Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lord Carey: Equal marriage is ‘one of the greatest political power grabs in history’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “There were 230 signatories in total at the time of publication.”

    I wonder how many will be outed by the time of legislation.

    1. How does that have anything to do with anything? I know plenty of gay people opposed to gay marriage. There’s a word for people like you and it’s “biogts”.

      1. tell me adam is “biogts” a french word im not quite familiar with that one ;P

        ps these gay folks you claim to know, could i have there details as theres not much of a “scene” in my town and im single and ready to mingle xx

      2. Adam, marriage will no more be compulsory for gay people than it will for straight people. I’m sure your gay friends wouldn’t seek to limit others’ right to marry.

        1. Out gay man, the repulsive christopher biggins does, he was on loose women today , saying gay marraige was a step too far and he was anti marraige equality, that it should stay between a man and a woman. I’m quite sure there are gay , homophobic bigots, although they are my enemies never friends.

          1. Some people will say anything to be accepted by their betters.

          2. Scott Lovely 20 Feb 2012, 3:43pm

            In my experience such people are lonely and bitter, and obviously have no use for marriage.

      3. @Adam
        Although I understand gay people may be opposed to “Gay marriage”, however when you imply that those who support it are bigots, I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make?

    2. @21:58 total no signatures=11163

    3. Katie Murphy - ex cath family 15 Mar 2012, 3:36am

      A power grab? yes, taking back power from the pedophile church. the same church that created the hatred of Jews, which a catholic monster named hitler leveraged to power and 55 million died in WWII

      And a pope who in 2009 UNexcommunicated bishop Williamson, a holocaust denier

      http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-26/world/pope.holocaust.denial_1_bishop-richard-williamson-bishop-bernard-fellay-holocaust-denier?_s=PM:WORLD

  2. I’m intrigued by his assertion that a cultural institution that predates state or religion, and as such no one should be allowed to alter it.

    I’m sorry, but has the institution of marriage not been altered already? Marriage was used as a tool for business acquisition in the past, now deemed to be unseemly. Marriage to someone of a different race was abhorrent not that long ago, weren’t the same “assertions” made when that cultural taboo was overturned.

    1. has the institution of marriage not been altered already?

      Exactly! Carey really is a fool.

    2. “I’m intrigued by his assertion that a cultural institution that predates state or religion, and as such no one should be allowed to alter it.”

      Me too . . . especially Lord Carey’s assertion that marriage was not ‘owned’ by the state or any religion but pre-dated both as a cultural institution.
      . . . . . . . . . .

      Interestingly, this appears completely inaccurate when we look at the legal position of marriage until quite recently . . .

      Most people seem to forget that Statutory law did not exclude homosexual marriage before 1971, although some lawyers have argued that common law could be used to make void homosexual marriages.

      Curiously though in 1973, the legal definition of marriage was changed, so that it then became defined as referring to the union between a man and women.

      On needs to be aware however that this change in the definition of marriage, occurred in the same year when also in 1973, homosexuality was dropped from the DSM manual of mental disorders rendering it n

      1. It was defined thus following the famous case of a transgender woman marrying ( she was a famous model) , and the marriage being voided (Corbett v Corbett).

  3. Someone please tell that relic that marriage has been in a state of evolution for a very long time, this is just another step. And there is no “power”, just equality. Just another fallacious christian persecution ideation, uttered while still persecuting others (both LGBT citizens who want to marry, and other denominations who want to help them).

  4. Oh. And surely the “greatest power grab in (English) history” was when the Church of England was formed in the first place.

    1. Yes. It was created in order to redifine marriage: Henry VIII wanted a divorce.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Feb 2012, 2:54pm

        You should read this.

        “When Jesus met George Carey.”

        http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obriens-blog-3514/entry/81/8350

    2. Heh. Good point.

  5. Keith Farrell 20 Feb 2012, 10:25am

    But he argues that gay should not be able to marry because equality does not “mean being the same”.

    Instead, he recommends the two institutions of marriage and civil partnerships be maintained.

    Does this mean that this idiot still beleves in apartheit (segregation) I sure both of those were found to be unworkable by both the USA and South Africa.
    Equal rights, equal tax and equal freedom.
    Please let us know that your education and experiance rally means something

  6. So his argument is that because it is old it should not be changed?

    I wonder if they used the same argument to try and keep slavery?

    1. Christine Beckett 20 Feb 2012, 10:32am

      Yes, they did. Christianity supported slavery for 1800 years…

  7. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Feb 2012, 10:30am

    Here we go.

