Reader comments · Catholic Church will ‘never’ recognise gay marriage, bishop tells Cameron · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Catholic Church will ‘never’ recognise gay marriage, bishop tells Cameron

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. no sh@t sherlock

  2. Dr Robin Guthrie 23 Jul 2010, 3:51pm

    Yeh. Just like they never admitted to the earth being flat.

    Stupid old fool.

  3. Dear Mr Tartaglia

    I will never recognise your ‘Church’ not now, not in the future, not ever, no matter what legislation or regulations our government enacts or endorses.

  4. Who gives a f*** what those weirdoes think?

    The catholic church is dying a rapid death in Europe and beyond.

    did you know that in Spain, the average priest is looking after about 4 parishes because of the lack of priests.

    Did you know that in Ireland the average age of a priest is 67 and last year there were 2 (yes 2) new priests ordained in the entire country.

    The catholic cult will be utterly dead in Western Europe within 30 years.

    And by that stage marriage equality will be a fact of life.

  5. Joe Mustich, JP 23 Jul 2010, 4:19pm

    Ok. And they kept saying the earth was flat too. LOL

    Onward to full civil and marriage eqaulity rights in the 21st century.

    Joe Mustich & Ken Cornet, Justices of the Peace,
    Washington, Connecticut, USA.

    And kudos to CT for being a marriage equality state.

  6. Just like they will never, ever ever admit to protecting a bunch of pedophiles?

  7. This institution and the idiots who support it (including the LGBT Catholics who are no better than traitors) are nothing but scum.

  8. The catholic cult in Ireland is facing MASSIVE financial problems as the survivors of the catholic-priest/serial-child-rapists are suing mad.

    Have all the lawsuits against the childrapist protection ring (ie the catholic hierarchy) begun in earnest in Britain yet.

    The lives of countless children were destroyed by these monstrous child rapists.

    It’s time they paid their bill.

  9. Who cares what the Catholic Church will or won’t recognise? What the bishop thinks should have no bearing on law, and if it does then something is extremely wrong.

    The Tories will never introduce same-sex marriage either way, of course

  10. So if the government make this legally binding; then the church is saying it is above the law? mmm

  11. “Faith leaders have claimed that if civil marriage for gay couples was allowed, clerics would face legal challenges for failing to minister ceremonies.”

    Oh, right, just like they’re made to marry divorcees? Not.

    Talk about kicking up a fuss because you know you’re losing the argument – and your congregation. I’ve lost count of the number of friends who were previously happy to identify themselves as Christian, but are now quite anti-religion. Why? Because of the pathetic ‘we’re being victimised’ stance of many churches when it’s clear to anyone with half a brain that they’re the ones doing the victimising.

    And, Megan, yes, some churches and religious people DO believe they’re above the law:

  12. Who gives a flying f#@k about what a bunch of men in dresses wwho have hidden endless vile crimes against children all over the world say and think.

    Its time to crush this monstosity once and for all.

    the crazies out of the muslim world use bombs and planes to kill, control and terrorize people

    the monster of the vatican is simply more subtle. they use endless lies, hypnotic ceremonies, a most likely scam insurance policy of life after death, and the terrorism of their “hell” and “devils” to control mens minds.

    But you have to hand it to them how many people they have fooled while being the curse of western civilization

    A CAtholic who understood this well said “If you tell lies often enough and outrageous enough, they will be seen as the truth.”

    He obviously understood how the church worked and succeed in its brainwashing.

    His name was Paul Joseph Gobbels. Minister of Propaganda for the third reich. He and his CAtholic fuhrer both committed suicide when the russians were at the gates of berlin in 1945.

    And both are still UNexcommunicated.

    Enough said…………………?

    Its time to reconstitute the Nuremburg tribunal. And put the church in the dock. And bring an end to this hideous apparition left over from the dark ages.

    Where their “campaign for life ” is nothing but a smokescreen to hide their mass murders over much of recorded history.

  13. The Catholic Church can say what it likes. It chooses to stay behind the times and outdated.

    In words more fitted to the Catholic Church I’d simply say… Tough Sh*t!! Get over yourselves, modernise or go down the pan!

