By I attended my first Labour Party Conference as a 17 year old delegate in 1984. My local Party had agreed to a motion supporting Lesbian & Gay Equality. Labour had no policy on LGBT issues at that time and we failed to secure a debate in 1984. I joined the Labour Campaign for Gay Rights as it was then called (now LGBT Labour). A year later we secured the first ever Conference debate and a good Equality policy was passed.
25 years later the progress has been remarkable. People often ask me what the key factors have been in the dramatic change in the legal and social position for LGBT people since 1997. I always start with the small and determined groups of activists who lit the flame for equality in the much more difficult era of Margaret Thatcher’s 1980s – persuading trades unions and the Labour Party to take up the cause. Then, of course, our opponents went too far with the notorious Section 28 passed by Parliament in 1988. This provided an unintended boost to LGBT campaigning including the creation of the Stonewall Group.
The progress since '97 on LGBT rights is surely one of Labour’s finest achievements – including repealing Section 28, Civil Partnerships, immigration rights for same sex couples, equal age of consent, rights for trans people, protection from discrimination in goods and services. It is true that the Government was timid about this at the beginning but after a couple of years its confidence grew and a set of changes have been made that I am optimistic will last forever.
The challenge is where we do we go from here? Legal rights were always seen as a necessary but not sufficient condition for overcoming prejudice and discrimination. Violence, bullying and prejudice continue. We need to ensure that all public agencies are ready and willing to protect citizens and employees and to provide a safe environment for all.
A massive issue is homophobic bullying in schools. Bullying scars the lives of so many children and young people. All bullying needs to be addressed but we need to recognise the specific forms that bullying takes – including on grounds of actual or perceived sexuality. I welcome the higher profile of this work from the Department for Children, Schools & Families and the commitment of the education trades unions. However the key to success lies in individual schools and how they deal with bullying. Many reading this will be school governors – governors have both a duty and the opportunity to ensure that schools not just have a good anti-bullying policy on paper, but that it is effective in practice.
Bullying is not confined to the classroom – it happens in workplaces and local communities. Many LGBT people remain fearful for their safety and do not come out. Agencies such as the Police force have adopted incredibly progressive paper policies but there remains work to be done to ensure that these are carried out. Trans people continue to face some of the worst hostility – including from within the LGB community.
And the struggle for Equality does not stop at the English Channel. I think now is the time for Equality issues to feature higher on UK and EU foreign policy agendas – pressing governments globally to take action whether it be against homophobic propositions passed in California or the execution of people in Iran simply for being gay. There is a very long way to go but we can learn a lot from progress not only here but in other countries. When Apartheid ended in South Africa a new constitution was adopted including a commitment to equality on the basis of sexuality. Let the rest of the world learn from that fine example.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
It's not about placing gay rights above religious rights - it's about putting the right to equal treatment top, and not allowing people to opt-out of it on the grounds of a religious belief.
If people don't follow the law, they get punished. And don't pretend that people are unhappy with equality - they are not. More businesses actively encourage gay people to work for them than ever before. Even your beloved Conservative party is desperately sucking up to gay people just to get their vote. Over 1 million people actively turned up to London Pride for goodness sake.
So all this talk about people not accepting gay rights is bull. You just can't stand the fact that you're on the losing side of the argument and so few people agree with you.
I'm sure the Catholic Church will change over time, but I doubt anyone would care if they didn't. Religion is increasingly irrelevant in this country, and in the Western World in general. The Church's bigotry only confirms to people how out-dated and pointless religion really is.
So you stay in your own little bigoted bubble and we'll all get on with normal life whilst your generation dies off.
I'll say again, I have no problem with gay people and have LGBT friends. Sexuality is not something I take into consideration when assessing whether or not I like a person.
Also, I absolutely hate the Daily Mail with a passion. To suggest I somehow share it's xenophobic views would certainly amuse my friends.
I don't know who Melanie Phillips is I'm afraid, so I can't really reply to that one...
As I've told you several times now, nobody remotely cares whether you socialise with gay people or not. Nobody in their right mind would want to socialise with you anyway. Most people just think you're an incredibly sad and childish individual if you judge people on their sexual orientation rather than their character.
