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

  • News Burnham remains most popular frontbencher in latest Shadow Cabinet rankings

    Burnham remains most popular frontbencher in latest Shadow Cabinet rankings

    It’s been a while since we’ve done the shadow cabinet rankings, so we thought with the minor reshuffle that happened following Jim Murphy’s resignation – and as some, including Mark Ferguson, are calling for Miliband to use his front bench team more – we’d see what LabourList readers thought of each member of the shadow cabinet. Before we take a look at the results, here’s a quick explanation of how we’ve figured out each shadow cabinet members percentage rating. We asked […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Our defeat last night shows Labour’s forgetting the politics of inclusion and compromise

    Our defeat last night shows Labour’s forgetting the politics of inclusion and compromise

    There was a moment when we could have won Rochester and Strood. Talking on doorsteps there a month back, the mood seemed to be a plague on all your houses. People weren’t sure of UKIP, lots of people saying they were divisive and opportunistic. Mark Reckless was described to me as a vain man who lives up to his name. No-one seemed to see much evidence of the Conservatives’ economic ‘recovery’. Labour wasn’t trusted. But we could have stood above […]

    Read more →
  • Featured UKIP’s Reckless win is a disaster for Cameron – but it was a painful night for Labour too

    UKIP’s Reckless win is a disaster for Cameron – but it was a painful night for Labour too

    It was another long night waiting for the results to come in from Rochester and Strood, but when they did they confirmed what was already all but expected – UKIP had won and Mark Reckless had been re-elected to Parliament. Let’s focus first on the fundamentals from the Rochester and Strood result. David Cameron has lost another by-election. A second MP has defected from his party, joined UKIP, stood against Cameron’s party and roundly thrashed him. This seat was number 271 […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Emily Thornberry’s resignation – a “no cock ups” strategy or a wild over-reaction?

    Emily Thornberry’s resignation – a “no cock ups” strategy or a wild over-reaction?

    Emily Thornberry’s now infamous tweet from Rochester was clearly a fairly epic mistake – a real “What on earth were you thinking?” moment. Of course the likelihood is that Thornberry wasn’t thinking about how her tweet would be interpreted, the firestorm that would ensue or where, dramatically, the story would end – with Thornberry’s resignation from the Shadow Cabinet. The tweet appeared crass. It appeared to play into negative stereotypes about Labour MPs not understanding voters, their concerns and their lives. But […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Emily Thornberry resigns from the Shadow Cabinet

    Emily Thornberry resigns from the Shadow Cabinet

    UPDATE: Emily Thornberry has released the following statement: “Earlier today I sent a tweet which has caused offence to some people. That was never my intention and I have apologised. “However I will not let anything distract from Labour’s chance to win the coming General Election. “I have therefore tonight told Ed Miliband I will resign from the shadow cabinet.” Thornberry reportedly had a private dressing-down from Miliband earlier today. A source tells LabourList: “Ed and Emily had a second […]

    Read more →