November 15th, 2012

Full Downing Street Gay Marriage Poll Deceit Letter

The Tories take it as a given that George Osborne is some sort of brilliant electoral strategist, despite clear evidence to the contrary. On Monday he announced that gay marriage would be at the heart of the 2015 push for a majority. While it may appeal to non-Tory voters, vast swathes of Cameron’s core vote are up in arms. Despite this, Dave told Pink News recently that his party was behind the legislation. As the Speccie revealed last night, that is nonsense – Andrew Hawkins from ComRes has given Downing Street a dose of reality, and someone leaked it. Whatever your views on the issue, the data is very clear – the Tories will lose support if they go ahead. Guido is fairly certain Andrew Cooper knows how to read a poll:

Despite barefaced claims to the contrary, gay marriage legislation will lose the Tories more votes than it gains. Expect a swell in support for it from Labour. How exactly is that a election winning strategy?


  1. 1

    The voters will be gone in a poof.


    • 11
      Selohesra says:

      Can anyone tell me what the difference is between marriage & civil partnership – I’m all for equality (even for shirt lifters) but if legally they have everything through civil partnerships isn’t this just picking a fight for the fun of it


      • 13

        Well exactly. Not that I am an adherent, but where does that leave the churches?


      • 81
        Dave S says:

        Should gay marriages be enshrined in law, presumably this will apply to all UK citizens, and all registered places of worship covered under the ‘Places of Worship Registration Act – 1855’, the Church of England would roll over and comply like it usually does, but other denominations are a little more robust. As for Mosques, Temples, Quaker Meeting Houses and Synagogues etc I can foresee some difficulty ahead unless the legislation is purely for civil marriages. However I also presume George has thought it all through in his usual forensic manner.


        • 106
          intrigued says:

          There are no plans whatsoever to compel any religious organisation to participate in same sex marriages. Civil marriage is proposed, you know, the sort that adulterous divorcees or heterosexual serial killers can get. Although you average serial killer could no doubt have a full bells and whistles religious wedding if he said “sorry”.


          • MacNero, Emperor of Scotland says:

            There are no plans whatsoever to compel any religious organisation to participate in same sex marriages.

            Is that a cast-iron guarantee?


          • Gay lobbyists refuse to leave their names says:

            Wrong, intrigued. It will compel churches. Another lie from the gay ‘marriage’ lobby. And your ‘point’ about murderers is as relevant as saying “I know a vicar who keeps tropical fish”.


      • 139
        Red & white dynamite says:

        Precisely however when hetrosexuals wake up to being partners in a marriage and parents 1&2 because of this change they will say what happened to our rights. The marriage bit is a minority trying change everyone definition just to please a very few people


    • 15
      Chris Bryant MP says:

      I know ducky


      • 47
        Ehtch says:

        I’m all for the pink pound, but we are not all a country full of, ahem!, aternative lifestyles. We do chuck out babies too, or have you not noticed?

        Where the fuck did you come from in the forst place Chris? An immaculate conception, as with here? In El Salvador?

        Is gay rights becoming the new RC church? Get your relativity in life sorted, our gay community, stop stamping your feet, striving to have more rights than those that are actually chucking out the next generation. Get it? So let us hear no more about it Chris. Carry on.


        • 127
          Ehtch says:

          This music from a Catholic church in San Salvador was written by the englishman William Byrd by the way, in the interesting, you could say, protestant/catholic times of the Tudor and Stuart times of the sixteenth to seventeenth century era.


    • 16
      Anonymous says:

      It certainly is a novel way to try to win an election, ignore the polls. Even Gordon Brown took notice of how the wind was blowing in 2007, and he’s as thick as asreholes.


      • 25
        jgm2 says:

        Gordon Brown would have won in 2007. Unless you think the additional three years of parading his idiocy around improved his election chances.


        • 35
          Anonymous says:

          a di ersion.

          .. hurt “gets into your bones… It gets into your soul and you just think there’s something wrong with the world.”


