The ArgusGodly Green councillor to face internal inquiry (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Godly Green councillor to face internal inquiry

The Argus: CONSCIENCE: Christina Summers CONSCIENCE: Christina Summers

A Green councillor who voted against supporting same-sex marriage will |have to defend her actions in front of an internal inquiry.

Every elected member on Brighton and Hove City Council except Christina Summers voted to lobby the Government to lift the ban.

This was despite the Greens being the first mainstream party to advocate making the marriages legal.

Coun Summers, who represents Hollingdean and Stanmer and is a devout Christian, said it was a “conscience decision”.

Phelim MacCafferty, the group’s deputy convenor, said: “Following the recent vote |by Coun Summers on equal marriage, Green councillors met on Monday evening and have requested that the party’s official inquiry process be initiated to ensure a fair, speedy and transparent outcome.

“It is for the inquiry panel to determine if any further action may be needed and it wouldn’t be appropriate to say any more at this stage.”

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:30pm Wed 25 Jul 12

MegA69 says...

She has no place in the Green Party. The Green party stands for equality - eye colour, skin colour, religion, handedness, gender, sexuality, coffee/tea preference etc... have no bearing whatsoever on any choices people can make about how they live their lives.
She has no place in the Green Party. The Green party stands for equality - eye colour, skin colour, religion, handedness, gender, sexuality, coffee/tea preference etc... have no bearing whatsoever on any choices people can make about how they live their lives. MegA69
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Fight Back says...

I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable. Fight Back
  • Score: 0

3:59pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Charismatic Andrew says...

I don't agree with Cllr Summers views on gay marriage rights, but I absolutely agree that she was perfectly within your rights to vote on this issue as her conscience determined. I was hoping that her party didn't overreact and end up creating a distraction from the more important issues facing the City, but clearly that hasn't happened.

If you really want to read some bizarre views though take a look at the latest posting on the Green Party website about the Olympics. It suggests that we shouldn't be moving the Games to a new City each time and that we should always hold them in Athens..... "a boost for the Greek economy"..... despite the fact that the Athens 2004 Olympics are generally seen as a major reason for the Greek state’s dramatic financial crisis. If you still needed evidence that the Greens are clueless when it comes to economics this is it. Have a read.... it's absolutely hilarious.
I don't agree with Cllr Summers views on gay marriage rights, but I absolutely agree that she was perfectly within your rights to vote on this issue as her conscience determined. I was hoping that her party didn't overreact and end up creating a distraction from the more important issues facing the City, but clearly that hasn't happened. If you really want to read some bizarre views though take a look at the latest posting on the Green Party website about the Olympics. It suggests that we shouldn't be moving the Games to a new City each time and that we should always hold them in Athens..... "a boost for the Greek economy"..... despite the fact that the Athens 2004 Olympics are generally seen as a major reason for the Greek state’s dramatic financial crisis. If you still needed evidence that the Greens are clueless when it comes to economics this is it. Have a read.... it's absolutely hilarious. Charismatic Andrew
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Chairman Mao would be the first to applaud the Greens. One must follow the party line, dissent is not tolerated.
Chairman Mao would be the first to applaud the Greens. One must follow the party line, dissent is not tolerated. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Point says...

Charismatic Andrew wrote:
I don't agree with Cllr Summers views on gay marriage rights, but I absolutely agree that she was perfectly within your rights to vote on this issue as her conscience determined. I was hoping that her party didn't overreact and end up creating a distraction from the more important issues facing the City, but clearly that hasn't happened.

If you really want to read some bizarre views though take a look at the latest posting on the Green Party website about the Olympics. It suggests that we shouldn't be moving the Games to a new City each time and that we should always hold them in Athens..... "a boost for the Greek economy"..... despite the fact that the Athens 2004 Olympics are generally seen as a major reason for the Greek state’s dramatic financial crisis. If you still needed evidence that the Greens are clueless when it comes to economics this is it. Have a read.... it's absolutely hilarious.
Charismatic Dave
Just read the greens Blog on the Olympics are we the maddest City in the country to vote them in?
Cllr Summers at last a cllr with a conscience, conviction and courage to stand up and be counted and not just one green, conservative, labour blob of nothing weldone.
[quote][p][bold]Charismatic Andrew[/bold] wrote: I don't agree with Cllr Summers views on gay marriage rights, but I absolutely agree that she was perfectly within your rights to vote on this issue as her conscience determined. I was hoping that her party didn't overreact and end up creating a distraction from the more important issues facing the City, but clearly that hasn't happened. If you really want to read some bizarre views though take a look at the latest posting on the Green Party website about the Olympics. It suggests that we shouldn't be moving the Games to a new City each time and that we should always hold them in Athens..... "a boost for the Greek economy"..... despite the fact that the Athens 2004 Olympics are generally seen as a major reason for the Greek state’s dramatic financial crisis. If you still needed evidence that the Greens are clueless when it comes to economics this is it. Have a read.... it's absolutely hilarious.[/p][/quote]Charismatic Dave Just read the greens Blog on the Olympics are we the maddest City in the country to vote them in? Cllr Summers at last a cllr with a conscience, conviction and courage to stand up and be counted and not just one green, conservative, labour blob of nothing weldone. Point
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Fight Back wrote:
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves.

I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
[quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Wed 25 Jul 12

hursthill says...

Deputy convenor Phelim MacCerfittty, following the recent tweet by Cllr Duncan Green on murdering raping & looting, should request the party's official inquiry process be initiated to ensure a fair, speedy & transparent outcome.
Deputy convenor Phelim MacCerfittty, following the recent tweet by Cllr Duncan Green on murdering raping & looting, should request the party's official inquiry process be initiated to ensure a fair, speedy & transparent outcome. hursthill
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Fight Back says...

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves.

I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing.

What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.
[quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.[/p][/quote]Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights. Fight Back
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Wed 25 Jul 12

leobrighton says...

I wonder if she feels like she's being bullied
I wonder if she feels like she's being bullied leobrighton
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Wed 25 Jul 12

inmegarden says...

MegA69 wrote:
She has no place in the Green Party. The Green party stands for equality - eye colour, skin colour, religion, handedness, gender, sexuality, coffee/tea preference etc... have no bearing whatsoever on any choices people can make about how they live their lives.
Your'e right. She has no place in the Greens.
Discrimination of any type and for whatever reason cannot be part of any political agenda. She should do the honourable thing and step down.
[quote][p][bold]MegA69[/bold] wrote: She has no place in the Green Party. The Green party stands for equality - eye colour, skin colour, religion, handedness, gender, sexuality, coffee/tea preference etc... have no bearing whatsoever on any choices people can make about how they live their lives.[/p][/quote]Your'e right. She has no place in the Greens. Discrimination of any type and for whatever reason cannot be part of any political agenda. She should do the honourable thing and step down. inmegarden
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

When you are elected, you receive the privilege on the understanding that you represent your electorate.
If she told the electorate her devotion to Christ would affect her decision. Making and she was elected then that's ok.
If not then she should stand down as she is representing herself.
When you are elected, you receive the privilege on the understanding that you represent your electorate. If she told the electorate her devotion to Christ would affect her decision. Making and she was elected then that's ok. If not then she should stand down as she is representing herself. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Andy R says...

