Comments on: Government could reject religious civil partnerships amendment http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/ PinkNews.co.uk Gay News (UK and world) from Pink News - all the gay news for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community in the UK and beyond- thegaynews from Pink News Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:15:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: RobN http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100341 RobN Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:18:59 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100341 Robert: Nice words, and genuine sentiment, but I like most on here really don't want to end up spending months of my time rallying to get laws changed. Some people get a buzz from it. (Mr P. Tatchell, esq. for one) - but I am in a civil partnership already, and as far as everyone I know is concerned, we are "married". It wouldn't affect me one jot. If people want to waste months of their lives complaining about what is essentially just a description, then good luck to them. Robert: Nice words, and genuine sentiment, but I like most on here really don't want to end up spending months of my time rallying to get laws changed. Some people get a buzz from it. (Mr P. Tatchell, esq. for one) – but I am in a civil partnership already, and as far as everyone I know is concerned, we are "married". It wouldn't affect me one jot. If people want to waste months of their lives complaining about what is essentially just a description, then good luck to them.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Robert http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100301 Robert Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:55:32 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100301 RobN, actually, there is one Supreme Court judge, Lady Hale who actually said that she saw no reason why two people of the same-sex can't get married. Maybe that is where we should be focusing our attention. We need to form an alternate group with NO input or assistance from the likes of anti-full equality group StonewallUK and get a lot of our straight allies on board. This is how South Africa was able to get marriage equality passed. The problem with our fellow gay brothers and sisters is that they're not united or motivated as they are in other countries. Many of them have been lulled into a false sense of equality when in fact there is a lot more to do. Civil partnerships aren't about equality at all, they're more about keeping us separate and apart from the rest of society with similar rights. I don't accept it and I know there are hundreds of thousands of others who don't. Stonewall in its arrogance didn't speak for me and others of my view. The only way to end the corruption in both parties is to stop supporting them. For far too long, they've taken our votes for granted. End that and maybe we'd see a different result. Let them earn our support first by delivering the goods upfront. Time for the gloves to come off. RobN, actually, there is one Supreme Court judge, Lady Hale who actually said that she saw no reason why two people of the same-sex can't get married. Maybe that is where we should be focusing our attention. We need to form an alternate group with NO input or assistance from the likes of anti-full equality group StonewallUK and get a lot of our straight allies on board. This is how South Africa was able to get marriage equality passed. The problem with our fellow gay brothers and sisters is that they're not united or motivated as they are in other countries. Many of them have been lulled into a false sense of equality when in fact there is a lot more to do. Civil partnerships aren't about equality at all, they're more about keeping us separate and apart from the rest of society with similar rights. I don't accept it and I know there are hundreds of thousands of others who don't. Stonewall in its arrogance didn't speak for me and others of my view. The only way to end the corruption in both parties is to stop supporting them. For far too long, they've taken our votes for granted. End that and maybe we'd see a different result. Let them earn our support first by delivering the goods upfront. Time for the gloves to come off.

(Report comment)

]]> By: RobN http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100228 RobN Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:40:05 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100228 Robert: "We need to give them an ultimatum or else." Or else what? We mince about outside the Houses of Parliament blowing whistles at them? Oh purleeeze! Nice concept, and I sympathise with you, but the only way you get politicians to actually do anything these days is threaten to have them up before a court, and as they run all the courts as well, you don't stand a snowballs. This country moves closer to Zimbawean democracy every day. Look at the expenses scandal. Every single f_cking scumbag politician from every party has managed to dive under the parapet. Nobody has been accused, let alone charged, and not a single sole has been sacked. - And that is after one massive country-wide scandal, so what do you seriously expect a handful of poofs to achieve with something as trivial as this? Robert: "We need to give them an ultimatum or else."

Or else what? We mince about outside the Houses of Parliament blowing whistles at them? Oh purleeeze!

Nice concept, and I sympathise with you, but the only way you get politicians to actually do anything these days is threaten to have them up before a court, and as they run all the courts as well, you don't stand a snowballs. This country moves closer to Zimbawean democracy every day.

Look at the expenses scandal. Every single f_cking scumbag politician from every party has managed to dive under the parapet. Nobody has been accused, let alone charged, and not a single sole has been sacked. – And that is after one massive country-wide scandal, so what do you seriously expect a handful of poofs to achieve with something as trivial as this?

