner1960 11 Sep 2012, 10:27am

            @Iris:
            It was meant to make you smile!
            Contrary to popular opinion on here, I do actually have a sense of humour. :)

          7. Then I’m smiling even more :D Thanks, Spanner (and I’ve often felt that you’re not quite as gruff and grumpy as you make out sometimes :) Enjoy your day.

  7. She is:-
    a – thinking on her feet (‘everyone should get married’?!?) and
    b – anxious to keep her new job.
    Don’t give a stuff as long as she doesn’t brief against the policy and she turns up to vote for it.

  8. I don’t trust the biatch!

  9. Robert Brown 10 Sep 2012, 10:29am

    Pressure from many LGBT Tories me thinks . . . especially those who wish to get married . . .

    Now for the abortion, fertility and other LGBT equality issues such as marrying in religious institutions if individual centres, temples, churches, mosques so wish it . . .

    http://www.rainbow-citizen.com

    1. Pressure from LGBT Tories?

      That’s funny.

      LGBTory is notable only for its complete uselessness.

      Each time (on average every 2 weeks) there is a story about how yet another Tory is a homophobic bigot; the silence from LGBTory is deafening.

      LGBTory are forbidden to hold an opinion unless that opinion has been approved by Tory HQ.

      A more ineffective group would be difficult to find.

      1. Every movement has it’s quislings, alas.

        You know how the bigots say something vile then always protest “but I have gay friends!” when called on it? Those friends? That would be LGBTory

  10. Treating people equally and preventing discrimination gives society strength. I hope that’s a reason for supporting full marriage equality. Marriage in itself doesn’t give society strength.

    1. Yes but Maria Miller’s homophobia is not limited to marriage equality.

      She has not addressed each area where she has voted to suppress equality.

      Does she STILL believe that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt.
      Does she STILL believe that lesbian couples be denied access to fertility treatment.

      She voted against both and has not confirmed whether she still holds these poisonous opinions.

      Her bigotry lies in ALL of her voting record – not just her attitude to marriage.

    2. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:17pm

      The trouble is, everybody isn’t equal; that’s just the way life is.
      The important thing is that everybody has an equal opportunity to better themselves. Getting married is just one of many factors that a civilised society offers, and it is something LGBT people currently do not have the opportunity to partake in. The more opportunities people have, the stronger society becomes.

  11. OK, she’s talked a little tiny bit of the talk, now it’s time to walk the walk.

  12. If she weren’t a cabinet minister trying to keep her job and having a anti-equal marriage record i would believe her.

    1. She’s in no danger of losing her job.

      Her appointment as equalities minister is a message to the extremist element of the Tory Party that marriage equality is not coming to Britain anytime soon.

      Maria Miller needs to release a specific timetable by when we will have marriage equality.

      There is no acceptable reason for a delay.

      1. Yeah its strange the amount of Right-wing Tories that (suddenly) change there minds of LGBT equality i doubt if they are genuine or are they just trying to get LGBT and young voters to vote for them ? (there certainly not getting my vote!

  13. Don Harrison 10 Sep 2012, 11:36am

    We can keep a check on her record using http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/

    1. The figure is shocking on the issue of gay rights she only voted 36% for. It is shocking that someone who covers the equality responsibility, has a poor record on equality herself.

  14. I just think ‘muppets’ every time I look at her picture!

    1. That’s because the Tories are muppets.

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Sep 2012, 12:15pm

    Most welcome news, indeed! I don’t care for what one’s past anti equality stand was, although I was very sceptical when her appointment was announced. People can and do often change once reason and logic come into play. Clearly, Cameron would never have appointed her if she had not evolved. Actually, I think putting a Tory in that position is probably a good political move even though Lynne Featherstone was by far the best one for the job thus far. Let’s hope Maria Miller proves to be just as good. I wish her success. Anne Widdecombe won’t be a happy camper today.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Sep 2012, 1:42pm

      Whoever gave my comment a thumbs down, clearly there is something wrong with you. As I said before, I don’t much care what an MPs past record might have been. I’d rather have someone on my side no matter their party affiliation than have them in opposition, especially in the equal marriage debate. There are bad apples in every party and some of them can turn out to be good ones. Get real whoever it is and face reality. Give this woman a chance.

      1. Miller’s bigotry is not limited to marriage though.

        Her voting record shows that she is opposed to adoption and fertility treatment for same sex couples.

        So the fact that she claims to support equal marriage while refusing to mention the rest of her bigotry should be a matter of concern.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 10 Sep 2012, 2:48pm

          She could well have an epiphany on adoption and fertility treatment. Supporting equal marriage would have to encompass all rights enjoyed by hetero married couples. I don’t think she’s that naive to think otherwise now that she’s been appointed.

      2. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:26pm

        I’ll give you two guesses as to marked you down.
        “The only Tory is a dead Tory.”

        What an complete and utter cult.

      3. But how do you decide whether someone is on your side?

        Based on the pretty speeches they make? Or on their proven record? If someone says they love gay people then repeatedly slaps people for being gay, I’m disinclined to care about what they have to say

        Hasn’t she had a chance? She didn’t appear in government yesterday. There’s a reason she has a record, after all.

  16. Well that is a turn up for the books……let us see it in action and made into law sooner rather than later. Time is passing

  17. Mumbo Jumbo 10 Sep 2012, 12:24pm

    OK. But keep your eyes on the breadth of the religious exemptions she starts to allow.

  18. Is it just me, or does anyone else think she looks like Dolores Umbridge?

  19. Abandoning her so called convictions in oder to keep her job – typical Tory lies!

  20. Oh look, a PR job. Of course she’s going to make a speech. But what is worth more – a speech or campaigning and actually voting?

    And why did the Tories have to drag up someone with a homophobic record for this post?

    (And why do people keep raising Teresa May as a counter example – what did she actually DO to counter her record? And no “made a pretty speech” doesn’t count as doing something – certainly not on par with her record)

    1. because she was a good disabilities minister, and we ought to remember that the post isn’t just about us!

      1. No, butn it includes us.

        Is it that hard to find someone who is for equality for all people? Is it that ahrd to find someone who is at least not opposed to equality for GBLT people?

        Why is it so hard to find an equalities minister who isn’t prejudiced against a group they’re supposed to protect?

        1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 4:58pm

          Typical gay, selfish joined-up thinking.
          Because we are only one of a number of groups.
          Whether you like it or not, there are many other minorities that don’t see things the same way we do, and they have every right to voice their opinions as well, and then it is down to the government to balance up the equation and attempt to please as many as possible. Sometimes that’s good for us, sometimes it isn’t. That’s what it is to be a member of a democratic society.

      2. She was so good as minister that all disabled people and their organisations are complaining about her. That’s how good she is.

  21. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 1:37pm

    Like I said in a previous post, let the woman have her say and prove she is indeed in favour of same-sex marriage.

    So many people here immediately go on the defensive, but somehow I don’t expect any of them to be apologising if and when they realise they have made a mistake.

    Sure, I’m sceptical too, but let’s just see how this pans out.

  22. Great – now just get on with it. If marriage is for everyone, then hurry up and allow LGBT people who wish to to get married. I’m fed up with people being allowed to consult and vote on my rights.

    1. The Danes changed it all in weeks, including approving a new marriage service for the state church, since marriage there was included. Weeks. It really provides context for the situation here.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all