  14. On a separate not, I emailed Stonewall and asked how they stood in regards to Full Equal Marriage, this was the reply and I quote:-

    “Many thanks for your email.

    Stonewall are not campaigning against same-sex marriage and never have. Our focus in terms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships is on the practical rights and benefits available to couples. Marriage would give no extra legal rights than those currently available.

    Having secured an amendment to the Equality Act we want the Government to implement the legal changes necessary to allow those religious groups who want to conduct ceremonies on their premises to be able to do so. David Cameron stated his support for this recently.”

    So there we have it.

  15. Never say never.

  16. “Our focus in terms of legal recognition of same-sex relationships is on the practical rights and benefits available to couples. Marriage would give no extra legal rights than those currently available.”

    Civil partnerships are already legal though.

    Why are those IDIOTS in Stonewall not campaigning for the societal recognition that equal marriage rights would bring?

    Stonewall should disband. They are clearly a 20th century organisation. If they keep refusing to support FULL equality then they should be regarded as homophobes!

  17. surely getting rid of bareback porn is more important than marriage I agree with stonewall.

  18. dean – stonewall should be fighting for equality and as it doesn’t then it should disband or start seeeking equality

  19. I don’t RECOGNISE the Catholic Church as anything other than an enterprise run by deluded men who promote ignorance and hatred.

  20. Have to agree with Chester, Stonewall needs to move onto the next phase of bring real equality now.
    Civil partnerships are a great improvemnent on the nothing we had previously but equality means you are not barred from doing what every other person can legally do, presently gays are not allowed to call themselves married when to all intents and pourposes that is what they actually are, this is discrimination for the sheer sake of discrimination and as such it needs to be seriously challenged and changed.
    Equality is as much about about perceived equality in the real world as it is about practical rights and benefits, come on Stonewall pull fingers out of your ears and take some action against this perceived second class status and campaign for full marriage equality in name as well.

  21. Please excuse the several typo’s in above post.

  22. @squidgy and others:

    I questioned Stonewall on their attitude to gay marriage, got substantially the same email as you did (which also said the CPs were all they could get through the House of Lords in 2004) and I replied as follows. May I suggest that we start a strong email campaign?


    Dear +++++

    Thank you for your email and sorry for the delay in replying.

    It may well have been the case that in 2004 there was little hope of getting “same sex marriage” through both houses of parliament – although the then government both could and would have used the Parliament Act if the upper house had persisted in its attempts to wreck the Civil Partnerships Bill with amendments so why it should not have done the same for “gay marriage” I am not sure. However, I value and am truly grateful for the work Stonewall did, nearly ten years ago, on civil partnerships.

    Time has moved on, however.

    Most gay couples in civil partnerships refer to themselves as married. It is only the bigots who use the opportunity the different name and legal regime offers them to say that we are “not married”. It allows bigots to pretend that gay people are different solely because of their sexual preferences. It allows bigots to pretend that (heterosexual) marriage is unique, special, sanctified. It allows bigots in school and in society generally to pretend that same sex relationships are morally different simply because they are not marriage. Terminology is important: separate but equal rights are simply no longer enough. Rosa Parks got to her destination on the famous bus at the same time as the white people from whom she was segregated just as gay people in inferior civil partnerships are in the eyes of many in straight society segregated from those who are “properly married”.

    I think Stonewall is in danger of being part of the probloem, not part of the solution. It is perceved as blocking gay marriage which is the principal aspiration for most of those in settled civil partnerships now. I hope that Stonewall will at least consider commissioning some reasearch amongst the wider gay community (not Stonewall’s activist membership base) as to the demand for a campaign in favour of marriage equality (which even Catholic Argentina seems to be able to introduce without the sky falling). Until it starts to move on this issue I for one will be extremely cautious in my engagements with Stonewall and in my contributions to it.

    Thanks you for taking the trouble to write back to me.



  23. Who the **** cares what the Catholic Church thinks? It hasn’t exactly shown itself to be a model of intellectual ability either over the centuries of lately – it thought the Earth was flat and everything orbited the Earth, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary; and more recently it thought it could cover up systemic child abuse.
    This appallingly arrogant organisation would do better if it changed its ways – it might even consider becoming Christian!!!

