Yes but at the present time same sex marriage is not even allowed in a registry office.
Allowing cults to hold weddings is a minor issue to be dealt with once civil marriage equality has been reached.
What is Miliband doing to insist that the process of marriage equality begins immediately.
I’m of all this talk.
When is something actually going to happen?
… to be honest David, I can’t see it ever happening under the Law & Justice Homophobic Tories. CallmeDave is running scared and he is not about to ruffle the feathers of the blue rinse brigade in the Home counties going into what will be a very tough election. It is highly unlikely that Cleggy ( if Cable hasn’t booted him out by then) will make the same mistake twice and go into Government with the Tories so we will likely see a Lab LibDem Gov next time unless Labour get a sizable majority…..
This Out4Marriage campaign is serving only to hide the fact that NOTHING is currently being done on the issue of marriage equality.
Watch this space – the Tory Scum Party will let the analysis of the horrendous public consultation drag on for so long that it will be impossible to introduce equality during this government.
Then that snake oil salesman Cameron will pretend he ran out of tinme (even though he never had any intention of introducing equality.)
I get your point, but please don’t be disrespectful – the Out4Marriage volunteers work REALLY hard. It’s all done over facebook and coordinating everything alongside day jobs is difficult.
I don’t intend to be disrespectful, but the Out4marriage campaign is hiding the fact that we still have no idea when (or even if) we will gain equality.
Even though David Cameron made a specific promise to introduce it.
If ALL the 3 major political parties claim to support equality then surely the most sensible thing the Out4Marriage campaign could do is to start asking the ‘awkward’ questions.
1. Why are LGBT civil rights a matter ‘conscience’ for all 3 parties?
2. What is the EXACT timetable for marriage equality?
3. Why are LGBT civil rights subject to public consultation?
As it stands we are being fobbed off with meaningless crap like Ed Miliband’s OUt4Marriage viodeo.
He’s the leader of the opposition.
Does he really think this little video he made is an acceptable response to the fact that the LGBT population remain 2nd class citizens in terms of civil rights.
If he does then he is a complete waste of space.
All on Facebook eh? So that’s why it looks to those who will never use that privacy-destroying site that nothing is being done but videos being posted. I would seriously suggest communications be widened.
dAVID, you are talking nonsense. If we are going to have marriage equality then please let’s get it right first time. What’s the point of partial marriage equality and then a load of work for the final push to full marriage equality? It is not a minor issue – partial equality is never genuine equality.
Like divorced catholics get when they try to remarry in a catholic church.
The churches are outside the law.
Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.
Bringing religion into it is an invitation to the usual vile bigotry of the churches.
Miliband has twigged it, he knows Dave is going to back down from the pressure of the Tory back bencher’s and it’s about time Ed started captalizing insted of agreeing with the Tories. Oh no, he’s going to lay the boot into call me welch´er Dave.
Miliband saw Clegg failing to say anything about when marriage equality was going to happen in his party conference, so it’s not going to be in the Queens Speech in November then.
I cringed when I saw him playing catch up to Boris on the Letterman show, what a twat.
Why would any sane Gay person want to be involved with such a hate filled institution, especially after all the vicious hatred fill rhetoric from the Abrahamic cults over the last couple of years. it would be good to see them squirm , but a hill to far in my opinion. Of course there are institutions like the Lutherans and Reformed Synagogue that would welcome us so it would do no harm to allow rather than force them to do it……
Remember that it is only the very tiny cults that will perform same sex marriages.
It is unhelpful in the extreme for Miliband to be giving the impression that marriage equality has anything to do with religious cults
Oh, haven’t heard that ‘cult’ word in a while.
Have you been on holiday?
Isn’t it appallingly patronising for the leader of a political party to be making a video like this?
Why isn’t he doing something practical?
Like drafting a private member’s bill to introduce marriage equality legislation immediately?
the time for words is over. It’s time for action Miliband/Cameron/Clegg
Nothing wrong with the video, but he should now act on it. When Out4Marriage went to Westminister to film MPs, some said they’d be happy to put forward a private members bill. I wonder what happened there.,,
He and his colleagues should have acted on it when they were in power. Its all very well crowing from the roof tops about it now, but they had long enough to enact the whole equal marriage thing when in power.