    The f****ing religious at it again.

    1. Maybe if the religious actually got f***ed occasionally or more often, they would be less fussed with other people’s business?

    2. Indeed. But every time one of the bloody fools waves their buy-bull around, I like to counter with – talking snakes, talking donkeys, women turned to salt, guy lived in a fish. In other words, containing no more “truth” or “divinity” than a book of Grimm’s fairy tales.

    3. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Feb 2012, 1:59pm

      Sorry. I forgot to empty yours.

      1. No need to, he drinks his plss and eats his…… Keith’s got a thing for scat.

  8. But he argues that gay should not be able to marry because equality does not “mean being the same”.

    Oh does that mean ,your wife is still in that Kitchen ?

    1. Presumably he considers her property – because that’s traditional, see, so it must be good *rolls eyes*

  9. Looking at the opinion polls supporting gay marriage, I am wondering how he arrives at the conclusion that it is undemocratic.

  10. correct me if wrng , but all the bill wants to pass is those relgions that want a choice , will have that choice to perform a marriage!
    This fart and the rest of his ilk are just clutching at straws, because they know that they are on a losing battle. it might not happen now , but it will in the near future.

    1. If it is anything like the Equality Act 2010 – as a recent example – there will be religious exemptions. I’m not sure that anyone is proposing, or campaigning for, the right to kick down the doors of churches that don’t wish to participate. It is just standard christian persecution complex, they scream “help help I’m a victim” while victimising others (those who wish a secular ceremony, those who belong to denominations who would love to perform a ceremony).

      1. I think that what they really can’t stand, since they are so self-righteous, is that most people think their homophobic views are immoral. This is why they think they feel victimised, very few people agree with them anymore.

  11. Manol Ivanov 20 Feb 2012, 10:46am

    Well i don’t agree. I think that it’s just a selfishism.

    1. Pardon?

    2. In what way ?

  12. How very ‘Christian’ of these people. I hope they are happy in their bigotry at supporting Carey’s claim that “equality does not mean being the same”.
    That these people call themselves human beings let alone ‘Christians’ is an insult to our species!

  13. Wait wait wait, LORD carey, who has an automatic right to sit in the house of Lords, unelected, and vote on laws for an entire nation dares to mention democracy?

    1. jamestoronto 20 Feb 2012, 11:08am

      Religion and true democracy have never gone hand-in-hand.

    2. I so did not know that! How, just how?! @)&;(£.£;.£(,&),&(;£@£

  14. Another day another religious freak trying to undermine the ever evolving world of equal rights!

    Isn’t it a shame that he was writing in the Daily Fail as he probably knows he would not get a decent platform to harp on about this in most other forward thinking press!

    Get a grip sunshine, it will happen sooner rather than later!

    1. Craig Denney 20 Feb 2012, 11:46am

      I think the men in white coats will be coming for him soon.

  15. He’s right! it is a power grab, the church wants all the power in bias of religion to deny equality!

  16. “Lord Carey also attributes the growing support for marriage equality to “pressure groups and image advisers” rather than the general public.”
    Of course, support for equality is the result of evil indoctrination but homophobia is God-given. sigh

  17. jamestoronto 20 Feb 2012, 11:05am

    ‘Marriage’ has been altered many time throughout history in spite of what Carey deludes himself into believing. Once it was permanent and nothing could break the bonds; to-dau divorce is quite common in most countries. Marrying outside your race, colour or religion once unthinkable is common. Marrying without a religious ritual was once unheard of; civil marriages are now widely performed. Go back to you research; it needs some fine-tuning.

  18. Scott Lovely 20 Feb 2012, 11:11am

    Carey manages to combine the fallacy that tradition is intrinsically good, with the slippery slope fallacy.

    There isn’t one iota of sense in what he says.

    As for the ‘coalition’, follow the money to see who’s behind it.

    1. Remember, Scott, the views of societies evolve and ‘progress’ over time.

      If we remove the requirement for participants in a marriage to be of opposite sexes, there is no logical reason not to remove the requirement that there be 2 participants in a marriage.

      The reason being that at present, marriage is only available to the relationship model which has been known to procreate (combination of one man and one woman.) If we make it available to non procreative relationship models (such as two men,) there is no reason not to make it available to three people in a relationship, apart from ‘bigotry’ of course.

      In fact Canada now has people pushing for the government to grant ‘marriage equality’ for those in polyamorous relationships. Canada only legalised monogamous same-sex marriage 6.5 years ago!

