Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UKIP ‘not against gay adoption’ says London chairman

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. David Coburn continues to say things that make no sense.

    1) In what way are Winston McKenzie’s views different to UKIP’s policy with regards to equal marriage?

    2) How do civil partnerships for same sex couples help transgendered married people avoid being forcibly divorced?

    Every time he speaks about this he brings up the possibility that churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages. He never presents any evidence. None. He just thinks repeating the same things over and over will make it true.

    I wish someone in the media would finally challenge him on this and stop him constantly giving out the links to his Pink News article earlier this year that says nothing about the points we want him to discuss.

    UKIP is useless.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 1:06pm

      I thoroughly concur, Jae. It’s about someone in authority would go after these idiots and nail them on the lies and misinformation being banded about by the opposition. All of the fear-mongering in regard to gay couples wanting to force religious denominations in opposition to conduct our marriages is a malicious attempt to derail equal marriage. The CoE and RC churches both ban hetero divorced couples from a religious ceremony. What makes them think a gay couple would be any different? They can’t even produce one lawsuit against either church for refusing to marry a divorced couple when you consider that civil marriage has been around in England since the 19th century specifically for divorced people to remarry in a civil ceremony. That’s more than long enough to elicit any lawsuits. We should and must demand the evidence if they keep on persisting with these outrageous statements made to instill fear and homophobic hate-mongering.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 1:06pm

        …about time someone in authority, I meant to have said.

        1. I saw one of my old school mates, a paleo-conservative if ever I met one, answer my question with “Well they just haven’t got round to suing yet”. They don’t want facts or evidence or to have their beliefs challenged. They just want to believe all LGBT people are out to get them. *sigh*

          1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 2:10pm

            Devolved brains, Jae, living proof that devolution exists especially when it’s a conservative. They have an abundance of it. You might want to revisit him and ask him if he has any evidence of a divorced hetero couple bringing a lawsuit against any church refusing to marry them. Maybe he’ll ask himself why it hasn’t happened or why gay married couples are any different.

    2. Not useless, dangerous. Everyone seems to have forgotten that UKIP enlisted the help of the BNP to found the Party. And that Farage, not then the leader, just a mouthpiece, had to apologize and renounce the links between the two parties.
      Private Eye alleged some years ago that BNP ex-members had joined UKIP and infiltrated the leadership.
      We should be very afraid of UKIP.

      1. wonkotsane 28 Nov 2012, 8:38am

        UKIP is the only party with a blanket ban on former BNP members joining the party.

  2. Not against adoption but they are against equal marriage! What a twisted lot they are.

  3. Bloviating liars who would say anything for a sniff of power.

    But that’s enough about the Lib Dems, what about UKIP?

    I don’t think even they know their policy or positions on most subjects, they are a well-oiled weathervane – turning this way and that – adopting a more extremist policy stance at grass roots level, and something more palatable on the national stage.

    Frankly, I wouldn’t believe a UKIP politician if s/he told me that water was wet.

    1. Exactly, they just throw sort of half-correct sounding words together and see if it fits. I almost spat out my coffee the first time I heard them call themselves “libertarian”.

  4. The problem with dog whistle politics is that you end up with a party full of unsavoury creatures.

    By positioning the party to the right of the Tories on social issues, UKIP’s leadership know the party is polluting its anti-European brand and alienating some potential voters – hence Mr Coburn’s attempt at damage limitation.

    But UKIP also knows that these views are very attractive to disaffected Tories. For at least the next year or so, I think we will see UKIP campaigning increasingly openly as a socially regressive party, hoping to leach activists and local support bases away from the Tories. I doubt the leadership will go as far as Mr McKenzie, but I doubt they’ll rein him in either.

    But UKIP’s playing a dangerous game – it’s a lot easier to unleash this sort of nastiness than it is to control it. If Nigel Farage doesn’t want to see UKIP become the UK version of France’s Front National, he should stop this now.

    1. As if Mr Farage could somehow be someone he isn’t. Not even the best Hollywood make-up artists, script writers, directors, editors and a whole new cast could make him appear less socially regressive. The UKIP hasn’t gained recognition as a racist and xenophobic party from thin air … they have worked seamlessly but very hard to get there. To put it shortly, they are naturals.