Yes, they can see there is significant public support for equal marriage and they are all behind it but where were they when they held power????
All Labour did was kick the can around for years until the ECHR told them to pull their fingers out. If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t even have civil partnerships.
My Labour MP, Nic Dakin, is refusing to commit to any kind of equal marriage.
Have you written to Miliband to demand his expulsion from the Labour Party?
Is Miliband still maintaining that our equal civil rights are a ‘conscience’ matter?
Yes, I have contacted Ed Miliband with a couple of questions. I will return to this post when I have his reply.
I was at JLC when he was principal there and he seems like a total airhead. He just walked round shaking people’s hands and asking how they were doing without seeming to really be listening or actually care. He’s a non-genuine spineless career politician and I’d never vote for him. Better than Elliot Morley but that’s hardly saying much…
You lot are so angry at the world youll attack anyone trying to support us. In the last few days youve all attacked Lady Gaga, Madonna and Ed Miliband with tremendous bile just for speaking up for us. If i were them Id give up and stay silent because they get no thanks whatsoever.
The problem with this, is that it gives the religious further reason to point the finger and say.
“LOOK. We told you so.” “They ARE after marriage in churches.”
It just muddies the waters.
All I want is CIVIL marriage.
Those wishing religious equal marriage can fight that cause if they want.
Its not just about what YOU want though is it, it’s about what all of us want. Im not religious but I respect the LGBT people who are. It’s their choice. Ed’s on that side too. Good for him.
“Its not just about what YOU want though is it”
Did I say that?
No, I accepted that there may be some who want these cults to bless there CIVIL marriages but lets get CIVIL marriage in place first.
After that the cults can do what they like.
So that tiny minority of LGBT people who are religious think it is acceptable to potentially delay introduction of equal civil rights for the entire LGBT population unless they are allowed to get married in their cult building?
Actually that sounds typical of a religious person.
It’s an accurate description of any group that believes in a fictitious higher power, and you well know it.
David, that is not correct. A cult is not “any group that believes in a fictitious higher power”. It is, rather, a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.”
1. The group be relatively small; and
(a) The religious views are considered as strange; and/or
(b) The group imposes excessive control over its members.
Christianity cannot be considered as a “cult” because the number of Christians cannot be said to be small. The word has moved on from its French root “culte” / Latin “cultus” from the verb colere, meaning worshipped or cultivated.
… Just look up the word Cult in a dictionary and then perhaps you will stop whinging about it’s use on these threads. You whining about it’s use isn’t going to stop those of us who rightly consider religious institutions as Cults from using the word…..
Cúlt n. system of religious worship esp.as expressed in ceremonies; devotion or homage to person or thing (esp. derog. of transient fads); hence ~’ICa.,~ISM (3)~’ist(2),NS[f.F cult or f. L worship(colere cult- inhabit, till, worship)]
Cult has nothing whatever to do with the number of worshipers.
If you disagree then take it up with the Oxford Dictionary.
I suggest you take particular note of the first two lines, (Cúlt n. system of religious worship esp.as expressed in ceremonies; devotion or homage to person or thing )( which applies in particular to Christianity which is a cult of personality; ie Jesus Christ a person for whom there is no proof he ever existed ) (( My words)) altho I doubt if you will, as the religiously deluded tend to pick and choose whatever suits their agenda.
…and of course Islam which is also a cult of personality as in Muhammad…
Typical selfish gay attitude: “Let’s just talk about what *I* want and fck everybody else.”
You well know that pushing for RELIGIOUS marriage will b\/gger the whole thing up for CIVIL marriage.
Stop being so disingenuous.
Hell. Its part of our argument that we are NOT pushing for church marriages.
You seem to be actively advocating homophobic discrimination in your comments. Do you actually think it is right that same sex couples married in Quaker or other gay friendly religious ceremonies should have zero legal recognition of their marriages while their heterosexual equivalents do? Allowing gay-friendly religions to have legal recognition for their marriages is fundamental to gay equality – without it we will never have achieved equality as a community or social group compared to the rest of society.
AGAIN – the cults that are willing to perform same sex marriages are tiny little cults in terms of numbers – quakers; reform jews; unitarians.
The VAST majority of the cults and ALL the larger cults will not perform gay weddings.
