Reader comments · House of Lords rejects peer’s challenge to religious civil partnership rules · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


House of Lords rejects peer’s challenge to religious civil partnership rules

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Locus Solus 15 Dec 2011, 2:02pm

    Par-Tey! *\o/*

  2. Jolly good :)

  3. Sick Rantorum 15 Dec 2011, 2:07pm

    I wonder if the point of the motion was just to be able to stir up some homophobia.

    1. DJ Sheepiesheep 15 Dec 2011, 2:19pm

      There was never any real prospect that they could win if the petition went to a vote. The whole point was to make some noise, which is a good thing because it shows us who the bigots are.

      1. Sick Rantorum 15 Dec 2011, 2:24pm

        Is it possible to get such vile creatures expelled from the HL?

        1. short answer? unfortunatly not

        2. Sadly the House of Lords is not a democratic institution,

          It needs to be scrapped and replaced with a democratically elected Upper House.

          1. I agree that the HoL needs replacing with an elected upper chamber …

            Whilst the current format is an anachronism and needs urgent replacement … I did enjoy many of the comments in the HoL today such as:

            Lord Carlile closing his remarks by noting that the House has taken a lot of time today to debate something that isn’t even a problem!

            Lady Hamwee: ‘I don’t like to see people fed fear.’

            Lord Carlisle: It’s absolutely clear that the Alli amendment will not force religious groups to act against their conscience. Some argue that the words ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ actually cause doubt. What could be more absurd?

            Lord Collins reiterated his thanks to fellow Peers for making both him and his husband so welcome, said this mattered a great deal to him as a new peer. Expressed strong need for both equality and religious freedom. Stated “No part of the Equality Act would compel religious premises to host CPs”.

      2. I think we already knew who the bigots were…aren’t they always the same lot of homophobes backed up by the usual “christian” nutters..very pleased to see some proper christians having a go at the CofE/Anglicans in the debate…are we allowed to use the word homophobe anymore, they seem at pains to deny its existence!

        1. I agree, but I must stand up for Anglicans, because we’re not all the same. It’s only the ones who take the Bible too seriously that are being so horrible.

  4. I have said nasty things about Stonewall from time to time but we must accept that this was an area where Ben and his team worked hard for us and we should acknowledge that with thanks.

    1. Agreed. But of course marriage equality is a much more important issue.

      1. Stonewall has been campaigning against marriage equality – see Ben Summerskill’s appalling behaviour at the 2010 LibDem Conference.

        Stonewall has not explained this despicable behaviour. Nor has Ben Summerskill been sacked.

        Stonewall does not deserve thanks. It deserves contempt.

        1. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:17pm

          One issue, One man doesn’t stop the fact that in general Stonewall do do some great work. You can paint it bad all you want but truth is they do so much and for this and this they do deserve thanx just like anyother person or organisation doing the same!

          1. The fact that a so-called gay rights charity is geaded by a homophobe delegitimises EVERYTHING Stonewall does though, especially as Stonewall is so secretive about how it sets its agenda, and in terms of acknowledging who it is answerable to.

            And make no mistake – Ben Summerskill is a homophobe.

            How on earth could be attend a political meeting where marriage equality was on the agenda and actively campaign against it, and tell barefaced lies about the cost of equality to back up his lies.

            He has neither apologised for, not explained his despicable behaviour. Nor has Stonewall.

            Summersklill has to go. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

            And until he goes, Stonwall cannot and should not be trusted.

  5. Churches still can say no if they so wish, as outlined by Lynne Featherstone.

    1. And most of them will as most cults are sickeningly bigotted.

      This change affects only a tiny number of people.

      Meanwhile all same sex couples remain denied access to marriage.

      1. But we are a step closer, and most equality gains are made in a step by step approach

        1. Its important we celebrate the gains, whilst still seeking further equality

        2. Allowing same sex couples to get CPed in the tiny number of cults that will permit them, does nothing to advance the campaign for marriage equality.

          ALL same sex couples continue to be denied access to the legal contract of civil marriage simply because they are gay.

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:26pm

            Actually it goes a massive wake to progress to marriage actually but then if you only see the negative in things your very unlikely to see it.

      2. Miguel Sanchez 15 Dec 2011, 3:23pm

        You really missed the boat. There are churches that will never agree to hold same sex unions in their churches, like the Catholic Church. BUT there are 3 large groups that signed a litter to the House of Lords stating they would gladly hold unions in their places of worship.