  5. Oh, that’s alright then. I’m completely over the fact that you’re fielding a homophobic piece of s*** for the Croydon by-election now.

  6. I’m a little confused. What is a civil partnership if it isn’t a marriage in all but name, and how many people think honestly that if same sex marriage is permitted, there won’t be a challenge to the ECHR from a couple wanting to get married in a Roman Catholic church within weeks? It is disingenious to suggest otherwise.

    Aside from that, at least McKenzie is honest about what he believes, even knowing the grief he will get from the small but vocal number of people who actually care one way or the other about this issue. Would you prefer that he lied in the name of political expediency?

    For what its worth, I don’t really care either way, but I am sure I will be howled down in mock outrage none the less, not least for being a straight atheist. Are we all so intolerant now that we can’t accept a non-professional politician who doesn’t have a multitude of press officers to guide his every spoken word and who actually says what he believes, even if you don’t like it?

    1. Feel free to read my post on the differences between civil partnerships: http://jaekaygoesforth.blogspot.com/2012/05/differences-between-civil-partnerships.html

      And it’s not about a feeling or what you think on the ECHR stuff. It is about facts. I ask this to all who bring it up: what evidence do you have? Several countries who fall under the jurisdiction of the ECHR have #equalmarriage, can you show me one case of it forcing churches to marry same sex couples against their will? I am genuinely interested, I like having my beliefs challenged. Please feel free to change my mind with evidence.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 12:50pm

        Jae, that link should go viral. The opposition should be bombarded with it, especially the dinosaurs in the Tory party and House of Lords. Coburn should take a look at it to see just how wrong he is. Thanks for posting it.

        1. I don’t think it’s well written enough for that, but thank you! The original post was just something I whipped up off the top of my head out of frustration with people (mainly LGBT people I might add) telling me there was no difference.

          If someone wants to rewrite it, update it and make it awesome they should feel free :)

          1. What is it with me and “feel free”. Today Jae is brought to you by the phrase “Feel free”.

      2. Thanks for bringing your blog to my attention! Your points, and those on the video, are well made. The pension example on the video is clearly a wrong, assuming it is not on actuarial grounds regarding life expectancy. Your own example regarding gender transition is also clearly not right, although I’d question whether the law is capable of covering every eventuality and suspect that the number of cases like this are very small. I know that doesn’t make it right, but there are always specific examples which fall down the cracks in the law.

        Regarding international recognition, there are marriages between a man and a woman which aren’t recognised in the UK for a variety of reasons, while as you say, there are many states which would not recognise same sex marriage in any case: the complaint seems aimed at the small number of countries which do recognise same sex marriage, but not civil partnership…. I’ve run out of space….

        1. The question must be whether if those states recognised civil partnership, the complaint would go away, or whether it is an about the terminology?

          You’re absolutely right, of course – I have no ECHR related evidence beyond a feeling that there is a boundary here which will be pushed ‘just because’. Let me ask the question the other way around: would you be happy to see legislation which, while equalising (for want of a better word) marriage between same sex and opposite sex couples, specifically excluded same sex couples from marriage in or by a religious institution which disagreed with it, without right of appeal to the courts including the ECHR?

          1. Yes. I would. As long as religious organisations, who wish to, can marry them. I’ve no issue with protecting religious freedom, I just have an issue with people trying to protect only one group’s religious freedom.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 12:58pm

      So tell us, how many hetero divorced couples have tried to get married in a Catholic or Anglican church? Aren’t you aware that both ban divorced people marrying in their churches. Name one lawsuit brought against either please?

      The Marriage Causes Act of 1973 was not amended to reflect Civil Partnerships as marriage in all but name, so until that happens, you remain as delusional as the idiots who oppose access to civil marriage for gay couples. They are NOT marriages, they are administered differently, no mandatory vows, rings, divorces, discrepancies in pension distributions, religious CPs charged a higher fee than marriages.

      Why would an atheist be so concerned about a gay couple or straight divorced couple for that matter wanting to get married in a church within weeks of equal civil marriage being introduced? Let me repeat, divorced heteros are barred from a religious marriage so why would a gay couple be any different?