So yes it is massively selfish of the couple of hundred of gay cultists who belong to gay friendly cults to endanger the civil marriage rights of the other couple of million of LGBT people n Britain.
Don’t be fooled by one guy posting under different names.
OK Mr Cameron- now- its YOUR turn.
Are you OUT4Marriage or NOT?
He has made a specific pledge to introduce marriage equality.
We do NOT need to see a video by him.
We need a specific timetable by which time we will have equality.
And we need an explanation as to why our equal civil rights were subject to a public consultation and are regarded as a matter of conscience.
Stop fuzzing up the issue ED.
Wild horses would not drag me into any form of religious building to get married.
Granted, there are some who would wish it, but get the CIVIL aspect sorted now and to hell with the cults.
I am sick of this second class status.
More importantly we need to have a specific timetable by which David Cameron will honour his specific promise to the LGBT community to introduce equal civil rights for the LGBT community.
Will there be a marriage equality bill before parliament by Christmas time?
If not then we can take it as read that Cameron is a liar who has no intention of giving us equal civil rights.
And if Cameron refuses to give us equality; then does Ed Miliband promise to introduce a marriage equality private member’s bill by Christmas?
ENOUGH with these videos; we should be demanding a timetable!
The point is, once this legislation is laid down, that will be it.
Nobody will want to go near this subject for the next 50 years.
Whatever needs to be done, needs to be done NOW.
There’s no point in pushing through some half-baked concept full of holes that doesn’t help people. If the same-sex marriage bill is going to go through, it has to be 100% right and complete, otherwise don’t bother.
He took his time, but got there in the end….But anyone actually viewing the video might be surprised by the PN headline: Miliband’s reference to church marriages is a minor part of what amounts to quite uncompromising and unequivocal support for ‘equal marriage’….Just as much as Clegg’s O4M video, only a year later….It will be interesting if Cameron is allowed to do some the same by his foaming-at-the-mouth brigade, though with most of the Tories, the LibDems and the Labour party in favour, what could possibly go wrong? (as was said about House of Lords reform….)…haha…
Mark, I don’t think the majority o the Tories are for it. EIther way, we’re going to need some of them to vote to make it legal. I doubt if there are sufficient Tory numbers there at the moment, but I expect more will evolve, hopefully as it progresses through Parliament. The obstacle of course is the HoL where it might fail.
It’s bound to fail in the unelected House of Lords.
That’s why we need a bill to appear before the House of Commons immediately; so the second the unelected House of Lords rejects it we can start again and have the unelected House of Lords overruled.
Cameron is deliberately using as many delaying tactics as he can to avoid having to fulfil his specific promise to introduce equal civil rights.
I’m betting the next useless update we’ll get is some crap about how the results of the (homophobic) public consultation will be ready by this time nexty year.
“It’s bound to fail in the unelected House of Lords. ”
Just because people aren’t elected doesn’t mean they won’t do the right thing.
Look at the government – we voted for them and they still managed to right royally fck it up.
Do you honestly think the 26 unelected bishops will vote for it.
I very much doubt it.
Yes it will fail in the house of unelected. Makes me laugh at idiots who say we live in a democracy and berate other nations democratic process without having own house in order, pardon the pun.
Tell that to the churh Ed . Or you can try! But i think somehow you will be preaching to the undead.
Although being able to be married in a church would make us completely equal with straight couples (and it’s not right to have one rule for one, one for another), I definitely don’t see this as a priority and I’m not quite sure why Ed Miliband mentioned it specifically.
Ignore religious marriage, tell the churches to butt out of the discussion about equal CIVIL marriage because it’s none of their business, and at a later date allow those churches who wish to to marry same sex couples.
I’ve had enough with all the delays already. We don’t need another thing to be consulting about and giving the C of E and others the opportunity to delay and fuss about. Get on with equal civil marriage!
I think what Miliband is saying is the current mode of thinking is to actively *prevent* SS church marriages, which is yet another caveat or condition imposed on gay people by the state.
I am totally in agreement that religious organisations should have the option to refuse, but to point blank say “No Gay Church Weddings” is completely discriminatory.
My only concern is that it has to be laid down and defined from the outset, as I am sure there will always be one awkward git that decides to take this to the ECHR and demand that all churches must marry LGBT people.
It is only by preventing any possibility of this action that they are likely to allow the optional choice.
Yes, and that makes it more complicated (referring to your last two paragraphs) so it should be done separately for that reason too. That would allow time to perfect the wording without any pressure. So I see it as to the benefit of those churches too – both those who wish to marry LGBT people and those who don’t.
And – this is a question because I don’t know – isn’t some of the caveat you talk of a hang over from the way the CP law was written? Wasn’t there pressure put on the gov from some religions at that time?
Oh sure, *all* politicians are running scared of thw church.
I am certain there is an unwritten rule somewhere that says something like “You don’t dabble in politics, and we won’t mess up your sermons.”
As for taking on the marriage thing later, no. If it is left, the whole issue will go off the boil and you will get the usual “Haven’t you demanded enough already?” comments and so on, and it will be 100 times more difficult to get anyone to budge. We need to demand full equality, and keep demanding until we get it. No compromises.
I don’t care how long it takes, but it has to be all or nothing.
Agree with paras 2 & 3, Iris, but allowing churches that want to hold same-sex marriages to do so still won’t make us completely equal. Straight couples with a qualifying connection to a COfE parish have the right to marry in the parish church whether that church wants to marry them or not, provided there isn’t a specific reason not to (eg they’e divorced). We won’t have that right even if there’s an opt-in for faith groups because the CofE won’t be opting in anytime soon!
So maybe that needs to be changed.
Equality works both ways, and I see no reason to force churches against their will, (and plenty of reasons not to)
Let them have their own little world if they wish, but allow those with faith to practice what they believe in, including same sex marriage where they choose to.
I agree, I do not think that churches should be forced to conduct Gay Marriages.
Clergy are not obliged to wed all Heterosexual couples who apply to receive a marriage ceremony as part of a religous rite!
I am aware, it is quite legimate for any Clergy to refuse a Striaght Couple a marriage ceremony. For example, the couple are not committed Christians, the couple have never worshiped in the parish etc . . .
Well done, Mr. Milliband.
And, fellow PinkNewsers, dontcha think that picture of him is . . . rather fetching!
I think he looks cute!
And now that he’s “out4marriage” he’s DEFINITELY cute!
I would be congratulating him if he had the bottle to introduce a private members bill before parliament to legislate for marriage equality and then to impose a party whip.
This video (while well-intentioned) is of no practical benefit to anyone.
He COULD be doing a lot more.
He is not, however!
I think a little bit of sick just came into my mouth.
The way this country has dealt will same-sex marriage is the way we always deal with things- by dithering. This dithering has given the religious right a chance to organise more opposition against equal marriage. I honestly hope that the day comes when a senior MP turns around and tells the church to “mind their own f@cking business” but of course that won’t happen until we separate the bloody church state.
“I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.”
Totally agree with that. There is NO reason to have state religion in a modern 21st century society. Wait for the persecution card to be played by them if disestablishment is taken seriously and Lords reform becomes a reality. They’ll blame it on us of course and never take responsibility for their bigotry and hypocrisy. The blame game can only last for so long. Their days are numbered but not soon enough. If you look at the history of religious cults, it is they who were the first to institutionalise homophobia in almost all societies where the abrahamic cults hold sway.
The right wing religious nutters call for a referendum on equal marriage. Well, I think there should be a referendum to disestablish the state cult.
They always resort to the persecution card, you just have to take a look at thE Daily Mail comments section to see that. Reading the comments about the homophobic Christian B&B owner was very entertaining and I had to laugh at the people on there who were justifying their actions.
The problem I have though is I don’t trust the general public on most referendums, I get the impression that most British people care about more about voting for Britain’s Got Talent more than they care about important issues such as the disestablishment of the Church of England. Excuse me for having so little faith in my fellow countrymen (and women) but I feel it’s sadly the truth.
Just wondering here, when (if?) the equal marriage vote does go ahead, has Ed Miliband said whether the Labour vote on it will be whipped (like the LibDem ones will) or will it be a free vote because it’s considered “a matter of conscience” (like the Tories)?
It’s it’s going to be a free vote, even if only a handful of Labourites vote against, then I’m going to be very disappointed that Ed Miliband considers our equal rights to be a matter of conscience.
