Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
The Conservative party is a decidedly LGBT friendly organisation. At Party Conference David Cameron declared that “I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative”.
The bold statement is proof of how much has changed in the last half a century, since homosexuality was decriminalised, in England at any rate. It is only thirty years or so since the rest of Britain caught up. No party has a proud history with LGBT rights, but in the future we Conservatives can make ourselves proud.
Under the last government the LGBT community endured one of Labour’s scrappy compromises that managed to annoy all sides. Civil partnerships were marriages in all but name. A civil partnership could in the English language be anything from a business relationship to an icy marriage. Under this bland term was to be placed a life long commitment between two people who love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. This second rate compromise we were told was the best that could be done. As ever with Labour’s “best,” the Conservatives can do better, and are going to.
A consultation may seem like a pointless delay to this law many couples have been waiting years for, but it is standard practice. Already a religious institution that wishes to do so may conduct a civil partnership and LGBT people can at last recognise their relationship as a part of their faith. For those who just want it to be done and dusted I say patience. Our democracy is slow, yes, but that means the laws are better, and won’t be dragged through the courts for years like the laws from Brussels.
Stopping money to governments that refuse to allow LGBT rights is an important stand to take, and one that can be taken without seeing children starve. The UK would gain nothing by cutting all aid, by cutting the aid that goes directly to foreign governments we can influence them without hurting people in need . There will be squeals of protest from their leaders, but if it grants their people basic rights then it is worth every indignant politician that complains. At the same time medical aid and other such things won’t suffer. It is no good lobbying for people’s rights if they will die before they get them.
Britain’s treatment of LGBT people was historically appalling. We cannot undo what was done, but the removal of offences that are still on people’s records from the days when it was illegal to consummate a consenting homosexual relationship is a simple way to tidy up some of the mess that lingers from another, very different age. Even now the government is working to fight homophobia. Not with special selection lists, but by recognising the truth. People from the LGBT community are people who deserve the same rights and respect as anybody else. What’s more, when same sex couples want to show their commitment, they should be able to do just the same as any heterosexual couple.
Hmm.
I am not sure that you could have written a more overtly partisan and personally opinionated article if you tried. Sure, we get the point that you think on seemingly pretty much any issue Labour don't do well, and its ok for your to think and say that, but a little more in the way of evidence and examples will make your article not only more persuasive but more useful to the reader.
As for the suggestion slipped in there that we really know where our foreign aid money truly goes... I am not sure that's really relevant to the Party's stance on gay /marriage/. Gay /rights/ sure, and marriage is ultimately one of those, but I think there are more issues at play than merely 'This country is LGBT unfriendly and so we should threaten the stability of their state, potentially causing strife in the future and damage of diplomatic ties'. Society must change before Governments can. That comes through education, NOT sanctions.
Personally, as a gay person myself, I believe that gay marriage is less significant than other LGBT related issues. The State can legalise gay marriage all it wants, and for all I care the Queen could, as head of the Church of England (and head of State for that matter), personally conduct gay marriages, but that wouldnt suggest that we're finally at some grand period of acceptance.
The most effective policy a conservative (or any other party) government that was really intent on 'LGBT friendliness' could really take is in promoting education about LGBT issues. The state could legalise gay marriage in the fullest sense but that wouldn't make me happy, firstly because (and maybe this is just a minority in which I include myself) but I don't feel I need to /marry/ a person to demonstrate that I "want to commit to each other for the rest of [our] lives."
Secondly because the fact we can share legal rights albeit with a different name is fine by me when compared to the fact that society needs to be better informed. Hopefully as a consequence of that, also more acceptive of LGBT lifestyle and issues. Gay marriage wont do that alone. In fact with misinformation still circulating through general society, it might deepen misunderstanding and in some cases exacerbate misguided causes hatred.
In essence I believe that the conservative party, to be an LGBT friendly party, needs to get off token LGBT issues such as the ability to enter into the institution of marriage, and commit to the more controversial policies of including LGBT awareness and correct information in that regard into the education system. We can't go at tackling homophobia top-down by legislating on token LGBT issues. We need lasting change and understanding in society, which can only truly come from the bottom-up. From that, the rest (gay marriage, etc.) will naturally follow.
And so to end this comment, which could well have been an article in its own right in response to yours (since I just noticed it's longer than the original article), I must pose the question: Is the conservative party, or any major party in our political system, ready to commit to real, albeit controversial, change?
--RW.Sorry mate, I got to your name, and just couldn't stop laughing. This would be awful if you weren't an illinformed bigot 
So, Winston... what you're saying is, because a political party is okay with a basic and sometimes contested (but not TOO edgy, let's not go nuts here) human rights issue, this event deserves commendations and praise?
Well here you go, have this cookie as a reward. It's custom-tailored.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22789525@N00/3455427220/in/photostream/
But seriously, this article brings up a notion that Tories are using a liberal issue regarding gay/bi people as emotional leverage. That's really weird and objectifying, regardless of political party. This article is a real swing and a miss.
See if anything you could have quoted Alan Duncan on the issue. As a gay man himself, he once said that the Conservative party (or rather, a socially liberal, economically conservative party) provides the best option for a gay person.
A gay (male) couple, even with children, will statistically, if both are working, be earning more than a straight couple, just because of the fact that men earn more money. Therefore, logically it would make sense to vote for a party with their financial interests at heart - ie, low taxation and economic freedom. I'm not sure about lesbian couples however, I don't recall he went into that. Again, these are his words, not mine.
Of course, this is assuming the Tory party is genuinely liberal and doesn't just have a particularly noxious coat of varnish over the backbenches...
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report