ANGRY MOB

... to say it could have passed easily is perhaps a bit much. Who would have known at the time if Britain would end up like Spain or California? I'm not saying that a bill for same-sex marriage couldn't have passed, just that it would have been a gamble.

Putting that aside, I thought that it might be of interest to look at the MPs who opposed the bill being discussed http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-10-12&number=257&display=allvotes (the ones that voted no). There are a lot of familiar names on that list; David Cameron, George Osborne, Ken Clarke, Boris Johnson, Andrew Lansley, Oliver Letwin, Sir George Young, Alan Duncan & many more.

There was also a fair few who sought to undermine the bill by allowing siblings to be eligible for civil partnerships http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-11-09&number=314&display=allvotes&sort=party (the ones that voted aye). Oh look William Hague.

I want to endorse Alex's comments regarding the importance of the semantic difference (& the motives of a Mail reader in raising the point) as well as dwell on "do what they should have done in the first place". I wholeheartedly agree that in principle, there should be equality even in terms of semantics, and I would support such a move myself. However, I can also see the pragmatic reasons for the distinction.

Consider Proposition 8. Marriage was the issue, which helped build a coalition of opposition to equality. Even supposedly 'progressive' politicians like Barack Obama oppose same-sex marriage, yet claim to support civil unions.

Unfortunately, more often than not, it is best to avoid travelling at full speed so that you don't unduly rock the boat. Guaranteeing the rights that civil partnerships confer was a substantial step (if you can forgive the mixed metaphor). By opting for the 'soft-option' Labour ensured greatly improved gay-rights whilst ensuring as little opposition as possible.

Although the symbolism could be stronger, the substance of the Civil Partnership Act is strong. Perhaps if the government had gone for both substantive & symbolic equality we might not have made the gains we have today. It has helped to normalise same-sex relationships and bring broader cultural acceptance, which may well result in the eventual acceptance of same-sex marriages in the UK. Indeed, in several countries civil unions have been a stepping stone.

The original set of comments got taken down, which included stuff like "Without wishing to be offensive, he will regret this for all eternity". I thought that meant the Mail had realised what a bad idea it was. But no. It just meant there was room for a new set of hateful shite later in the day.