Gay couples failed by discrimination

However, it gives me no pleasure to say he is patently wrong in his claims that same-sex relationships – not same-sex behaviour, but same-sex couples sharing their lives in love – are harmful to the medical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of those involved. Such comments are not demonstrable, and he clearly offers no evidence in support of such conjecture.

I, however, along with the many others who the cardinal claims have been failed, are evidence that homosexual relationships can be enhancing, healthy and supportive for those who make such a commitment, just like heterosexual partnerships and marriages – and the legal recognition of them by society through civil partnership legislation has made them even more meaningful. Demonstrably that legislation has benefited homosexual people, but I would suggest it has also improved Scottish society by showing it is more tolerable; or am I mistaken and are all our current woes to be heaped on the heads of those gay couples who are now in civil partnerships?

It is time for our parliamentary representatives to consider what is best for our society over which the cardinal worries so much. It is not their role to be swayed by any religious group and they must most certainly not sell out to such groups in the hope of future electoral support. That is not why the current majority party was rewarded at the last election with the power they hold in our name.

Alan Rodger, Glasgow

IN RELATION to your front-page article and editorial on same-sex “marriage” (18 December), I find myself wondering what is the point of having a consultation if, as you report, “a compromise deal is being considered by the Scottish Government” despite the fact that Nicola Sturgeon has yet to “sift through more than 50,000 responses”.

On the other hand, if a Scottish Government spokesperson said, “No final views have been reached and therefore no decisions have been taken,” how can Scotland on Sunday be so sure that “Alex Salmond appears to be seeking a compromise deal” – and what is Scotland on Sunday’s purpose, at this point in time, in being so dismissive of the views of those who have expressed opinions favouring the status quo?

It would appear that either the SNP government has treated the recent consultation with contempt or Scotland on Sunday is attempting to do that very same thing.

William Liston, Airdrie

MY GOODNESS, so “Nicola Sturgeon will now sift through more than 50,000 responses,” Eddie Barnes writes. That is some amount of sifting, even for a woman of Nicola Sturgeon’s ability. It does tend to lend credence to the increasingly widespread belief that the consultation is a sham.

Also widely speculated about in Scottish political circles just now is how a master tactician like Alex Salmond could have allowed his party to get into a hole this deep. Four plus years to the next election to get a contentious issue out of the way is probably the answer. Labour’s new leader could exploit this situation to return her party to the political dominance it craves. Labour is, however, even more affected by political correctness than is the SNP.

Alan Clayton, Strachur, Argyll