However, what you do have to do is abide by the law. When sex education becomes compulsory, your kids will be taught about homosexuality whether you like it or not. But regardless, your kids will learn about homosexuality through many other ways anyway, so it's no big deal.
Also, you do not speak for the middle classes. Most middle class people (along with working class people) support equality under the law and don't have a problem with gays. It's only your bitter self which does. So you speak for nobody but yourself.
Society is advancing and you're screaming 'stop the world, I want to get off'. Nobody cares what your personal feelings on the matter are. I couldn't care less whether you 'accept' gays or not. What does matter is gay people having equal rights under the law, and getting broader acceptance from society.
That certainly is happening, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Why are you in the Labour party again? Because it's obvious that you don't believe in equality and have a real problem with gays.
If you want to adopt a Melanie Phillips tone to life, then that's your choice, but then why be a member of the party of equality?
I support equality, and I'll strongly argue against those that don't. Especially against people like Guy who demonstrate great bigotry and prejudice. That is what people in the Labour party do. Not side with the Daily Mailers like you seem to do.
The problem WITH pro gay fundamentalists like you is that if there is any clash between gay rights and anything else you think gay rights should win out.
The problem FOR pro gay fundamentalists like you is that the general public don't agree with you. So you can pass all the laws you like but in practice you'll keep running into hostility, roadblocks and contempt whenever you press that bit more and antagonise people.
The Catholic Church won't be going pro gay in you lifetime and neither will I and others like me. You say "who cares" we have the laws, I say the laws mean diddly if people ignore or work around them.
You have driven me to the point where I will now actively shun the gay community and all those in it. All you've actually achieved here this weekend is increase opposition to your community rather than get buy in.
Congratulations and thanks
"never set foot in a gay club or bar
never socialise with any gay person
never offer help to any gay person
never allow our children to mix with gay people
never work with a gay person
never play sport with or against a gay person
never enter into political debate with gay people or express a view on gay issues
never lend support to gay issues
never support a gay charity or pressure group
never give time to listen to the gay community view
never allow our children to be educated on homosexuality"
Basically ensure along with the majority of the middle class that you don't get engagement from us at the level you seem to think is your right.
If I ignore every gay person I meet, never employ a gay person and ensure my kids don't get exposed to gay sex-ed what exactly is it you think I'm going to be worried about.
You're prime aim is for gay couples and their lifestyle to be accepted as the moral equivalent of heterosexual couples. Well it isn't going to be accepted, no matter what laws you think you can get passed.
In the end "accpetance" comes down to people like me accepting beyond mere statute law and I'd like to congratulate you as you are the prime driver this weekend for ensuring I never accept you as my equal.
And there's not a damn thing you can do about that either.
My point was that your rather nasty comments towards Guy M:
'Nobody cares whether you help a gay person or not, you're not important in any way. But equally, no decent person would help you whatsoever.'
give away the amount of hate in your argument. If by 'help' you mean helping someone out who is in desperate circumstances, then surely one should help anybody in such a situation - BNP member, LGBT person... whoever.
So next time Nick Griffin asks for help running next year's BNP campaign, should all decent people go to his assistance?
I support equality, you know, like people usually do in the Labour party?
Surely a decent person would help anyone, no matter who they are...
I have. In fact I've rarely met anyone important in the Catholic Church who didn't believe in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
I agree with you that the Act of Settlement is wrong, but given the Catholic Church pushes for injustice so often (the Pope being the biggest culprit) then they're hardly in any position to demand equality themselves.
Lol! Yes, because of course, London is such a regressive, right-wing city isn't it. Who were those 1million people in London who watched the parade by the way? Were they just figures of the imagination.
The only person sad enough to leave London is you, scooting along in your crappy little car shaking your fist angrily out the window, bitter that they're happy with their lives and you're not.
Nobody cares whether you help a gay person or not, you're not important in any way. But equally, no decent person would help you whatsoever.
What is important is equality under the law. Gay people can serve in the military, cannot be sacked for being gay, cannot be denied public services for being gay, can have sex at 16, can adopt kids and can have a civil partnership (which will be marriage soon enough).
That's what is important, and the best part is, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, no matter how much you wet yourself screaming for a return to the 50s.
