Reader comments · 50,000 respond to Scotland’s gay marriage consultation · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


50,000 respond to Scotland’s gay marriage consultation

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. At least the catholic cult is consistent.

    They say marriage is to be ‘protected’.

    The greatest threat to heterosexual marriage is not gay marriage. It is heterosexual divorce.

    The catholic cult remains consistent as it remains actively opposed to divorce.

    The cult of Scotland is OK with divorce isn’t it? Which makes that cult even more pathetic and contemptible.

    I responded to this consultation.

    I recommended that Scotland introduce marriage equiality for gay people, CP equality for straight people and the removal of the ability of cults to officiate legallly over weddings – considering their bigotry they should not be allowed to perform legally binding wedding ceremonies.

    1. Stop the Hate 9 Dec 2011, 2:13pm

      I can’t see why religions shouldn’t continue to have the eight to perform legally binding weddings in a diverse society.

      1. Stop the Hate 9 Dec 2011, 2:15pm

        That should be ‘right’. Strange spellcheck correction.

        1. Unless religions are willing to abide by equality legislation then they absolutely should not be allowed to perform legally binding wedding ceremonies.

          After civil marriage equality is achieved I hope the fight continues to remove this legal ability from churches.

          France and the Netherlands offer no legal recognition to church weddings. Only civil weddings are recognised. That is a far more reasonable and just system.

          1. Seems a reasonable approach to me, dAVID

          2. Stop the Hate 9 Dec 2011, 4:32pm

            Not really, it just makes you look vindictive. Just because they behave unjustly doesn’t mean we have to. Let’s keep the moral high ground on our side.

          3. Why should religions have the right to register marriages, since that in itself is a function of the state …

            No one is denying that, for some, there is a religious element to marriage – that is not there for all people, but ALL marriages require registration and to ensure the legitimacy and consistency of the law being complied with then perhaps arguing that all marriages should be registered by a state registrar could resolve some of the issues that exist.

          4. Makes sense to me too.

    2. And let’s not forget that it is heterosexual adultery by both men and women alike. The roman cult among others refuses to recognise that as one of the main reasons why one in two marriages fail. How convenient for them.

    3. billywingarten 11 Dec 2011, 5:34am

      we should be clear – the religious people should not be allowed to do / witness the paperwork re the legal part of marriage. those who want the legal benefits should go to the legal authorities where people who now only want the legal benies go to get married.

      If they want to refuse to do gay marriage religous ceremonies, fine by me. Hopefully they will also instead marry my dog to my cat, religiously.

  2. “All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father, the evidence in favour of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal.”

    Even if that were the case, allowing same-sex couples to marry will not affect children who are brought up by heterosexual couples.

    I really, honestly, do not understand the “think about the children” argument…

    1. Stop the Hate 9 Dec 2011, 2:17pm

      But it’s not even correct, it’s an assumption that has been disproved by evidence.

      1. Religious people don’t do evidence!

  3. ““All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father, the evidence in favour of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal.””

    I don’t think so, the evidence shown by legitimate research shows that children raised by same sex couples do equally as well as children raised by opposite sex couples, not forgetting there are plenty of really awful and irresponsible natural parents out there who either will not, cannot or who are simply hopeless at raising their own children.

    1. Stop the Hate 9 Dec 2011, 2:19pm

      Actually the evidence was that children raised by lesbians statitically did better than straight couples.

    2. My father is the world’s biggest waste of space. I really hope I don’t “deserve” him as a parent. If so I must be an awful human being.

    3. Tim Hopkins 9 Dec 2011, 4:40pm

      Stop the hate is right – see for example Biblarz and Stacey’s research review in the Feb 2010 Journal of Marriage and Family – there is no evidence that the gender of parents matters, and “based strictly on the published evidence, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and a man with a traditional division of family labour.”

  4. Hopefully there will be a greater response against it then for it. I know myself and 25 friends and colleagues voted against it as we were discussing it at lunch time.

