Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important. You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin. That really matters. And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that.Somehow I just feel I have been legitimised. It may mean little to most people who read this blog, but to gay and lesbian people all this country it will mean a lot. Assuming they get to hear about it.
75 comments:
That's a significant step forward from the Party that brought us Section 28. Iain, I'm not sure I get what you meant about making you feel legit, didn't you feel that before this speech?
a real shame that Cameron had to say those things. a kick in the teeth to married couples. and pure opportunism that probably even cameron doesnt believe.
Even though nobody suspected Dave was a closet gay-hater (he went to Eton, after all), it was good to hear, wasn't it?
Even though I suspect that there are still more than a few 'homosceptic' grassroots Tories, it's wonderfully reassuring that we now live in a country where no mainstream party is pursuing a homophobic agenda.
Congratulations and thanks, Dave. As a gay Tory, it means a lot. Genuinely.
After listening to the former chair of Aberdeen University Conservatives give a hideous and poisonous rant against homosexuals at a debate recently, this seems a refreshing change.
The problem is that for all Cameron continues to be nice and smiley, there are masks slipping elsewhere in the shape of Osborne's "autism" jibe and Boris going wildly off-message.
Are you trying to come out of the closet Iain?
He said: "I am proud we supported Civil Partnerships"..
The support was pretty weak in teh Lords.
I dont buy it Iain.
Well done David Cameron. Let's celebrate commitment in all its forms. He was spot on too on single mums. Now let's have some condemnation of feckless fathers who get women pregnant and then clear off leaving their former partners (and taxpayers) to pick up the pieces....one thing he needs to tackle though - let's sort out the rules so that elderly siblings who live together don't get clobbered for inheritance tax when one of them dies.....(written by happily married 30-something man)
my fear is it becoming compulsory
I know what you mean Iain and it does mean a lot. I dont doubt it was genuine too
I was ecstatic to hear him say this. Anyone who attended the Stonewall fringe will know that while the party is making progress on improving it's record on LGBT issues there is still a huge amount of work to done and it's good to know our leader is behind it.
It's not a shame, 'anonymous', you foolish.
Had Dave not mentioned that he also supported civil partnerships, it would have been an 'easy open' for our political opponents to suggest that we're still the same old gay-bashing party we've always been.
And of course he believes it. Some of his best friends are gay.
Leon's right. But I can see your point in that some Tory party supporters, members and no doubt a handful of Tory MP's are still a little bit retarded on issues of equality. Having said that, if I was seven foot tall and someone accused me of being illegitimate I'd punch their head in.
Anonymous 3.59, how on earth is this a kick in the teeth to married couples? Allowing homosexual marriages doesn't weaken heterosexual ones. I hope you're just stirring.
I do hope Cameron's words get media coverage, and not just in the Pink News. I often have people ask how, as a lesbian, I can be a Conservative and it would be really good if more people could see that the two things are compatible.
when I saw the headline in my blog reader I thought you were going to say
"The Conservatives want to raise the minimum wage"
I think the point is that we Tories stand for tolerance, something that was sadly lacking over the past many years and we got punished for it. As far as I am concerned how you conduct your private life is your private affair. However, one thing that I feel the Tories must move towards is supporting hetrosexual marriage through the tax system (however controverisal this is), it is statistically the best environment in which to raise children. Although I accept that stable gay relationships can and do make loving parents it is a relatively small number of people compared to hetrosexual marriage
David Cameron comes across as a thoroughly decent individual who is imbued with a profound sense of justice.
He will be an excellent prime minister and unlike Blair, his own man.
In that environment, it is a brave thing to say, although must of us tend to think that Cameron is keen to pick a fight with his own Party to try to do the Clause 4 thing and look strong. However, a bit like Labbour in '95, most Tories are so battered and bruised they haven't got the heart or the balls to fight anyone any more, not even each other. They even let fatty Clarke twitter on regardless. Although I would have thought by now the Thatcherite Tendency were just about sick to the back teeth of hearing the boy constantly grovel and apologise for things they did in government for 18 years, and if he isn't careful UKIP will come sniffing.... but the admission that we were right all along is nice.
