Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Chile’s gay marriage bill ‘unlikely to succeed’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. As Cheryl Cole (you know – Britain’s answer to Celine Dion) implored:

    “We gotta fight, fight, fight for this love. If it’s worth having, it’s worth fighting for”

    Keep up the good fight Chile. We are behind you 100%

  2. In time it will come. We married in 2009 and are awaiting patiently to have our civil marriage recognised in the UK. We’re not bothered with a religious ceremony – what is important is to be legally recognised in LAW.

  3. keep trying.d the more people see good gay people being discriminated agaisnt, the more the church of hate will perish from the face of the earth.

    And mankind will be free.

    Someone long ago said it well – the people will be free only when the last king is strangled with the guts of the last priest.

    yeh, I know you brits prob love your king / queen – a figurehead.

    But the guy who wrote the above understood what fascist church combined witth heredity royalty brought the world – the 1000 year dark ages of zero social and economic progress

  4. They won’t always be in opposition and if the opposition is thinking like this then they will fnially get it. The UK has only just had an opposition party which now believes in gay marriage so they’re a step ahead of us. They also have an opposition who are introducing a provate bill, what is our opposition doing here in the UK, a lot of talk, yes, but nothing more…..!

    I alos hope their leading gay charity is behind it, our is NOT!

  5. Even if it does not succeed, It is still a step forward.

  6. When will PinkNews stop mis-reporting this vital issue, even in in its headlines? We seek equal marriage, NOT “gay marriage”. The Chilean bill would open marriage equally, and so marriage would be equal. It would not create a special class of “gay marriage”. This is not a fine distinction; look what the US Federal judge wrote in last week’s landmark verdict:

    | Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
    | characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex
    | marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
    | from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely,
    | marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
    | relationships for what they are: marriages.

  7. When will this site stop mis-reporting this vital issue, even in in its headlines? We seek equal marriage, NOT “gay marriage”. The Chilean bill would open marriage equally, and so marriage would be equal. It would not create a special class of “gay marriage”. This is not a fine distinction; look what the US Federal judge wrote in last week’s landmark verdict:

    | Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
    | characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex
    | marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
    | from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely,
    | marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
    | relationships for what they are: marriages.

  8. When will this site stop distorting this vital issue, even in in its headlines? We seek equal marriage, NOT “gay marriage”. The Chilean bill would open marriage equally, and so marriage would be equal. It would not create a special class of “gay marriage”. This is not a fine distinction; look what the US Federal judge wrote in last week’s landmark verdict:

    “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
    characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex
    marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
    from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely,
    marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
    relationships for what they are: marriages.”

  9. We seek equal marriage, NOT “gay marriage”, PinkNws. The Chilean bill would open marriage equally, and so marriage would be equal. It would not create a special class of “gay marriage”. This is not a fine distinction; look what the US Federal judge wrote in last week’s landmark verdict:

    “Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
    characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex
    marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
    from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely,
    marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
    relationships for what they are: marriages.”

  10. When will PinkNews stop mis-reporting this vital issue, even in in its headlines? We seek equal marriage, NOT “gay marriage”. The Chilean bill would open marriage equally, and so marriage would be equal. It would not create a special class of “gay marriage”. This is not a fine distinction; look what the US Federal judge wrote in last week’s landmark verdict:

    | Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
    | characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex
    | marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
    | from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy – namely,
    | marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
    | relationships for what they are: marriages.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all