Here’s how PinkNews reports it:
Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that the government will give gay couples the right to civil marriage. He predicted that the change would be made before the next general election. Mr Hughes said a consultation would take place in the coalition government on taking civil partnership to the next level.
Speaking in a video interview, he said: “It would be appropriate in Britain in 2010, 2011, for there to be the ability for civil marriage for straight people and gay people equally. That’s different of course from faith ceremonies which are matters for the faith communities… they have to decide what recognition to give. The state ought to give equality. We’re halfway there. I think we ought to be able to get there in this parliament.”
Currently, gay couples in the UK can have a civil partnership, which is not called marriage. They may not have a religious ceremony.
Nick Clegg set out his full support for gay marriage at the start of the year.
The contenders for the Labour leadership, meanwhile, are split, with Ed Balls, Diane Abbott, and Andy Burnham supporting full marriage equality. The Miliband brothers, however, have side-stepped the issue.
Share:
37 Comments
His answer to my question on marriage equality is being slightly misreported by Pink News, Telegraph and the Daily Mail. He only said in the actual interview that he hoped/felt it could be achieved this Parliament. No major announcement, I’m afraid.
Strictly speaking Simon was not announcing gov’t policy, he was simply stating his personal opinion & the committee looking into this etc. Would be nice but it’s not exactly what he said.
Interestingly the Telegraph in reporting this story rightly pointed out it was the Conservative party who as the only major party floated this idea pre-election, so you never know.
Andrea, that’s not strictly true, they floated it only in the same way Nick Clegg did in pre-election interviews and were quick to clarify their statements. The Telegraph again misreported that too.
What has #ge2010 taught us about marriage equality?
@Jae – to the Telegraph, they probably *are* the only party anyway
But what’s interesting is that the Telegraph finds it appropriate to insist that the Conservatives don’t need pushing on this issue! Just note how different this is from just a few years ago. It seems clear to me that Simon Hughes didn’t intend an official anouncement, and was just stating a personal opinion – but I think he is judging the climate accurately.
Yes, a government that lets people live their lives and love their loves just the way they want without telling them how it should be. As it should be. Even Philip Hollobone’s stuff about banning the “burqa” just dismissed by Damien Green saying that telling people what they should and should not wear is not the British way.
You’ll never get my vote again if you push this through.
@Al Shaw
a) Did we ever have your vote?
b) If so, why?
c) And if so, who do propose to vote for instead?
d) What is it that you object to?
Re: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/20/councillor-inquiry-stupid-scientology-tweet
Editors: can we have a piece about this IMPORTANT ISSUE please which is directly affecting a Liberal Democrat councillor.
Parliament, Government and Liberal Democrats in it: can we PLEASE have some legislation that allows courts to recognise that Scientology is not a religion but a money leeching scam which preys on the credulous and vulnerable.
It’s encouraging but I am confused by the timetable in getting gay marriage recognised – other lib dems have recently said equally vague promises and I am still worried by what exactly Featherstone means by consulting with all those with a stake – as far as I know the only people with a stake in this are those who want to get married..
On July 3rd pinknews reported Featherstone as saying about gay marriage
“Both leaders have made clear they are relaxed about the issue, if not in favour of it.
“It’s up to the people really. The government will be consulting with all those with a stake.”
She added this would include anti-gay campaigners and said: “It’s really got to come from other people, then we’ll see where we are.”
On about the same day Nick Clegg reports in his pre pride message a much more postive message
“The Liberal Democrats are passionate supporters of equality for the LGBT community … That’s why we have been clear ……. promoting civil partnerships, pushing for gay marriage ……..”
So where exactly are we on this issue?
As for Al, I’m not sure which party he is going to vote for in the future. It seems that most parties are toying with the question of gay marriage…
Sorry to hijack this article, but this scientology nonsense has really got my got
Further to my short post about legislating against scientology, I would suggest that it is very easy. Simply require that all religions organised in this country must be prepared to distribute their scriptures at cost or cost plus. All genuine religions will be delighted to do this, but scam artists such the scientodgery adepts would be busted as they depend on feeding credulous fools with promises of initiation into deeper and deeper mysteries to be found in their writings.
@Al There’s a clue in the name of the party, liberal democrats. Are you against religious freedom for LGBT people and the religious denomination that support them? Only want those you agree with to be free? Probably not very liberal…
@kitty Yes, agreed on all your points. I wrote to Lynne Featherstone about my concerns and receive the response “I hear what you say.”. Whatever that means.
Paul, 1:28pm: “Yes, a government that lets people live their lives… just the way they want without telling them how it should be. As it should be.”
Paul, 2:38pm: “Further to my short post about legislating against scientology, I would suggest that it is very easy.”
Paul, you have flipped from libertarian to authoritarian in record time!!