Charismatic Andrew wrote:
I don't agree with Cllr Summers views on gay marriage rights, but I absolutely agree that she was perfectly within your rights to vote on this issue as her conscience determined. I was hoping that her party didn't overreact and end up creating a distraction from the more important issues facing the City, but clearly that hasn't happened.

If you really want to read some bizarre views though take a look at the latest posting on the Green Party website about the Olympics. It suggests that we shouldn't be moving the Games to a new City each time and that we should always hold them in Athens..... "a boost for the Greek economy"..... despite the fact that the Athens 2004 Olympics are generally seen as a major reason for the Greek state’s dramatic financial crisis. If you still needed evidence that the Greens are clueless when it comes to economics this is it. Have a read.... it's absolutely hilarious.
What's "bizarre" about that? There has long been a widely-held view that the Olympics should be in a single fixed location for all sorts of good practical reasons. The only reason to criticise the Greens would be if they were claiming the idea as their own!
[quote][p][bold]Charismatic Andrew[/bold] wrote: I don't agree with Cllr Summers views on gay marriage rights, but I absolutely agree that she was perfectly within your rights to vote on this issue as her conscience determined. I was hoping that her party didn't overreact and end up creating a distraction from the more important issues facing the City, but clearly that hasn't happened. If you really want to read some bizarre views though take a look at the latest posting on the Green Party website about the Olympics. It suggests that we shouldn't be moving the Games to a new City each time and that we should always hold them in Athens..... "a boost for the Greek economy"..... despite the fact that the Athens 2004 Olympics are generally seen as a major reason for the Greek state’s dramatic financial crisis. If you still needed evidence that the Greens are clueless when it comes to economics this is it. Have a read.... it's absolutely hilarious.[/p][/quote]What's "bizarre" about that? There has long been a widely-held view that the Olympics should be in a single fixed location for all sorts of good practical reasons. The only reason to criticise the Greens would be if they were claiming the idea as their own! Andy R
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Andy R says...

But getting back to Cllr Summers, it's one thing to claim that she answers to a higher authority than her party, but did she tell the voters that when she stood for election on the Greens' manifesto?
But getting back to Cllr Summers, it's one thing to claim that she answers to a higher authority than her party, but did she tell the voters that when she stood for election on the Greens' manifesto? Andy R
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Wed 25 Jul 12

fredflintstone1 says...

This vote was a complete irrelevance. It's not as though the Greens have solved the city's problems since they've been in power and so have nothing else to do but to start meddling in national politics now. (Quite the contrary, in fact ....).

If they want to discipline someone - why not start with Cllr Duncan? They swept all that under the carpet though.
This vote was a complete irrelevance. It's not as though the Greens have solved the city's problems since they've been in power and so have nothing else to do but to start meddling in national politics now. (Quite the contrary, in fact ....). If they want to discipline someone - why not start with Cllr Duncan? They swept all that under the carpet though. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Bob_The_Ferret says...

No-one expects ... a party inquisition!

Let's see how far the party's principles of tolerance and equality go in this case.
No-one expects ... a party inquisition! Let's see how far the party's principles of tolerance and equality go in this case. Bob_The_Ferret
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Wed 25 Jul 12

inmegarden says...

@ fredflintstone1
Do you believe that when B+H Council lobby the Government on an important topic (discrimination) then they are wasting everyone's time? If so, Why?
As for Cllr Duncan, that is an irrelevance, as he was not deciding Council policy when he made his 'tasteless' joke. I.E. ...when asked by someone on Twitter if he smoked cannabis, councillor Ben Duncan, the party's Home Affairs spokesman, replied:

"I only smoke weed when I'm murdering, raping and looting! Is the fact that you have a wife admission of your humanity?"
@ fredflintstone1 Do you believe that when B+H Council lobby the Government on an important topic (discrimination) then they are wasting everyone's time? If so, Why? As for Cllr Duncan, that is an irrelevance, as he was not deciding Council policy when he made his 'tasteless' joke. I.E. ...when asked by someone on Twitter if he smoked cannabis, councillor Ben Duncan, the party's Home Affairs spokesman, replied: "I only smoke weed when I'm murdering, raping and looting! Is the fact that you have a wife admission of your humanity?" inmegarden
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Fight Back wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves.

I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing.

What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.
No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.
[quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.[/p][/quote]Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.[/p][/quote]No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Wed 25 Jul 12

inmegarden says...

Bob_The_Ferret wrote:
No-one expects ... a party inquisition!

Let's see how far the party's principles of tolerance and equality go in this case.
You don't grasp how this works. do you?
Idiot!
[quote][p][bold]Bob_The_Ferret[/bold] wrote: No-one expects ... a party inquisition! Let's see how far the party's principles of tolerance and equality go in this case.[/p][/quote]You don't grasp how this works. do you? Idiot! inmegarden
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Wed 25 Jul 12

true freedom says...

From last year's manifesto: "The Green Party aims to treat everyone equally and fairly. Our goal is to ensure respect for everyone whatever their ethnicity, gender and gender identity, beliefs, sexual orientation, class, size, disability or other status.manifesto states:"
Funny then that they don't even seem to respect the beliefs of one of their own councillors!!!! Is this a case of Orwellian theory - 'All are equel but some are more equel than others'. Enforced 'tolerence' is not true respect for differences in opinions and values. What is applied to one sector must be applied to all or it makes a mockery of 'equality', even when we disagree with other's opinions.
From last year's manifesto: "The Green Party aims to treat everyone equally and fairly. Our goal is to ensure respect for everyone whatever their ethnicity, gender and gender identity, beliefs, sexual orientation, class, size, disability or other status.manifesto states:" Funny then that they don't even seem to respect the beliefs of one of their own councillors!!!! Is this a case of Orwellian theory - 'All are equel but some are more equel than others'. Enforced 'tolerence' is not true respect for differences in opinions and values. What is applied to one sector must be applied to all or it makes a mockery of 'equality', even when we disagree with other's opinions. true freedom
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Fight Back says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves.

I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing.

What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.
No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.
No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday.
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.[/p][/quote]Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.[/p][/quote]No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.[/p][/quote]No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday. Fight Back
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Wed 25 Jul 12

General Dreedle says...

