Who's leading the campaign on Gay Marriage in the UK?

  • shutoman

    Posts: 505

    Jun 16, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    Does anyone know who is leading this campaign? Is there a campaign group?

    We've had a week of general gay marriage bashing. The Church of England report suggests they might have to 'withdraw' religious marriage services if civil gay marriage goes through (I don't believe this for one moment - either legally or practically, they need the money). Plus mood music from many quarters about 'The government has better things to do at this time' (See Nadine Dorries MP, etc) and, I notice, a lot of forum activity by anti-gay activists saying 'You don't have the right to re-define marriage'.

    If this measure is lost, the anti-gay lobby will be riding high and much of the progress made in recent years will suffer a setback. But I don't get the sense that there is any strong campaign from Stonewall - and in any case they are hamstrung by that idiot Ben Summerskill's early opposition to gay marriage proposals.

    So, who's in charge? Is there any coordinated campaign FOR gay marriage out there?
  • shutoman

    Posts: 505

    Jun 16, 2012 6:18 PM GMT
    Quite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 6:26 PM GMT
    It is sad that, having adopted gay marriage as a personal principle, the Prime Minister has been forced by members of his own party to put the issue on the back burner. As ever, the right are determined to stifle equal rights. When will gay people learn that the Conservatives are not our friends?

    "Changing the law to support gay marriage is the right thing to do" - Yvette Cooper MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 6:29 PM GMT
    Frankly, the Conservative party itself seems to be cheerleading this legislation, with support from Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I wouldn't worry too much about what the Church of England says. As you said, Ben Summerskill is much more dangerous.

    It's not entirely unreasonable to suggest, though, that this shouldn't be a Government or Parliamentary priority. Whilst civil partnerships may not be perfect, they are effective in giving gay couples most of the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples and so the issue is not nearly as pressing as it is in some other countries.
  • jboy84

    Posts: 556

    Jun 16, 2012 6:39 PM GMT
    Lol, if the Church of England are against this then God knows (excuse the pun) what the Catholic Church are going to do.

    Frankly, I don't understand the argument. I don't actually know many gays who'd want to get married in the Church of England.. would be majorly uncomfortable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 6:43 PM GMT
    jboy84 saidLol, if the Church of England are against this then God knows (excuse the pun) what the Catholic Church are going to do.

    Frankly, I don't understand the argument. I don't actually know many gays who'd want to get married in the Church of England.. would be majorly uncomfortable.


    Oh, I'm afraid that there are plenty of gays who would get married in Church of England churches if said churches were legally required to perform the ceremonies. If nothing else, it is likely that somebody would challenge the Church of England over their presumable refusal to conduct such ceremonies if gay marriage was to be legalised. It is unlikely, however, that such a challenge would be successful, even in the ECtHR.

    The Catholic Church is fairly irrelevant in this debate. Their lack of political influence was proven when they tried to stop gay adoption being required by their own institutions.
  • funkymonkey

    Posts: 194

    Jun 16, 2012 8:54 PM GMT
    gay marriage just isn't an issue at the moment, not many people are against it, but those who are for it are not overly committed either and considering the (daunting) challenges the British government face it's somewhat understandable why it is not being introduced as planed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 9:21 PM GMT
    funkymonkey saidgay marriage just isn't an issue at the moment, not many people are against it, but those who are for it are not overly committed either and considering the (daunting) challenges the British government face it's somewhat understandable why it is not being introduced as planed.


    It is seemingly a big enough issue for many Conservatives and most of the Church of England to have mounted a concerted campaign against it. If those organisations instead preoccupied themselves with the daunting challenges you mention, the gay marriage legislation could go through pretty much on the nod.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 9:27 PM GMT
    WHO cares? Mother England has no need for a term gay marriage, and a name change will change little, as in advancement. The gays of the UK are already decades ahead of our American brothers; even without the American term Gay Marriage, the gays of the UK have Civil Unions, and a a name change will give them little more rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 9:41 PM GMT
    tru_blu_auzzie saidWHO cares? Mother England has no need for a term gay marriage, and a name change will change little, as in advancement. The gays of the UK are already decades ahead of our American brothers.


    I care and so do a lot of other people. It is about gay people having equal (not greater) rights with the rest of the population. I do agree with you, however, that our political parties do not have the same degree of polarity on gay equality issues as do the the parties in the US.
  • jboy84

    Posts: 556

    Jun 16, 2012 9:50 PM GMT
    tru_blu_auzzie saidWHO cares? Mother England has no need for a term gay marriage, and a name change will change little, as in advancement. The gays of the UK are already decades ahead of our American brothers.


    I think I agree.. I've been gay in the UK and gay in the USA and I honestly feel much more comfortable with my sexuality in the UK.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM GMT
    Civil partnerships have all the same practical rights as a conventional marriage within the UK.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

    I don't necessarily think that gay people in our country should be campaigning to change the archaic religious definition of marriage (as is) right now, but instead, campaigners should focus on straight people having the option to opt into receiving civil partnerships as well as gays, as is common in France, for example, where pacte civil de solidarite (Pacs)/civil partnerships are on the rise for both gays and straights, whilst marriage is on the decline.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

    The more heteros (whether non-religious; non-traditional or otherwise) who opt into civil partnerships, the lesser social status ascribed to the traditional term of marriage will be, and a much truer equality between marriage and civil partnerships will begin.

