Gordon Brown Attacks Prop 8: "Unacceptable"

BBC:

Gordon Brown has condemned California's ban on gay marriage as "unacceptable" and warned people to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.

Read the whole story: BBC

Comments

[JohnBisceglia]

Civil Disobedience - 2.0

Whether in business or personal relationships, one adage rings true:
YOU TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO TREAT YOU

In a commited relationship? - Filing taxes as a married couple.
On the 2010 Census check off MARRIED.

TEACH government HOW to treat you. And refuse taxation until equal.

[carsntrucks]

Why risk prison over something trivial like this?

[carsntrucks]

Whatever, Gordon Brown.

[rainbowblue]

I too, even as a gay man, was put off by Brown's attack. I agree, Mr. Brown keep your focus on your side of the "Pond". Then I thought we kind of give up the right to tell foreigners to leave us alone when we make it our business to tell every other country how to run its government, economy, and how to treat its people.


I just hope that Brown attacks homophobia in his own country with the same attitude that is driving him to address the issue in another country. Correct me, but I'm not sure if Great Britian even has same sex marriages, and I'm under the impression that Britian is about as tolerant, if not less, than Americans towards gays in general. Maybe England is better, but what about Northern Ireland and Scottland?

[StevenKeirstead]

Britain has fairly comprehensive same sex civil unions, which is better than most US states, though not as good as we have it in Massachusetts and Connecticut (I hope California will rejoin the marriage equality states).

As for Gordon Brown, he should be able to say whatever he believes. Free speech is a fundamental right. And we, the Americans, should be able to listen to criticism, and not take it personally or as an insult. Otherwise how can we have the moral authority to criticize human rights problems in other countries?

[rikkirighteous]

Wow. Same old whine in all those responses.

Hard to believe the number who are actually trying to assert that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality in species homo sapien. But there you are. I guess the "debate" isn't over.

I'm sure that even for proponents of gay marriage there is a union of people(s) that you would not support for marriage, if only for political expediency.

Therefore, the question again: Should a bisexual have the right to marry one man and one woman? Or are you going to be the one to tell them they have to pick one sex? Who are you to take away their rights? Perhaps they love two men and two women. Who are you to say how deep such "love" goes?

I can hear you now: "We have laws against polygamy." Fine. Now we have a law against gay marriage. Celebrate your victory.

[JohnBisceglia]

One positive thought I have when I read comments like yours is the fact that people like you are paying the taxes I would be paying. Anti-Equality folks deserve to solely fund THEIR theocracy.

PS - a bisexual tends to fall in love with ONE person; gender depends on the person. You seem obssessed about genitalia instead of the 2 SOULS that are connected to each naughty bit.

I do hope my fellow gays WAKE UP and join the growing tax revolt - why beg for what you can TAKE - EQUALITY IS YOURS - YOU ARE ALREADY EQUAL.

It's not my fault Americans haven't caught up with common decenc, JUSTICE, and morality.

[Hirnlego]

Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[rainbowblue]

LOL!!! Love the bit about polyester...

I would add unnatural hard-ons and rejecting Viagra...

[JohnBisceglia]

THANK YOU to all who are confronting the blatant ignorance and fear and yes HATE on these (quote) GAY MARRIAGE (quote) pages here on the HuffPost. It matters - life and death.

Right now I'd love to slam a few heterosexuals up against the wall and look into their eyes and scream, "So Why The F*** Do PEOPLE LIKE YOU Get To Vote To Take Away The Rights Of PEOPLE LIKE ME?"

Of course that would be considered "assault" and "violence". But when is it self-defense?

Heterosexual Men - Have YOU ever been physically held back from seeing YOUR beloved spouse of 30 years while she was dying because you are a LEGAL STRANGER to her? What would YOU do?

America - WE HAVE A PROBLEM. Some of my fellow Q's are weathering this governmental psychological warfare and abuse fairly well; others have been pushed past the point of no return. I've tracked the psychological studies of the A.P.A. regarding both adults AND children, and it is not good. For abuse-survivors like myself, events like PROP 8 (including the months leading up to the legal crime against our family) made parts of our brain snnnnap.

Again, "So Why The F*** Do PEOPLE LIKE YOU Get To Vote To Take Away The Rights Of PEOPLE LIKE ME?"

This IS an attack on my family, and I love my family dearly. We need sensible, rational, fair-minded Americans to STAND UP and SPEAK OUT. Help. I've already snapped.

[carsntrucks]

John, you talk a good game online, but you can't rise to the occasion when confronted, and it's unlikely that you even could online. Stop trying to act tough. We can all see you're not.

[JohnBisceglia]

???- Uh, when have I been "confronted"? Fill me in - I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

The thing is, I do simply refuse to "debate" anyone about whether or not I deserve equality. It's NOT my fault others are ignorant about human sexuality and spirituality.

It's not a debate. Not a discussion. Not a vote.

PAY OUR TAXES. You will just have to deal with it. Now vote on THAT!

[citizen of the universe]

The same town who came up with shows like The Bachelor, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, etc., who in my opinion cheapens marriage to its most irrelevent form, now wants to deny it to people because the person they love looks like them. I am ashamed of my state, I voted No to Prop Hate and I will continue to say No to denying any person their pursuit of happiness.

[b1986]

I doubt the people who came up with those shows were the same people who voted to for prop 8. I can only hope that The California Supreme Court decides to revoke Prop 8. If they do then maybe there's hope for my state of Pennsylvania. I kind of feel that it's gonna spread from Mass. New York first, then PA. But then again NJ has done something, but I can't remember.

[carnelld]

The California Supreme Court created the problem and now realize they must go back and
"straighten it out."

The California Supreme Court can not change the California Constitution. No matter how emotional
the issue, America is a nation based on "the rule of law", not emotion. Even when laws are changed, there are procedures to protect the sanctity of the rule of law.

Whether men want to marry men or women want to marry women, you must get there through a
legal process.

Prop 8 is a legal Amendment. The Supreme Court can only affirm it based on "the rule of law".

It is what it is.

[thevealchop]

I'm guessing you don't know much about the Supreme Court.

[citizen of the universe]

It takes 2/3 vote in the CA legislature to change the CA constitution and it's not there. This matter was decided on by the California Supreme Court, so the legality of this amendment is at issue. No one in our state government is showing the stomach to change our consitution, even our Republican governor. Prop Hate will go down in flames. I will quote a old school southerner (Tennessee) when I visited last year, "California is the land of fruits and nuts." I was amused and offended all at once, I got over it and so will you. Laws change, people don't.

[rikkirighteous]

Why should homosexuality be treated as normal?

It clearly isn't, as only 1-2% of any culture has been homosexual.

It should always be looked at as a shameful aberration. One we tolerate, but certainly don't exalt.

[bobo5]

Because we are humans.

[rikkirighteous]

Then where's your "outrage" about bisexuals not being able to marry one man and one woman? Or someone who "really loves" two men and two women, etc.?

Look, homosexuality is certainly present, and we don't go out of our way to victimize gays, but to force people into believing the fairy tale (literally) that it is as normal as heterosexuality and should be elevated to that status by governmental decree is as ludicrous as the Emperor's New Clothes.

I guess we can all pretend, but let's not.

[Gayrove]

Well, how many heterosexuals are "normal"? How about those broads in Texas with their bonnets and serving-girl big hair? Is that "normal". Remember, it's heterosexual! I'll take Barney Franks as a normal person over Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Sarah Palin, any day. Look at that "normal"
person that recently expelled eight fetuses in one birthing event! She's not married, Is she nomal? Less or more normal than the couples that married in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc?

Why "rikkirighteous", your post makes one suspicious that only rare heterosexuals are normal. But, we should tolerate, without approving or exalting, the rikkirighteouses amongst us, I feel.

[dreffein]

Rikki - I'm sure back in the day you also thought interracial marriage was a shameful aberration, that the Nazis were right to gas the J ews, that slavery should be tolerated.....

Gays are human beings and deserve the same rights we all enjoy - whether you like it or not.

[StillIRise]

Who determines what's normal???

At one time in our society, it was "normal" to perceive blacks as inferior to whites, and 99% of white people accepted it as the norm (some still do). It was looked upon as shameful when whites interacted with blacks as equals, and many looked upon any regard given to blacks on par with whites as an aberration. Eventually, the equality of blacks was tolerated, but certainly not exalted!

Some would even go as far as to cite scripture to justify their belief in the abnormality of black equality with whites (some still do).

What's normal does not necessarily translate into what's right!

[Cinnamonape]

What you "exalt" is your own opinion. I "exalt" a future without bigots. You clearly "exalt" some other type of future.

In the 1950's there were only a "small percentage" of people that would have relationships outside their own race. So does that mean that relationships blacks and whites were a "shameful aberration? Abnormal?

But that has nothing to do with legal rights. Simply because a group is a small minority should not inhibit them from obtaining the same rights and privileges of the majority. In that majority people of rational adulthood can marry. That's a contract, not exclusively a church ceremony. If it was only the latter there would be plenty of churches that WOULD marry gays. Just as there would have churches that allowed blacks and whites, or whites and Asians, to intermarry. The issue was the state laws. Blacks and whites were still barred from intermarrying in some states until 1973. Hopefully you'll agree that such laws were wrong.

So it's obvious that simply because a society, at a particular moment in time asserts something is "aberrant" or "illegal" doesn't mean that it is just, or fair, to do so.

Still, despite the law one still could attend a church that bans gay weddings, or people that they think are gay, at all. As long as that group receives no governmental benefits its free to act in any manner it wishes in excluding people. And if you don't think gay marriage is appropriate...don't marry one!

[LuckyLeif]

Americans are the most tolerant people on earth. Gays are not persecuted here. They are hung in Iran. It is a lie that Americans are hate-filled, bigotted homophobes. It is a convenient lie hammered home for decades to promote a social agenda. The voters of California have a perfect right to define what is marriage: community defining morality is as old as western civilization Mr. Brown. Care to teach us what happens historically when the courts overrule the ballot box to accommodate a vocal minority which then requires the government to silence and strong arm the majority? Talk about discrimination. The truth is the hate-filled intolerance is coming from the vocal minority. They are the ones declaring war and escalating. They are the bigots, refusing to allow people of conscience and faith a place at the table, and sadly Mr. Brown, you've joined them. Hate crimes legislation and human rights commissions are only the foreshadows of fascism.

[Dimme]

There is a serious disconnect between what you are claiming and what you are stating as fact. What connection is there between the state of California marriage laws and your faith? When did California surrender the institution of marriage to a specific faith? Regardless of what you might think, even atheist are allowed to marry -- or are they the next one on your list of people to loose basic human rights? In a theocracy your reasoning is sound. But a democracy is not a majority dictatorship. Even minorities enjoy the basic human rights. As long as marriage is tied to everything from insurance to legal issues to visitation rights at hospitals, the right to marriage is about much, much more than the narrow scope of potentially harming your religious sensibilities. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can see the error of your reasoning and be able to look your children and grandchildren in the eyes.

[Gayrove]

When did a majority of voters for any candidate or on any topic become what the majority of a community wants? Not everyone is as gay as the Vikings were reputed to be, so American gays should not be confused with those abnormals. As for the righteous not being allowed a place at the table, I bet that was heard alot by the Neocons objecting to Christ's dining with a stooge tax-collector for the occupying forces!
Proposition 8 was just a spurt of ink from the alarmed Squid that is terrified of freedom. However, no matter what the court decides, it's going to drift, drift, drift away when the people have their way.

[rainbowblue]

Wow! Ummm... I guess I've been bashed by the whitest Iranians I've ever seen. I guess my teachers were Iranians too. I'm not sure how you excuse centuries of (as well as ongoing) racism.

Americans are just as intolerant as the next a-hole anywhere in the world. As for not being persecuted here...yes, we no longer kill or arrest people for being gay (that statement can be said as of 2003), but we (the following are restricted to a state by state basis, as some states do not apply and some are about only the Federal gov't) do allow employers and property owners to discrimante against them, we don't allow them to serve in the military, we don't allow them to adopt children, we don't allow them to marry, and we make sure they know their place by ignoring runaway queer teenagers and discriminating against elderly queers in nursing homes.

I'll admit that hate crimes legislation probably won't prevent crimes, just like capital punishment doesn't, but it will make people feel better, just like capital punishment. I want it in writting that we as a society say it is not okay to go out and attack someone just because they are gay. It would make me feel better knowing my assailant (say I got bashed tomorrow and survived) would serve longer in prison for attacking me because I was walking out of a gay bar.

[omeo2013]

Isn't this the same d-bag that had marijuana reclassified as a dangerous drug despite the recommendation against it from the Ministry of Science?

[denholt]

Unfortunately, too many Americans have a mid-20th century mindset. They are incurious, don't have passports and have no desire to accommodate let alone tolerate anyone who thinks differently than themselves. That's the reality of the USA in the year 2009. Many of us suffer for it.

[rikkirighteous]

I doubt the old "I hate stupid Americans!" tactic will bring much benefit.

[tabaqui]

What he says is completely true. It *is* unacceptable, and a complete disgrace, as well, in my opinion. I look forward to the day when fear and ignorance do *not* rule in the United States.

Thank you, PM Brown, for speaking out.

*And to anyone who says another country has 'no business' talking about our laws/deeds/policies - please. The US has its dirty fingers in everyone's pies.*

[Sensiblebg]

Dear Gordon,

Mind your own country's business!

Thanks,

Sensiblebg

[bobo5]

It is his business because there are British consulates here in California. Brown is simply stating his government's position on this matter on UK soil.

Perhaps Brown wants money and talent to come to Britain. There are many gay US/UK couples in California who would benefit from having legal recognition of the US partner in such a relationship.

He's just saying to those who made a mistake and bought into a bunch of lies about freedom and equality that they are welcome back in the UK.

Canada also wants college educated, young, ambitious, law-abiding gay US citizens to contribute to their country too.

[naviline]

hear hear.

[thevealchop]

blah blah blah
robot

[sposton]

I think British people would appreciate more his efforts to fix their bankrupt country than fixing what is wrong in America, regardless of any intrinsic merits in this particular issue.