Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Matthew Todd

GET UPDATES FROM Matthew Todd
 

True Colours? A U-Turn on Marriage Equality Could Set the Tories Back by Years

Posted: 10/05/2012 00:00

No one will be surprised that the Queen's Speech did not contain a commitment to equal marriage. Minister Gerald Howarth MP and others last week suggested that the government's plans for opening civil marriage to same sex couples caused the meltdown. He said that lifelong supporters had written to him asking why it is being proceeded with and Nadine Dorries MP said that she'd not met a gay couple who wanted gay marriage. (Invite: Nadine, come and see us! [No, don't]).

Clearly, the collapse in support has nothing to do with who does or doesn't get married. Never has the phrase 'It's the economy, stupid' been more apt. Along with it's the NHS, stupid. And it's the being in the pocket of big business, stupid, and It's the not taxing the rich fairly stupid, and, just 'Stupid!' and so on (you get the picture).

What is more significant about this episode though is that it does give some indication of what grassroots Tories really think. When David Cameron was the first Tory leader to appear on the cover of Attitude in 2010, he told us that if he fell under a bus (steady Nadine, we're talking metaphorically) the party would continue to be pro equality. It seems we may be about to find out. If the party reneged on its commitment to marriage equality it would be no surprise to many. Indeed many gay people expect it. They haven't forgotten that Thatcher used us as a stick to beat the opposition with, painting the Labour party as wanting to turn children gay, and then bringing in the hated Section 28 which stated gay relationships were 'pretend family relationships'. Some gay people even then supported the Tories, but they were in the minority. For me and hundreds of thousands like me, voting for them would have felt like being black and voting for the BNP.

Those like me have watched the parties evolution with nervous optimism, surprised, sometimes cynical as Theresa May re-evaluated her position and even this last week as Ian Duncan Smith - the parties most high level Catholic - made a very welcome commitment to marriage equality.

It's true as, Dorries says, that not all gay people are supportive of gay marriage. With their oodles of cash they can't find anything better to spend it on, the masturbating-by-candle-light brigade (or as we call them 'The Church'), are running a multimedia campaign suggesting that allowing two people to get married will open the portals of hell. They've successfully confused the issue, making even many gay people think it's about religious ceremonies when the proposals are in fact just about civil marriage.

But there are more gay people who want marriage than not (note to Nadine: stop just talking to your Tory mates) and much more significantly, a whole generation of straight people have grown up not hearing this kind of prejudice from the Tories so vocally. There is a shift in this country, which Howarth, Dorries and their ilk do not understand. Young people are genuinely baffled by what they are hearing recently from the Church and the Tory extremists. Those that are urging Cameron to lurch to the right have failed to understand that Tony Blair's greatest achievement was to allow this country to be more at ease with itself. Instead of being dominated by the elderly Bible thumping Tories, the kind who screamed about buggery in the House of Lords until they were blue in the face, we have become younger in spirit, more relaxed, and crucially not tolerant - but open to ourselves. Reasonable people realised an unequal age of consent was unfair and that banning gay people from the armed forces was just plain stupid. When Elton and David marked the entrance of civil partnerships in 2005, the nation didn't 'tolerate' it, it gaily cheered them on.

Young gay kids have grown up coming to naturally expect equality in law - outrageous, I know - whilst young straight people do not understand why you would discriminate against Alan Carr, Christian and Syeed and Jessie J just because of who they want to marry. It is not like the old days when there was no Twitter, or Facebook, and that gay kid at your school didn't come out so you couldn't see whom the Mail was battering on a daily basis. Now everyone works with, is friends with and/or is related to people who are open about their sexuality. You no longer get the cheer on Question Time as you did in 1988 when you suggest hanging and flogging the gays, you get the cheer when you attack inequality. That's why it is so important that it's not just gay people who express their views on the government marriage consultation linked here (it's easy, takes five minutes). They are also invited to share their views via the newly formed website and YouTube channel Out4marriage.org. Straight people - the families, friends and work mates need to vocally show their support too, in fact anyone who thinks that people should be able to marry who they choose, unfettered from the archaic bullying views of a hypocritical bunch of paedophile shielding sex obsessive's (or 'The Catholic Church' as we like to call them).

In these truly troubled times, those who are wasting so much energy on a non-issue, which should slip quietly into legislation without a fuss from anyone concerned with their own lives, are truly playing with fire. The Tory right don't quite get that they are at the last chance saloon. It's this sort of old fashioned, small-minded bigotry that meant Duncan-Smith and Howard's shadow cabinet were unelectable. They need to make a choice once and for all about whether they want to remain so for another 20 years. If Howarth and Dorries get their way and the government ditches marriage equality, no matter how they may bleat the 'we're not homophobic, we have gay friends' line, they will not only be confirming the worst fears of gay people, they'll also reveal to a whole new generation just how dark and divisive the natural instincts of Conservatism really are.