    1. It’s not a vote- it’s a consultation.

      1. Absolutely … and with regards human rights, whilst opinions matter – and they are interesting, the key fundamental issue is that all human beings are born equal in terms of dignity and rights. Governments do not decide to give rights – but they are duty bound to protect those rights and demonstrate as leaders (leading by example) how they ensure humane and fair treatment for ALL of their citizens.
        So whilst there is a significant pro and anti lobbying campaign – this is not just about numbers, it is about what is RIGHT and JUST – in the same way as granting women the right to vote or equal rights to non whites … this is key, fundamental and the government must be seen to be on the right side of history

      2. Matt is not too smart, they why.

    2. If you’re against marriage equality, explain to the rest of us how same sex CIVIL marriage (no religious component involved) affects or harms hetero marriages. Since same-sex marriage has existed legally in 10 countries for some time, can you point us to where it has stopped heterosexuals from marrying or having children. Where is your factual evidence for this? Religious marriage is totally different to civil marriage and there is no mandate to procreat in a civil marriage either. If you’re so against us having civil marriage equality, you should be supporting a ban on divorce and heterosexual couples who choose not to or cannot procreate. Be consistent, stop cherry-picking this and that to suit your own bigotry.

    3. Surprised you have 25 friends to be honest … given your attitudes at times …

  5. What about the children of gay parents? Marriage brings benefits to any family, not only those deemed acceptable but a prejudiced cult group who are, quite frankly, spouting nonsense. It’s well proven that children in alternative families aren’t disadvantaged.

    If they don’t want the government to be involved in marriage then perhaps the government should stop allowing church staff to act as registrar and give legal validity to church weddings!

    They are bigots attempting to limit the religious freedom of those churches which do already perform same sex marriages and want them recognised, such as Quakers.

    If the Quakers suddenly started saying that they demanded catholic marriages had no legal standing then how would they feel?

  6. José Merentes 9 Dec 2011, 2:45pm

    All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father, the evidence in favour of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal.”: So, ban adoption.

    1. What children deserve is to be treated with respect, granted rights and have their dignity upheld – that may mean a mother and father – but not necessarily …

    2. Care to provide this evidence?

      1. Is that comment to me, Kris? In which case what do you want me to evidence?

        1. No no, that was for Jose

          1. Thanks, just checking … :-)

    3. jamestoronto 9 Dec 2011, 11:38pm

      Ban adoption??? What kind of a conclusion is that. How can you make such a silly comment.? You obviously haven’t thought this one out.

    4. I think the three replies to José’s comment have missed the point he was making !

      I think he was satirizing the claim that a mother and father were necessary for a child.

      1. Wasnt my perception on reading it, but its possible …

      2. @Harry

        I thought the same as you when I read Jose’s post.

  7. Some of the opinions sent to the Scottish government came from those hateful American right wing religious hate groups such as the National Organisation for Marriage among others. What right do they have meddling in the domestic affairs of the UK? Americans wouldn’t like it if we did the same to them, bloody nerve of them, sticking their noses in something that is NONE of their damned business. I’ve no doubt some of them are pretending to be British citizens living abroad. I think it was wrong for the Scottish government to allow foreigners not residing in the UK a voice in any of this, very wrong. I can only imagine what they will do once our own consultation begins in March 2012.

    1. Tim Hopkins 9 Dec 2011, 4:43pm

      The Scottish Govt will distinguish between responses from Scotland and other responses, when analysing the results.

      1. Tim, my only hope is that even if the responses are overwhelming against marriage equality that it won’t taint or influence the actual legislation and those supporting it to pass comfortably in Parliament. If this were legislation demanding religious recognition of same-sex marriage, I could understand allowing religious denominations having a say, but the fact of the matter is, this is a purely civil matter, nothing more and as such, these people shouldn’t be entitled to voice their opposition. We don’t demand that we have a say in how they govern their denominations and they shouldn’t be allowed to have their say in civil matters pertaining to the LGBT community. It’s none of their damned business. Why should foreigners be allowed to influence or voice opposition to the UK’s internal affairs anyway?

        1. Tim Hopkins 9 Dec 2011, 5:29pm

          The responses won’t be overwhelmingly against!

          1. I’m holding my breath!

  8. I wonder what the percentage for and agaist is out of the 50,000 responses?

    1. Tim Hopkins 9 Dec 2011, 4:57pm

      The Catholic Church said on Wed that they had collected 28,000 postcards, which they delivered to the govt today – all against of course. If you are one of the over 50% of Catholics that support same-sex marriage, the Church provided no postcard for you to express your view!

