Reader comments · David Cameron: Gay teenagers will stand that bit taller following equal marriage vote · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


David Cameron: Gay teenagers will stand that bit taller following equal marriage vote

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. UglyGeezer 22 May 2013, 9:14am

    I heard this this morning and wept. A Tory leader made me weep and it was for doing something right.. Well done.

    1. I couldn’t agree more! As a lifelong Liberal voter, I was very sceptical about a coalition with the Tories, but I now have a lot of respect for both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who, even if I can’t see eye to eye with them on everything, seem to have been acting on principle. I have been very critical of modern, media savvy, “sound-bite” politicians, but, believe me (I’m in my sixties now!), many in the past only acted for short term advantage. In common parlance nowadays we refer to gay men and lesbians as “gays” anyway, so this seems another storm in a teacup to me.

    2. I was driving when I heard him say that literally shouted at the radio. I speak as a life-long Labour voter but I absolutely congratulate Cameron on the stand he has taken. I salute you.

  2. Does this mean he has the Lords by the collective gonads and they won’t play obstructionists?

    Because right now nothing has changed, nothing has passed into law. I’m sure I can’t be the only one old enough to have lobbied for equal age of consent, watched the Lords reject it and have to have the Parliament Act invoked (and arguably that was more important – manifest injustice that led to a risk, if not actual, loss of liberty).

    The Lords do not have my trust. Will believe it when I see it and shall not wave my rainbow flag a moment before.

    1. I remember the age of consent legislation too, but The Lords are significantly different now. After 13 years of Labour Government, they’re more liberal than before, and their position is more precarious – they know that many MPs are desperate for an excuse to reform the Upper House.

      My calculation is that we have a majority of about 100 in favour – if they all turn up to vote!

    2. GulliverUK 22 May 2013, 9:22am

      Unless amended so that we have equal pension survivor benefits, then this will never be equal marriage, and people will quite rightly feel that, once again, we are not valued in society. Many pension schemes have voluntarily extended equal pension rights in this area, but the law still maintained, both in Civil Partnerships, and in this “equal marriage” bill, the right to discriminate. Some people seem to be having a problem with the English word “equal” – it is the very essence of this bill, and yet the bill doesn’t provide equal rights. Sorry to be a party pooper, I should be elated I know, but we’re being stitched up yet again. I simply can’t refer to this as equal marriage.

      1. Beelzeebub 22 May 2013, 9:56am

        Patience dear boy.

        Small steps.

        1. What, about 6 years? it’s contrary to a 2000 EU directive, the Walker case was won in court, Liberty and many others tried to put forward an amendment, which the government forced them to withdraw, then the government said they would fight Walker, which means a court case will have to go to higher courts here and the to the ECHR … which will probably take about 6 years. It involves little expense, but means for the next 6 years or so your “equal marriage” is a sham because it’s not equal at all. I know, I know, you all want to celebrate – believe it or not so did I, but without equal pension rights you are all deluding yourself that this is equal marriage. I’ve been waiting for this day as long as everybody else, but now it was all for nowt.

          1. While I agree this is a significant (and perplexing) flaw in the bill, I think its importance is being exaggerated a bit. As I understand it, it only affects people who have been contributing to certain kinds of pension schemes since before 2005, who die leaving a civil partner (or, in the future, a same-sex spouse) behind. Same-sex marriage is the big controversial step that requires a huge debate and lots of political capital to get through Parliament. The pensions issue might be rectified by the courts, or could be quickly dealt with by a future government with little fuss along with some of the many other anomalies and anachronisms in marriage and civil partnership law.

          2. bobbleobble 22 May 2013, 10:18am

            And the people of Massachusetts still don’t have federal recognition of their marriages 8 years after marriage equality happened there. I don’t think anybody there believes their marriages are a sham. Instead they’ve fought on to obtain that recognition and may well begin to get it next month when SCOTUS rules.

          3. Midnighter 22 May 2013, 9:43pm

            This is really aimed at those voting GulliverUK down here – please remember that by people raising these points some of us who are ignorant of such details are educated and get to see some helpful discussions. I am grateful for the reality check.

