Well said, John. The Roman cult has absolutely NO moral authority to pronounce judgement on what is purely a civil matter.
They do have moral authority, but they are wrong about gay marriage.
Oh? And what moral authority is that, then?
A good religion is a dead religion.
Actually no they don’t being that they hijacked marriage even civil marriage it seems.
A lot of moral authority ;)
the church of the endless hidden molestation of children
the church of Adolph hitler, still not excommunciated
thats how they protect life
Oh John how I love thee ^^
What they are saying and trying to do is evil.
And somehow I think his word will be heard in a lot more places than bishop whatisname. He’s certainly more popular with the general public.
Can’t help thinking they sanitised that interview a bit though. I bet he used more than the odd swear word on the subject.
After a life time of self imposed celibacy these old men are bound to be a bit crabby. I wonder if they were young men today, especially with gay marriage on the horizon, whether any of them would consider entering the priesthood. I doubt it.
I doubt it too. Fifty years ago, schoolboys wanted to enter the priesthood. Now it’s the other way round.
horrible image but horribly true
Did anyone notice that John said that we should concede the word “marriage” to the church to appease them? Everyone’s cool with that?
As a man who grew up in America Mr. Barrowman should know the history of “separate but equal” civil institutions. They are ALWAYS separate but NEVER equal and their ONLY purpose for being separate is to make it very clear that the “other” group is OTHER and not quite as good as, as valid as, as sacred as or as honored as “us”, the majority. That was the entire purpose of segregated schools, water fountains and buses. Settling for Civil Partnerships with “all” of the same rights is akin to settling for a separate water fountain as long as it has the same quantity and quality of water.
I think Barrowman did a great job right up until the last sentence when he completely negated the rest of his commentary by saying that we should settle for Civil Partnerships to appease the people who need to see us as “other”.
“Celebrity” does not mean “informed”.
I think John speaks a lot of sense – just because someone is a celebrity does not mean they do not have a valid opinion, eg Hugh Grant over hackgate
Where do you see John conceding the word marriage???
“Where do you see . . . word marriage???”
I think it must be in the Herald, Stu. I tend to agree with Hayen. I don’t like the idea of marriage per se because the less the state interferes with our personal lives the better. But I applaud JB’s points, and he’s one of the few celebs – gay or straight – who will speak out against the evils of the church. Dood on him!
Sorry, that above should have said “Good on him!” Duh!
Thanks for the reply, Andrew
Its almost an aside in the Herald and it does state that JB does not seek to be a spokesman for the LGBT communities. However, when being asked his own opinion (most of which I entirely agree with, with the exception that we should have equal marriage including in name for those who want it) he expressed it with eloquence.
I entirely agree that it is a positive thing that JB speaks out, not only because he has the willingness to speak out against bigotry from the church but also that he has a wide range of fans of all ages and backgrounds who respect his transparency and considered opinion.
Did you bother to read the article that this post is citing?
The last paragraph of the Herald article says:
“Barrowman does not claim to be a spokesman for the gay movement but felt he had to speak out. He added: “If the word ‘marriage’ upsets church people so much, then let’s just stick with the unions being described as civil partnerships.”
THAT is conceding the word marriage; just as I said.
We must be reading different articles — where in the article does it say “that we should settle for Civil Partnerships to appease the people who need to see us as “other”. The last sentence I read is “I think they’d be advised to remain quiet.” which is good advice.
Weel said John
Well said oops
Hayden is talking about the orginal article in The Herald. Here’s the last paragraph of the article:
Barrowman does not claim to be a spokesman for the gay movement but felt he had to speak out. He added: “If the word ‘marriage’ upsets church people so much, then let’s just stick with the unions being described as civil partnerships.”
I don’t know what John is actually saying then. Perhaps Pink News could ask him to clarify whether or not he supports gay equality, including the right to be married.
I wonder if the Herald got the interview right, then, because he usually IS a spokesman for the movement. he does a lot for gay charities, as well as other causes, and he has spoken against the church attitude before. The language of the interview doesn’t sound like his actual words. This could be a paraphrase of what he said that changed the meaning. Anyway, he still makes more sense than old Bishop Spaghetti or whatever his name is.
I wasn’t aware there was an original to this. Thanks BennieM.
Sorry for not replying sooner. I’ve been at work all day.
I think BennieM answered for me. I was referencing the actual Herald article, not what PinkNews said the Herald article said. PinkNews’ report was incomplete and didn’t mention John’s conceding the word “marriage”. That’s why I brought it up so that people would know that it wasn’t all good.
Here is the last paragraph of the Herald article:
Good work, Captain Jack.
Nice to see that John now supports equal rights. In 2006 he told Attitude: “I’m not a supporter of the word marriage for a gay partnership.”
yes, because of the way the church hijacked the word. He was brought up as a church goer, you know. I think he felt hurt that the church rejects the idea of him being married so therefore didnt want to be married. Ok, i’m not explaining this well. but i think he was speaking of his own feelings back then not for everyone in the gay comminity.
celebrity doesn’t meaqn informed, indeed. And for all his talents, love them or hate them, i’m not sure politics are his forte. But at least he’s having a crack at them. I’m in support of him generally on this.
The Church holds marriage as a sacrament… but given they can’t advertise Jeshua’s own marriage to She-who-will-not-be-named… nah, Mary Magdalen, they shouldn’t hold copyright on it! Fruit loops.
Not so fast. PinkNews didn’t report everything he said in the Herald interview.
He still doesn’t support “marriage” for gays:
“If the word ‘marriage’ upsets church people so much, then let’s just stick with the unions being described as civil partnerships.”
Sounds like his position is the same as it was in 2006.
WELL SAID!!! Mr Barrowman, Sir
Good on you John! They want us all to be lonely warped celibates like them. How they have the nerve to make comments after the things they have concealed!
Again this is a clear case of Christians persecuting LGBT people. People need to rise up and stop them before they murder more innocent people in the name of their religion. http://atheistoasis.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/gay-is-the-new-witch-the-christian-persecution-of-gay-americans/
Surprised the trolls haven’t got on this one yet.
Give them time. They’ll be here.
aren’t “trolls” homosexuals who hang about in sex clubs desperately indulging their sad, lonely and dangerous addiction to sex?
“Trolls” can also be closet homosexuals like you who hang about in Gay news forums denigrating gay people.
Go hide at the back of your closet.
The fact that you call sex between 2 consenting adults a sex addiction speaks volumes about your frame of mind. You deliberately attempt to insult and hurt gay people on a gay website indicates you are an enemy of humanity, just as religions are.
Stu, this is what John Barrowman alluded to…”“If two people love each other enough and want to call what they have a ‘marriage’.”
It’s a bit ambivalent but it does seem to refer to civil partnerships, especially his own. He could have said..”if two people love each other enough to want to get married…” would have been more accurate. A lot of people in CPs consider their unions as marriages but under the law, they’re not at all.
Oh its John Barrowman thats proud to be Scottsh, but when hes in the UK puts on a fake American accent… hes a fine one to talk. I dispise him, and turn the tv off at every opputunity.
He moved to the state of Illinois in the USA when he was eight years old. A person who is raised in America from the age of eight WOULD have an American accent. Do you not think a person can be a proud Scotsman and have an American accent? I have an American accent and I’m very proudly Scottish.
This may completely blow your mind. There are actually proud Americans with SCOTTISH accents (and hundreds of others).
It’s not a fake accent – he spent more of his pre-Uni years in the US than Scotland.
As someone who has lived in the south of England and is from Newcastle, I have a varying accent also. I guess it is more obvious when the accents are as distinct as Glasgow and the US.
The bitchy comments about his accent are both false and old and have no value.
On Tuesday, the North Carolina Senate followed the lead of the state House and approved a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage only as one man and one woman
Well done North Carolina demonstrating your true fear, bigotry and red neckedness. Fortunately there are people within the state who are fair, unprejudiced and recognise the need for human rights and integrity and the fight for equality will go on
Straight people should be allowed to engage in civil partnerships, which would represent equality.
Marriage is a state run contract. Do you request a divorce from the church? no, the state both has the authority to marry & divorce couples. Not the church..
I personally think the issue could be regularised by making ALL unions “civil” unions and leaving the religious ceremonies as a private matter for the couple involved. As long as it’s the same rules for everyone, that’s fair enough.
The writer of the Herald article wrote that Barrowman was “ATTACKING” the Church for its “criticism” of the consultation process.
Why do they call Barrowman’s criticism an “attack” while calling the church’s attack a “criticism”?
And one of the people commenting after the article claims to be a gay man who believes that gay’s should settle for Civil Partnerships but that they should also be opened up to straight couples. Wow! Not only does he not want to give gays the same institution and rights as straights but he wants to expand straight couples rights even more. He actually calls for making the distance between gay and straight relationship recognition even wider and even more preferential to straight couples. If this is how some GAY people feel I can’t imagine how we have any hope of convincing straight people that we deserve equal rights and equal consideration.
Good comment since it was the Church attacking the idea of marriage Equality, quite viciously too. Seems only the church and their supporter are allow to use words such as critism and attack for their own warped agenda.
Well say Mr Barrowman
Well say Mr. Barrowman
John points out, ‘I was born this way.’ The irony is they were probably born that way too. Law makers nowadays and the judiciary are aware of this anomaly and will moderate everything they say with this in mind.
Well, said John. It’s about time we heard more people like John being much more vocal in their support against this bigotted idiots.
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has launched a compaign to get the Pope and senior Vatican officials tried in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. That is the same court that jailed Milosivic.
Please support SNAP in taking this case. See:
I am with barrowman, and his anger at hate filled satanic religions, only satanic orgs, produce hatred and violence to people who have done nothing to them , any one can name a building anything and call themselves anything ,that does not change the fact that the person is still a murder or a rappest, the church in arizona bigots was arrested lots of the hate mongering people for sex trafficking children and women , and told the investigator they had on intended building a mega church bigger than others , other ministers went on tv and told that thats how the men in mega churches bult those big building thru sex trafficking children and women, these where bad pastors too who had been deceived they said by the mega church bad pastors who promised them a cut of the money if they helped get them started with the same evil in their smaller churches, i watced that news clip,always the bad people , bigots doing the evil, the pastors have to be accountable to the church not the other way arou
I’d like to give John Barrowman another, and most obvious , counter-argument to the Scottish Bishops’ attacks on the proposal to open civil marriage to same-sex couples. Namely, the Catholic Church does not recognise the validity of a civil marriage contracted by a Roman Catholic. Therefore, since the proposed legislation would regard ONLY civil marriage – and NOT the Catholic sacrament of matrimony – the Bishops should be reminded that they have nothing to say on a the subject. Again, the Church considers civil marriage to be invalid: is n’t then simply ludicrous for the Church to dictate to the State how the State should or should not regulate its own ceremonies? Secondly, if the Church truly wishes to promote monogamy and discourage promiscuity, what better means than to grant same-sex couples the possibility to enter into a stable, legally and socially recognised institution?
The problem in the UK and the USA is right now we have separate and unequal. Civil partnerships in both countries do not convey the same rights as civil marriages does.
And civil marriage is just that – the government sanctioned union of 2 people. We don’t need “gay marriage”, we simply need to stop descrimination against same gender couple who want to form a civil marriage. Religion should have nothing to do with it.
I have to disagree with John on the term ‘marriage’, and his suggestion of ceding the word to religion. Marriage as a word is POWERFUL; everyone understands what the word marriage is meant to be, and to agree to the alternative terminology of civil partnerships or unions is to give ground to those who wish to devolve our relationships to second class status.
To those who suggest that all civil marriages should be renamed ‘unions’ – how many people think that straght people in civil marriages would agree to having their marriages downgraded?!
Much as I love Captain Jack, I cannot agree with him on the idea of ‘ceding’ the word “marriage.” Cede nothing, CONCEDE nothing. Those who want to demonize us aren’t going to stop at “protecting” marriage, they want to erase us from the face of the earth. They will not be placated.
I am legally married in Canada — which, strangely, has not suffered major natural disasters or even a plague of frog — and I’ll be damned if I cede any word in the English language to a bunch of homophobic hypocrites.
The only ones who can protect or endanger a marriage are the people in that marriage.
There can be no such thing as a gay marriage.
God holds the definition of marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman, and it can never be anything else whatever the law says.
You can call a cat a dog, but it will never be a dog!
Which God exactly? Catholic God, Protestant God, Buddhist God, Hindu God, Sikh God, Shinto God, Muslim God?
Did God come in your dreams and tell you explicitly that marriage is defined as union between man and a woman?
And yes it is apparent that you can’t call a dog a cat in the same way you can’t change sexual orientation of someone.
And yes marriage word must be banned at all and should not be applied to same-sex relationships. Instead “civil partnership” or “consensual cohabitation” must be used because when the term marriage is used it means we are still looking at same-sex partnership from the lens of straight partnership. These is not point in using the terms like husband and wife in a same-sex relationship because it still means looking at this relationship from the lens of straight relationship. Also a heterosexual marriage is never based on equality in which woman in 99% cases is the submissive one. But in a gay or lesbian marriage both are on the same footing.
So John Barrowman misrepresents Catholic teachings. Straw man, me thinks. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that homosexuality is against the laws of nature.
Late finding this but I agree with Deborah – we need a civil marriage regardless of sex. Personally I question the advisability of allowing any Church to singularly define marraige. One thing that needs to be remembered when we start talking about religion is that throughout history man has re-edited and tweaked Biblical content, definitions, and ground rules to fit personal agendas (remember Henry VIII?) Maybe we could give God the benefit of the doubt….As a parent I know that even though I don’t always agree with everything my children do I always love them and want them to be happy….Would our heavenly Father want less for His children than an earthly parent?
It makes me so sick that John and his partner Scott can’t have a wedding to celebrate their love for one another.
studies have shown that contrary to the statement that he was born gay, there is no evidence of this. studies on identical twins bears out that they are NOT born gay. To claim this is to claim that God is unjust when He says that you are condemned for this behaviour. The Bible says in Leviticus 20:13 that the action of homosexuality is an abomination to God.
In Romans 1:25-27 chapter God says that it is homosexuality is a choice to worship the creature rather than God.
The book of Jonah 2:8 says that if you worship an idol, you forfeit the grace that could be yours.