      1. In answer to your question, I followed a link here. I am interested largely because it is an issue I’ve never really considered before, but yes, I was aware of the Act to which you refer, and the restriction on divorcees getting married in an Anglican or Catholic church – they can only have their civil marriage blessed – as can same sex couples in some denominations.

    3. Dear God, who is this f-u-ckwit?

  7. That whirring sound you here is UKIP back-pedaling as fast as their hairy little legs can manage.

  8. Cardinal Capone 27 Nov 2012, 12:46pm

    I’m curious, do UKIP actually stand for anything other than hating Europe? Is the rest just what they think people want to hear so that they get their vote – conservative evangelicals and gay people alike?

    What is their position on independence for Scotland, and if they are against it, isn’t that hypocritical ?

    And if Scotland does go independent, what will little old England do on its own, small, isolated and floating off the coast of the EU?

    1. Ukip are libertarian, meaning they stand for individual freedom and minimal state interference. They believe in direct democracy where if 5% of a population wants a referendum on something, we can have it.

      1. Against state interference, except for when it comes to people’s relationships or personal lives you mean?

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 8:05pm

        So by your brilliant deduction, if 5% of the population wanted a referendum and won a significant majority to ban the UKIP, that would be ok with you? Be careful what you wish for.

      3. Government by referendum in a country of 50m who get most of their knowledge of current events from Murdoch?
        A recipe for insanity. We already have daft debates in Parliament about Page 3 girls, and the like. How soon would 5% want a debate on the result of X Factor? Or tax free status for Man. Utd.?

      4. wonkotsane 28 Nov 2012, 8:42am

        How can a simple statement of UKIP policy in response to a question asking what it is get voted down 11 times? Pink News really is just an anti-UKIP site isn’t it?

    2. As a former BNP supporter (but still a nationalist) I can tell you that UKIP’s main policy is to withdraw Britain from the EU (I agree with this) but they have globalist economic policies just like the Lib/Lab/CON party does so we would be unable to take full advantage (economically at least) from our newly-founded independence.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 12:47pm

    He’s a barefaced liar. He DOES agree with McKenzie on the issue of equal marriage. The UKIP strongly opposes it, and no, Mr. Coburn, CPs are NOT equal to marriage even though he might think they are to bolster homophobic opposition to allows us access to civil marriage. If they’re so equal, why did eleven countries introduce equal marriage? Dumb arse!

    I wonder how these morons would react if there were no CPs but the equal marriage debate was taking place regardless? What excuses would they use to ban us from marrying. Although CPs were well intended, they’ve also helped the opposition to use them as a convenient weapon to justify not introducing equal marriage, even though many of them don’t really support those unions either. It’s just pretence for most of them.

    1. Bill (Scotland) 27 Nov 2012, 5:01pm

      “Although CPs were well intended” – well, I’d quarrel with that! They were merely designed to appease a certain former Labour cabinet member of the Jesuit persuasion and a few other fellow travellers.

  10. “UKIP is….categorically not against gay adoption; what we do have a problem with is that Catholic adoption agencies have been banned for opposing gay adoption. The only thing that matters is that the children receive a safe and loving home.”

    Can he not see the contradiction there? If you’re looking for the best parents it’s stupid to rule out people just because of their sexuality.

    Not only that, I don’t really believe him. It sounds like he’s saying that he’ll tolerate us and nothing more – ie we’re not against gay adoption per se but we’ll make sure that everyone who is is allowed to discriminate against you. That’s like saying ‘we’re not racist but people who don’t like certain races shouldn’t have to deal with them’.

    1. The thing is, Catholic adoption agencies are private institutions, and should therefore not be interfered with by government. This is entirely consistent with UkIP’s policy.
      While it is silly to rule people out based on sexuality, it is their choice to make. Forcing them to act against their principles would be immoral and tyrannical.

      UKIP fully support gay adoption and same sex marriage, on the condition that government interference is reduced to the bare minimum and exists as a mere administration role.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 2:13pm

        UKIP fully supports same-sex marriage? So you’re saying that Coburn has changed the party policy? Provide us with the evidence please?

