UPDATED: Green councillor expelled for gay marriage vote

A Christian councillor who voted against supporting same-sex marriage is to be expelled from the Green group on Brighton and Hove City Council.

An internal inquiry to look into Christina Summers's decision was set up by the Brighton and Hove Green Party in July.

This afternoon it was announced she will be expelled from the Green group but will remain a party member.

Coun Summers could still serve as a councillor, but only as an independent. It is unclear whether she has decided to continue on the council.

Coun Summers was the only member to vote aginst lobbying the Government to lift the ban on same-sex marriage taking place through a civil ceremony.

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

A statement issued by the Brighton and Hove Green Party last night said: "Speaking and voting against policy would not, of itself, be a matter for an internal inquiry.

"Coun Summers is not the first to do so and won’t be the last. This is not an issue of free speech. Nor is it a religious matter.

"The Green Party is as welcoming of Christians as it is of any other faith; indeed, we have other Christians in our Green Group, not to mention a Christian Chief Executive and a Christian national party chair.

"The issue was that when she stood as a Green candidate, and when she asked people to vote for her as a Green Councillor, Coun Summers had made a written undertaking that if she was selected as a candidate and elected to public office, she would uphold and advance the values of 'equality for all people, regardless of race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religion, social origin or any other prejudice.

"The councillors who asked for the Inquiry wanted to know whether Councillor Summers was in breach of her undertaking as a candidate.

“The panel does not have the power to expel Councillor Summers from the party or to remove her as a Councillor but it has concluded that…she should be expelled from the Green Group of Councillors, making her an independent councillor.”

In response, Coun Summers said she was "crestfallen" adding "party policy, however vague, is sovereign".

To read a full in-depth exclusive interview with Coun Summers' see tomorrow's Argus.

Comments (157)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:53pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Numptyone says...

I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way.

Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes. Numptyone

5:58pm Mon 10 Sep 12

TomDenman says...

Utterly ridiculous decision - Any supporters of The Green Party should be absolutely ashamed of what the Party has done. This is a disgraceful ruling and a dark day for political freedom in the UK.
Utterly ridiculous decision - Any supporters of The Green Party should be absolutely ashamed of what the Party has done. This is a disgraceful ruling and a dark day for political freedom in the UK. TomDenman

5:59pm Mon 10 Sep 12

tartanesque says...

She signed a pledge with the Green Party supporting gay marriage - as did all party members - then reneged on it. Quite right that the party should expel someone for that reason. If she didn't believe it she should never have signed in the first place. Perhaps a question of seeking power at any cost? She lied. Shame on her.
She signed a pledge with the Green Party supporting gay marriage - as did all party members - then reneged on it. Quite right that the party should expel someone for that reason. If she didn't believe it she should never have signed in the first place. Perhaps a question of seeking power at any cost? She lied. Shame on her. tartanesque

5:59pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pperrin says...

As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was? pperrin

6:01pm Mon 10 Sep 12

John Fallon says...

Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.
Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience. John Fallon

6:04pm Mon 10 Sep 12

DC78 says...

Numptyone wrote:
I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way.

Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent.

Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go.

Her free speech remains and always has been intact.
[quote][p][bold]Numptyone[/bold] wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.[/p][/quote]When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact. DC78

6:08pm Mon 10 Sep 12

DC78 says...

John Fallon wrote:
Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.
Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line.

In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar.
[quote][p][bold]John Fallon[/bold] wrote: Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line. In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar. DC78

6:17pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Wivvy Dave says...

DC78 wrote:
Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.
So how many politicians are there that agree 100% with every detail of party policy? I'd guess that its very few. This is also the reason why so many people don't know who to vote for at election time as they seem to forget that they are voting for a local candidate not a party leader and there are divergences of opinion in most cases
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Numptyone[/bold] wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.[/p][/quote]When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.[/p][/quote]So how many politicians are there that agree 100% with every detail of party policy? I'd guess that its very few. This is also the reason why so many people don't know who to vote for at election time as they seem to forget that they are voting for a local candidate not a party leader and there are divergences of opinion in most cases Wivvy Dave

6:20pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Bill in Hanover says...

When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent.

Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go.

Her free speech remains and always has been intact.”
Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact. DC78************* Same sex marriage and equality are, and have always been two entirely different issues. The fact that she has been forced to leave the Green Party and become an Independant (What if she joins the Tories?) because of her conscience is reprehensible but not surprising and now the Green Party having (I think) only 4 more seats than the Tories means that they are walking a political tightrope.
When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.” [quote][p][bold]Numptyone[/bold] wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.[/p][/quote]When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact. DC78************* Same sex marriage and equality are, and have always been two entirely different issues. The fact that she has been forced to leave the Green Party and become an Independant (What if she joins the Tories?) because of her conscience is reprehensible but not surprising and now the Green Party having (I think) only 4 more seats than the Tories means that they are walking a political tightrope. Bill in Hanover

6:22pm Mon 10 Sep 12

rolivan says...

I think the Political Partys have more things to worry about than the Gay Marriage vote.Marriage is no longer held in the regard it once was.There should be more time spent on Family values not on whether a couple from the same sex should be able to marry or not.
I think the Political Partys have more things to worry about than the Gay Marriage vote.Marriage is no longer held in the regard it once was.There should be more time spent on Family values not on whether a couple from the same sex should be able to marry or not. rolivan

6:33pm Mon 10 Sep 12

gusset snatcher says...

Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin
Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin gusset snatcher

6:45pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Barry1812 says...

Further erosion of Christian values & the family unit. Well done this woman for taking a stand & the green party can go.......
Further erosion of Christian values & the family unit. Well done this woman for taking a stand & the green party can go....... Barry1812

6:50pm Mon 10 Sep 12

fredflintstone1 says...

Shouldn't the focus of the Greens actually be to concentrate on council business, which is what they were elected to do at local level? It's hardly that they've made such a success of running the city.....We have an MP for national lobbying on this type of issue.

If the Greens feel some action should be taken, how about starting with Cllr Duncan? There's 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? While sitting on the Sussex Police Authority, he winges on about the impact of police cuts.....!

Then there was his tasteless, so-called "joke" about rape which 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, and address their hypocrisy.
Shouldn't the focus of the Greens actually be to concentrate on council business, which is what they were elected to do at local level? It's hardly that they've made such a success of running the city.....We have an MP for national lobbying on this type of issue. If the Greens feel some action should be taken, how about starting with Cllr Duncan? There's 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? While sitting on the Sussex Police Authority, he winges on about the impact of police cuts.....! Then there was his tasteless, so-called "joke" about rape which 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, and address their hypocrisy. fredflintstone1

6:52pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Heathen Earth says...

pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?
Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit.

P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it!
[quote][p][bold]pperrin[/bold] wrote: As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?[/p][/quote]Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit. P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it! Heathen Earth

7:01pm Mon 10 Sep 12

rolivan says...

Heathen Earth wrote:
pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?
Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit.

P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it!
Because it is their duty as they do with subsidising other buses and services.
[quote][p][bold]Heathen Earth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pperrin[/bold] wrote: As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?[/p][/quote]Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit. P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it![/p][/quote]Because it is their duty as they do with subsidising other buses and services. rolivan

7:04pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

tartanesque wrote:
She signed a pledge with the Green Party supporting gay marriage - as did all party members - then reneged on it. Quite right that the party should expel someone for that reason. If she didn't believe it she should never have signed in the first place. Perhaps a question of seeking power at any cost? She lied. Shame on her.
Gay marriage was NOT on the pledge she signed. She signed up to equalities.
[quote][p][bold]tartanesque[/bold] wrote: She signed a pledge with the Green Party supporting gay marriage - as did all party members - then reneged on it. Quite right that the party should expel someone for that reason. If she didn't believe it she should never have signed in the first place. Perhaps a question of seeking power at any cost? She lied. Shame on her.[/p][/quote]Gay marriage was NOT on the pledge she signed. She signed up to equalities. Valerie Paynter

7:06pm Mon 10 Sep 12

SicklySeagull says...

Its just as well the Greens are on borrowed time
Its just as well the Greens are on borrowed time SicklySeagull

7:08pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Martha Gunn says...

Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government.
The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.
Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government. The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better. Martha Gunn

7:13pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

DC78 wrote:
Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.
So, lets be clear what you are saying and what Christina has made clear:

She signed a pro-equality declaration almost certainly not knowing that gay marriage would one day come up and be declared a pro equality issue. She is pro civil partnerships and made that clear.

Gay marriage is one tiny little issue within a mountain of others.

Never mind the mountain, in your view, her disagreement with this one little rock on it means she should be expelled.

Stepford Greens! Extruded from a factory and lined up with identical brains thinking identical thoughts that are all programmed in.

You buy that? You buy that and you are sitting up and begging for fascist totalitarian jackboot governance.

I bet you insist of straight bananas and identically sized tomatoes as well!
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Numptyone[/bold] wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.[/p][/quote]When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.[/p][/quote]So, lets be clear what you are saying and what Christina has made clear: She signed a pro-equality declaration almost certainly not knowing that gay marriage would one day come up and be declared a pro equality issue. She is pro civil partnerships and made that clear. Gay marriage is one tiny little issue within a mountain of others. Never mind the mountain, in your view, her disagreement with this one little rock on it means she should be expelled. Stepford Greens! Extruded from a factory and lined up with identical brains thinking identical thoughts that are all programmed in. You buy that? You buy that and you are sitting up and begging for fascist totalitarian jackboot governance. I bet you insist of straight bananas and identically sized tomatoes as well! Valerie Paynter

7:15pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

DC78 wrote:
John Fallon wrote: Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.
Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line. In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar.
She does not accept that gay marriage is an equalities issue. For you to call her a liar is cruel and bigoted.
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Fallon[/bold] wrote: Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line. In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar.[/p][/quote]She does not accept that gay marriage is an equalities issue. For you to call her a liar is cruel and bigoted. Valerie Paynter

7:22pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other.
They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other. Somethingsarejustwrong

7:28pm Mon 10 Sep 12

oknotko says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government.
The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.
They are Libertarian, authoritarian, anarchist eco-fascists?
You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you just talk in derogatory terms you heard once.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government. The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.[/p][/quote]They are Libertarian, authoritarian, anarchist eco-fascists? You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you just talk in derogatory terms you heard once. oknotko

7:33pm Mon 10 Sep 12

kopite_rob says...

Just goes to show why party politics should be removed from local level councils.
Too tied to political values and not what is needed or wanted at local level.
Just goes to show why party politics should be removed from local level councils. Too tied to political values and not what is needed or wanted at local level. kopite_rob

7:37pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Fight_Back says...

Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales. Fight_Back

7:39pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Martha Gunn says...

oknotko wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government.
The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.
They are Libertarian, authoritarian, anarchist eco-fascists?
You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you just talk in derogatory terms you heard once.
Yes. I literally do mean what I say. These are precisely the contradictions embodied in the Green Party. It is a frightening bricolage of the banal, dangerous and the downright stupid.
[quote][p][bold]oknotko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government. The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.[/p][/quote]They are Libertarian, authoritarian, anarchist eco-fascists? You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you just talk in derogatory terms you heard once.[/p][/quote]Yes. I literally do mean what I say. These are precisely the contradictions embodied in the Green Party. It is a frightening bricolage of the banal, dangerous and the downright stupid. Martha Gunn

7:43pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pperrin says...

DC you are misrepresenting the agrement she signed.

It precluded 'prejudice' towards minority groups.

Her view on same-sex marriage is not based on 'prejudice', it is a thoughtful, considered view.

I am pleased she voted the way she did. She, single handedly, ensured that a perectly reasonable, considered view - held by many residents of the city - was represented in the council chamber that night.

Her bravery in not being emotionally blackmailed by 'right on' section of the council (I.e. everyone else) is a credit to her.

I know the greens like to pretend to support fair representation of the people - but this contrived (and failed) attempt to stitch up a whole section of the citys residents is a demonstration of their devious marxist/totalitarian agenda, that noone can now pretend not to see.
DC you are misrepresenting the agrement she signed. It precluded 'prejudice' towards minority groups. Her view on same-sex marriage is not based on 'prejudice', it is a thoughtful, considered view. I am pleased she voted the way she did. She, single handedly, ensured that a perectly reasonable, considered view - held by many residents of the city - was represented in the council chamber that night. Her bravery in not being emotionally blackmailed by 'right on' section of the council (I.e. everyone else) is a credit to her. I know the greens like to pretend to support fair representation of the people - but this contrived (and failed) attempt to stitch up a whole section of the citys residents is a demonstration of their devious marxist/totalitarian agenda, that noone can now pretend not to see. pperrin

7:45pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs?
If not, she should have stood down earlier.
The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate.
She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.
Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god. Maxwell's Ghost

7:48pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Terry K says...

A very sinisiter move, this is what happens when fringe parties get elected, we may dislike the mainstream parties, but the alternatives are far worse, hope this woman starts her own party and gives the militant greens a kicking at the polls.
A very sinisiter move, this is what happens when fringe parties get elected, we may dislike the mainstream parties, but the alternatives are far worse, hope this woman starts her own party and gives the militant greens a kicking at the polls. Terry K

7:50pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
I think you make some good points here and wonder why the rest of the readers don't seem to get it?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]I think you make some good points here and wonder why the rest of the readers don't seem to get it? Somethingsarejustwrong

8:05pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service.
Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church.
Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service. Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church. Maxwell's Ghost

8:11pm Mon 10 Sep 12

gusset snatcher says...

Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality.
Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them.
The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election.
Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality. Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them. The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election. gusset snatcher

8:18pm Mon 10 Sep 12

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...

So now we have a new name for the Green Party do we?Jason Kitkat and the dictators,what's happened to a persons right of opinion
So now we have a new name for the Green Party do we?Jason Kitkat and the dictators,what's happened to a persons right of opinion PETE OF QUEENS PARK

8:27pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service.
Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church.
I am married and I am not a christian. We do have a full set of the right parts to create a family, but now wonder how we slipped through the net?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service. Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church.[/p][/quote]I am married and I am not a christian. We do have a full set of the right parts to create a family, but now wonder how we slipped through the net? Somethingsarejustwrong

8:28pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

kopite_rob wrote:
Just goes to show why party politics should be removed from local level councils. Too tied to political values and not what is needed or wanted at local level.
Time for us to truly and seriously look at the Parish Councils movement that is taking hold in London and which has success in getting representation taken wider than political party dogma.
[quote][p][bold]kopite_rob[/bold] wrote: Just goes to show why party politics should be removed from local level councils. Too tied to political values and not what is needed or wanted at local level.[/p][/quote]Time for us to truly and seriously look at the Parish Councils movement that is taking hold in London and which has success in getting representation taken wider than political party dogma. Valerie Paynter

8:30pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic? Valerie Paynter

8:32pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Heathen Earth says...

gusset snatcher wrote:
Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality.
Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them.
The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election.
You may well think gay people adopt because it's 'trendy', but the children they do adopt are quite obviously the result of hetrosexual relations, including marriage, and unwanted by those very same hetrosexuals!
[quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] wrote: Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality. Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them. The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election.[/p][/quote]You may well think gay people adopt because it's 'trendy', but the children they do adopt are quite obviously the result of hetrosexual relations, including marriage, and unwanted by those very same hetrosexuals! Heathen Earth

8:32pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pperrin says...

