Saturday, March 24, 2012

Quite Possibly Yes

I did ask readers not to try and manipulate the poll on the sidebar but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. That said the poll has had, as I write, 107 votes of which 56% are against Cllr Driver's motion and 45% are in favour. This was, until, earlier today 82% against and 14% in favour but there's been a sudden rush of votes and one or several people have been very keen to cover their trails with 37 visits using www.hidemyass.com which is a proxy website used to try and conceal an individual's identity and can be used to circumvent the poll's single vote safeguards, by concealing the unique IP address of the voter.

If this discussion tells us anything, then perhaps it is simply that a debate over the principle of gay marriage, which, I firmly believe has absolutely no place as local council business, is being dragged into the chamber, simply because it can.

I entered local politics to try and make a small difference to my community, not to indulge the personal LBGT interests and campaigns of two of our independent councillors. Thanks to a Faustian bargain in December with Cllr Worrow and Cllr Cohen, we have now had just over 100 days of a Labour council and  Clive Hart. Today,  I'm watching the progress the council had made, steadily unraveling, either through political dithering of the finest kind or the complete absence of anything even remotely recognisable as leadership.

Are we really going to have to face another three years of this soap-opera politics? The answer is quite possibly "Yes" so there will, I'm sure, be plenty to write about.

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

latest news Stonewall may also be sending a speaker to Thanet. Talks underway about public meeting in favour of equal marriage in week before Council meeting possibly sponsored by Labour Party

Tim Clark said...

Two thoughts
1 presumably with your background you can prove that the sudden surge of votes emanate from the same source
2 this is all an echo of the 80s, with Militant councillors diverting attention from their real agenda by debating trivialities.
The ones to be concerned are our Labour councillors.
God help Thanet if we have to put up with this for the next few years.

Anonymous said...

Surely KCC have responsibility for civil marriages and the various religons are in charge of church weddings,so nothing TDC can say or do will be of any use to the homosexual community in any way,shape or form.
Additionally if an elected councillor chooses to change political colour they should resign and a bye-election should be called as they no longer have the mandate of the voters to represent them in council.

Tony Beachcomber said...

One thing that really concerns me about this issue is that it is being forced onto institutions and anyone who expresses concerns over the issue are instantly labelled as homophobic or a bigot. I think people are entitled to their opinions whether we like it or not.
The pro campaign is now in danger of running into a brick wall because most people in general do not care either way, which in reality is good for the pro campaign. However the pro campaign does seem to demand 100% allegiance and support by aggressive campaigning by labeling people who are not 100% supportive . I think forcing the issue could be their downfall and as more people will get fed up with it as most people do have far more important issues to contend with.

Tim Clark said...

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with equal rights for the LGBT community but I do object to them continually highjacking my language. When I was young "gay" was an innocuous little word indicating a degree of happiness; now it only has one meaning, foisted upon it by a small group of people in California. Now they want to steal "wedding" and "marriage" - why?
No matter how hard they try even the Campaigner has to concede that there is one fundamental difference between the two types of arrangement - children. LGBT relationships can never produce them without involving a third party outside the union. Yes, go ahead John and Ian, quote Elton John, but their son did not come about as a result of what he and David did in bed and even you can surely see that this makes the relationship different from a heterosexual one. Or maybe you don't want to see.
And before you label me as bigoted or homophobic you ought to step back and ask yourself what you know about me personally. You know nothing about my relationship status so be very wary of labelling me or you run the risk of looking even sillier to the wider homosexual community than you already do.

Anonymous said...

Ian Driver writes on

http://mrstaraplumbing.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/i-totally-disagree-with-thanet-mp-roger-gale-he-is-against-same-sex-marriages

"We will be organising a public meeting about equal marriage and organsing a lobby of the Thanet Council. Enough is enough and its time to fight back. I’ll keep you posted. Ian"

Anonymous said...

All this is making Thanet even more of a laughing stock than before. Surely something can be done about these two bringing the council and its role into disrepute - all other councillors need to take action on this as a unified group, I don't care what party you are.