So an 'official enquiry process is initiated'. For what? Because a politician decides to vote with their conscience instead of being told what to think. Let's get this right:
1. Lobbying the government on changes to legislation on marriage was not part of the Green's local manifesto
2. The Greens supposedly do not have a Whip like other parties and therefore Green Councillors are supposedly allowed to vote any way they see fit on any issue. Whilst this is probably ineffective in making decisions it is a laudable principle, so why the change on this issue?
3. There are more important local issues to focus on, issues that councillors were elected to resolve. They were not elected as an organisation to campaign on national issues.
4. Just because she does not vote to lobby the government on this issue does not mean she is promoting discrimination. The council have voted to lobby anyway so what is to be gained by crushing someone that dares to disagree?
5. If a councillor who subscribed to another religion (e.g. one that advocated the stoning of gay people) had abstained from voting on this issue there would not be such a fuss. There would be the usual hand-wringing by the left as they try to assimilate cultural differences into their view of the world and what is best for all of us.

The Greens have again shown their true colours over this issue: There can be no freedom of thought or opinion contrary to the party line. This has been amply demostrated by their invitaion to leftist organisations to use the town for demonstrating whilst seeking to ban marches by organisations that don't share their political view of the world. Free speech in this country is a distant memory and now we see the beginnings of the Stalinist jackboot stamping on freedom of thought. One step closer to the Owellian nightmare of the Thought Police. We can no longer express particular views without risking arrest and now it seems our elected represntatives can not express theirs either.

I do not agree with her view on this issue but to use the oft quoted maxim of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. The Tories may be greedy and self-serving but let us not be be fooled by the left, who think they know what is best for us and seek to crush individual thought and freedom. Fight the Power!
So an 'official enquiry process is initiated'. For what? Because a politician decides to vote with their conscience instead of being told what to think. Let's get this right: 1. Lobbying the government on changes to legislation on marriage was not part of the Green's local manifesto 2. The Greens supposedly do not have a Whip like other parties and therefore Green Councillors are supposedly allowed to vote any way they see fit on any issue. Whilst this is probably ineffective in making decisions it is a laudable principle, so why the change on this issue? 3. There are more important local issues to focus on, issues that councillors were elected to resolve. They were not elected as an organisation to campaign on national issues. 4. Just because she does not vote to lobby the government on this issue does not mean she is promoting discrimination. The council have voted to lobby anyway so what is to be gained by crushing someone that dares to disagree? 5. If a councillor who subscribed to another religion (e.g. one that advocated the stoning of gay people) had abstained from voting on this issue there would not be such a fuss. There would be the usual hand-wringing by the left as they try to assimilate cultural differences into their view of the world and what is best for all of us. The Greens have again shown their true colours over this issue: There can be no freedom of thought or opinion contrary to the party line. This has been amply demostrated by their invitaion to leftist organisations to use the town for demonstrating whilst seeking to ban marches by organisations that don't share their political view of the world. Free speech in this country is a distant memory and now we see the beginnings of the Stalinist jackboot stamping on freedom of thought. One step closer to the Owellian nightmare of the Thought Police. We can no longer express particular views without risking arrest and now it seems our elected represntatives can not express theirs either. I do not agree with her view on this issue but to use the oft quoted maxim of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. The Tories may be greedy and self-serving but let us not be be fooled by the left, who think they know what is best for us and seek to crush individual thought and freedom. Fight the Power! General Dreedle
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Wed 25 Jul 12

quedula says...

Andy R wrote:
But getting back to Cllr Summers, it's one thing to claim that she answers to a higher authority than her party, but did she tell the voters that when she stood for election on the Greens' manifesto?
Yeah very valid point. Would anyone have voted for Tony Bliar if they had known he stood for `'salvation through Jesus"?
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: But getting back to Cllr Summers, it's one thing to claim that she answers to a higher authority than her party, but did she tell the voters that when she stood for election on the Greens' manifesto?[/p][/quote]Yeah very valid point. Would anyone have voted for Tony Bliar if they had known he stood for `'salvation through Jesus"? quedula
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Fight Back wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves.

I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing.

What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.
No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.
No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday.
They do have the same rights. A homosexual can get married to a woman the same as any other man. Christians are entitled to express their views. If the Church controlled the country I doubt we would have a PM attempting to change the definition of marriage.
[quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.[/p][/quote]Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.[/p][/quote]No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.[/p][/quote]No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday.[/p][/quote]They do have the same rights. A homosexual can get married to a woman the same as any other man. Christians are entitled to express their views. If the Church controlled the country I doubt we would have a PM attempting to change the definition of marriage. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Wed 25 Jul 12

NickBrt says...

Thahnks for that Councillor. Come to Brighton and protest, wreck the city, squat wherever you like, park caravans here there and everywhere but be GAY OH NO!! Hypocrite.
Thahnks for that Councillor. Come to Brighton and protest, wreck the city, squat wherever you like, park caravans here there and everywhere but be GAY OH NO!! Hypocrite. NickBrt
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Hovite says...

Marriage is a ceremony that is pre-dates religion for the sole purpose of protecting offspring and uniting parents for that role. This has been going on all around the world for tens of thousands of years for this very reason. Maybe there could be an argument for gay marriage under the circumstances of when adopting children, I don’t know? Apart from that it would be pointless.

As an example, if you lived in an Amazon village and you walked up to a tribal elder and you said you wanted to marry someone of the same sex I doubt if he would give it the go ahead because of the above purpose.
Marriage is a ceremony that is pre-dates religion for the sole purpose of protecting offspring and uniting parents for that role. This has been going on all around the world for tens of thousands of years for this very reason. Maybe there could be an argument for gay marriage under the circumstances of when adopting children, I don’t know? Apart from that it would be pointless. As an example, if you lived in an Amazon village and you walked up to a tribal elder and you said you wanted to marry someone of the same sex I doubt if he would give it the go ahead because of the above purpose. Hovite
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Wed 25 Jul 12

george smith says...

