Comments on: Ben Summerskill: 'Lots of gay and lesbian people don't actually want marriage'

By: mike

mike — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:09:35 +0000

Calm down dear

By: Bishop Ioan

Bishop Ioan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:22:08 +0000

I am really tired of hearing all this crap towards people that wish to marry. If someone wishes not to marry, well, then don't! However why does the rest of the community or at least those who wish to marry suffer. Summerskill struck out big time.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: José M.

José M. — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:38:20 +0000

Well, I will try to answer Nikolas.

First, of course every organization decides their own agenda. But when the main LGTB advocacy group in such an important country as UK says "we don't have to fight for gay marriage because gay people don't want it" I feel free to criticize, even from a foreign country. Because that affects gay rights fight all over the world. One of the more frequent arguments homophobic people uses in Spain to attack gay marriage is that "look, in UK, a more developed country, gay people are happy without marriage", for example. Well, Spanish organizations decided a different agenda, you may say… Deal with it… Well, you're right, but at least let me say something: fight in favour of total marriage equality seems to be an increasing tendency. Sweden had also a perfect Partnership, and now they have approved marriage. The states of New England, California… In California, they already have good partnership laws. But they don't give up…

Second, to establish a difference in how heterosexual and homosexual people live their relationships, their love, their emotions, is a mistake. You say (more or less) that we don't have to imitate heterosexual institutions. But… partnership laws are not "imitations"? "The same legal rights and obligations but without the name". "The same thing but without the name". Perhaps in English is different, but in Spanish that would be a perfect definition for "imitation"…

Well, as I said in my previous comment, English is not my language so I'm really sorry if I have been rude in my comment, I apologize about it.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Always the bridesmaid

Always the bridesmaid — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:19:40 +0000

Poor Ben Summerskill – he shot himself in the foot with this article, didn't he?

I agree with Peter Tatchell that the marriage/civil partnership arrangement is not equality but a form of apartheid.

Why do some (usually homophobic) Christians think they own the copyright on marriage? They talk about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" when what they really mean is "protecting the straight monopoly on marriage". Christianity is only 2000 years old. Marriages, unions or whatever you want to call them, are as old as civilisation.

I applaud the liberal churches and synagogues that will marry gay people because they recognise that marriage is about love, commitment, faithfulness and devotion between two adults.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:09:54 +0000

I am in a Civil Partnership and have no desire to be part of the very historic but ultimately tainted insitution of marriage. Labour may not have gotten marriage equality onto the books due to potential scaremongering by Mail etc. They missed a trick – I don't think anyone would care too much now. The sky has not fallen. Civil partnerships in my view are superior in legal structure to marriage – without the centuries of precedent on divorce, requirement for a ceremony etc. It would have been great if they were open to straight couples. That would have been the equality we need in this country and would stand more chance of recognition aborad (incidentally, UK law has a great 'full faith' clause in recognising gay parterships made aboard (French PACS etc). LBGT community needs to be more radical and actively campaign for the opening of Civil Partnerships to straight couples. I just don't think this lack of 'marriage' is any longer a defining motivating struggle for LBGT community. Homophobia in schools is more important in winning hearts and minds. Any person who thinks the Tories will take this up as Ed Balls has done or allow Ambassadors to speak out on gay issues abroad is mad.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:09:31 +0000

The difficulty seems to be not so much that Stonewall aren't campaigning on all issues, but that they are the dominant charity in the field – 'hoovering up money' as someone said. Much as I like what they've done, my charity pounds are going elsewhere. The trans exclusion seems very unfortunate for a charity called 'Stonewall' – sure, it's a complex issue, but with 1.5 million in the kitty they are well-heeled enough to hire some experts.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Iris

Iris — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:50:17 +0000

Nikolas, just because I might want something that straight people have does NOT mean I'm aping them or want to be like them in any way. I'm sorry and I assure you that I'm not saying this to be rude, but I think it's just paranoia to think that. Maybe you have some particular idea of marriage or have seen bad examples, but I've seen many good ones and they are all different. I get the impression sometimes that some people assume 'being married' means you'd have to wear slippers, have 2.4 children and live in a boring life in suburbia A gay marriage would be what the two people involved made it – it would NOT have to follow some 'heterosexual norm'. The name doesn't matter as long as it's the same for everyone regardless of sexuality or skin colour.

If you or others (straight and gay) choose not to marry for your own reasons, that's absolutely fine, but don't deny others that choice.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Mihangel apYrs

Mihangel apYrs — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:30:28 +0000

@Nikolas:
even if ew accept your thesis, we live in a straight world,where everything is engineered for them.

I would say we marriage, not to ape them, but to ensure that ALL the benefits and privileges that marriage brings are enjoyed by those LGBI people who want it. CP is barely recognise beyond our shores, marriage is an understandable legal construct everywhere, and, while not legally recognised in a gay context in some places, at least explains the relationship

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Nikolas

Nikolas — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:12:49 +0000

José argues: "We did not want a second class citizenship. We did not want "separate but equal". We just want "equal"."