        • 39
          Hugh Janus says:

          “Gordon Brown would have won in 2007.”

          Shit a brick, those are chilling words indeed.


          • jgm2 says:

            Not only that but, had Brown called an election and lost the T*ries would have been saddled with the unravelling of Brown’s imbecile policies. The whole financial crisis, record deficits etc etc. And Labour bedwetters shrieking that it was all the T*ries fault.

            ‘Look, only twelve months into a golden legacy and the T*ries have fucked the economy ..’ they’d be claiming.

            No. The best possible outcome for the UK was for Brown to bottle the 2007 election and get saddled with his own economic clusterfuck. And, as Omaha shows, the electorate know who is to blame if the economy is still fucked – even after four years.


          • ÁC1 says:

            Most are the population have been turned into thickies, thanks to state “education”…


          • Ehtch says:

            AC1, suck on this, you knob,

            Texas US state education, quite imaginative, ey, you private paid educated knobellend, by your grandparents or your rich spinster aunt, or something.


      • 51
        Archer Karcher says:

        Leave Call Me Useless alone, he knows what’s best for the Conservative party, more socialist policies, that’s what.
        Bravo I say, the sooner his coalition of Fabians collapses the better.
        You never know, a real right wing, small government, low tax, personal freedom and free market party, might take their place.
        Now that’s something to look forward to.


    • 27
      A E I O U says:

      An election.


    • 60
      To Dieppe, Tooth-Arsed says:

      Au revoir matelot.


  2. 2
    jgm2 says:

    I guess somebody has made the calculation that Tory ‘safe’ seats are safe no matter what and that the gay-ers will swing enough ‘hung’ seats to make the difference.

    I’m unconvinced.


    • 8 says:

      Is any seat safe with gay policies?


    • 34
      Another Engineer says:

      This is a classic “convince the BBC” issue.

      The calculation is that changes of this sort will stop the BBC treating them as ‘baby-eating Tories’.

      Evidence suggests that it won’t work and that pulling the plug on White Powder City would be far more effective.


      • 42
        Hugh Janus says:

        It may convince the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, but a rather hollow victory if many thousands of former supporters go elsewhere and dump the posh boys into years of opposition.


      • 65
        Archer Karcher says:

        The rancid BBC should have been target 1 day 1.

        As usual though, timid Dave bottled it and tried his famous hug a hoodie routine. The BBC, like the hoodies, just picked his pocket and mugged him. Sometimes a fool learns from his experiences, clearly, Dave does not.


        • 73
          jgm2 says:

          Dave’s single biggest mistake was to agree to pre-election debates.

          Tony Blair didn’t risk it and neither should Dave.

          Without the debates there would have been no swing to Clegg, no coalition, no reason to compromise on anything.

          Labour got 28%. The remaining 72% anti-Labour vote was (mainly) split between the T*ries and Liberals. Without Clegg getting air-time Cameron would have hoovered up a lot more of that 72%.

          All Dave’s problems spring from that one enormous blunder.


          • Hugh Janus says:

            “Without the debates there would have been no swing to Clegg”? The Limp Dumbs finished up with 5 seats fewer – or are you saying that, but for the debates, the Yellow Bellies would have been wiped out altogether? One Term Dave jumped into bed with Cleggy purely for reasons of political expediency.


  3. 3
    Well it's a thought says:

    Lose support, do the uconned us have any?.


  4. 4
    this septic pile, this pail of beers says:

    it reminds one of tiny blur and the fox-hunting issue – it was of little relevance to the country as a whole but established an opposition block that from then on gained in strength – and he didn’t even want the issue raised

    sometimes vociferous one-issue minorities can have great effect


    • 14
      jgm2 says:

      Excellent analogy. Yet that one trivial issue is reckoned to have translated into a huge number of additional votes. To the point where even with the aftermath of the Iraq debacle in full flow in 2005 Labour still won a comfortable majority.

      To you or me gay marriage might not be worth the candle. But to people to whom it matters – it really matters.