General Dreedle wrote:
So an 'official enquiry process is initiated'. For what? Because a politician decides to vote with their conscience instead of being told what to think. Let's get this right: 1. Lobbying the government on changes to legislation on marriage was not part of the Green's local manifesto 2. The Greens supposedly do not have a Whip like other parties and therefore Green Councillors are supposedly allowed to vote any way they see fit on any issue. Whilst this is probably ineffective in making decisions it is a laudable principle, so why the change on this issue? 3. There are more important local issues to focus on, issues that councillors were elected to resolve. They were not elected as an organisation to campaign on national issues. 4. Just because she does not vote to lobby the government on this issue does not mean she is promoting discrimination. The council have voted to lobby anyway so what is to be gained by crushing someone that dares to disagree? 5. If a councillor who subscribed to another religion (e.g. one that advocated the stoning of gay people) had abstained from voting on this issue there would not be such a fuss. There would be the usual hand-wringing by the left as they try to assimilate cultural differences into their view of the world and what is best for all of us. The Greens have again shown their true colours over this issue: There can be no freedom of thought or opinion contrary to the party line. This has been amply demostrated by their invitaion to leftist organisations to use the town for demonstrating whilst seeking to ban marches by organisations that don't share their political view of the world. Free speech in this country is a distant memory and now we see the beginnings of the Stalinist jackboot stamping on freedom of thought. One step closer to the Owellian nightmare of the Thought Police. We can no longer express particular views without risking arrest and now it seems our elected represntatives can not express theirs either. I do not agree with her view on this issue but to use the oft quoted maxim of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. The Tories may be greedy and self-serving but let us not be be fooled by the left, who think they know what is best for us and seek to crush individual thought and freedom. Fight the Power!
Dead right
[quote][p][bold]General Dreedle[/bold] wrote: So an 'official enquiry process is initiated'. For what? Because a politician decides to vote with their conscience instead of being told what to think. Let's get this right: 1. Lobbying the government on changes to legislation on marriage was not part of the Green's local manifesto 2. The Greens supposedly do not have a Whip like other parties and therefore Green Councillors are supposedly allowed to vote any way they see fit on any issue. Whilst this is probably ineffective in making decisions it is a laudable principle, so why the change on this issue? 3. There are more important local issues to focus on, issues that councillors were elected to resolve. They were not elected as an organisation to campaign on national issues. 4. Just because she does not vote to lobby the government on this issue does not mean she is promoting discrimination. The council have voted to lobby anyway so what is to be gained by crushing someone that dares to disagree? 5. If a councillor who subscribed to another religion (e.g. one that advocated the stoning of gay people) had abstained from voting on this issue there would not be such a fuss. There would be the usual hand-wringing by the left as they try to assimilate cultural differences into their view of the world and what is best for all of us. The Greens have again shown their true colours over this issue: There can be no freedom of thought or opinion contrary to the party line. This has been amply demostrated by their invitaion to leftist organisations to use the town for demonstrating whilst seeking to ban marches by organisations that don't share their political view of the world. Free speech in this country is a distant memory and now we see the beginnings of the Stalinist jackboot stamping on freedom of thought. One step closer to the Owellian nightmare of the Thought Police. We can no longer express particular views without risking arrest and now it seems our elected represntatives can not express theirs either. I do not agree with her view on this issue but to use the oft quoted maxim of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. The Tories may be greedy and self-serving but let us not be be fooled by the left, who think they know what is best for us and seek to crush individual thought and freedom. Fight the Power![/p][/quote]Dead right george smith
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Fight Back says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves.

I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing.

What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.
No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.
No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday.
They do have the same rights. A homosexual can get married to a woman the same as any other man. Christians are entitled to express their views. If the Church controlled the country I doubt we would have a PM attempting to change the definition of marriage.
What a ridiculous statement - why would a homosexual want to marry a woman ???? A perfect example of the blinkered ever controlling view of Christians. I never said Christians weren't entitled to express their views - what I said was that they are in a minority and that their views should not dictate policy on equality. Despite their arrogance thinking that they do the Christian church do not dictate the meaning of marriage. Gay people should have every right to get married just as straight people do. Unfortunately the Christian church has shown itself to be completely backwards with it's attitude to both gay clergyman and women bishops. Hardly a guiding light for society and that's without pointing out the sexual abuses within the Christian church. Christian = bigot = homophobic = hypocrite = not worth listening to.
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.[/p][/quote]Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.[/p][/quote]No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.[/p][/quote]No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday.[/p][/quote]They do have the same rights. A homosexual can get married to a woman the same as any other man. Christians are entitled to express their views. If the Church controlled the country I doubt we would have a PM attempting to change the definition of marriage.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous statement - why would a homosexual want to marry a woman ???? A perfect example of the blinkered ever controlling view of Christians. I never said Christians weren't entitled to express their views - what I said was that they are in a minority and that their views should not dictate policy on equality. Despite their arrogance thinking that they do the Christian church do not dictate the meaning of marriage. Gay people should have every right to get married just as straight people do. Unfortunately the Christian church has shown itself to be completely backwards with it's attitude to both gay clergyman and women bishops. Hardly a guiding light for society and that's without pointing out the sexual abuses within the Christian church. Christian = bigot = homophobic = hypocrite = not worth listening to. Fight Back
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Wed 25 Jul 12

thommy says...

Why does Brighton & Hove attract all the muppets and misfits that do not fit in elsewhere in the UK and more frighteningly, actually agree with the poisonous garbage peddled by the Marxist greens
Why does Brighton & Hove attract all the muppets and misfits that do not fit in elsewhere in the UK and more frighteningly, actually agree with the poisonous garbage peddled by the Marxist greens thommy
  • Score: 0

11:58pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Morpheus says...

This sums up everything that is wrong with British politics and democracy. We vote for an individual candidate but it seems that their views are not relevant. All that matters is supporting the party. This is what Marxism s about.
This sums up everything that is wrong with British politics and democracy. We vote for an individual candidate but it seems that their views are not relevant. All that matters is supporting the party. This is what Marxism s about. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

12:07am Thu 26 Jul 12

fredflintstone1 says...

inmegarden wrote:
@ fredflintstone1
Do you believe that when B+H Council lobby the Government on an important topic (discrimination) then they are wasting everyone's time? If so, Why?
As for Cllr Duncan, that is an irrelevance, as he was not deciding Council policy when he made his 'tasteless' joke. I.E. ...when asked by someone on Twitter if he smoked cannabis, councillor Ben Duncan, the party's Home Affairs spokesman, replied:

"I only smoke weed when I'm murdering, raping and looting! Is the fact that you have a wife admission of your humanity?"
I simply think the Greens should concentrate on council business, which is what they were elected to do at local level. We have an MP for national lobbying.

As for Cllr Duncan, you conveniently overlook his support for Smash EDO, a group whose often violent protests have cost this city over £700,000 - with a massive impact on the policing budget. Hardly supporting the interests of the city, is he? Then sitting on the Sussex Police Authority, he winges on about the impact of police cuts!

His tasteless so-called "joke" to which you refer was discriminatory in the extreme, AND an advocation of sexual violence. He might have apologised afterwards, but he should have been called to account by his party, and removed from the Sussex Police Authority at the very least.

Contrast his gobbish and yobbish attitude with Cllr Summers' personal turmoil over an issue with her conscience, and compare the Green Party's attitude towards them. I know who I think is the better politician, even if I don't agree with her.

Does the Greens' treatment of Cllr Summers, compared with Cllr. Duncan's aggressive sexism which passes with any official censure, not indicate that misogny is evidently endemic and thriving within the Green Party?