      2. bobbleobble 22 May 2013, 10:09am

        It’s a shame we won’t have full equality in this area but I think you’re focusing on that as if it’s the end of the world and allowing it to drag you down. Sure we’ve still got battles ahead but we’re winning the war and this was a huge step forward.

        I’m sure gay couples in Portugal are pissed off that they still don’t have equal adoption rights but does that mean they were wrong to celebrate when their Parliament passed marriage equality? What about those in 12 US states who don’t have federal recognition, do you think they were crying into their cereal the morning after their states passed equal marriage.

        Celebrate the victories and continue to fight the injustices. I wish the government had sorted this out too and it’s unfair that they haven’t but I’m not giving up on this issue. However, I am over the moon that by a majority of 205 the House of Commons believes I deserve access to marriage.

    3. I share you concerns Vallksy, the bill could be killed off on the 3rd June when Lord Dear moves his “fatal motion”. We don’t have enough info on the lords. The independant has this bleak prediction

      “Up to 120 Conservative peers – including several former ministers from the Thatcher and Major governments – are preparing to rebel against the legislation. They will receive strong support from Church of England bishops, who strongly oppose the moves.Sources in the Lords suggest that only 50 Tories are likely to back Mr Cameron’s position,…”

    4. iirc, the house of lords is only allowed to reject a bill once?

    5. There will undoubtedly be some nasty comments made in the Lords, but it is a different place now to what is was over 10 years ago when the repeal of section 28 was underway. It was one of the most depressing days of my life to be sat in the officials box when they rejected it. The then Government had to start all over again.

      This time it is different. The legislation started off in the House of Commons and it has been passed with a huge majority so if the Lords play silly the Government will invoke the Parliament Act to force it through.

      1. John F – I’ve just had an email from a 90 year old crossbencher lord who says he is going to vote against it on the 3 rd June. Are you sure those lords who you were listening to 10 yrs ago are still not there? Medical breakthroughs are amazing and the peers, like the rest of the population, are living longer!

        1. John – Oh there are some that are definitely still there! (And I think you may be talking about a certain Lord N?). They seem to go on for ever some of them but others have gone to the great red benches in the sky !! (Baronesses Young and Blatch eg).

  3. What about the young gay girls in schools?

    1. My thoughts exactly. Once again lesbians are made invisible!

    2. Jan Bridget 22 May 2013, 9:34am

      Oh, they don’t exist! And they certainly don’t get bullied. And they certainly don’t attempt suicide…..

    3. Not hard to say boys and girls in once sentence.

    4. Lucy that is true but what about the disabled gay people who are also ignored bur subjected to atos tests. this gay marriage is for wasps middle class middle income gays not disabled not poor. Cameron has been nasty to disabled people some on whom will be gay too

      1. A different James 22 May 2013, 10:26am

        I’ve heard the argument that same-sex marriage only benefits rich middle-aged white gay men so many times, and I’ve never understood it. Nobody ever seems to suggest that opposite-sex marriage only benefits wealthier white people. If anything, I’d agree with Cameron and Diane Abbott (and anyone else who has made this point) that the people who benefit most are young people struggling to come to terms with their sexuality.

        1. Nah

          How is marriage going to help the kids in schools who maybe in fear for their lives. Damilola Taylor was called battyman before he was murdered. How many on those quiet kids who were not gang members but stabbed to death were though to be or were gay?

          how many gay disabled people has been “assessed by atos” how many lost their benefits?

          Who knows who cares we can get married woo bloody hoo!

          1. de Villiers 22 May 2013, 2:16pm

            Well I’m quite sure that it is not going to make it worse.

    5. Calm down, dear. An unfortunate oversight. He has not excluded Lesbians or bisexuals from the bill, he just forgot to mention them in a short radio interview.

      1. Even so, a blooming big oversight but then again how many women does he have on his own front bench, about 4? Oh by the way am disabled too so yeah am highly represented by this lot you know. I know that is what you are going too pull this rabbit out of the hat next and then skin colour and so on. Bet he hardly thought about any lesbians in that radio interview only his Eton chums

    6. Oh come on Lucy, all of the bile and hatred against this bill – as with all debates on LGBT issues – has focused around gay men. It’s hardly surprising that, after that, Cameron made this slip.

    7. Yeh I was thinking the same….once again women, gay or otherwise, get forgotten!

    8. Midnighter 22 May 2013, 9:52pm

      I’d like to think this has more to do with Cameron showing empathy than intending a slight. He’s obviously done some long thinking about how he would feel in that situation, and his first frame of reference is to imagine himself as a boy in that position.

      Anyway, you ladies got the Eurovision kiss this year, so I don’t think Europe’s forgotten about gay girls even if Mr C did :-D

      1. The kiss happened then!? Did they show it? I don’t watch it lol

    9. Get over it 22 May 2013, 10:00pm

      Lucy, lets get real – gay boys get bullied more than gay girls, so that was probably the only reason mentioning boys was the first thing that came to his mind. Quit your whining – he didn’t mean to exclude you on purpose.

      1. I might as well be dead then with what I went through then, in fact reading this thread is bringing back all memories of been beaten up, the suicide attempts and been touched up by pervs. Maybe I was right all along maybe I should die. Than you pink news for pointing this out. I’ve all ready spoken to the Samaritans about these thoughts, they never got back. Am sorry if you hate me and everyone else out there who dislikes me for who I am. I cannot change the fact am a woman so I will just as well as fade into the distance. I have nothing else to say, it has been fun while it lasted, I thought I had found a place where belonged , I guess I don’t. I never had a life after my 14th birthday and am 30 now, being a disgusting lesbian and all that, I bet you all want to spit in my face and hope I rot. You are right I will because am just a woman with no feelings who does not exist, yes am getting real now, sleep tight everyone peace xxxx

        1. Jan Bridget 23 May 2013, 8:43am

          Have a look at this, especially Homophobia from a Multi-Oppression Perspective, it might help.

  4. Paul Hutton 22 May 2013, 9:34am

    I am sure he did not mean to leave out lesbians I appreciate it is important to be inclusive, but give the bloke a break he’s already broken the stuffy Tory mould:-)

    1. Jan Bridget 22 May 2013, 9:38am

      It just shows how subliminal sexism is.

      1. He is a “straight man” accept that when he uses the word Gay, he means all GLBTI people.
        Please let us not bring in any divide that will feed the Bigots!

        1. i agree bazza, i often refer to glbtiq people as the gay community and often refer to gay men and lesbians as gay men and gay women. i’m over the acronym and yes, i am gay

        2. Jan Bridget 22 May 2013, 12:06pm

          I normally do accept gay as encompassing LGBT people but Cameron specifically said gay boys.

  5. Paul Hutton 22 May 2013, 9:36am

    It still won’t educate or change the attitude of these stupid ignorant morons who bully gay people either to boost their macho ego or because they are scared of their own sexuality, more like the latter

    1. Jan Bridget 22 May 2013, 9:42am

      Actually, I disagree. It is unlikely to change attitudes immediately but longer term if successful it should ‘normalise’ same-sex relationships and parental responses are less likely to be ‘oh, you won’t be able to get married or have children…’

  6. A momentous day – unthinkable just a short time ago especially during the Thatcher era. But as true equality approaches, we must be ever-more vigilant – cautious that the more freedoms we achieve, we do not become scapegoats for bigots. Look at UKIPs stance on our equality? In times of trouble, it is minorities which become the target of hate. I think of Hitler’s campaign against the Jews.

    1. The momentous moment is when the law is actually passed. I’m not breaking out the champagne yet

  7. I hate to say it but I agree with Cameron. Shame he didn’t extend that kindness to the disabled people who may also be gay. but we don’t like to mention them do we!

  8. Jacob Dugan-Brause 22 May 2013, 9:57am

    The PM’s right, you know. And yes, he could have easily added girls to his wonderfully sensitive reflection.

    But as that once gay boy myself, now older and hardened by many political battles, I know it’s not over until the fat Lord sings.

  9. Benjamin Cohen 22 May 2013, 10:05am

    Re boys reference, this just in from our Downing Street sources

    Mr Cameron only referring to gay boys caused some questioning on social media and within the PinkNews comments section. However, a senior Downing Street source told “Clearly the Prime Minister was referring to the gays and lesbians who will be able to marry under the Bill. In an interview full of interruptions he didn’t get to refer to young girls as well but clearly that’s what he meant.”

