In June 2007, James bought a new home in London and I continued to claim back my share of the costs. I extended the mortgage on my Somerset property, for which I do not claim any allowances or expenses, to help James purchase the new property.

In my line of work, since they were also in a relationship they would be considered spousal equivalents.

I do, however, have an increased level of repsect of David Laws in one respect: he kept his sexuality secret and did not try to exploit it to political ends as others have done. Especially considering the Lib Dems lack of societal representation, he could have easily increased his profile. But he chose to keep his provate life private.

The way this story has been broken – despite the Telegraph’s claims that “the Daily Telegraph was not intending to disclose Mr Laws’s sexuality”, the tone of the articles certainly suggests that his relationship was some kind of sordid affair – just look at the headline:

Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim.

If that’s not an attempt to frame the story, I don’t know what is!

It is an issue that he was claiming expenses whilst living in his partner’s house, regardless of the secret nature of their relationship. He should not have done that, and erred on the side of caution in terms of the expenses rules regarding partners residences. Certainly, if he wanted secrecy regarding the relationship, not claiming expenses on the second home would have guaranteed it!

He obviously wanted to keep his private life private, unlike many modern politicians who wear their family life on their sleeve like some kind of badge. Laws has done so well recently as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, it’s really a pity. I don’t think that he should be fored to resign over this, though it would certainly be the easy solution.

If it’s a question of somebody who’s doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn’t come into their own home.

This is for one very simple reason: if they are opening their home to paying customers, they are opening it to anyone who will pay the rates they charge. Regardless of personal situation. Homeowners have the right to exclude anyone they want from their home – until they turn into into a business as a B&B.

However, it is hardly right to accuse him (or the Conservative Party) of being homophobic, as Laborites have done and continue to do so, for suggesting that B&B owners should have the right to turn way gay couples if they choose. Especially since he also said this:

If they are running a hotel on the High Street, I really don’t think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes.

I obviously disagree that there is a dividing line between the two. But it is hardly homophobic to consider that there is a difference.

What annoys me more is actually the predilection to refer to the sexuality of gay politicians whenever these topics come up:

Conservative leader David Cameron has apologised for Section 28 – the controversial law brought in by his party in 1988 banning local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light.

And in February, openly gay Tory frontbencher Nick Herbert said there had been a “self-evident” change in his party’s attitude to gay people.

But the culture secretary Ben Bradshaw, who is openly gay, told the BBC: “Not only is this displaying the fact that the Conservatives have not really changed on this and many other issues, but here you have the shadow home secretary advocating that people break the law.” (BBC)

Why the need to make the “openly gay” comment? Does it matter? No. Also, you have to ask why it is always the gay politicians who are pushed up front to talk to the media whenever these topics arise… that stinks more of homophobia to me than anything else we have seen recently.

It is Cindy McCain, wife of 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. And she is featured posing in favour of same-sex marriage – along with her daughter Maghan McCain.

Considering the usual nature of Republicans – fundamental Christianity and a hatred of gays appears to come as standard – this is a brave and important step. Maybe now Republicanism will start to move forwards and embrace rel freedoms and stop trying to define marriage as between one man and one woman – rather than between two people who love each other.

We only had “civil partnerships” legalised here a couple of years ago – though hopefully these will soon be referred to as “marriages” in precisely the same way as those between a man and a woman (if it isn’t oretty much there already).

Equality is equality. People who love each other should have the right to get married, no matter whether they are of the same gender. And if the Republicans want to become electable, they need to recognise this.

With any luck, this is the start of a campaign to soften up the American people.

No, it’s not.

“I’m perfectly liberal, I just think gays should be shot before they spread the disease to us straights.”

Luke Richards
President, Warwick University Liberal Democrats

TB has also found some pictures of this homophobe with his party leader:

However much this might have been a “joke” (as one can hope it was), had this been a member of CF, the story would have been picked up by the media and action would have been taken, resulting in their expulsion.

But as it’s a Lib Dem? Nothing yet.

