“I know there is one other subject that the gay community is particularly interested in: marriage. As someone who believes in commitment, in marriage and in civil partnerships, my view is that if religious organisations want to have civil partnerships registered at their places of worship that should be able to happen. Last week the Equalities Minister held listening events with faith groups and representatives of the gay community, as we consider what the next steps are for civil partnerships and how we enable religious organisations to register same-sex relationships on their premises if they wish to do so. I think this is an important step forward and we will help to make it happen.”

- Independent on Sunday

is there any need to ”wind up” the more general conservative population who would quietly not want to see their marriages as the same thing as same sex couple’s?

Oh that’s right, let’s just acquiesce in discrimination and bigotry because it might offend middle England. FFS.

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/12/05/lets-be-civil-gay-marriage-isnt-the-end-of-the-rainbow/

I was on a gay pride march in Belfast yesterday, and there were a bunch of nutcase Christians standing along the parade route with signs talking about ‘abomination’ and Sodum and Gomorrah. While those particular people should be ridiculed and told to get stuffed, is there any need to ”wind up” the more general conservative population who would quietly not want to see their marriages as the same thing as same sex couple’s?

Or maybe left wing activism means that these people and their views need to be hounded out of existance.
I am all for equality, but just don’t like the process that the left use often to further their goals. Like it’s a constant jihad, and the enemy are those Daily Mail readers living in the suburbs – who really need their noses rubbed in it.
Permanent revolution? It gets a bit boring after a while.

Thanks mate.

However my disdain for the institution of marriage and belief in absolute sexual licence (where consent exists) is informed by instinctive social liberalism.

Watching gay activists clamour for the right to marry is, frankly, unedifying- why demand the equality of slavery?

Badgering prospective leadership candidates into saying something you want them to say is also disconcerting. A culture that developed within the Labour Party where it was impossible to progress unless you were prepared to mouth the mantras devised by the various pressure groups. This culture was principally responsible for the mess the party is now in and, by pursuing this particular crusade, you are reinforcing it.

It is a form of compulsory collective speak and, in my view, it is unhealthy.

If you are right and voting is the only way whereby I am entitled to have any political opinion or make any political action, I should indeed shut up. But I don’t think it is.

As a result of court rulings. They weren’t ‘given’.

Is that you trying to equate gay marriage with bestiality pagar? Very subtle.

Thanks, but as I said last time, when I need your advice on what articles we should be publishing here and what stories we need to cover, I’ll ask. Amazingly, I haven’t had the need yet.

As for person who doesn’t like marriage as an instition then please think beyond the UK and what the word means beyond the UK. Not all British people live and work in the UK and they need to have as many rights as possible when they move to another country, the word marriage may bring in much more rights than merely a civil partnership. To deny gay people the rights to this is denying them equality and rights in other countries.

TG people were given more rights under New Labour. eg passports and recognition of marriage.

Having rights is good. Social acceptance is better.

OK so let’s just say that everyone gay or straight can have civil partnerships or marriage, whatever they fancy. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing wrong with equality before the law.
Which is precisely my point: by opposing gay marriage because you oppose marriage you are part of the problem.

And why don’t you vote? Will you vote if we get some form of AV/PR? I sorta understand not voting under FPTP but c’mon… you can hardly expect to change the system if you don’t even do the bare minimum.

Indeed, Blanco. Should we not just lock up non-voters as a matter of course? I am fed up with them gabbling on about the hooligan who smashed their windows or about the idiot who defectated in the freezer at their corner shop.

They had their chance to mark their protest at the last general election.

It is inconceivable that anyone could protest by not voting… Especially in North Korea.

I think you’ve pretty much lost all semblance to any right to judge others for their behaviour or even to criticise/comment on what a politician says or does.

If you don’t vote, on purpose, then I don’t see what the point of your tirades on here are.

Weren’t you on here complaining that your husband didn’t give your kid your surname as its middle name? Jesus wept.

Still, not voting is better than voting Labour these days.

Conventional marriage is as old as cave men and women. It is embedded in culture and social behaviour.

The mainstream idea of a conventional marriage of equals is about 40 years old.

So it is unsurprising that some men and women are unreformed about equality: the concept of a dominant man in a partnership is 1,000 times older than that of equals.

We can therefore assume that same sex marriage, as an example of equal partners, will have a marginal behavioural effect.

Mr S Pill – in my utopia there would be no civil partnerships or marriage, just plenty of sex and love. I am probably a hippie deep down, but please don’t tell anyone. Thanks.

“The reason I dont like marriage is I think it is one of the key institutions that cements gender inequality and homophobia in our society.

All the more reason to support calls for same sex marriage, after all, which gender is the dominant one in a marriage if both members are the same sex? Indeed since the most ferocious opposition comes from those whom wish to “protect marriage” (ie man in charge, woman there for producing and then looking after kids) then clearly allowing same-sex marriage might very well begin to destroy the imbalances within opposite-sex marriage as well.

I do take your point though, as the argument Olson & Boies used – same sex marriage IS a conservative position. Given that you have same sex couples wishing to enter into a traditional institute and engage in that thing that the Tories would like all straight people to do – ie be married. Its only because the champions of “traditional marriage” would rather that lgbt’s didn’t exist at all that its ended up being a lefty cause.

Personally I think both civil partnerships and marriage should be available to all regardless of the sexes of the couple involved.

Let me explain this to you, Ed. Firstly, you need to be Prime Minister…

So what, in your post-gender sexually-deconstructionist Utopia, would be the difference between marriage and civil partnerships?