Labour have said it will be a 3-line whip
In I wander, usually being particularly hard on Labour, expecting to see people happy about this announcement. Quelle surprise, lots of moaning.
Bizarrely, I am quite pleased (given the hard time I gave Miliband during the Labour leadership contests, it is nice to see he’s fully on board).
And to those complaining that religious marriage equality is unimportant and/or that LGBT people should know better than to be involved in religions I must say you are becoming like our enemies. Stop that, and start fighting for people’s rights to be what they wish without prejudice. I’m an atheist, think religion is (at best) a lie, but still wholeheartedly believe in the right of religious LGBT people to get married in the venue of their choice.
Jesus, I’m becoming far too airy-fairy aren’t I? I’ll get back to Labour-bashing next week.
I’m an atheist, think religion is (at best) a lie, but still wholeheartedly believe in the right of religious LGBT people to get married in the venue of their choice.
…should the venue agree to hold it.
Which the VAST majority of them won’t.
Like we care.
The point is, they should have the option, which at the moment they haven’t, which is bullying and discriminatory.
I doubt, The Queen as conservative Christian and as Head of Church of England is not in favor of its. How good, that her personal opinion in discussion about possibility of religious same-sex marriage is not important.
What is it with nasty people wishing to sully Her Majesty’s name by using her for political purposes? Leave Her Majesty out of your political posts and show her some respect please.
Respect for the Queen – why? She has my complete indifference.
How its possible to leave ‘Her Majesty’ out of political posts, when Elisabeth Windsor still rest the head of our state?
Majesty to whom? We are not all subjects of this celebrity.
As the Queen is a constitutional Monarch she has no say in what legislation is enacted and must sign into law anything put before her. Her personal opinion is totally irrelevant.
Its exactly what I say. Can you read? Or some bad habits from the school: repeat what others say and present its as a ‘original’ opinion?
Well no actually and my dog does English better than you do.
I would suggest you take a few English lessons as most or all of what you post here is undecipherable.
You sound like very great lover of snakes, not of dogs.
FYI; we don’t have snakes in Ireland….Idiot!
Well, I suspect, one has rest. ‘Idiot’? And this say person from Ireland, who adore the British monarchy?! Its even more worse than gay priests in the Vatican.
…. I have no idea what you said other than that you seem to think that because I know something about the British Monarchy that I somehow “adore” them. You really are an illiterate idiot. Do they have schools in Greece? You seem to be a stranger to formal education!
And you seem to be a stranger to language of well educated people in the public place. Back to the school, my child. Or very ugly pub.
I wouldn’t be so sure that the queen’s a homophobe. In fact I rather doubt it.
I will be not so shore.
Has she invited lgbt community to her lavish palace ?unlike elected heads of state in other countries.
I would suggest not, given the makeup of the Royal households.
There are certainly more than a few Queens in Buck House!
Yous secret fantasy, who nether ever will became a reality, I suspect. Poor child.
Its very nice, that the official position of Queen Elisabeth II and so called ‘personal opinion’ of Elisabeth Windsor (have she one, with her very high education?) is in this case much less important than this of future Prime Minister Mr. Ed Miliband. We still live in parlamentarian Republic with the funny name ‘constitutional monarchy’.
If you so disapprove of our political system, why don’t you just fck off back to Greece then?
Together with Mr. Peter Tatchell, I hope, yes?
Yes, please take him with you.
You’ve had plenty to complain about in this country, why don’t you “fck off” somewhere else? using your reasoning.
Because i was born here, as were seven generations of my family, and I have every right to complain if I don’t think it is being run correctly.
I despise all these people that come here, use all our amenities, facilities, benefits and goodwill and then bemoan the state of my fcking nation.
Yes Abu Hamza, that means you too.
@spanner1960 , so if someone is not born here, they are not entitled to a have an opinion . And your 7 generation history , gives you precedence to complain over others. Lose the colonialist dogma. Abu hamza is an extremist racist bigot, that does not mean all foreign born in this country are bad.
@rapture: Where did I say that!??
Please don’t try and twist my words.
I merely stated that as an indigenous member of this country, I have more of a right than visitors and immigrants, and that if people don’t like the way this country is run, they can do the other thing.
It’s like me coming round your house and telling you you have the wrong colour carpet and those curtains really have to go.