 

Follow Matthew Todd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
No one will be surprised that the Queen's Speech did not contain a commitment to equal marriage. Minister Gerald Howarth MP and others last week suggested that the government's plans for opening civil...
No one will be surprised that the Queen's Speech did not contain a commitment to equal marriage. Minister Gerald Howarth MP and others last week suggested that the government's plans for opening civil...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edgar H
Keep the Press free!
12:46 AM on 05/14/2012
Your insulting comment concerning the Church; 'the masturbating-by-candle-light brigade (or as we call them 'The Church')' does you no real credit. It's easy to be insulting towards others, when should they make unkindly remarks against the gay or lesbian community, you would be outraged and denounce them as homophobic.

If you wish to make cheap jibes, then find the right venue!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark B Robertson
11:39 AM on 05/13/2012
Howarth & Dorries are the angels of hatred. The Tories lost bigtime on teh council elections, not because rightwing Tories left the party but because floating voters on left of the party chose to move back to the Labour party. These were the people who decided whether the Tory party won or lost, and they LOST them, and come the next general election, they will lose them again if they do not relaise which side their bread is buttered upon. Pandering to the rightwing foaming at the mouth hang 'em, flog 'em brigade of crazy bigots will be a very easy way to create Prime Minister Milliband.
Is that what they want?
09:27 PM on 05/10/2012
Tories will not lose seats because of this issue. That is Cameron's motivation - nothing else.

You say, ''The Tory right don't quite get that they are at the last chance saloon.'' That is wrong.

Cameron prefers to lose potential votes of supporters of gay marriage than lose the votes of solid Tory support that is against it. Cameron is too weak to take a liberal stand now. So, he will wait it out.

You write as if you expect him to act on principle. Why? You know he does not.
05:49 PM on 05/10/2012
Sexual desire has a purpose, that purpose is to reproduce, so any sex act that does not lead to atleast a chance of reproduction is a perversion. How can you get through to people who deny this fact.
01:12 PM on 05/12/2012
Ah yes, "Every sperm is sacred" c. Monty Python.
01:41 PM on 05/12/2012
Another quote from Monty Python is this :
" We will fight for your RIGHT to have children brother "
" Whats the point ? "
" What ? "
" Whats the point in fighting for his right to give birth when he will never be able to give birth ? , you dont have a womb ! "
" Don't you oppress me ! "
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark B Robertson
11:47 AM on 05/13/2012
There is no purpose to sexual desire other than it is fun, the payoff in an evolutionary sense is when it occurs between two different genders is successful reproduction. Based on your peculiar argumentation, then any man who uses a condom is a pervert, childless couples are perverts, anyone who masturbates is a pervert. Logical but quite insane.
I think you need to practice the process of rational thinking, so far you have failed dramatically.
12:42 PM on 05/13/2012
What part of " atleast a chance of reproduction " do you not understand ????... Masturbation is perverted ONLY is the masturbater is thinking of anything other than the opposite sex, using a condom is perverted ONLY if the condom is being used by a man on a man, you fail to see the line " atleast a chance ".. meaning straight sex between a man and woman.
This comment has been removed.
photo
Alec Falconer
God save our queen.
03:03 PM on 05/10/2012
I give up my comments seem to get removed strangely my latest quote being on freedom of speech and not a swear word in sight.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
honeynutcornflakes
your micro-bio is empty
12:06 PM on 05/10/2012
I'm heterosexual and I recently wrote a letter to the PM in support of Lords Reform and Gay Marriage urging him to do all he can to push these two agendas through to legislation.

Anti-gay marriage people should think about this:

If you truly believe that the best families consist of a man and a woman who are happy together, then best thing to do would be to make it easier for gay people to come to terms with who they are as soon as they can as one way of reducing the number of failed marriages. Divorce is rife and when a homosexual gets married, has kids and then gets a divorce because they later realise they are gay, this idea of family becomes fractured. Although I personally believe that children can be properly cared for and free to develop in all sorts of families, and sexuality of the parents has nothing to do with this, from YOUR point of view, surely this must stick in your minds, as a way of increasing the ratio of "families with loving parents who also love each other"?
12:22 PM on 05/10/2012
Very well put.
05:55 PM on 05/10/2012
Children should not be raised by homosexual parents... imagine when the children enters pubity and starts having sexual feelings towards the opposite sex, they will feel abnormal for being normal. Pandering to perverts is noway to get votes and before you say homosexuality is not a perversion think of this :
Sexual desire has a purpose, that purpose is to reproduce, any sex act that does not lead to atleast a chance of reproduction is therefore a perversion. People continue to deny this fact. Why ???
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
honeynutcornflakes
your micro-bio is empty
06:48 PM on 05/10/2012
you can have your opinion. but the question still stands. in your opinion, would it not be better, for the stablity of the family (i.e. one where both parents love each other), to avoid becoming composed of one or more gay parent? meaning that in the long run, families are only started by heterosexual partners. OR do you believe that homosexuals are just as able to live long, loving, cherishing, sexual partnerships with a member of the opposite sex?

furthermore, i guess, by your logic, fellatio is out of the question? those sperm sure aint going anywhere near fertilisation that is for sure...
11:13 AM on 05/10/2012
Dude, party's (singular possessive) or parties' (plural possessive). Learn to use apostrophes please!

"Ian Duncan Smith - the parties most high level Catholic..." means something very different to "the party's most high level Catholic" and "The parties' most high level Catholic"!

I'd expect the HP to at least do some proofreading!
This comment has been removed.