DrM. said...

Yes, it's on Facebook...there's a page now calling for support to lobby Thanet Council

https://www.facebook.com/ThanetLovesEqualMarriage?skip_nax_wizard=true

Birch Tree said...

Simon - can you not simply remove all votes that have been posted via this third party site. If they won't play fair - why should they be allowed to play at all.

Anonymous said...

Dr M - all well and good, but not all of us use Facebook. The public need to see the other councillors doing something about this on their behalf to stop militants taking over. This is what we voted you in for, to look after our best interests and improve our towns - not cower in the corner when it gets difficult, like several councillors I could think of.

DrM. said...

9:05 The system does not give me the reporting granularity or indeed the ability to remove votes once they are cast. In any event the poll will time-out soon and it has served its purpose as a litmus test of opinion.

9:10 It's precisely because the public, in its wisdom, gave Thanet a no overall majority council, that we are in the mess we find ourselves in. Basically, those new councillors who had no political prospects and a more unusual and personal agenda than the rest of us, quickly realised that by being independent, they could hold the balance of power and subvert the system. No different in principal to what the LibDems have done at Westminster but in Thanet, the consequences of playing these shameless political games in pursuit of personal ambition will be felt by us all.

Anonymous said...

On an earlier thread someone said that the Council legal team has confirmed it is legal to debate this issue - it isn't a case of whether it is legal or not, it's is it appropriate. I'm sure it is legal to debate many issues that don't make it to the council chamber - only the important issues ABOUT Thanet should be there. This kind of activism has no place in our council meetings. Surely by allowing this to go ahead all councillors are accepting all manner of issues to be debated in future - British summertime, should TDC lobby the government of fuel duty, importation of foreign goods....and on it goes. The topic of gay marriage simply isn't to do with local matters. As someone has already said there are a lot more of you that should be sorting these two out.

Anonymous said...

Where is our council leader in all this. His silence is deafening!!!

Anonymous said...

Viva Peter Tatchell. He speaks the truth. Coming soon to address meeting in Thanet. Well done Worrow and Driver. Don't be put of by Gale and Moores!!

Individual priests and their congregations should defy the Church of England’s ban on same-sex civil partnerships in church premises. The ban is homophobic and autocratic. The church hierarchy is behaving like the politbureau of the old Soviet-era Communist Party; imposing its central diktat on local parishes and demanding unquestioning obedience. The ban doesn’t deserve respect or compliance. It should be ignored,” said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, coordinator of the Equal Love campaign and Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

Speaking on the opening day of the General Synod, he also deplored the endless delays in ordaining women bishops which, he said, “reveals an ugly sexism at the heart of the Anglican Communion.”

“The idea that women lack the moral and spiritual capacity to be bishops is an insult to all of female humanity. Many women priests have given exemplary ministry. There is no reason why they cannot offer religious leadership as bishops,” added Mr Tatchell.

“Many grassroots Anglicans support hosting same-sex civil partnerships in religious premises. The Church of England top brass is bigoted and out of touch. They are acting in a way that makes the church look mean, nasty and homophobic.

“While no one is suggesting that churches should be forced to conduct same-sex civil partnerships against their wishes, local parishes that want to host them should be free to do so. If the Anglican hierarchy says they can’t, individual churches should go ahead anyway,” said Mr Tatchell.

Anonymous said...

The problem is Driver/Worrow are never going to shut up about this if it gets to debate. If they win the debate (which I doubt) they will just crows about it endlessly - if they lose they will pull the 'being persecuted' card. Much better it you just take their fuel away and don't even talk about it.

Tim Clark said...

In these circumstances no purpose is served by party political broadcasts. I followed your previous link and found myself on a site, clearly set up by the two Independent, Independent sisters, which was as much about Roger Gale resigning as about equal rights for homosexuals.
Errors in campaigning judgement were made by both main parties a year ago. Now they need to take Clive at his word and find some cross-party consensus on how to lance this boil. Otherwise we will end up like Sheffield, Liverpool or the GLC were - debating nuclear-free zones and rights for gay badgers!