The problem with this sort of thinking is that it assumes the way heterosexuals traditionally do things is necessarily "the best", and that therefore, if we don't achieve equality in everything, we're "second class". I think this really just endorses the conservative hetero view that if you want to be like them, then stop all this "gay" nonsense, fall in love with a member of the opposite sex, and then you can marry, settle down, raise kids and lead the hetero lifestyle that you so much envy and admire.

For those of us who don't regard heterosexual lifestyles as some sort of ideal, the "right to marry" is not something we can be expected regard as a general "gay rights" issue. Lobby for it yourself if you feel you must, but remember that Stonewall, like the other gay organisations, is just a private lobby group who are free to decide their own agenda. Summerskill makes it clear that they're focused on issues that they regard as being of real practical consequence. The debate between civil partnerships vs marriage vs no red tape at all, is more about symbolism and personal lifestyle preferences.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: José M.

José M. — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:24:35 +0000

I'm writing from Spain, so my English is intermediate. I apologise about it. But I have to say that is really surprising to hear these kind of opinions coming from a LGTB activist. Perhaps many gays don't want to marry, but many others want! And even if I don't want to marry, I want to have the chance to do it in the future… We are talking about equality!!
Here in Spain we won the battle of the marriage because LGTB groups were (at least in that point) united and clear: We did not want a second class citizenship. We did not want "separate but equal". We just want "equal".
It is a big mistake for us that a LGTB group say "marriage is not important because many gays don't want to marry". I can't believe it!
My God, you are lucky, you don't have the catholic church as a terrible ennemy as we have in Spain. Why then you have this position?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:09:21 +0000

It's wonderful to see so many here strongly advocating equal marriage. When Stonewall were lobbying against it they argued no one wanted it, and those of us who did (and do, being aware of all the arguments made elsewhere, and believing in equality) felt rather isolated. But please don't be misled by Summerskill's stupid justification; his reason was and is because the government, which pays almost all their bills (if you look at their accounts), demanded backing for their openly stated policy of refusing us marriage, on religious grounds. Just as now Summerskill dances to their tune when he claims L&G people are not harrassed, to back the government's refusal to provide protection against harassment inthe Equality bill. MPs questioned him incredulously when he appeared before the bill committee.

What I would dearly love to know is how the groups' founder, Sir Ian Mckellen, who is strongly for equal marriage, reconciles his beliefs with the way Stonewall campaigns.

Can we remember that the continued UK ban on equal marriage (which was enacted when Canada, Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium all had already adopted equal marriage) has had dire consequences that make Summerskill's silly excuse look very sick. There is now a public register specifically of lesbian and gay couples, because they are not mixed in with marriages, which is completely against human rights law, which says that, because of how it was misused in the 1930s and 40s, data on sexuality must not be stored. It's a terrible precedent.

The Gender Recognition Act would have been much simpler, and far more suitable to purpose, it there had been equal marriage in which the sex of partners was irrelevant, but trans people were given no say in the consultations on the Civil Partnerships bill, despite the two going through parliament side by side.

But Summerskill is not entirely wrong. L&G issues are often very different from trans ones, and most LGBT groups are simply L&G groups who have added letters and nothing more, which can actually be very harmful. Many who ignore that, and just want Stonewall to do the same, are trans people who were lesbian or gay previously and still feel part of those communities, and ignore the fact that many others were not. Some go so far as maintain that heterosexual couples that inlcude someone with a history of transsexuaity are merely deluded lesbians or gays who should embrace the L&G movement. But identity doesn't work like that.

However, Stoewall takes their exlcusion of trans concerns far too far. Their hugely profitable equality employers scheme, for example, in which participants claim to be all so respectful of equaity, looks very sick when one realises the equality excludes ethnicty, age and disablity, and trans people, even when they are often taken as being lesbian or gay. The same goes for their current, flagship, school anti-bullying campaign; how can they reasonably ignore the bullying of trans children, when it is clearly always more intense, and earlier, that that of L&G children, and when the trans children are usally being mistaken for lesbians or gays? Yet Stonewall rigourously ignore that issue. Then, of course, lest we forget, there is the transphobia in the G&L community which Stonewll came close to actually celebrating when Bindell was up for their journalism prize last year.

It is incompatible with being a human rights organisation, or an equality campaign, to actively shaft smaller and more vulnerable minorities. There should at least be some awareness.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:31:07 +0000

Well said, Robert. If Stonewall doesn't support same-sex marriage then we need a serious organisation to lobby for it. Perhaps a new organisation needs to be set up.