Heathen Earth wrote:
pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?
Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit.

P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it!
Suits me - happy to not pay council tax and source services myself.

Or are you suggesting I should pay for services twice?
[quote][p][bold]Heathen Earth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pperrin[/bold] wrote: As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?[/p][/quote]Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit. P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it![/p][/quote]Suits me - happy to not pay council tax and source services myself. Or are you suggesting I should pay for services twice? pperrin

8:32pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pperrin says...

Heathen Earth wrote:
pperrin wrote:
As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?
Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit.

P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it!
Suits me - happy to not pay council tax and source services myself.

Or are you suggesting I should pay for services twice?
[quote][p][bold]Heathen Earth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pperrin[/bold] wrote: As the council have no say/control over the issue of same-sex mariage, and they have slashed Ovindeans 52 bus service and not fuded the mobile library that serves Ovindean' maybe the Green councilors can explain why they we're wasting their time (and so our money) on the stupid, usless gesture, that this vote was?[/p][/quote]Maybe you should direct this question at the Labour Party, as the motion originated with them, not the Greens. Besides, unless you can't read, you should've noticed that all Cllrs agreed with the motion, and that includes the Conservatives, much to their credit. P.s. If you want the No. 52 bus, pay for it, why on earth should the Council subsidise it![/p][/quote]Suits me - happy to not pay council tax and source services myself. Or are you suggesting I should pay for services twice? pperrin

8:36pm Mon 10 Sep 12

magicmenagerie says...

Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green. magicmenagerie

8:36pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Fight_Back says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service.
Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church.
I think plenty of other religions might object to such a stupid statement.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Marriage is for Christians not straights or gays.....the only difference is that if you are straight and hand cash to a vicar he/she will conduct a marriage service. Hardly anyone in the uk is Christian or goes to church.[/p][/quote]I think plenty of other religions might object to such a stupid statement. Fight_Back

8:37pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.
Do you not accept that the level and kind of lobbying by the gay faction and gay councillors and including what's been done to Christina Summers amounts to the same level of bias as being a devout Christian? That these people put their beliefs ahead of representation?

Perrin makes a good point. She was the lone voice in the Chamber reflecting that voice from within the electorate.

I wonder what a referendum vote would provide by way of endorsement for the Green Panel's action.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.[/p][/quote]Do you not accept that the level and kind of lobbying by the gay faction and gay councillors and including what's been done to Christina Summers amounts to the same level of bias as being a devout Christian? That these people put their beliefs ahead of representation? Perrin makes a good point. She was the lone voice in the Chamber reflecting that voice from within the electorate. I wonder what a referendum vote would provide by way of endorsement for the Green Panel's action. Valerie Paynter

8:40pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.
So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK?

So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views!
[quote][p][bold]magicmenagerie[/bold] wrote: Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.[/p][/quote]So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK? So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views! Somethingsarejustwrong

8:41pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Fight_Back says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?
It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?[/p][/quote]It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage. Fight_Back

8:48pm Mon 10 Sep 12

george smith says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government. The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.
It is worth googling eco fascists the students, Nazi's targeted the youth movement, smash Edo has it in for Israel. We have no excuse we need to learn from history.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: Surely this must be the beginning of the end for this wretched experiment in Green Party local government. The expulsion is also symptomatic of wider problems for the Green Party which has no proper procedures to run a group, settle policy or deliver governance. All it can do is oscillate between crass libertarianism and ad-hoc authoritarianism. It is a madhouse where anarchism holds hands with eco-fascism. Hence the drift we see in the city and the declining standards of service delivery across the piece. Sooner gone the better.[/p][/quote]It is worth googling eco fascists the students, Nazi's targeted the youth movement, smash Edo has it in for Israel. We have no excuse we need to learn from history. george smith

8:53pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.
So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK?

So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views!
Well?
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]magicmenagerie[/bold] wrote: Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.[/p][/quote]So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK? So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views![/p][/quote]Well? Somethingsarejustwrong

8:54pm Mon 10 Sep 12

City Folk says...

I did not vote Green but feel sorry that for following her conscience all sorts of people are judging Christina now.

Leave her alone, there are other issues that need sorting such as how Parking Charges are killing the town. This has been aired to death now.
I did not vote Green but feel sorry that for following her conscience all sorts of people are judging Christina now. Leave her alone, there are other issues that need sorting such as how Parking Charges are killing the town. This has been aired to death now. City Folk

9:09pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Fight_Back wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?
It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.
Worldwide, every culture has its sets of beliefs and some amount to ritualised religions. Marriage between opposite sexes within their elaborate kinship systems (all different) hallmark all the ones I know about.

Marriage was not invented and is not owned by Christianity. But it is an institution that most people around the world have formalised within a religious format.

The West is loosening this with its register office marriages, civil partnerships, etc. But actual marriage is still not universally accepted as being something you can provide for other than man plus woman.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?[/p][/quote]It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.[/p][/quote]Worldwide, every culture has its sets of beliefs and some amount to ritualised religions. Marriage between opposite sexes within their elaborate kinship systems (all different) hallmark all the ones I know about. Marriage was not invented and is not owned by Christianity. But it is an institution that most people around the world have formalised within a religious format. The West is loosening this with its register office marriages, civil partnerships, etc. But actual marriage is still not universally accepted as being something you can provide for other than man plus woman. Valerie Paynter

9:30pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Fight_Back says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Fight_Back wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?
It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.
Worldwide, every culture has its sets of beliefs and some amount to ritualised religions. Marriage between opposite sexes within their elaborate kinship systems (all different) hallmark all the ones I know about.

Marriage was not invented and is not owned by Christianity. But it is an institution that most people around the world have formalised within a religious format.

The West is loosening this with its register office marriages, civil partnerships, etc. But actual marriage is still not universally accepted as being something you can provide for other than man plus woman.
Thankfully the world is changing and in particular many people in Britain are turning their backs on religion. It's astounding that in this day and age it is acceptable that people can use "religious beliefs" to discriminate against anyone else. Civil ceremonies are not equal to marriage and therefore by preventing same sex marriage religion ( in particular Christians ) is discriminating against gay people. I find it even more worrying when female Christians support the discrimination - maybe it's time we removed their right to vote ?
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?[/p][/quote]It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.[/p][/quote]Worldwide, every culture has its sets of beliefs and some amount to ritualised religions. Marriage between opposite sexes within their elaborate kinship systems (all different) hallmark all the ones I know about. Marriage was not invented and is not owned by Christianity. But it is an institution that most people around the world have formalised within a religious format. The West is loosening this with its register office marriages, civil partnerships, etc. But actual marriage is still not universally accepted as being something you can provide for other than man plus woman.[/p][/quote]Thankfully the world is changing and in particular many people in Britain are turning their backs on religion. It's astounding that in this day and age it is acceptable that people can use "religious beliefs" to discriminate against anyone else. Civil ceremonies are not equal to marriage and therefore by preventing same sex marriage religion ( in particular Christians ) is discriminating against gay people. I find it even more worrying when female Christians support the discrimination - maybe it's time we removed their right to vote ? Fight_Back

9:41pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pperrin says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?
It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.
A gay person CAN get married - there is no discrimination.

However they must get married to some one of the opposite sex - just like everyone else.

If you want kids with someone get married to them, if not get a civil partnership (which should be open to all/any couples)
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]Christina Summers is on record as supporting civil partnerships. How is that homophobic?[/p][/quote]It homophobic because it is discriminating against gay people. I know Christians think they own marriage but even the pagans had marriage before anyone had every heard of god and his so called son. It's completely arrogant that Christians believe they have the ownership on marriage.[/p][/quote]A gay person CAN get married - there is no discrimination. However they must get married to some one of the opposite sex - just like everyone else. If you want kids with someone get married to them, if not get a civil partnership (which should be open to all/any couples) pperrin

9:48pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Tel Scoomer says...

The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much. Tel Scoomer

9:54pm Mon 10 Sep 12

leobrighton says...

I think the fact that she made a written statement when standing for election and then go against it later is good enough reason. Honesty before election should be paramount and the Green party have made the right decision.
I think the fact that she made a written statement when standing for election and then go against it later is good enough reason. Honesty before election should be paramount and the Green party have made the right decision. leobrighton

9:59pm Mon 10 Sep 12

worthingite says...

What a mess Brighton Council is in !!!!

Brighton is becoming real Sh>t hole ,with this lot in charge,why am I not surprised.
What a mess Brighton Council is in !!!! Brighton is becoming real Sh>t hole ,with this lot in charge,why am I not surprised. worthingite

9:59pm Mon 10 Sep 12

true-brightonian says...

The fact that Cameron is a huge fan of gay marriage should raise alarm bells. Once upon a time the gay rights movement was radical. Now they just want to get married and settle down? Don't they see that marriage is just another form of social slavery?
The fact that Cameron is a huge fan of gay marriage should raise alarm bells. Once upon a time the gay rights movement was radical. Now they just want to get married and settle down? Don't they see that marriage is just another form of social slavery? true-brightonian

10:00pm Mon 10 Sep 12

NickBrt says...

Green gone up in my estimation. Good riddance to this woman. NO-one wants her now.
Green gone up in my estimation. Good riddance to this woman. NO-one wants her now. NickBrt

10:18pm Mon 10 Sep 12

anubis says...

We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest!

What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge.

People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’.

Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t!
We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest! What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge. People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’. Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t! anubis

10:21pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pjwilk says...

What happened to free speech,whether its right or wrong we must defend peoples right to say what they believe or we become a corrupt society.
What happened to free speech,whether its right or wrong we must defend peoples right to say what they believe or we become a corrupt society. pjwilk

10:23pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Morpheus says...

Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.
Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door. Morpheus

10:31pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot.
Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support.
We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral.
Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK.
How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful?
You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square.
I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot. Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support. We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral. Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK. How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful? You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square. I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution. Maxwell's Ghost

10:35pm Mon 10 Sep 12

General Dreedle says...

magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.
Actually that's not correct. One other Green Councillor was reported as leaving the chamber before the vote. Although this has ben hushed up in The Argus. Caroline Lucas was quoted in Pink News last week as saying,

"I was hoping very much that she wouldn’t vote against it, I was hoping at the very least she would abstain, and I regret very much that she did vote against it”.

I bet we find that Councillor Summers was urged to leave the chamber before the vote to avoid embarrasment or abstain as Dr Lucas seems to suggest. Which is presumably why no action was taken against the other Green Councillor who left the chamber bfore the vote. But surely this is a worst deceit as it appears to be saying that the 'discrimination' is ok as long as it is hidden. If the Greens are saying that neither absenting oneself before the vote or abstaining is aceptable then they must take action against their other colleague. However, because of who she is I doubt this will happen.
[quote][p][bold]magicmenagerie[/bold] wrote: Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.[/p][/quote]Actually that's not correct. One other Green Councillor was reported as leaving the chamber before the vote. Although this has ben hushed up in The Argus. Caroline Lucas was quoted in Pink News last week as saying, "I was hoping very much that she [Councillor Summers] wouldn’t vote against it, I was hoping at the very least she would abstain, and I regret very much that she did vote against it”. I bet we find that Councillor Summers was urged to leave the chamber before the vote to avoid embarrasment or abstain as Dr Lucas seems to suggest. Which is presumably why no action was taken against the other Green Councillor who left the chamber bfore the vote. But surely this is a worst deceit as it appears to be saying that the 'discrimination' is ok as long as it is hidden. If the Greens are saying that neither absenting oneself before the vote or abstaining is aceptable then they must take action against their other colleague. However, because of who she is I doubt this will happen. General Dreedle

10:39pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Fight back there are many religions in the UK holding their own marriage ceremonies which are not legally binding in the UK but these religions do not accept the UK marriage ceremony.
We just make up the rules to suit as in the UK. Pay a vicar get a licence to marry and if you have kids pay for them yourself and stop expecting the state to pay, particularly when three in four marriages fail.
Fight back there are many religions in the UK holding their own marriage ceremonies which are not legally binding in the UK but these religions do not accept the UK marriage ceremony. We just make up the rules to suit as in the UK. Pay a vicar get a licence to marry and if you have kids pay for them yourself and stop expecting the state to pay, particularly when three in four marriages fail. Maxwell's Ghost

10:47pm Mon 10 Sep 12

luckystrike says...

The Green Party have shown their true colours: red with a hammer and sickle.

Well, we all knew that anyway.
The Green Party have shown their true colours: red with a hammer and sickle. Well, we all knew that anyway. luckystrike

10:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12

magicmenagerie says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
Somethingsarejustwro

ng
wrote:
magicmenagerie wrote:
Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.
So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK?

So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views!
Well?
I don't understand your point I'm afraid, or your question. If you're elected on a Green ticket then you're assumed to support Green policy. If you don't, and vote against it, time to leave, don't see the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]magicmenagerie[/bold] wrote: Every single councillor from every party voted YES on this issue except Christina Summers, because her religion is against gay marriage. This means that she places her religion above her politics. That's not what the voters expect I'm afraid. She stood on a Green ticket and shouldn't be voting against a motion of this kind. It's a slippery slope and the Local Party are right to have nipped it in the bud. Stand as an independent and let's have it all out on the table. As I said earlier, every councillor in Brighton voted for this, Labour, Conservative and Green.[/p][/quote]So the rest of the green's religion was for gay marriage and that makes it OK? So many people, with such polarised and unjustified views![/p][/quote]Well?[/p][/quote]I don't understand your point I'm afraid, or your question. If you're elected on a Green ticket then you're assumed to support Green policy. If you don't, and vote against it, time to leave, don't see the problem. magicmenagerie

11:02pm Mon 10 Sep 12

martyt says...

gusset snatcher wrote:
Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin
good
[quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] wrote: Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin[/p][/quote]good martyt

11:06pm Mon 10 Sep 12

martyt says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
so tell me what caused the big bang that started it all in the first place ??????????
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]so tell me what caused the big bang that started it all in the first place ?????????? martyt

11:11pm Mon 10 Sep 12

martyt says...