It was an amazing statement to say, some what detracted by the BBC zooming in on the non clapping, shaking head, blue rinse brigade, but it has certainly made me think that if he can turn the Conservative Party around in twelve months to this point, he might, just might be worth a punt.
It's great that he said it, but it didn't seem as though the audience was that excited by it. Does this matter? Will people be campaigning on the doorstep with this.
www.disillusionedandbored.blogspot.com
Although I was never really 'anti-gay', I never really knew many gay people. As a Tory who was always 'lukewarm' about gay rights (thought it was a non-issue which obsessed the left), was genuinely voiciferous in my opposition to lowering the age of consent, and always thought that gay people should just shut-up and stop 'banging-on' about how aweful their life was, it was a real eye-opener to actually meet and become mates with a few gay people, who understood my position, but patiently showed me the reality of their life and the issues they had to cope with.
Over the years I have completely changed my views about gay issues. I now see it from the other perspective - that homosexuality is just as normal as your hair colour or height, and not something for which people should be disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Therefore I too welcome David Cameron's approach, and feel really stupid about all the silly things I used to believe about gay people.
For what it is worth, as much as it is a liberating experience for gay people, it is actually quite liberating for people like me, who were once slightly homophobic!
Shame that the camera panned to an audience member shaking her head at that point.
Interesting; however don't you think it might be a good idea to attract the mainstream voters rather than pandering to minorities? I mean what percentage of the vote are gays & lesbians in reality?
Not just in favour of gay partnerships which have been persecuted throughout history. It's a speech in support of security for children. Children suffer too much from being in a divided family (except in extreme circumstances of violence or abuse). Labour couldn't give a fig about it. This is the hard end of 'hug a hoodie'. Give them secure homes and less will turn against the world that abandoned them.
Cameron has a gift for knowing what really matters. The first part of leadership is setting priorities. Cameron knows how to do that.
anonymous @ 3:59 PM ...
How right and proper that you espouse your homophobic bullsh*t from behind the cloak of anonimity.
Stay in the shadows where you belong.
Rather movingly expressed, I thought, by both Dave and you, Iain.
And the term 'Civil Partnership'seems to have a statist ring about it and to me doesn't reflect the personal relationship and commitment implied by the word marriage. For me marriage, as a word, works fine for hetero relationships but doesn't seem quite the right word for gays'. I was wondering if anybody could come up with an apt term.
I thought of 'troth' but it doesn't resonate with my ear. Perhaps somebody with a good knowledge of Old English could suggest something.
MC,
Homosceptic grassroots are not exclusive to Tories. I once saw a council election count where two Tories standing in one unwinnable ward were a gay couple. When their result was read out vile abuse was heaped upon them from the Labour ranks.
The role of leadership in relation to this issue is to make it clear that whilst one may not be able to change those attitudes by force, one can make it clear they are unnacceptable.
so why did "Dave" vote for the restoration of clause 28 only 3 years ago?
To anonymous at 3:59 - Why is it "a kick in the teeth to married couples."?
Just a shame he didn't vote for gay adoption. As Shakespeare wrote, you can smile and smile and be a villain.
Iain, I see your point but you and yours do not need to be legitimised by anybody!
On balance a mature statement, which expels prejudical views that used to creep around the Tory basement.
The Tory party is in danger of becoming an inclusive party than a largely exclusive white egotist staight male party with out of date social views.
I am not Gay, never have been and probably never will be. Whilst not avocating being gay, I have no hang ups about anybody else being gay. In my 55 years on this earth I have known several several gay people and have had no problems regarding some of them as friends. I prefer to live and let live and do not despise people for their sexual preferences. I do not believe, as some people seem to do do, that there is a plot to undermine society by Gays.
I do believe that there are some evil bastards out there in society, some of them gay, lots of them hetrosexual, who don't give a toss our society and way of life, ie criminals and terrorists. I as a relatively law abiding, fairly tolerant, not perfect individual, I worry more about this lot, than I do about people's sexual leanings.