      • 40 says:

        You wont hear the BBC or other Labour branches say it but the fox hunting legislation was a shambles. Hunting still carried on after the ‘ban’. The only benefit to Labour was to distract attention away from other far more important issues and other shambles that the public couldn’t care less about. Maybe this is what the Tories are hoping to do with gay marriage. Who is going to lose any sleep if gay marriage is allowed or not?


        • 58
          jgm2 says:

          As you say about fox-hunting. It still goes on. Ickle foxes are still being torn to bits every single day of the hunting season – which, I only recently discovered, is not just a monthly or high-days and holidays event but, for people who are seriously into fox-hunting, is a several days a week event.

          One of the girls at my daughters school gets up at 4 o’clock in the morning (in the summer) to go hunting before school. I suppose they figure the ‘sabs’ are still in their pits surrounded by tins of White Lightning at that time of the day.


          • Ordinary bloke says:

            I have no opinion about hunting (although I like to see the riders as they make a fine spectacle) but sabs appear to me to be the dregs of the population. JMHO.

            BTW I live in the country and there is no hunting where I live.


          • jgm2 says:

            I have lived ‘in the country’ for the best part of 20 years now and I come and go as much as anybody, dr*iv*ing here and there and I have never, not once, stumbled upon a fox-hunt.

            Yet, I am reliably informed – by people who do go hunting, that they are taking place weekly within a mile or two of my house – and almost daily within five or ten miles of my house – the same ‘hunt’ just at a different venue. What I also hadn’t realised is how expensive it is. Apart from the obvious costs of horses, horse-boxes, big 4X4 to tow the horse box etc, the annual membership fees are in the high hundreds/low thousands and, on top of that, they pay sixty or eighty quid per hunt.

            To many people this is their life. I had thought they were just a bunch of like-minded people and it was all pretty informal but it seems it is serious stuff. It’s a whole ‘nother world.


          • Seigfreid Sassoon says:

            It is indeed another world and one which townies will never comprehend.


    • 33
      Hugh Janus says:

      Agreed – and at the last election the Conservatives promised a free vote in government time on fox-hunting. Yet another politicians’ promise – in other words yet another blatant lie.


  5. 5
    nambawan pikinini bilong Misis kwin says:

    dave is tired of just living with george


  6. 6
    ed martin says:

    will official homosexual marriage attract tax relief?


  7. 7
    • 26
      Anonymous says:

      I take it you’re not interested in getting married in a church with a white dress and all the trimmings then 8illy. Perhaps best with all those tattoos eh?


    • 32

      It is not as simple as that though, Bіlly. The established church does not accept gay marriage. The Catholic church will never accept it. But even if they are not called upon immediately to celebrate gay marriages, the pressure will come. It is mindless. If you can recognise you have a deep relationship with another of the same sex and society does not stigmatise you for it, financially or socially, why have the gay community got to stamp on other peoples’ ground?


  8. 10
    Glyn H says:

    I’m voting UKIP today, just to send a message – and anyway the gay marriage brigade won’t vote Tory anyway so why does Cameron bother?
    We desperately need a Conservative government and to get rid of the Mervyn (print money) Kings and to do some serious constructive destruction in the public sector. Fancy offering £85k for these police commissioners when a retired Colonel would do it for £25!


    • 28
      whitey says:

      same here. our ukip candidate was actually in the police force. sorry no caps. and like others i don’t understand the difference between marriage and civil partnership.


    • 52
      Hugh Janus says:

      Ditto GH, and for similar reasons, although in our case the UKIP candidate also appears to be the best of the bunch. I suggest that no one should even contemplate giving their vote to anyone sponsored by the LibLabCon.


      • 69
        Rabid neutral says:

        I voted independent. The police have nowt to do with politics.


        • 86
          Norman Stanley Fletcher says:

          I agree that the police shouldn’t have owt to do with politics, but anyone who thinks they’re politically impartial is very naive. The police unions and the police control bodies have been Labour lackeys for a long time.