        Personally, I don’t care where someone ties the knot as long as they receive ALL of the protection hetero couples do.

        1. The quakers, the unitarians and the liberal jews are NOT large groups.

          They are very minor churches with very small congregations.

          The vast majority of cults will remain as bigotted as ever.

          Celebrate this very minor victory if you like. But put it into context. Gay relationships remain 2nd class legally.

          And not a single gay couple in Britain is allowed to get married in Britain.

          1. The size of the congregations or the fact they are minor churches is irrelevant to the significance of this movement towards equal marriage.

            I agree no same sex couple can marry – and they need to be able to – and this does not stop the battle that many of us are engaged in to ensure that it happens – and it will ….

            Nonetheless this is a significant improvement – for those couples who choose to benefit from it, for the denominations engaging with it and for the symbolism it brings

      3. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:24pm

        Although I think your comment is inaccurate you must realise that it only takes a ‘tiny number of people’ to start making a big difference.

        1. Yet the consultation on equality has been delayed yet again.

          This story is PR nonsense.

          Marriage equality will not happen in the lifetime of the present government unless we start calling out bullsh!t when we see it.

          Allowing cults to perform CP’s is a very minor story.

          The real story remains that gay couples are not allowed to marry simply because they are gay.

          1. Jock S. Trap 17 Dec 2011, 9:26am

            Actually I can see that logic dictates that had we had the marriage consultation at the same time as the religious part of CP’s was introduced it would have been used as a weapon to delay and cause problems. Your attitude for all now or nothng approach usually ends up with nothing and many missing out. Just because you don’t approve of CP don’t diss those Gay or Lesbian who believe for them it is adequate.

            Allowing religious may seem a ‘very minor story’ but if you used your brain you’d see that by introducing them and letting all see the problems they predicted haven’t arisen, then surely that the best way to push forward with marriage. How can they argument something when their original arguements have been proved to be flawed?

            Patience may not be ideal for you but the alternative by your standards would be nothing. I know what I prefer.

    2. and churches can say yes if they wish … which many have shown they wish to … and many more have yet to demonstrate what their view is …

      1. The quaker, unitarian and liberal jewish cults have said they will allow CP’s in their cult buildings. These are all tiny cults.

        The 2 biggest cults in Britain are the cult of England and the catholic cult.

        Both of these cults remain as despicably bigotted as they always have.

        1. Miguel Sanchez 15 Dec 2011, 3:28pm

          David, I’m not a church goer but I do believe in God. I’m Protestand turned Catholic but haven’t been to mass in ages because I disagree with many of their teachings. But I”M SICK OF HEARING RELIGION REFERRED TO AS A CULT.

          If you don’t believe in it, fine, that’s your right but son’t bash others who do. You bashing religion is no better than someone bashing us gays.

          1. Perhaps when we have marriage equality and they refer to our relationships as marriage then we could deign to refer to their cults as religions, fair is fair, we need a little give and take.

          2. Sorry Miguel, there may be some negative connotations to the word ‘cult’ today(though they’re not all negative, as in ‘cult TV programme’), but – though dAVID may being deliberately provocative – it is technically accurate to refer to the Christian denominations as cults.

          3. Miguel: check a dictionary! Christianity is a cult, and one that is, mercifully, dying with a rush in this country.

            And stop using capital letters.

          4. @Rehan

            I agree with two parts of your argument …

            1) that there are some positive definitions of the word cult

            2) that dAVID aims to be deliberately provocative (something he has previously admitted on other threads – although I tend to imagine him being uncharacteristically generous and friendly when I see him use the word cult)

            but I disagree that the word is correct to define all forms of the Christian church etc … thats my view as a non-Christian … I don’t expect others to agree with it, but as long as they are entitled to their right to use provocative language, I will retain mine to challenge it …

          5. Miguel, You don’t mention which version of Catholicism you are,but I assume the Roman Catholic version? In which case, I am afraid it is by definition a cult. And since you proclaim to be not a church goer, you are in violation of the Catechism of your church.

          6. @ Stu, I did say ‘technically’ – the OED’s primary definition is a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

            Origin: early 17th century (originally denoting homage paid to a divinity): from French culte or Latin cultus ‘worship’, from cult- ‘inhabited, cultivated, worshipped’, from the verb colere

        2. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:29pm

          They have also mad it clear they wish to perform marriage within their religion building. How can you not see them as a force for good and a reason for chance. Small or not they can and will make a difference.

    3. Hey Matt, didn’t you say previously that it would never happen? So, now that it has happened, you are just going to pick denial?