I suggest that any reasonable people in the Tory Party who are upset by Cameron's comments on families, search their souls and get a life.
"it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man."
yes, it was good to hear him (as much I dislike him) to say it....now there's just the need to convince Ed Leigh and Baroness O'Cathain not to try to wreck every bills about equal rights for gay people
I feel exactly as you do Iain, when he said that I felt vindicated as a modern progressive liberal type of Tory.(And when I saw some of the oldies in the audience pull faces and refuse to applaud, I felt even better!)
It's so important that the Party clearly break from that bad chapter of its past and embrace Modern Britain. There's no place in the mainstream for a party which refuses to embrace any one section of our community over other. Still, it was brave to say it so plainly at the conference, knowing it wouldn't go down well with some of the old farts - I'm surprised he had the balls actually. Pretty happy he did though.
I was discussing this last night with a gay friend and I don`t see anything remotely anti family about legitimising homosexuals. What is anti family is the tax dispensation the benefits trap and so on.
I `m not sure another raft of busy busybodying EU legislationis needed and I don`t see the point of gay marriage. I sometimes feel somewhat bored with the gaying of the media but I would support a same sex couples right to adopt and tolerance of all alternative lifestyles .
I `m coming to the view that PC direction towards tolerance may be counter productive .There is a quite astonishing rise of homophobia among the young males near us .
I have no problem with the fact that some of my views may not be entirely amenable to gay people but, all in all, well worth saying well done DC
Anonymous 4:17! Spot on. We need a new crack down on absent irresponsible fathers.
Anonymous 4:17! Spot on. We need a new crack down on absent irresponsible fathers.
"I do hope Cameron's words get media coverage, and not just in the Pink News."
No doubt Pink News will like it...they're also probably one of the few people on earth who like Maude...
Cameron said what he wants to do for us, BUT it is opportune to tell him what we want for us.
Taxes are obnoxious at the level they currently are so DAVE it is now going to be the case that we grassroot tories are going to ask you what we want or else you wont get our vote.AND IN REALITY DESPITE THE SPIN TODAY YOU DO NEED CONSERVATIVE SUPPORT TO WIN, RATHER THAN BE LANGUISHING 1% IN THE LEAD.
Went for a sniff around the gay interest news sites, and Dave gets monstered here. This appears to have been written before today's speech though.
Well Iain you certainly sell yourself cheap. For a few condescending words you accept all the other crap that Dave shovels down your gullet. For the NHS - a failing institution if ever there was - it's a promise of no change. Congratulations to Labour for its educational "reforms" (ever tried to recruit one of the products of our magnificent "education" system?) Let's repatriate the human rights confidence trick by repealing the existing act, rebadging it with "British" and enacting it all over again. Let's increase the minimum wage (and stop a few more people being employed). I could go on but why should I relay Dave's verbal musak. You and your fellow "Conservatives" are in a dream. It's not a very happy dream and not one which, when you wake up, will get you elected. I predict a modest "bounce" in the polls for Dave and then back to the flatlining we've got used to.
about bloody time. it was great hearing Cameron saying this. That guy is certainly moving on, and leaving the nastier homophobic elements behind.
Iain you cant possibly still feel marginalised in the 2006 British political village.
You know as well as I do there are more gays and lesbians in British politics than in any other part of British sociaty. So many in parliament its like playing spot the genuinely hetro man at conference.
archduke
Congratulations on joining the Conservative Party. Dont like to say I told you so, but I did tell you so.
Hope you have not wasted your 15 quid, and also hope I was at least a little bit responsible for the conversion.
Very happy that Dave has made his peace with all GLBT's. Hopefully most of the rest of the Party will follow - and the rest can piss off. Married couples, gay civil partnerships, single mothers - great tolerance to one and all say I.
But can I just put in my two penneth for my own group - the one remaining group that seems still to lurk in the shadows, that gets the shitty end of the stick, that nobody seems to acknowledge. Because there's a hell a lot of us who live in loving, long term relationships with a partner of the opposite sex, but who don't happen to be married.