If taxpayers are funding it, I see no reason why the Catholic Church should be allowed to run it.
If what you say is true, that the Catholic Church can afford to pay for it, then why on earth are they leeching off the taxpayer now then?
As for institutionalised discrimination against Catholics, it still exists in the form of the Act of Settlement.
And now your saying marriage between two people can be described as a combination of two or more elements. Yet a person is clearly not an irreducible constituent of some larger entity, so your definition fails.
Jon Snow typically describes himself as “a pinko liberal hack”. The modern media’s far-right militants -the likes of Christopher Hitchens, David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen - all declare themselves to be of the left.
I have pretty much all my life had a live and let live attitude and been about as non descriminatory as I could be.
However, I've come to the conclusion that the views you represent and the views I represent are totally incompatable. Further it really is a battle in society over whether the immoral vision you adhere to wins out or not.
How to fight this battle though? Do we all join the BNP to put a stop to your nonsense? I don't think I could vote for a racist party if my life depended on it.
So what to do?
I think my personal preference is to simply ignore you and your like. To treat you as the irrelevance you obviously are. 51 weeks of the year the nice quiet middle class heterosexual world I live in is oblivious and uncaring of your "issues and grievances". One weekend of the year we do a "runner" out of London.
The best bet I think is to therefore ignore and avoid you:
never set foot in a gay club or bar
never socialise with any gay person
never offer help to any gay person
never allow our children to mix with gay people
never work with a gay person
never play sport with or against a gay person
never enter into political debate with gay people or express a view on gay issues
never lend support to gay issues
never support a gay charity or pressure group
never give time to listen to the gay community view
never allow our children to be educated on homosexuality
However at no point discriminate against gay people, just simply ignore them and pretend they aren't there.
Personally that seems to be the best solution. You can push for whatever right you think you need or deserve, you can enshrine whatever anti-discrimination law you want.
But in the end you can't force engagement with the gay community on anyone. So we can just ignore you and treat you as an unimportant but vocal minority on which we have to spend no time at all.
The nice thing is that there isn't a single thing you can do about it is there?
As for the Catholic adoption agencies, I don't think there's much chance of them running out of money. They'd get immediate support from their Church and congregations.
Personally I'd like to see them go it alone and have a few institutions people like you could do nothing about.
Which is why I say, why not just place them in the hands of the state anyway and then you get the best of both worlds - continued funding, and no discrimination.
I have responded to your feedback on the definition of marrigae ;)
Nice try though. Next time spend more time with the dictionary.
But you'd probably be seen as incredibly sad (not difficult for you, I understand) given that heterosexuals have never suffered from any historical discrimination or prejudice and so have no need to form a movement to fight for their rights.
I don't think you can make your mind up here.
I almost feel sorry for you.
Children CANNOT give consent, adults CAN.
You poor bunny Old Holborn. Got to admit you have successfully managed to underachieve even my low expectations of you.
There won't be a tirade you won't get that special attention you seek from me. But you are funny.
Can I ask do you have to be escorted by a big male nurse when you go outside into the world where the grown ups live?
Scoutmasters, choirmasters, teachers, priests, vicars. In fact pretty much anywhere a homosexual man has any real power over boys, the inevitable happens.
*stands back and waits for inevitable tirade
This aspect helps us to empathise with the feelings and emotions of children funnily enough. Paedophiles and psychoes lack this.
To them people and children are merely objects and easily abused, they are also very cruel to animals.
There are exceptions to the rule, of course. But generally homosexuals have a very sensetive and very well developed female aspect to thier nature. Of course they can be violent like anyone else but they have a good (as much as anybody) sense of thier own child like nature which they learnt when they grew up.
Psychos can do anything. Kill you for biscuit or rape you for toffee. But they are smart and won't do it if they think they will get caught.
There area of psychology I am referring to is transactional analysis, developed scientifically i the US.
I wonder Old Holborn whether you have that inner child. I hope so.
Great! Can I apply to the Labour Party for a Straight Pride parade? Can I set up a "Labour Straight" division?
I'll join you and blog it if you like.
Give the same rights you have to them. I DARE you. Anything else is hypocritical, surely.
I think that the majority of catholic people are decent accepting people and the few who aren't are abusive of all - witness what happened in catholic orphanages in Ireland. I'd have thought that protestant pentacostal adoptors would be a worse threat to gay adoptees than catholics.
This is about rights I don't believe you should have the right to force your views on a group of volunteers as long as they don't force their views on you or on minors. and in adoption we need volunteers.
They want to have their cake and eat it - get taxpayer funding and carry on discriminating against a group of taxpayers!
No, I don't wish to deny anyone minority groups their rights. Unfortunately, you do want to deny gay people access to marriage. And you want to allow Catholics the right to use taxpayer money to discriminate against gays.
The alternative is to discriminate against religious rights. Therefore the compromise is to live and let live by removing taxpayer funding from those agencies who 'discriminate'.
You see your problem is not inequality, your problem seems to be a deep-seated hate of religion. Unlike most of the other equality campaigners on here, you seem to be something of an extremist - perhaps even a supremacist. I do not think that you actually believe people should have a right to religious belief.
I don't accept that there's any "perceived but unreal injury". Given the numbers of kids that have been placed over the years by Catholic adoption agencies, I think there's every likelihood that gay kids will have been placed with families that (at mimimum) make them feel sinful and despised, and at worst make them despairing and resort to self-harm or worse. Such kids are appropriately placed with accepting families - including same-sex couples. I do not think that the *state* should fund agencies who do not clearly understand this.
I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say that entirely voluntary funded agencies should be entirely prohibited from placing kids with only heterosexual parents, but the history of abuse and cover-up among religious groups means that I'd expect a very high degree of monitoring.
And secondly, it's impossible for them all to be on a level playing field because the clashes between different minority groups will happen. I'm simply stating why religious rights should come bottom of that pecking order.
That's like saying you don't have a problem with black people, just their black skin.
Utterly ridiculous.
The point I'm making is that imho you are wrong to say people can change their beliefs at the drop off a hat.
In theory, sure, but in practice it is very difficult and not without consequences.
I have met many Christians (I am one myself) and had passionate disagreements on the issue of homosexuality.
I am stunned to see the levels of hatred they expressed which are no reflection on you. But a reflection on them and thier understanding of Christianity, whose ultimate message has always been one of mercy.
I know very few religious people who have 'problems with gays', the problem is usually with homosexuality - not the people themselves.
Stop making assumptions.
What's the problem with this. You want Catholic rights to trump gay rights when there's a clash and I'm saying it should be the other way around.
But you said earlier that gay rights issues should always trump religious rights issues, even though the two are both protected under national, EU and UN law.
I'm simply stating (and I'll repeat it again): Usually people who tend to have the biggest problem with gays have some sort of religious grip over them.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Religions are the biggest spreader of homophobia you can find. Just look at what kind of bile the Pope comes out with.
Which makes it all the more sad that a number of them (by no means all of them) are prepared to condone simlar injustices being carried out on others.
No I do not think that is a fact.
I'll repeat it again: Usually people who tend to have the biggest problem with gays have some sort of religious grip over them.
If homosexuals are not allowed to marry and the Catholic Church is openly allowed to use taxpayers money to discriminate against homosexuals, then that equality does not exist.
It's oh so easy for you to complain about others' having too many rights, but you're not the one at the receiving end of unequal treatment. If you were, you may think differently.
Really? This is a direct quote from you on the other thread, after asking me whether or not I was a Catholic:
"Usually people who tend to have the biggest problem with gays have some sort of religious grip over them."
Would you put state money into adoption agencies that placed physically disabled kids with families that were opposed to all modern medicine and believed only in the power of faith to cure? Or that believed that physical disability was the result of demons or "God's Judgement" ?
Neither is appropriate.
I'm simply saying that where there is a clash between a minority group which cannot choose the characteristic in question versus those who hold a particular belief (such as with adoption centres) then it is completely wrong for religious rights to trump other minorities' rights. If anything, it should be the other way around, for the reasons suggested.
O.K. I don't get beat up for being hetereo nor do I see what the big deal with marriage is - how many hetereo's get married these days - but how would changing this or closing down catholic adoption agencies stop this?
That's why the Catholic Church takes every opportunity to discriminate and criticise homosexuals whenever it gets the chance.
Nobody's made any assumptions about your world view Morys. You've openly said that you don't think gays should be allowed to marry.
Put yourself in the position of a Muslim apostate. Whether it is in this country or somewhere rather less enlightened like Iran, the change is not as easy as you suggest.
Live and let live? What so people should be allowed to discriminate against black people for example? Or the disabled? How nice. Ever thought about the effects this might on people on the receiving end of the actions?
Can't change my sexual orientation though. Or my skin colour. Or my age.
Everybody's a member of some minority group or another Jonathan. Start picking away rights from one group, and you may find that group start attacking the rights of others too.
A lot of people (gay and non-gay alike) get a bit sick of religious folk throwing their weight around. Might be a good time to start with disestablishmenttariaism.
The reason it's not marriage is that us hetero's have a say, and whilst I don't care enough do to keep it a cvil partnership.
My issue is with Northern Monkey's insistence that gay rights should automatically trump religious rights, even though both are equally protected under national and international law and both are deeply personal issues.
Most of us, of course, see no reason why we should even try.
That's going too far NM. A lot of people are effectively born into a religion given the way many parents see it as a religious duty to indoctrinate their children.
I'm an atheist but I imagine it must be exceptionally painful to turn your back on something you have been brought up with and risk the possibility of being shunned by your family and peers.
Nobody chooses their sexual orientation. People might 'experiment' when they're younger just for a bit of fun, but your actual sexual orientation doesn't change on and off like a light switch.
And I've already outlined above why religious rights should be seen as inferior to other rights. Characteristics like gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or disability cannot be changed and the individual has no say over them - therefore it is completely illogical and wrong to discriminate against these people. However, nobody is born a Catholic or a Muslim - individuals can change their beliefs at the drop of a hat. In fact many individuals (myself included) don't believe in religion at all and believe it to be a load of nonsense. Now that's a perfectly legitimate view given that there's about as much evidence to suggest that God exists, as there is for Santa Claus existing.
It's acceptable to criticise others' religious beliefs, whereas it's not acceptable to criticise others for characteristics which they cannot change.
"If there ever is a clash between religious rights or gay rights, then it should really be gay rights which win out..."
Why should gay rights win? Both are equally protected under international human rights law. You are now not arguing in favour of equality, but actually supremacy over others.
"...since sexual orientation is not a choice where as religious belief is."
Well the nature Vs nurture question is another debate entirely and I'm not sure there is conclusive proof either way. I'm sure some people do choose their sexuality, I'm sure others feel that it has always been an integral part of their identity.
The scientific case for
Because they receive taxpayers money to run those adoption centres, so why should gay people pay their taxes, only for a state-funded public service to deny them access? That's grossly discriminatory.
If a gay man were to set up an adoption centre, he would not be allowed to put up a sign at the front door saying "No Catholics Allowed", so why on earth should Catholics be allowed to do the same to gays? It strikes me as hugely arrogant that the Catholic Church seems to think its rights are allowed to trump everyone elses.
If there ever is a clash between religious rights or gay rights, then it should really be gay rights which win out, since sexual orientation is not a choice where as religious belief is.
Full Episodes
"noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.
Elements defined as...A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity."
Morys your definition of Marriage is partial and therefore flawed. The definition can also and does stretch towards a union of elements (I have included the definition of element) and is clearly allowable to state that the joining of two men or women is acceptable under the definition as "fundamental, essential or irreducible constituent of the composite entity. Entity being a wonderful description of the abstract sum of the two individuals in thier union of ideas as well as bodies.
Please do not give partial interpretations when giving evidence or providing source material.
To compare the situation in the UK to racial segregation in the Southern US is bonkers to say the least.
Equality is something that should be fought for, but (to take a recent example) why force Catholic adoption agencies to accept same-sex couples as candidates? How many same-sex couples would have turned to a Catholic adoption agency when thinking about adopting a child? Is this not perhaps straying a little from the struggle for equality and almost verging on trying to deliberately spite those who you assume hate LGBT people? The whole thing just created arguments and division.
Marriage is between 2 consenting parties with the emphasis on consenting.
Perhaps OH could explain how a horse consents to wedlock.