Heathen Earth wrote:
gusset snatcher wrote:
Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality.
Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them.
The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election.
You may well think gay people adopt because it's 'trendy', but the children they do adopt are quite obviously the result of hetrosexual relations, including marriage, and unwanted by those very same hetrosexuals!
gay people adopt because man can not beget man nor woman beget woman simple fact of nature
[quote][p][bold]Heathen Earth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] wrote: Never mind all the big words from those who have no grasp on reality. Christina Summers voted against gay marriage because she felt it went against her values as a Christian. She believes that the sanctity of marriage should only take place between a man and a woman and there are many that agree with her. She has a duty to her party but she also has one to her religion. She is not homophobic because of these beliefs. Perhaps the law needs to be changed so that gay couples have the same rights but the sanctity of marriage's main beneficiaries are children, something gays can never have although it seems increasingly trendy for them to adopt them. The greens have shot themselves in the foot yet again on this one, they're going to be booted into out at the next election.[/p][/quote]You may well think gay people adopt because it's 'trendy', but the children they do adopt are quite obviously the result of hetrosexual relations, including marriage, and unwanted by those very same hetrosexuals![/p][/quote]gay people adopt because man can not beget man nor woman beget woman simple fact of nature martyt

11:14pm Mon 10 Sep 12

martyt says...

Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
[quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ? martyt

11:17pm Mon 10 Sep 12

General Dreedle says...

anubis wrote:
We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest!

What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge.

People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’.

Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t!
That would be ok if the pre-election pledge was wide ranging across policy areas and related to the local manifesto, which incidently made no mention of supporting the issue in question. We have to ask ourselves why were the Green Councillors asked to sign this specific Equalities pledge and no other? Why this one and by whom? Surely a pledge to protect our Green spaces or eradicate child poverty would be more appropriate. No? Ok forget that (especially given the felling of trees in Wild Park and the imminent concreting over of part of the Level). How about a pledge related to one of the 13 priorities detailed in their manifesto, (none of which relate to Equalities) surely that would have been more appropriate. Why this particular issue? Who are the Greens in hock to?
[quote][p][bold]anubis[/bold] wrote: We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest! What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge. People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’. Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t![/p][/quote]That would be ok if the pre-election pledge was wide ranging across policy areas and related to the local manifesto, which incidently made no mention of supporting the issue in question. We have to ask ourselves why were the Green Councillors asked to sign this specific Equalities pledge and no other? Why this one and by whom? Surely a pledge to protect our Green spaces or eradicate child poverty would be more appropriate. No? Ok forget that (especially given the felling of trees in Wild Park and the imminent concreting over of part of the Level). How about a pledge related to one of the 13 priorities detailed in their manifesto, (none of which relate to Equalities) surely that would have been more appropriate. Why this particular issue? Who are the Greens in hock to? General Dreedle

11:17pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Eggs from a female human have been fertilised without a sperm so there is
No need to begat anyone.
Just a 240 volt socket and a lab in Italy.
We are all doomed but remember god made it possible.
Eggs from a female human have been fertilised without a sperm so there is No need to begat anyone. Just a 240 volt socket and a lab in Italy. We are all doomed but remember god made it possible. Maxwell's Ghost

11:22pm Mon 10 Sep 12

martyt says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot.
Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support.
We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral.
Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK.
How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful?
You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square.
I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.
are you claiming you or your partner sleep around ,as you seam to know all the facts on your fellow brits ?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot. Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support. We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral. Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK. How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful? You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square. I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.[/p][/quote]are you claiming you or your partner sleep around ,as you seam to know all the facts on your fellow brits ? martyt

11:31pm Mon 10 Sep 12

gusset snatcher says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot.
Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support.
We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral.
Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK.
How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful?
You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square.
I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.
You know your missus has been out of order when she makes u come in the house by the back door... and you never showed any interest in traversing that route so it must have been rigidly instilled by some underhand cretin
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot. Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support. We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral. Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK. How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful? You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square. I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.[/p][/quote]You know your missus has been out of order when she makes u come in the house by the back door... and you never showed any interest in traversing that route so it must have been rigidly instilled by some underhand cretin gusset snatcher

11:32pm Mon 10 Sep 12

greeg2 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot. Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support. We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral. Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK. How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful? You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square. I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.
You and "your partner" are obviously swingers,but not everyone is..
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot. Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support. We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral. Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK. How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful? You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square. I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.[/p][/quote]You and "your partner" are obviously swingers,but not everyone is.. greeg2

11:38pm Mon 10 Sep 12

martyt says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Eggs from a female human have been fertilised without a sperm so there is
No need to begat anyone.
Just a 240 volt socket and a lab in Italy.
We are all doomed but remember god made it possible.
can you get that on the nhs yet ? and were is the father less off spring ,its a bit like the god thing ,you don t expect folk to believe in something that they have not seen ,or is one just to take a leap of faith in these matters and take it as written just like the words in the bible ?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Eggs from a female human have been fertilised without a sperm so there is No need to begat anyone. Just a 240 volt socket and a lab in Italy. We are all doomed but remember god made it possible.[/p][/quote]can you get that on the nhs yet ? and were is the father less off spring ,its a bit like the god thing ,you don t expect folk to believe in something that they have not seen ,or is one just to take a leap of faith in these matters and take it as written just like the words in the bible ? martyt

11:38pm Mon 10 Sep 12

gnarlychaos says...

true-brightonian wrote:
The fact that Cameron is a huge fan of gay marriage should raise alarm bells. Once upon a time the gay rights movement was radical. Now they just want to get married and settle down? Don't they see that marriage is just another form of social slavery?
Spot on.
The real price here is christinas right like all of us to freedom of expression, nothing homophobic or any sanctioning of inequality in being against same sex marriage,look at the divisions its caused in the church. Well done to the lady for having the courage to uphold her christian values and principles.I am neither a bum bandit or a christian, i have though nothing against either. I am though despising of this green dictatorship. Lets hope they dont do to much more damage to our city before they are all ordered out by the electorate as they surely will be at the next election and quite rightly so.
[quote][p][bold]true-brightonian[/bold] wrote: The fact that Cameron is a huge fan of gay marriage should raise alarm bells. Once upon a time the gay rights movement was radical. Now they just want to get married and settle down? Don't they see that marriage is just another form of social slavery?[/p][/quote]Spot on. The real price here is christinas right like all of us to freedom of expression, nothing homophobic or any sanctioning of inequality in being against same sex marriage,look at the divisions its caused in the church. Well done to the lady for having the courage to uphold her christian values and principles.I am neither a bum bandit or a christian, i have though nothing against either. I am though despising of this green dictatorship. Lets hope they dont do to much more damage to our city before they are all ordered out by the electorate as they surely will be at the next election and quite rightly so. gnarlychaos

12:49am Tue 11 Sep 12

Jules D. says...

Prior to the elections, a green party ccandidate knocked on my door and promised to do his best to stop the open green space on the Level being concreted over. It was his personal opinion that the space should remain green. I had faith in him, particularly as the green party's national policy is to protect and preserve green open spaces in cities. I was further reassured when I saw another green councillor describe themselves as a lover of green open spaces on her Twitter account. He got my vote! What could go wrong.??.....once elected my local councillors did a u-turn on their election promises, the green party unanimously pushed through a plan to build a concrete skatepark on the last remaining open space in my area, and at planning meeting all 6 green councillors voted to loose the open green space so they can build a huge skatepark for a minority group which could have remained in its existing location on the Level or in Black Rock. The national policy has been sidelined in favour of a local redevelopment plan only favoured by a minority group. Should I assume many green councillors were too afraid to speak up in case they too would get kicked out for voicing their personal beliefs. Or has the greed for money and power gone to their heads........
Prior to the elections, a green party ccandidate knocked on my door and promised to do his best to stop the open green space on the Level being concreted over. It was his personal opinion that the space should remain green. I had faith in him, particularly as the green party's national policy is to protect and preserve green open spaces in cities. I was further reassured when I saw another green councillor describe themselves as a lover of green open spaces on her Twitter account. He got my vote! What could go wrong.??.....once elected my local councillors did a u-turn on their election promises, the green party unanimously pushed through a plan to build a concrete skatepark on the last remaining open space in my area, and at planning meeting all 6 green councillors voted to loose the open green space so they can build a huge skatepark for a minority group which could have remained in its existing location on the Level or in Black Rock. The national policy has been sidelined in favour of a local redevelopment plan only favoured by a minority group. Should I assume many green councillors were too afraid to speak up in case they too would get kicked out for voicing their personal beliefs. Or has the greed for money and power gone to their heads........ Jules D.

4:25am Tue 11 Sep 12

JoeBlow says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
The sad thing is that you probably think you are smarter and wiser than her. In reality, your words reveal you to be both a bigger bigot and a bigger fool than the councillor in question.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]The sad thing is that you probably think you are smarter and wiser than her. In reality, your words reveal you to be both a bigger bigot and a bigger fool than the councillor in question. JoeBlow

4:30am Tue 11 Sep 12

Valery Pointless says...

I hear that that Councillor Summers doesn't much like abortions either.

Which is a shame, in retrospect.

I have written a stiff letter (ON CARDBOARD!) to Dr Kitcat to see if we can have that decision overboard.

It's time to jump ship.
I hear that that Councillor Summers doesn't much like abortions either. Which is a shame, in retrospect. I have written a stiff letter (ON CARDBOARD!) to Dr Kitcat to see if we can have that decision overboard. It's time to jump ship. Valery Pointless

4:32am Tue 11 Sep 12

JoeBlow says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot.
Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support.
We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral.
Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK.
How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful?
You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square.
I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.
No wonder the UK is rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: The fact is that marriage in the UK is a shambles no matter who ties the knot. Three in four end in divorce, 95 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock, churches are empty, British people fornicate all over the place and when marriages end we have parents who don't want to pay for their kids but ate happy for the gays and non married to pay their child support. We cannot keep it in our pants gay or straight and the only time we go to church is for a funeral. Stop making such a fuss. The church and marriage is finished in the UK. How many of you posting on here are church goers, were virgins when you got married and have stayed faithful? You have more chance is Jesus opening a shop in Churchill Square. I have been with my partner for 25 years unmarried because it's a sham constitution.[/p][/quote]No wonder the UK is rubbish. JoeBlow

7:35am Tue 11 Sep 12

Dirk Von Roden says...

This Lady at least has been" true unto herself! " I do not agree with her views but do believe she is entitled to them !
"IF" the Greens have any semblance of decency they will reject the finding and reinstate the woman!! this country is supposed to be a place of free speech ! or are the Greens a dictatorship?? Folks the Greens have done nothing but Alienate Tourists and traders as well as motorists who live here Lets demand an election and kick em out!! as much as I disagree with miss Summers I respect the fact that she stood by her beliefs !! lets how the greens what we think of them before its too late!!
This Lady at least has been" true unto herself! " I do not agree with her views but do believe she is entitled to them ! "IF" the Greens have any semblance of decency they will reject the finding and reinstate the woman!! this country is supposed to be a place of free speech ! or are the Greens a dictatorship?? Folks the Greens have done nothing but Alienate Tourists and traders as well as motorists who live here Lets demand an election and kick em out!! as much as I disagree with miss Summers I respect the fact that she stood by her beliefs !! lets how the greens what we think of them before its too late!! Dirk Von Roden

7:44am Tue 11 Sep 12

chrisinbrighton says...

DC78 wrote:
John Fallon wrote:
Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.
Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line.

In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar.
Don't you have to be a liar to become a polititian ?
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Fallon[/bold] wrote: Does this mean you have to toe the Green Party line on everything if you want to be a Green councillor? Seems astonishingly totalitarian to expel someone on an issue of conscience.[/p][/quote]Yes, that's how politics works. You toe the line. In summers case, she signed a declaration of equality and then renegaded. She is a liar.[/p][/quote]Don't you have to be a liar to become a polititian ? chrisinbrighton

7:57am Tue 11 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Get over yourselves and wake up.
I bet hardly any of you posting on here go to church so why are you so obsessed with marriage.
Once pensions stop being handed to spouses after death even fewer will
opt for marriage. And wake up, three in four marriages end in divorce and more women are ending marriages in the UK than at any other time so it's not always about sleeping around, it's about women getting freedom and financial independence and as one of
My recently divorced female friends said: my husband was like our teenage son, playing on the X Box of a night. There was little difference between our son and him and that killed the sexual attraction.
As for being a swinger, you lot really are showing why marriage is so
Outdated. People swing in marriages you fools.
The UK is no longer a Christian country, churches are empty. We must be one of the few countries selling Off places of worship.
Get over yourselves and wake up. I bet hardly any of you posting on here go to church so why are you so obsessed with marriage. Once pensions stop being handed to spouses after death even fewer will opt for marriage. And wake up, three in four marriages end in divorce and more women are ending marriages in the UK than at any other time so it's not always about sleeping around, it's about women getting freedom and financial independence and as one of My recently divorced female friends said: my husband was like our teenage son, playing on the X Box of a night. There was little difference between our son and him and that killed the sexual attraction. As for being a swinger, you lot really are showing why marriage is so Outdated. People swing in marriages you fools. The UK is no longer a Christian country, churches are empty. We must be one of the few countries selling Off places of worship. Maxwell's Ghost

8:04am Tue 11 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Oh and greeg2 it's interesting that you think marriage is some kind of tool to prevent people straying. It's rather quaint.
If that works for you then good, but it clearly doesn't work for the other three in four failed marriages.
Your partner could be at it behind the vows at this moment.
Oh and greeg2 it's interesting that you think marriage is some kind of tool to prevent people straying. It's rather quaint. If that works for you then good, but it clearly doesn't work for the other three in four failed marriages. Your partner could be at it behind the vows at this moment. Maxwell's Ghost

8:54am Tue 11 Sep 12

Tel Scoomer says...

leobrighton wrote:
I think the fact that she made a written statement when standing for election and then go against it later is good enough reason. Honesty before election should be paramount and the Green party have made the right decision.
Cllr Summers signed a promise to uphold equalities. The promise said nothing about gay marriage. Some people have since raised gay marriage as a matter of equality. Others, including Cllr Summers, do not see it as a question of equality.
Watch the webcast of the council meeting. While I don't necessarily agree with Cllr Summers, the Greens have unfortunately made themselves look like a bunch of bigots.
Having supported them in the past, this episode and their approach to parking - including their opposition to park and ride - have dissuaded me from supporting them in future.
[quote][p][bold]leobrighton[/bold] wrote: I think the fact that she made a written statement when standing for election and then go against it later is good enough reason. Honesty before election should be paramount and the Green party have made the right decision.[/p][/quote]Cllr Summers signed a promise to uphold equalities. The promise said nothing about gay marriage. Some people have since raised gay marriage as a matter of equality. Others, including Cllr Summers, do not see it as a question of equality. Watch the webcast of the council meeting. While I don't necessarily agree with Cllr Summers, the Greens have unfortunately made themselves look like a bunch of bigots. Having supported them in the past, this episode and their approach to parking - including their opposition to park and ride - have dissuaded me from supporting them in future. Tel Scoomer

9:12am Tue 11 Sep 12

Tel Scoomer says...

martyt wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.
[quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?[/p][/quote]No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail. Tel Scoomer

9:21am Tue 11 Sep 12

Point says...