@Maria: “But what’s interesting is that the Telegraph finds it appropriate to insist that the Conservatives don’t need pushing on this issue! Just note how different this is from just a few years ago. It seems clear to me that Simon Hughes didn’t intend an official anouncement, and was just stating a personal opinion – but I think he is judging the climate accurately.”
Yes that was my point of the quote at the end of their article, that was very interesting!
@Stuart Mitchell
Authoritarian?
Are you defending scientology and its fraudulent practises?
Have you any answer to my point that any genuine religion would be prepared to provide its scriptures at cost price or cost plus?
Or are you just needlessly trying to pick a fight?
Paul M: “Scientology is not a religion but a money leeching scam which preys on the credulous and vulnerable.”
So, exactly like a religion then?
Back on subject, this is great news. Yet more signs that this is a progressive coalition. Can we also have civil partnership equality for hetero couples as well. Thanks.
@MBoy
That is a rather cynical view of mainstream religions an, in my experience, unjustified.
@Paul Your definition of “mainstream” and “fraudulent” religions is somewhat arbitrary. I think MBoy was trying to reflect that. You can’t pick and choose what type of religions you like as, I must be blunt, if any one of them is correct all the rest are not. So by that definition most religions are fraudulent, a waste of time, money and a cause of unnecessary misery (as well I’m sure more positive emotions) to a great many.
Certainly I’d have a few problems with some of the “mainstream” religions and their abuse of young gay and lesbian people in ex-gay therapy centres. is that any better than the sort of punishments meted out by Scientology on their “out of order” believers?
Campaign against the practices of the Church of Scientology. But don’t attempt to say the “popular” religions are good and the maligned ones are somehow in need of Government sanction just for charging for their “services”!
@Jae
My distinction between mainstream and fraudulent is quite simple: mainstream religions exist to promote a moral framework and/or to save the believer for eternity. Scientology doesn’t do this: it is merely an exercise to bilk thousands or tens of thousands from gullible people. Emptying wallets is its sole reason for existence and always has been. The way it does this is to persuade the credulous that the mysteries to be found in its hidden scriptures will help redeem the purchaser. If scientology genuinely believed in its form of redemption it would be prepared to make its scriptures available at cost or cost plus. Every mainstream religion would be delighted to supply its scriptures to any that asked at cost, as every mainstream religion believes what it promotes. Scientology would not be prepared to do this, as it is merely a fraudulent business, rather than a genuine belief in redemption.
Paul – for 1,000 years Christianity made it a crime to even produce its scriptures in a language readable by its believers. Scientology has another 900 years to improve itself before it should be judged by Christianity’s standards.
@Paul
For the government to be pontificating (so to speak) on whether a particular religion were more or less valid than any other would indeed be authoritarian. Government should not get involved in matters of personal faith. Your suggestion that we should apply the full force of the legislature and courts to stop some Lib Dem councilor getting a slap on the wrist by an ombudsman is ludicrous, as ought to be obvious to you if you calm down and think about it for a moment.
“Have you any answer to my point that any genuine religion would be prepared to provide its scriptures at cost price or cost plus?”
Surely the only “genuine” religion would be a true one? Whether a religion were genuine or not (and in my opinion none of them are), I would not like to see it proscribed by the state as you would.
“Or are you just needlessly trying to pick a fight?”
That’s just silly.
Scientology has a history of using the law to bully its critics, just as Robert Maxwell and Sir “Jams” Goldsmith did. This is one such instance.
Surely a councillor can be rude about an established religion or a pseudo-religious cult without being hauled before the Standards Board?
I think, as a culture, we have turned political correctness into something approaching a tyrrany.
BTW, the infamous tax evader, Mr Lafayette Ron Hubbard, can’t sue – he is dead.
@Paul McKeown
Hi Paul
a) Did we ever have your vote? – Yes, several times.
b) If so, why? – Because of principled stance on Iraq War, defence of human rights, rejection of database state, environmental policies, approach to income tax, etc.
c) And if so, who do propose to vote for instead? – Haven’t got that far yet; only read this post today!
d) What is it that you object to? – the attempt to redefine marriage which throughout human hstory has been understood as a heterosexual union
@Jae
I’m very much in favour of religious freedom for all people.
What I’m not in favour of is the attempt to redefine the word marriage to mean something it has never meant throughout human history
LGBT Lib Dems have had confirmation today that our Marriage Without Borders policy motion has been accepted for debate at Federal Conference this autumn on the Tuesday morning. This means that equal marriage should finally become official Liberal Democrat party policy, rather than something promoted by our Leader.
We would encourage all voting reps to support this motion, and everybody else to pester their voting reps to do so
“marriage” is not a word that occurs throughout human history. It occurs only in modern English.
Same-sex unions have existed throughout human history in one form or another.
Myth: busted. Not a vote worth pandering to.
@Andrew Suffield
Hi.
You appear to have misunderstood my point.
