Pink News: Gordon Brown has consistently failed to support gay rights laws

Research by the Pink News website has found that Gordon Brown has never attended a Parliamentary vote on gay rights issues since Labour came to power.  Pink News does not believe that the Chancellor's workload is a sufficient excuse for not voting.   It notes that Tony Blair managed four votes.

Ming Campbell is revealed as the most gay-friendly party leader - according to the site - having recorded ten votes in favour of gay rights since 1997.

Related link: Tory support rises amongst gay voters

Comments

[Annabel Herriott]

So do we think Gordon is homophobic or a closet gay?

[Andrea]

Sorry, but he has a low divisions attendance record, so it can just be to it without reading too much into it.
He has supported the equal age of consent in 1994 when Edwina proposed it.
There aren't any other signs about him being homophobic and I don't think the piece was fair (they didn't ask his opinion or a clarification)

[Chad]

Indeed, Cameron himself voted to keep positive sexual discrimination for selected election candidates illegal. Does that mean he opposes equality for women?

Also Francis Maude confirmed in his ToryRadio interview that the Conservative Party is a broad church and so welcomes all but the most bigotted homophobes.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

What does the UKIP leadership think of gay rights, Chad?

[Graham D'Amiral]

I wouldn't read too much in to Gordon Brown's voting record on Gay rights issues, senior ministers often have to miss votes on a wide variety of issues. There are many charges that can be brought against the Chancellor for his record in office, I'm not convinced being homophobic is one of them.

[Chad]

"What does the UKIP leadership think of gay rights, Chad?"

I'm very pleased you asked that question Iain because leadership candidate, David Campbell Bannerman has become the first politician in any party I have convinced to adopt a "No Preference, No Prejudice" approach to policy.

How about that then? UKIP in favour of full equality, but the Tories not :-)

That's real change.

[Andrew Woodman]

Please Iain, spare us from further UKIP lectures!! Chad has been quiet lately.

I don't see much in this. Probably not wanting to be in the same lobby as Blair more than anything.

I'd have thought it would be better to attack Gordon Brown laying down the disincentives to explore the North Sea oil and gas any further, on the day british gas announce further price hikes and they are having to buy 80% of their gas on the wholesale market.

[David Banks]

So how come Ming is pro Muslim ( see thread on him calling for an arms embargo on Israel) and also ultra gay friendly? Some conflict of ideas there surely? Or just Mings pursuit of a vote from any minority out there ( apart from the Jewish lobby , obviously)?

As far as I'm aware Mr Brown is a practising heterosexual, surely he can leave the gay rights stuff to people like Peter Tatchell

[Chris Palmer]

David, the Lib Dems are political opportunists without any real beliefs - what more do you expect?

[Chris Hughes]

Excuse me, what are "gay rights"? No one deserves special treatment due to their sexuality. Its such a great shame being gay now determines your politics

[CJC]

"Excuse me, what are "gay rights"? No one deserves special treatment due to their sexuality. Its such a great shame being gay now determines your politics."

Good grief! Are you being deliberately obtuse? Gay rights include e.g. the - previously denied - right to have consensual sex at the same age as everyone else, the right to marry, the right to adopt, the right to equal employment protection...

[Chris Hughes]

Good grief! Are you being deliberately obtuse?

My style undoubtately is naturally aggressive

Gay sex in private is protected by privacy principles. Gay so-called "marriage" is a contradiction, and similary, adoption is a public issue because children are involved.
As for "equal employment protection" surely gays are covered by existing legislation?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Chris Hughes is obviously a very ignorant person.

[John Hustings]

"Chris Hughes is obviously a very ignorant person."

Or maybe he just has differing views to yourself.

[Chris Hughes]

Chris Hughes is obviously a very ignorant person

This isn't really the place for namecalling!
I'd love to debate gay rights but it seems my views are beyond the pale. I guess political correctness wins again

[Mr Eugenides]

No, Chris, it's not that.

It's just that if you type a sentence like "No one deserves special treatment due to their sexuality" you will then be held to that, and denying gay people the right to adopt - whether you support such a stance or not - is, palpably, treating them differently because of their sexuality.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Even the so-called "Neo-Cons" have come round to supporting equal tax/pension/hospital-visiting/etc for gay men and women. People who oppose them really are nasty bigots who have no place in today's Conservative Party.

[Donald]

Bless him, Chris is only 19, he'll grow up eventually and stop making University Debating Union points.

By the way it's not the neo-cons who opposed gay rights, it's more of an old conservative trait.

[Andrew Woodman]

For once, I agree with Justin on this one. I'm not sure if Chris means to appear crass in his comments, but if he is opposing gay equality with regards to partnerships, then surely that's sheer bigotry .

[Chris Hughes]

It's just that if you type a sentence like "No one deserves special treatment due to their sexuality" you will then be held to that, and denying gay people the right to adopt - whether you support such a stance or not - is, palpably, treating them differently because of their sexuality.