What a disgrace, NEVER AGAIN will I vote green, it is paramount to communism their spokesman said " A statement issued by the Brighton and Hove Green Party last night said: "Speaking and voting against policy would not, of itself, be a matter for an internal inquiry.

"Coun Summers is not the first to do so and won’t be the last. This is not an issue of free speech. Nor is it a religious matter.
So are they saying they will pick and choose what their counsellors will be able to vote against before an internal inquiry.
This is a disgrace against freedomm of speech and I hope every siongl;e religious group will openly stand against them..How long before the elections???
What a disgrace, NEVER AGAIN will I vote green, it is paramount to communism their spokesman said " A statement issued by the Brighton and Hove Green Party last night said: "Speaking and voting against policy would not, of itself, be a matter for an internal inquiry. "Coun Summers is not the first to do so and won’t be the last. This is not an issue of free speech. Nor is it a religious matter. So are they saying they will pick and choose what their counsellors will be able to vote against before an internal inquiry. This is a disgrace against freedomm of speech and I hope every siongl;e religious group will openly stand against them..How long before the elections??? Point

9:26am Tue 11 Sep 12

Point says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs?
If not, she should have stood down earlier.
The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate.
She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.
Is this fellow for real
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.[/p][/quote]Is this fellow for real Point

9:33am Tue 11 Sep 12

Point says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Get over yourselves and wake up.
I bet hardly any of you posting on here go to church so why are you so obsessed with marriage.
Once pensions stop being handed to spouses after death even fewer will
opt for marriage. And wake up, three in four marriages end in divorce and more women are ending marriages in the UK than at any other time so it's not always about sleeping around, it's about women getting freedom and financial independence and as one of
My recently divorced female friends said: my husband was like our teenage son, playing on the X Box of a night. There was little difference between our son and him and that killed the sexual attraction.
As for being a swinger, you lot really are showing why marriage is so
Outdated. People swing in marriages you fools.
The UK is no longer a Christian country, churches are empty. We must be one of the few countries selling Off places of worship.
IF ONLY THIS FELLOW HAD A BRAIN
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Get over yourselves and wake up. I bet hardly any of you posting on here go to church so why are you so obsessed with marriage. Once pensions stop being handed to spouses after death even fewer will opt for marriage. And wake up, three in four marriages end in divorce and more women are ending marriages in the UK than at any other time so it's not always about sleeping around, it's about women getting freedom and financial independence and as one of My recently divorced female friends said: my husband was like our teenage son, playing on the X Box of a night. There was little difference between our son and him and that killed the sexual attraction. As for being a swinger, you lot really are showing why marriage is so Outdated. People swing in marriages you fools. The UK is no longer a Christian country, churches are empty. We must be one of the few countries selling Off places of worship.[/p][/quote]IF ONLY THIS FELLOW HAD A BRAIN Point

10:09am Tue 11 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Point wrote:
What a disgrace, NEVER AGAIN will I vote green, it is paramount to communism their spokesman said " A statement issued by the Brighton and Hove Green Party last night said: "Speaking and voting against policy would not, of itself, be a matter for an internal inquiry.

"Coun Summers is not the first to do so and won’t be the last. This is not an issue of free speech. Nor is it a religious matter.
So are they saying they will pick and choose what their counsellors will be able to vote against before an internal inquiry.
This is a disgrace against freedomm of speech and I hope every siongl;e religious group will openly stand against them..How long before the elections???
You should be ashamed of yourself if you are one of the people who voted this mob in, Maxwell raises many good points, although I suspect these are wasted on the less bright folk who come on this site!
[quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: What a disgrace, NEVER AGAIN will I vote green, it is paramount to communism their spokesman said " A statement issued by the Brighton and Hove Green Party last night said: "Speaking and voting against policy would not, of itself, be a matter for an internal inquiry. "Coun Summers is not the first to do so and won’t be the last. This is not an issue of free speech. Nor is it a religious matter. So are they saying they will pick and choose what their counsellors will be able to vote against before an internal inquiry. This is a disgrace against freedomm of speech and I hope every siongl;e religious group will openly stand against them..How long before the elections???[/p][/quote]You should be ashamed of yourself if you are one of the people who voted this mob in, Maxwell raises many good points, although I suspect these are wasted on the less bright folk who come on this site! Somethingsarejustwrong

10:16am Tue 11 Sep 12

voiceofthescoombe says...

Every other council member voted for this pretty meaningless thing.
So yes she desrves a slap.
She may be a devout christian the people of brighton are not.
Niether are the people of the UK claiming we are a Christian country is pushing the idea till it breaks.
Every other council member voted for this pretty meaningless thing. So yes she desrves a slap. She may be a devout christian the people of brighton are not. Niether are the people of the UK claiming we are a Christian country is pushing the idea till it breaks. voiceofthescoombe

10:22am Tue 11 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

voiceofthescoombe wrote:
Every other council member voted for this pretty meaningless thing.
So yes she desrves a slap.
She may be a devout christian the people of brighton are not.
Niether are the people of the UK claiming we are a Christian country is pushing the idea till it breaks.
I don't think your comment is accurate, or relevant.
[quote][p][bold]voiceofthescoombe[/bold] wrote: Every other council member voted for this pretty meaningless thing. So yes she desrves a slap. She may be a devout christian the people of brighton are not. Niether are the people of the UK claiming we are a Christian country is pushing the idea till it breaks.[/p][/quote]I don't think your comment is accurate, or relevant. Somethingsarejustwrong

10:29am Tue 11 Sep 12

Dr Wombleface says...

Christina Summers was quoted on the BBC website as saying "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice". She's wrong, but what's the difference between that and discriminating against homosexuals? Not much in my book.
Anyway, if Christians are against gay marriage, why are there so many gay vicars?
Christina Summers was quoted on the BBC website as saying "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice". She's wrong, but what's the difference between that and discriminating against homosexuals? Not much in my book. Anyway, if Christians are against gay marriage, why are there so many gay vicars? Dr Wombleface

10:32am Tue 11 Sep 12

Roy Pennington says...

time for a proper "conscience clause" in the contract between a Party and its members.
time for a proper "conscience clause" in the contract between a Party and its members. Roy Pennington

10:42am Tue 11 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

Roy Pennington wrote:
time for a proper "conscience clause" in the contract between a Party and its members.
Time for people to wise up and stop making ridiculous decisions when voting more like!

We are all presently suffering as a direct consequence of the Labour years and we know that Labour received the majority of their votes from the free-loading and workshy population rather than the hard working and conscientious.

The bottom line is that the range and value of benefits will only reduce now regardless of the party and freedom of speech is critical to the future success of the UK. Those who can't see this are delusional and will only be disappointed as the future unfolds.. Workshy, its time to consider your options and those clutching onto the rights of gay marriage should let go!
[quote][p][bold]Roy Pennington[/bold] wrote: time for a proper "conscience clause" in the contract between a Party and its members.[/p][/quote]Time for people to wise up and stop making ridiculous decisions when voting more like! We are all presently suffering as a direct consequence of the Labour years and we know that Labour received the majority of their votes from the free-loading and workshy population rather than the hard working and conscientious. The bottom line is that the range and value of benefits will only reduce now regardless of the party and freedom of speech is critical to the future success of the UK. Those who can't see this are delusional and will only be disappointed as the future unfolds.. Workshy, its time to consider your options and those clutching onto the rights of gay marriage should let go! Somethingsarejustwrong

10:47am Tue 11 Sep 12

oknotko says...

Morpheus wrote:
Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.
No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate.
[quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.[/p][/quote]No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate. oknotko

11:03am Tue 11 Sep 12

F in L says...

gusset snatcher wrote:
Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin
Goodness me! I sincerely hope so for everyone's sake/
[quote][p][bold]gusset snatcher[/bold] wrote: Another nail in the coffin for the countries only green mp and admin[/p][/quote]Goodness me! I sincerely hope so for everyone's sake/ F in L

11:30am Tue 11 Sep 12

Martha Gunn says...

oknotko wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.
No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate.
Whoops oknotko - yet again!
The Church and State are NOT separate in this country. In France yes, in the USA and in many other places. But not in this country.
[quote][p][bold]oknotko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.[/p][/quote]No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate.[/p][/quote]Whoops oknotko - yet again! The Church and State are NOT separate in this country. In France yes, in the USA and in many other places. But not in this country. Martha Gunn

11:46am Tue 11 Sep 12

Andy R says...

Point wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote: Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.
Is this fellow for real
Seems a perfectly reasonable view to me. The real issue is that this person will be able to continue as a councillor for another 3 years (drawing the salary) despite having been less than honest with her electorate about her beliefs. Obtaining votes under false pretences, I think it's called.

She should resign as a councillor and stand as an Independent (Christian?) in the by-election. If various people on here are right, she'd romp home and the Greens would be humiliated....
[quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Did she tell the electorate she was a devout Christian and that it would influence her voting on any issue which affected her beliefs? If not, she should have stood down earlier. The gay marriage issue may have forced her hand but you cannot have any councillor standing for a party who has a higher boss (ie god) than the electorate. She was voted in by the public to represent them not god.[/p][/quote]Is this fellow for real[/p][/quote]Seems a perfectly reasonable view to me. The real issue is that this person will be able to continue as a councillor for another 3 years (drawing the salary) despite having been less than honest with her electorate about her beliefs. Obtaining votes under false pretences, I think it's called. She should resign as a councillor and stand as an Independent (Christian?) in the by-election. If various people on here are right, she'd romp home and the Greens would be humiliated.... Andy R

11:51am Tue 11 Sep 12

oknotko says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
oknotko wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.
No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate.
Whoops oknotko - yet again!
The Church and State are NOT separate in this country. In France yes, in the USA and in many other places. But not in this country.
Yet again? What's yet again?

You didn't answer my question before BTW. Simply restating what you orginally said is not an answer.

Ahh yes, church and state are related in the UK but that is mostly a fomality no? When was the last time the Chruch of England made a law? It's like the constitutional monarchy we have in this country, in 'theory' the Queen has power, in practice, she has very little.

Also, unlike France and the USA, we don't have a written constitution clearly delineating that separation. It's that weird situation where we don't have an 'official' split (as we don't have a written constitution), yet our church is becoming increasingly irrelevant, yet in the US, they have an official split but their churchs are vastly more important than here.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oknotko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morpheus[/bold] wrote: Join the Greens but leave your brains and beliefs at the door.[/p][/quote]No, you can keep your brains but yeah, leave your archaic beliefs dictated by a sky fairy at the door. There is a reason that church and state are separate.[/p][/quote]Whoops oknotko - yet again! The Church and State are NOT separate in this country. In France yes, in the USA and in many other places. But not in this country.[/p][/quote]Yet again? What's yet again? You didn't answer my question before BTW. Simply restating what you orginally said is not an answer. Ahh yes, church and state are related in the UK but that is mostly a fomality no? When was the last time the Chruch of England made a law? It's like the constitutional monarchy we have in this country, in 'theory' the Queen has power, in practice, she has very little. Also, unlike France and the USA, we don't have a written constitution clearly delineating that separation. It's that weird situation where we don't have an 'official' split (as we don't have a written constitution), yet our church is becoming increasingly irrelevant, yet in the US, they have an official split but their churchs are vastly more important than here. oknotko

11:59am Tue 11 Sep 12

oknotko says...

Typos - sorry, using my phone.
Typos - sorry, using my phone. oknotko

12:55pm Tue 11 Sep 12

fredflintstone1 says...

Tel Scoomer wrote:
martyt wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.
There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage.

If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague.

Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).
[quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?[/p][/quote]No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.[/p][/quote]There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...). fredflintstone1

1:02pm Tue 11 Sep 12

TrevorA says...

What a sinister bunch of creeps these Greenie Marxists really are. Dispite the PC weasle words they use, totalitarian and thoroughly Stalinist best describes them..
What a sinister bunch of creeps these Greenie Marxists really are. Dispite the PC weasle words they use, totalitarian and thoroughly Stalinist best describes them.. TrevorA

1:30pm Tue 11 Sep 12

elainepkils says...

Bigotry of any kind is wrong. religious people say that we are all made in gods image, so he must have been gay..
Prejudice must be stamped out so lets start in Sussex.
Bigotry of any kind is wrong. religious people say that we are all made in gods image, so he must have been gay.. Prejudice must be stamped out so lets start in Sussex. elainepkils

1:30pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

DC78 wrote:
Numptyone wrote:
I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way.

Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent.

Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go.

Her free speech remains and always has been intact.
How many people EVER agree with 100% with their political party? I used to be a Labour party member and there was no way I agreed with everything I'd signed up to. Maybe she'd joined the Greens because, oh I don't know, she was concerned about the environment?

Whilst I accept you don't want to be a single-issue party you are not doing yourself any favours by insisting that all your members all think exactly the same on every single issue. So yes, she was under a dictatorship.

And, no I didn't agree with her, I thought her views were actually unChristian. (Jesus never preached against homosexuals, you have to look to Paul and Leviticus in the old testament to find the homophobes).
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Numptyone[/bold] wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.[/p][/quote]When Summers joined the Green Party, she signed a declaration stating she was pro equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation. She is not being denied her free speech, she is not under a dictatorship. She has every right to stand as an independent. Her views were not in line with her party and therefore, she had to go. Her free speech remains and always has been intact.[/p][/quote]How many people EVER agree with 100% with their political party? I used to be a Labour party member and there was no way I agreed with everything I'd signed up to. Maybe she'd joined the Greens because, oh I don't know, she was concerned about the environment? Whilst I accept you don't want to be a single-issue party you are not doing yourself any favours by insisting that all your members all think exactly the same on every single issue. So yes, she was under a dictatorship. And, no I didn't agree with her, I thought her views were actually unChristian. (Jesus never preached against homosexuals, you have to look to Paul and Leviticus in the old testament to find the homophobes). Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit

1:39pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Will's blog says...

The Greens normally let their councillors vote however they like on council motions. The leadership has put a knife in to make an example.
Still, look on the bright side, she hasn't been sent to a camp and air brushed out of the group photo. (yet?)
The Greens normally let their councillors vote however they like on council motions. The leadership has put a knife in to make an example. Still, look on the bright side, she hasn't been sent to a camp and air brushed out of the group photo. (yet?) Will's blog

2:11pm Tue 11 Sep 12

F in L says...

