David Miliband for Labour Leader
David Miliband for Labour Leader
During recent hustings and conversations with people around the country and on Twitter and Facebook, the issue of gay marriage has been raised on several occasions. Labour has a proud record on equality and gay rights. We equalised the age of consent, scrapped the homophobic Section 28 and created civil partnerships. Because of our legislation some 33,956 civil partnerships have been registered across the country – over 500 in British Embassies abroad.
But it is an anomaly that gay couples – although they can call each other husband or wife – can’t say they are married. Canada and Argentina have shown the way forward.That’s why I support calls to change the definition of marriage to include exclusive relationships between couples, regardless of sex. This will mean gay couples will be able to describe themselves as married.
This does not force change in religious practice. I support the Labour amendment to the Equalities Act which made provision for religious communities to officiate civil partnerships but only if they felt appropriate. Under a new definition of marriage, the situation should to be the same. We should not force churches, mosques and synagogues to officiate over gay marriages but equally we shouldn’t stop those who want to.
Gay marriage is the logical next step in our mission for equality, but is just one part of our approach. Homophobia remains too common, including in schools. I want to tackle prejudices in law and in practice so we are always standing up for equal rights.
Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...-
[...] I’m sure they know that (as Labor want to avoid discussing gay marriage, an issue the party should have campaigned on) it’s politically safe for them to support their hero and saviour by belittling [...]
-
[...] confirmed their support for gay marriage, and this morning Ed’s brother, David, published a piece on his website in support. I have no idea why Ed Miliband couldn’t have just said a simple ‘yes, I support gay [...]
-
[...] He says: During recent hustings and conversations with people around the country and on Twitter and Facebook, the issue of gay marriage has been raised on several occasions. [...]
I think that this post is an encouraging reflection of the direction that society is moving. It used to be that the thoughtful criticism of gay marriage was that by allowing it the nominally secular state would be redefining what was a principally religious service. I think that people are now coming to recognise that the divide between church and state is not so black and white and that marriage is not purely a religious matter. If it were it would not recognized in the tax code or in other state run social programs.
The state already recognizes marriages that the church finds difficult to stomach, think of the controversy surrounding Prince Charles marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall. Then some faiths have trouble with interfaith marriages and some faiths would allow polygamy which the state does not recognise and explicitly prohibits.
This debate is not about forcing the local mosque, church of temple to conduct same sex marriages. (That is a legitimate debate. Preventing places of worship to discriminate, on any ground, sexuality or otherwise, would have a profound impact well beyond the realms of marriage, even up to basic religious freedom.) The state is not responsible for what religions dictate and to force it to do things against its will would be unseemly and heinous state overreach.
The fact is that non-religious heterosexual couples do not enter civil partnerships, the get married. The state does not discriminate between the religious and the irreligious when it comes to marriage so why should they do it on the grounds of sexuality? If it is the case that they have afforded homosexual couples the same rights under a different name then surely this is just an augment of semantics and the opposition to it is merely pedantry.
The reality of the matter is that Christians will soon lose our freedom of speech..in fact if we aren’t allowed to express our views that we don’t support gay marriage then surely that means we’ve already lost that freedom?I like how equality and freedom of speech exist yet not unless you agree with the majority.
To: Denyse Arston – We have Freedom of Speech in this country! I know where I stand in our Society and nobody is a perfect human being! But by having the right Wisdom we become Immortal – which means having good health, helping the sick, the poor and the weak in our planet Earth. Thank you and Keep in good health!
Annabelle Santiago is coming across as a frustrated bigot belonging to some crazy weird religious cult, very stupid my dear and extremely childish you really need to grow up, and not just accept something which is known by thousands as just another storybook, and for your information I do believe, just not the book!!
Stewart: if David becomes PM, and if Parliament votes it through, then he has every right to redefine marriage. You seem to be confusing the religious concept of marriage with the legal one. Parliament has an absolute right to change the latter, and to promote equal treatment under the law.
What religions choose to do is up to them (providing its not actually illegal). I would be delighted if the Church of England could get its act together and support gay marriage, but as they’re only just limping towards women bishops that seems to be unlikely in th enear future.
So basically you aren’t really going to do anything except just redefine the word “marrage”
Useless!