I don't need lessons in commitment. I live with somebody who I love dearly - but who has been married and hurt twice. So she doesn't want to do it again, thank you very much. But those of us who just "co-habit" still have a second class position.
So when you are thinking of tidying up the law to cover siblings who live together - don't lose sight of the bigger mass. I don't have any numbers, but would imagine there are far more co-habiting straight couples with nothing to celebrate, than there ever will be gay civil partnerships. Don't forget us. We vote too...
realist said...
I am not Gay, never have been and probably never will be. Whilst not avocating being gay, I have no hang ups about anybody else being gay... blah blah blah
Your gay aren`t you.
"You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it's not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we - together, the two of us, through thick and thin."
Until the divorce of course :-)
"Hope you have not wasted your 15 quid, and also hope I was at least a little bit responsible for the conversion."
after dithering about it for bloody ages (years even), it was Cameron who finally won me over. he's speaking in a reasonable tone, rather than the hysterical dumb nonsense of "24 hours to save the pawwwund!".
of course, there were many other factors , over many years, of which you garypowell were one.
should be interesting though - an Irish nationalist like me beng a member of the Tory party... shows how times have changed.
The reason it is a kick in the teeth for married couples is that this lifestyle is not equal in status to theirs. Cameron is a fool. These types will not vote for us, and I don't want them anyway. And most core tories will be appalled by Dave's failure to condemn this selfish lifestyle. It is clearly not natural, and disgusts more people than will admit it in this quasi PC dictatorship.
loving all you tories patting each other on the back. it was labour that introduced these measures. most of them were opposed by the tories. cameron voted for barely any of them.
how pathetic that cameron tries to get kudos by saying how pleased he is the tories backed civil partnerships. labour introduced them and anyone who thinks PM Hague or Howard would have done similar is a liar.
Anon:
'The reason it is a kick in the teeth for married couples is that this lifestyle is not equal in status to theirs. Cameron is a fool. These types will not vote for us, and I don't want them anyway. And most core tories will be appalled by Dave's failure to condemn this selfish lifestyle. It is clearly not natural, and disgusts more people than will admit it in this quasi PC dictatorship.'
Dear God, do people like you actually still exist in this country? Unfortunatly it's clear that they do. The sooner the Tory party dumps people like you the better and more appealing to the vast majority of the electorate it will become.
Cruellest comment on speech so far-"political flatulence"
There is a very pretty photo of you on Guido under Tory Totty...I think whoever took that photo is in love with you :-)
Iain, its been said many times before, but perhaps it may be worth saying again. My apologies to thos who think it unneccessary.
Old Labour, never mind new Labour, did all of this twenty or thirty years ago.
What Dave is saying may be new to an old Conservative party, but it certainly isn't new to the rest of the Country that adopted it ten years ago at the very least.
New ideas have never come from the Conservatives. They are a stopping party, brushed slightly with a few ideas (mainly outrageous) on tax or personal wealth.
Every big idea of the last Century came from Labour.Yet the Tories dominated that century.
Iain, it is obvious to me that you openly adore Thatcher and you are coming around to Dave's way of thinking.
Dave is at least 25 years out of date. Hague and co are beyond that but realise it.
Dave needs to be 25 years in front of Blair to win it for the Tories.
I see and I saw nothing to be inspired about during the Tory conference. I saw a man dragging dinosaurs out of the stone age, thats all.
Doom.
It is good to hear that most posters here do not believe, like Norman Tebbers, that childhood obesity is a direct result of the government policy of promoting buggery....
Norman no doubt would like to see marriage and childbirth outlawed..all those pesky heterosexuals giving birth to poofs should be locked up....
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1932&dmp=826
Why doesn't he put his vote where his mouth is? If he genuinely believed in equal gay rights he, and his Tory parliamentary colleagues, wouldn't have such an appalling record on it.
It was also interesting to note that as he talked on this subject, the camera cut to the audience where very few delegates were clapping. I don't think that they genuinely believed in the cause either.
No Tory Government would ever defend (and create) the rights of Gay people like Labour has.
Jonathan, how delightful of you to grace us with a comment on this blog. What a shame you don't allow people to comment on your own.Assuming, that is, you are who I think you are.
