Tony Blair On Elton John’s Marriage

1:12 pm EST December 21st, 2005 | Politics | 10 Comments

Way to make America sound like the dark ages, Mr. Blair…

Even Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the couple at a news conference. He wished them well and congratulated them, adding “and to all the other people exercising their rights under the civil partnership law, I think it’s a modern, progressive step for the country and I’m glad we did it.”

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

10 Responses to “Tony Blair On Elton John’s Marriage”

  1. BD says:
    December 21, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    I agree with Dkel, it’s not implicit in Blair’s comments that he was criticizing America. He was simply praising England.

    That said, England being more progressive than America on the issue of gay rights is nothing big. England also figured out the slavery thing before we did.

    What’s really disturbing is that South Africa is more progressive on this issue than we are.

  2. Dkelsmith says:
    December 21, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    How does that make America “sound like the dark ages?”

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    December 21, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    It makes us sound like we’re in the dark ages because our politicians would never have the cajones to say what Blair did.

  4. Ryland says:
    December 22, 2005 at 12:12 am

    It makes us sound like we’re in the dark ages in contrast.

  5. scratch says:
    December 22, 2005 at 10:12 am

    On the other hand, from what I’ve heard most Americans would support the concept of a “civil partnership law,” as Mr. Blair put it. Has anyone seen any news stories or heard anybody–British politician or otherwise–referring to this union as a marriage, as is being pushed by some groups in this dark and primitive country?

  6. BD says:
    December 22, 2005 at 11:12 am

    Most Americans might support a “civil partnership” law, but few lawmakers will even go that far.

    The semantic arguments against “gay marriage” but for “civil unions” are laughable. If two homosexuals get a civil union and then go around calling it a marriage to their friends and acquaintances, on what grounds would you arrest them without encroaching on the First Amendment?

    The end result of a civil union law in the U.S.: gay and straight couples that enjoy the same protections under the law, and a bunch of crybabies complaining that the gay couples shouldn’t call their union a “marriage” because…because…it’s just not right, dammit!

  7. scratch says:
    December 22, 2005 at 1:12 pm

    BD…

    You make an excellent point…one that is shared by many on the other side of this fence from you. To wit: what’s the diff? What if I said that we currently have a “bunch of crybabies,” as you say, who are willing to turn down the enjoyment of the same protections under the law because their union would have a different name?

  8. bryan says:
    December 23, 2005 at 10:12 pm

    These civil parnerships also help non-gays as well. A parnership between two sisters sharing a home would result in one receiving pension rights upon the demise of the other. I’m glad we’ve got this law in the UK. If gay people want to call themselves married, good luck to them!
    The drollest comment about this I’ve heard is “Imagine how bitchy gay divorces are gonna be!”

  9. Frank_D says:
    December 24, 2005 at 3:12 am

    Too bad Tony Blair isn’t an ally of ours; oh, wait — he is.

  10. pmxgt fcjqz says:
    September 20, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    grpakx kqwfjviab djhkwilr pukbof bagmly wpsqcko fydb