Reader comments · Nationalist Scottish MP accused of attacking gay rights · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Nationalist Scottish MP accused of attacking gay rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It’s a good job there’s a right to be a moron tho! Hate speech dressed in drag as helpful suggestion’s cousin.

  2. And we wonder why Brian Souter gave all that money to the SNP…

    1. John Mason does not represent mainstream SNP opinion.

      1. Then why have all five MSPs who have signed the motion so far come from the SNP?

        1. Mr Mason’s motion was in response to an article which appeared in The Herald on Monday. The article was about religious organisations who did not wish to conduct same gender marriages being charged with discrimination. It was meant to answer the claim that no-one would be ‘forced’ to carry out marriages other than the state and those religious bodies who wished to. I think the motion was badly worded but I also think that other political parties are eating at straws on this one.

          1. “Eating at straws”???
            Anyway, given that religous groups who wish to carry out same sex blessings are currently banned from doing so I find it highly unlikely that they would be prosecuted for not doing so.

        2. I understand some signed in error and have withdrawn.

      2. Ewan – You say that John Mason does not support mainstraim SNP opinion, and I do know that there are a lot of SNP members who support same-sex marriage and gay requality in general. But the fact that the SNP is funded by Souter constantly undermines any good the SNP does on gay equality. Why do none of the gay-friendly SNP members ever speak out about it? Because they know they’re only where they are because of Souter and his money. I wonder what they’ll do if he ever throws his weight around on gay issues because the SNP dropped their bus re-regulation policy after he gave them half a million quid in 2007 – a policy that he was against.

      3. Also, the SNP’s own code of conduct for members forbids discrimination of gay people yet the only time I’m aware of it being enforced is when that Councillor from Scotish Borders was suspended for 6 months for making homphobic remarks on the radio, but only after the SNP intially said his remarks were “personal” and Joe Fitzpatrick MSP allegedly kicked-up a fuss. The Councillor in question is a full member of the party again. But other SNP MSPs and MPs who have discriminated against gay people such as Roseanna Cunningham and Angus MacNeill have never been disciplined. She tabled an ammendment to make it illegal for gay couples to adopt, which was voted down and he voted against the Sexual Orientation Regualtions in the House of Commons. Both are cases of discrimination.

    2. “Home rule is Rome rule” – or in this case baptist rule :-)

      1. Home Rule is about allowing the peoples of Scotland to decide, not Rome or England!

        1. Although Brussels will have quite a lot to do with the governing of an “independent” Scotland.

  3. Well, that’s one guy I won’t bother to invite to my gay wedding then.
    Who’s being forced?
    I hope he doesn’t imagine that one look at him and he’ll be beating off potential gay bridegrooms with a stick. He simply isn’t that great a catch.

    1. Dan Filson 5 Aug 2011, 12:34pm

      That’s an “uglyist” remark. Gay people can be ugly, you know. For all we know, somewhere there is someone hankering for nooky with Mr Mason. Hard to believe, I know.

  4. Since when has civil marriage invoked religion? He’s clearly a dimwit, no intellectual grasp. Who cares if most religions don’t recognise same-sex marriages or other relationships? Many of us regard religion as irrelevant anyway and so is he. If they don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t marry a gay person, end of.

    1. Robert – You’re absolutely right, civil marriage for same-sex couples has nothing to do with religion. People like John Mason are just trying to stir up resentment against marriage equality by introducing this red herring. Of course, the Daily Mail has described him as a rebel who’s speaking up for the majority.

      1. Of course, I should point out that those religions who DO wish to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies should be allowed to do so. But by claiming the ones who don’t will be forced to is a blatant lie and is simply meant to cause trouble. At the moment no church is obliged to carry out a marriage ceremony (mixed-sex), they are allowed to refuse, so why would they be forced to carry out a same-sex marriage ceremony?

      2. Dan Filson 5 Aug 2011, 12:35pm

        If he speaks for the majority, it is hardly a rebellion so much as populism

        1. Tim Hopkins 5 Aug 2011, 1:36pm

          But of course he doesn’t speak for the majority in Scotland when he implies the majority oppose same-sex marriage. The figures at the bottom of the article demonstrate that. In fact, in the surveys and polls that have been done in Scotland, those who oppose same-sex marriage are around 20%, with those in favour over 50% – the rest being don’t care / don’t know.

