You see, the Tories in opposition are using CPs to justify a ‘no’ vote to equal marriage. Many Tories harbour resentment towards them but have found they are a useful weapon to justify a ban on equal marriage.
That’s why I was opposed to introducing CPs in the first place. I knew this would be a contentious issue later on in the equal marriage debate, not ever realising it would be coming as soon as it has.
That said, I welcome her support but she needs to educate herself a lot more.
All of them should be asked if they would be happy to enter into a CP if they were available? I don’t think many would opt for one. What if the government intended to replace marriage with CPs for all? I think we know what the response would be. I don’t think she would be happy about that and she’d have a hard time trying to defend them.
CPs are a net win. The world hasn’t ended, and it’s left the antis hanging onto nothing but a single word, and looking like fools, rather than being able to argue “so much change at once is scary”. As a result they are being steamrollered.
CP’s have made life worse; (and I have been in one for 5 years).
It would have been far better to have left us out in the cold than give us some morsel and then try to beat us about the head with it later.
I don’t think we’re really bothered what Ms Blackwood thinks anymore about same-sex-marriages.
She wants to fight for religious freedom – here’s a few she might find go against her as she’s a women..
1. Women Bishops in the Anglican church – banned.
2. Women priests in the Catholic Church – banned.
3. Women in Muslim faith – essentially forbidden from holding any influence or power and must enter through a different door to their altogether more superior male counterparts.
4. Women in the bible – essentially, you’re worthless, and should according to holy scriptures not be allowed to enter church, but if you do, know your place and keep silent.
5. Women’s bodies – Catholic clergy hierarchy will decide on what’s good for women and what’s not – notably in relation the having of children where contraception is outlawed and as well as abortion.
6. Church traditional marriage advocates that women stay at home, have children, wash dirty clothes, adore and respect their husband..
I go with rule 6.
Also you forgot “biting the pillow”.
So the argument boils down to this: the legal protection of someone’s superstitious bigotry trumps my right to equality in the law. Good for us to know where this woman stands when it comes to the next round of elections.
I don’t really care what she does – I’m still not going to forgive her for unseating Evan Harris. He was one of the good ones. :(
That was the voters.
Call me cynical, but I would hazard a guess that her change of mind has more to do with the real prospect of being voted out rather than a real shift in consciousness.
Let’s hope she is voted out, no matter if she says she’ll vote yes.
You are cynical.
There has been so much bullsh|t and misinformation spread around by the church that even the MP’s don’t know what they are fighting for.
I got into a discussion / heated argument / rant the other night in the pub with five guys that KNEW they were in the right.
Within 20 mins I had them all turned around and supporting same-sex marriage when I explained that what they had been told was totally, utterly and completely WRONG.
These wankers like C4M has been pushing blatant LIES, and this is now being taken as gospel, to excuse the pun.
Most of the anti SSM people are not homophobic, they are simply misinformed and are making valued judgements upon erroneous data.
It is up to us to rectify this and set the record straight.
She’s only agreeing with equal marriage to get the LGBT vote, young, and intelectural vote, because Oxford has a lot of young university voters who normally vote Lib dem. She will be wanting to increase her chances of holding her seat in 2015. Sorry Nicola but i wouldnt vote for you!
If only the Tory back bencher bigots would see the error of their ways and vote the way she says she will.
It’s upsetting to think that she took that seat from Evan Harris.
If only 200 more people with brains had bothered to roll up on election day, it could have been so different.
Only people on the left have brains, no?
I KNOW . . . Evan was cheated and he’s ALWAYS supported the LGBT community . . .
Evan will easily win in 2015. It was apathy that lost him the seat last time around. I must plead guilty here – I never voted and got lumbered with Blackwood as a result. We just didn’t expect it.
Still sticking to her vile logic even though she has been shamed into changing her vote. Nasty cow.
She looks like right bimbo to me. It’s sad that kids like her can actually get themselves voted into Parliament, for goodness sake!
It’s rather sad that such a young looking MP has been brainwashed by the far right wing of the Tory party. Let’s hope she doesn’t change her mind again.
On the bright side though some of these MPs may have started changing their stance on equal marriage. No-one wants to be on the losing side I guess and the tide is defintely drifting in our favour.
‘Well done’ to the scholars of Oxford. Ms Blackwood seems to have had just sufficient brain to realise she’d better not try to argue on an academic basis.