I thought it was great too, unlike the pair of blue rinsers sat next to us in conference hall when Cameeron said it:-)
I thought it was all the more significant that not only did he support civil parnerships, but took the massive step of equating them with marriage, co-incidentally one of the hottly debated isse at the Stonewall fringe meeting.
In view of the volatility of the debate on the right/church around gay marriage, I wonder if this could turn into a "clause 4" issue?
As someone who is unmarried, but have lived with my partner for almost a decade, we have two kids (or should that be bastards), I was rather confused by his remarks on marriage. Maybe my partner and I should split up, then she at least, as a newly single mum, will be allowed inside his big tent. I suppose its worth not getting married, and its allied legal privileges, to escape such patronage. A price well worth paying.
And to think all you gay Tories have Ken Livingstone to thank, if it hadn't been for Ken you'd all be back in the closet.
@anon:2:56 AM
"And most core tories will be appalled by Dave's failure to condemn this selfish lifestyle. It is clearly not natural, and disgusts more people than will admit it in this quasi PC dictatorship."
Haha - nice troll. Not exactly the role of the state to be condemning a private citizen's lifestyle now is it? What are you - some kind of evangelist-dictator?
Interesting that this subject still raises so much passion..
You didn't have anything to say on my point then Iain?
Incidentally, as you bring it up, my blog isn't targetted at the wider population like this one, it is targetted at our local constituents who are encouraged to take part in a wide variety of face-to-face debating events we put on.
It's the difference between a journalistic blog, and one that is a small part of a wider mechanism to improve a local community.
No blog is less valid than the next, they just have different purposes, and no individual blogger has the monopoly on defining what a blog should be.
If you want to be nasty about it though, go for it, it's your blog!
Best wishes
Croydonian said...
Went for a sniff around the gay interest news sites, and Dave gets monstered here. This appears to have been written before today's speech though.
9:46 PM
Interesting. I used to work at Gay.com. Their one man editorial team most certainly won't have been present at conference. I wonder if their anti Cameron angle has anything to do with the fact that Gay.com's UK boss is a [now ex] Labour councillor for Croydon
I note Gay.com never carried Pink News' reporting of Gordon Brown's failure to attend any of the 14 commons votes on gay legislation.
Every big idea of the last Century came from Labour.
Are you Stephen Byers?
When Labour was getting rid of section 28 and lowering the age of consent, ppinion polls on the issue were showing majorities against. I do not think this was down to homophobia but perhaps to a slight unease about the idea of homosexual equality. Bearing this in mind I can see why Iain would feel legitimised by this speech. Acceptance of homosexuality is not as widespread as some would like to think.
As for those mocking the blue rinse brigage, I think you need to appreciate that the "oldies" came from a generation with different values and can't be expected to jump into line just because you don't agree with them. Many of them fought in a war against a man who thought the best location for homosexuals was the gas chamber. This doesn't mean that their views shouldn't be challenged, just that they shouldn't be treated like extremists.
I agree with civil partnerships of same sex couples, even if I think they are perverted and abnormal.
I will agree with anything they wish as long as it does not give them, as a couple, equal statuts to a heterosexual couple.
Having the same status as a heterosexual couple, and having certain rights as a couple, are entirely different things.
I see nothing wrong in Camerons line.
anonymous 2.56: You took a peek out from under your rock, didn't like what you saw and clearly need to crawl back into the dark.
Or alternatively, you could try and understand that being gay is not a choice - it's like your hair colour!
So, if you are going to hate someone, hate them for something over which they have control and choose to do/be, and not over something over which they have no control or ability.
And before you say 'they choose to have gay sex', yes they do - but that's because they are gay! It is not fair to force someone to live in lonliness and unhappiess just because you live in the stone age and find the concept of gay people frightening.
Are you sure you are not gay and in denial! Your kind of reaction is very typical amongst those who are!
Does anybody know if Dave and /or George are Gay?
Fred: Why not ask?
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I see this more as a way Cameron can appeal to the mainstream, rather than to any particular minority group.