    • 107
      intrigued says:

      There are more “out” gays in the conservative party than the rest of HoC put together. People jump to conclusions and assume that all gays/bisexuals are like Julian Clary.


  9. 12
    Sandra in Accounts says:

    Is it cast iron Camerloons deliberate policy to lose the next GE?


    • 44
      ed martin says:

      perhaps the alliances/factions are changing and CamBorne (inter alia) find it very difficult issue by issue to establish who/where they are


    • 55
      Hugh Janus says:



    • 88
      Norman Stanley Fletcher says:

      Moribund must be pissing himself over this. It’s the type of legislation Liebore themselves would have passed eventually, if they were still (officially) the Government, and Camoron’s mob will cop the flak from the voters. Win-win for the Liebore nazis.


  10. 17
    Gordon the One Eyed World Saver says:

    Is it true that Sarah only married me because someone paid her too.
    I’m so upset by these rumours I can’t go to work.


  11. 18
    Ehtch says:

    Georgie Porgy puddin’ an’ pie,
    never kissed the girls and made them cry.
    Just me, and other non-Etons,
    into our pints of simple lager for our young fry.

    Suck my stump, George O,

    Glad the “lads” are quite self-controlled in our country these days…. but for how much longer, when food and health is being taken from our kiddies.


  12. 19
    Hugh Janus says:

    If they can wilfully misinterpret polling results to this extent, then that is yet another reason for this former life-long Conservative not to vote for them. The posh boys rellay have lost the plot completely if they consider this policy to be a vote-winning strategy.


  13. 20
    P l e b says:

    Gays just need to get over themselves.


  14. 21
    The Land of the Politically Correct and Mendacious says:

    I doubt if “Gay Marriage” will be a decider at 2015 election with either Tory or Labour voters. It may be a “burning issue” within the “Westminster Bubble” and “Gay Community” but quite frankly I doubt if the majority of voters give a toss(pardon the pun)either way. WHAT they are more concerned about is whether any of the present politicians have any idea how to get the economy improving to generate growth and jobs.

    This is about the biggest “Non-Issue” that will be debated in 2015 and I seriously doubt if it figures in any of the top 10 issues raised on doorsteps.

    Cameron and Co need to get a grip and start dealing with the policies that people are bothered about and Gay marriage isn’t ONE of them. If Gay couples wish to marry in church and the local vicar is agreeable then who the fuck cares either way ???


    • 43 says:

      + 100


    • 50
      Cinna says:

      This is a complete distraction from the problems currently facing the country.


    • 92
      Norman Stanley Fletcher says:

      From what I understand, the gay mafia aren’t all that bothered about marriage, as the civil partnership laws give them the same legal and financial rights as hetero couples. It seems they see Camoron’s proposed gay marriage laws merely as gesture politics. Why Call Me Cast Iron Guarantee Dave thinks it might win him votes from the gay crowd, I have no idea. I’m sure there are gay people who vote Tory, but they’re most likely not part of the gay mafia, who play the victim card at the drop of a hat, and are most likely to vote Liebore, like all the “oppressed” minorities.


  15. 23 says:

    The Tory strategy is to lose the next election and allow Labour to screw the economy again. Why else would they be for gay marriage when the majority are against it or for immigration, the European human rights act and the EU when the majority are against it. The Tories only really stand a chance of winning the next election if they sort out the economy and give a huge bribe and cast-iron guarantees of an end to austerity in time for the next election. The electorate are immensely gullible. Why else would they vote for the Liblabconners?


    • 36
      Ken Livingloon says:

      The Tory party is riddled with gayers, why else bother?


    • 61
      Hugh Janus says:

      Not forgetting a referendum on our membership of the EU of course. And not just the ‘cast-iron’ type of guarantee, either. Forget everything else – the party that genuinely undertakes to hold a referendum is home and dry. The only problem is – will anyone trust them to carry it out??


  16. 24
    Watchman says:

    Only question is who is the support going to go to? Labour and the supposed Liberals aren’t going to oppose the policy. So that leaves UKIP – easily solved, just oppose Europe (candidates will figure this out)…


  17. 31
    Anonymous says:

    FFS just concentrate on the main issues that affect most people- the economy, jobs and education.