      1. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:32pm

        Indeed, one step closer to full marriage.

    4. Churches still can say no if they so wish

      Fine. Let them. The issue is more about those that want to say ‘yes’.

    5. Not what you said would happen, Matthew

      Seems you are very very much on the wrong side of history

    6. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:18pm

      That was always the deal Matthew, do keep up dear!!

    7. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:21pm

      “Churches still can say no if they so wish,”

      Yes but lets not forget that this has come about because some religions, some churchs DO wish to perform such ceremonies. Also many of them wish to take it further to marriage leaving the old religions in the dark place.

      1. Nothing has happened, and there is no step closer.
        This was just a debate to change rules, no one has ‘won’ anything, nothing has really changed to be honest.
        As I said, they still have the right to refuse. Those that ‘want’ to do it have £ sign their eyes and nothing more.

        Ka-ching! ££££

        1. Blinkered … much ….?

        2. Well all cults are all about the money, all the time.

          Even the less despicable cults.

          How much does it cost to get to ‘heaven’ these days does anyone know?

          1. Get with the times, you don’t buy your way into heaven! That’s such a medieval view of religion. If that’s what you’re thinking all religions are like these days no wonder you’re so offensive to them

        3. “Nothing has happened, and there is no step closer.”

          LOL! Is your head warm there when its stuck in the sand?

          Only a fool thinks denial is a protection from reality. I’m laughing at you.

        4. Jock S. Trap 17 Dec 2011, 9:33am

          Well me think your going to be a very disappointed little man soon…. lol and left in the wilderness with all your other fruitloops losers… or just bad losers maybe… which is it?

          As for the comment about money, prehaps the answer then should be ban all church weddings, I mean they all take money for them. How are we to know if it’s for the right reasons or not.

          Shallow people like yourself are too blinded by your own ignorance to see anything decent.

  6. Jolly good. :)

  7. The Baroness withdrew her motion when she realised it would not be passed in the Lords.

    1. Pastor Rich N. fat 16 Dec 2011, 12:22am

      Sounds vaguely disgusting, lol.

  8. 1. Why has the consultation on marriage equality been delayed (again) this time until March?

    2. Why has 2015 been decided on as a date for marriage equallity? What is wrong with summer 2012.

    3. Why is Ben Summerskill being quoted in this piece. Has he explained or apologised for his disgustingly homophobic campaign against marriage equality at the 2010 LibDem party conference? The fact that he has not been fired shows the contempt in which Stonewall holds the LGBT community.

    1. Yes marriage equality is what we want …

      Why do you always have to look at the negatives and fail to celebrate the gains …

      oh yes, because you are not personally interested in this gain – it doesnt matter if other gay people are … so you are just interested in what matters to you – minorities within a minority are an irrelevance to you … otherwise you would celebrate this gain …

      1. Because it is not a gain, of course, except for the terminally superstitious (ie the religious).

        It is a scrap of meaningless PR to disguise the fact that we are still 2nd class citizens.

        1. It is a gain to gay Christians and gay Jews whose organisations wish to support them

          and I celebrate with them

        2. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:42pm

          To you maybe but not to the many who will choose to have religious Civil Partnerships. Why should you degrade them and their choice?

    2. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:40pm

      1. I would imagine to stop this challenge being rejected. Now they can focus on marriage.

      2. I was under the impression it was by 2015 meaning anytime up to so it might yet be sooner.

      3. Why are you so stuck on the past? It clearly clouds any progress in your eyes. Fact is things are the way they are, deal with it or don’t but stop bleating on about it. It isn’t going to change the past and frankly doesn’t stop the fact that Stonewall still do, do a good job. Sure no one was pleased about what happened but come on…. get over it.

  9. Good – a pointless bit of scare-mongering dead in the water. Funny how some religious groups go on and on about religious freedom, but are the first to try to limit other religious groups freedom just because they don’t happen to agree.

  10. A sweet moment, even if implicitly it allows religions to discriminate against gay people. Now, Summerskill, you say you stand up for all minorities on equality grounds can you please put your energies into equal access to civil marriage :)

    1. Summerskill needs to be sacked.

      His homophobic campaign against marriage equality at the 2010 LibDem Party conference renders him completely unfit for purpose as the leader of Stonewall..

      And Stonewall’s refusal to sack him means that Stonewall endorsed Summerskill’s homophobic campaign.

      Until Summerskill is sacked then Stonewall cannot be trusted.