You appeal to the fringes, you become enfringed yourself. Cameron's team is intelligent enough to realize that there's a lot of quiet but solid mainstream support for civil partnerships, so it's pretty much a no-lose situation to come out about supporting it.
Who are the bluehairs going to vote for, when it comes right down to it? As long as Cameron doesn't make homosexuality and hoodie-wearing compulsory, he's got them all.
Now, somebody better-informed than me please explain how a civil partnership between two people of one sex differs legally from the city hall wedding of two people of different sexes? Are they given different names just because the country's not quite ready to call them all the same thing?
A civil partnership is not, I know, a private issue; it's a public issue. Standing in front of your fellow citizens and your civil authority and swearing your unity is a very, very different thing than cohabitating (gay or straight), and burying the issue is in no sense "respecting privacy." It's "burying civic identity."
Newmania, I don`t see the point of gay marriage
Neither did I, really, until about 20 years ago a gay friend of mine explained the hoops through which he and his partner had had to jump in order to put their financial and personal affairs on much the same terms as my wife and I had managed by spending 20 minutes at Camden Register Office. 'You don't know how simple life is for you, being straight,' he said, before going on to explain what he'd had to do when he went into hospital for an operation and they wanted to know his 'next of kin' in case anything unpleasant happened.
He also said that he felt pretty much disenfranchised at the time because, had he been straight, he'd have been an active member of his local Conservative Association. However, what with Clause 28, which was going through at the time, he couldn't bring himself even to vote Conservative and he hardly felt he'd be welcome in his local Association if he tried to join and they found about his personal life.
The essential point here is this. In a free and liberal society, people should (within the limits of the 'harm test' which John Stuart-Mills outlined in On Liberty ) be free to live their lifes free from prjudice and societal pressure which other seeks to apply.
Therefore, unless someone can prove that homosexuality is an intrinsic danger to wider society and the individual liberty of others, homosexuality should not be a reason for someone to be disadvantaged, discriminated against or isolated. As to the best of my knowledge, gay people are not more likely to commit crime because they are gay, I cannot see where the danger in homosexuality is!
It was only when I got to know a few gay blokes that I realised that (i) they are not a danger to society, (2) gay people do (or did) have real problems sorting out the legal side of thei relationships, and (3) if liberty for gay people was not fought for then my own liberty was at risk, that I changed my view. I was until this point quite 'homosceptic' - i.e. offering 'toleration' but not 'acceptence'! I wonder if this distinction between tolerance and acceptence is what Iain means when he says he has now feels 'legit'?
Yes there are excesses in gay-culture. But I don't like hetrosxual sexual excesses either! Not every gay man is out looking for sex in public toilets every night. Many enjoy long-term stable relationships and a great assessts to society (especially with their helpful interior design advice).
As a straight married man who has kids and pays taxes, I feel there are much greater things which undermine marriage than allowing gay people the same rights as we enjoy - removing the married persons tax allowance for example!
So, live and let live!
NOT AS SURE"their financial and personal affairs on much the same terms as my wife and I had managed by spending 20 minutes at Camden Register Office"
That is precisley the advantage families enjoyed on behalf of their children which almost everyone has ignored.That is precisley what I don`t see the point of and unless your friends broke the long standing duck for gay marriage births ( which seems unlikely ). I don`t get it.
Thanks MayorWatch, I appreciate the clarification. As I understand it, the Methodist Church also has a Unification ceremony which suits the occasion, should a couple decide that their union requires church blessing.
I don't think anyone is in favour of making church blessing compulsory, but I also think that a lot of people are in favour of making it an option if the church is okay with it. My own diocese is involved in this fight at the moment, and I'd love to be able to celebrate the wedding of our minister with his partner, but the church prevents me. I'm hardline enough to acknowledge a church marriage, but not a city hall one; some of my straight friends aren't too thrilled with this, being married by Justices of the Peace, but oh well. They're used to me.
France had/has(?) a very civilized system: you had to marry at city hall and again at church. This would satisfy simply everyone, and it's an option that should be open to everyone who is of age and in love.
Post a Comment