  24. marriage is a quaint institution for religious people I think cps are more 21st century stop feeling so hard done by. this push for marriage has already backfired with the increase in attacks things were defiently better 10 even 20 years ago when we were respected as innovators of culture. now we have the fetisisaton of HIV transmission by homophobic porn producers we seem
    to be reverting to a very base culture based on vanity sex drugs and money

  25. Dean if you don’t want to have a proper marriage then that’s up to you, but please don’t tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

    I see civil partnerships as second-class. If heterosexuals can get married then there’s no reason why homosexuals can’t.

  26. Dean, I respect the fact that you don’t wish to marry, but don’t be fooled into thinking religions own marriage. They don’t. Marriage existed long before Christianity, for example. It also included same sex marriages.

    CIVIL marriages are nothing to do with any religion whatsoever, and religions have as much right to interfere in that as they do to interfere in my mortgage – none. It’s a legal matter and wholly non-religious, and should be open to LGBT people if they choose to marry, just as that choice is available to straight people. It’s wrong to exclude people from something because of their sexuality, and it’s wrong to allow religions to have a say in CIVIL matters.

  27. Corey Mondello 24 Jul 2010, 1:30pm

    What about NEVER letting priests rape children, protecting those priests, not holding them accountable and stop moving them around once they get caught raping a child or many children, and moving them to places where there are many new fresh children to rape.

    But surely, I cannot be comparing this to allowing woman to be ordained as priests as that would be, so says the Vatican, on par with a child rapist.

    I have a plan, make a list of all priests that have raped children over the past 100 or so decades, add to that all those who protected them and and the number you get should be allowed for woman who become ordained priests.

  28. Dean, though I have no objection to anyone wanting to form a civil partnership, the reality is, they will NEVER be the universal gold standard for same-sex marriages now that ten countries have abandoned the various forms of legal unions for same-sex couples. Please don’t oppose those of us who want that right to marry. Civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, something the roman cult et al fail to understand. We do not want nor do we care if any religious cult wants to recognise or not recognise our relationships let alone officiate at them. Not one of the ten countries where same-sex marriage is legal compels any religious cult to recognise or conduct those marriages. This is nothing more than a red herring to defend their bigotry, as if they owned marriage. The fact of the matter is, they don’t own civil marriage, the government does when it issues marriage licences and certificates. What do we care about what they recognise, the roman cult doesn’t even recognise straight divorces, and who cares? Civil partnerships though well intended send a mixed message to society and to the world that our relationships are less than straight marriages even though the rights are almost identical. In other words we are legally segregated under a different name for no rational reason other than bigotry, discrimination and homophobia. There is something intrinsically wrong with that. There is also NO rational reason to ban us from marrying which proves the two aren’t equal. Iris’ statement above hits the nail on the head.

  29. A Civil marriage is ok I’ve not heard that term before.

  30. Bradley Ackerson 24 Jul 2010, 5:04pm

    Who cares what the Catholic church “recognizes”. This is the same church that seems to “never” recognize that their priests abuse girls and women, that had a whole line of corrupt popes, tortured people during the inquisitions, publicly claims to be cooperating with investigation of child abuse by priests yet fights tooth and nail to hide evidence, relocate priestly criminals, etc Being “recognized” by a corrupt organization is of no interest to me at all.

  31. Dean, civil marriage is referred to when people don’t have a religious ceremony officiated by a cleric of whatever denomination. It has NO religious component either. A registry office marriage is exactly that, a civil marriage. No religious cult has any authority to make or pass judgment on our right to a civil marriage if we so choose and Cameron et al need to get that through their thick skulls, the two are totally different, that’s why it shouldn’t be that difficult to open marriage to us instead of banning it. No cult would be compelled to officiate or recognise our marriage and who really cares except them and who are they anyway? They’re not our government and never will be, the sooner they learned that the better. They should stay out of civil matters and get their own filthy houses in order before casting judgement on others, especially the Roman cult.

  32. Miss Tartaglia should understand, if its lawful, then its appropriate.

  33. Maybe Mr. Cameron should have left religion out of his remarks entirely. In Holland we only have civil marriage in the eyes of the law. You can marry as often as you like in the ‘eyes of god’, the state doesn’t care. Much easier than to ask the relidiots to play along in this.

  34. To those who say ‘Who cares what the catholic church thinks?’, unfortunately many many people do – and not just in developing countries, why is the Pope coming to the UK on an official visit if people here don’t care? Don’t underestimate its deplorable influence.

  35. This comes as no surprise, and highlights the mess the government is in with all this civil partnership legislation. Let churches do what they want, and don’t let them dictate moral codes to everyone else.

    In any case, who wants to get married in the house of an institution that protects child molesters, worldwide?

  36. Pope Ratzinger has said, “Same sex marriage is an insidious threat to the public good” …but he doesn’t say in what way it is an insidious threat to the public good. I guess he just expects everyone to accept his extremist homophobic word on the matter without any explanation.
    The evidence suggests it’s would-be-if-they-could-be celibate hucksters like many overseers of the Catholic church that truly are an insidious threat to the public good.

  37. Keith douglas warren 25 Jul 2010, 3:13pm

    Well, I figure that, as more people realize that loved ones are Gay they will also realize how hateful this church is, having nothing to do with Christ, anyway. Among all of it’s other dehumanizing practices to drive people away, the damned thing will just fade into non-existence. No great loss.

  38. “Civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion… this is nothing more than a red herring to defend their bigotry, as if they owned marriage..’

    But Straight people own it. They invented it, and say, go form your own institution and name it anything you want! Blaming the lack of support for Gay marraige on religion only, is underestimating the strength of the opposition, Argentina (highly religous) has legalised it. The UK, (mainly atheist) has not. Should tell you something. The priests may nleat on, but it is not up to them, really.

  39. I’m confused, is Scotland trying to bring in relgious marriages or civil ones or both. The hughes interview states he wants to bring in civil marriages and it’s up to your own relgion whether they want to do a relgious one. For someone who isn’t reglious and has a quaker partner the issue of relgion is not relevant to us and it’s important that relgion is kept out of the equation. I don’t understand why these relgious people have to be consulted at all, it a legal issue first and foremost. If you’ve got a problem with your relgion and if your catholic then you’re probably got several problem issues then take it up with the pope or someone. Quakers have accepted gay marriage and not all regions/vicars are against it anyway. I think the hughes option is far better.

    I also read this in the herlad which is a lot more promising and since we’re not a very catholic country anyway is probably more relevant!

    The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, said he was strongly supportive of the idea. He said: “Anyone who can marry a couple currently should be able to marry same sex-couples.

    “This is about justice for everyone. Civil partnerships have been a wonderful thing, but they are not equal; being separate isn’t being equal and the Government would be wise to move towards equality as soon as possible.”

    He said the argument that allowing gay marriage could threaten the institution of marriage, was “a silly idea”. “I don’t think any gay couple have ever made a married couple feel less married,” he said.

    By the way I’m disgusted by Stonewall’s reply! What the hell are they there for but to oppose and campaing for what the gay community want!!!

  40. If you support equal marriage, please sign the petition at

  41. Tim Hopkins 26 Jul 2010, 11:03am

    John, in Scotland a marriage can be legally solemnised by a registrar (a “civil marriage”) or by a religious or humanist celebrant (a “religious marriage”). Once solemnised, there is no legal difference between the two.

    The Equal Marriage campaign is for equality – ie the same options should be available for same-sex marriages. But religious organisations should be able to choose whether to conduct same-sex marriages.

    At the moment, in Scotland, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, the Quakers, the Liberal Jews and the Pagan Federation have all said that they would conduct same-sex marriages if they could, as well as the Humanists.

    Obviously the Catholic Church would not.

  42. If it’s any consolation, I don’t recognise the authority of the Catholic Church and so I’m not that worried about their recognition of my relationship. They are a dying institution and like a wild animal, they are at thier most vicious just before they die. Let them keep on ranting if they like, they stopped being relevent a long time ago.

  43. If civil marriage is the aim ,and isn’t that what hughes said, with relgious marriage only an option open to those who want to do it, then who cares what the catholics or any other relgion have to say on the subject – What’s the relevance? We’re not forcing them to accept or do anything….it’s up to them what they do and as such they shouldn’t have any say on the subject of gay/equal “civil” marriage. Most relgions seem to hate anything gay don’t they? heaven knows what else they hate, if most relgions had any say on the subject of gay equality we’d have no rights at all and would be back in the middle ages…? Do any of these relgions have any relevance in the UK anyway……

    Apart from relgion , which should be ruled out becuase it is a civil marriage, what are the other arguments that people are putting forward as an objection to gay/equal civil marriage?

    Is there a list of the neg arguments somewhere?

  44. H. (Bart) Vincelette 28 Jul 2010, 5:03am

    I can hardly believe the rhetoric & irrational propaganda being pushed by the anti-gay marriage anywhere, but especially in the US, right next door to us here in Canada.We’ve had SSM legal for about 5 years now & none of the dire predictions have come to pass.It’s as if they’re saying Canada doesn’t exist. As for the bishop’s comments; it should be loudly pointed out to him that the RC church & any other right wing religious group doesn’t have to perform same-sex nuptials.( I grew up Catholic & one of my favorite comments is that if Michelangelo had been straight, the Sistine Chapel would be covered in wallpaper.)

  45. Stonewall official reply:
    > Many thanks for your email.
    > Stonewall are not campaigning against same-sex marriage and
    > never have.

    Stonewall have consistently lobbied politicians that there is no call for equal marriage. That is to near to campaigning against it as is indistinguishable. So the first sentence is a lie.

    Stonewall regularly use that technique. The Commons committee on the Equality Bill was clearly flabbergasted when Stonewall’s representative told them, in their oral hearing, that they opposed legal protection for LBG people against harassment on the grounds that there was no need for the protection. Summerskill claimed that this was consistent with Stonewall having a record of never asking for anything unnecessary.

    So equal marriage is, according to Stonewall, unnecessary.

    > …Our focus in terms of legal recognition of same-sex
    > relationships is on the practical rights and benefits available
    > to couples. Marriage would give no extra legal rights than those
    > currently available.

    Another obvious lie. Ending discrimination gives equality, which is of immense civil, political, legal, and psychological benefit. Many communities have argued this in their countries, and the courts have found that it is a very important benefit, denial of which is a highly significant denial of human rights. Stonewall know all that. They are deliberately campaigning, even in that response, against our interests, against our human rights.

    > Having secured an amendment to the Equality Act we want the
    > Government to implement the legal changes necessary to allow
    > those religious groups who want to conduct ceremonies on their
    > premises to be able to do so. David Cameron stated his support
    > for this recently.

    That move was intended to splinter off those only dissatisfied presently by CP signings being forbidden from having any element of religion when the partners are of a religion that supports equal marriage – gross discrimination by the state against those religions on the behalf of Roman Catholicism, to which the relevant government ministers were strong adherents (Ruth Kelly, Tony Blair, Baroness Scotland, etc.). It is an anti-equality move, just as CPs were, intended to head off equality. So Stonewall backing that is again against equal human rights.

    Stonewall must hold us in such contempt that it still holds to the old propaganda method of repeating a lie until people think it is the truth. But however many times they claim it, Stonewall is not working towards our having full equality.

  46. D Schneider 30 Jul 2010, 2:07pm

    More light – less heat. What’s happened to tolerance?!

  47. Like the Church ‘never’ recognised that the Earth went around the Sun, like it ‘never’ stopped defending slavery, like it ‘never’ accepted capitalism after centuries of reviling the lending of money at interest…..Got a crystal ball, has he?

  48. The Catholic Church is against gay marraige like many non catholics and to throw all this abuse at their church because of their stand shows what gay supportes are like.I know gays who hate and are ashamed of people you lot.Most gays are happy of civil partner ship.Why try to destroy the traditions and laws that these and other Christian Churches have based or directly taken from the bible.From all your comments its really anti christian hatred using Gay marraige as an excuse to vent your anger and hatred.Get yourselves councilling to overcome this horrible trait most of you have.You are all born of love and respect and these comments are not the real you.Nobody in search of anything would want your support as you would be a negitive element to any group except hate and angry thugs.God bless you all and hopefully you will gain knowledge of Gods will in your lives.You would be much happier and peaceful withen yourselves.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.