Reader comments · Alice Arnold: The lack of equal marriage is horrible and I can speak out about it now · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Alice Arnold: The lack of equal marriage is horrible and I can speak out about it now

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Yes, it’s like Stonewall and the Labour govt conned us all into thinking we were now equal and everyone else now saw us as equals, only when marriage was being talked about did the penny drop for some of us. We were all conned into thinking the second best option, civil partnership, was just as good as marriages. It’s like we did even ask ourseleves why were being called something different, why we had to be given a different name to everyone else.

    I do wish the likes of BS/Stonewall and the labour MPs would just own up to why we had to be called civil partners and not married couples.Admit it you lot conned us!

    1. I think this is a bit harsh. The objections in many quarters to even civil partnerships were very strong and it took a lot of effort to get them approved. Trying to get equal marriage approved at that time would have been even more difficult, if not impossible. CP’s laid the groundwork which now make equal marriage viable, with support from the majority of the population. Change via evolution rather than revolution tends to be more sustainable, with fewer casualities…

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2013, 1:05pm

        Yes, but even though the majority of the public support equal marriage, many MPs don’t, mostly Tories and a sprinkling of Labour. Makes you wonder why they are in Parliament if they’re not representing everyone regardless of their personal or religious beliefs, incapable of separating the two. CPs have become a very convenient tool for the opposition even though many of them do not even believe in them if they were really that honest. All of a sudden, they’ve become the weapon of choice to thwart equal marriage under the pretence that they are about equality, but something they wouldn’t want for themselves of course and we know why don’t we? If they really believe they are equal, then they should object to allowing heterosexuals access to them.

    2. Rubbish John, because as you say yourself you didn’t think so at the time.

      Are you suggesting Labour could actually have got equal marriage through at that time instead. But that they decided to con us rather than do that?

      How stupid.

      1. In Spain in 2005, the Socialist government was getting equal marriage through. So Labour do deserve some criticism for taking the easy way out.

    3. Attitudes take time to change, and to have done so in just a handful of years since the bringing in of civil partnerships (itself an enormous achievement at the time), up to now where anything less than full equality is regarded as no longer acceptable by mainstream opinion, is phenomenal.

      I agree, though, that there was an unfortunate period when Stonewall did not seem to be able to grasp the enormity of the change in public attitudes which was occurring and failed to lobby for equal marriage when that had become perfectly feasible and others were doing it. Put this down to an error of judgment, corrected over time.

    4. twitless is absolutely right. Labour had absolutely no chance of getting full marriage through in 2005. Even now after CPs have been generally accepted as a good thing, the opposition to SSM is still ferocious. It is just ignorant to suggest that Labour somehow cheated us. If they hadn’t pushed CPs through there would be NO legally recognised Gay relationships in the UK now or for the foreseeable future.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2013, 12:59pm

      Tony Blair and Ben Summerskill said they didn’t want to pursue equal civil marriage because of a confrontation with the church. Summerskill went on to say that there was no demand for marriage and that StonewallUK would not support it. Where is Summerskill lately? Not a word to counter the disgusting comments coming from MPs in opposition.

  2. It still irritates me that there are apparently LGBT who claim to be happy with CPs even though this debate has exposed how despised they are by certain groups. They were probably patted on the head (metaphorically) previously and told “there there, now you have equality, run along now”. And of course whether anyone intends to marry or not is completely irrelevant. Having the choice marry or not to marry is the crucial issue. Having that choice is not a “special right”. It is what everyone else in society already has.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jan 2013, 1:11pm

      I have no problem with some LGBT people being happy with CPs as long as they don’t oppose equal marriage for those who would prefer it, choice as you say. That’s the part I don’t get. Marriage is the only universally recognised legal union for couples. There has been no demand for CPs for gay or straight couples. CPs are UK-centric, applicable only to a minority, very little reciprocity outside the UK in terms of the rights they convery within the UK. That alone should be reason enough to open civil marriage to gay couples in the interests of fairness and full equality. I just don’t understand why opposing MPs fail to understand a simple concept.

  3. That There Other David 22 Jan 2013, 9:48am

    The world has changed since CPs were introduced and the UK is now behind the pack to the real and actual detriment of UK citizens when abroad. The only way to correct this is to equalise access to marriage.

    Being able to feel equal is still a benefit, but nowhere near as important as having our relationships recognised outside our own borders.

    Have to love Alice and Clare too.

  4. It’s more or less BBC policy to oppose marriage equality. That has become quite evident, especially since Christmas Day.

  5. Is it true to say she couldn’t express an opinion even outside of the BBC while she was working there? BBC TV newsreaders have made documentaries where they have opined on historical issues. If she’d commented in a personal capacity outside the BBC I don’t think they could have done anything about it, it would surely be in breach of freedom of expression laws to take action against her unless she’d said something completely off the scale of nastiness which bought her or the corporation into disrepute.

    I’m not saying the BBC didn’t TELL her she wasn’t entitles to express her opinion, they probably did. But if challenged on it I don’t think they’d have had a leg to stand on.

    Glad she sounds more confident about expressing herself now anyway.

  6. good greif

    now she has feathered her nest she feels the need to speak out.

    Sod off

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