Yes, I know that no-one cares about Lib Dems, that they’re a pointless political party with no real influence. But they want to hit the big time, and Clegg wants to be Prime Minister. So it’s about time they started the face the sort of scrutiny that the other parties face. And that includes their youth movement.

Pope Benedict XVI has proven that he certainly isn’t Santa Claus but closer to the Anti-Santa, by coming out as a homophobe.

There is simply no way that the Pope’s remarks can be acceptable. He should retract his statements. How exactly can you compare homosexuality with deforesting with any seriousness?

So in the season of goodwill he’s saying that gays are killing humanity. Anti-Santa-isation process is complete!

A school “hip-hop musical” commissioned by Stonewall has been staged across the country, aimed at telling school children that it is “OK to be gay”. As is simple common-sense.

There is nothing wrong with being gay. And this is a message that should be sent out by all and sundry to our children, so that they understand this and don’t grow up to become Daily Mail readers homophobic.

One quote from a parent shows just how out of touch they are:

When I was 11, I didn’t even know what ‘gay’ was.

Yeah, but I bet your kids do. Kids of 11-14 are obsessed by it, even though they don’t understand it. They have been indoctrinated with the use of the word “gay” as a synonym for “bad”. The meaning of the word has developed so very much in three generations – from it’s literal meaning of happy, to homosexual, to “bad”. But without drooping any of the previous meanings.

Plus, of course, there is the general attacking of homexuality as “different” or “subversive” and the media stereotyping of gay men as weak, feminine and limp-wristed and lesbians as macho and butch. Thus gay men are perceived by impressionable kids as non-masculine and, effectively, wimps. Hence why children use “gay” as an insult rather than as a mere designation of sexuality.

Objections to this appear to boil down to the lines of “it might make my child gay” or “my child shouldn’t be thinking about sexuality at his age”. Which of course is utter bollocks from start to finish.

Projects like this are simply the best, and only, way to remove the issue of sexuality from the classroom and playground bullying.

A Church of England clergyman has been ordered to remove comments about gay people from his blog, remarks described by his diocese as “highly offensive”.

The Rev Peter Mullen, who ministers in the City of London, said he had gay friends and the words were “satirical”.

He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: “Sodomy can seriously damage your health”. (BBC)

Yes, tattoo the gays. Just like the Nazis*. What a forward-looking, modern church the C of E is!

What is almost as bad is his comments afterwards:

I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.

Oh yes, the old “some of my best friends are *insert minority group you just attacked*” claim. Followed by:

What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality.

What, pray, is that? Is wanting equality “militant preaching”?! No, it’s not. Even if it is, it certainly doesn’t warrant any sort of supposedly “satirical” [what definition of satire does he subscribe to?] call for tattooing their asses with the words “sodomy can seriously damage your health”.

I don’t particularly like religious preachers, but I don’t call for the the slogan “Relgion can seriously damage your thought processes” to be tattoed on their forehead. Because that would be disgusting and intolerant – I just choose to ignore them.

The Church of England should sack this homophobe.

* I know, it’s Godwin’s Law

Let’s start with a little quiz:

What’s the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual?

Whether they want to sleep with a person of the oposite sex or same sex to them.

There are no other differences. Unless I’m missing something. I really thought that, by now, we had moved on from thinking that there is any difference between gay and straight other than their preferred partner’s gender.

Thus, gay people have no “duty” to vote Conservative or to be “radical”. Just to make their own decisions as to the parties [and policies] which they believe will best suit them and the country – precisely the same way as everyone else.

When it comes to politics, sexuality means nothing. What matters are your opinions. Whether you are straight or gay, you have precisely the same role to play and decisions to make. Anyone who proposes that someone should vote for someone or believe something purely due to their own sexuality really needs to go away and rethink a lot of things.

The only difference between homosecual and heterosexual people is the gender of their preferred partner in bed.

That gay soldiers and sailors can all march in their uniform and show that the military is not homophobic is an unqualified Good Thing. Homophobia must be stamped out both in the military and everywhere else.

I look forward to the day when events such as Gay Pride simply aren’t required, because no-one is treated any differently based on their sexuality.

That day cannot come soon enough.