(Report comment)

]]> By: RobN http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100227 RobN Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:32:04 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100227 Peter: "Would things be any different under the Conservatives?" Well it couldn't possibly be any worse. At least the Tories tell you they are going to stab you in eye, rather than Labour professing to be the 'Peoples Party' and then once you present any trust, they totally shaft you and stab you in the arse. I'd rather have a bastard than a f_cking hypocrite. Better the devil you know. Peter: "Would things be any different under the Conservatives?"

Well it couldn't possibly be any worse.
At least the Tories tell you they are going to stab you in eye, rather than Labour professing to be the 'Peoples Party' and then once you present any trust, they totally shaft you and stab you in the arse. I'd rather have a bastard than a f_cking hypocrite.
Better the devil you know.

(Report comment)

]]> By: peter http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100215 peter Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:52:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100215 First why not say well done to Lord Ali, Stonewall, the Quakers etc who secured this vote. But then let's ask why Harriet Harman is called "equalities minister". Would things be any difrrenet under the Conservatives? First why not say well done to Lord Ali, Stonewall, the Quakers etc who secured this vote. But then let's ask why Harriet Harman is called "equalities minister". Would things be any difrrenet under the Conservatives?

(Report comment)

]]> By: Robert http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100213 Robert Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:24:52 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100213 RobN and theotherone...I totally concur with your views! We as a voting bloc need to shake the tree a lot more, get those lazy thinkers in both parties to acknowledge that civil marriage should and must be gender neutral. Don't expect anything from politicians. We should be like the French, make our government afraid of the people instead of paying lipservice every five years. Gay voters have the power but we're not using it effectively. We need to demand our right to marry, no political correctness and not allowing those who claim they support our equality to take our votes for granted any longer. We need to give them an ultimatum or else. We need to build a viable movement in support of full marriage equality, nothing less, just as our fellow brothers and sisters are doing in America and elsewhere. That's how eight countries were able to get it passed. We need to do the same. Canada did an excellent job of that. Ironic, considering its a British commonwealth member. South Africa out of all of the eight progressive countries amazes me the most. It took the Supreme Court of the land to support gender neutral civil marriage equality, not the government. Absolutely astounding! RobN and theotherone…I totally concur with your views! We as a voting bloc need to shake the tree a lot more, get those lazy thinkers in both parties to acknowledge that civil marriage should and must be gender neutral. Don't expect anything from politicians. We should be like the French, make our government afraid of the people instead of paying lipservice every five years. Gay voters have the power but we're not using it effectively. We need to demand our right to marry, no political correctness and not allowing those who claim they support our equality to take our votes for granted any longer. We need to give them an ultimatum or else. We need to build a viable movement in support of full marriage equality, nothing less, just as our fellow brothers and sisters are doing in America and elsewhere. That's how eight countries were able to get it passed. We need to do the same. Canada did an excellent job of that. Ironic, considering its a British commonwealth member. South Africa out of all of the eight progressive countries amazes me the most. It took the Supreme Court of the land to support gender neutral civil marriage equality, not the government. Absolutely astounding!

(Report comment)

]]> By: RobN http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100186 RobN Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:38:35 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100186 "so I see no reason why gay people <b>cannot</b> get married in a registry office" Sorry. Too many sherbets last night. "so I see no reason why gay people cannot get married in a registry office"

Sorry. Too many sherbets last night.

(Report comment)

]]> By: RobN http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100185 RobN Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:36:46 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100185 theotherone: There's hope for you yet! ;) Dromio: If you expect the Church to bow down and accept gay couples getting married in a church, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! - Some churches may accept it, but the majority won't - and I respect their choice, in flies in the face of their teachings, and so be it. BUT... as I said in a previous post, marriage is now a legal matter, not just a religious one, so I see no reason why gay people can get married in a registry office, just like secular straight people can. theotherone: There's hope for you yet! ;)

Dromio: If you expect the Church to bow down and accept gay couples getting married in a church, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! – Some churches may accept it, but the majority won't – and I respect their choice, in flies in the face of their teachings, and so be it. BUT… as I said in a previous post, marriage is now a legal matter, not just a religious one, so I see no reason why gay people can get married in a registry office, just like secular straight people can.