Also on a lighter note, you'd need a f***ing big ring to get over the hoof. Who could afford such an item in these hard pressed times.
After a short period the social construct is then ended to allow the unhappy (former) couple to repeat the process.
None of which changes the fact that my reply to OH centres on the legal definition of marriage which could be made to apply to any 2 consenting adults by a simple act of parliament.
I'm amazed you didn't get something in about paedophilia whilst you're at it.
That definition can change in any way, however our legislators decide. The definition has changed in many countries, it can happen here. And indeed it should.
I know you don't like the thought of that, but tough. Gay people aren't going to settle for 2nd best just because you say so.
The whole point of the gay rights movement was the fight for equality. not to win a popularity contest. If we'd listen to people who came up with your excuses, then gay people would still be banned from the military (we musn't upset the troops...), same-sex adoption would still be banned (people aren't ready to accept gays looking after children etc.).
Same-sex marriage has been legalised in plenty of places and the sky didn't fall in. The same would happen here.
Marriages and civil partnerships are not equal. It's no different from the 'separate but equal' racial segregation in the Southern United States, which turned out not to be equal at all.
In fact, even in a legal sense they are not equal. A civil partnership 'dissolution' is quicker to get than a 'divorce' from marriage. That's inequality under the law. Also, gay people are not allowed to get 'civil partnered' in a Church, even if the Church approves of it. That's inequality under the law.
Morys, just imagine if you were gay - would you really settle for the 2nd rate civil partnership (and let me assure you, many gay folk consider them to be 2nd rate)?
Marriage is not a religious term, we have plenty of civil marriages in this country. And I see no good reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed access to them.
Given that the our laws are social constructs rather than theological prescriptions they can obviously be amended to define marriage as a contract between 2 consenting adults.
Interesting argument. Not quite lower sixth but close.
PS. I believe you can also marry a horse in Nevada if you wish, so it must be OK.
Marriage is not a way of formalising a relationship. It is a legal contract between a man and a woman of consenting age. If you want something similar, then say so but you cannot have marriage because it doesn't apply to same sex relationships.
You are trying to suggest that a Big Mac is exactly the same as a Quarter Pounder because they both contain the meat and bread. They aren't. Hence the different names.
Get over yourselves.
And for the record, the term 'marriage' matters a great deal. If you think the term 'civil partnership' is good enough, then presumably you'd be quite happy just settling for 'civil partnering' you life partner rather than marrying them?
Marriage is a way of formalising a relationship, not a contract to get a woman up the duff for all eternity.
Plenty of countries have legalised same-sex marriage, so how do you explain that away?
We're talking about MARRIAGE - not making babies.
Presumably you're against infertile couples getting married then?
Don't tell other people what rights they can and cannot have. Rights are exactly what they are called - rights. Same-sex marriage has happened in many countries and will happen here soon enough and it isn't for you to tell people that homosexuals can't have equal access to the law.
So, as politely as I can put it, sod off you pompous old prude.
Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box?
(PS Don't tell me where I can and cannot post. It is not up to you in any way)
You are not even in the same ballpark, what the hell as equality got to do with it? There are some very important biological significances for man and wife, not husband and husband or wife and wife.
Equitable, absolutely definitely with the same legal rights as married couples, that's certainly equitable.
I'm with Old Holborn, the Loretta argument is bang-on the money.
I used to live in South Africa and don't remember too many people campaigning about language rather than rights.
That aside, it's a beautiful day when I agree with this guy -
If you want to throw your bigoted views around, wouldn't you be better suited to dailymail.co.uk? Don't litter a Labour site with your ignorance please.
You just can't make this stuff up.
But yet again, like all government ministers for some bizarre reason, you've completely missed out the elephant in the room, Stephen: Same-Sex Marriage.
Can you explain why the Labour government seems to be uninterested in implementing full equality under the law by legalising same-sex marriage, when plenty of other countries and US states have managed to do it?
'Civil partnership' is an ugly, alien concept dreamt up by a civil servant. No person has ever got down on bended knee and proposed the question "will you civil partner me?".
True equality won't be achieved until we scrap this sexual apartheid, and have equal full marriage for both sexualities, rather than gay people having to accept this second-class, bureaucratically named 'civil partnership' instead.