    Perhaps once that has taken place, it would be much more strategically advantageous to legally tackle religious marriages within the UK to also include gay people, should any still even want it at that point.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 16, 2012 11:02 PM GMT
    _SAGE_ saidCivil partnerships have all the same practical rights as a conventional marriage within the UK.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

    I don't necessarily think that gay people in our country should be campaigning to change the archaic religious definition of marriage (as is) right now, but instead, campaigners should focus on straight people having the option to opt into receiving civil partnerships as well as gays, as is common in France, for example, where pacte civil de solidarite (Pacs)/civil partnerships are on the rise for both gays and straights, whilst marriage is on the decline.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

    The more heteros (whether non-religious; non-traditional or otherwise) who opt into civil partnerships, the lesser social status ascribed to the traditional term of marriage will be, and a much truer equality between marriage and civil partnerships will begin.

    Perhaps once that has taken place, it would be much more strategically advantageous to legally tackle religious marriages within the UK to also include gay people, should any still even want it at that point.



    I take your point, but a lot of people are wedded (no pun intended) to the term 'marriage' and I do not think there would be any great move to civil partnerships, were they extended to heterosexual couples. Apart from anything else, the terminology of civil partnerships is a little awkward. Can you imagine a couple saying, "We are civilly partnered", as opposed to, "We are married"? It would be just as easy to extend 'marriage' (which, of course, may be civil or religious) to everyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2012 12:02 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    _SAGE_ saidCivil partnerships have all the same practical rights as a conventional marriage within the UK.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/17/gay-marriage-civil-partnerships

    I don't necessarily think that gay people in our country should be campaigning to change the archaic religious definition of marriage (as is) right now, but instead, campaigners should focus on straight people having the option to opt into receiving civil partnerships as well as gays, as is common in France, for example, where pacte civil de solidarite (Pacs)/civil partnerships are on the rise for both gays and straights, whilst marriage is on the decline.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11625835

    The more heteros (whether non-religious; non-traditional or otherwise) who opt into civil partnerships, the lesser social status ascribed to the traditional term of marriage will be, and a much truer equality between marriage and civil partnerships will begin.

    Perhaps once that has taken place, it would be much more strategically advantageous to legally tackle religious marriages within the UK to also include gay people, should any still even want it at that point.



    I take your point, but a lot of people are wedded (no pun intended) to the term 'marriage' and I do not think there would be any great move to civil partnerships, were they extended to heterosexual couples. Apart from anything else, the terminology of civil partnerships is a little awkward. Can you imagine a couple saying, "We are civilly partnered", as opposed to, "We are married"? It would be just as easy to extend 'marriage' (which, of course, may be civil or religious) to everyone.


    I hear you. However, there has been a significant move to civil partnerships by straight couples in France, so, it wouldn't be far-fetched to deduce that type of phenomena here in the UK too, as our cultures are not so fundamentally dissimilar.

    'Marriage' is a term steeped in definite historical and cultural baggage that not everybody who wants to be legally-coupled wants to take on, and be associated with. So, having the option for a legally recognised coupling without this, is important.

    Yes, agreed, the terminology re Civil Partnerships is clumsy and almost business-like, but maybe then we should appropriate a new term for it that isn't so.

    I'm not personally opposed to gay people also being legally allowed to traditional marriage, i'm for it actually, but, only after straight people are legally allowed to be 'civilly-partnered' (removes any lingering stigma or widely held notions of second class sexuality, of non religious unions); what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  • shutoman

    Posts: 505

    Jun 17, 2012 9:58 AM GMT
    @Roddenshaw "Frankly, the Conservative party itself seems to be cheerleading this legislation, with support from Labour and the Liberal Democrats. "

    I can't agree with you there. The Lib-Dems (and to their credit, only them) put this requirement in their manifesto and are solidly for it Lynne Featherstone seems pretty good on this - the noise against the provision on the government benches is only from backbench Tories (and one Conservative minister - Phillip Hammond).

    However, Cameron, to his credit, seems solidly behind it.

    @METAMORPH - you make a good case and perhaps this would have been the right way to do things.

    However, now we are here, I think we should get behind this provision. If gay marriage doesn't get through, then I am concerned that some of our enemies (the Evangelical Alliance for instance) will platform on the back of any momentum (or perceived momentum) in favour of a (God help us) Family Values Agenda.

    Ugh!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2012 10:18 AM GMT
    This thread needs more monocle.
  • shutoman

    Posts: 505

    Jun 18, 2012 5:13 PM GMT
    I have my answer:

    http://out4marriage.org/

    The front clip is an excruciating perfromance by Theresa may in which she passes through more conflicting expressions in four minutes than the average Realjock troll - but at least the message is right.

    Right, men - Aux barricades!