Anonymous said...

From John Worrow's Facebook page:

Is MP Roger Gale Homophobic for labeling Equal Marriage supporters "militant homosexuals"?

YES, his words could incite hatred and promote bullying & violence

Anonymous said...

Lobby to support Equal Marriage. 19 April 5.30-7pm Thanet Council Office Cecil St Margate . Come and support Council motion in favour of Equal Marriage show Gale he is out touch Ian Driver

Anonymous said...

Just to hijack this thread - your last subject about Sainsbury's is much more important and relevant to the area. Glad to see at least two councillors - yourself and Alasdair Bruce - actually doing what you elected for.

Anonymous said...

My family are suffering an injustice - there are 5 of us in the house and want to vote against Driver's motion but we only have one computer. Gran doesn't even have a computer --- it's not fair we are not being heard!!!!!! Any chance the Diversity Chump can take up our cause?

Tim Clark said...

I see the two sisters couldn't resist posting here, even if they did it anonymously. They probably went through the hidemyass thingy as well

Anonymous said...

Dr.M why don't you take a leaf out of Worrows book and just delete Drivers comments?

Anonymous said...

Surely the issue of keeping our hospital A&E open would be better to debate rather than this rubbish.

Peter Checksfield said...

Whether people agree with Roger Gale's views or not (& I largely do, even on this issue), there's no doubt that this is what he truly believes, NOT just a stunt to please his voters or some sort of personal crusade.

Can I also ask if John plans to marry his partner, if this all becomes legal? Or are we only allowed to discuss other people's relationships?

Tim Clark said...

Agree with 1124 and given that Worrow represents a ward with a large number of retired folk, so should he. Driver resents the money going on the Olympics (IoTG)but doesn't seem to have a problem wasting council time and money on something that is County not local authority business.
We seem to be constantly battling to keep a general hospital, with all its facilities, at one of the (if not the) largest population centres in Kent. This is what should be at the top of the agenda, not whether a formal pederast relationship should be called a marriage. Ffs let's focus on reality.

Tom Clarke said...

Too right, Tim, but Driver and Worrow are not about reality. One is skilled in the manipulation of the electorate, like many on the extreme left, whilst the other is just a lap dog basking temporarily in the reflected limelight.

It matters not to them that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with TDC or that the LGBT community are less than 1% of the nation. Nor that to pursue what they see as the rights of that 1% may well upset religious communities far more representative of public opinion.

But then it is not about same sex marriage anymore than it was animal exports or Birchington parking. It is raising their own profile, fulfilling already inflated egos and using their voting power to manipulate a hung council where a vain, but weak, leader seeks to cling to office at any cost.

Whether you believe or not it is certainly a case of God help Thanet at the moment for seemingly no one else is going to.

Michael Child said...

A few interesting issues here Simon, as the leadership consultation was on your watch and you opted for continuing with the cabinet model, I guess you got pretty much what you expected.

Talking to people in my bookshop I don’t sense either a great dissatisfaction with the Labour administration so far, or any great desire to return to Conservative leadership, more of a lets see if they are any better than the other lot seems to sum it up.

Are you finding this is different with the people you talk to?

I guess with the gay marriage issue, there is the issue itself and the appropriateness of a district council being consultees, perhaps you should have held two different polls, one on the issue and one on TDC’s involvement.

The LGBT population seems to be about 8% of the UK population and as attitudes change this looks to increase levelling out somewhere between the 10 to 20% mark.

I think the question of whether the council should debate this issue is a pertinent one as the council own several marriage venues, although I would think the main emphasis ought to be on KCC as they are responsible for registrars.

In terms of council social services I don’t think there would be any significant differences between civil partnerships and marriages.

On the whole I would say that in terms of council business the validity of the council debating the issue is a borderline one, so I a bit surprised that you have come out so strongly against debating it.