        If Catholic adoption agencies are receiving financial aid from the government, private or not, then they are subject to the civil laws of the land. Nobody should be above the law, no exceptions.

      2. “Catholic adoption agencies are private institutions, and should therefore not be interfered with by government”

        The duty of care is to the child not to the adoption agency. Private or not if they can’t follow the rules and aren’t placing the welfare of the child as paramount rather than their own religious views then they shouldn’t be involved in adoption.

      3. “Forcing them to act against their principles would be immoral and tyrannical.”

        And where does that view stop? For example, I’ve met plenty of men who still believe a woman’s place is in the home – should they be allowed to not employ women, based on their principles? Sounds like you’re in favour of letting pettiness and discrimination rule. Let’s all think of someone we don’t like and treat them unfairly., eh?

      4. Thanks, cr0w13y, for proving (as if we needed it) that UKIP supporters are incredibly stupid.

      5. No Catholic agency has been banned. They can’t even get that simple fact right. The agency threw a tantrum because it couldn’t get its own way and quit.

    2. Thank you Iris. Exactly the point I was going to make so you have saved me the trouble of typing it out!

  11. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 1:03pm

    https://www.facebook.com/TheUKIP/posts/496432583711970

    their supporters, most of them, would beg to differ. They don’t want us to adopt or get married, but insist they are libertarian.

    Catholic adoption agencies DID NOT SHUT DOWN. Most ditched their links with the Catholic church and carried on helping children get homes. A couple only do post-adoption support, and one has gone in to another area of child-care.

    Civil Partnerships can ALREADY be carried out in any WILLING church, and are being carried out. The CoE lawyers, in this paper, said they were satisfied with the legal protections.

    Actually, UKIP is looking more and more like the religious right of the GOP.

    1. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 1:11pm

      Banardos as fully in favour of couples who happen to be gay adopting – they encourage as many to come forward as possible, because we have a real problem with lots of kids being denied a loving family home and living in state institutions. Banardos is crying out for single people and couples, whether they’re gay or straight, to step up and give a child a home.

      The good that comes from all of this is that UKIP is marginalising itself with its homophobic views. People should tweet Farage and let him know they are outraged by HIS support, TODAY, in the election in #CROYDONNORTH of a homophobic bigot, who is actually not just a candidate but their spokesperson for Culture Media and Sport, who shadows the EQUALITIES minister Maria Miller !!!! He’s already said he won’t represent people who are gay in parliament.

    2. UKIP seem to be also forgetting the support we have had from many people of faith. They talk as if ALL the church etc are against us and they’re not. Look what happened in America with the Jewish groups and the Scouts!

      And as you say, there are churches and liberal synagogues who will perform a civil partnership and have said that if gay marriage came into being, they would like the choice to give the ceremonies if they so choose.

      As it has been said before, it’s all about choice. That all we ask for, as do the churches who support us. Choice!

  12. “UKIP’s stance on gay marriage is simple: we entirely, wholeheartedly support equal rights for couples regardless of their sexuality and we believe this has been achieved through the introduction of civil partnerships, which UKIP supported.”

    So if he gets into parliament, will he have a free vote on issues like this or will he vote with ukip policy?

    Is he christian first or ukip first?

    1. He’d be a lobby-led corporatist first, the same as every other successful politician in recent British history.

  13. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 1:24pm

    One of the greatest problems with UKIP is that it, by past actions, attracts a particularly fringe homophobic racist misogynist xenophobic type of right-wing religious nutjob.

    If you read the comments on https://www.facebook.com/TheUKIP you have people calling for gays to be killed, but that was from a Russian sounding poster, whilst other vile posters make references to the FRC — which few if any ‘real’ UK posters would really be aware of, or give a toss about. So they’ve become the home of every wayward backward-thinking extremist foaming-at-the-mouth wingnut — at least on their comment sections.

    1. Comments on that facebook page are from UKIP haters who want to derail the political avalanche that has started. The people are getting back the right to govern themselves away from the chains of the EU. People have personal facist views in ALL political parties. That idiot McKenzie doesn’t speak for the party as a whole – their manifesto is clear they are not against it. I guess this is a religious matter not a political one. But don’t let conservatives who hijack UKIPs facebook page make you think otherwise. They don’t want the people to have a voice – UKIP does want us all to have a voice. They just need to get rid of Winston :-)

      1. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 4:03pm

        IF that was the case, UKIP page administrators could delete obvious troll comments and save themselves from being associated with them.

