Gay 'Cure' Tory and Gay Marriage

[fredv3b]

I just thought that I ought post this story from Sunday's Observer. For me it is the most serious of the anti-gay revelations regarding the Tory Party this election season. In short the Tory candidate for Sutton and Cheam used to be active in the leadership of a church that tried to cure a variety of ills, including drug addiction and homosexuality, through prayer. To me it strikes of being both anti-gay and a belief in the power of prayer rather than scientific evidence. So far Cameron has said nothing about this, I don't expect a leader in a tight election to suspend a likely winning candidate but he could say something.

On the other hand I am rather pleased about something the Tories have done. In their Equality Manifesto:-

We will also consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.

I am well aware that considering is a long way from doing. However that promise could be used to force the Tories to justify being against gay marriage or accept that they should support it. If the Tories are forced to answer that question, so the other parties will be forced to find an answer too. I remember very distinctly in the White Paper that originally proposed Civil Partnerships essentially gave no real justification for not having gay marriage, a tacit admission that it was political calculation over what would not upset too many people. Given the lack of good information about the strength of people's feelings at the time I think this was reasonable. However given the complete absence of any backlash I think the time has come for Labour to give a proper answer on the question of gay marriage.

[fredv3b]

Gordon Brown has answered readers questions on Pink News. Here is a great example of not really answering the gay marriage question.

In response to Downing St online petitions to introduce same-sex marriage, it was stated that the "government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage", because it has to "balance the right to live free from prejudice and discrimination with the right to freedom of speech and religion". In what ways does same-sex marriage affect freedom of speech and religion? Andrew Archer


At the moment there’s a distinction drawn between civil and religious unions, and when civil partnerships were being introduced they took the same form as a civil union which a heterosexual couple would have. We later made it illegal to discriminate on partnership status – so it is illegal to treat someone in a civil partnership different to a married person. That makes no practical difference in terms of rights and responsibilities, but does recognise that religious groups have the right to a certain degree of self-organisation on questions that are theologically important to them, including on the question of religiously-sanctioned marriage. So the provision of ‘marriage’ as opposed to the provision of same-sex or heterosexual civil unions, is intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom.

Muslims are forced to accept Jewish marriages as being valid in a legal and everyday sense but not a religious one. That is not regarded as an undue imposition on their freedom of religion or speech. They are also forced to accept atheist civil marriages. Why then is it an imposition to force them to accept same-sex marriages?

[fredv3b]

I'm a little late in posting this. Pink News followed up on the Stroud story.