  18. 37
    Frap says:

    Reckon Dave n Gid have aged somewhat since that photo.


  19. 45
    Liarpoliticians says:

    It’s the economy stupid!

    Concentrating on issues like gay marriage, while the UK is collapsing on more important issues.


  20. 46
    Steve Miliband says:

    I see a bandwagon for Ed to jump on.

    Some football clubs want a wage cap. They have woken up to the fact that Footballers are greedier than bankers.

    So how about a one off Footballers tax to pay off the National Debt Ed? Or a tattoo tax?


  21. 54
    Morgan Stanley recruiter says:


    Have you not understood that Mr Cameron is not the slighest bit interested
    in gay marriage or much else on the Goivernment’s agenda except for avoiding
    anoither financial meltdown.

    We will be ofering him (and others) a warm seat for some more influence
    peddling when he is tossed out

    We have had talks with mr Clegg but he is booked to go to Brussels or to
    Spain where his wife’s family have solid right wing connections…


    • 126
      Ehtch says:

      Gay issues are just another tick box issue for Cameron and Clegg, nothing else. They couldn’t give two hoots. Anyway, I think we have reached a fair consensus already, thanks to the Labour party. Couldn’t give a toss if a squirrel married a hedgehog in my local church, and I think the Vicar won’t either, if they can pay for it that is.


  22. 56

    “The Tories take it as a given that George Osborne is some sort of brilliant electoral strategist, despite clear evidence to the contrary.”

    I hope that Osborne is in charge of winning the next election, I mean after the booing it is pretty clear what the public think of him and his policies/strategies.

    Anyhow gay marriage. Love conquors all. Society evolves, you either lead and illuminate the way or follow and hinder. If you have trouble with someone elses sexuality why not simply feel happy that they have found love?

    For the record, I am straight, married (to a woman), though have inadvently “pulled” a few blokes in my time. Being in that awkward situation I know that I am not gay or bisexual, (even if for some unknown reason some blokes do seem to like me), and while it isn’t for me, I can not fathom why anyone would want to prevent two human beings being in love, celebrate their unity.

    What I dont get about the religious bit is:

    1. If God made us all, why not accept that he knew what he was doing?
    2. If church officials have allegedly abused children in their care, if simply being gay is so wrong, far less such terrible abuse, then why allegedly cover up and shuffle staff around as opposed to kicking them out and sending them to the police?

    Send everyone to Torture Garden for the night, that will sort the buggers out.


    • 74
      Roscoe Rules says:

      I’m all for getting rid of dogmatic religious shit and suggest if the Homosexual community want to really mix things up,convert to Islam and demand to be married in a mosque.
      Don’t meet trouble half way at the CofE, meet it head on in Mecca.


    • 87
      Archer Karcher says:

      The issue surely, is one of personal choice.

      If a vicar or priest chooses, of his or her free will, to marry gays ( as my own happy clappy, openly gay vicar undoubtedly would ) then there is no problem.

      However, the use of government force to impose such a measure, in many cases against legitimately held beliefs, is to my mind an immoral and heavy handed abuse of government power and is in no way compatible with a reasonable or free society.


      • 98
        Norman Stanley Fletcher says:

        What’s the betting that, when the government forces places of worship to accept gay marriage, they’ll turn a blind eye to mosques continuing to ban it, or even make mosques exempt in the first place?


      • 109

        Archer Karcher

        I am inclined to agree with you here. After all effective government involves a light yet wise hand, unless it has to ensure fair play (eg in a profit at all costs v workers quality of life type issues).

        The obvious solution is to leave it up to the individual churches while enabling civil marriage. Can’t see that doing much more than this is very productive.

        I mean if you believe in God you probably believe that God created all, and I for one trust that he knew what he was doing.

        Anyhow good to see that our government are focusing on the important stuff like getting people into decent paying jobs, healing the fractures in society, inspiring the nation, helping the human race live peacefully and evolve, etc.

