Reader comments · Lib Dem MP Stephen Gilbert: Today is a landmark moment for LGBT equality · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lib Dem MP Stephen Gilbert: Today is a landmark moment for LGBT equality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That There Other David 25 Jan 2013, 12:13pm

    It’s early days yet, but very refreshing to see that another MP is completely supportive. I’ve already lobbied my MP and he’s indicated that he will vote yes, but it’s really important that we all do the same.

    P.S. Nice comment about disestablishing the CoE. Long overdue that. Not going to happen with Liz in the Palace, but I’m hopeful that once she’s left us the next occupant might be more open to the idea.

  2. Good piece, and, yes, we must now all lobby, lobby, lobby, and not just trust that MPs will do “the right thing”.

    We can be sure that from today the homophobes will be lobbying MPs like nobody’s business, considering it their God-given DUTY to ensure this “horrendous” legislation is not passed.

  3. To call it a landmark is overegging it, somewhat. It is another step forward,no more than that.

    Heteros still cannot enter into a CP (we are looking for equality, are we not?).

    Non-binary and gender neutral trans people are ignored again

    There are costs involved in converting CP to a marriage

    Humanists are still not permitted to be celebrants.

    For me, as a non-binary trans person who married in 1975 and remains married to the same woman, whose birth cert show them as male and their passport as female, who couldn’t get a gender recognition certificate (GRC), under the fast track (because of said marriage) and won’t apply for a GRC now because said fast track has been removed (for no discernible benefit) and the costs and effort of obtaining a new psychiatric assessment are disproportionate to the benefits achieved….

    I am ranting, aren’t I? Sorry about that. I am pleased this has finally reached draft bill stage, really I am. It is just that it is truly not a landmark for all

    1. That There Other David 25 Jan 2013, 3:08pm

      I don’t get why CPs are going to remain open to newcomers at all. The law should still recognise them as a legacy defintion, because even if every same-sex couple in the country upgrades to marriage it still allows the UK to recognise Irish CPs. However, what exactly is the point in having two open legal definitions for exactly the same thing? It’s pointless.

    2. The time-limited fast track to “gender recognition” was only there to panic people into disregarding the huge privacy and abuse issues with the process, and boost early “acceptance” figures. But we mostly aren’t that stupid. So there are at least a thousand, and probably considerably more, whose new sex should be recognised according to the ECHR Goodwin judgement but are still being denied that human right by the UK process.

      Despite having been TS since the age of two (if not since conception), and post-SRS for over 40 years, I’m one of those.

      I’ve been a campaigner for equal marriage for 35 years too, but this bill, as it stands, enshrining inequality, fails to make it possible for me to marry. I guess I shall never be married now. I feel betrayed.

  4. I don’t buy the idea that the Quadruple Lock, attacking the conscience of gay-affirming Anglican congregations, was necessary. In fact it is detremental – it makes the church look completely out of tune with reality. It imposes the views of a reactionary Anglican minority onthe rest of the church, and will accelerate calls for disestablishment. Why should we pay taxes for this ludicrous institution? What are they doing in the House of Lords? What makes them more likely to be moral leaders than, say, 26 pub landlords, or window cleaners, or members of any other profession? With the mind of God settled in Downing Street rather than in church, the questions will get louder.

    1. But the CoE already looks out of tune with reality, this will make little difference to that.
      Of course, the Lord might narrowly reject the bill with the bishops making all the difference ….

  5. Alas many married trans people in a marriage will not be applying for a gender recognition certificate unless the Bill is modified.

    For some on a public pension, if they are a trans woman, their spouse’s survivor’s pension could be dramatically reduced if the trans woman gets gender recognition.

    Same old unfair nonsense – some trans people will again have to choose between getting legal recognition and their marriage.

    1. You really should credit that at least the bill will now allow British people in marriages abroad to get a GRC if their spouse agrees, instead of being blocked by the requirement for a divorce, when the UK assistance with that didn’t apply abroad.

      But not every person with “GID” is married. There are far more of us will still not be able to marry at all.

      The requirement to be outed by having a 2nd birth registration on a public register, an easily exposed new certificate, to appear on a special register open to many agencies and wide open to hacking, to have a permanent file of the most intimate details, to undergo a re-traumatising yet meaningless psychiatric evaluation, and swear one has a new gender, even decades after SRS, are huge barriers for the most extremely “dysphoric” and stealth.

      Many hoped equal marriage would make the gender of partners irrelevant, but the big difference between heterosexual and same-sex marriages dashes that.

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.