(Report comment)

]]> By: theotherone http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100125 theotherone Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:39:45 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100125 'obody is willing to bite the bullet and admit the whole thing is one almighty, Godforsaken cock-up and the only real way forward is to level the playing field, drop the pretence, tell all the God-botherers to sling their hooks and make marriage a single, gender-free legal right accessible to everyone.' fvck me, I'm agreeing with RobN 'obody is willing to bite the bullet and admit the whole thing is one almighty, Godforsaken cock-up and the only real way forward is to level the playing field, drop the pretence, tell all the God-botherers to sling their hooks and make marriage a single, gender-free legal right accessible to everyone.'

fvck me, I'm agreeing with RobN

(Report comment)

]]> By: Ryan http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100123 Ryan Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:24:07 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100123 So the difference between Labour and Tories are????? Labour seem to be dropping in their support. So the difference between Labour and Tories are????? Labour seem to be dropping in their support.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Robert http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100112 Robert Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:14:16 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100112 Dromio, the fact that the Quakers, liberal Judaism, and some in the Anglican cult among others are more than happy to officiate at a civil partnership, is NOT equality either. Who cares if a religious cult doesn't want to recognise a same-sex marriage? That's their prerogative. Most straight people nowadays have a civil ceremony. Gender neutral civil marriage for all is the only way to go in a modern society. The Roman cult won't even allow a divorced straight catholic to remarry in the church so I don't see why you think opening up civil marriage to us wouldn't be full equality. Who gives a f_ck if some cults don't want to marry us, there's always one that will. Marriages aren't legal until they're registered with the state not the cults, no matter where one marries. Religion doesn't own marriage, it never will, thankfully. Dromio, the fact that the Quakers, liberal Judaism, and some in the Anglican cult among others are more than happy to officiate at a civil partnership, is NOT equality either. Who cares if a religious cult doesn't want to recognise a same-sex marriage? That's their prerogative. Most straight people nowadays have a civil ceremony. Gender neutral civil marriage for all is the only way to go in a modern society. The Roman cult won't even allow a divorced straight catholic to remarry in the church so I don't see why you think opening up civil marriage to us wouldn't be full equality. Who gives a f_ck if some cults don't want to marry us, there's always one that will. Marriages aren't legal until they're registered with the state not the cults, no matter where one marries. Religion doesn't own marriage, it never will, thankfully.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Dromio http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100103 Dromio Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:41:01 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100103 SimonM's opening comment on this thread is WRONGWRONGWRONG. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples WOULD NOT bring about equality. Yes, it would be one step towards it, but the debate here is about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM for people who want legal recognition of their religious marriages in the same way that straight couples can get legal recognition for their religious marriages. Go to a church wedding and you will see a registrar sat in the corner, at the end of the ceremony the couple goes over there and signs the register and hey-presto their religious wedding has legal status. What the gay community must demand in order for equality to be achieved is that when a same-sex couple gets married in a religious institution they can also have a registrar there and sign something to give their religious wedding legal standing as a MARRIAGE. Not a civil partnership. Gender neutral marriage laws would achieve this. SimonM's opening comment on this thread is WRONGWRONGWRONG. Extending civil marriage to same-sex couples WOULD NOT bring about equality. Yes, it would be one step towards it, but the debate here is about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM for people who want legal recognition of their religious marriages in the same way that straight couples can get legal recognition for their religious marriages.

Go to a church wedding and you will see a registrar sat in the corner, at the end of the ceremony the couple goes over there and signs the register and hey-presto their religious wedding has legal status.

What the gay community must demand in order for equality to be achieved is that when a same-sex couple gets married in a religious institution they can also have a registrar there and sign something to give their religious wedding legal standing as a MARRIAGE. Not a civil partnership.