        As an ex Tory party member, while I do still hold some conservative values, since I resigned my membership to Maggie Thatcher in disgust over the activities of the young conservatives, I still remain unconvinced that the Party is anywhere near as able as it could be. All that chasing money at all costs I suppose.


  23. 57
    Gordon Brown says:

    My winkle goes hard at the thought of gayers, but not when Sarah is looking at me.


  24. 59
    Ron says:

    so let’s get this straight – journalists accuse mcalpine of child abuse on behalf of victim. mcalpine says it wasn’t me. journos apologize. macalpine sues. public pay as boddy is bbc. no trial. no hearings. no crim inal investigation. nothing. we all believ rich and powerful mcalpine. close case.

    is this how the law operates now.

    except for the little man who is guilty, always guilty


  25. 63
    tube_thumper says:

    Who gives a fuck about this gay marriage shit????

    I dont care if poofs want to prance up the aisle. The churches are full of poof so I dont understand their reservations. Parliament is full of quares too.

    Why do they need to approval of god to get shit on the end of their knobs anyway


  26. 67
    Dino says:

    Well, he wants Labour to win. I thought that much was obvious. The only way Labour can get back in is if he does an awful job of being PM, which he has and does. His bosses in the EU have decided that Labour must get back in, and Labour are incapable of anything under their own steam, so Cameron must sabotage his parties efforts at every turn.


    • 76
      himindoors says:

      I was thinking the same thing -the only thing that can explain the -incompetence
      -lack of message control
      -policies that alienate core trad conservative voters
      -inability to flush the poisoned well that labour left across all sectors
      -blatant europhilia

      … Is that they want to lose the next election. They got in, realise how badly
      messed up things are, and have got sick of it. Let Labour back in, and let them *really* pay the price for their incompetence.


    • 101
      Yvegotissoos says:

      My thoughts too, Cameltwat must be a 5th columnist, already on the EU payroll


  27. 68
    johnberk says:

    I have to admit that this guy always surprises me. But as this article suggests, it can be a final blow to them. As an electoral topic, gay marriage is particularly weak. There are many more interesting fields where to fight on (for example how to fight global economic crisis). Who cares about gay marriage in the first place? But maybe there is some complicated strategy behind all of this. And we will be surprised.


  28. 75

    The people who support this anti-democratic imposition of legislation with no mandate, and the redefinition of marriage, spouse, parent and all the rest that goes with it, would *never* vote conservative anyway. The tories know full well that this will lose them votes BUT THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY because they are zimply followink orderz!


  29. 78
    HappyHour says:

    There are a lot of suppressed latent homo feelings on here today. Feeling guilty about some teenage fumblings?


  30. 79
    Ehtch says:

    I once met a tory, I taked about this, they talked about that.
    I said modern life, they talked about past. So Different tact.
    You suggest? He said my, haven’t Wimbledon tickets become steep,
    and I nodded, and I said Murray is making a total good show of it,
    and he said who?

    true story, honest…


  31. 82
    lola says:

    I judged Osborne clueless from the ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’ crapola. Every day that goes by he does something else to reinforce that judgement. Anyway, if he sucha wonderful strategist why didn’t the Tories get a clear majority – against and open goal?

    As for the gay ‘marriage’ thingy, the definition of ‘marriage’ is not in his gift. It belongs to all Faiths.



  32. 83

    I’ve voted Conservative for over 40 years. Never again if the gay marriage proposal goes through.

    Dave & Co. — Take notice of your long-term supporters opinions or face electoral catastrophe


  33. 84
    GeoffM says:

    Off subject but I think some of the gays may like this – Chris Bryant dress sense?

    “Innocent face”.

    The rest of us may just find it funny


    • 93
      Pitchfork. says:

      It has been taken down.


      • 128
        Ehtch says:

        bad sports.

        Don’t you hate it when that happens? Sucks me right off when that happens to me.

