Blogs

Is David Jones’s brain a safe environment for intelligent thought?

Andy McSmith
david jones 300x225 Is David Joness brain a safe environment for intelligent thought?

David Jones (Getty Images)

The Welsh Secretary, David Jones, one of only two Cabinet ministers to oppose gay marriage, made a comment on local television which did not simply reek of prejudice but, taken at face value, was downright ignorant.

“I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same sex partners can’t do,” he said

Then, presumably somebody whispered in his ear that there are an increasing number of gay couples in the UK who are lovingly bringing up children, all of whom he had just randomly insulted. He decided that a clarification was needed.

He announced: “I did not say in the interview that same sex partners should not adopt children and that is not my view. I simply sought to point out that, since same sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.”

So, go back to his original statement, remove the words “a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of” and you arrive at roughly what the minister now says he meant to say. What a communicator!

  • GulliverUK

    Only just had a disqus alert for your comment. I will, because I’m a better and bigger man than Jones, admit that my choice of language wasn’t correct, because ironically it’s the Samaritan nature in me that would immediately single out the “runt of the litter” as a priority, when used to describe ‘weaker’ groups or individuals, yet used here it was an attempt to suggest he wasn’t worthy (another meaning of runt) – it was a direct correlation to his comments suggesting we, gay people, aren’t worthy of fostering, adopting and bringing up children. So that is where I drew the usage from, but it has multiple usage and I should not have used it, and I’m glad you pulled me up on it – I’ll use a different term next time, and won’t fall in to the trap of using a phrase in a derogatory way, which I actually use to define people who need assistance and deserve extra help in another. Ironically growing up part of my life on a farm I’m the one who spent half the night making sure the runt of the little had its feeds and survived – pigs often give birth to one smaller, weaker pig. And in that sense I should have know it wasn’t a good choice.

    As I said, I’m big enough to admit a mistake, in this case Jones only enlarged his original egregious comments by then telling us we’ve all misunderstood his comments, which is nonsense. We know exactly what he said, people who are gay aren’t fit to bring up kids – he said “upbringing” he didn’t say anything about procreation, sex, babies, etc., he implied we wouldn’t be a safe pair of hands as parents – quite disgusting comments. If he’s made that about a group based on ethnicity he’s probably not even be an MP by now, but apparently there are sufficient people who are prepared to support these sort of vicious personal attacks, most of whom are looking after kids from dysfunctional heterosexual homes, kids from environments which were mostly not safe and nurturing.

    Don’t think I’ve lost the moral and intellectual high ground just because I chose a phrase which has dual meanings, but I accept there were better words and phrases to use. Unfortunately, seething as I was at his nasty and very unpleasant remarks, the words I really wanted to use could not be posted online. When it comes to an attack on the entire gay community, and on our families then it is an attack on the most fundamental part of our being., because we’re just like anyone else, our relationships, our loved ones, our families, are very important to us.


Property search
Browse by area

Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter