The Tories have certainly got form on this, long after Thatch went doo-lally.
Why, oh why, can’t they just learn to ‘relax’, (to paraphrase Frankie)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jan/29/information-beautiful-gay-rights

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsEiEVsL6UnrdHU5cFRGZkJnS1N4aWNEcC1UNFU3dlE&hl=en_GB

I think the worst you can say about Heffer’s comment is that it’s a bit weaselly, and doesn’t say which constituency the angry activists belonged to, or why they were angry.

There’s obviously a good democratic argument against excluding white het blokes given that they too make up a pretty good proportion of most home counties’ populations. It’s fair to give Heffer the benefit of the doubt, surely?

Section 28, and the fallout from it, is one of the factors that have shaped the modern Conservative party. Good. It still has much to atone for, and I speak as a gay Tory activist. Even understanding the historical and political context of section 28 doesn’t excuse it.

The Major government made numerous attempts at gay rights legislation, but as in the example of the equal age of consent in 1994, was defeated by Labour opposition, led by David Blunkett. Conservative peer Lord Arran was perhaps more intrumental in decriminalising homosexuality than Leo Abse was because he believed it was right rather than making it easier to “cure” us as Abse believed.

Also, I do note that Labour will be going into the election asking for Five More Years of a man who has vacated himself from every major gay equality vote in Parliament, a man who is vocal in his defense of allowing religious organisations to discriminate against gay men.

@The A&E charge nurse:

That’s because Labour homosceptics like Gordon Brown have preferred to be absent rather than stand behind the courage of their convictions.

Of course, the 2003 repeal of Section 28 was a enormous fuckup caused by IDS’s ridiculously ill-advised three line whip. It was one of the things that led to his downfall, and finally allowed the party to break free of its past on this issue. It’s been a millstone around our neck since the mid eighties.

The Wolfenden Report, which paved the way for the de-criminalization of homosexual acts was commissioned by a Conservative government.

Its cross-party membership included a number of leading Tories – including Michael Ancram’s father.

Oh, it’s also worth pointing out that Simon Heffer is no Tory. He has an hysterical aversion (even more Pavlovian than Sunny’s) to the man Dave.

Simon Heffer is a thoroughly unsatisfactory human being.

[4] “It’s been a millstone around our neck since the mid eighties”.

Well, Martin, your lot will undoubtedly have ‘the con’ before too long – let’s hope Cameron does slightly better on this issue than his predecessors.
http://www.word-detective.com/2007/03/01/conn/

“In short, every single advance for gay rights in this country has occurred under a Labour government. Labour has set the agenda for decade after decade, often in the face of concerted opposition from the Tory right.”

Not entirely true really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

“Homosexuality was not decriminalised in Scotland until passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and in Northern Ireland by the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.”

“The age of consent of 21 for homosexual males set by the 1967 Act was reduced to 18 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 after an attempt to equalise the age of consent with that of the heterosexual age of consent of 16 introduced as an amendment by the then Conservative MP Edwina Currie narrowly failed.”

Just as an aside, Currie is normally thought of as part of the “Tory Right”.

“What’s with the white het blokes only stricture, Simon? Don’t they have queers in the Home Counties or something? And last time I checked, women made up about half the population of Guildford and Leatherhead.”

Wasn’t that the seat Iain Dale was after? Surely the first (and possibly last) time he’s been defended around here?

“Given that Labour ‘champion’ freedom and liberty, can we take it that your party will terminate its alliances with assorted east European communists and socialists in the European parliament?

Dave,

“But it remains a fact that the Tories are the party of Section 28 and Labour are the party of equalised age of consent, civil partnership, gay adoption rights and a prohibition on anti-gay discrimination in the provision of goods and services. And don’t forget that it was Labour that decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting adults in private in the first place.”

It remains a fact that Labour were the party of nationalisation in the 1940s. It is just that in both cases this is a historical fact, as the Conservatives seem to have got over the Simon-Heffer tendency (hence his fury) and Labour in general has figured out nationalisation is not the answer (I think British Leyland may have been the clue…).

Dave Semple,

“Conservative motivation for catching up is rooted as much in opportunism as conviction. It is easy to ‘champion’ something now there is nothing of substance left to achieve.”

- I think you’re on another planet if you think there’s nothing of substance left to achieve for gay equality in the UK.

[10] “I think you’re on another planet if you think there’s nothing of substance left to achieve for gay equality in the UK”.

Yes, it’s best not to be too complacent, but progress would probably be easier under a Labour or Liberal regime (judging the tories on past form) – I think that is one of the key messages here?

That’s not (only) what Dave Osler (sorry about calling you Dave Semple in post number 10, I should read more carefully) said though, was it?

“nobody can credibly argue that David Cameron and his Notting Hill Set coterie personally harbour the type of crude homophobia that was dominant during the hey-day of Thatcherism”

That was the party that Dave and his Notting Hill Set chose to become members of though? The fact that one of the rules of all polite society now, is that you’re not explicitly homophobic, doesn’t suggest that they care any more about advancing gay rights. Grandpa might’ve grasped the fact that he can’t call the nurse a negro any more, but that’s not to suggest that his attitudes have become any more enlightened.

Dave: I think there is another question we might ask of the Conservatives.

On March 2, the House of Lords is due to debate once again a proposed amendment to the Equality Bill which would allow religious groups who want to – and only those who want to – to celebrate civil partnerships on their premises. Thus, gay men and lesbians belonging to faith groups like Quakerism and Liberal Judaism would become legally free to celebrate their partnerships in a religious context.

Will the Conservatives support the proposed amendment?

“But it remains a fact that the Tories are the party of Section 28″

Unless I’m mistaken didn’t Labour back its introduction as well?

