Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Lammy's gay marriage speech
Our MP David Lammy gave it some welly, good to be able to cheer him on with no reservations.
He's published the whole text on his blog though it was edited down to four minutes on the day. He spoke at about 4.40pm, when the iplayer appears for the whole debate.
Lammy ruffled the feathers of Stewart Jackson, the Conservative MP for Peterborough who objected to his implying that those opposed to gay marriage were similar to those who opposed civil rights for blacks in America in the 1950s. "I would not take the back seat on the bus for Rosa Parks". (I think that got a bit scrambled on the way out.) Blimey.
Tags for Forum Posts: gay marriage, lammy, parliament
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 02qre1ae6jg1o on
-
The real issue over David Lammy is on this is that he does not represent the views of the overwhelming majority of the people in Tottenham. [comment removed by site admin in line with HOL Terms and Conditions 2k (v) ] William Spring
-
-
Permalink Reply by william spring on
-
why bring Obama into it? He's a criminal anyway, keeping Guantanamo Bay open in violation of his election pledge, & endorsing thousands of extrajudicial killings all over the world. [comment removed by site admin in line with HOL Terms and Conditions 2k (v) ] William Spring
-
-
Permalink Reply by KatyT on
-
The people who find gay marriage abhorrent aren't actually going to be affected by this in any way. He has to take account of the views of his constituents who ARE going to be affected.
FYI - Cambridge's MP voted for the bill. -
-
Permalink Reply by empyrean_aisles on
-
Most people in Tottenham find gay marriage as a concept abhorrent
Really? How do you know? Have you done a survey? Asking your own circle of acquaintances is not going to yield a representative answer. I would bet dollars to donuts that the overwhelming majority of responses to this thread will be supportive of it. (And while those who respond here do not make up a representative sample either, as a group they're likely to be more representative of the diversity across the borough - taking into consideration age, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation etc - than whichever bunch of people you're thinking of when you make the generalisation "most people in Tottenham").
One thing that was surprising to pundits in the recent American election, where a number of states put the legalisation of gay marriage to a vote at the same time, was the overwhelming *support* for gay marriage, even in predominantly red states. It seems to be a generational thing. The generation of people in power in the US assumed that "most people ... [would] find gay marriage as a concept abhorrent" but the younger generation of voters surprised them.
-
-
-
comment removed by site admin in line with HOL Terms and Conditions 2k (v)
-
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
All surveys show a significant majority in favour so a referendum would be a waste of your and my money. We don't really do referenda here either, two in my lifetime apart from general elections. In a year from the third reading this will be old news.
-
-
-
Very wise of the Speaker or whoever to limit backbenchers to 4 minutes - a 2-minute rule might have made for a better speech. But David always has to give the impression of being all things to all men and women while, like Barack, laying claim to the mantle of two movements that neither man was part of, or even that interested in until it became er 'politic' and useful to burnish and polish up the rhetoric. Dreams of an absent father may be as much as Davy and Barry have in common.
My own feelings on the matter, since I guess it's de rigueur to come out and declare oneself? Bloody bored - now get on with it. What's the next millennia-old concept, institution and noun to be unpacked, re-defined and repacked away not quite as tidily or meaningfully as before?
-
-
-
You might want to look up a bit of history before you complain about 'redefining' marriage.
Same sex marriage wasn't uncommon in ancient rome before the Christian Chuirch came along and themselves repackaged marriage as being *only for procreation*.
I don't feel my own marriage is any less meaningful than it was yesterday. Am I wrong? -
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