      1. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:44pm

        Yeah, we get it but that your believe not ours. Some may agree with you many, many more will not.

      2. @dAVID

        As Jock S Trap says, your view – and we hear if VERY LOUD and clear … not mine …

        Sumerskill made a very serious error of judgement in how he personally, and Stonewall as an organisation approached the issue of equal marriage in 2010.

        That one mistake should not define Stonewall and obliterate many good things they have done both before and after this …

        1. His refusal to explain or a\pologise for his despicable behviour means that this ‘one mistake’ is still hanging over the neck of Stonewall, and ruining its reputation and legacy.

          Summerskill needs to go.

          Stonewall cannot be taken seriously when the last time its leader was seen in public was when he was campaigninng against legal equality for the gay community.

          1. Last time Summerskill was seen in public was congratulating the HoL on their decision yesterday

            Seemed to me he was supporting LGBT rights at that point

          2. Jock S. Trap 17 Dec 2011, 10:07am

            Well ok I’ll tell you what, you sit and wait while the rest of us get on with it. I’m sure someone will run a feather duster over you once in a while while passing. Good luck with that, what year can we expect you back in?

  11. Why is this woman with an Irish Gallic name in the British House of Lords? Shouldn’t she be in the Senate of the Dail where she could peddle Vatican bigotry to as little an effect as she has had in Westminster.I hope this has cost this bunch of bogus Christians from the Christian Institute and the rest of their hateful crew, an absolute packet.Why should the British taxpayer being forking out for this?I am delighted the “prayer” met with the contempt and derision it deserved.

    1. Ironically , there is very few people in the Irish Dail or Seanad who “peddle Vatican bigotry”.

    2. Why is this woman with an Irish Gallic name in the British House of Lords?

      Possibly for the same reason that Lord (Waheed) Alli is in the HoL – they’re British, regardless of the origin of their names.

    3. @ gendy – has it occurred t you that Britain occupied Ireland by force for 700 years, and still controls 6 counties? And NOW you
      have an issue with an Irish name in your parliament? If I were you I’d worry less about Vatican bigotry, and focus more on your own bigotry. Someone here has a little growing up to do, don’t they?

      1. The voters in the six counties don’t seem to be in a hurry to leave the UK. Anyway, the UK didn’t occupy Ireland – it occupied a warring, tribal island that wasn’t a united country like the Republic is today: it occupied Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught and even each of those four so-called kingdoms weren’t really really united and they certainly didn’t enjoy friendly relations with each other very often.

        The Norman invasion of Ireland (1169) was done at the behest of Dermot MacMurrough (Diarmit Mac Murchada) who was the ousted King of Leinster who wanted Norman help to regain his throne. The invasion by Henry II in 1171 was done so that he could keep control of the forces which landed in 1169 since MacMurrough had freely pledged loyalty to Henry II in return for his help. Henry was happily acknowledged by the Irish kings as their overlord for they saw this as a way of curbing each others powers.

        After those events the story just gets more and more complicated but a straightforward invasion for gain and colonisation initially it most certainly was not. Like most things, the history of Anglo-Irish relations is much more complex than the simplistic rubbish that is usually peddled.

      2. @Paul — As John MJ elegantly says, the history of Anglo-Irish relations is very complicated. I am very glad to see it is improving greatly.

        Just to illustrate John’s statement about the choice of the people in the six counties, in fact on 6 December 1922, the Irish Free State was established, fully independent of the UK, and consisiting of the entirity of the island of Ireland. One day later, a vote was taken in the Ulster parliament, and Northern Island left the Irish Free State and joined the UK.

        The UK’s involvement in Ireland has often been lamentable, but it is certainly not uniformly black. I’m absolutely against forgetting the past, but let’s remember accurately.

    4. She’s a midden wherever she hails from.

    5. Gendy’s comment is ridiculous, bordering on racism. Detta O Cathain has dual citizenship. The fact someone has a non-Anglo-Saxon surname is of zero significance.

      Also, the Irish Republic is becoming far more secular than Britain could ever dream to be.

      1. There is no state cult in the Republic of Ireland, ,like there is in Britain.

        No religious cult in Ireland enjoys the same undeserved legal status as the cult of England does.

        And the head of state in Britain is also the head of the state cult.

        I think Britain needs to get its own house in order on matters of religion and parliament.

        1. There should be a complete separation of church and state … its not defensible that the state has (whether real or perceived – and I suspect there is some of both!) bias in favour of religion …

  12. Well you pulled my comment faster than a Christian Institute editor might have – not worth posting here.

    1. What comment was pulled?

      You comment above remains here … I find it wrong and racist but PN have not censored you … thats restricted for some very special people only

    2. But it’s still there !

      PinkNews does cause cache problems – it’s often best to explicitly refresh the comments page after posting.

  13. Well it isn’t really what the gay-friendly faiths want though, is it? They already perform same sex marriages so why downgrade them to civil partnerships. What is really needed is legal recognition for the marriages.

  14. Actually, there is a golden, not silver lining in all this. The fact that the House of Lords has voiced continued support means that this portends well for civil marriage equality using the same language that exempts religious denominations and cults from participating if they so choose not to participate. The opponents have shot themselves in the foot and in fact helped the marriage equality debate by their very spurious but lame arguments. This is a good day indeed! The House of Lords has shown some relevance for a change.

    I do see dAVID’s point though. Why should marriage equality have to wait until the end of the current parliament in 2015? Why not by the same time next year? What could possibly take so long after the consultation knowing that the language of the CP bill excluding denominations will be implemented in the marriage equality bill since the rights in a CP are almost identical to marriage? To me it’s nothing more than a name change now that the groundwork has been laid and proven after six years of CPs and religious denominations allowed to participate by choice with overhwelming support by the government and House of Lords. I don’t see any obstacle in allowing full marriage equality. The two major cults will of course raise hell, but I think that the House of Lords decision to support religious CPs will carry a lot of weight when the civil marriage equality bill finally comes to a vote. There really is no rational or logical argument to oppose it since it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

    1. @Robert

      I profoundly agree with dAVID about seeking equal marriage, and am concerned about the potential for further delay in the (arguably unnecessary) consultation …

      I dont doubt we will get marriage equality

      I do think today is a day to celebrate, both for the gay Christians and gay Jews who can benefit (no matter how small the number) but also because it demonstrated a House of Lords almost unanimously standing on the side of fairness and equality (on the basis of the issues they were debating)

      Congratulations to the House of Lords (I still think you should be massively reformed though)

      1. I concur! I would like to know why the marriage equality consutlation was delayed. I’m surprised StonewallUK hasn’t provided any explanation since it will be the primary contact I would imagine, during and after the consultation. Or has that changed?

        1. When I asked the equalties office why there was a delay they said “I would like to reassure you that there has been no delay in proceeding with the work on equal marriage.” Strange reply since we went from a july consultation to an Autumn one then to a march 2012 one. I think they have a different definition of delay.

          You may want to read this guy’s attempt at getting info out of the govt on meetings

          1. Marriage equality could be a reality before the summer recess in parliament in 2012.

            I think the date of 2015 is unacceptable and was deliberately chosen so that the government can conveniently run out of time before introducing it.

            I think summer 2012 should be the date for equality.

            And I think the government needs to explain why we will not be equal by summer 2012.

          2. @dAVID

            I’m not entirely sure whether summer recess is entirely realistic, but certainly feasible if everyone involved in the debate (which unfortunately/fortunately has to occur in democratic change) wishes to engage helpfully. – we can see from yesterdays HoL debate can be easily handled in a constructive manner where there is the will.

            2015 has never been stated as the date when equal marriage will occur. This is the deadline – the government may well introduce it in advance of this.

            I do think equal marriage is important, and it is important that the government is seen to act. I am confident that it will happen. I think it is regrettable that there is a perception that there is slippage, although I feel some of this is due to opponents of equal marriage feeding disinformation maliciously.

            We have to accept that we have never been so close to equal marriage in England – never before has there been a PM, cabinet and equalities minister who have publically supported it nor …

          3. … a consultation (which in many ways is regrettable), nor support from most political hues, especially from the platform of the Conservative party conference …

            We have come a long way, and there is a bit of a journey left to go … and its important we hold the government to account, but also encourage them in this action – not for their sake, but for the sake of equality … I am impatient like you, but I do recognise we are on the journey and the train is not stoppable – the momentum is there and we have some vocal opposition but overwhelming public support ….

  15. Laus Deo.

    1. de Villiers 16 Dec 2011, 11:27am

      fortis est veritas

  16. Jock S. Trap 15 Dec 2011, 5:09pm

    So common sense prevails again and a step to proper equality takes another step forward, excellent.

    Though be warned this is actually the start of the battle as civil marriage agreements with the bigots may have been paved as ‘Civil Partnerships are enough’. Let’s hope by seeing the world doesn’t cave in on itself their arguement becomes ever much weaker day by day.

    In all a great day for democracy and equality.

  17. “When the media report on issues of religion and sexuality, it usually turns into a story of “gays v Christians”, as if the two groups were mutually exclusive. This perception is encouraged by socially conservative Christians, who were pushing their agenda in the House of Lords today.

    On this occasion, they wanted to discriminate against a specific group – religious same-sex couples. This gives the lie to their repeated claim that they are protecting Christianity against a secular attack.”

    1. I have to say there was also support in the HoL today from an evangelical bishop …

      Good to see today that some liberal Christians and some unexpected Christians (as well as the majority of the HoL) supporting decency and honesty today.

      Its not just the media that portray debates that concern both religion and sexuality as battlegrounds between those of faith and those who are gay … there is a tendency from some elements within the church to do likewise, and sadly from some LGBT people too …

      1. On full marriage equality including same sex religious marriages (i.e.not religious CP’s) and with respect to much touted religious freedom from the opposition, religious same sex couples may turn out to our ace in the hole.

        That said, for myself and others of us who find all religions absurd and unpleasant while acknowledging that there are religious LGBT’s there seems to be a presumption by some here that religion deserves our respect.

        I make an effort to reign-in my hostility to religion and to some “religious” persons, not always successfully depending on my mood and whatever new assault is presently being launched on my and our rights and freedoms by them, it is wearyingly relentless globally. I do think religion deserves to be ridiculed rather than encouraged.

        1. @Pavlos

          I would use slightly different nuances …

          Its not religion per se that deserves respect, but the individuals that are religious. That respect should not be unqualified – and (as with anyone) they may lose that respect due to engaging in particular forms of behaviour.

          I value human rights – not just LGBT rights – and that includes freedom of and from religion.

          I recognise that when LGBT people are attacked that is an attack on a large group of people, equally when religious people are attacked – that is an attack on a large group of people and there is not mutual exclusivity.

          So, I presume respect (even though I profoundly disagree with the basis of belief) of the individuals … but this respect can both be lost (and re-earned) …

      2. Typo, that should read: “Religious couples may turn out to be our ace in the hole”

  18. Galadriel1010 15 Dec 2011, 6:06pm

    Glad to hear it. This challenge didn’t have a leg to stand on. I now hope that some churches within the Church of England will defy the ban that’s been put on them and start moving us forwards.

  19. “It is probably not a co-incidence that those peers who tried to construe a legal argument to this effect seemed to be those most opposed to the principles of civil partnerships.”

    Absolutely! and they’ll be the first ones to try to deny us equal marriage as well and one other thing, most of them, are still Tory. A lot of progress but they Tory party need to keep a control of these guys..

    1. Pastor Rich N. fat 16 Dec 2011, 12:31am

      Expulsion would be a start.

  20. I know they had to stick to arguing down Ocaithain’s QCs’ spurious arguments but I do wish that sometimes they would tackle the issue of the christian websites eg anglican mainstream which promte “fear” and misinformation. It was so obvious that this was all nonsense and had nothing to do with legal arguments and more to do with anti gay sentiment. It really ought to be tackled but no-one mentioned these extreme christian orgs who are constantly up to the same old tricks…. and I don’t understand why there wasn’t a chorus of agreement when Ocaithain siad she had be accused of homophobia in letters sent to her…I think I would have been in full agreement of those writers…

  21. “…I look forward to working equally constructively with all interested people and organisations as we move ahead with the Coalition Government’s plan to open up marriage to same-sex couples”

    Is this the first time lynne featherstone has been brave enough not to put the word “civil” infront of marriage!!!!

    I’m glad she not making the distinction any more, perhpas her confidential meetings are having some effect?

  22. “We trust that Baroness O’Cathain and her supporters will now have a little more free time during which to celebrate the second most important festival in the Christian calendar.”

    more time to dream up how they are going to wreck equal marriage more like…at least she had a good kicking by a packed house of lords and hopefully she might have lost a few supporters along the way, certainly saw a few allies there…I think having religious CPs is a good way of arguing now for equal “religious” marriages as well…no excuse now but to bring them in at the same time as civil ones…the precedant for sucessful opt outs and religious freedom has been set ,hasn’t it? Not logical to have religious CPs and not have religious marriages anyway..