          1. Tim – You can’t expect facts to get in the way of a Daily Mail story!

  5. FortheRecord 4 Aug 2011, 10:43pm

    From Twitter: Richard_Laird Richard Laird
    by scotyounggreens
    More SNP MSPs have signed @patrickhavie’s amendment than have signed John Mason’s motion.

    1. Only 2 more though. & have signed Patrick Harvie’s ammendment as opposed to 5 who have signed John Mason’s original motion. Not great considering there are 129 MSPs in total.

      1. MY post above should say that 7 MSPs have signed Patrick Harvie’s ammendment! So far, anyway.

      2. Tim Hopkins 5 Aug 2011, 3:08pm

        Looking at the Parliament website just now, 17 MSPs (including Patrick) are supporting Patrick’s amendment – 2 Green, 13 SNP, 1 Labour and 1 LibDem. 4 MSPs (including John) are supporting John’s motion – all SNP. The numbers are likely to continue to develop though.

  6. John Mason is a twat of epic proportions, but then, if you find me a nationalist that isn’t, I will give you the golden flease, the arc of the covenant, and one of Goliaths testicals.

    1. Dan Filson 5 Aug 2011, 12:37pm

      I hope you are insured, as there might just be one somewhere. Getting hold of one of Goliath’s testicles could be tricky

      1. Its alright he only needs one :P

        1. I’ve already got one. Family heirloom.

  7. I don’t think homophobes should be forced to be “involved” in our marriages any more than we should be forced to be “involved” in THEIR marriages.

    When I polled candidates from all parties in my own Scottish constituency on the subject of gay marriage, prior to the election, the only opponents were Scottish nationalists.

    Frightening, as I myself am proud to be a Scottish nationalist.

    1. Anthony – Can I ask you, as a Scottish nationalist, considering what you’ve said, if you intend to continue to support and vote for the SNP? (If indeed you do so in the first place, I do realise you can be a Scottish nationalist without voting for the SNP). Or will you try to tackle this attitude within the SNP? If people continue to vote SNP witout saying anything then this attitude will not change. It will only change if we stand up for ourselves and try to do something about it. I also used to be a fervent Scottish nationalist supporter. I voted them religiously since I was 18 and I was shocked when they accepted Souter’s money in 2007. That alone was too much for me. I’ve spent the last 4 years contacting people within the SNP at all levels about homophobia within the party and I constantly hit a brick wall. So I can only surmise that nobody in the SNP wants to challenge it.

  8. auntie babs 4 Aug 2011, 11:21pm

    anybody’d think gay marriage was being made compulsory.

  9. Remember John Mason won the Glasgow East by-election in 2008. The extremely homophobic Scottish Christian Party (thankfully a fringe party) didn’t field a candidate and urged their supporters to support Mason. He thanked them for that support when he won, saying he couldn’t have won without it.

  10. Probably bitter! Will never get a boyfriend!

    1. Looking forward to his condemnation of Mr Mason’s motion then….

    2. So why did our marriage equality supporting First MInister refuse to legislate during the SNP’s first term when the LGBT Network submitted a petition, which was supported by the Petitions Committee? They knocked it back 6 times – 6 times! Salmond put Fergus Ewing, the then Community Safety Minister and someone who’s publicy favoured discrimination against gay people, in charge of responding to the petition. The Minister for Community Safety in charge of marriage equality – exactly what does that say about the SNP’s attitude to it? And how does he justify accepting money from Souter? You can’t be in the pocket of the worst homophobe in Scotland and claim to be gay-friendly especially when the SNP already dropped it’s bus re-regulation policy when Souter gave them £500,000, so they’ve shown that they’re prepared to form policy to suit him. So I think his claim to be in favour of marriage equality during an election campaign was simply about getting the “gay vote”.