Discrimination comes in many guises and I'm afraid that you can't pick and choose as to what is acceptable discrimination. The Greens urgently need to clean up both their act and their party.
[quote][p][bold]inmegarden[/bold] wrote: @ fredflintstone1 Do you believe that when B+H Council lobby the Government on an important topic (discrimination) then they are wasting everyone's time? If so, Why? As for Cllr Duncan, that is an irrelevance, as he was not deciding Council policy when he made his 'tasteless' joke. I.E. ...when asked by someone on Twitter if he smoked cannabis, councillor Ben Duncan, the party's Home Affairs spokesman, replied: "I only smoke weed when I'm murdering, raping and looting! Is the fact that you have a wife admission of your humanity?"[/p][/quote]I simply think the Greens should concentrate on council business, which is what they were elected to do at local level. We have an MP for national lobbying. As for Cllr Duncan, you conveniently overlook his support for Smash EDO, a group whose often violent protests have cost this city over £700,000 - with a massive impact on the policing budget. Hardly supporting the interests of the city, is he? Then sitting on the Sussex Police Authority, he winges on about the impact of police cuts! His tasteless so-called "joke" to which you refer was discriminatory in the extreme, AND an advocation of sexual violence. He might have apologised afterwards, but he should have been called to account by his party, and removed from the Sussex Police Authority at the very least. Contrast his gobbish and yobbish attitude with Cllr Summers' personal turmoil over an issue with her conscience, and compare the Green Party's attitude towards them. I know who I think is the better politician, even if I don't agree with her. Does the Greens' treatment of Cllr Summers, compared with Cllr. Duncan's aggressive sexism which passes with any official censure, not indicate that misogny is evidently endemic and thriving within the Green Party? Discrimination comes in many guises and I'm afraid that you can't pick and choose as to what is acceptable discrimination. The Greens urgently need to clean up both their act and their party. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

12:22am Thu 26 Jul 12

martyt says...

she should stand down ,there is no place for people like this running town hall or any other place
she should stand down ,there is no place for people like this running town hall or any other place martyt
  • Score: 0

8:07am Thu 26 Jul 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Fight Back wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Fight Back wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.
No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.
No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday.
They do have the same rights. A homosexual can get married to a woman the same as any other man. Christians are entitled to express their views. If the Church controlled the country I doubt we would have a PM attempting to change the definition of marriage.
What a ridiculous statement - why would a homosexual want to marry a woman ???? A perfect example of the blinkered ever controlling view of Christians. I never said Christians weren't entitled to express their views - what I said was that they are in a minority and that their views should not dictate policy on equality. Despite their arrogance thinking that they do the Christian church do not dictate the meaning of marriage. Gay people should have every right to get married just as straight people do. Unfortunately the Christian church has shown itself to be completely backwards with it's attitude to both gay clergyman and women bishops. Hardly a guiding light for society and that's without pointing out the sexual abuses within the Christian church. Christian = bigot = homophobic = hypocrite = not worth listening to.
You'll need to ask Elton John why he married a woman. The law allows marriage between a man and a woman and that law applies to everyone. It does not discriminate. Some people wish to change the law but the Christian majority in this country oppose it as marriage is a Sacrament (you will need to look that up). Your snide abuse won't change the position but it does reveal the sort of person are.
[quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.[/p][/quote]Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.[/p][/quote]No one is hiding behind religion to promote discrimination. Everyone has exactly the same rights. Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex. What is being proposed is that the definition of marriage should be changed. Most Christians disagree with this and so do a lot of atheists.[/p][/quote]No everybody doesn't have the same rights. Somebody who is gay does not have the right to get married while someone who is heterosexual does. THAT is discrimination based on sexuality. It's about time the church and Christians stopped trying to control everyone's life and allowed true equality. Another good example of the church controlling this country is the Sunday trading laws - all based around the church wanting people to go to their services rather than shopping. Despite a majority of people NOT going to church on a Sunday.[/p][/quote]They do have the same rights. A homosexual can get married to a woman the same as any other man. Christians are entitled to express their views. If the Church controlled the country I doubt we would have a PM attempting to change the definition of marriage.[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous statement - why would a homosexual want to marry a woman ???? A perfect example of the blinkered ever controlling view of Christians. I never said Christians weren't entitled to express their views - what I said was that they are in a minority and that their views should not dictate policy on equality. Despite their arrogance thinking that they do the Christian church do not dictate the meaning of marriage. Gay people should have every right to get married just as straight people do. Unfortunately the Christian church has shown itself to be completely backwards with it's attitude to both gay clergyman and women bishops. Hardly a guiding light for society and that's without pointing out the sexual abuses within the Christian church. Christian = bigot = homophobic = hypocrite = not worth listening to.[/p][/quote]You'll need to ask Elton John why he married a woman. The law allows marriage between a man and a woman and that law applies to everyone. It does not discriminate. Some people wish to change the law but the Christian majority in this country oppose it as marriage is a Sacrament (you will need to look that up). Your snide abuse won't change the position but it does reveal the sort of person are. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

8:43am Thu 26 Jul 12

JKW says...

“the Green idea is like Prohibition, it's a good idea but it won't work”....Summers must do as Lucas says or else!!
“the Green idea is like Prohibition, it's a good idea but it won't work”....Summers must do as Lucas says or else!! JKW
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Thu 26 Jul 12

AmboGuy says...

Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored.
Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

AmboGuy wrote:
Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored.
I take it you are a politician?
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored.[/p][/quote]I take it you are a politician? Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Thu 26 Jul 12

AmboGuy says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored.
I take it you are a politician?
Oh hey yeah I see what you've done there, that's really clever.

Go home troll.
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored.[/p][/quote]I take it you are a politician?[/p][/quote]Oh hey yeah I see what you've done there, that's really clever. Go home troll. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

9:20am Fri 27 Jul 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored.
I take it you are a politician?
A troll is a someone like you who just dishes out abuse without contributing anything. I notice you like to dish it out but you can't take it, you don't like it do you? If that is the case I suggest you stop your pointless abuse.
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: Christians and politicians - two sets of people who generally spout rubbish and shoul be ignored.[/p][/quote]I take it you are a politician?[/p][/quote]A troll is a someone like you who just dishes out abuse without contributing anything. I notice you like to dish it out but you can't take it, you don't like it do you? If that is the case I suggest you stop your pointless abuse. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

11:54am Fri 27 Jul 12

AmboGuy says...

Well if I didn't already know that the username you're using now is just one of many usernames you use (sometimes you even argue with yourself) then I might listen to you. I've seen almost identical posts in threads with your name and a couple of other names before so don't even try to deny it.