I would have though from a civil point of view and excluding any religious grounds it would be very difficult to make a case for there being different rules for same sex partnerships as there are for opposite sex partnerships, so I don’t understand the mess the government has made of this.

While on the one hand the appear to be going ahead with same sex marriage, it is difficult to see any sense in which this isn’t a done deal and yet they seem to be opposed to opposite sex civil partnerships.

From a purely Christian point of view the New Testament is very vague, the Greek imprecise and obscure on the very few occasions that the subject may be being mentioned, so there isn’t much of a textual case either way.

That said it is a split issue with different opinions to be found among the LGBT community and among the Anglican priesthood I have spoken to.

Mrs Tara PLumbing said...

I don't know whether it is right or wrong for TDC to debate this.
I understand it is to feed into the national consultation which is set by national government.
As it is on the TDC agenda I have sent a email to my local councillor (Conservative) briefly explaining that I would like him to vote in favour of equality and that I would be happy to meet with him to discuss further.

Most people leaving comments here seem to be against LGBT equality but I really think they are out of step with the majority of the British population. I also think some commenters grossly underestimate the size of the LGBT local population.

This is not just some fringe minority issue.

The religious stuff is a red herring. The civil marriage law does NOT impact of religions, eg. some churches refusing to marry divorced people even though civil marriage has been open to them for decades.

DrM. said...

Michael

You can debate the mayoral model until the cows come home and like the Royal Sands development, I'm sure you will! Fact of the matter is that it was never going to happen as Government made it quite clear to local councils.

In regard to your conversation with Anglicans I recommend that you broaden the conversation and perhaps chat with a Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox priest, our local Imam or a Rabbi as I'm sure they will be able to offer a firm opinion on the matter in a religious context.

For my own part, this concerns whether it is appropriate business for Thanet District Council to debate and the feeling I have so far from the many comments on the subject is that it's not and simply represents one more example of cheap opportunism from the independent councillors involved.

DrM. said...

It's not so much about marriage but rather what hundreds of millions of people of faith understand by the word 'marriage' in the context of religion.

if you look back to Jonathan Swift's 'Gulliver's Travels' you may remember that wars are often fought because people disagree strongly over the implicit meaning of words and some words like memes hold a far more powerful grip on our collective imagination than others.

Tom Clarke said...

Michael, the National Statistics Office places the LGBT population at about three quarters of a million. That is about 1.8% so I underestimated slightly whilst you have wildly exaggerated it. There is also no evidence to suggest that it is suddenly going to grow dramatically as you indicated.

On satisfaction with the Labour administration and the results of your shop conversations in Ramsgate, perhaps you should try the same question in Broadstairs.

That said, only time will tell on the overall Thanet view.

Anonymous said...

The more time councillors spend debating this the better. It gives them less time to muck anything else up.

Mrs Tara PLumbing said...

The number of LGBT who might want a same-sex marriage is goig to be a small % of population but it does effect most or all of us.
"they" do not live in a separate ghetto - they are part of extended families.
"they" could be my children, or your siblings, or our friends and customers.
And lets not forget the wedding industry is big business - gifts, catering, hotels, flowers, venues, cards...

It is important - it is not a minority issue but likely to affect most people in Thanet.

Of course there are lies and statistics. If you include all the people who engage in bisexual activity at some point in their lives we could be talking about a lot of people - but of course many of those are not ever going to want a same sex marriage.

DrM. said...

I think you may be missing two quite important parts of the argument.

The first being that millions of people see 'marriage' as being rather more than a convenent term to describe a partnership between two human beings of indeterminate gender.

The second is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Government's consutation exercise and rather alot to do with two individuals grandstanding on an issue which has nothing to do with your local council, which exists to provide services such as street cleaning and paying housing benefits; sone 600 or so services to the public.

Michael Child said...