Indirectly it may be seen to be discriminating on the basis of sexuality, but it is much more simple than that - its about gender. Children benefit more by being with mum and dad than dad and dad. My position on adoption is that homosexuals can be allowed to adopt but only when it is not feasible to allow heterosexuals to adopt first.

To clarify: a "right" is something owed to you without qualification (unless you violate rights yourself). You would not let any random person off the streets adopt merely because they demanded it, so while applying for adoption is a "right", being allowed to adopt isn't. Therefore society should have a say in who cares for the future generation during the most important stage of their lives, and society seems to agree natural parents in marriage is best.

[Chad]

"Even the so-called "Neo-Cons" have come round to supporting equal tax/pension/hospital-visiting/etc for gay men and women. People who oppose them really are nasty bigots who have no place in today's Conservative Party."

That's not your Chairman's view though. See "Challenge the Chairman" on ToryRadio.

Only the most extreme homophobes are not welcome. Opposition to equality for homosexuals in not a bar to Conservative Party membership.

[Chris Hughes]

Bless him, Chris is only 19, he'll grow up eventually and stop making University Debating Union points.

Indeed I think thats the problem, I get used to debating at University and forget other people may not like how I write. I apologise if my overly-adversial style is causing irritation or offence

By the way it's not the neo-cons who opposed gay rights, it's more of an old conservative trait.

Can you name a "neo-con" who does not oppose gay rights as has been defined here? Andrew Sullivan doesn't count

[John Hustings]

Surely the phrase "neo-con" describes a particular point of view with regard to foreign policy. It doesn't actually hold much relevance to issues such as gay rights.

I don't understand why the phrase "neo-con" is thrown around so much anyway. I think it's just meant to scare people.

[powellite]

Would it be possible for someone to explain why opposition to equality for gays in relationships is "sheer bigotry," and what the definition of bigotry is in that case?

[Andrew Woodman]

If you have to ask Powellite, then I suspect it's not worth explaining the answer. Would you care to explain why you believe homosexuals should not have the same equal tax/pension/hospital-visiting rights as male/female relationships?

[Editor]

I know it's hot but let's keep the debate civil everyone. Play the ball - not the man/ woman please.

[powellite]

I would be delighted to. Regarding ordinary "partnerships," i.e. excluding marriage, I would be very happy to see equal pension/tax/hospital visiting rights. However, if one is in favour of same-sex marriage on a par with heterosexual marriage, then I would have to say I don't agree with granting the same rights & privileges. The basis I have for that is this;

"For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Genesis 2:24.

If one takes this definition of marriage as being authoritative, as I do, then it is not possible to acknowledge that same-sex marriages are on a par.

[Andrew Woodman]

Well marriage and adoption is a different topic, but we have all veered off the point so it might be best to heed the editors advice.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Enoch Powell was very liberal when it came to homosexual rights! Going back to the original thread, Gordon Brown's late father, John, was a Presbytery clergyman so GB may have socially conservative views. That said, I don't think anyone can call him homophobic - Anne Taylor and David Blunkett possibly - but not Brown.

[Chris Palmer]

The Gay Pink News people seem to have a rather, "if you're not with us, you are against us" attitude in saying, "Gordon Brown has consistently failed to support gay rights laws." He hasn't spoken out against Gay rights either, so what exactly is there point?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Unfortunately those of us who also believe that slavery is wrong don't tend to rely too heavily on the Bible for advice on how to live in 2006. The Bible, of course, is fine with slavery, the stoning of women for adultery, the sacrificing of children to voices in your head ect ect.

Surely those who believe that the word of God is final on this issue are too busy bothering adulterers (like the Prince of Wales, soon to be "defender of the faith"), fortune tellers and those who work on the sabbath? Anyone out there wearing clothing made of two kinds of fabric? Into the firey pit with you!

Those of a religious bent (lol) may like to remember that the right to religion also entails the right to irreligion. If you don't want someone imposing their religious values on you, why should you be able to impose yours on me?

Civil partnerships are not marriage, which is a Christian rite and has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual registering of a special kind of legal contract between two people. Some gay people want to play with fire and demand full "marriage" rights. I am not one of them. As far as I'm concerned I have all the rights I require to live a happy life.

I don't ask that people like Chris approve of my way of life, and they shouldn't ask that I approve of theirs. Why should I have to pay for someone else's maternity/parental leave, or their tax credit, or their child benefit? Maybe if people stopped and thought about having children we would not have so many in care and up for adoption.

[Chris Palmer]

"Chris Hughes is obviously a very ignorant person." - Justin Hinchcliffe

What, like you?

I always like to remember this particular snippit when considering your usual drivel:

"Mr Hinchcliffe was himself suspended by party chiefs in 1995 for his outspoken views on the elderly and the unemployed and was the real life inspiration for comedian Harry Enfield's Tory Boy character."

[Justin [email protected]]

CP, you really are a nasty and churlish pesron. I did not quite say that in 1995 but something similar. I was, though, 14 at the time - some 11 years ago. What's your point? People, especially young 'politicians', mature with age. What excuse do you have for your backward-looking claptrap?

[Editor]

I'm closing this thread. It's just getting personal and nasty here.