    1. Next time you’re in contact perhaps ask David how he would feel about Sam only receiving a fraction the normal pension entitlement because they are a straight couple. I know it doesn’t apply to them, but perhaps he forgot to mention girls just like he forget about our pensions, for the same reason.

      1. Gulliver

        We all agree with you. Please consider not boring the bum off everyone by droning on about it. If you wanna write to the PM or the Lords, do so: add my name (Alexander Korshunov) because I really support your POV.

        But, c’mon…

    2. apologist

  10. Jock S. Trap 22 May 2013, 10:13am

    I applaud David Cameron for what he has done for Equal Marriage. If it goes through the unelected place his place in history is assured.

    Sadly I think people (bigots) will use this as a false argument to bring down David Cameron.

    I have to say despite the false messages from some of his backbenchers about Equal Marriage not being mentioned at the election This is one of the reasons I voted for David Cameron because of what he said about Equal Marriage. It was my deciding factor and I’m pleased he has delivered on his promise.

    1. Agreed. Those you refer to are the ones who are whipping up the very storm that will sink their party, and until they are muzzled I can’t trust the party as a whole.

      Extrapolating the votes on Equal Marriage it seems there are 128 reasons why I’d not vote Tory right now, and add to that the weight of the Associations that seem to comprise of embittered old farts and I think they’ll manage to sink their chances. That lot won’t take heed of national opinon, but will instead seek to mold the nation to their own ideals and for their own personal gain.

      Look at what happened to the Republicans – right on the back of an internal review indicating they needed to become more moderate to win back voters, the GOP announce ‘more of the same’. These old style conservatives are incapable of learning and adapting to modern realities.

  11. I’m sure, as he’s Prime Minister, that there’s an element of politics in his support somewhere along the line.

    But he will gain long-term respect from voters and future historians for standing up against many people in his party on this issue.

    Whatever happens next.. To have got the Bill to this stage is momentus and I doubt it would have happened in this way without his unequivocal support.

    I, for one, am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for apparently doing something very controversial out of principle – not easy these days for politicians.

  12. Thank you David Cameron. Your bill sadly has no direct impact on me since I live in Australia, but it is wonderful to see a man of conscience and vision fighting and winning for the right decision. We have NO such politicians here in Australia which is sadly becoming the land of the bigots. I feel sadly ashamed to be an Australian.

    1. Helge Vladimir Tiller 22 May 2013, 9:59pm

      Don’t be sad, Peter ! Just wait and see—and fight for it. The tide will turn, slowly but surely. ( H. V. T.-Norway.)

  13. Well done and thank you to all in the House who voted for Equal Marriage and to David Cameron for sticking to his guns. This is a very positive and serious step forward and in the right direction……However, I am curious to know who voted against.

  14. Don’t let these ‘riches for the rich’ party persuade you they have anyone but the rich’s best interests at heart – this spark of equality has only been pushed by the Coalition because there are Gay rich Tories too – In all other aspects of government they are still odious!

    1. I always find it amazing that when the Left do something good for gay rights, it’s an absolutely wonderful thing, yet when a Conservative does something, it must be for some dark or cynical reason.

      Give us a break and grow up.

  15. “That bit taller” indeed. That’s the reason CaMoron has been keeping so many homophobes very tightly by his side. He knows he and his party can deliver nothing else but words.

    1. Er… When the bill goes through, I hope you will eat your words, you twat. I’m not a Tory but Cameron has made this happen. He has stuck his neck out so stop whingeing. And that goes for all the sorry whingers on this page.

  16. Yes great speech Mr Cameron, but it’s not only bloody boys who are gay for goodness sake. Why do people keep doing that? I’m a woman and I’m gay! HELLO! Idiot!

  17. Helge Vladimir Tiller 22 May 2013, 7:53pm

    Nice music in my ears-even though I’m not conservative and live in Norway ! Very Nice music for Gay UK-

  18. Well done Cameron. Brave leadership. He will personally suffer as a result – but his party will benefit in the long term. Let all the bigoted miserable old conservatives go off to UKIP. The Tories will dwindle in polls. Then reinvigorate and come back as a remaining party worthy of considering voting for.

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.