      The Equality Network’s online and paper consultation response forms have been used by around 16,000 people – more than 99% said yes – unlike the Church we gave people the choice! Our colleagues at LGBT Youth Scotland, NUS Scotland and Scottish Youth Parliament have collected another 6000 yes responses.

      No doubt there are others, including I imagine Nos from the likes of the Christian Institute’s mailing list.

      Although we may have somewhat fewer numbers, that won’t be by a huge margin, and the Yes’s are mostly proper responses, not just pre-printed postcards, so should count for more.

      But as others have pointed out, it’s not a referendum! The submissions from organisations will count for a lot.

      1. “If you are one of the over 50% of Catholics that support same-sex marriage, the Church provided no postcard for you to express your view!”

        This should have read: –

        “If you are one of the over 50% of Catholics that support same-sex marriage, then you are no longer Catholic!”

  9. SIGN THE CONSULTATION IN FAVOUR OF GAY MARRIAGE (you can only do this until midnight tonight – Fri 10/12)

    1. Signed … anyone know when the Scottish government intends to announce the results of the consultation?

      1. Not until Spring next year.

        1. I suppose given the fact they have everyone the opportunity to make comments on why they answered in a particular manner that does require some collating.

          It shouldnt be a difficult decision though …

          It should be about true grit and leadership …

          To use the evocative words of Hilary Clinton earlier this week:

          “To the leaders of those countries …, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws”


    SIGN THE PETITION (until midnight tonite – Fri 10/12)

  11. Why do they listen to the church! A survey says the church & religion is in rapid decline. Most straight & gay people welcome equality as long as it doesn’t impose restrictions on their life qualities. 2 blokes or women getting marry wont disturb a bloke & a woman’s marriage vows at all! The only thing it’ll change is an old view from centuries ago, which will be best dead & buried but remembered so the world doesn’t make the mistake of glorifying a dictator!

  12. That’s a lot of responses to analyse!

    I hope it doesn’t end up being just like a poll where they just add up the yeses and nos..and go for the majoirty voting

    I hope they stick to a game plan ie bringing in gay marriage and simply address the negative replies in a reasoned way…

    This consultation shouldn’t be about the rights of the church to order the govt about but to see how they can work around them. I’m slighlty fearful about the purpose of the consultation when I feel it should really be a policy decision by the govt.

    Has the govt really had to deal with consultations with such huge responses before, the consultation on religious CPs was a handful in comparison. They could get quite bocked down just looking at them.

    1. Tim Hopkins 10 Dec 2011, 4:13am

      As far as we know the has only been one Scottish Govt consultation with over 50,000 responses before. That was the consultation on banning smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces.

  13. “All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father, the evidence in favour of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal.”

    Complete ROT. Like everything coming out of the Catholic Church these days. Every child deserves PARENTS. That’s ALL.

  14. As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of Christianity.

    1. mmm… I would say Neolithic… farming and all that stable life style… maybe Paleolithic, who knows,,

    2. sadly, this is untrue.
      the catholic church is using a false “fact” to bolster support for their side.

      marriage, as we know it, is a thoroughly modern invention.

      Until the 18th century, it was more of a concept of ownership and legacy than one of partnership between two equals. A man married so that he could have a baby machine to crank out heirs to have someone to leave all of his property to when he died. And as long as the baby machine was cranking out female babies, well, the man would have to keep trying, whether with his “lawful” baby machine, or with a “hired” one (why did so many men have concubines in the “good” ol’ days?.

      So it is a glaring untruth to repeat the tired old adage that “marriage predates government”.

      1. I suppose there is a difference between a marriage ceremony and a sexual bonding.

        For example, it has been documented that in different tribes the strongest male would prevent other males from sexual contact with women so that he could have a larger harem, more children, and these were life long partnerships.

        In fact, the other males regrouped and formed lasting sexual bonds among themselves, and that kind of unity and interdependence gave them a tremendous advantage in the hunt and at war where they would protect each other.

        That would explain why European (Christian) explorers who discovered new worlds always reported casual same-sex behavior among the Natives, and usually proceeded to butcher them or feed them to the dogs.

        It’s in that sense that I meant that ‘marriage’ may very well go back to Neolithic times, and beyond.