Simon. Only one rabbi in Thanet and he pertains to the reformed synagogue, I will ask him when I see him although I think they already perform same sex marriages, as I will the catholic priest if the imam or greek orthodox priest are customers or people I know they have never mentioned their vocations.

Frankly I understand the Christian historical, ethical and textural aspects fairly well, a couple of years as an Anglican contemplative meant I picked up the odd thing here and there.

Non Christian religions I am not so good on, however I would guess that most of them have a moral imperative to increase size of the human race, loosely based around common sense during the historical period the started in.

Of course now increasing the size of the human race could well lead to the extinction of the human race and so this may lead to both a different moral imperative and a change in divine instruction, come another messiah, word from Metatron or whatever.

I guess though the problem here is that our government and other governments have produced laws that conflict with religions and religious doctrine, contraception, abortion law, 16 as the age of consent, not stoning Babylonians or adulterers and so on, many of which appear to be based around historical moral imperatives rather that recorded divine instruction.

Opportunist granted, invalid I am not so sure, what interests me here though is why you are giving them and it so much coverage on the issue of whether it should be debated.

I can understand debating the actual issue on your blog and I would find your views as both a Catholic and a reasonable open minded individual interesting.

Of course statistically the UK RC population is also about 8% so that doesn’t really help as much as you suggest.

One way or another the government says it is consulting on the issue, possibly to justify a done deal, and for some reason they have decided that local authorities will be consultees. Personally I think they got a bit confused over this one and should have said county councils, but local authorities is what they said.

Tom I think you are using the wrong out of date statistics here, recommend you Google UK gay population and then re post.

DrM. said...

Michael

I think my last comment partially answers your question as does the ne before

Tom Clarke said...

Another attempt to mislead, Michael, for I followed your advice and googled the UK Gay population which gave me an answer of l.5%. When adding the whole LGBT group it advances to 1.8%, still substantially less than the 8% Roman Catholics which you try to suggest is about the same.

I really cannot see why all the different religions should be antagonised for such a small minority especially when their rights are already adequately covered by civil partnerships.

As to TDC debating the issue, Simon is absolutely right when he says it is not within their remit and they have far more important things to do.

Michael Child said...

Ah the ne before, could have been me. Interesting subject all round, particularly as more of us have family and friends with various partnerships that are often both long term and obviously loving, but not conventional in the sense of a heterosexual married couple.

Tom with the old statistics thing I concede that you can get almost any figure you want from Google, I have no problem getting figures between 1 and 20% so you may consider the real world.

Let us assume the unlikely hypothesis that the councillors are representative of the people of Thanet and stretch credulity to saying the population of the Thanet is Representative of the population of the UK, there are 52 councillors so if we are working on 8% about three of them should be gay and according to one survey I have just looked at 2% of the people asked didn’t know their sexual orientation so we are likely to have one councillor who just doesn’t know.

Readit said...

Michael, I think there is definitely more than one councilor "who just doesn't know" on many issues.

And on the wider subject of how our new administration is doing, well at least they know where Ramsgate is and venture here on regular occasions.

Anonymous said...

So Cllrs Driver & Worrow doesn't have any respect for the views of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bhuddists. or any other group of people who may differ from them in their lifestyle choices.

That's not a very diverse or inclusive view of the world.

They don't want a debate in council as a debate means a democratic discussion or exchange of views. What they want is dictatorship, a modern form of tyranny based on the MacCarthy witchhunts of the 1950's.
Shame on both of them.

The true heroes of the Civil Rights movements across the globe would see Driver & Worrow as exactly what they are:
Publicity hungry under-achievers with delusions of grandeur. Who, in truth, probably couldn't give a toss about gay rights if there wasn't something in it for them.

Birch Tree said...

Can we presume, that if there is a debate- which I firmly believe there should not be - on this subject, that Messrs Worrow and Driver will abide by the democratic decision should it go against them. Or.....are they just going to keep on shouting to keep their embarrassing profiles up. I really would not want either of these two supporting any of my causes - I would lose more than I get.

Tom Clarke said...

Michael, the National Statistics Office should be reasonably reliable and yet, once again, you fudge the issue by suggesting google, which you recommended, can come up with any old percentage.

The fact is that the LGBT community is a minute fraction of the whole whereas the combined religious fraternity add up to a sizeable proportion.

As increasingly is the case in this country, it would seem that minority demands will probably triumph over the wishes of the many. Ultimately it will all end in tears for mankind, despite the gloss, is still not that civilised.

Tim Clark said...

The Campaigners should be grateful they're not Turkish!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-17474967

Mrs Tara Plumbing said...

I think Tom is right in that those who might want a same sex marriage is a tiny % of population.
Those who are religious AND are against the idea of same sex marriage will also be a small % of the population, albeit a bigger group.

But it is not a fight between these 2 groups.
Same sex civil marriages do not have any impact on those who do not approve of such things. There is no compulsion to attend the weddings or hold them in your place of worship.

In the same way that people can divorce and re-marry in a civil arrangement but not in some churches.

I understand Simon and some others are saying that some people have a strong held view of the term "marriage".
I guess this may involve men and women, monogamy, life long commitment, children, union in the eyes of god... etc.

As I explain on my blog these might be the values you want for your life and your marriage but the are not a universal definition of marriage. It seems to me that it is a minority wanting to dictate to the majority that their way of life is correct.... that majority being those who are also against legal change based on religious grounds.

Depressed from Birchington said...

Should'nt Worrow and Driver be declaring an interest?
Depressed from Birchington

Tom Clarke said...

Tara, in a recent Strassbourg court ruling it was stated that if marriage between same sex couples becomes legal, then it would be a denial of their human rights for a church to refuse to marry them. Thin end of the wedge I am afraid and you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as the activists in the LGBT community get civil marriage they will instantly try it on with the church.

You also seriously underestimated the size of the population that claim to belong to a religion. Indeed, even discounting the majority Christians, those following the Islamic faith amount to some six times the LGBT numbers.

But then, it will not be a mosque that some gay couple seek to use for their marriage but some unsuspecting vicar somewhere with a small congregation who will be dragged off to court.

For me there is a line in the sand where you stand and fight and right now I am pretty close to it.

Mrs Tara PLumbing said...

Hi Tom.
The recent ruling in the European Court of Human Rights SUGGESTS that if civil Gay Marriages become legal then the Government should NOT stop people such ceremonies taking place in a place or Worship.
The ruling is not about same sex marriages taking place in Churches.
And:
There is NO reason to think the ECHR would force religious groups to accept gay marriage because it has not done so far in any country and Gay Marriage is perfectly legal in many other countries.

Michael Child said...

Tom should you run for President?
Tom should do you trust the government?
Tom will they put you in the firing mine?

I assume you recognise the modified lyrics, but continuing with the same theme, history suggests that telling the government you are gay, jewish or whatever has not always been a good idea.

So when the government is compiling their statistics, their representatives knock on doors and ring people up and ask them questions about their race and sexual orientation, the answers may not be helpful, have a look at the actual survey results, the number of people who didn’t know their sexual orientation when converted into millions of population is just humorous.

Anyway I think the office of national statistics results on this issue are so far out of line with every other modem survey that they may be suspect.

As I said use you own experience of life as well as statistics, my background is in science and engineering and if you want to spot a scientist in a strip club, he will be the one watching the audience.

However the real problem here is one of religious and moral intention, yes there are sexual relationships that are highly morally suspect even forced or arranged marriages that are something that are now out of kilter with UK civil morality and sometimes even law.

The problem here is that marriage in this instance suggests a long term and loving relationship, something that the texts underlying Christianity are supportive of, there is however no mention whatsoever of homosexuality in the gospels and very scant and elusive mention in the rest of the New Testament.

Christianity is the only religion where I have even a smattering of an understanding of the textural and side and really only the C of E where I have any deeper understanding. I don’t think the C of E have made a good enough case for rejecting same sex marriage and in coming out against it with this weak case, I think they have put themselves in a no win situation.

Anonymous said...

The following is a list of ROMAN CATHOLIC countries that allow civil equal marriage and where there has been no call for equal church marriage:-

ARGENTINA

BELGIUM

SPAIN

PORTUGAL

Other countries that allow civil equal marriage are SWEDEN, NORWAY, ICELAND, CANADA and a number of American States.

Tom Clarke said...

Only time will tell, Michael, but just love the way you manipulate things to suit your own case. Having referred me to 'Gay Population' through Google you now fall back on the 'afraid to tell' line when the result is not to your liking.

And there was me thinking they were proud of their sexuality.

As to life experience, well my background is regular HM Forces so most people I knew were straight and, probably, over sexed. I jest, of course!

Anonymous said...

Sorry to point it out, but this is now way off the original point about whether the local council should debate this issue or not. Please stay on mission boys.

Anonymous said...

Is the right to be homophobic a civil right?

Anonymous said...

David Cameron and the government support equal marriage.

Roger Gale of course never backs a winner.

I also hear that Nick Griffin is good constituency MEP, dispite his anti-equality views.

Anonymous said...

In all this debating you're all missing a really important truth.

Worrow & Driver are elected public officials.
That means they are supposed to represent and care for the people who voted them into office.

The office of Councillor does not mean they have been given a platform for them to treat their every personal whim as an important event.

With power comes responsibility. Responsibility to those who elect you and certainly deserve better than we are getting from these two who are too stuck-up to help ordinary people and prefer showing off.

Get on with the duties you were elected for and are paid for.
If that's too boring for you both then resign and let someone who can do a proper job take over.

What next? A debate on the colour of the wall paper in their bedroom?

Anonymous said...

Totally agree 11.29 - well said!!!

Anonymous said...

11:29 there is no debate on that issue the Wall paper would be Pink

Anonymous said...

"Is the right to be homophobic a civil right?"

It is if you are religious, I suppose. Thanet, of course, does not have a large Muslim population but it would be interesting to see how brave our equality campaigners would be if a significant number of the electorate belonged to that religion.

Tim Clark said...

Well said 1129

Anonymous said...

who needs a large muslim population when a majority of contributers to this page are bigoted fools. Can't wait till Tatchell comes to town and exposes you for what you really are. Well done Worrow, well done Driver for standing up to these bigots.

Mrs Tara PLumbing said...

Really don't understand the reference to Muslims.

I have had many Muslim friends and colleagues who are broad minded/ open minded, intelligent, liberal and tolerant of alternative lifestyles including LGBT.
Same with Christians.
Not all religious people are homophobic or against same sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

To be opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds does not mean one is homophobic. Mind you, I don't feel my knees knocking together with fear at the thought of Peter Tatchell coming to Thanet. After all, wasn't he the parliamentary candidate who was stitched up in his campaign by another gay man, then masquerading as a straight bloke, as it was more voter friendly at the time.

Please do not try to claim the moral high ground for the LGBT community 1:52PM. There are bigots in all sexualities.

Anonymous said...

Correct 11-29 they are paid public SERVANTS but the only people they are serving are themselves.
Too posh and important to SERVE the people who elected them.

Anonymous said...

to be opposed to equal marriage on religious grounds is to be homophobic. To exclude women from the minstry on religiosu grounds is sexist. To hold slaves on religious grounds .... need I gone. Doing things in the name of religion does not make them right.

Ann Nee said...

Watch Friday's Thanet Gazette's Letters to the Editor. Hopefully one letter in particular will open the debate on Ian Driver's claim to be the voice of Thanet regarding 'Gay Marriage.'

Anonymous said...

4:37 Your comment "need I gone" which presumably is meant to say go on, demands an answer. Put simply, NO, because you are writing nonsense with far too broad generalisations.

You clearly have no understanding of religous teachings so I suggest you leave it to those that have.