        It’s not a religious matter [equal marriage] at all because only CIVIL MARRIAGE was proposed by the government, and as it stands no church could even be allowed to carry out a same-sex marriage ceremony even if they wanted, so certainly couldn’t be sued for failing to provide a service which remained illegal. UKIP has got it’s head up it’s arse on this one – their stance is completely indefensible on equal marriage. If they want I would be willing to teach them and help them change their policy, so they support equal marriage rights, like every other party, and I’ll make it look like they evolved ! :D

    2. Luckily, Gulliever, there’s people like me and other decent UkIP people to put those cranks (who probably don’t even vote, never mind join the party) right.

      You’ll notice that there’s a majority of UK people who are shocked at those sort of comments.

      People who are members of UKiP tend to have more common sense that some random person who ‘liked’ the FB page because they heard that UKIP were against the European government’s interference or mass immigration or whatever.

      1. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 4:09pm

        Thumbs up for honesty. I alluded to the fact I didn’t think they were all real genuine UK-based UKIP supporters, but clearly someone somewhere should be administering the page comments and weeding out those which are clearly trolling or designed to excite the blood pressure – because you all know you will be tarred with those comments, and they’ll be used against you. I don’t have a major problem with UKIP, except for their policies on LGBT, and any possible racism linked to the immigration debate.

        Perhaps, in future, UKIP may have to restrict access to genuine party members.

        1. Their policy on Europe is pure madness, other policies don’t make much sense either

  14. This is nothing BUT political expediency from UKIP trying to get votes from anti-gay Tories annoyed about the change in the law.

    1. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 5:55pm

      Good point, and you just reminded me of all those “outraged” Tories who claimed they were leaving the Tory party for UKIP because they didn’t want people who are gay to be allowed to get married. They clearly knew right where to head to.

      nb. Admittedly, they could have already been, and I investigated a couple who were, already UKIP supporters, just trying to give the impression that Tories all were outraged and leaving the party.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 8:10pm

      Yes, which will guarantee the Tories their worst nightmare coming to fruition, a Labour government, voting against their own interests or by staying home enabling Labour to get back. UKIP are going NOWHERE, nobody takes them that seriously. It’s a fringe party for losers and low intelligence quotients.

  15. I for one don’t care. You cannot be partially a bigot. UKIP have made their opinions of LGBT people perfectly clear.

  16. “…is that Catholic adoption agencies have been banned for opposing gay adoption. The only thing that matters is that the children receive a safe and loving home.”

    erm. contradiction!

    1. Not really. While a loving home is the most important thing, sending children to a loving heterosexual home is the same as sending them to a loving homosexual home.

      So why should the government force agencies to send them to one or the other?

      The principle here is “stop state interference where none are harmed”.

      1. Bobbleobble 27 Nov 2012, 2:18pm

        Why doesn’t that principle extend to allowing gay people to marry? There is an inherent contradiction in declaring yourself libertarian and then opposing gay marriage.

      2. the contradiction is that while saying “…The only thing that matters is that the children receive a safe and loving home.” they wish to ignore all safe and loving homes run by two people of the same gender.

    2. “sending children to a loving heterosexual home is the same as sending them to a loving homosexual home.So why should the government force agencies to send them to one or the other?”

      You completely misunderstand adoption. The government isn’t forcing agencies to send children to either. Agencies should pick the BEST home for the particular child REGARDLESS of sexuality. If they can’t pick the best because they’re too busy applying their own prejudices and ruling aopters out then they are NOT considering the welfare of the child. They’re supposing to be picking the best home full stop.

  17. UKIP still isn’t going to get my vote, in any election.

  18. As a gay member of UKIP,I can say that the party IS in favour of both gay adoption AND civil gay marriage.

    UKIP is all about promoting individual freedom and reducing state interference to a minimum where none are harmed.

    Using law to force people to accept us is immoral. It infringes on their freedom. Us forcing churches and private adoption agencies to deal with us when they do not want to is simply placing our wants over theirs. We’ve got no right to do that.