        1. but since “marriage” is between “one man and one woman”, these primitive polygamous “relationships” (which in the final analysis ARE entirely about procreating and passing on the dominant male’s genes, and have nothing to do with either love or commitment) are the very antithesis of what these “marriage traditionalists” are trying to “protect”.

          Modern marriage, about commitment and love, about staying together and living your life as a bonded pair, is a VERY modern invention in the grand scheme of human history. There is just no way to justify their assertion that marriage is such an age-old institution.

          If they really want to go that route, then they have to accept that polygamy is part of traditional marriage.

          1. Very good point.

            I was referring to the lasting sexual and emotional bonds which pairs of guys in the ‘bachelors’ group would inevitably form, some because they needed sexual release, others because they were born as exclusive homosexuals.

            It may be far-fetched, I know, but I thought to support same-sex marriage with these scientific discoveries, that’s all.

  15. The present statutory legal definition of marriage, specifically excluding same sex couples, was introduced ironically (or was it on purpose), just shortly before homosexuality was declassified as a diagnosis in 1973.

    Although there has been a long history of religious persecution of homosexuals as well as a tradition of religious anti-gay animus, to a significant extent still ongoing, homosexuality is no longer criminalised in this country.
    Informed society no longer treats homosexuality as a pathology nor as a crime but as one of the three most common and natural sexual orientations found in all human populations everywhere, these being heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.
    The full equal human rights of LGBT’s requires that the exclusive statutory legal definition of marriage now be made inclusive, or gender neutral, to enable all persons to realise the basic human right to marry the person they intend to spend the rest of their lives with.

  16. A far greater threat to the children and their families is sexual predators. Who research shows are not gay men. Although religious leaders, such as from the Catholic Church and others, continue to claim.

    1. The reason for that recently emanates from the molestation scandal in America over the past decade. The roman cult actually commissioned the John Jay institute in America which handles criminology reports and conducts indepth studies and it concluded that the only reason why most of the molestations appeared to be men molesting boys was that there were more males available to them and had no bearing on the orientation of the perpetrators, a lot of females were also molested but in smaller numbers and lack of availability. The conference of Catholic bishops in America authorized the study. Meanwhile, the head of the bigoted Catholic League in America, William Donohue has been spewing the paedophilia = homosexuality mantra for years and for the right wing religious nutters, almost always conservative republcians, it’s music to their ears and they run with it as fact..

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Dec 2011, 8:47am

      Actually it’s people like you Keith that stop children feeling they can be open about any sexual abuse they have suffer because you continuously condemn them and treat people you don’t agree with as outcast and second class.

      That makes you just as bad as the criminal abuser. You are the reason many stay silent whilst going through hell and often killing themselves and as long as people like you are around to attack the victim, the disease you carry, will carry on killing children and adults alike. As long as your sort are around you are egging on the sexual abuser rather than helping the victim that you happily let live a miserable life because you blame your so call ‘morals’ on there misfortune. I guess the abuser in You makes you stick to your own, eh?

      How does that square up to your life position? Personally I wish people like you would drop dead or at least get slung into places that treat you the way you wish others to be treated… Oh how things would be very different then.

    3. WHAT evidence? You’re making it up as you go along.

    4. Report and ignore – dont feed the troll

      1. Agreed. Just report.

        It will go the way of his other ridiculous and pathetic comments – the delete bin! Where trash like his belongs.

        Oh, it does make me laugh to see his futility! LOL!

    5. Go away and pour yourself another drink.

      1. Nail on the head, Riondo.

  17. I’m becoming worried about organised religionists increasing influence in Scotland. This is particularly noticeable by the recent rise in sectarian violence and the strenuous campaigning by church groups to block government plans for equality for gay people in respect to marriage.

    Of course the bitter sectarian violence and hatred we see on the terraces and in our streets didn’t just happen, it is a generational problem, passed on to our children at the very earliest age by labelling as “them” and “us” different religious groups.

    We further emphasise this tribal culture by separating children into different places of education. Shouldn’t we consider the purpose of education? Aren’t schools a place to teach children facts?

    The difficulty about integrating religion with factual learning is that children end up being confused; it becomes difficult for them to differentiate fact from fiction.

    Which of the following statements are true?

    1) The atomic weight of cobalt is 58.933195

    2) The talking snake theory:

    Snakes used to have legs until one of them opened his mouth and gave Eve (the first woman) some bad dieting advice.