Who told you Queen Elizabeth was highly educated. She certainly is not and was home schooled by a governess… However she is quite intelligent in comparison to the rest of the Royals with the exception of William and Harry….
William and Harry… Nice fantasy for you in the night. My condolences.
The UK is NOT a Republic and I’m surprised that you as a Greek don’t know the difference. The UK is a constitutional Kingdom.
UK has NO constitution. Was you in the school?
….Are you talking to a mirror. The UK IS an constitutional Democracy. It is not necessary to have a constitution to be a Constitutional democracy. We have the ethos of an unwritten constitution where we obey the Law of the Land and are protected by documents like the Magna Carta. which in effect IS a constitution and probably the first constitution ever written dating back to the eleventh century and King John.
in particular we pay our just taxes, unlike the Greeks who have bankrupted Europe because they refuse to pay their lawful Taxes.
‘It is not necessary to have a constitution to be a Constitutional democracy’. Oh yes… And its not necessary to be Catholic Cardinal to became the Pope – what matters, is to be a simple person, who is strong in favor of peace in all the world. Of course.
It’s very negative of me and I apologize, but I’m getting a bit tired of seeing videos like this. It would be nice to see some real action in parliament.
If both Labour and the Liberal Democrats whip their votes, that would mean only a small percentage of Conservatives would have to vote in favour of equal marriage for it to pass – even as a Private Members Bill.
Haha, will *someone* just get on with it and carry the measure through parliament!
Well done, Ed. We will never achieve equality if we are only given part of the marriage rights of heterosexuals. Legal discrimination against gay-friendly faiths like the Quakers has got to be wrong on many moral levels.
In an ideal world the situation in Britain would like that of France – where a church wedding has no legal standing unless you also go to the registry office,
Because France has separated church and state, marriage equality will be a reality within about 9 months after the pro-equality government got elected.
The politicians can tell the churches to f*** off and stop meddling in secular matters like legal (as opposed to religious) marriage.
In Denmark, where there is a state church, full marriage was introduced in weeks, including the government approving the new, non-discriminatory church ceremony. This delay is purely a British thing.
Until we separate ‘Church’ and ‘marriage’, this dispute will go on and on. Anyone should be allowed to get married anywhere they wish! The ‘church’ should have no say whatsoever in who gets married to whom or where.
I don’t think I’d want to get married in a church anyway, far too formal… but if other gay guys want to, then that is fine!
Hope it does not include all those ATHEISTS who want to marry in a church.
If you don’t practice or go to church, you have no right to marry in one.
All you queers are such hypocrites.
….Where on Earth did you get the idea that atheists want to marry in church, you bigoted homophobic, religiously deluded idiot.
All you breeders are such total morons….
Marriage Equality is all about Civil Marriage which takes place in a registry office, but then you are too stupid to realise that……
i’m an atheist and i would never get married in church….i got a beach in malibu planned.
Unfortunately my Civil partner is a brainwashed from birth catholic, unable to comprehend that his /belief as prescribed to him hates him.
He laughs it off until we discuss it.
Then fireworks occur.
Died in the wool aithiest. vs indoctrinated catholic.
We have an interesting life…
He can’t be that much of a Catholic if he wants to marry you. Surely no Catholic believes in gay marriage. Dyed- in -the -wool? Don’t think so. Shilly-shallying don’t-know-what-the-heck Catholicism is about more like.
Sorry, I am an atheist and this is absolutely no defence of Catholicism,, but if he really is a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic, there’s no point you campaigning for marriage as for you will never happen. Really gay Catholics will never bring themselves to actually get married. Civil partnerships don’t involve god so they’re OK. You could do it for others, of course. Don’t kid yourself, though, you won’t be marrying him.
Which is, of course, another reason to maintain civil partnerships. They are not marriage and thus it’s OK for gay Catholics to have them. But then if they’re practicing gays (as opposed to just thinking about it which is OK somehow) they’re going downstairs when they die, anyway. Hmm. Think I’ve just reminded myself of why I am an atheist.
It isn’t all black and white mate.
There are shades of grey in all aspects of life, including peoples religion.
Stuff Civil Partnerships.
