David Cameron is on the right side of history on equal marriage

December 10, 2012 10:26 am

“I agree with David Cameron.”

It’s not a sentence that comes easily to Labour supporters, but in the coming months, on one particular issue, it’s one that I’m going to have to familiarise myself with.

David Cameron is right on Gay Marriage. Completely right. Unequivocally right.

Bringing equality to the institution of marriage is not only the morally right thing to do (and places Cameron on the right side of history on this issue), he’s also right that marriage in churches should be legal if the church itself wishes to conduct same-sex marriages. No-one should (or could) be forced to conduct a marriage they are against, but at the same time, religious same sex marriages should be allowed if some churches/religions are enlightened enough to conduct them. It’s a sensible policy all round, and also – pleasingly – is the right thing to do.

He deserves praise and cross party support for that, which I’m sure he’ll receive.

Of course it would be all too easy to make light of Cameron’s correctness on this score – to say that “even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day”. We could spend hours listing all of the mistakes he has made, and all of the odious, backwards and, yes, homophobic statements that some Tories have come out with. And that would be diverting, and point scoring and in some ways revealing.

But it would also be completely unfair.

Similarly, it would be easy too to argue that Cameron is taking such a stand on gay marriage because of potential electoral benefits. Indeed his key strategist (and sometime Chancellor) has made just that argument. Or we could argue that Cameron is picking a fight with his party to look more moderate, although surely there are dozens of issues that he could have chosen for such a task (and I remain unconvinced that taking such a stance on equal marriage will materially change the Tory vote at the next election).

Instead, this looks like something that Cameron sincerely wants to do. And something which he is making a brave and considered stand on.

More than that, it seems to be a conviction of his that it needs to be done. From a man who all too often seems to blow in the wind where conviction is concerned, this seems more solid and deeper rooted than we’ve come to expect from the Prime Minister. He is standing up to those who argue that some people have no right to take part in the institution of marriage because of their sexuality. And although his support for equal marriage builds on a decade of gay rights legislation from Labour, that should not diminish the power of what he is doing. There is nothing wrong with building on the achievements of others. All politicians have stood on the shoulders of giants at one point or another.

He is doing, unequivocally, the right thing.

That’s not something Labour people say very often about Tory politicians, never mind Tory Prime Ministers. But in this case it is unquestionably deserved.

Well done Prime Minister. On this issue, history will judge you favourably, and rightly so.

  • https://mikestallard.virtualgallery.com/ Mike Stallard

    Right on!
    Wow!
    Truth! Onwards and upwards, not backwards and sideways.
    That is the Labour Way!

  • http://twitter.com/Ceilidhann Kayleigh Anne

    Indeed he is on the right side of history here. I’m just disappointed that before he got there he’d already gathered this voting record:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_David_Cameron#Gay_rights

    I’d also like to say that I don’t think it “heroic” or “brave” when a Tory decides to stop being a homophobe. It’s not brave to be a decent human being. It’s just doing the right thing.

  • LembitOpiksLovechild

    “No-one should (or could) be forced to conduct a marriage they are against”

    A typically mendacious statement to try and push aside people’s sincerely held obections. Why not, your party and readers of this site are very keen to ensure the law punishes people who do not provide equality of service to gay people in other spheres of life. So should the same apply to bed and breakfast providers, adoption agencies or other providers of services who object on ethical or moral grounds? Thought not.

    Either you permit objections to providing service on moral and ethical grounds or not at all. You can’t have a half way house. After all, marrriage in curch is the same as any other service provided. If this does go ahead how long until a church or vicar is challenged in the courts for refusing to provide gay marriage. How long before Stonewall starts actively searching for a vicar who refuses and then squeals about discrimination.?

  • AlanGiles

    There are times when you can almost feel sorry for Caameron. Here he is trying to push his party into the 21st century and here is one of his right wing MPs Bob Blackman looking wistfully back to the 1980s:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/antihomosexual-section-28-was-right-for-schools-says-tory-mp-8398942.html

  • PaulHalsall

    I am gay and want equal marriage.

    But damn these Tories who simply attack the poor. What we have is an effort at “pinkwashing” the Tory Party (just as Israel really is a great place for gays, but that does not justify its efforts to suppress Palestine.)

  • PaulHalsall

    Almost no gay person I know thinks that religious people should be required to do, within their religion, what they do not want to do.

    We want civil marriage equality, and the right for any church or synagogue to celebrate such marriages if they want. Liberal Jews, Reform Jews, Quakers, Unitarians, the Metropolitan Community Church all want to. The United Reform Church will probably agree to on a congregation by congregation basis (that s how they are organised).

    I think Anglican vicars who want to, should be able to also, but that is up to the Church of England.

    We do not want to be fascists about this.

    As it is CoE churches do NOT have to marry divorcees (a bit odd considering its history), and Catholic Churches do not have to marry, for example, Jews and Muslims (although CoE churches in Cyprus do provide this service to Israelis!).

    As Karl Popper once noted, often good enough is indeed good enough.

Latest

  • Featured The government are trying to tell you that you’re not squeezed. They’re wrong

    The government are trying to tell you that you’re not squeezed. They’re wrong

    Have you heard? You’re not squeezed anymore. That’s right! After four years of prices rising faster than wages, meaning you’re worse off each month than you were the month before, it’s all ok again and you can get back on with your lives. Rejoice! What’s that you say? You don’t feel any better off? That four years of declining living standards have left your monthly budget a monthly chore? You’re beholden to credit card companies, payday loan companies or even […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Talk of a breakaway “Workers’ Party” is dangerous and wrong

    Talk of a breakaway “Workers’ Party” is dangerous and wrong

    On Friday, for the second time in recent weeks, Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey said something really important and dangerous that ought to have caused a reaction across the entire labour movement and Labour Party. But virtually no one reacted. According to the Guardian Len “repeated his warning that his members may force a split from Labour and urge support for a new workers’ party if Miliband fails to set out a radical vision to inspire people before the next […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Jim Murphy has set out an ambitious (and Labour) vision for development

    Jim Murphy has set out an ambitious (and Labour) vision for development

    Since its earliest days Labour has been an internationalist party and proud of it, too. From Keir Hardy and Harold Wilson to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, those who shaped Labour’s vision in the 20th and early 21st Century regarded the fight against poverty overseas as a natural extension of the fight against poverty at home. If Labour wins in 2015, we look forward to our proud tradition continuing. But with the clear focus of the current leadership on the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Party democracy is important, so let’s fight for it

    Party democracy is important, so let’s fight for it

    Contrary to popular belief (and by popular belief, I mean the belief that prevails amongst the Shadow Cabinet and its apparatchiks) the Labour Party does not exist as a fan club for the Parliamentary faction. The Labour Party is an instrument through which ordinary people can shape their own lives and change the future of this country in a direction that is beneficial to our people. The recent decision by the Labour leadership to vote with the Coalition and implement […]

    Read more →
  • Comment What can Labour offer young people?

    What can Labour offer young people?

    Tony Blair proclaimed in 1997 that his three main priorities in government were ‘education, education, education.’ This has not translated to an increase in votes from young people.  Voter turnout between 1997 and 2005 amongst those aged 18-24 fell from an estimated 54.1% of this age range in 1997, down to 38.2% in 2005.  By contrast, voter turnout amongst those who are aged over 65 has never fallen below 70% since 1964.  As voters aged over 65 are more likely […]

    Read more →