All the time you come on here with your multiple identities I can't take you seriously though.
Well if I didn't already know that the username you're using now is just one of many usernames you use (sometimes you even argue with yourself) then I might listen to you. I've seen almost identical posts in threads with your name and a couple of other names before so don't even try to deny it. All the time you come on here with your multiple identities I can't take you seriously though. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

11:12am Mon 30 Jul 12

BornInBrighton1968 says...

Just when you think the Greens can't make any more of an **** of themselves, they exceed all expectations...
Just when you think the Greens can't make any more of an **** of themselves, they exceed all expectations... BornInBrighton1968
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Mon 30 Jul 12

tengri says...

More of the same from the fascistic Greens. I am a pro-gay marriage atheist but the idea that someone should not be allowed to speak their mind is far more abhorrent to me. The real fascists are doing well in this country - they have diverted attention towards irrelevant far right organisations and are carrying on the real destruction of free speech very successfully.
More of the same from the fascistic Greens. I am a pro-gay marriage atheist but the idea that someone should not be allowed to speak their mind is far more abhorrent to me. The real fascists are doing well in this country - they have diverted attention towards irrelevant far right organisations and are carrying on the real destruction of free speech very successfully. tengri
  • Score: 0

11:40pm Mon 30 Jul 12

tradebooker says...

This lady shows the real bad side of a party out of touch with the people of Brighton and Hove. I see the greens losing hugely across the city in 4 years after a number of terrible policy decisions - particularly transport - and now this most despicable stance from one of their councillors.
This lady shows the real bad side of a party out of touch with the people of Brighton and Hove. I see the greens losing hugely across the city in 4 years after a number of terrible policy decisions - particularly transport - and now this most despicable stance from one of their councillors. tradebooker
  • Score: 0

12:32am Tue 31 Jul 12

Tel Scoomer says...

We may disagree with Cllr Summers but unlike some of her party colleagues we should respect her right to speak and vote as she did on a matter of conscience.
She represents a significant element of popular opinion and any action taken against her will rebound on her party.
Comments on Scrapper Duncan's blog give a few clues about tolerance in the Green party - or rather intolerance.
We may disagree with Cllr Summers but unlike some of her party colleagues we should respect her right to speak and vote as she did on a matter of conscience. She represents a significant element of popular opinion and any action taken against her will rebound on her party. Comments on Scrapper Duncan's blog give a few clues about tolerance in the Green party - or rather intolerance. Tel Scoomer
  • Score: 0

10:22am Tue 31 Jul 12

ARealBessie says...

Let me see if I’ve got this right. Not a word in the Green manifesto on gay marriage. A single green party councillor chooses to vote against gay marriage. Such is the hoohah around her decision she will now be subject to an internal inquiry.
In contrast, protecting and preserving our green open spaces was most definitely part of the Green Manifesto. Yet, within weeks of gaining control of the council, the very first thing the Greens did was to wave through a proposal to build a huge concrete skate bowl on The Level’s historic open green. There’s been NO PUBLIC OUTCRY, even tho’ not a single Green councillor thought to obey his/her conscience (net alone the ‘party line) and refuse to support such a proposal. Despite the Greens controlling all wards surrounding the Level, neither has a single Green councillor stood up for their outraged local constituents protesting against such a move. Funnily enough, quite a few commentators on these pages currently having a hissy fits over ‘Green hypocrisy’ (because one lone green Christian councillor refuses to support the principle of gay marriage) are otherwise fully in support of council plans for The Level! Clearly ‘hypocrisy’ isn’t a state of mind confined to our politicians!
Let me see if I’ve got this right. Not a word in the Green manifesto on gay marriage. A single green party councillor chooses to vote against gay marriage. Such is the hoohah around her decision she will now be subject to an internal inquiry. In contrast, protecting and preserving our green open spaces was most definitely part of the Green Manifesto. Yet, within weeks of gaining control of the council, the very first thing the Greens did was to wave through a proposal to build a huge concrete skate bowl on The Level’s historic open green. There’s been NO PUBLIC OUTCRY, even tho’ not a single Green councillor thought to obey his/her conscience (net alone the ‘party line) and refuse to support such a proposal. Despite the Greens controlling all wards surrounding the Level, neither has a single Green councillor stood up for their outraged local constituents protesting against such a move. Funnily enough, quite a few commentators on these pages currently having a hissy fits over ‘Green hypocrisy’ (because one lone green Christian councillor refuses to support the principle of gay marriage) are otherwise fully in support of council plans for The Level! Clearly ‘hypocrisy’ isn’t a state of mind confined to our politicians! ARealBessie
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Tue 31 Jul 12

mimseycal says...

As long as Cllr Summers made it quite clear, when canvassing for votes, that she put God above the party she represented she can vote with her conscience. Otherwise she is indeed representing herself and not her constituents.

Having said that, standing by ideological dogma is something the Greens are pretty good at, so why the outrage by Jason & co.?
As long as Cllr Summers made it quite clear, when canvassing for votes, that she put God above the party she represented she can vote with her conscience. Otherwise she is indeed representing herself and not her constituents. Having said that, standing by ideological dogma is something the Greens are pretty good at, so why the outrage by Jason & co.? mimseycal
  • Score: 0

8:42am Wed 1 Aug 12

Agapebringschange says...

Fight Back wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
Fight Back wrote:
I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.
I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves.

I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.
Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing.

What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.
Isn't it wonderful, Councillor Summers has voted, spoken and lived by her beliefs without resulting to abuse or insulting comments and she does it publicly and with security in her faith.
She doesn't accuse people of being "Christophobic" which might be considered as an unreasonable fear of Christianity, she just lives her life submitted to God. You know she doesn't strike me as bigoted just brave.
Can we learn from this lady, and say what we think without insults and verbal bullying. We can just say I don't agree and sometimes just allow the number of people who say this to communicate by itself. After all over 60,000 people have done that by signing a partition requesting that the Government think again about "Redefinition of Marriage"!
[quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight Back[/bold] wrote: I bet she'd complain if she'd been refused the opportunity to stand as a councillor because she's a Christian. To use “conscience decision” as a reason to discriminate against someone is frankly unacceptable.[/p][/quote]I dunno, I think it's a worse crime to tell people how they should vote, and then censure them when they don't fall into line. She may well be away with the fairies (well, she IS a Green and therefore has a skewed view of reality), but politicians with principles are rare enough breed as it is without trying to crush the ones who DO dare to think for themselves. I don't agree with her (to put it mildly) but I do admire someone who has stuck her head above the parapet and is prepared to sacrifice any chance she may have had of climbing the greasy pole in order to make a moral stand.[/p][/quote]Oh I agree - councillors / politicians voting against party lines because they think that is the best thing to do is a good thing. What I object to in this case is someone hiding behind their religion to promote discrimination. If I were to discriminate against someone, or a group of people, due to their skin colour, gender or religion then I would rightly run the risk of prosecution. Christians need to move to the 21st century and leave their medieval discrimination in history where is belongs. In this day and age EVERYONE regardless of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed or religion should have equal rights.[/p][/quote]Isn't it wonderful, Councillor Summers has voted, spoken and lived by her beliefs without resulting to abuse or insulting comments and she does it publicly and with security in her faith. She doesn't accuse people of being "Christophobic" which might be considered as an unreasonable fear of Christianity, she just lives her life submitted to God. You know she doesn't strike me as bigoted just brave. Can we learn from this lady, and say what we think without insults and verbal bullying. We can just say I don't agree and sometimes just allow the number of people who say this to communicate by itself. After all over 60,000 people have done that by signing a partition requesting that the Government think again about "Redefinition of Marriage"! Agapebringschange
  • Score: 0

9:00am Wed 1 Aug 12

Agapebringschange says...