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/1531

“What was the Labour front bench’s reaction to the new clause? The Party whose policy committed it to supporting equality, and whose councils were under attack, was represented on this issue by Shadow Home Secretary Jack Cunningham. He stated in Committee: “I speak on behalf of the Labour party when I say that it is not, and never has been, the duty or responsibility of either a local or education authority to promote homosexuality … I intend to support [the clause].”"

Liberal spokesperson Simon Hughes MP “made it clear that the initial part of the clause … had the support of the Liberal party.” Gay Tory MP Michael Brown flew the flag for self-hatred when he opined “Of course I accept that it is necessary to protect children and to ensure that irresponsible local authorities do not promote homosexuality.”

“On March 2, the House of Lords is due to debate once again a proposed amendment to the Equality Bill which would allow religious groups who want to – and only those who want to – to celebrate civil partnerships on their premises. Thus, gay men and lesbians belonging to faith groups like Quakerism and Liberal Judaism would become legally free to celebrate their partnerships in a religious context.”

Umm, forgive me here, but I cannot conceive that there is any law preventing this at present. At least as far as I know, there are even parts of the Anglican Church which will, in church ceremonies, celebrate a partnership.

Unless you mean something a little different. That the actual contractual civil partnership might take place on religious premises. The “civil” there might give an idea as to why not.

Please allow me to note that the amendment, whichever way it is, doesn’t bother or upset me. Only the way that the above commment has been made. “Celebrations” of partnerships (of a hetero kind, I agree) have been made in some churches, by their choice, for years. Blessings upon second marriages for example in the Anglican Church. This is different from having or holding second marriages in an Anglican Church. Its’ what I see as the shading between the two cases in the comment that irks, not whatever people wish to do in churches abouttheir sex lives.

Tim Worstall@ 16: ‘Unless you mean something a little different. That the actual contractual civil partnership might take place on religious premises.’

Yes, that is what I mean, as you well know.

Tim: ‘The ‘civil’ there might give an idea as to why not.’

I’m sorry but I do not see how a civil partnership’s being a ‘civil’ partnership necessarily exludes the contract itself being made on the premises of a religious group. As far as I am aware – correct me if I am wrong – but I am legally free right now to enter into all sorts of contractual arrangements, quite freely, on the premises of my local Quaker Meeting House, e.g., sign a new employment contract in a ceremony in the Meeting House with religious readings etc as I sign on the dotted line. So why not a civil partnership?

If the group is amenable, and the would-be partners want to do it because think this adds a spiritual dimension to the ceremony, then why should they not enter into this civil arrangement in a religious context?

Just to motivate my thought in 20 a bit more, here is a passage from Julia Neuberger’s speech in the House of Lords on January 25 when the proposed amendment to allow civil partnerships to be entered into on religious premises was first discussed:

‘Recently, I talked to two registrars at civil partnerships where I have been a guest and where I have officiated at a commitment ceremony later on. They said, speaking from their personal viewpoint, that they find the prohibition on the use of religious premises strange. They argue that for many people, at whose ceremonies they have officiated, a religious element would have been desirable had it been possible. In my experience, there has been real joy for gay couples who have had a religious element after a civil partnership ceremony. That has been carried out at a reception in a hall or wherever and not in a synagogue. On two occasions, the couples concerned had specifically told me how they would have been overjoyed and, even more-this is very Jewish-their parents would have been overjoyed, if they could have had a ceremony within a synagogue as well. I believed them: they had tears in their eyes as they raised that with me. The prohibition meant that, in some way, what they had was second best.’

So, where do the Conservatives stand?

Oops, that should be ‘thought in 17′….

Re: 10

I’m right here on Earth and I wasn’t aware that there was anything more to achieve via legislation.

I know there are still huge problems with homophobia in schools, and that there only seems to be one type of gay man allowed on TV even though it’s a gross stereotype. I know the major religions won’t have them, and neither will the Premiership. I just don’t think these things are best tackled by parliament, when they could be persuaded to change from within.

If there are other outstanding issues then I wouldn’t have a clue how to find them out, but I’d be interested to know what they are.

Stuart White @ 18

So, where do the Conservatives stand?

Well this one is with you and the Rabbi…. and the Quakers.

It’s not the state’s business to boss couples about, telling them what music they can and can’t have at a ceremony or who can or can’t be present.

” Labour are the party of equalised age of consent, civil partnership, gay adoption rights and a prohibition on anti-gay discrimination in the provision of goods and services. ”

All of which are I think at the direction of EU legislation and would have required implementation regardless of who was in power, no favours from Labour then.

Anyway, I may now be able to shag a 16 year old boy without fear of imprisonment, but I would much rather have a stable, functioning economy, a decent education and health system and be able to take photos of policemen without being either imprisoned or bludgeoned to death on the street.

Call me old fashioned.

[22] ” ……… and be able to take photos of policemen without being either imprisoned or bludgeoned to death on the street”.

What’s the miners strike got to do with it?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_C_iGC_kjgcE/SbKfBN6ij0I/AAAAAAAAAME/5G3Vf8etiS8/s400/miners-strive-orgreave.jpg

“What’s the miners strike got to do with it?”

Nothing but since you ask, the miner’s strike involved a bunch of Scargill’s thugs getting a richly deserved kicking for trying to stop others getting to work, and the other is a gross infringement of civil liberties.

“…Labour are the party of equalised age of consent…”

True, but this was first proposed by Edwina Currie and voted against by David Blunkett amongst others

” Given that Conservatives ‘champion’ gay equality, can we take it that your party will terminate its alliances with assorted east European homophobes in the European parliament? Sorry, speak up. Didn’t quite hear you.”

Don’t flatter yourself, there are homophobes in the PASD.