Let’s get something clear from the outset: I’m not Labour. Anyone who will take the time to check my blog will realise this quickly. However, I agree with David on this one. Why should two men or two women be forced to refer to themselves as ‘civil partners’ simply because they’re not from opposite genders? A marriage should be a marriage and no, religions shouldn’t be forced to provide same-gender ceremonies, but at least the state would. But David, where have you been until now? Why wait until you’re out of office to suddenly discover your feelings on this? Why not move Labour forward when you were in office, and not introduce civil partnerships, but full-on legitimate weddings? Another issue that should be focused on is education. You’re right David, that homophobia is still rife on Britain’s streets, and in its schools. What we need is a culture change, to accepting couples as couples, regardless of their gender. We see important people feeling that they can’t be themselves to their own family and the country (e.g. David Laws MP) and people killing themselves and being killed because of the way they’re born. It’s not right. Now, as I say, I’m not a Labour supporter and never will be, but I trust the Labour Party a damned sight more to deliver on this important issue than I do the Tories. Before, I might’ve said that the Liberal Democrats would have delivered on this, but since the general election, they’ve shown their true colours and regardless, they won’t be back in power after joining forces with the Conservatives. Please do realise David, that if you are successful in your leadership campaign, when Labour’s in power again (whenever that may be), you have a duty to live up to what you’ve said above. Show people that the Labour party can do better.
I am going to come out and support Ed Miliband on this issue of marriage scenarios. Ed is right to suggest that in principle he supports civil partnerships and gay marriage. However it is a little unfair to ask his judgement on marriage when he himself is not married. It is similar to asking David what the working class feel like when they are unemployed, particularly when David has never had a real working class job in the real world. A little unfair.
This perhaps is an attempt by his brother equalise the debate scoring after losing the argument with his brother over Iraq. David is political point scoring in an attempt to reach out to diverse communities. There is no evidence in what David is saying that cements his views to the real world. Is this website an avenue for nodding dogs to express an opin that is always favourable to what Miliband senior says. New Labour was full of policies on the hoof. I don’t think this debate will appeal to the electorate or the majority of Labour supporters. David is leaving the centre ground for a short while but he’ll be back. A source close to Gordon Brown has suggested that Ed Miliband is the former PM’s choice. Come on TONY come out in support of David.
This election is about choices. You can choose a red apple or a blueberry. They look good, they may even taste good for short while, they are different colours but they are still FRUIT.
More of the Same perhaps.
I am going to comme out and support Ed Miliband on this issue of Marriage scenarios. Ed is right to suggest that in principle he support civil partnerships.
This is why I vote labour, I am gay and I have always wanted to get married, I think it’s right that I have an equal right to anyone else to get married.
I am with David all the way in regard to this issue. We need to see full equality for all relationships. It is essential we counter the homophobia that we are exposed to from the leaders of the Catholic Church. Sadly some Labour M.Ps voted against positice LGBT policies when we were in Government.
Well done. Hopefully the whole Labour party will now support full equality.
David,
This announcement tipped my support over in favour of your candidacy.
I had been an Ed Miliband supporter, but after meeting you in Brighton on Wednesday night I was left undecided between the two of you. This announcement swung my vote(s) your way, and from discussions I’ve had with fellow Brighton & Hove Labour Party members I know it has done the same for others too. This is a gutsy move that proves you are willing to stand up for what is right even if it won’t always be popular in all circles.
That’s leadership.
Good luck in the campaign,
Tom French
Brighton Pavilion CLP,
Labour council candidate and member of the GMB, Cooperative Party and LGBT Labour
David, It is right to champion equality, if the intention is striving for a good or better society than the one we are currently share. Why dont you come clean with the British people and inform them the real reason behind favouring equality with regards marriage. Family and marriage is an institution and Labour have got it wrong in attempting to fragment society further by diversifying marriage. Labour’s fascination in creating a new constitution by attacking the very heart of the monarchy. the church of England in an attempt to steer Britain to a republic will islolate those individuals from the political game. Marginalising the church, destablising the monarchy and changing the executive, legislative and judiciary will cripple Britain. Evidence of the rifts in the Church of England and Catholic church are as a result of 13 years of New Labour policy. Do we need more of the same David or have you just been found out.
“Under a new definition of marriage…”
Could you please explain what gives you the right to redefine words to suit your agenda?
Mr. David Miliband You Get Our Vote
Scott & Jon
Scott1984_FP & Stewie_FP From Twitter.Com
As a practising Catholic, I completely agree. The term marriage is not solely routed in religion and nor should it be. There is no reason why the right of the church to only officiate marriages in keeping to their teachings cannot co-exist with the rights of gay couples to be married and recognised as a marriage instead of the othering that a civil partnership creates.