    Frankly, civil partnerships are briliant, and the only differences from marriage are minimal. Yes, we would like to see the two become one and the same, but that can’t happen by force or by Europe forcing people against their will.

    1. Bobbleobble 27 Nov 2012, 2:25pm

      I suggest that if you think UKIP are in favour of gay marriage then you re read what Mr Coburn has said in his statement. There’s also no such thing as a private adoption agency in this country, private adoption is illegal over here.

    2. “…that can’t happen by force or by Europe forcing people against their will.”
      Why not?
      It happened that way when in 2000, we were finally allowed to openly serve in our country’s armed forces. Not that I would want to serve in the military, but others do.
      You claim to be all in favor of ‘individual freedom’ and reduced ‘state interference’. But your proposed policies would take us away from those institutions that have a proven history of providing us with exactly those things.

    3. “UKIP is all about promoting individual freedom and reducing state interference to a minimum where none are harmed.”

      I see. Is that the reason UKIP would hand prosecution powers directly to the police forces (away from the courts/CPS), increase the size and presence of the police, raise conviction rates for petty crime, build more prisons, remove all judicial protections granted by the ECHR, abolish the Human Rights Act to make it easier to deport “terror suspects” (ie, people detained without trial under Blair’s Terrorism Act), raise spending on the Armed Forces by 40% and show no intention of rolling back state surveillance? This is all from their website by the way.

      Funny UKIP’s idea of “individual freedom” doesn’t extend to anybody unfortunate enough to get on the wrong side of, err, the police and the state.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 3:35pm

      Nobody is forcing equal marriage on the country. If you take that approach on this one issue, then you should take the same approach to every piece of legislation introduced. No cherry picking please. It’s tantamount to saying CPs were forced even though there was a lot of opposition to them from the religious right wingnuts who now conveniently use them to justify a ban and discrimination against gay people who want access to civil marriage. They are NOT equal. If they were, the wouldn’t be called CPs in the first place. If they’re so brilliant in your view, why have eleven countries introduced equal marriage? They can’t all be wrong. Why haven’t CPs caught on elsewhere?Why aren’t straighst who don’t want to marry not demanding them?

      You keep crowing on about the UKIP is in favour of equal marriage. I’ll believe that when David Coburn makes it official. He’s and his party are strongly opposed to it. You sir, are delusional.

    5. In my opinion, you are an idiot.

    6. Oh you forgot about getting rid of the interfering laws that tell people they MUST except people of different colour, race OR faith as that also will be enforcing our beliefs on the racists etc!! Did i forget the laws about protecting the disabled and children too!?

      Stop talking rubbish!

  19. Bobbleobble 27 Nov 2012, 2:27pm

    There is an inherent contradiction in declaring yourself to be a Libertarian party but then opposing gay marriage.

    1. Absolutely, We want you to be free to believe what we believe;-)

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 3:26pm

      Absolutely true. Across the pond, the American Libertarian Party is actually pro equal marriage.

      UKIP can pretend it doesn’t like big government interference in our lives but only if it means opposing equal marriage, bunch of hypocrites. Ok I’m going to say it, bigots too.

  20. UKIP’s views on same sex marriage are unfortunate as quite a few LGBT I know are to the center right and share their views on the EU. and immigration.

    Right wing parties always seem to make the mistake of assuming that if you are part of LGBT you will be a “lefty”

    1. I agree. A new nationalist party will be launched soon that will take account of this. One reason the BNP failed was because it had backward views on homosexuals/bisexuals.

  21. Euan Davidson 27 Nov 2012, 3:11pm

    To all the UKIP supporters who keep saying your “Libertarian” party supports Gay Marriage, this is clearly a load of rubbish, your own website makes clear your opposition. http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2625-pm-picking-fight-over-samesex-marriage

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Nov 2012, 3:37pm

      Thanks Euan.

      Now cr0w13y, please explain or point us to a newer UKIP website where this sudden change has occured in its policy?

  22. “UKIP’s stance on gay marriage is simple: we entirely, wholeheartedly support equal rights for couples regardless of their sexuality and we believe this has been achieved through the introduction of civil partnerships, which UKIP supported.”

    Giving us something that is different to marriage is not equal rights. Anyone who has read up on CPs will know that CPs and marriage are not the same! You UKIP can believe what they want. Equality hasn’t been achieved at all!

    Is asking for the choice to choose so damned hard!?

    1. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 4:10pm

      Yep, it’s doesn’t make any sense;

      ” we entirely, wholeheartedly support equal rights for couples regardless of their sexuality”

      and then

      we don’t believe you deserve to have your relationships treated equally by calling them marriage.

  23. “UKIP is a libertarian party, we are categorically not against gay adoption; what we do have a problem with is that Catholic adoption agencies have been banned for opposing gay adoption. The only thing that matters is that the children receive a safe and loving home.”

    You see sir the reason behind Catholic adoption issue is exactly what you said at the end of your statement about a ‘safe and loving home.’ When the Catholic Adoption Agencies were opposing gay couples adopting they were not taking THAT into concideration!

    1. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 5:02pm

      Most of the dozen Catholic-linked adoption agencies just severed their links to the Catholic church, lost a very tiny amount of funding from the church, and carried on helping to find homes for ALL children and ALL adopters. Frankly they were an inspiration – rather than shut-up shop and leave it to the others, they knew their real job was to help children find homes, and they clearly accepted that people who are gay can provide good homes too. They had the option to shut, and the vast majority didn’t. Two most just did post-adoption support, and another migrated to another area of childcare where they weren’t in violation of the law.

      I don’t know of ANY single Catholic adoption agency which shut down.

  24. Pavlos Prince of Greece 27 Nov 2012, 5:05pm

    In other countries (like France or Germany) gay-adoption still is much more controversial issue as gay marriage ‘per se’. But not in the UK. Even far-right party here is in favor of it! Incredible.

  25. As if Mr Farage could somehow be someone he isn’t. Not even the best Hollywood make-up artists, script writers, directors, editors and a whole new cast could make him appear less socially regressive. The UKIP hasn’t gained recognition as a racist and xenophobic party from thin air … they have worked seamlessly but very hard to get there. To put it shortly, they are naturals..

  26. barriejohn 27 Nov 2012, 5:19pm

    “UKIP is as UKIP does”!

  27. GulliverUK 27 Nov 2012, 9:22pm

    http://insidecroydon.com/2012/11/27/ukips-appalled-local-chairman-asks-croydon-to-forgive-his-party/

    It’s worth just adding this, the local Chairman of UKIP has issued an apology and asked for forgiveness saying they never wanted McKenzie in the first place.

    1. And…. Ukip leader refuses to condemn claims over gay adoption
      http://politicshome.com/uk/article/66794/ukip_leader_refuses_to_condemn_claims_over_gay_adoption.html

      and Farage then goes on to make the claim that “last year the Catholic adoption agencies who have by all accounts done a very good job actually closed down “.

      Now in 2009 the Daily Mail said
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169414/Roman-Catholic-adoption-agencies-cut-ties-church-gay-equality-laws.html
      most had just cut ties with the Catholic church.

      then, I found this article;
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226829/Catholic-Care-Adoption-agency-loses-5-year-legal-battle-refusal-accept-gay-couples.html
      which said ten had stopped their work – but it’s by the same author.

      The BBC say;
      “Others have since closed or cut their ties with the Church.”
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-20184133
      .. Cut their ties with the church .. as I said.

  28. As I understand it, Winston McKenzie is an official UKIP party spokesperson.

    If Nigel Farage, thinks Mr McKenzie’s comments are unacceptable, he should personally make that clear, and sack his spokesperson. Farage’s failure to do so, shows up UKIP for the party it really is – a party of bigots.

  29. It is a child’s human right to grow up loved and cared for and to have ‘forever’ parents, be it one parent or two. The rest is just details.

  30. GingerlyColors 28 Nov 2012, 7:50am

    UKIP is not against gay adoption but is against gay marriage. Can they clarify exactly where they stand on LGBT issues? Recently UKIP launched an LGBT section and no doubt some UKIP members support gay marriage in the same way that some members of the US Republican Party do. However their official opposition to marriage equality does alienate many gay voters.

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