    3. Here’s the link to the LGBT Network’s website about the marriage petition which the SNP government knocked back 6 times:

    4. Also, if you read the article that Ewan has linked to above, it says that Alex Salmond is in favour of same-sex marriage but not if it forces religions to carry them out. That’s not far off the mark from what John Mason said – didn’t he say he was “pretty relaxed” (or words to that effect) about same-sex marrige himself but was concerned about religons being forced into carrying out ceremonies? Why isn’t Salmond being pillioried in the same way?

  11. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 9:36am

    Shameful way to try and derail this issue.

    What idiots like this need to understand is with marriage Equality is that it doesn’t mean it changes the way all others view their own marriage, unless of course they are so insecure in the first place.

    Also when this comes into law marriage of a same sex couple is as legally binding just as any other married person, whether they apporve or not.

  12. Ooer missus 5 Aug 2011, 10:44am

    Isn’t he just copying Mr. Streeter? It sounds like he’s talking about the Ladele scenario, and looking for an opt out for civil servants.

  13. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 5 Aug 2011, 10:47am

    Why don’t those supportive of equal marriage rights put down their own motion in competition and see who gets more votes?

    1. We did, we got civil partnerships which shows the majority agree with us but these religious bigots are still trying to fight it.

      1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 11:25am

        Exactly, which is why religion hijacking civil marriage for their own purposes really should been seen for the irrelevent desperation it really is and time to turn marriage Equality into full reality.

        1. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 5 Aug 2011, 11:39am

          For some I would guess it has more to do with trying to ensure that society doesn’t totally hold gay relationships to be as valid as straight ones, because they want society to reflect their religious beliefs rather than the diversity of the individuals it comprises.

          1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 11:54am

            Two men or two women getting married won’t change anyones reflection of marriage unless of course they are seriously insecure in the first place which then begs the question… Why should we pay for religious insecurities too?

            Two people’s relationships are just as important and valid regardless of what sex they happen to be.
            Gay relationships are worth less than a Straight couple nor is it less meaningfull.

            If religion cannot adapt then whose fault is that and isn’t it time to stop punishing people because a few fruitloops can’t handle change and progression?

    2. Tim Hopkins 5 Aug 2011, 1:39pm

      Two separate amendments to the motion have been put down, both of which turn it into a strongly pro-marriage-equality motion. One is from Green co-leader Patrick Harvie and the other from LibDem leader Willie Rennie. As of last night, Patrick’s amendment had more signatories than the original John Mason motion. And I understand that some signatories of the original motion have now withdrawn from it.

  14. so how is anyone getting forced? is that lie being forced to involved in hetero marriages

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 12:00pm

      It shows how desperate they are getting…

  15. Oh good. I’ve just moved into Mr Mason’s Constituency.

    Look forward to finding out why he wants me to be treated differently to anyone else in the area

    1. Dan Filson 5 Aug 2011, 12:40pm

      Write him a letter asking quietly whether he supports marriage equality, and when he replies, write back saying in that case he has lost the support you were considering giving him and are telling your friends likewise.

  16. BennieM and Jock….religion thinks it owns civil marriage. That’s why when the consultation finally begins. repetitive emphasis must be placed on these cults that they will NOT be compelled to recognise or officiate same-sex marriages and that this is purely a secular (civil) matter. It can’t be said enough. By contrast, we don’t exactly call for a ban on religious marriage, so they have NO argument. The two are separate and different in their construct. One mandates procreation, the other doesn’t.

    That said, the red herring BennieM will be used with impunity, an act of desperatoin to foment opposition. It won’t work believe me. They tried it in Spain, Argentina and Portugal and look what happened. Not one of these cults has produced factual evidence to prove same-sex marriage harms marriage per se, not one. Nor has it induced polygamy, bestiality or incest, the other mantras they use to oppose us. The British public is smarter than that.

  17. Theres all this talk about gay RIGHTS. I, as a Christian have rights too, which include the freedom not to endorse gay marriage, and particularly to object to my faith being expected to accept something which I find contrary to the beliefs I hold on the basis of the greatest teacher who ever lived. I will not be pressganged into acceptance by an overbearing vocal minority.

  18. Mark Nelson 29 Oct 2011, 10:43pm

    A very one sided article. John is not attacking gay people. This motion is simply to make sure we have assurances from parliament that churches will not be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. I think this is a fair request to make concerning a group of society which speaks of equality so much!

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.