Oh and a question is it a requirement of standing as a Councillor that you are need to proclaim your allegiances beforehand whether faith, lifestyle or belief?
Because the general understanding that most people have is that life itself changes our thinking, as councillors are they required to vote against what they believe so that they can fit in with
their party. Or can they be truthful to what they think?
Oh and a question is it a requirement of standing as a Councillor that you are need to proclaim your allegiances beforehand whether faith, lifestyle or belief? Because the general understanding that most people have is that life itself changes our thinking, as councillors are they required to vote against what they believe so that they can fit in with their party. Or can they be truthful to what they think? Agapebringschange
  • Score: 0

9:16am Wed 1 Aug 12

mimseycal says...

I agree wholeheartedly that Christina Summers is being true to herself and that standing up for principles is something to be admired and emulated. However that is as Christina Summers.

As Cllr Summers she is acting for the residents of her constituency; or rather, it can be assumed that she would be.

Is Equal Marriage a tenet of the manifesto she used in her electioneering and vote gathering? Did she at any stage during that process tell her prospective constituents that she would not be able, in accordance with her personal principles, to support that specific aspect?

If it was a tenet and if she did not clarify her inability to stand by that prior to her election, then I hold that Cllr Summers should search her conscience regarding the Christian tenet regarding false representation.

I do not think that hauling her in front of an internal inquiry by the local Green Party is actually going to address her misleading her constituents.

I don't think that 60,000 signing a petition in itself is any justification for misleading potential constituents during an election campaign.
I agree wholeheartedly that Christina Summers is being true to herself and that standing up for principles is something to be admired and emulated. However that is as Christina Summers. As Cllr Summers she is acting for the residents of her constituency; or rather, it can be assumed that she would be. Is Equal Marriage a tenet of the manifesto she used in her electioneering and vote gathering? Did she at any stage during that process tell her prospective constituents that she would not be able, in accordance with her personal principles, to support that specific aspect? If it was a tenet and if she did not clarify her inability to stand by that prior to her election, then I hold that Cllr Summers should search her conscience regarding the Christian tenet regarding false representation. I do not think that hauling her in front of an internal inquiry by the local Green Party is actually going to address her misleading her constituents. I don't think that 60,000 signing a petition in itself is any justification for misleading potential constituents during an election campaign. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

9:33am Wed 1 Aug 12

qm says...

I am beginning to get the impression that the 'Green' version of democracy is swaying towards totalitarianism. Some of the comments from apparent Green supporters above are insulting to the independence of thought and dictatorial. This country is a democracy or version of. If it's a war that you want; you have one!
I am beginning to get the impression that the 'Green' version of democracy is swaying towards totalitarianism. Some of the comments from apparent Green supporters above are insulting to the independence of thought and dictatorial. This country is a democracy or version of. If it's a war that you want; you have one! qm
  • Score: 0

9:49am Wed 1 Aug 12

tengri says...

qm wrote:
I am beginning to get the impression that the 'Green' version of democracy is swaying towards totalitarianism. Some of the comments from apparent Green supporters above are insulting to the independence of thought and dictatorial. This country is a democracy or version of. If it's a war that you want; you have one!
Totally agree qm - I hear UAF will be organising a counter demo at the next Green party conference.
[quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote: I am beginning to get the impression that the 'Green' version of democracy is swaying towards totalitarianism. Some of the comments from apparent Green supporters above are insulting to the independence of thought and dictatorial. This country is a democracy or version of. If it's a war that you want; you have one![/p][/quote]Totally agree qm - I hear UAF will be organising a counter demo at the next Green party conference. tengri
  • Score: 0

10:03am Wed 1 Aug 12

qm says...

tengri wrote:
qm wrote:
I am beginning to get the impression that the 'Green' version of democracy is swaying towards totalitarianism. Some of the comments from apparent Green supporters above are insulting to the independence of thought and dictatorial. This country is a democracy or version of. If it's a war that you want; you have one!
Totally agree qm - I hear UAF will be organising a counter demo at the next Green party conference.
I am sure that my comment applies equally across both the left and right of the political spectrum. Parliament operates a system of whips who are essentially just threatening heavies who bully and intimidate to achieve an end - quite disgraceful!
[quote][p][bold]tengri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote: I am beginning to get the impression that the 'Green' version of democracy is swaying towards totalitarianism. Some of the comments from apparent Green supporters above are insulting to the independence of thought and dictatorial. This country is a democracy or version of. If it's a war that you want; you have one![/p][/quote]Totally agree qm - I hear UAF will be organising a counter demo at the next Green party conference.[/p][/quote]I am sure that my comment applies equally across both the left and right of the political spectrum. Parliament operates a system of whips who are essentially just threatening heavies who bully and intimidate to achieve an end - quite disgraceful! qm
  • Score: 0

10:12am Wed 1 Aug 12

Agapebringschange says...

Did any individual or political party make "Redefinition of Marriage" part of their election manifesto? And if so Did they form a Government advising all concerned that this was their intent from the beginning?

If publication of intent is required in politics prior to election would we even be having this dialogue?
Did any individual or political party make "Redefinition of Marriage" part of their election manifesto? And if so Did they form a Government advising all concerned that this was their intent from the beginning? If publication of intent is required in politics prior to election would we even be having this dialogue? Agapebringschange
  • Score: 0

10:57am Wed 1 Aug 12

Tel Scoomer says...

mimseycal wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly that Christina Summers is being true to herself and that standing up for principles is something to be admired and emulated. However that is as Christina Summers.

As Cllr Summers she is acting for the residents of her constituency; or rather, it can be assumed that she would be.

Is Equal Marriage a tenet of the manifesto she used in her electioneering and vote gathering? Did she at any stage during that process tell her prospective constituents that she would not be able, in accordance with her personal principles, to support that specific aspect?