Dr Wombleface wrote:
Christina Summers was quoted on the BBC website as saying "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice". She's wrong, but what's the difference between that and discriminating against homosexuals? Not much in my book.
Anyway, if Christians are against gay marriage, why are there so many gay vicars?
In answer to you last point, the reason there are so many Gay Vicars is that there are so few Choir GIRLS
[quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: Christina Summers was quoted on the BBC website as saying "It's discriminatory against Christians. It's a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice". She's wrong, but what's the difference between that and discriminating against homosexuals? Not much in my book. Anyway, if Christians are against gay marriage, why are there so many gay vicars?[/p][/quote]In answer to you last point, the reason there are so many Gay Vicars is that there are so few Choir GIRLS F in L

3:03pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Heathen Earth says...

Will's blog wrote:
The Greens normally let their councillors vote however they like on council motions. The leadership has put a knife in to make an example.
Still, look on the bright side, she hasn't been sent to a camp and air brushed out of the group photo. (yet?)
With a bit of luck she'll be exiled to Alaska where she can play with her pal Sarah Palin, another religious nutcase keen on guns! (anyone else seen the photo's of Cllr Summers out shooting?)
[quote][p][bold]Will's blog[/bold] wrote: The Greens normally let their councillors vote however they like on council motions. The leadership has put a knife in to make an example. Still, look on the bright side, she hasn't been sent to a camp and air brushed out of the group photo. (yet?)[/p][/quote]With a bit of luck she'll be exiled to Alaska where she can play with her pal Sarah Palin, another religious nutcase keen on guns! (anyone else seen the photo's of Cllr Summers out shooting?) Heathen Earth

3:11pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Will's blog says...

Another thought is she is getting a lot of publicity out of this. Maybe she thinks it's time to switch party and up her profile. City councillors aren't independent for long. It too difficult filling in the forms.
Another thought is she is getting a lot of publicity out of this. Maybe she thinks it's time to switch party and up her profile. City councillors aren't independent for long. It too difficult filling in the forms. Will's blog

4:21pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Point says...

Am I right in saying the other Green member to leave the chamber before the vote was Jason Kitcat's wife?
Am I right in saying the other Green member to leave the chamber before the vote was Jason Kitcat's wife? Point

4:24pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Dealing with idiots says...

Ho, Ho self destruction from within. I love it. Bye bye Jason and the astronauts.
Ho, Ho self destruction from within. I love it. Bye bye Jason and the astronauts. Dealing with idiots

4:29pm Tue 11 Sep 12

fascinator says...

Somethingsarejustwro
ng
wrote:
They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other.
Do you know them all?
[quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other.[/p][/quote]Do you know them all? fascinator

4:56pm Tue 11 Sep 12

tartanesque says...

There was a fairly straightforward compromise position available to the councillor - she could have abstained rather than voting against.

We can all see that there are competing rights and values at play here, and matters of conscience. But a pledge is a pledge and she's clearly gone back on her word on this particular matter, making the case that her god doesn't like it and so choosing to discriminate against a significant section of the community.

I reckon she's in the wrong job and/or political party.
There was a fairly straightforward compromise position available to the councillor - she could have abstained rather than voting against. We can all see that there are competing rights and values at play here, and matters of conscience. But a pledge is a pledge and she's clearly gone back on her word on this particular matter, making the case that her god doesn't like it and so choosing to discriminate against a significant section of the community. I reckon she's in the wrong job and/or political party. tartanesque

5:15pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

fascinator wrote:
Somethingsarejustwro

ng
wrote:
They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other.
Do you know them all?
Yes!
[quote][p][bold]fascinator[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Somethingsarejustwro ng[/bold] wrote: They are all as bad as (and indeed deserve) each other.[/p][/quote]Do you know them all?[/p][/quote]Yes! Somethingsarejustwrong

6:40pm Tue 11 Sep 12

pperrin says...

Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action.

I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers...
Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action. I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers... pperrin

6:54pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Angryoldman says...

Maybe she would feel more at home in the BNP
Maybe she would feel more at home in the BNP Angryoldman

6:59pm Tue 11 Sep 12

sussexguy says...

So, if we ever wanted proof that the Green Party is the true successor to the Soviet Union, we now have it. Forget freedom of thought, let alone speech. It is appalling that a member is expelled because she does not agree with the rest of the party, over a trivial matter that has nothing to do with their constant bellyaching about the environment, pollution, global warming, The Green Party is really a sickening left wing group determined, even more than the ghastly New Labour, to control our lives, right down to every petty detail. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the question of gay marriage, thank goodness there is someone who is not afraid to speak her mind, according to her conscience, and is not prepared to toe the line just to satisfy the pathetic egos of the rest of the party.The sooner we get rid of such a bunch of dangerous, incompetent and bigotted clowns the better.
So, if we ever wanted proof that the Green Party is the true successor to the Soviet Union, we now have it. Forget freedom of thought, let alone speech. It is appalling that a member is expelled because she does not agree with the rest of the party, over a trivial matter that has nothing to do with their constant bellyaching about the environment, pollution, global warming, The Green Party is really a sickening left wing group determined, even more than the ghastly New Labour, to control our lives, right down to every petty detail. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the question of gay marriage, thank goodness there is someone who is not afraid to speak her mind, according to her conscience, and is not prepared to toe the line just to satisfy the pathetic egos of the rest of the party.The sooner we get rid of such a bunch of dangerous, incompetent and bigotted clowns the better. sussexguy

11:25pm Tue 11 Sep 12

sonsofthunder says...

There seem to be several major concerns raised by the Green Party stance.
1. the issue of gay marriage is not clearly an equality issue (indeed the european court of human rights has ruled it is not)
2. by interpreting the issue as a rights one the party appears to have made itself discriminatory by demanding members support Gay marriage it is clearly discriminatory against christians, jews and muslims and others who do not share these views.
3. If the green party sees marriage as a human right then logic demands it must allow polygamists the right to define marriage as suits them and anyone else who wants to extend the term marriage to there own brand of relationship, (two sisters were banned from having a civil partnership which they wished to enter into to secure inheritance rights)
The green party is either green in the sense of naive or green in the sense of stomach turningly biggoted.
There seem to be several major concerns raised by the Green Party stance. 1. the issue of gay marriage is not clearly an equality issue (indeed the european court of human rights has ruled it is not) 2. by interpreting the issue as a rights one the party appears to have made itself discriminatory by demanding members support Gay marriage it is clearly discriminatory against christians, jews and muslims and others who do not share these views. 3. If the green party sees marriage as a human right then logic demands it must allow polygamists the right to define marriage as suits them and anyone else who wants to extend the term marriage to there own brand of relationship, (two sisters were banned from having a civil partnership which they wished to enter into to secure inheritance rights) The green party is either green in the sense of naive or green in the sense of stomach turningly biggoted. sonsofthunder

2:32am Wed 12 Sep 12

tonybee says...

LOL @ Pete of Queens Park's post
re Jason Kitkat & The Dictators !
Sounds like a failed pop group whose
one & only record was "GREEN & RED STARS "...................
.......
To all the IDIOTS who voted Green - see what IDIOTS u have landed us with, Next time get a grip & vote properly.
LOL @ Pete of Queens Park's post re Jason Kitkat & The Dictators ! Sounds like a failed pop group whose one & only record was "GREEN & RED STARS "................... ....... To all the IDIOTS who voted Green - see what IDIOTS u have landed us with, Next time get a grip & vote properly. tonybee

8:29am Wed 12 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

tonybee wrote:
LOL @ Pete of Queens Park's post
re Jason Kitkat & The Dictators !
Sounds like a failed pop group whose
one & only record was "GREEN & RED STARS "...................

.......
To all the IDIOTS who voted Green - see what IDIOTS u have landed us with, Next time get a grip & vote properly.
Good points
[quote][p][bold]tonybee[/bold] wrote: LOL @ Pete of Queens Park's post re Jason Kitkat & The Dictators ! Sounds like a failed pop group whose one & only record was "GREEN & RED STARS "................... ....... To all the IDIOTS who voted Green - see what IDIOTS u have landed us with, Next time get a grip & vote properly.[/p][/quote]Good points Somethingsarejustwrong

9:10am Wed 12 Sep 12

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Angryoldman wrote:
Maybe she would feel more at home in the BNP
No. The BNP is a working class party.
[quote][p][bold]Angryoldman[/bold] wrote: Maybe she would feel more at home in the BNP[/p][/quote]No. The BNP is a working class party. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit

10:02am Wed 12 Sep 12

Jezreel says...

What has not been explained is the stupidity of the Greens for ever taking on board someone who belongs to a church which believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that mankind shared the planet with the dinosaurs.
Did they not see a conflict over the view that climate change is not a man-made catastrophe, but a punishment from God? and the dispensationalist church view that we must all back Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, because it is God's wish that we do so?

This clash was inevitable, and easily foreseable. Evidently the GP in Brighton don't know how to google.
What has not been explained is the stupidity of the Greens for ever taking on board someone who belongs to a church which believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that mankind shared the planet with the dinosaurs. Did they not see a conflict over the view that climate change is not a man-made catastrophe, but a punishment from God? and the dispensationalist church view that we must all back Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, because it is God's wish that we do so? This clash was inevitable, and easily foreseable. Evidently the GP in Brighton don't know how to google. Jezreel

10:35am Wed 12 Sep 12

hursthill says...

I don't see what Israel has to do with this dispute, but some people like jezreel are so full of malice & hate to Israel. Worth thinking about the human rights abuses committed by Palestinians & Arab countries.

Now lets get back to the contents of this Argus article.
1). The Greens should reinstate Cllr Summers & allow her to vote freely.
2). Cllr Summers should accept the right of gay marriage.
3) Cllr Duncan should be expelled from Brighton Council for his offensive rape jokes.
I don't see what Israel has to do with this dispute, but some people like jezreel are so full of malice & hate to Israel. Worth thinking about the human rights abuses committed by Palestinians & Arab countries. Now lets get back to the contents of this Argus article. 1). The Greens should reinstate Cllr Summers & allow her to vote freely. 2). Cllr Summers should accept the right of gay marriage. 3) Cllr Duncan should be expelled from Brighton Council for his offensive rape jokes. hursthill

10:50am Wed 12 Sep 12

General Dreedle says...

Point wrote:
Am I right in saying the other Green member to leave the chamber before the vote was Jason Kitcat's wife?
It was reported on the Brighton & Hove News Website.

http://www.brightona
ndhovenews.org/2012/
07/28/green-may-expe
l-christian-councill
or-for-voting-agains
t-gay-marriage/16480
[quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: Am I right in saying the other Green member to leave the chamber before the vote was Jason Kitcat's wife?[/p][/quote]It was reported on the Brighton & Hove News Website. http://www.brightona ndhovenews.org/2012/ 07/28/green-may-expe l-christian-councill or-for-voting-agains t-gay-marriage/16480 General Dreedle

10:53am Wed 12 Sep 12

General Dreedle says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
martyt wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.
There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage.

If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague.

Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).
Good idea. Come on Tim Ridgeway, get her on the phone and ask her to state her public position.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?[/p][/quote]No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.[/p][/quote]There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).[/p][/quote]Good idea. Come on Tim Ridgeway, get her on the phone and ask her to state her public position. General Dreedle

11:37am Wed 12 Sep 12

Point says...

My final word on the matter, a cllr with morals and a backbone. quickly make her the Mayor, replace the dope we have now..
My final word on the matter, a cllr with morals and a backbone. quickly make her the Mayor, replace the dope we have now.. Point

12:29pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Just asking! says...

Can you support equalities and not support gay marriage at the same time? I would have thought the answer is obviously yes. Who decides what things you have to agree with in order to support equality? Surely that is a matter for yourself, and it seems clear that Cllr Summers believes very strongly in equality, but does not support this particular aspect. I don't see any problem with this. Her protests outside an abortion clinic are far more problematic, not because of her views on abortion, but because she may have caused distress to others, but that is not why she is being expelled.
Can you support equalities and not support gay marriage at the same time? I would have thought the answer is obviously yes. Who decides what things you have to agree with in order to support equality? Surely that is a matter for yourself, and it seems clear that Cllr Summers believes very strongly in equality, but does not support this particular aspect. I don't see any problem with this. Her protests outside an abortion clinic are far more problematic, not because of her views on abortion, but because she may have caused distress to others, but that is not why she is being expelled. Just asking!

1:31pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Point says...

pperrin wrote:
Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action.

I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers...
I agree with you, there seems to be a witch hunt out for cllr Summers
[quote][p][bold]pperrin[/bold] wrote: Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action. I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers...[/p][/quote]I agree with you, there seems to be a witch hunt out for cllr Summers Point

1:31pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Point says...

pperrin wrote:
Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action.

I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers...
I agree with you, there seems to be a witch hunt out for cllr Summers
[quote][p][bold]pperrin[/bold] wrote: Tartanesque - the agreement the Greens are citing is to 'promote and advance' their position - abstaining would not 'promote' nor 'advance' their policy - so would be as bad as Councillor Summers action. I am wondering why their abstainers (who attended the debate) are not being treated in an equal manner to concillor sumers...[/p][/quote]I agree with you, there seems to be a witch hunt out for cllr Summers Point

1:36pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Point says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
martyt wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.
There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage.

If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague.

Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).
I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked..
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?[/p][/quote]No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.[/p][/quote]There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).[/p][/quote]I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked.. Point

2:22pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

Point wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
martyt wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.
There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).
I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked..
There is, alas, a cruel logic to this notion that Ania Kitcat should be summoned by the Inquisitors on the 'panel' that evaluated the question of how to deal with naughty Christina who stepped out of line.

She is, however, said to have been a signatory to the Green Party Notice of Motion Amendment to the basic Labour Notice of Motion. Does that equate to actually voting for the Administration to Lobby Govt to create gay marriage?
[quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?[/p][/quote]No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.[/p][/quote]There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).[/p][/quote]I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked..[/p][/quote]There is, alas, a cruel logic to this notion that Ania Kitcat should be summoned by the Inquisitors on the 'panel' that evaluated the question of how to deal with naughty Christina who stepped out of line. She is, however, said to have been a signatory to the Green Party Notice of Motion Amendment to the basic Labour Notice of Motion. Does that equate to actually voting for the Administration to Lobby Govt to create gay marriage? Valerie Paynter

2:42pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

anubis wrote:
We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest! What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge. People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’. Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t!
How many voters read any of these pledges, know anything at all about so-called manifestoes (for what they are worth) or have anything other than a media-conditioned view of individual political parties?