Gender neutral marriage laws would achieve this.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Robert http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100082 Robert Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:06:30 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100082 arfur...not sure about the situation in France since it too doesn't have same-sex marriage but those inferior PACs. That said, our marriage is recognised in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, South Africa and in America in the states of New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, the District of Columbia. By the way arfur, I believe the French Parliament recently issued a declaration that it will recognise British civil partnerships. However, be warned. Their version, i.e. PACs, do NOT confer all of the rights that come with a civil partnership. So if you and your partner were to form a CP in the UK and move to France, the rights you enjoy in the UK would not all be available to you in France. The French version offers only minimal rights, no adoption rights either I think. That's just another example why having our CPS recognised across the EU doesn't make sense when other member states' versions of partnerships don't reciprocate all of the rights conferred by a CP. Its an absurd situation either way. The only way to resolve it is to allow us to legally marry in our countries within the EU. RobN, I'm so in agreement with your view that marriage should be gender neutral and accessible. This is exactly what the 8 countries have done and it put a stop to the established religious cults from meddling any further in the matter. The same should be done in the UK. Our government controls civil marriage not the C of E or any others. The sooner they learned that the better and Cameron when elected should grow a f-cking big pair of bollocks and go a step further than Labour by proving he and his party really are for full equality by allowing us to marry and get it over with once and for all. That would really deal Labour a hefty blow in this and future elections, but I doubt that Cameron has the courage and the guts to do just that. On that he's no better than Brown. arfur…not sure about the situation in France since it too doesn't have same-sex marriage but those inferior PACs. That said, our marriage is recognised in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, South Africa and in America in the states of New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, the District of Columbia.

By the way arfur, I believe the French Parliament recently issued a declaration that it will recognise British civil partnerships. However, be warned. Their version, i.e. PACs, do NOT confer all of the rights that come with a civil partnership. So if you and your partner were to form a CP in the UK and move to France, the rights you enjoy in the UK would not all be available to you in France. The French version offers only minimal rights, no adoption rights either I think. That's just another example why having our CPS recognised across the EU doesn't make sense when other member states' versions of partnerships don't reciprocate all of the rights conferred by a CP. Its an absurd situation either way. The only way to resolve it is to allow us to legally marry in our countries within the EU.

RobN, I'm so in agreement with your view that marriage should be gender neutral and accessible. This is exactly what the 8 countries have done and it put a stop to the established religious cults from meddling any further in the matter. The same should be done in the UK. Our government controls civil marriage not the C of E or any others. The sooner they learned that the better and Cameron when elected should grow a f-cking big pair of bollocks and go a step further than Labour by proving he and his party really are for full equality by allowing us to marry and get it over with once and for all. That would really deal Labour a hefty blow in this and future elections, but I doubt that Cameron has the courage and the guts to do just that. On that he's no better than Brown.

(Report comment)

]]> By: arfur http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100071 arfur Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:49:14 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100071 Robert, just out of interest, is your Canadian marriage recognised in France, which has been giving us problems over CP recognition because it's not "marriage"; and has it proved easier to get recognition elsewhere than with CP's. This is a genuine enquiry, I'm not being clever. We might do it ourselves if there's a benefit to it. Robert, just out of interest, is your Canadian marriage recognised in France, which has been giving us problems over CP recognition because it's not "marriage"; and has it proved easier to get recognition elsewhere than with CP's. This is a genuine enquiry, I'm not being clever. We might do it ourselves if there's a benefit to it.

(Report comment)

]]> By: RobN http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100041 RobN Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:04:13 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100041 And now for all those socialist bigots that continually attack the Tories, to paraphrase a quote: "What has Labour ever done for us?". This is bottling out of the highest order. Everyone is skirting round the issue trying to come up with alternatives, but nobody is willing to bite the bullet and admit the whole thing is one almighty, Godforsaken cock-up and the only real way forward is to level the playing field, drop the pretence, tell all the God-botherers to sling their hooks and make marriage a single, gender-free legal right accessible to everyone. Then I for one might have some respect for these spineless f_cking scumbags. Earn your extra grand a year! And now for all those socialist bigots that continually attack the Tories, to paraphrase a quote: "What has Labour ever done for us?".

This is bottling out of the highest order. Everyone is skirting round the issue trying to come up with alternatives, but nobody is willing to bite the bullet and admit the whole thing is one almighty, Godforsaken cock-up and the only real way forward is to level the playing field, drop the pretence, tell all the God-botherers to sling their hooks and make marriage a single, gender-free legal right accessible to everyone.

Then I for one might have some respect for these spineless f_cking scumbags. Earn your extra grand a year!