Obviously, same sex unions have existed throughout history.
These unions have generally not been regarded as “marriage” in most cultures. The term (by which I obviously mean its equivilent term in the relevent local language) has been used to describe primarily heterosexual unions .
If this were not the case, there would be no point in the actions of those who are trying to change the use of the term to include same sex unions.
I think this is a positive move. Admittedly the consequences may not be very nice for Samantha and Miriam. But on the whole it can only strengthen the coalition.
Al – not sure what you are arguing about – you seem to be stuck on the semantics of the issue and not the consequences of having a gay marriage for same sex couples. Are you against equality for same sex couples or not? We don’t live in history , we live now. Many of us , although British and in a British CP, live abroad. Abroad ,eg France, a CP isequated to a PACS (a vers of a CP open to both same sex and opposite sex couples), yet a gay marriage from Holland is equated to a marriage. A PACS and a mariage have different consequences. Different rights. The CP law is different to marriage law. Why one law with straight people and another gay people. Marriage doesn’t mean man and woman to me. it means that you are married only and all the responsibilites and obligations of that word. A CP to me is merely a contract, something to give me the same (almost) rights as a married couple in France, the same rights as a PACSed couple in France. It really isn’t the same at all and is most certainly not the same abroad. CP are not a gay thing abroad they are open to straights and gays and are an inferiour partnerships with lesser rights and obligations of a marriage. We don’t all always live in the UK.
By the way I am escastic that the lib dems are officially taking this on……
@kitty
Since the proposed policy motion aims to change the law on marriage (rather than just offer a general opinion on it), I’m afraid semantics are at the heart of the issue.
The proposed change in the law would, presumably, reflect your own view that “marriage doesn’t mean man and woman to me.” The fact is that many people in the UK do not share your view and there are significant issues of human rights, community cohesion and equality involved in such a legal change of terminology.
To frame such a legal change exclusively in terms of gay rights is incorrect, in my view.
So your objection is based on historical linguistics. Again, not a vote worth pandering to.
Sorry Al, you’ve lost me there. The definition of marriage between man and woman is not the imprtant issue, most people would see that as rather pedantic and petty. The concept of marriage is more important and what the concept gives you legally and morally and what status that word gives you both in the UK and the rest of the world. Definition of words do not remain the same in history, we progress etc. I have no idea what you mean about your defnition of human rights, community cohesion and equality – please explain in what way a change in the definition of married can possibly cuase any long term problem here – are these just words you have used for dramatic impact. It’s a nonsense. There is no proof anywhere in the world that allowing gay couples to get married have caused any long term impact in any of these areas – are you an expert on this, have you done a survey on it?…These countries have fallen into chaos becuase of the change. There are always protests, uproar on almost everything to start with , the idea of a seperate laws for gays and straights are discriminatory ,whatever those laws are, including a separate law on CP for gays only and a separate law on marriage for straights only.
Al: You are a little behind the times. Language, like society, evolves, and any decent modern dictionary will not restrict “marriage” to heterosexual unions.
Now, I freely confess I am being mischievous here, but it occurs to me that if we are to have full marriage equality, then should we not also allow bisexual people (or anybody else for that matter) to practise polygamy? Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single reason why we shouldn’t allow this – yet somehow I don’t expect the government or Lib Dems to propose it any time soon!
@Stuart Mitchell
“marriage n. 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of elements.”
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2004 edition.
Your wider point is, of course, quite correct, though you describe it as mischievous. The rigorous logic of asserting ones opinions and preferences into the legal and public domain as if they were universal rights is, actually, socially destructive rather than affirming.
Stuart, there’s nothing about polyandrous marriage which is specific to bisexual people. My personal opinion is that you’re absolutely right – the state should not recognise marriage or partnership in any way; any arrangements over income, pensions, power of attorney etc. should be contracts between the two or more people involved. The only advantage I see to Government recognition of your relationship is that it makes it easier to deal with problems abroad, where personal contracts might not be readily enforcable. I’d be happy to see it proposed as a policy motion for a Federal Conference, but I don’t know whether FPC would let it near the floor right now…
I agree with Al that asserting ones opinion and preference for marriage to be restricted by law to a union between a man and a woman is socially destructive.
And this change isn’t specific to “gay rights”. IMHO it’s about religious freedom. There are churches who wish to perform same-sex marriages, and congregants who wish to have them, but the law restricts the kind of ceremonies that that religion can carry out. The policy motion for debate in September specifically talks about opening up marriage and civil partnerships to any couple regardless of their gender or sexuality.
@Al I think you miss the whole point of liberalism is that the “public domain” shouldn’t be enforcing it’s opinions and preferences onto individuals. I would like marriage to be scrapped legally, left only a religious institution and a contract-based system established allowing individuals to contract legally binding partnerships rights in the way they see fit.
I agree with Dave.