Do the Lib Dems support same-sex marriage? I know the Greens do. I wonder if it will be an issue raised by any speakers at the political rally tomorrw in Trafalgar Square.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:54:29 +0000

To Tony and others…Summerskill is in denial when it comes to marriage equality. He can't even think outside the box which is all UK centric. He has no idea the problems British civil partnered couples would come up against once they leave the UK for work-related reasons or anything else where marriage equality is the law in seven countries and several states in America. Civil Partnerships are NOT viewed as marriages by any of them and there is no universal civil partnership law across the globe either. That's not going to happen. He and others like him are deluding themselves if they think they are equal. Who cares if people view them as marriages, means absolutely nothing and goes to show how superficial Summerskill is. Yes, true…some gay people don't want to marry just as there are straights of the same opinion, but what about those who do? Why isn't he fighting for their rights if he really believes in full equality? Apparently he doesn't? The fact that there are straights who choose not to marry doesn't bar them from doing so if they so choose. We as gay people don't have that option and straights who choose not to marry are also barred from forming a partnership. Where's the equality in that, Summerskill? Make NO MISTAKE, civil partnerships will NEVER be the universal standard let alone recognised as equal to civil marriage. As more western countries offer full marriage abandoning civil unions and other partnerships, its going to be increasingly difficult for the UK to resist or reject marriage equality and Stonewall should get its act together, NOW.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Revd. Sr. M. Renate

Revd. Sr. M. Renate — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:14:30 +0000

I think Ben has forgotten the expression, " Standing on the shoulders of giants wearing hig heels and lipstick." Stonewall got where it is today thanks to those brave trans women who fought alongside their Gay, Lesbian and Bi-Sexual brothers and sisters. Those of us who have a trans history, also have a sexuality. So Stonewall would be happy to fight our GLB corner, but not our Trans. We are a complete package Ben, its all or nothing.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:53:09 +0000

I am seriously shocked by the people on here who say that because they don't want to get married they will not support married gay couples' pleas to have their marriages legally recognised. Surely the basic principle of equality comes into play here.

There are gay people being discriminated against and that is a bad thing! There are gay married people whose marriage has no legal standing and who do not want a civil partnership. In the eyes of the law these marriages mean NOTHING. All of those key issues like next of kin rights, inheritance tax etc are very real to these people.

But over all of these issues is the simple message that is being sent out to the world that gay people are second class citizens who can't have proper marriage and can only have a second rate copy. If we put out that message then why would anyone give us anything other than second rate when it comes to other services? Gay and lesbian people often get second class service from the NHS, for example, and the message that doing this is OK is being loudly reinforced by civil partnerships and the people who settle for them.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: RobN

RobN — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:52:06 +0000

I have always considered Stonewall to be a hopeless mouthpiece more interested in promoting their own existence than actually helping the LGBT sector. (Desperately trying to find an alternative word to 'community' – what community)

Having had a number of dealings in the past with them, they have generally proved to be at best ineffective, and at worst, done absolutely fuck all. When a gay rights group actually attempts to 'tone-down' a major factor in LGBT equality to appease the masses of blue-rinse middle England, then it's time for them to go.

Tossers like Summerskill certainly don't represent mine, or many other gay people in Britain, and I think it's about time that opinion was strongly voiced so they stop getting the self-aggrandising publicity they so desperately seek.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Lezabella

Lezabella — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:35:11 +0000

The Watcher-

There's no such thing as a 'GayMafia'. There are secret societies and organisations all over thw world, like the Freemasons, Skull and Bones Society, The Bilderberg Group etc, etc but there is NO 'GayMafia'. I know absoloutely no evidence of this. And I'm not going to look on a site which sounds like a Christian Fundamentalist site either.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: David

David — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:14:50 +0000

I cannot seriously believe that Summerskill used the argument that because some gay people don't want to get married, he should therefore not campaign for same-sex marriage!

Understand this Mr. Summerskill, Stonewall is supposed to exist to campaign for full equality under the law. This has clearly not been achieved as long as gay people still have to put up with second-rate civil partnerships instead of full marriage.

Some gay people might not want to get married, but then again nobody's forcing them to. Don't deny access to marriage to those of us that do want it.

I'm a gay man and I want to be married, not 'civil partnered'.

Unfortunately I think some gay people still live in an 80s timewarp and see same-sex marriage as 'giving in' to heterosexual traditions. Perhaps Mr. Summerskill needs to be replaced by someone who represents today's generation?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Nikolas

Nikolas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:53:21 +0000

Christina urges: "While you're at it why not regard gay rights as a "non-issue" as well? It is the same thing after all."

Sheesh, and people (falsely) accuse Stonewall of claiming to speak for "all gays"! As far as I'm concerned, gay marriage is only an issue for those gays who want to model their relationships on traditional heterosexual ideals. Bully for them, but there are plenty of homosexual people who roll their eyes in disdain at the very idea of getting married. You can hardly expect these people to regard gay marriage as an important "rights" issue. There's no reason why we shouldn't accept that there are diverse attitudes amongst the gay population as to what constitutes things worth lobbying for. In my opinion the push for gay marriage represents a conservative side of gay politics that I feel no obligation to identify with.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:30:58 +0000

Oh and I should say that Stonewall's policy has recently changed on the gay blood ban, finally coming out against it. Although, it has to be said, after groups like the NUS did all the work. Stonewall want the credit once the hard graft has been done.

(Report comment to the moderator)