        How about Maldwyn from Wales, he runs a lovely fashion shop in his town he does for the ladies, fair credit terms and all, fashions straight fom gay Parii and everything,

        Any good bachs? Chris B? Potts then?


        • 129
          Ehtch says:

          bugger it, might as welsh post part four or whatever it is, Pays de Galles La France entente cordiale relationships and all that with time. Us welsh have always got on well with the frogs, or should I say frogesses, say no more… that young lady from Bordeaux back in ’92 on the Gironde, on beach – blamonge moulds they were and still are, in my mind…


          • Ehtch says:

            she was 22 by the way, the young lady, before you get any funny ideas, and her name was Delphine, and I was 30, bits still intact.


  34. 85
    English for Beginners says:

    “the data is very clear”

    the data are very clear


  35. 89
    Pitchfork. says:

    If Dave wants votes he should recind the 1997 / 98 firearms laws and let Pistol shooting back in the U.K. he will find he gets 300,000 extra votes from that, asd I and many many others have stopped voting because of the banning of pistol shooting.


  36. 94
    W.L.S. Churchill says:

    Dave old boy,



  37. 97
    Bob Fleming says:

    The whole push for gay marriage is indeed bizarre, given that less than 5% of the country are ‘gay,’ depending on who you believe (although watching the BBC you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s more like 95%) and most gays are not asking for it anyway


  38. 99
    Deep Froat says:

    If David and Nick want to get married then flip off to a country that allows it.
    Try Canada…yeah that should be far enough away.


  39. 100
    Jason Walter says:

    It doesn’t matter if its Electiom winning If it’s the right thing to do.


  40. 102
    ..Silicon Implant!! says:

    Personally I think they were complete cocks for raising the issue. Nobody else was. If you forced me to vote on the issue in a referendum, I would have to vote in favour of gay marriage being legal, because the alternative would be for me to vote in favour of institiutionalised inequality, something I will not do. But if nobody had raised the question, I was quite happy with the status quo, with civil partnership being de-facto legally identical to marriage. More significantly, gay people of my acquaintance were also perfectly happy.

    I’ve never noticed civil partners being shy about referring to their same sex other half as ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ as relevant, and I didn’t notice married people in general pointing and sneering at ‘married’ same sex couples for being inferior. The gay people I know seemed to consider Civil Partnership to be equality, and indeed in this secular country the only bleating I had heard of was from straight couples complaining that they couldn’t have a trendy new civil partnership themselves!

    All in the garden was lovely, then, until somebody, in this case David Cameron, started mouthing off about fixing this grave inequality. A notional inequality that, in a secular country with an established religion where only 10% of people go to church/mosque/etc but the head of state is head of the established church, nobody previously gave a shit about. I’m guessing, given the general anal retentiveness of most religions, that the 10% church attendance amongst the population at large is rather less amongst the out gay demographic, so who the hell was demanding this before Cameron highlighted it? And given Britain’s rather dodgy constitution, who ever thought that the churches wouldn’t stick their oar in on this issue if he tried to implement it?

    So, it was a complete non issue that almost nobody cared about, and then David Cameron highlighted it, and suddenly from nowhere he elevated it to be a totemic issue on both sides. And I am forced to take a side on it myself, when I would much rather never have been asked; I chose the side of equality, which means I have to align myself with a cabal of swivel-eyed lefties, others who oppose the move on theological grounds have to align themselves with knuckle-dragging homophobes.

    Well done, David. Well done!


  41. 103
    Anarchists In Blazers says:

    Homophobe : Deuteronomy 23:17-18
    Homofascist : You must be made to agree that sh1t tastes like chocolate.
    Homorealist : Heartily sick to death of listening to the bigots in the other two camps.


  42. 104
    Looking for ulterior motives says:

    Maybe, just maybe, it’s an overall strategy toward placing the concept of Islam firmly into the dark ages, via stark contrast?

    Douglas Murray said (something like) “yes, I would love to be able to marry in church, but I really wish they would concentrate on those who would wish to throw me off of tall buildings”. (During or after the Popes visit).