I really think Civil Partnerships are a much better option than marriage-purely because they are specifically designed to keep religion OUT. Its great- and I bet there are stacks of straights out there who envy OUR right to them. My fear is that one day they will AUTOMATICALLY be converted to marriages against our wishes. Then the god squad will really be sticking their religious noses into our relationships!
There are religious civil partnerships now (also there have been civil marriages since the 19th century, and they now make up the majority of marriages). The only real differences between marriage and civil partnership are the name, the gender of the people getting married, some minor details surrounding the way the ceremony works, adultery, and consummation, and a few situations in which civil partners are treated worse (such as spousal benefits and recognition by other countries). It’s silly to keep two slightly different institutions with different names for exactly the same purpose, just because you think one name sounds less religious.
There’s also a vast difference in the area of pensions in regard to marriage versus CPs. Those in a CP are at a financial disadvantage. State pensions and contracted out rights in private sector schemes guarantee retrospective benefits to Civil Partners only to 1988. There is no restriction for straight married couples. It has never been addressed but may have to be as soon as equal marriage is introduced, all things being equal of course. The opponents of equal marriage NEVER acknowledge it do they, yet claim CPs are equal?
“I really think Civil Partnerships are a much better option than marriage-purely because they are specifically designed to keep religion OUT”
No, that’s what civil MARRIAGES are for. A civil marriage has NO religious aspect at all and is no business of the church or any religion not now or in the future. They should be available to everyone no matter what their sexuality. We don’t have a separate institution for interracial marriages or mature couple marriage or anything else, so why should we have a separate one for gay people?
Civil marriage is nothing to do with any religion and they CAN’T stick their noses in. I’ve never met any straight couple who’d want a CP. Even the least interested of my straight friends consider it to be a second class option. If they don’t want any religious or traditional aspect, they simply choose a civil marriage.
With all respect: Fck right off.
CP’s are an inequitable, badly drawn up compromise.
Marriage has damn all to do with the church. Over 2/3rds of straights have civil marriages, – all we want is the same. If you want to get married to your gay partner in a church and the church approves, fine. If they don’t – tough.
I had a CP in precisely the same place as everybody else gets married.
So why do I have to put up with a second-rate ‘alternative’ just to appease a bunch of God-botherers that would never set foot in a registry office in the first place?
A Quadruple Lock would merely be another example of a privilege enjoyed by religious people over the rest of us. Rather than afforded a minority of religious fundamentalist terrorists with even more privileges our government should be taking advantage of the situation and impose a tax upon them as payment for the afforded privilege of opting out of equality legislation with their blatant discrimination against LGBT people. I mean, would the government allow an LGBT clubs to ban people of certain religions from entry. Why no, there’d be an outcry!
I think the C4EM website needs to be updated. She’s still down as an anti. I also spotted Richard fuller down as an anti but I recently read he is still undecided and is having a meeting with the local LGBT group. Also my MP Andrea Leadsom has gone from a definite NO to a maybe YES since Maria Miller’s statement.
“I have no principled objection to equal marriage in secular institutions”
Once again, still anti-gay and doesn’t even realise it. The implicit assumption is that gay people wouldn’t even want, let alone deserve the religious freedom she is so keen to defend. Why would we?
Despite attempts to attract voters outside the Tory grassroots by supporting a limited progression for gay marriage, David Cameron’s vindictive austerity measures are forcing through cuts that are destroying the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Intent on demonstrating the steps forward taken by a party whose leader most recently failed to condemn a leading UKIP figure likening gay adoption to child abuse, the prime minister has gone out of his way to host celebrity receptions and publicity stunts such as criticising the deplorable human rights records of nations still criminalising LGBT people. The true agenda of this bandwagon leap however is exemplified by how their cuts fetish is actually affecting LGBT people in the United Kingdom today – and should serve as a warning to queer voters not to trust the Nasty Party.
She’s just worried that Dr Evan Harris (LibDem) will win her seat off her again . . . Dr Harris has ALWAYS been a proud supporter of the LGBT community and is a main member / leader of LGBT+ LibDems . . . even though he’s straight . . .
Dr Evan Harris has never wavered in his support and attends many LGBT events (where I have met him . . . ).
Harris isn’t restanding. The Lib Dems have picked another candidate: