Gay columnist wants PM to ditch plans for homosexual marriage

David Cameron should halt his ‘arrogant’ and deeply unpopular push to redefine marriage as it is unnecessary, a gay national newspaper columnist has said.

Andrew Pierce believes civil partnerships are sufficient and says none of his homosexual friends “want gay marriage to be written into law”.

Mr Pierce says despite the “opposition of every major faith group”, the Prime Minister is “arrogantly pressing ahead” with something which appeals to the “metropolitan elite”.

Opposed

Perhaps David Cameron is going ahead because he has “calculated that anyone who stands up and argues against his proposals will be branded a homophobe and a bigot”, Mr Pierce commented.

But he said: “Well, Mr Cameron, I am a Conservative and a homosexual, and I oppose gay marriage. Am I a bigot?

“And what about Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as gay? Mr Duncan, the International Aid Minister who is in a civil partnership, is implacably opposed to gay marriage.

“So is Dr David Starkey, the celebrated historian, who is openly gay.”

Unnecessary

And he also drew attention to Labour MP Ben Bradshaw who was the first Cabinet Minister to enter into a civil partnership and has said the plans to redefine marriage are “pure politics”.

Saying that “no one has been able to explain to me the difference between gay marriage and a civil partnership”, the columnist revealed he thought changing the definition of marriage is unnecessary.

Mr Pierce’s comments follow a warning by the Church of England that the Government’s plan to redefine marriage could trigger a constitutional crisis and end the 500-year link between church and state.

Divisive

In its response to the Government’s consultation on the matter the Church describes the plans as “divisive” and “essentially ideological”.

It adds: “To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.

“We also believe that imposing for essentially ideological reasons a new meaning on a term as familiar and fundamental as marriage would be deeply unwise.”

Related Resources