(Report comment)

]]> By: Robert http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100040 Robert Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:01:52 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100040 arfur, actually there were some ardent roman cultists in the Spanish and Portuguese cabinets but unlike their C of E counterparts, they were able to separate civil from secular, not that they some of them disagreed with same-sex marriage. They were outnumbered. Take Portugal, a right wing cultist President Annibal Silva could veto same-sex marriage legislation if he wanted to, but the chances are unlikely. Now if the Portuguese can do it, so can we Brits. There is NO reason not to, no excuse. My partner and I shouldn't have had to leave our country for Canada to get married, absolutely shameful and to add insult to injury, our government refuses to recognise our marriage for what it truly is. If wanted a civil partnership, we would have stayed home. THere is NO full equality for gay people in our country. The apologists can argue it all they want, they won't convince me and others, deep down they know it but they'd be loathe to admit it as the see more countries support full marriage. What galls me is many of them refuse to support our right to marry if we choose to and do precious little to make it a reality. They think Stonewall is the be all and end all of everything concerning our rights. It isn't and in fact sometimes works against us as it did with marriage equality. I have nothing but contempt for StonewallUK, its not worthy to bear the name. If I had it in my power, I'd compel Stonewall Democrats in America, the birthplace of Stonewall, to sue StonewallUK for misrepresenting what Stonewall means and what it represents, ergo full equality, nothing short of that. Its disgraceful. arfur, actually there were some ardent roman cultists in the Spanish and Portuguese cabinets but unlike their C of E counterparts, they were able to separate civil from secular, not that they some of them disagreed with same-sex marriage. They were outnumbered. Take Portugal, a right wing cultist President Annibal Silva could veto same-sex marriage legislation if he wanted to, but the chances are unlikely. Now if the Portuguese can do it, so can we Brits. There is NO reason not to, no excuse. My partner and I shouldn't have had to leave our country for Canada to get married, absolutely shameful and to add insult to injury, our government refuses to recognise our marriage for what it truly is. If wanted a civil partnership, we would have stayed home. THere is NO full equality for gay people in our country. The apologists can argue it all they want, they won't convince me and others, deep down they know it but they'd be loathe to admit it as the see more countries support full marriage. What galls me is many of them refuse to support our right to marry if we choose to and do precious little to make it a reality. They think Stonewall is the be all and end all of everything concerning our rights. It isn't and in fact sometimes works against us as it did with marriage equality. I have nothing but contempt for StonewallUK, its not worthy to bear the name. If I had it in my power, I'd compel Stonewall Democrats in America, the birthplace of Stonewall, to sue StonewallUK for misrepresenting what Stonewall means and what it represents, ergo full equality, nothing short of that. Its disgraceful.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Matt B http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100034 Matt B Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:47:53 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100034 Hmmm. Did any of you actually read this article? The source of this claim is....the Daily Torygraph. So you are going to believe as a done fact what a staunch opponent of Labour merely speculates? I am no fan of Harriet Harman, but really everyone, stop and think before you foam at the mouth! This is pure supposition on the part of a vested interest. If she does as her opponents speculate, rip her apart. She has let us down before, and is capable of doing it again, but jeez! Read what you are reading first! Hmmm. Did any of you actually read this article? The source of this claim is….the Daily Torygraph. So you are going to believe as a done fact what a staunch opponent of Labour merely speculates? I am no fan of Harriet Harman, but really everyone, stop and think before you foam at the mouth! This is pure supposition on the part of a vested interest. If she does as her opponents speculate, rip her apart. She has let us down before, and is capable of doing it again, but jeez! Read what you are reading first!

(Report comment)

]]> By: arfur http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100026 arfur Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:32:00 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100026 Robert, maybe those countries didn't have opus dei in the cabinet. Robert, maybe those countries didn't have opus dei in the cabinet.

(Report comment)

]]> By: Squidgy http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100018 Squidgy Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:12:46 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100018 I'm ACTIVELY not voting Labour I'm ACTIVELY not voting Labour

(Report comment)

]]> By: Mihangel apYrs http://www.pinknews.org/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-100016 Mihangel apYrs Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:07:58 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/03/05/government-could-reject-religious-civil-partnerships-amendment/#comment-100016 how quickly the govt jumps to a religious whip how quickly the govt jumps to a religious whip

(Report comment)

]]>