    Was Christian ethics always destined to be the sacricial lamb, toward that end, by order of the EU?

    Anyway, I like Douglas Murray.


    • 110
      intrigued says:

      Yes, it is one way of saying “forget any plans you may have had for Sharia Law guys”. Anyway we didn’t vote for any sort of theocracy. Thankfully.


    • 132
      Ehtch says:

      When not needed, religion is always thought of as an anachronism. But it is surprising how many people turn to it when times are really testy, really really testy I mean, as in a middle of a plague or some super serious mother nature event. Something then stirs in some deep pagonistic part within them, from the days of whitch burning and inquisitions. Likd the film based on the Wirral I saw on beeb one last night – quit succinct of what i have just said,

      Not that one, this,

      Same difference.


  43. 111
    Wiltshire Indy says:

    Living in Swindon Sth, just voted in the police elections. Till Osborne stops skinning me for tax, the Tories can kiss my arse!


  44. 113
    Thomas from Tonna says:

    I do not like homosexuals Chris Huhne Vince Cable and Manchester United supporters.

    Am I committing any criminal offences ?


  45. 114
    Anonymous says:

    Osborne in ‘doesn’t know what he’s talking about’ shocker.


  46. 115
    neilfutureboy says:

    Jesus. What a bunch of morons.

    Its the economy stupid.

    Every last Tory MP & every LibLab one smart enough not to carry water on both shoulders knows we could be out of recession in days simply by adopting UKIP policy (ending regulation, allowing shale gas & nuclear to produce cheap power, quiting the EU even putting the ESA money into commercial space X-Prizes) but they only thing these parasites are interested is in redefining the English language.


  47. 117
    PC Dixon says:

    So Osborne wants to loose the next election – keep it up George – wonder if you’ve told the wife – What an effing idiot.


  48. 118
    PC Dixon says:

    How many future kids will gay marriage produce? How many doctors, teachers, soldiers, bin men, carpenters etc.

    Exactly , the end of civilization as we know it.


    • 125
      Ehtch says:

      We won’t be short of kiddies taught interior design at school and college, I suppose, now they are all out of the wardrobe. Town and village flower and fashion shops will be everywhere soon.


  49. 119
    Rupert my Hero says:

    As Rupert said some long time back, count the numbers for this to be a no go policy, on second thoughts, perhaps Brown is not the worst PM this Century as of course, Labour ( and no one does ) will encourage them to jump off the cliff into the shadows. ( Government that is )


  50. 120
    Rupert my Hero says:

    For all those of that persuasion, Sex with Badgers could be dangerous, Probably.
    My wife is still not too happy with the Badger Fur Coat I bought her… you can never please some people.


  51. 121
    Rupert my Hero says:

    Will Dave ” Come out ” before he is ” Put Out ” ??


  52. 122
    Drunk Lawyer says:

    The legislation will pass despite the hysteria, then by the time of the next election everyone will have forgotten about it and be more concerned with how much tax they pay. The only party in a position to take advantage of Tory support for this policy is UKIP, and I’d take a guess that the EU is a bigger issue for voters choosing between it and the Tories.

    Substantively, we already have gay marriage by another name in civil partnerships. Few if any people are campaigning to abolish them, despite the many vociferous objections when they were introduced: it’s a lot easier to campaign for the status quo to be maintained than it is to campaign for a right to be taken away from a group of people.


    • 131
      Ehtch says:

      hear hear.

      Three bye elections happening today, but funny the beeb only go on about Corby, as if Cardiff and Manchester don’t exist, but that is the beeb tory London for you, trying not to get Labour supporters out, and try nd get in by the back door by some 1980’s tory electoral gerrymandering they constantly did then, with the poll tax and such.


  53. 136
    Nicholas Hinde says:

    Interesting comment on the times that the survey says that people are frightened to give their real views on gay m.


  54. 138
    Matt Arthur says:

    Just goes to show how politicians are more interested in winning votes than standing up for their convictions. The moral value of the policy is not even called into question.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,646 other followers