  23. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 2:34am

    This is a positive stride in the right directions for humanity , You must continue to stand up for civil rights and human rights of others , your children and grandchildren and friends lives anf peace depends on it, the nation must stop wars by taking down the evil entities which violates others and keeps wars going , its always been about bad evil people who want to believe they are better than others an want only thier familiy or group to have everything and otherss to suffer an be abused, this is the sick demonted souths and other hate entties look and conspiracy, racism and bigotry is a violent crime against women , children, elderly , disabled, and minoriteis and lgbt families, and people, thats most of our nation is abused and effected by the evils, they are telling a story tonight about a white bigot and klan womon who took part in the brutality of minorities, and later as years went by and civil rights movements, she looked at her own chldren and and realized what if the same

    1. I think your posts would be read more if you structured them. Shortening them, breaking them down into sentences and paragraphs would be very helpful.

  24. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 2:39am

    YOu see the woman realized that her abuse of others, and hatred was conditioned into her congnitive thinking by bad parents and evil religions, she abused other for no reason other than bad upbringing and bad offiliations of abuse, she said she realized the minorities just wanted ;happy peaceful lives as well just lilke her, and her familiy , their rights and benefits for their children and their families like others, she realized if i where that same minority and she was the monster i had been to her what an nighmare of horror it would have been, she said all she new to do was call her up decade later and apologize and ask forgiveness, but , people who are bigots and have done others wrong must answer for their abuses, and lthe lives they have torn up and assaulted, these minorities of all kinds live everyday almost having to fight meddling , jelous, malicious, intimatdated bigots all the time, when they should be spending thier time with their own families minding their own business

  25. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 2:46am

    Every country , city and state, must walk under human rights and civil rights, and humanity, crimes against humanity , must result in reprimands an arrests, an lawsuits, for the traumas and stigmas and abuse, and tradegey the bigots and defamations bring, this bigots keep our naion in war and kaos, they keep peole being mistreated , causing hearteache, and devastations bigotry exist, an appreciation goes out to elizabeth warren , a senator who said she is one official that is determined to turn her state and city around and be a role model for civil rights, righting wrong and abuses that she no the bigots are guilty of, this nation must have a liberty democracy , a people government , concerned aboout the people and acting on the people behalf across every country and nation not a dictatorship of republican, communism and abuses of most of the citizens and women, because they are minorites, the nations must wake up and overhaul everywhere, The us must remain a head Democratic governmen

  26. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 2:54am

    Obama must finish his 8 year term as president and the Democratic,party must continue to monitor all of his legislations,and make sure they are supporting the people in need, and amend and fix what need to be fixing, anything need to be thrown out and fixed they must do that, like the republicans tax cuts where positive even tho they mainly did it to help a personal project that woud benefity mainlly big business, and wealthy inovativites, the employment benefits must always be extended in this recessions, as well asstimuluses handed out and down, a republican party should not have to tell, obama that, he must stop doing a few things rights edged on by other who care and then do things that a hurt the people or not stand firm enough on fighting for benefits of the people, he as president should have already himself put in place extensions on tax cut on payrol and everywhere else, if you a re on the side of the people you must be their all the time , the civil rights and benefits,

  27. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 3:00am

    Obama has done not enough to stand behind an act on the behalf of those women nominees to be confirmed and have not spoken out against the republicans firmly about it. something is wrong with this picture , the other democrats have been to silent where their party nomination is at stake as well, not acting forcefully enough to seat and fill in positions vital to the public and democracy to move positive strides forward, all of them are either lawyers are have assess to some on behalf of discrimination against women and minorities, something is wrong here, the other democrat candidates running need the enitre democratic house to get down in their states and cities and pull and promote them and telling the people the truth about their liberty and well being, not being concerned for by mainly democrates and show them your track record for who is comming up with the positve measure trying to really help the economy and the families in need, I cannot see where the democrat women are

  28. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 3:07am

    Hetersexual men has messed up our entire society, and they have taken the focus off of familiy and freindship , national sec;uarity, genuine, implemtations to stablilize , the naion and economy , we cant get them out of strip jouints, and pedephilia, and sex crimes, and ego crimes, This nation had better start electing good gay officials men and women who are 100% gay and human rights minorities, to get this nation back on track to civil rights and and stability ad saftey, Elizabeth warren has a great voice today on her behalf and senserity, Others must act as she has proclaimed , the acknowlegement of civil rights abuse, and the actions to correct them and move forward for the children and grandchildren ad people of today andf tormmorow, this nation must denounce its evil bigotry and make a about face, and answer for their hate crimes and crimses against humanity, After obamas 8 term , this nation needs a good liberal gay woman president, totally focused on the people and families

  29. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 3:13am

    The nation must stand up and in kindness taught and preached daily in schools and churches, and parliments are reprimands made, it is the fault of the structure of evil and bigotry which has launched this nation, into the oblivian, that it is in, and kaos, when every one should be walking and liveing in peace goodwill and harmony, doing others no harm and not trying to get in the way of others people lives and families, if the people are not assaulting are harrasing you are others , you have no right to harm , bother aor harras the families and chidlren, the instigator must be courtmarrshlalled , the school, the government, the businsess, the relighions, all must anser and be reprimanded and individuallly or by the group perputrators of abuses, the naions is bleeding on every side because of unrest and uncivilized people hertersexua bigots, and sex crimes by them and murders, they must be stoped , overhauls everywhere must be made, whe need action from the democrats, get the hell up!!

  30. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 3:35am

    You work on industry and inovativity for the enconomy leaving jobs here that has nothing to do with trafficking hurting mothers and women and children with your wickeness, these men will burn in hell for, rotton husbands and fathers, hurting thier own and others families, the world is unsafe entirelly because of these hetersexual men, and their evils, bigotry, sex crimes, pedeaphiliea , wife beaters, egotistacally assholes and abusere, they are the reason and a few of their women, it has nothing to do with the gay community, they out number the the hetersexual community in humaniyt and being civil a billion to one, stop defamation, and fix the goddanm problems the hetersexual dangers andf bigoty, their evils, use the head on your shoulder an keep your dicks in your pants, innovate , create, technology, assembly lines and you help the other countries to , estanblish, but you leave jobs here in the us, ad help establish other countries as well, wake the hell up , get off of the sex crac

  31. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 3:40am

    You see to it that your focus is on the homeless and violence and civil rights and econmomy and people progams and benefits, you arrest police officeers for any brutality against homeless individuals, who are not acting out of courtiesies ushering theim into shelter for saffey and food, these barbaric wicked men, its only the hetersexual cops found abusing people everywhere, these they are a problem, everywhere, you dont re victumize or push peoople further down , you get them to help and aid if you dont have it your self the creeps of brutality must be arrested themselves , we want whilstle blowers everywhere, in citizens watch , if you see police officers abusing citizens or homles people you must report them in to the news and natinal task force for abuse, the precints should have already trained the people before they hired them against brutality and harrasment, these cops must be arrested and fired, you must get homless women security officers or gay officers on patrol to help the

  32. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 3:47am

    You make sure that all teenagers and young adults are off the street after nine without their parents or woman gurdian, aunt, etc. going to a place, parks need to be empty after nine, its nothing out there to see, and its to dangerous, freinds need to go to each others house in cars not standing around at night in parks and in the street , your house or freinds in theier yards or yours, the world is dangerous and too many sex crimes of children and women are bieng committed, if you see a group of boys or men at night standing arond officers need to get them on home to their families, where they shoudl be if not at an establishment, many crimes can be stoped, by using common sense, you know that the heter sexual men are commiting the majourity of the crimes, they must be survelienced and proper procautions made as deterents, you should not be allowing clubs and joints by sschools and day cares, and in family neighborhoods, its too dangersous. the cities and states are at fault

  33. carrie baker 16 Dec 2011, 3:55am

    There need to be established social centers, clubs for women, and young adult women, where they can take their children as well, with nannys inside to babysit, as safe enviroment, not a drunken stooper, men only need sports bars, and no one should be allowed more than two beers in public, you go home and drink and stay their when not sober, you need to be sober in public at all times, a saftey hazard for you and others, you need to watch for predators and you cant drunk, you need to drive home without killing someone because you are drunk, their are enough accidents withoout drinking problems, the drinking problem can be avoided, There needs to patrol with women officer in it, patroling heavy gang areas, everywhere in every city state country, keeps down gang activity, and human traficking of childfen, and safer neighborhoods, There is really nothing to do past nine, its geting to dark, and women and children, dont need to be in clubs of hetersexual nature, watch the men

    1. Galadriel1010 16 Dec 2011, 1:44pm


  34. Peter & Michael 16 Dec 2011, 6:07am

    One big step forward to full Equality, Hooray!!

  35. Spanner1960 17 Dec 2011, 8:36am

    Way to go.
    Now stop with this defelective crap and get down to the nitty gritty:

  36. I am a 29 years old lady,mature and beautiful. and now i am seeking a good man who can give me real love, so i got a username josedvilla on — Agelover.СòM —, a nice and free place for younger women and older men,or older women and younger men, to interact with each other.Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.

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.