    After God kicks Adam and Eve (the first humans) out of his Garden for listening to a talking snake, they begin to populate the Earth (incestuously of course)

    What if you were seven and I, your teacher and an authority figure told you that they were, in fact, both true?

    At this point I should point out that I’m not against Christianity being promoted in schools, I’m against any unproven doctrine, dogma and superstition being promoted in schools.

    This brings me nicely to another point, if parents want to brainwash their children with superstitious nonsense then, reluctantly, I must admit that they have that right.

    It should not be financed however, through any subsidy from the state, why should the tax from member’s one religious sect subsidise the promotion of another?

    It ought not to be taught in primary or secondary schools whether those schools are publicly funded or not. After school clubs and church study groups are the proper place for people with such an agenda to indoctrinate their children.

    If I have offended anyone with this post, please be assured that that was not my intention. My intention is merely to spark debate about an issue which has for too long, been left on the shelf by our politicians for fear of upsetting the sensibilities of religionists. In the meantime Scotland hangs its head in shame as news reports flash around the world showing what a bigoted, hateful country we are becoming. Sectarianism has long been a problem in Scotland and like any problem which is generational, it shall take generations to root out, but root it out we must and we must start with the very next generation, in our schools.

    My tuppence worth!

    Best regards,

    Brian From Kirkcaldy

    1. Whilst I would not use the choice of language that you have … I do feel that church and state should be separate … that includes schools …

      I would say that there is a use in educating on a sociological/philosophical basis the existence of religion – so that children are aware that there are different world views – but it should be purely factual saying for example, some people believe a, some believe b and some believe c etc … this would produce more rounded and perhaps more understanding people …

      I would be totally against collective worship etc in school, however

      1. I would be prepared, in the interests of the study of sociological and philosophical materials, to concede your proposition about explaining a, b, and c, provided of course we include the fact that these beliefs have absolutely no substantiating evidence and that there are also people who rely on evidence and scientific study to prove their theories, who whole heartedly disagree.
        These lessons ought not to take up a lot of academic time and so ought not to be detrimental to the children’s general education to any great extent and as you say, shall almost certainly increase their understanding of those around them.
        Thank you for your thoughtful contribution,

        Best regards,

        1. So you guys are talking about a crash course in comparative religions, then, and I agree.

          I would add that at a higher level of learning the students should be taught that neuroscience does have evidence that a particular activity in the brain corresponds to the religious mindset, and that there are people of faith who manage to live full and productive lives for the betterment of society.

          1. Indeed!
            I have no problem with the reporting of fact, and I personally know a few people for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration who hold religious beliefs, who, despite their delusions live full and productive lives and enrich society.

            I am intrigued by your assertion that there is evidence from neuroscience that a particular activity in the brain corresponds to the religious mindset; I don’t doubt it, although I suspect it may be chemically related to substances which are naturally occurring such as serotonin.

            Nonetheless I would like to read more on the subject so if you have some references you can provide I would be very grateful!

            Best regards,

          2. @ Brian –

            I too am intrigued by the results of neuro-imaging.

            In this case I was referring to brain scans carried out on Tibetan monks while they were in a state of contemplation.

            Perhaps I should have said there is brain activity corresponding to ‘spiritual’ states of mind.

            Still, I do think that observing the behavior of persons like Bishop Desmond Tutu, for example, can be considered as proof – however rare – of the beneficial side of religion per se.

  18. Spanner1960 11 Dec 2011, 2:58pm

    “As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by government and should not be changed by them.”

    Yes, and it also predates organised religion, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, so if you want to start spouting rhetoric and who came first, marriage was around way before Jesus Christ, Mohammed et al, and actually well before the Old Testament.

    1. yes, and so were lasting same-sex unions acknowledged and accepted by the societies in which they occurred.

  19. carrie baker 11 Dec 2011, 3:47pm

    IT IS good that over 50,000 people marched to onto to platform in scottland, to stand for equality, and more coming, thats positves, Thats why you do not allow a bigoted senator or afficial to carry out his or her own personal hate attaacks out against ciitizens, nor a hate religions that should be shut down for their abuses and hate crimes as well , you as and invdidual or a group no it is the right thing to do is to do right and fair by others, I dont need people to tell me a murder is bad , they harm lilves inocent lives , i have my on stable conscience you act out fairnness and equalllity, you dont need a brains scientist to right by people , people just have rotten and dark hearts and involved with satanic occultism, and drugs, and klans and they do evil things and hate groups are the head of sex crimes and all other crimes , from the white house , philip hinkle and NEWT GINGRICH , THE MAN IS A HATER OF GAY PEOPLE AND HIS OWN SISTER IN LAW WENT TO THE NEWS AND TOLD ABOUT HIM

  20. This is a consultation, not a vote, so it shouldn’t matter if a load of homophobes have organised a coordinated campaign against equality. The government is consulting on how to introduce equality not whether to do so. Scotland has it right, with full marriage equality planned, while the consultation in England & Wales is only for partial marriage equality. When that consultation comes into force we will all have to spread the word and encourage people to demand full equality- not the half-way-there model that’s being offered.

    1. @Dromio

      Actually the Scottish Goverment consultation IS about IF they should introduce legislation for same-sex marriage, not HOW. While the Scottish Goverment have said all along they are tended towards it, they have also kept saying that no final decision will be taken until they have heard all views and the consultation was finished.

  21. carrie baker 11 Dec 2011, 3:55pm

    yOU ELECT GOOD PEOPLE WHO CARE FOR THE PEOPLE AND HUMANITY, AND IF YOU HAVE PRIME MINISTERS AND SENATORS IN GOVERNMENTS AN SEATS THAT VIOLATE HUMANITY, YOU REMOVE THEM AND OVERHAUL THE SYSTEM TO FAIRNESS AND EQUALIY, AND MOVE FORWARD, newt Gengrich, was placed in the news and enquirer by his own evil sins as a father and husband and an official , the many women especially one that every body including a health law doctor has made the true statements that the man is a sex addict and abuser of women, he has had three wives because of it, and was fired and made to resign for his sexually violations of women and womenizng and harrasmnet of woomen and abuse of his political job, when he was in the white houwe before, you don not lilke the doctor said want another night mare from this man in the white house as president, he was fired from his senate seat before, and women threatened to sue him for sexual harrasment now some the other women in the enquirer are telling his dirty deeds

  22. carrie baker 11 Dec 2011, 4:03pm

    There is no good republican candidate in the united states running , they are all announced and founded bigots and open about their evil hatred, for women rights, and lgbt rights and they are also tied into satanic hate reliougous accults, these are people that are in your face abusers and is telling you if they are elected they will continure to treat others unfairly and haras their families, and try and vilate their rights, and instigate problems for masses of people rather than work on bringing people together, in equalilty and fair society, and safe society, all except a few republlicans or dangerous to this nation, they care nothing for the citizens and eldlery, nor children, the promote hatred ,bigotry and discrimation, which harms women , minorityes lgbt and kids, some repubs, have denounced the bigotry in their party, The nations must have a rainbow, democracy who is human rights, equality, a people government for the people , hearing and acting on their behalf, and safty,

  23. carrie baker 11 Dec 2011, 4:12pm

    Pelosi, feinstein, reid and hoyer, and the democratic party, must see to it obama seats all of those candidates that or human rights people, Caitlin, Hallgan, appoint, on the courts and others, there is no escuse for the president not seating these people. if the republicans cannot produce where these people have commted crimes against humanity, and unfair equality, they cannot block a person for just being a good fair person, you must reprimand the republicans for discrimantion and hate crimes innacted agianst these people some its double discrimiation because they are women, and lgbt and republicans tries to block women and lgbt nomeinees, thats a hate crime, Obama, have no business wasting time on their mess, he an the democratic party should already have their nominees checked for humanity ,and put them in place immediately, everyone and fill those slots thats vital to positive innitatives for the economy and citizens watch, you not there to play games with republicans , PRESIDENT

  24. carrie baker 11 Dec 2011, 4:37pm


  25. I wonder if that includes all the English responses the gay rights movement went fishing for when they couldn’t find any Scots to reply to the consultation?

    1. Tim Hopkins 11 Dec 2011, 8:46pm

      Rubbish! The very large majority of the yes responses are from Scotland, as the Govt’s analysis will confirm when it ‘s published.

    2. Maybe the NO votes also include the English and American comments that the evangelical churches went seeking …?

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.