Few. Very, very few.
[quote][p][bold]anubis[/bold] wrote: We live in a world where electoral candidates routinely sign pledges, promising support for principles they believe supported by the public. However, once elected, once ‘in power’, these pre-election commitments are routinely ‘forgotten’ --- and the majority of people don’t even protest! What has happened in THIS case is refreshingly ‘unusual’. As opposed to the routinely accepted behaviour in Tory, LibDem and Labour parties, the Green Party clearly expects THEIR successful candidates to honour their pre-election pledge. People who, almost every day of the week, moan about the routine reneging of their pre-election promises by the Camerons, Cleggs and Millibands (and their disciples) manage to keep their faith in their defaulting ‘leaders’ (as does most of the general public, represented by posters on this thread!) … while the PRINCIPLED conduct of the Brighton Greens is perceived as ‘a crime’. Wouldn’t it be great if ALL would-be ‘politicians’ were expected to honour their pledges – and were promptly sacked if they didn’t![/p][/quote]How many voters read any of these pledges, know anything at all about so-called manifestoes (for what they are worth) or have anything other than a media-conditioned view of individual political parties? Few. Very, very few. Valerie Paynter

3:09pm Wed 12 Sep 12

feistyfaerie says...

Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results!

Hang on a minute...
Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way?
Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system.
Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results! Hang on a minute... Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way? Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system. feistyfaerie

3:49pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Jezreel says...

feistyfaerie wrote:
Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results!

Hang on a minute...
Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way?
Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system.
Youv'e missed the point feisty. Parties have a mandate from the electors based on their policies and sometimes on their manifesto.

If a councillor is elected for a party he/she sticks to policy other than when there is a free vote. This maverick broke the mandate and voted against her own party.

Nor is it just her own party. She was out of step with everyone except God (according to her) Though when I discussed this with God she was all for it.
[quote][p][bold]feistyfaerie[/bold] wrote: Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results! Hang on a minute... Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way? Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system.[/p][/quote]Youv'e missed the point feisty. Parties have a mandate from the electors based on their policies and sometimes on their manifesto. If a councillor is elected for a party he/she sticks to policy other than when there is a free vote. This maverick broke the mandate and voted against her own party. Nor is it just her own party. She was out of step with everyone except God (according to her) Though when I discussed this with God she was all for it. Jezreel

8:04pm Wed 12 Sep 12

General Dreedle says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Point wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
martyt wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.
There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).
I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked..
There is, alas, a cruel logic to this notion that Ania Kitcat should be summoned by the Inquisitors on the 'panel' that evaluated the question of how to deal with naughty Christina who stepped out of line.

She is, however, said to have been a signatory to the Green Party Notice of Motion Amendment to the basic Labour Notice of Motion. Does that equate to actually voting for the Administration to Lobby Govt to create gay marriage?
No Valerie it does not. It's one thing to put your name to a notice of motion but the the deciding issue on whether you are 'promoting and advancing equality etc' is surely defined by whether you vote on it or not. By leaving the chamber Anja Kitkat has also failed to 'promote and advance equalities etc' and so should be subjected to the same Ministry of Love enquiry as Councillor Summers. Although apparently some people are more equal than others in the Green Party.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?[/p][/quote]No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.[/p][/quote]There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).[/p][/quote]I totally agree with this apart from one thing Anna Kitcat and Cllr Summers should be cleared and the idiots on the Green comittee should all be sacked..[/p][/quote]There is, alas, a cruel logic to this notion that Ania Kitcat should be summoned by the Inquisitors on the 'panel' that evaluated the question of how to deal with naughty Christina who stepped out of line. She is, however, said to have been a signatory to the Green Party Notice of Motion Amendment to the basic Labour Notice of Motion. Does that equate to actually voting for the Administration to Lobby Govt to create gay marriage?[/p][/quote]No Valerie it does not. It's one thing to put your name to a notice of motion but the the deciding issue on whether you are 'promoting and advancing equality etc' is surely defined by whether you vote on it or not. By leaving the chamber Anja Kitkat has also failed to 'promote and advance equalities etc' and so should be subjected to the same Ministry of Love enquiry as Councillor Summers. Although apparently some people are more equal than others in the Green Party. General Dreedle

8:17pm Wed 12 Sep 12

General Dreedle says...

Jezreel wrote:
feistyfaerie wrote:
Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results!

Hang on a minute...
Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way?
Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system.
Youv'e missed the point feisty. Parties have a mandate from the electors based on their policies and sometimes on their manifesto.

If a councillor is elected for a party he/she sticks to policy other than when there is a free vote. This maverick broke the mandate and voted against her own party.

Nor is it just her own party. She was out of step with everyone except God (according to her) Though when I discussed this with God she was all for it.
No, you've missed the point Jezreel. The Greens have expelled Summers for not sticking to the signed pledge, which was just about Equalities. Why have they asked councillors to sign this one pledge? What press ure groups are pulling their strings? If they are going to kick out a councillor for renaging on a pledge they might as well kick them all out as they campaigned on protecting green spaces and have felled trees in wild park and are about to concrete over the level. The greens know they are in a difficult political place over the Summers issue and have tried not to alienate the faith or vote by saying that the reason for the expulsion is not about the issue at hand but the fact that she renaged ona signed promise. All politicians renage on promises and the local greens certainly have. Their argument for kicking her out is the argument of a child. Or are they just a one issue party?
[quote][p][bold]Jezreel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]feistyfaerie[/bold] wrote: Hi. I've got this issue I want you all to vote on. BUT if you don't vote the same way I do, I'm gonna kick you out of my gang. If you don't agree with me but you don't want to get kicked out then don't take part because you'll mess up my results! Hang on a minute... Putting aside all personal opinions and religious beliefs for a second, does no-one else see the pointlessness of having a vote (on anything) if you're only allowed to vote one way? Methinks there's a flaw in this voting system.[/p][/quote]Youv'e missed the point feisty. Parties have a mandate from the electors based on their policies and sometimes on their manifesto. If a councillor is elected for a party he/she sticks to policy other than when there is a free vote. This maverick broke the mandate and voted against her own party. Nor is it just her own party. She was out of step with everyone except God (according to her) Though when I discussed this with God she was all for it.[/p][/quote]No, you've missed the point Jezreel. The Greens have expelled Summers for not sticking to the signed pledge, which was just about Equalities. Why have they asked councillors to sign this one pledge? What press ure groups are pulling their strings? If they are going to kick out a councillor for renaging on a pledge they might as well kick them all out as they campaigned on protecting green spaces and have felled trees in wild park and are about to concrete over the level. The greens know they are in a difficult political place over the Summers issue and have tried not to alienate the faith or vote by saying that the reason for the expulsion is not about the issue at hand but the fact that she renaged ona signed promise. All politicians renage on promises and the local greens certainly have. Their argument for kicking her out is the argument of a child. Or are they just a one issue party? General Dreedle

10:19pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Dealing with idiots says...

Valery Pointless wrote:
I hear that that Councillor Summers doesn't much like abortions either. Which is a shame, in retrospect. I have written a stiff letter (ON CARDBOARD!) to Dr Kitcat to see if we can have that decision overboard. It's time to jump ship.
Check out Linkedin. Kitcat couldn't hack it and bottled on the doctorate.
[quote][p][bold]Valery Pointless[/bold] wrote: I hear that that Councillor Summers doesn't much like abortions either. Which is a shame, in retrospect. I have written a stiff letter (ON CARDBOARD!) to Dr Kitcat to see if we can have that decision overboard. It's time to jump ship.[/p][/quote]Check out Linkedin. Kitcat couldn't hack it and bottled on the doctorate. Dealing with idiots

10:22pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Dealing with idiots says...

Point wrote:
My final word on the matter, a cllr with morals and a backbone. quickly make her the Mayor, replace the dope we have now..
At least Bill's face and red mayoral robe match.
[quote][p][bold]Point[/bold] wrote: My final word on the matter, a cllr with morals and a backbone. quickly make her the Mayor, replace the dope we have now..[/p][/quote]At least Bill's face and red mayoral robe match. Dealing with idiots

12:28pm Thu 13 Sep 12

JaseBHA says...

Numptyone wrote:
I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way.

Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
It's not that the Green way is the only way - if she didn't agree with it and wanted to go some other way, she did not have to sign the declaration or stand for them.

And 'Point', if she had morals, she wouldn't have reneged on the commitment (or would not have signed it in the first place if she didn't believe in it).

It's the Greens, for Pete's sake, not Uncle Joe's Communist Party. If you don't agree with the pledge, don't sign it.
[quote][p][bold]Numptyone[/bold] wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.[/p][/quote]It's not that the Green way is the only way - if she didn't agree with it and wanted to go some other way, she did not have to sign the declaration or stand for them. And 'Point', if she had morals, she wouldn't have reneged on the commitment (or would not have signed it in the first place if she didn't believe in it). It's the Greens, for Pete's sake, not Uncle Joe's Communist Party. If you don't agree with the pledge, don't sign it. JaseBHA

1:45pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

JaseBHA wrote:
Numptyone wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.
It's not that the Green way is the only way - if she didn't agree with it and wanted to go some other way, she did not have to sign the declaration or stand for them. And 'Point', if she had morals, she wouldn't have reneged on the commitment (or would not have signed it in the first place if she didn't believe in it). It's the Greens, for Pete's sake, not Uncle Joe's Communist Party. If you don't agree with the pledge, don't sign it.
It's my understanding that there was no single pledge to sign. Just signed up to a list of things, with equality as one of them.

If the Court of Human Rights did indeed judge (previous comment) that gay marriage is not an equalities issue, then the Green Party is bang out of order and breaking the law in harassing Christina and seeking ratification by elected Members for the decision taken by a panel of (who and how many? and that Jason Kitcat resigned from (he tweeted it), that Cllr Summers be 'expelled' from the Group which takes her off committees like Planning.

The Greens look pretty frenzied and tangled up in chaos to me.
[quote][p][bold]JaseBHA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Numptyone[/bold] wrote: I am not agreeing with the stance of councillor Summer but isn't this country build on freedom of speech and choice, it looks like the Green way is the only way. Oh to be under a dictator and his wannabes.[/p][/quote]It's not that the Green way is the only way - if she didn't agree with it and wanted to go some other way, she did not have to sign the declaration or stand for them. And 'Point', if she had morals, she wouldn't have reneged on the commitment (or would not have signed it in the first place if she didn't believe in it). It's the Greens, for Pete's sake, not Uncle Joe's Communist Party. If you don't agree with the pledge, don't sign it.[/p][/quote]It's my understanding that there was no single pledge to sign. Just signed up to a list of things, with equality as one of them. If the Court of Human Rights did indeed judge (previous comment) that gay marriage is not an equalities issue, then the Green Party is bang out of order and breaking the law in harassing Christina and seeking ratification by elected Members for the decision taken by a panel of (who and how many? and that Jason Kitcat resigned from (he tweeted it), that Cllr Summers be 'expelled' from the Group which takes her off committees like Planning. The Greens look pretty frenzied and tangled up in chaos to me. Valerie Paynter

10:43pm Thu 13 Sep 12

championshipgull says...

The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating . championshipgull

9:36am Fri 14 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .
You should make your comment into a letter@theargus.co.u
k contribution !
[quote][p][bold]championshipgull[/bold] wrote: The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .[/p][/quote]You should make your comment into a letter@theargus.co.u k contribution ! Valerie Paynter

11:02am Fri 14 Sep 12

Jezreel says...

championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .
Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once.

Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party.

More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst
[quote][p][bold]championshipgull[/bold] wrote: The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .[/p][/quote]Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once. Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party. More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst Jezreel

11:34am Fri 14 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

In March, 2012 the European Court of Human Rights made a decision concerning 2 French lesbians and the right of one to adopt the child of the other.

Cutting to the chase: their decision was that gay marriage is not a human right.

One online report can be read here:
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/religion
/9157029/Gay-marriag
e-is-not-a-human-rig
ht-according-to-Euro
pean-ruling.html and it put a spanner in the UK works concerning legalising gay marriage.

Should gay marriage be legalised, under equality laws, religious bodies would be discriminating if they refused to give religious marriage to gay people.

The proposed legislation is therefore not viable. And so there is a question that arises as to why the Labour Group raised their Notice of Motion lobbying Govt. in support of gay marriage.
In March, 2012 the European Court of Human Rights made a decision concerning 2 French lesbians and the right of one to adopt the child of the other. Cutting to the chase: their decision was that gay marriage is not a human right. One online report can be read here: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/religion /9157029/Gay-marriag e-is-not-a-human-rig ht-according-to-Euro pean-ruling.html and it put a spanner in the UK works concerning legalising gay marriage. Should gay marriage be legalised, under equality laws, religious bodies would be discriminating if they refused to give religious marriage to gay people. The proposed legislation is therefore not viable. And so there is a question that arises as to why the Labour Group raised their Notice of Motion lobbying Govt. in support of gay marriage. Valerie Paynter

2:44pm Fri 14 Sep 12

see and speak sense says...

General Dreedle wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
martyt wrote:
Tel Scoomer wrote:
The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.
are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?
No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs.
There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party.
I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote.
At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters.
One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates.
Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process.
While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest.
The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.
There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage.

If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague.

Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).
Good idea. Come on Tim Ridgeway, get her on the phone and ask her to state her public position.
I am surprised by the statement of Jezereal...you are a christian but you do not and many in the church do not agree with Cllr Summers stance....I happen to have witnessed Cllr summers in action ( and i am not a green voter!!) but i can honestly say that her genuine desire to see and act for those with social , emotional and physical challenges goes beyond the call of duty of a cllr!!
Her refreshing honesty and desire to see people progress is paramount.She took her postion as a cllr, she did not conveniently leave before voting as cllr A Kitcat did, she did not absence herself due to sickness but continue to draw a wage as Cllr Kenedy continues to do!She did not deny her responsibility by abstaining and therefore lie in public where she was coming from..( actually it is important to remember that her vote did not make any effect on the outcome of the motion!!).She did not complain and winge about the role ,responsibilities or the reception for the mayor and then take the postion and do the same thing, like Cllr Randall, she did not hide the fact that she is a devout christian to any member of the green party, this was public knowledge.She did not twitter or publicaly pass comment and the ideology of the LGBT grouping, nor pass comment of levels of sexual violence towards any group , as Cllr Duncan. She did not in any way , form or postion get involved with services like the police to push her opinion into action against any group that have a right to voice freedom of expression, like a number of green cllrs have and up to present continue to do even up to date!!She has not used different measures or weights with groups, as the entire green group and party have and continue to do in regards to LGBT grouping and Faith groups( not just christian).
So her honesty ,is not the same as main line church, obvious not the same as the green group and party.Maybe thats why people are not flocking to mainline church but are still attracted to churches outside mainline...i hope that the actual truth about who we have in council in the postion of the green party comes out !!! Caroline Lucas and Jason Kitcat I hope the depth of who and what you are standing for , what you are allowing to happen not only comes out but will not let you settle until genuine justice is done...Cllr Summers may not have been expelled by the green party or group as yet but come on do you honestly think that the level of behaviour thus seen will keep her in for genuine reasons or that cllr Summers feels that her colleagues want to work with her after calling for an enquiry???
[quote][p][bold]General Dreedle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martyt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tel Scoomer[/bold] wrote: The Greens wanted to remove funding for school transport to Cardinal Newman and have opposed the King's School, a proposed Christian school. They are not using Christian old people's homes in the city. The Green Mayor is, I believe, the first not to have a chaplain for the year. Hardly any Green councillors attend prayers before Full Council meetings unlike almost all Labour and Tory councillors. There may be more to this than the Argus has so far reported. The Greens, methinks, doth protest too much.[/p][/quote]are you saying that the greens are the anti Christ?[/p][/quote]No, but many Greens have spoken and acted against those who, rightly or wrongly, hold religious beliefs. There looks to me to be a strand of hardline fascism in the local party. I don't go to church although I'm told the Leader and his wife do. If you watch the council's webcast, although the quality is poor you should be able to see that Cllr Ania Kitcat, the Leader's wife, quietly leaves the council chamber before the vote. At least Cllr Summers made her view known and herself accountable to voters. One of the Greens told me that Cllr Ania Kitcat was raised as a Polish Catholic and, like Cllr Summers, could not in all conscience vote for the motion about gay marriage. By not taking the opportunity to vote for equalities when she had it, she too has broken the same undertaking signed by all Green candidates. Surely, if the Greens believe in equality, she will be treated the same and be subject to the same disciplinary process. While I might not agree with either Cllr, at least Cllr Summers has been open, transparent and accountable. Cllr Ania Kitcat's approach strikes me as less honest. The Greens have tied themselves in a knot on thus issue and the knot looks suspiciously like a noose. I hope Cllr Summers appeals and wiser head's prevail.[/p][/quote]There's a simple solution to this. The Green Politburo / Central Committee (or whatever they call themselves) should summon the leader's wife and ask her to state publicly that she is in favour of gay marriage. If she refuses, then she must suffer the same fate as her former colleague. Coming from a former Communist country, I'm sure she'll understand - unlike those of us who are Brighton born 'n' bred. (Or 'inbred' as she views us...).[/p][/quote]Good idea. Come on Tim Ridgeway, get her on the phone and ask her to state her public position.[/p][/quote]I am surprised by the statement of Jezereal...you are a christian but you do not and many in the church do not agree with Cllr Summers stance....I happen to have witnessed Cllr summers in action ( and i am not a green voter!!) but i can honestly say that her genuine desire to see and act for those with social , emotional and physical challenges goes beyond the call of duty of a cllr!! Her refreshing honesty and desire to see people progress is paramount.She took her postion as a cllr, she did not conveniently leave before voting as cllr A Kitcat did, she did not absence herself due to sickness but continue to draw a wage as Cllr Kenedy continues to do!She did not deny her responsibility by abstaining and therefore lie in public where she was coming from..( actually it is important to remember that her vote did not make any effect on the outcome of the motion!!).She did not complain and winge about the role ,responsibilities or the reception for the mayor and then take the postion and do the same thing, like Cllr Randall, she did not hide the fact that she is a devout christian to any member of the green party, this was public knowledge.She did not twitter or publicaly pass comment and the ideology of the LGBT grouping, nor pass comment of levels of sexual violence towards any group , as Cllr Duncan. She did not in any way , form or postion get involved with services like the police to push her opinion into action against any group that have a right to voice freedom of expression, like a number of green cllrs have and up to present continue to do even up to date!!She has not used different measures or weights with groups, as the entire green group and party have and continue to do in regards to LGBT grouping and Faith groups( not just christian). So her honesty ,is not the same as main line church, obvious not the same as the green group and party.Maybe thats why people are not flocking to mainline church but are still attracted to churches outside mainline...i hope that the actual truth about who we have in council in the postion of the green party comes out !!! Caroline Lucas and Jason Kitcat I hope the depth of who and what you are standing for , what you are allowing to happen not only comes out but will not let you settle until genuine justice is done...Cllr Summers may not have been expelled by the green party or group as yet but come on do you honestly think that the level of behaviour thus seen will keep her in for genuine reasons or that cllr Summers feels that her colleagues want to work with her after calling for an enquiry??? see and speak sense

6:41pm Fri 14 Sep 12

Martha Gunn says...

Can we have have update on this story please? Is there still no word from the Green Party leadership? My Green Party chums up-country are furious about what it has all come to. They have put a lot of effort coming down to Brighton in their droves in recent years to get Lucas and her Council elected. Now Kitcat and Co. have fouled up big time. And not a word of explanation from them. We deserve to be told what on earth is going on.
Can we have have update on this story please? Is there still no word from the Green Party leadership? My Green Party chums up-country are furious about what it has all come to. They have put a lot of effort coming down to Brighton in their droves in recent years to get Lucas and her Council elected. Now Kitcat and Co. have fouled up big time. And not a word of explanation from them. We deserve to be told what on earth is going on. Martha Gunn

8:25pm Fri 14 Sep 12

PorkBoat says...

The watermelon party showing their true colours once again. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Red with the blood of 100 million+ victims of Marxist inspired ideology.
The watermelon party showing their true colours once again. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Red with the blood of 100 million+ victims of Marxist inspired ideology. PorkBoat

9:46pm Sat 15 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

When the 'panel's recommendation to expell CS goes before her colleagues i hope they'll have the guts to say who voted how.
When the 'panel's recommendation to expell CS goes before her colleagues i hope they'll have the guts to say who voted how. Valerie Paynter

10:12pm Sat 15 Sep 12

Jezreel says...

Just wondering. Where is Valerie Paynter coming from? I have declared myself as a practising Christian opposed to bigotry and fundamentalist intolerance.
Valerie, perhaps you would illuminate this discussion be saying where you stand on issues such as abortion, gun laws and gay relationships
Just wondering. Where is Valerie Paynter coming from? I have declared myself as a practising Christian opposed to bigotry and fundamentalist intolerance. Valerie, perhaps you would illuminate this discussion be saying where you stand on issues such as abortion, gun laws and gay relationships Jezreel

11:23am Sun 16 Sep 12

Bob_The_Ferret says...

A witch hunt! A witch hunt! We all love a witch hunt.
Long live the inquisitors!
A witch hunt! A witch hunt! We all love a witch hunt. Long live the inquisitors! Bob_The_Ferret

7:38pm Sun 16 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

Jezreel wrote:
Just wondering. Where is Valerie Paynter coming from? I have declared myself as a practising Christian opposed to bigotry and fundamentalist intolerance. Valerie, perhaps you would illuminate this discussion be saying where you stand on issues such as abortion, gun laws and gay relationships
I am against abortion as a contraceptive measure, against gun ownership and use, and have friends I am very fond of who happen to be in same sex partnerships, one couple in a civil partnership. And when I recently learned that two ladies I thought would be together forever had split up, I was really saddened.

My views and beliefs are not at issue; the behaviour of the Green Party is what is at issue - for me - and their fundamentalist intolerance and bigotry.

They have shifted from being the Green Party that was formed out of the old Ecology Party into a rag bag of rights lobbyists who have ruthlessly infiltrated it and taken it over for their own individual (perhaps personally ambitious) purposes which seem only very tenuously or very minorly about being 'Green'. And I am choking on it.
[quote][p][bold]Jezreel[/bold] wrote: Just wondering. Where is Valerie Paynter coming from? I have declared myself as a practising Christian opposed to bigotry and fundamentalist intolerance. Valerie, perhaps you would illuminate this discussion be saying where you stand on issues such as abortion, gun laws and gay relationships[/p][/quote]I am against abortion as a contraceptive measure, against gun ownership and use, and have friends I am very fond of who happen to be in same sex partnerships, one couple in a civil partnership. And when I recently learned that two ladies I thought would be together forever had split up, I was really saddened. My views and beliefs are not at issue; the behaviour of the Green Party is what is at issue - for me - and their fundamentalist intolerance and bigotry. They have shifted from being the Green Party that was formed out of the old Ecology Party into a rag bag of rights lobbyists who have ruthlessly infiltrated it and taken it over for their own individual (perhaps personally ambitious) purposes which seem only very tenuously or very minorly about being 'Green'. And I am choking on it. Valerie Paynter

9:34pm Sun 16 Sep 12

championshipgull says...

Jezreel wrote:
championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .
Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once.

Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party.

More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst
Jezreel says...
10:02am Wed 12 Sep 12
What has not been explained is the stupidity of the Greens for ever taking on board someone who belongs to a church which believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that mankind shared the planet with the dinosaurs.
Did they not see a conflict over the view that climate change is not a man-made catastrophe, but a punishment from God? and the dispensationalist church view that we must all back Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, because it is God's wish that we do so?

This clash was inevitable, and easily foreseable. Evidently the GP in Brighton don't know how to google.

championshipgull says…
I did a bit of a Google to find out what Christians believe and my findings are very different from yours. Most christens believe the earth was created in 6 day. Not a literal day but a thousand years so the earth was created in 6000 years.
The Christian sites I looked at believe man is responsible for climate change or it is part of a cycle and I found several Christian organisations that are helping both Palestinian and Israeli. So I think you are wrong on all 3 counts or giving out misinformation. Which posses the question do you know how to Google yourself or are you not reading your bible.

As regards your response to my comment no one on the council is “spouting obnoxious racist views” which makes your point invalid and in both the headline and the article above if you have read it, its states that the councillor has been expelled.

Oh and I found this on a evangelical Christian site http://www.godandsci
ence.org/
Did Noah take dinosaurs on the ark?
No. There weren't any dinosaurs to take along at that point in time, since they had died 65 million years ago. In fact, since the flood was likely local in extent, Noah probably did not take Polar Bears, penguins, or giraffes.
So Jezreel you just are plane wrong on all counts.
[quote][p][bold]Jezreel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]championshipgull[/bold] wrote: The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .[/p][/quote]Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once. Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party. More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst[/p][/quote]Jezreel says... 10:02am Wed 12 Sep 12 What has not been explained is the stupidity of the Greens for ever taking on board someone who belongs to a church which believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that mankind shared the planet with the dinosaurs. Did they not see a conflict over the view that climate change is not a man-made catastrophe, but a punishment from God? and the dispensationalist church view that we must all back Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, because it is God's wish that we do so? This clash was inevitable, and easily foreseable. Evidently the GP in Brighton don't know how to google. championshipgull says… I did a bit of a Google to find out what Christians believe and my findings are very different from yours. Most christens believe the earth was created in 6 day. Not a literal day but a thousand years so the earth was created in 6000 years. The Christian sites I looked at believe man is responsible for climate change or it is part of a cycle and I found several Christian organisations that are helping both Palestinian and Israeli. So I think you are wrong on all 3 counts or giving out misinformation. Which posses the question do you know how to Google yourself or are you not reading your bible. As regards your response to my comment no one on the council is “spouting obnoxious racist views” which makes your point invalid and in both the headline and the article above if you have read it, its states that the councillor has been expelled. Oh and I found this on a evangelical Christian site http://www.godandsci ence.org/ Did Noah take dinosaurs on the ark? No. There weren't any dinosaurs to take along at that point in time, since they had died 65 million years ago. In fact, since the flood was likely local in extent, Noah probably did not take Polar Bears, penguins, or giraffes. So Jezreel you just are plane wrong on all counts. championshipgull

9:02am Mon 17 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

She has not been expelled yet. A panel of 3 was convened to look into the charge against her. Jason Kitcat was one of them - the makeup of the panel is dictated by their Constitution, not by choice.

When the panel of just THREE judged she was not guilty of having gone against her signed pledge and then looked to expand the charge and look at other things she believed and did, Jason appears to have decided he could not go along with this and he resigned from the Panel.

It has been pointed out on the blog I got this from (where the details are posted after this confidential (he tells us) report was leaked to him) that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Jason to resign and he speculates about Jason resigning as Convenor if he resigns from the Panel.

This Green Party insider (married to a former Green Party Councillor) further tells the world that 12 of the serving Green cllrs have signed up to expelling Christina Summers.

Only after these serving cllrs make their judgment will we know if CS is indeed TO BE expelled. Depends on how much of a political death-wish the party has, I reckon.

If the party want to go after CS for anything other than her vote on gay marriage a SECOND panel will have to be set up and a SECOND, SEPARATE CHARGE laid against her.
She has not been expelled yet. A panel of 3 was convened to look into the charge against her. Jason Kitcat was one of them - the makeup of the panel is dictated by their Constitution, not by choice. When the panel of just THREE judged she was not guilty of having gone against her signed pledge and then looked to expand the charge and look at other things she believed and did, Jason appears to have decided he could not go along with this and he resigned from the Panel. It has been pointed out on the blog I got this from (where the details are posted after this confidential (he tells us) report was leaked to him) that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Jason to resign and he speculates about Jason resigning as Convenor if he resigns from the Panel. This Green Party insider (married to a former Green Party Councillor) further tells the world that 12 of the serving Green cllrs have signed up to expelling Christina Summers. Only after these serving cllrs make their judgment will we know if CS is indeed TO BE expelled. Depends on how much of a political death-wish the party has, I reckon. If the party want to go after CS for anything other than her vote on gay marriage a SECOND panel will have to be set up and a SECOND, SEPARATE CHARGE laid against her. Valerie Paynter

9:02am Mon 17 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

She has not been expelled yet. A panel of 3 was convened to look into the charge against her. Jason Kitcat was one of them - the makeup of the panel is dictated by their Constitution, not by choice.

When the panel of just THREE judged she was not guilty of having gone against her signed pledge and then looked to expand the charge and look at other things she believed and did, Jason appears to have decided he could not go along with this and he resigned from the Panel.

It has been pointed out on the blog I got this from (where the details are posted after this confidential (he tells us) report was leaked to him) that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Jason to resign and he speculates about Jason resigning as Convenor if he resigns from the Panel.

This Green Party insider (married to a former Green Party Councillor) further tells the world that 12 of the serving Green cllrs have signed up to expelling Christina Summers.

Only after these serving cllrs make their judgment will we know if CS is indeed TO BE expelled. Depends on how much of a political death-wish the party has, I reckon.

If the party want to go after CS for anything other than her vote on gay marriage a SECOND panel will have to be set up and a SECOND, SEPARATE CHARGE laid against her.
She has not been expelled yet. A panel of 3 was convened to look into the charge against her. Jason Kitcat was one of them - the makeup of the panel is dictated by their Constitution, not by choice. When the panel of just THREE judged she was not guilty of having gone against her signed pledge and then looked to expand the charge and look at other things she believed and did, Jason appears to have decided he could not go along with this and he resigned from the Panel. It has been pointed out on the blog I got this from (where the details are posted after this confidential (he tells us) report was leaked to him) that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Jason to resign and he speculates about Jason resigning as Convenor if he resigns from the Panel. This Green Party insider (married to a former Green Party Councillor) further tells the world that 12 of the serving Green cllrs have signed up to expelling Christina Summers. Only after these serving cllrs make their judgment will we know if CS is indeed TO BE expelled. Depends on how much of a political death-wish the party has, I reckon. If the party want to go after CS for anything other than her vote on gay marriage a SECOND panel will have to be set up and a SECOND, SEPARATE CHARGE laid against her. Valerie Paynter

11:05am Mon 17 Sep 12

Dealing with idiots says...