I only took mine as there was no other option after my partner was refused entry to visit me in hospital last year. ( In Wales )
Given the gallons of cash extracted from me in tax, I DEMAND full CIVIL rights.
He’s in a gay relationship – ergo he is not catholic.
Well, yeah, exactly. If he were Catholic -a ‘good’ and ‘true’ one he wouldn’t be in a gay relationship.
All I’ve done is point the absurdity of him being a’dyed-in-the-wool’ Catholic.
I still maintain that even for a gay Catholic, actual marriage may be a step too far.
Actually civil partnerships are a good thing in this respect; they give civil rights without religion.
So I’m just pointing out that really if a person wishes to marry a gay Catholic, it would appear to me that they are on a doomed mission.
Even as an atheist, I think that Catholicism IS the most black-and-white religion there is!!
Do you mean those of us who apply logic, reason , compassion and empathy.
Please feel free to continue your incorrect interpretation of everything, including your silly nonsensical religion.
A religion Most christians know nothing about.
Other than the tripe fed to them by befrocked self interested men whose jobs and homes depend on toeing their employers line.
Their employers being the churches and organised religions.
Not read the latest about being Catholic in Germany.
Dont pay your church tax. You are no longer Catholic.
No Hail Marys . No weddings. No burials.
That is what these religions
are all about. Money. Money.
Oh for pity’s sake.
This man is talking about about gay marriage, not equal marriage.
What about people who are intersex? What about people whose gender identity lies outside the binary.
True equal marriage is gender blind.
… oh for Petes sake, “gay marriage” is a concept dreamed up by the Abrahamic cults and the xtians in particular to, as it were, “scare the horses” and to whip up hysteria amongst the religiously deluded and to strengthen the opposition to Marriage Equality, which is what Gay people want, nothing more or less.
No one who genuinely supports Marriage Equality will use the term gay marriage because it implies something different from Marriage, period.
So you think two men marrying is the same as an opposite sex couple marrying in the sense that the results will be the same? I don’t mind you having access to the same rights as regards finances and legal rights etc. Fair enough, but there is no way that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. That’s just delusional. Have you never heard of birds and the bees?
Marriage isn’t just about procreation. People don’t have to be ‘the same’ – that’s not what equality means. Men and women should be treated equally even though they’re not the same, for example.
And how nice of you to grant us the same rights as regards finances, etc. I must have missed the bit where it was announced that you’re superior to us….
And it’s not ‘homosexual marriage’ or ‘straight marriage’ – it’s simply marriage. Or would you perhaps like all marriages categorised by some irrelevant characteristic? We could have ‘black marriage’, ‘white marriage’, ‘old-age marriage’, ‘ginger-hair marriage’…… Or just maybe we could see people as simply human beings.
Out of interest what on earth is that 10 min equal marriage bill about that Chris Bryant tweeted about which is happenning on the 30th Oct??. Why can’t they introduce a proper equal marriage bill and not some stunt.
I pretty sick of all the parties, it’s all gays are as good as straights and we should have SSM and yet we still hve nothing in the pipeline. The consultation was delayed from July 2011 and we still don’t have the results or a bill promised. It truly and utterly stinks and I feel we’re just being used as political tool. Stuff all these videos. Milliband can’t even get his MPs to tweet a support message for SSM on the C4EM website.
Really surprised at the negative comments aimed at Mr Milliband’s support for gay religious weddings. All the uproar in some religious institutions over this is ridiculous, no-one is suggesting forcing any clergy or institution to marry same sex couples, only that those who wish to, may. On the other hand, I agree with Polly, he is not using the language of equal marriage, only of gay marriage. Trans folk not included, and bisexual folk invisible as usual in either same or opposite sex relationships which are classified as ‘gay’ or ‘heterosexual’. To the poster who addressed atheists who want to marry in church and said “all you queers are such hypocrites” – lol! – are you suggesting this is not what already happens?? I agree that atheists should not marry in church, but you think this is a ‘queer’ issue? LMAO!
My feeling is that Marriage and gay union cannot ever be equivalent because marriage is a social construct to ensure that children are born and raised in a unit that includes the natural mother and father. This is the ideal environment for children to be raised in. Gay union can never equate to that. One suggestion I heard during the debate today is that Civil Partnership be opened to heteros too so that we can achieve equality (not equivalence) in that way.