If it was a tenet and if she did not clarify her inability to stand by that prior to her election, then I hold that Cllr Summers should search her conscience regarding the Christian tenet regarding false representation.

I do not think that hauling her in front of an internal inquiry by the local Green Party is actually going to address her misleading her constituents.

I don't think that 60,000 signing a petition in itself is any justification for misleading potential constituents during an election campaign.
Gay marriage - or equal marriage - isn't mentioned in the manifesto so she hasn't deceived anyone.
Plenty of people - gay and straight - regard civil partnerships as having achieved the objective of bringing about equal or gay marriage. Obviously, plenty don't. But this wasn't in the Green Party manifesto in Brighton and Hove.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: I agree wholeheartedly that Christina Summers is being true to herself and that standing up for principles is something to be admired and emulated. However that is as Christina Summers. As Cllr Summers she is acting for the residents of her constituency; or rather, it can be assumed that she would be. Is Equal Marriage a tenet of the manifesto she used in her electioneering and vote gathering? Did she at any stage during that process tell her prospective constituents that she would not be able, in accordance with her personal principles, to support that specific aspect? If it was a tenet and if she did not clarify her inability to stand by that prior to her election, then I hold that Cllr Summers should search her conscience regarding the Christian tenet regarding false representation. I do not think that hauling her in front of an internal inquiry by the local Green Party is actually going to address her misleading her constituents. I don't think that 60,000 signing a petition in itself is any justification for misleading potential constituents during an election campaign.[/p][/quote]Gay marriage - or equal marriage - isn't mentioned in the manifesto so she hasn't deceived anyone. Plenty of people - gay and straight - regard civil partnerships as having achieved the objective of bringing about equal or gay marriage. Obviously, plenty don't. But this wasn't in the Green Party manifesto in Brighton and Hove. Tel Scoomer
  • Score: 0

11:29am Wed 1 Aug 12

mimseycal says...

The party core values implies it though. Especially core value 5.

"A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice."

To assume that marriage may not be of real value between members of the same sex is an assumption based on prejudice.

Or are you going to insist that the only validation for marriage is the procreation of the species? Is that Cllr Summers position? Would she in effect be stating that all married couples that do not reproduce are invalid marriages?
The party core values implies it though. Especially core value 5. "A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice." To assume that marriage may not be of real value between members of the same sex is an assumption based on prejudice. Or are you going to insist that the only validation for marriage is the procreation of the species? Is that Cllr Summers position? Would she in effect be stating that all married couples that do not reproduce are invalid marriages? mimseycal
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

mimseycal wrote:
The party core values implies it though. Especially core value 5. "A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice." To assume that marriage may not be of real value between members of the same sex is an assumption based on prejudice. Or are you going to insist that the only validation for marriage is the procreation of the species? Is that Cllr Summers position? Would she in effect be stating that all married couples that do not reproduce are invalid marriages?
Christians believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. It has got nothing to do with discrimination. It has got nothing to do with the Greens core values. It is a Sacrament. You can just as well argue the Greens are discriminating against Christians by requiring them to alter their beliefs in accordance with Green diktat. Incidentally nither the Tories nor Libs included changing the definition of marriage in their mainfestos.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: The party core values implies it though. Especially core value 5. "A healthy society is based on voluntary co-operation between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice." To assume that marriage may not be of real value between members of the same sex is an assumption based on prejudice. Or are you going to insist that the only validation for marriage is the procreation of the species? Is that Cllr Summers position? Would she in effect be stating that all married couples that do not reproduce are invalid marriages?[/p][/quote]Christians believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. It has got nothing to do with discrimination. It has got nothing to do with the Greens core values. It is a Sacrament. You can just as well argue the Greens are discriminating against Christians by requiring them to alter their beliefs in accordance with Green diktat. Incidentally nither the Tories nor Libs included changing the definition of marriage in their mainfestos. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Wed 1 Aug 12

mimseycal says...

Predetermining that the only legitimate definition of marriage is the Christian definition runs contrary to the very concept of equality.

That is quite aside from the rather significant fact that the concept of marriage pre-dates the religious movement known as Christianity.

Are you going to insist that the only valid world view is the Christian one? Are you going to uphold the concept that Christianity is the only real measure of equality? And which specific denomination of Christianity may I ask. After all, there are quite a few disparities between the various denominations. With one holding that contraception is wrong and another that the concept of transmutation (as per the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist) is equivalent to idolatory.

Are you claiming that all those marriages that occured, whether in synagogues, mosques, the various temples or even the registry office are not marriages?

The issue is not whether or not the specific matter of same sex marriage was addressed but whether a party holds with equality for all. If a party states, unequivocably that it holds with the concept of equality between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice, then it holds with all measures that ensures said equality.

It cannot then state that it holds with equality with regards to one issue but will withhold it with regards to another.

If Cllr Summers, not Christine Summers but Cllr Summers (and yes there is a difference) has agreed to stand for the Green party than she stands for all those core values the party holds to.

Having said that, it is not the party that should hold Cllr Summers to account. It is the electorate and, in specific, her constituency!
Predetermining that the only legitimate definition of marriage is the Christian definition runs contrary to the very concept of equality. That is quite aside from the rather significant fact that the concept of marriage pre-dates the religious movement known as Christianity. Are you going to insist that the only valid world view is the Christian one? Are you going to uphold the concept that Christianity is the only real measure of equality? And which specific denomination of Christianity may I ask. After all, there are quite a few disparities between the various denominations. With one holding that contraception is wrong and another that the concept of transmutation (as per the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist) is equivalent to idolatory. Are you claiming that all those marriages that occured, whether in synagogues, mosques, the various temples or even the registry office are not marriages? The issue is not whether or not the specific matter of same sex marriage was addressed but whether a party holds with equality for all. If a party states, unequivocably that it holds with the concept of equality between empowered individuals in a democratic society, free from discrimination whether based on race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice, then it holds with all measures that ensures said equality. It cannot then state that it holds with equality with regards to one issue but will withhold it with regards to another. If Cllr Summers, not Christine Summers but Cllr Summers (and yes there is a difference) has agreed to stand for the Green party than she stands for all those core values the party holds to. Having said that, it is not the party that should hold Cllr Summers to account. It is the electorate and, in specific, her constituency! mimseycal
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Cyril Bolleaux says...

To answer your questions: No;No;No.
Your view certainly accords with the totalitarian ethos that dissent is not tolerated but I prefer a country where conscience comes before party loyalty.Do you agree the law should be changed to permit child marriages, polygamy and incestuous marriages?
To answer your questions: No;No;No. Your view certainly accords with the totalitarian ethos that dissent is not tolerated but I prefer a country where conscience comes before party loyalty.Do you agree the law should be changed to permit child marriages, polygamy and incestuous marriages? Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree