Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Labour MP Steve Reed: Gordon Brown was ‘wrong’ not to support same-sex marriage as PM

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Gordon Brown was wrong. Full stop.

    1. He was a terrible disappointment.

  2. Quite difficult being an MP having to write back to constituents who don’t agree with Same Sex Marriage. I don’t think I could do it. I’d want to address every letter with the opening salutation:

    Dear bigot,

    1. I would always want to ask, especially those who quote the bible, ‘Why are you so selective in the use of that old novel to justify your bigotry when you’ve ignored the things which attract equal venon – like burning witches and condoning slavery – and wearing clothes made of two materials – and stoning of adulterers, etc, etc, etc”. I’ll back you in your incitement to hatred when you stick to ALL the rules in the bible. If it’s a ‘rule book’, you can’t be picking and choosing, you know? That’s anarchy! But you seem blissfully happy to just quote the anti-gay bits. WHY?”

  3. He was also wrong to invite that old git in Rome.

  4. ColinJones 20 Feb 2013, 6:01pm

    Gordon Brown was the sod who spent years demonising the sick and disabled while turning a blind eye to rich tax dodgers and the stock market wideboys who f*cked up our economy.It’s because of people like him that I’ve stopped supporting Labour.

  5. Gordon Brown claims to support same sex marriage, and he said he didn’t vote for it because he had a prior commitment which meant he was out of the country. On it’s own, I may have believed it but he has a history of being absent whenever gay equality is being voted on in Parliament, so I’m very sceptical about both his excuse at not being present for the vote and his claim to support same sex marriage.

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2013, 6:24pm

    Tony Blair in collusion with StonewallUK was wrong too even though both have evolved and support equal marriage.

    I don’t understand why in this modern age of technology, absentee MPs can’t vote in absentia ahead of an actual vote. Why isn’t this being addressed?

    1. MPs won’t address it, Robert, because it gives them a get out clause when it comes to controversial votes. I think it’s disgusting that MPs can be absent or abstain from voting (unless it’s for a very good reason), rather than nailing their colours to the mast so everyone can see where their loyalties lie. It’s what they’re paid an extremely salary for, after all.

      1. I meant to say “extremely large salary” in my previous comment!

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2013, 7:54pm

        You’re probalby right, Bennie, but I still think it’s a valid point and one that should be put to MPs in the interests of accountability and holding their feet to the fire. They work for us and they shouldn’t be allowed to duck their responsiblities.

        1. I do agree with your suggestion, Robert, it’s an excellent point you make. All I was saying is that MPs will never even consider it. They’d never agree to something which might cause them difficulty in future. Cowardly MPs use abstaining or being absent from votes as a way out of dealing with controversial issues. They’d never willingly give that up.

  7. Craig Nelson 20 Feb 2013, 7:49pm

    I would want to defend Gordon Brown here. The question about SSM was asked in the general election campaign. Policies rarely change during that time because to do so would create a lot of upheaval and give the impression of being ‘incohrent’ – policies are supposed to be sorted out by this time. He was defending the then policy but after the election was over the evolution of the policy happened quickly in all three main parties, as the House of Commons vote showed.

  8. Brown would have supported anything if he thought there were votes in it. Including spending like a lunatic. On the equal marriage issue he would have concluded that there were no additional votes in it for him.

  9. Jock S. Trap 21 Feb 2013, 8:49am

    “We later made it illegal to discriminate on partnership status – so it is illegal to treat someone in a civil partnership different to a married person.”

    An oxymoron of a comment really.

    It’s illegal to treat someone differently ‘apart from’, isn’t good enough. Wasn’t good enough. Will never be good enough.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all