Bob_The_Ferret wrote:
A witch hunt! A witch hunt! We all love a witch hunt. Long live the inquisitors!
Put her in the comfy chair.
[quote][p][bold]Bob_The_Ferret[/bold] wrote: A witch hunt! A witch hunt! We all love a witch hunt. Long live the inquisitors![/p][/quote]Put her in the comfy chair. Dealing with idiots

6:19pm Mon 17 Sep 12

see and speak sense says...

championshipgull wrote:
Jezreel wrote:
championshipgull wrote:
The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .
Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once.

Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party.

More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst
Jezreel says...
10:02am Wed 12 Sep 12
What has not been explained is the stupidity of the Greens for ever taking on board someone who belongs to a church which believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that mankind shared the planet with the dinosaurs.
Did they not see a conflict over the view that climate change is not a man-made catastrophe, but a punishment from God? and the dispensationalist church view that we must all back Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, because it is God's wish that we do so?

This clash was inevitable, and easily foreseable. Evidently the GP in Brighton don't know how to google.

championshipgull says…
I did a bit of a Google to find out what Christians believe and my findings are very different from yours. Most christens believe the earth was created in 6 day. Not a literal day but a thousand years so the earth was created in 6000 years.
The Christian sites I looked at believe man is responsible for climate change or it is part of a cycle and I found several Christian organisations that are helping both Palestinian and Israeli. So I think you are wrong on all 3 counts or giving out misinformation. Which posses the question do you know how to Google yourself or are you not reading your bible.

As regards your response to my comment no one on the council is “spouting obnoxious racist views” which makes your point invalid and in both the headline and the article above if you have read it, its states that the councillor has been expelled.

Oh and I found this on a evangelical Christian site http://www.godandsci

ence.org/
Did Noah take dinosaurs on the ark?
No. There weren't any dinosaurs to take along at that point in time, since they had died 65 million years ago. In fact, since the flood was likely local in extent, Noah probably did not take Polar Bears, penguins, or giraffes.
So Jezreel you just are plane wrong on all counts.
Where have you been ... There are numerous green councillers and green party members who have done more than spout obnoxious racist views and they have have not even received a slap on the wrist... But then i suppose how can it be obnoxious when it's the core of where they are coming from... I suppose vetting them would mean no party....I suppose it is getting more and more obvious that the frightening reality is ... We do not actually have a party running council... Just a party at each others throats and in training at the tax payers expense!!!!
[quote][p][bold]championshipgull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jezreel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]championshipgull[/bold] wrote: The greens sign up to “uphold and advance the values of equality for all people”. They wouldn’t expel a gay person for their beliefs so if they are expelling a christian person for her beliefs, that’s not equality, that means the greens are discriminating .[/p][/quote]Why would they not expel a gay person for their beliefs? If a gay person started spouting obnoxious racist views I would hope the Greens would expel them at once. Moreover this person has not been expelled, as I understand it she is no longer part of the Green group on the council because she voted against them in full council. However she is still a member of the party. More fools the Greens for not vetting this person before accepting her as a candidate, had this been done properly it would have been evident that she is a dinosaur on social and gender issues. I speak as a practicing Christian. Her evangelical views are not even mainstream amongst Churchgoers. Most Christians regard evangelical fundamentalists as oddballs at best, right wing and intolerant at worst[/p][/quote]Jezreel says... 10:02am Wed 12 Sep 12 What has not been explained is the stupidity of the Greens for ever taking on board someone who belongs to a church which believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that mankind shared the planet with the dinosaurs. Did they not see a conflict over the view that climate change is not a man-made catastrophe, but a punishment from God? and the dispensationalist church view that we must all back Israel, regardless of human rights abuses, because it is God's wish that we do so? This clash was inevitable, and easily foreseable. Evidently the GP in Brighton don't know how to google. championshipgull says… I did a bit of a Google to find out what Christians believe and my findings are very different from yours. Most christens believe the earth was created in 6 day. Not a literal day but a thousand years so the earth was created in 6000 years. The Christian sites I looked at believe man is responsible for climate change or it is part of a cycle and I found several Christian organisations that are helping both Palestinian and Israeli. So I think you are wrong on all 3 counts or giving out misinformation. Which posses the question do you know how to Google yourself or are you not reading your bible. As regards your response to my comment no one on the council is “spouting obnoxious racist views” which makes your point invalid and in both the headline and the article above if you have read it, its states that the councillor has been expelled. Oh and I found this on a evangelical Christian site http://www.godandsci ence.org/ Did Noah take dinosaurs on the ark? No. There weren't any dinosaurs to take along at that point in time, since they had died 65 million years ago. In fact, since the flood was likely local in extent, Noah probably did not take Polar Bears, penguins, or giraffes. So Jezreel you just are plane wrong on all counts.[/p][/quote]Where have you been ... There are numerous green councillers and green party members who have done more than spout obnoxious racist views and they have have not even received a slap on the wrist... But then i suppose how can it be obnoxious when it's the core of where they are coming from... I suppose vetting them would mean no party....I suppose it is getting more and more obvious that the frightening reality is ... We do not actually have a party running council... Just a party at each others throats and in training at the tax payers expense!!!! see and speak sense

6:44pm Mon 17 Sep 12

championshipgull says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.
Think you are right about the greens being the most “incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council” (and it looks as if we are in the vast majority), but I think it is unfair to call councillor Summers homophobic if she is supporting civil partnerships. It seems to me it’s the definition of marriage that’s at the crux of the argument.
When doing some research for my post above , I found that although some parts of the bible have been made into children’s story’s (I remember someone reading some to me) I now appreciate the bible does have a sound basis in science.
There appears to be a lot of misinformation in these comments and if Valerie Paynter is correct, the headline itself is too, but I wonder if the Argus will argue the expulsion is a technicality.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Weird - I'm sure I sure a pledge from the Green party that there was no party whip ! Regardless it's funny watching the most incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council ripping itself apart because of a homophobic Christian who believes in a book of fairytales.[/p][/quote]Think you are right about the greens being the most “incompetent political party ever to take control of B&H council” (and it looks as if we are in the vast majority), but I think it is unfair to call councillor Summers homophobic if she is supporting civil partnerships. It seems to me it’s the definition of marriage that’s at the crux of the argument. When doing some research for my post above , I found that although some parts of the bible have been made into children’s story’s (I remember someone reading some to me) I now appreciate the bible does have a sound basis in science. There appears to be a lot of misinformation in these comments and if Valerie Paynter is correct, the headline itself is too, but I wonder if the Argus will argue the expulsion is a technicality. championshipgull

10:13am Tue 18 Sep 12

Aussie Mick says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
She has not been expelled yet. A panel of 3 was convened to look into the charge against her. Jason Kitcat was one of them - the makeup of the panel is dictated by their Constitution, not by choice.

When the panel of just THREE judged she was not guilty of having gone against her signed pledge and then looked to expand the charge and look at other things she believed and did, Jason appears to have decided he could not go along with this and he resigned from the Panel.

It has been pointed out on the blog I got this from (where the details are posted after this confidential (he tells us) report was leaked to him) that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Jason to resign and he speculates about Jason resigning as Convenor if he resigns from the Panel.

This Green Party insider (married to a former Green Party Councillor) further tells the world that 12 of the serving Green cllrs have signed up to expelling Christina Summers.

Only after these serving cllrs make their judgment will we know if CS is indeed TO BE expelled. Depends on how much of a political death-wish the party has, I reckon.

If the party want to go after CS for anything other than her vote on gay marriage a SECOND panel will have to be set up and a SECOND, SEPARATE CHARGE laid against her.
If what you say is true about Jason withdrawing from the panel because of the desire for a wider witch-hunt when they couldn't get her on the original charge, then I have to say he has gone way up in my estimation. Only briefly though. I can't help thinking that he should have stuck it out and showed some leadership (he is after all the leader) in guiding the panel as to what was the right course of action instead of washing his hands. (Is Pontius Pilate a good analogy in these circumstances?) I'm a Green voter and I don't agree with Summers but this has all the hallmarks of a Kangeroo Court where this panel acts as prosecutor and judge. If they are allowed to do this there are serious flaws in our party's constitution.

The blog of a fellow Green Party member that publishes the leaked report states,
"The GG Convenor (Jason) tendered his resignation from the panel on 1 September. However, by this point the panel had already completed its substantive decision-making work; the only work remaining to be done was the writing up and delivery of its report. Given that the Constitution allows the panel to reach its decisions by majority vote, and that there seemed little likelihood anyway that further votes would be needed, the two remaining panel members agreed that the work of the panel could be completed in accordance with the Constitution and with the will of the GG as expressed in the resolution of 23 July".

This is a beyond a joke. How are they able to ignore such a serious issue as a member of Jason's ilk resigning from the panel and take a decision to carry on regardless?

They are effectively saying Jason was part of the decision as all they had to do was write up the report. and oh yes, VOTE on it. They clearly hadn't voted on it when Jason left the panel yet the other two (who were they anyway?) had clearly made up their minds.

Also Jason's statement confirms he dipped in and out of the panel. That cannot be just. Having worked in Personnel departments I can tell you that nowhere have I found an organisation that thinks its acceptable to do this during an investigation.

The whole sorry saga smaks of amateurism and petty vendettas.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: She has not been expelled yet. A panel of 3 was convened to look into the charge against her. Jason Kitcat was one of them - the makeup of the panel is dictated by their Constitution, not by choice. When the panel of just THREE judged she was not guilty of having gone against her signed pledge and then looked to expand the charge and look at other things she believed and did, Jason appears to have decided he could not go along with this and he resigned from the Panel. It has been pointed out on the blog I got this from (where the details are posted after this confidential (he tells us) report was leaked to him) that there is no mechanism in the Constitution for Jason to resign and he speculates about Jason resigning as Convenor if he resigns from the Panel. This Green Party insider (married to a former Green Party Councillor) further tells the world that 12 of the serving Green cllrs have signed up to expelling Christina Summers. Only after these serving cllrs make their judgment will we know if CS is indeed TO BE expelled. Depends on how much of a political death-wish the party has, I reckon. If the party want to go after CS for anything other than her vote on gay marriage a SECOND panel will have to be set up and a SECOND, SEPARATE CHARGE laid against her.[/p][/quote]If what you say is true about Jason withdrawing from the panel because of the desire for a wider witch-hunt when they couldn't get her on the original charge, then I have to say he has gone way up in my estimation. Only briefly though. I can't help thinking that he should have stuck it out and showed some leadership (he is after all the leader) in guiding the panel as to what was the right course of action instead of washing his hands. (Is Pontius Pilate a good analogy in these circumstances?) I'm a Green voter and I don't agree with Summers but this has all the hallmarks of a Kangeroo Court where this panel acts as prosecutor and judge. If they are allowed to do this there are serious flaws in our party's constitution. The blog of a fellow Green Party member that publishes the leaked report states, "The GG Convenor (Jason) tendered his resignation from the panel on 1 September. However, by this point the panel had already completed its substantive decision-making work; the only work remaining to be done was the writing up and delivery of its report. Given that the Constitution allows the panel to reach its decisions by majority vote, and that there seemed little likelihood anyway that further votes would be needed, the two remaining panel members agreed that the work of the panel could be completed in accordance with the Constitution and with the will of the GG as expressed in the resolution of 23 July". This is a beyond a joke. How are they able to ignore such a serious issue as a member of Jason's ilk resigning from the panel and take a decision to carry on regardless? They are effectively saying Jason was part of the decision as all they had to do was write up the report. and oh yes, VOTE on it. They clearly hadn't voted on it when Jason left the panel yet the other two (who were they anyway?) had clearly made up their minds. Also Jason's statement confirms he dipped in and out of the panel. That cannot be just. Having worked in Personnel departments I can tell you that nowhere have I found an organisation that thinks its acceptable to do this during an investigation. The whole sorry saga smaks of amateurism and petty vendettas. Aussie Mick

12:11am Wed 19 Sep 12

Valerie Paynter says...

Why have important comments been suddenly removed? Especially the one predicting a resignation and arrest?
Why have important comments been suddenly removed? Especially the one predicting a resignation and arrest? Valerie Paynter

10:09pm Tue 9 Oct 12

SuBratchie says...

I am not homo phobic, I believe in equality, we are all equal and important, however, we have been given free will to choose how we will live, who we will serve, and what we believe. We are not dictators sending people to the gas chambers because they are not like us. I believe in tolerance, giving one set of people more rights than another is not equality. She is an honest woman with integrity, who has a faith, she did not say that homosexuals do not have the right to choose their lifestyle, and she is like me not against civil partnerships, nor the right of people to choose whom they will love and share their life with! that is not open to debate, most of the people who have commented here do not realise the depth of what is happening here, it is about CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AND FORCING UPON THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIANS , do you know where this will lead? Christians will become the demonised people here, they will have their faith and concience before God mocked! as you are doing on this website, I dont see anyone being rude to Gays and Lesbians, or challenging their right to live as they wish, we are talking about another group of people having their choice of lifestyle robbed, where is the equality in this.? Lets arrest the Vicars, Pastors and Christians, shall we> sounds to me like that is where we are going, equality, freedom of speech, free will, free choice, free speech, sounds like dictatorship to me in an insidious form. Leave 'Marriage' alone, 'partners' is the modern thing, call it what you like but dont 'force' your will on others. THAT is truly what is happening here...brave lady
I am not homo phobic, I believe in equality, we are all equal and important, however, we have been given free will to choose how we will live, who we will serve, and what we believe. We are not dictators sending people to the gas chambers because they are not like us. I believe in tolerance, giving one set of people more rights than another is not equality. She is an honest woman with integrity, who has a faith, she did not say that homosexuals do not have the right to choose their lifestyle, and she is like me not against civil partnerships, nor the right of people to choose whom they will love and share their life with! that is not open to debate, most of the people who have commented here do not realise the depth of what is happening here, it is about CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AND FORCING UPON THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIANS , do you know where this will lead? Christians will become the demonised people here, they will have their faith and concience before God mocked! as you are doing on this website, I dont see anyone being rude to Gays and Lesbians, or challenging their right to live as they wish, we are talking about another group of people having their choice of lifestyle robbed, where is the equality in this.? Lets arrest the Vicars, Pastors and Christians, shall we> sounds to me like that is where we are going, equality, freedom of speech, free will, free choice, free speech, sounds like dictatorship to me in an insidious form. Leave 'Marriage' alone, 'partners' is the modern thing, call it what you like but dont 'force' your will on others. THAT is truly what is happening here...brave lady SuBratchie

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