      This is not a fallacious argument by any stretch – it is about emphasising that if we ‘gender-neutralise’ marriage, we’ll almost certainly end up ‘number-neutralising’ it too!

      1. Jonny

        Where is this clarion call to polygamy you seem to suggest exists?

  19. Ignore the blithering old idiot. State and religion have altered marriage since their beginnings. The very Church he belongs to only exists because of State interference. My goldfish have more historical memory than this clown.

  20. jamestoronto 20 Feb 2012, 11:27am

    The Church — in any of its manifestations — has perfected the art of “power-grabbing”. They wrote the manual on taking from the poor and giving to themselves. Back to the history books Carey. Is not being a state or established religion a classic example of power grabbing. Other than Anglicans what other religion “shares power” as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. The gay rights movement in general may be many things but power grabbing is not one of them. Demanding equality, which is our birthright in a democracy, is hardly seizing power. Is he afraid of a gay military coup?

  21. Again, another reason why the ‘State’ and the Church of England should be separated.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 1:41pm

      I agree, but it wouldn’t make any difference. They’d still be doing this. Look at why marriage equality in 3 American states over the past week, Washington, New Jersey and Maryland. The ensuing referenda are all religion based, people using their religious beliefs to justify mob rule in denying one specific group their full equality. The American Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion, yet look what is happening. The roman cult is one of the staunchest opponents of same-sex marriage and the most vocal.

      I wouldn’t mind betting Carey as well as the Coalition for Marriage are receiving a lot of help from their American counterparts. Coalition has a definite ring to the American version, Stand Up For Marriage and National Organisation for Marriage, also known as NOM.

      We need to find out if they’re playing any role in this and if they are, the Home Office needs to take a look at these hate groups interfering in our political system.

      1. All Gas and Gaiters 20 Feb 2012, 3:19pm

        There is an American organisation called the Coalition for Marriage with a similar logo, I think probably linked to NOM which I think also has the same logo.

        1. Which also has links to the Christian Institute in the UK

  22. it predated christianity when it included same-sex couples
    if he is serious then he would be for same-sex marriage as it isn’t owned by christianity or the governments

    1. Don Harrison 20 Feb 2012, 3:36pm

      Jesus did not say a word about homosexuality

      1. Indeed he may have gladly healed a centurion’s ill boyfriend and then praised the centurion’s faith (or the story may have been cooked up by Luke to please Roman readers). But why should we care what Jesus is supposed to have said or done anyway?

      2. Paddyswurds 20 Feb 2012, 5:42pm

        Why are my posts being blocked on this page

  23. Another Hannah 20 Feb 2012, 11:38am

    The religiuos should not be interfering in the apparatus of the state – this has been a very long term policy of the state. Perhaps he should be shown the same treatment Henry the eighth showed to clergy who think they run the country?

  24. Another Hannah 20 Feb 2012, 11:40am

    Oh, and many religions are in favour. Whar right has this religion to claim precedence and tell other long existing religions what they can and can’t do – he’s as bad as a Roman Catholic, and they were barred from state office for many years.

  25. What an idiot! Has he not hear of the saying “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”?

    How is it ‘power-grabbing’ to want to get married?! What? First marry my girlfriend, next world domination?

    Carey is a miserable man who seeks to deprive others of happiness. How just like Jesus – NOT.

    1. “How is it ‘power-grabbing’ to want to get married?! What? First marry my girlfriend, next world domination?”

      I was also thinking that if all the LGBT people who have had civil partnerships, then “Up-grade” to marriage . . . perhaps we will take over the universe so to speak, according to Dr Carey’s logic

      1. Indeed!We just don’t know our own power, JohnK! :D Tsunamis, floods – and now cosmic domination!

        1. I know – Lol – where will it stop

        2. jamestoronto 20 Feb 2012, 7:14pm

          The possibilities are endless. Just wait till the next Mars mission. There are worlds out there to grab.

  26. An Anglican bishop who spoke up for gays in Uganda was stripped of his pension by the church. Should Rowan Williams do the same to this homophobe in the interests of fairness and evenhandedness?

  27. I wonder if Lord Carey remembers the only reason that there is a Church of England is because a man wanted a divorce.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 3:07pm

      Yet another one on the long list of power grabbing!

  28. Carey should look up Mark 12:17, clear guidance for christians to respect government laws (in this case to introduce equal marriage rights)

    1. This is a non sequitur, since he wants to keep the law as it is, and wants to force us to be limited by it.

  29. Helen Wilson 20 Feb 2012, 12:38pm

    The Church of England demanded in 1949 two distinct forms of marriage be defined in law (the 1949 marriage act) thus creating religious marriage and civil marriage.

    Its the undemocratically appointed Lord Carey (and his church) who is engaging in a power grab over civil marriage. in 1949 the CofE demanded civil marriage would be distinctly separate with no religious wording or imagery (including the setting) allowed. Now Carey and the CofE claim civil marriage come under their remit?????? That position is untenable its a civil matter for civil society to decide and religion has no place interfering with it they wanted it that way in 1949 and they got that wish. They cant be making a power grab for ownership of civil marriage in 2012.

    1. They always accuse others of doing exactly what they themselves are doing.
      They claim they are being victimised and persecuted when they are prevented for victimising and persecuting gay people…same old.

    2. Thank you, Helen, for explaining the situation as it is in England ( and Wales?). I could never understand what all this talk of civil marriage was. I have lived mostly where marriage is exclusively a civil matter, and did not appreciate that, in England, there is a religious form.

      How does the religious form differ from the civil form? Is it solely a question of the setting or is there some inherent difference?

      1. @Carlos

        Principally it is the setting, but civil marriage should not have reference to any religious observance in it.

  30. If you’re a Christian (and particularly if you’re C of E and would like to support a liberal brand of Chrisitianity, and see civil partnerships blessed in church, you could sign this much nicer petition instead:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/house-of-bishops-and-general-synod-allow-priests-in-the-cofe-to-choose-to-bless-civil-partnerships-in-church

    1. @Greeks

      I’m neither CofE nor Christian but I have signed the petition!

  31. George Carey is bigotted scum and his disgusting cult is a sickening disgrace.

  32. johnny33308 20 Feb 2012, 12:48pm

    So, every citizen having EXACTLY the SAME rights is somehow undemocratic? No wonder religious people are not well regarded…they seem to lack even a basic understanding of the meaning of even simple words…..Civil Marriage is no business of any church….marriage has always been changed by every culture in history, and it does not predate culture or religion…quite the contrary….these religious types say the silliest of things to assert their ridiculous ‘positions’…..

  33. Is this old git now telling us the Dictionary is wrong?
    Equality – meaning: The state of being equal
    So what part of this definition does he not comprehend?

  34. It’s not the greatest power grab – it’s the only contemporary topic the Superstitious institutions in this country have to debate – everything else is redundant – because there is no god – so go and find a new career – that particular web of lies has been exposed!

  35. Craig Denney 20 Feb 2012, 1:02pm

    Check out the MP’s that have signed the petition : http://c4m.org.uk/signatures/

  36. Most Christians accept religions public and legal limit’s, a minority of extremist Christians like Carey who want to overstep those limits complain of being “persecuted” when they are prevented from discriminating against gays.
    Discrimination is not liberal, arguing against discrimination and legislating against discrimination is not intolerance nor is it an attack upon culture.

  37. ‘one of the greatest political power grabs in history’

    my phone just exploded when i tried to switch on the irony/hypocracey app

    does this chap not know how the anglican church came to be?

  38. Depressing but not very surprising bigotry from George Carey and the usual suspects. Jesus put people before institutions; Carey and his ilk put institutions first.

    1. Jesus is a fictional character.

      People like George Carey are agitating for their mental illness to take precedence in our laws.

      1. Jesus almost certainly did exist. It’s just that Christians believe nonsense about him.

  39. er …. Galatians 3:28?
    I though St Paul had something to say about equality, including male and female. Maybe that was only good for God, not for people wanting to love and live in a state of marriage?

  40. It is not complex, either gay couples have all the same rights as straight couples, or they have all the same rights minus one–the right to call their unions what they really are.

  41. religious power grabs. stop the religious from rule , they burned us to the stake , religion has not an once of legitimacy ,

  42. All Gas and Gaiters 20 Feb 2012, 1:59pm

    George Carey should apply his own advice to his own beliefs:

    “In September 2006, he backed the Pope in the controversy over his comments on Islam and declared that “there will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.” ”

    -Wiki

  43. signed by all the usual subjects.
    Edward Leigh,Fiona Bruce,Joe Benton,David Nuttall,Stewart Jackson,Lord Stoddart – just check them out on WiKipedia- Catholics,evangelical Christians,rt wing conservatives etc etc etc

    1. All Gas and Gaiters 20 Feb 2012, 2:54pm

      Also by Thatcher’s other crony, the former Lord Chancellor Mackay.

  44. Tom Cotner 20 Feb 2012, 2:12pm

    For a two-bit christianist preacher who crawled and scratched his way to be the head of his organization, by whatever means he could muster, legal or not, to refer to the desire of loving same sex couples to be treated and referred to in the same way as loving different sex people, as a “great political power grab” is the utter height of bloody cheek. He is no different from the bloodthirsty idiots who run the church in Africa – simple minded uneducated oafs who have no consideration for anything other than their own political ambitions, and the maintenance thereof.
    If it weren’t so distructively sad, it would be a “divine comedy”. Unfortunately these people have their megaphones to the ears of the populace and will continue to spew their bigotry as long as they are able.

  45. I agree with the former archbishop.

    1. So the people trying to prevent interracial marriage in the US were right then, JohnB? All they wanted to do was to stick to ‘tradition’, isn’t that so? Same goes for slavery too…

      I find it upsetting that you’re unable to see the obvious parallels… Use your imagination and empathy.

      1. Iris
        You know my views on interracial marriage and that imo this is a different issue to gay marriage. You also know my views on slavery. The first is right; the second isn’t. I am not interested in the views of misguided Christians or traditionalists but having read the Dail Mail article and the Pink News reporting (which once again is of a high standard) I have to agree with Lord Carey and I have signed the petition that the PN links to (now up to 4572 signatures).

        Without wanting to patronise or anything like that, I don’t say any of this with smug satisfaction. I have a good deal of respect for you Iris and sense the hurt you must feel when someone like me sticks his oar in. I have no doubt you and your partner are fantastic people who deserve to be happy but I can only endorse what I believe God endorses.

        1. You Sir are vile.

        2. JohnB – I think your ‘god’ is a fictional character and I find it utterly horrific that you support the imposition of your cult’s beliefs on all of society,

        3. But whats the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage then? What means that one is wrong and the other is right?

      2. Then, JohnB, please DO endorse what you think god wants, but do it in your church and leave civil matters alone. I would wholly agree with you if anyone was trying to force your church to perform same sex marriages, but they aren’t. This is a CIVIL matter and while you’re entitled to your views, I don’t see that you should be seeking to interfere with civil matters.

        I know you don’t accept the race analogy, but I don’t see why as Christians in the US were involved in the attempts to block interracial marriage. Both myself and my girlfriend have been subjected to racial abuse aswell as homophobic abuse – and one poisonous dose of that racism came from a ‘christian’ in the street.

        I’m sure that nasty woman would be just as racist about your family. And what if she and others like her then went on to try to have interracial marriages banned ‘because that’s what god wants’? What if they denigrated the people you love and your loving relationships?

      3. JohnB. Read these. You may recognise them as arguments against same sex marriage. THEY WERE ALSO USED AS ARGUMENTS AGAINST INTERACIAL MARRIAGE:

        1) It’s unnatural
        2) It goes against God’s will
        3) It’s immoral
        4) We cannot alter traditional marriage because that’s the start of a slippery slope.

        You’ll tell me that those christians were wrong to argue against interracial marriage, that they were mistaken. OK – but so are you and every christian who argues against same sex marriage. You’re using an ancient text to justify your own prejudices just as those racists did, and the fact that you don’t do it out of malice but because you believe you’re right makes it more upsetting not less.

        1. Thanks for your two posts Iris

          Firstly, I deplore the way you and your girlfriend were treated. While I appreciate that some of my Christian friends see same sex relationships as sinful, I know many who would want to treat you with the dignity and respect you deserve, including me.

          Yes, I recognise the analogy when looking arguments against same sex and interracial marriages.
          While, partly because people like you have challenged me, I am less inclined to cite the “ancient text” for condemning gay relationships, I still see this as God’s ultimate word to humankind and see nothing there to endorse same sex relationships.

          While some fellow evangelicals (you may be pleased to hear) disagree (e.g. ref. http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org) I can only say/do what my conscience says is right.

          Finally, I am sorry if you find my remarks upsetting, it is not something I want to do – far from it!

          1. What you believe isn’t upsetting, JohnB. You can believe in unicorns or leprechauns as far as I’m concerned. What’s upsetting are the efforts of religious bigots to enshrine their attitudes in civil laws that others have to live under.

          2. JohnB, thank you for your replies. You personally don’t upset me, I just feel upset that you believe god would back your views. Someone acting out of spite is easy to understand, but I don’t really understand why you think that god (presuming his/her/their existence) would want two people who are in love to be treated less fairly simply – whether that be because of the colour of their skin or their gender.

            The Bible – the fallible, much-revised, mistaken-ridden ancient text – is no definitive source for morals, nor indeed ‘god’s word’ in my opinion. Even if you think otherwise (and I presume you do! :D ) then there is nothing in the Bible that condemns loving, adult, consensual relationships between two unrelated people of the same sex – NOTHING.

            In fact, the proscriptions against certain kinds of gay behaviour (eg homosexual pimps) suggest that loving, consensual same sex relationships are OK. Just as the proscription against adultery labels that itself wrong, not heterosexuality

          3. well yes, I do think otherwise – if the Bible is not the source of morals then what is – I look at a world that has lost its way because it does not have a moral basis.

            but back to your point, which you make well, I do think I understand what you are saying, but …

            I’m glad we haven’t fallen out though and I haven’t personally upset you. Take care and if I may say so … God bless you …

          4. You’re fully entitled to your beliefs, JohnB and I don’t want you to think I’m attacking them – I just like to point out things that you might wish to consider because I used to be a Christian and these were things that I’d kind of passed over without truly thinking about.

            Read the Bible and yes, see kindness and compassion, especially from Jesus, but also see the BAD things – stoning innocent people to death eg non-virgin brides, encouraging human sacrifices, genocide, encouragement of rape etc etc. The Bible condones all of those…

            Use your humanity to guide you morally. Trust yourself enough to make the best judgements from your heart.

            Best wishes to you too – although non-blessed ones in my case :D

          5. @JohnB — “if the Bible is not the source of morals then what is”. Morals are innate: they do not vary across cultures; read Mark Hauser’s Moral Minds. What you suggest is that non christians are immoral. Your project of offending people and claiming superiority has moved from LGBT people to most of the world.

            “I look at a world that has lost its way because it does not have a moral basis.”. In what way has it lost its way ? You imply that countries with high levels of religious (presumably christian) participation should enjoy low crime rates, but the opposite is true. In this country, the murder rate has fallen since the middle ages, just as church attendance has.

            If you think the moral decline you perceive can be halted by posting nasty comments on LGBT forums, you are labouring under a profound delusion.

            You are like Keith or David Skinner: obsessing over what other people do in bed. It’s nothing to do with you. Stop: do something more with your life.

          6. @Harry

            I think you have cut straight to the heart of the issue. JohnBs move from condenming LGBT people to the whole world is not only desprate, but the logic of distress born out of denial. If JohnB were to accept his sexuality, he would not feel the need for these convulated and circular debates.

    2. because like all ignorant people you want some else to do your thinking for you – that’s how these backward supstitions are still in existance. Evolve you bigot!

    3. @JohnB — and I believe that christians spread hate and intolerance in the world. I have no doubt you and your wife are fantastic people who deserve to be happy but I can only endorse what I think is rational.

      It’s just I don’t feel the need to “stick my oar in” on christian websites. But then I don’t feel I have a god given right to pontificate to people I regard as deserving fewer human rights than those I enjoy.

      Finally, I am sorry if you find my remarks upsetting, it is not something I want to do – far from it !

    4. @JohnB

      I disagree with you and the Archbishop. Both of your stances on equality and fairness is wrong and immoral with regards to marriage.

      One thing the former Archbishop is right about is that marriage is a word that the church can not claim to have a monopoly over.

  46. 2 champers sips to being a diva 20 Feb 2012, 2:13pm

    “Here’s a health to the Protestant Minister
    And his church without meaning or faith
    For the foundation stones of his temple are
    The bollocks of Henry the Eight.”
    – Brendan Behan

  47. So, we should follow the ways of religion through history such as forcing minorities to follow the church’s doctrine (or die) then enslave them, start several large scale wars, persecute or kill scientists, harbor and protect criminal religious leaders then blame the victim? Nice plan. If they actually followed Jesus, wouldn’t they want to spread and celebrate love? Shouldn’t every religions’ primary doctrine be “Do no harm”? All I see are people using God and Jesus to obtain wealth and power. If there were no God, nothing to die for, would peace suddenly break out?

  48. This former Archbishop was given his job by Margaret Thatcher because she needed to fill the post with someone who was dull, lifeless and wouldn’t rock the establishment boat.
    Whilst he was in position, he more or less, conformed to type.
    Since leaving office, however, he’s become an interfering, nasty busybody who can’t cope with being out of the public eye and seems to be starved of recognition.
    What a shame he’s so beyond the times politically and spiritually. Move on Mary Carey, otherwise you’ll quickly join the ranks of the “has been”, but has been Lord knows What!

  49. 2 champers sips to being a diva 20 Feb 2012, 2:20pm

    http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1115982_jim_dobbins_expenses

    One of the signatories is a bit busy.

    1. That’s quite a red nose he has too.

  50. Har Davids 20 Feb 2012, 2:28pm

    Not too long ago women were part of the life-stock, like they still are in some parts of the world. That has changed and I wonder what the bishop’s opinion is on that subject. In the Netherlands you can get married in any religious you want and as often as you want, it is not deemed a marriage in the eyes of the law. For that you have to go to city-hall.

    Talking about power-grabs: doesn’t the C of E owe its existence to a certain king wanting new nooky?

  51. We should go to the C4M.org.uk website and leave suggestive names …I know it is not helpful but these people are so hatefilled they deserve it.

    As for the former archbishop , he just loves to hate, if you do not do what he says then he is perfectly happy you to burn in some hell (which he imagines), incredible!

  52. Galadriel on the go 20 Feb 2012, 2:30pm

    I would describe the creation of the CoE as a bigger political power grab. I guess we’ve conveniently forgotten about that.

  53. All Gas and Gaiters 20 Feb 2012, 2:30pm

    “there will be no significant… progress until the Christian mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Christian conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.”

    – George Carey, 2006 (except he used the word Muslim, not Chistian)

  54. whymewhyme 20 Feb 2012, 2:31pm

    i’ve never been a Thatcher fan but in the movie there is a line that shows what marriage is all about –

    ambition and social manipulation

    can the lordie carey please now advise us why such a special privilege is a straight thing only

    and please why do church people also get a lordie title- time for an elected upper house – more than marriage should change

    1. Robertbardin 20 Feb 2012, 2:37pm

      ‎”The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.” The first part of Lord Carey’s statement is correct, that marriage is older than both the (British) State and the (Anglican) Church. However, the second part of his statement is doubtful. For marraige was earlier defined qutie differently, which Lord Carey seems (willfully?) to ignore. Marriage was for most of human history conceived not as a loving union of one man and one woman, but rather, as the ownership by one man of several women.

  55. All Gas and Gaiters 20 Feb 2012, 2:44pm

    The logo of the “Coalition for Marriage” is remarkably similar to the American organisation of the same name which opposes equal marriage across the States, and I believe had some connection to Prop 8 in California.

    I wish some investigatory journalist would look into this new organisation, the Christian Institute, and any links to American homophobic right wing organisations .

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Feb 2012, 3:11pm

      I would imagine Un-Christian Institute receive a lot of funding from the Evangelical fundies in the states.

      Even though it is a registered UK charity it’s funding is shrouded in mystery.

      Check out http://www.galha.org/bigotry-financed-by-the-charity-laws/ for more distasteful reading.,

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 3:14pm

      Yes, indeed. It reminds me of the American hate group, “Stand Up for Marriage” and the more infamous of them all, “National Organisation for Marriage” or NOM as it’s sometimes referred to. I wouldn’t mind betting both have been lending assistance in all this. Maybe an investigation by the Home Office would look into any connection with both and if found to be involved, ban them from entering the UK and any funding confiscated. I’d like to see the donor source of the Christian Institute and for the Coalition for Marriage.

  56. And to think, we all have to put up with this cr@P because Joseph was stupid enough to accept that “god did it” rather than realise that Mary was a bit of a bike. Son of god? Cobblers.

    1. The ‘Virgin’ Mary – the original good time that was had by all.

      1. Sister Goodlove 20 Feb 2012, 5:11pm

        I resemble that remark!

  57. Given that he is a former Archbishop of Canterbury he’d be a real expert on ‘political power grabs’ !!!
    In truth he was a really poor Archbishop of Canterbury and like all nonentities he really should shut up and go away.

  58. Can there really be anyone amongst LGBT who can now doubt the malign influence of the C of E? I don’t want to be “tolerated” by these bigots I just want equality in law.

    Anyone who continues to support this organisation in any way is an “Uncle Tom”.

    1. “Uncle tom” christopher biggins on todays loose women being anti gay marraige.

      1. That’s cause no f***ker would have him…..

      2. Some of these ageing gay celebs are selfish in the extreme. They seem to be saying “through luck I am now in a position where I am unlikely to be persecuted, so I don’t mind kicking the ladder away from following generations”. Brian Sewell is another, they have internalised all the persecution that was around when they were young men and are pathetically grateful to be thrown scraps of acceptance.

        1. Agreed, add david starkey to that list of old, bitter, pathetic, homophobic , self loathing gay men.

    2. I wouldn’t say I was Uncle Tom, Carey rarely speaks for a majority of us.

  59. At no point in history has the church not had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present. The entire instutition is merely traditionalism wrapped in superstition.

  60. I wonder if the signatories realise they are also opposing all divorce?

    The definition they are signing up to is:
    “I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.”

    But Carey supports the right to divorce and allowing the remarriage of divorcees.

    Surely some inconsistency here?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 3:04pm

      Hypocrisy!

  61. This man is not a cleric, he’s a politician. He’s not a man of Jesus, he’s a demegogue. He does not advance human understanding, he’s a bloviator.

    1. He is also the worst kind of Closet case – it’s pathetic

  62. Garry Cassell 20 Feb 2012, 3:10pm

    Lord Carey, do you view your wife as property? How much did you pay for her?Is she allowed to vote? Can she do anything without YOUR permission? I think you need you need to check in to a good hospital because you are really out of it…

  63. Don Harrison 20 Feb 2012, 3:29pm

    Unfortunately those who oppose Marriage Equality and speak against it get it reported in the Media.
    The majority who wish things to change and say nothing are not considered. To get heard at all there is a need to demonstrate. The problem is that some of the Media are very quick to negatively report it.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Feb 2012, 4:51pm

      Strangely enough, although the Daily Wail is plugging this big time, there are remarkably pro comments in the comment s section.

  64. Art Pearson 20 Feb 2012, 3:33pm

    It is easy to see why Lord Carey is a ‘former’ Archbishop. The House of Lords seems to be the perfect place to stash someone whith his outdated iteas and get him out of the Church’s hair..

  65. dale mcalpine 20 Feb 2012, 3:53pm

    Carey is simply standing up for what Jesus Christ said here :

    Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
    Mar 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
    Mar 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
    Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

    Just a reminder.

    1. Scott Lovely 20 Feb 2012, 4:09pm

      What about Jesus’ parable of the groom and the ten virgins, which endorses polygamy.

      Oh and to quote St. Quentin “male and female made he me”.

    2. Jesus Christ can go suck my fat one.

      It is a fictional character and has no relevance to the secular laws of this country.

    3. Christo-babble drivel, the campfire tales of bronze age nomads who couldn’t explain why the bloody sun rose. If you want to follow that cr@p, be my guest, but don’t expect ME to.

    4. Seems he forgot about Solomon and his 300 wives and Abraham raping his slave girl and all the other polygamists in the Old Testament.

      Interestingly Carey doesn’t agree with Jesus in Mar 10.9, as he remarried his son after he got a divorce. But that’s ok cos he is hetero, of course.
      Funny how none of these christians standing up for marriage object when divorced people want to marry or share hotel rooms, it is only gays who threaten the end of civilisation.
      Pure and utter hypocrisy

    5. You mean what Jesus is reported to have said.

      1. correct.

    6. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Feb 2012, 4:50pm

      Jesus never said 1 word of this BS.

      It was written centuries after his death.

      Assuming he existed in the 1st place.

    7. Rowan the Boss of You Carey 20 Feb 2012, 6:00pm

      Adam reproduced asexually, then mated with his offspring.

      The Jews continued to be polygamous until a Rabbinical edict in 1000 AD.

      The early Christians were merely absorbed into Roman matrimonial law, which was polygynous mating with one legal wife.

    8. Great – so divorce is not allowed then – Oh, sorry, that would mean most of the “holy ones” being done for fornication – that would never do – pick on the gays instead then….. that’s easier.

      Arch-hypocrite and evangelical wind-bag needs to stop canting and get out of his box a bit more.

    9. As it stands there is absolutely no historical evidence for the figure Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, so there is no reason to suggest he ever existed.

      By the way, who are you quoting? Who is ‘Mar’?

    10. Just a reminder –
      He also seems not to have married, to have been indifferent to conventional family relations, and to have had no interest at all, positive or negative, in homosexuality, regardless of living in a country occupied and dominated by a pagan foreign power that liked it rather a lot. He also never suggested that the laws of the state should reflect his preoccupations. Put your brain in gear before quoting your holy text.

    1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 20 Feb 2012, 9:27pm

      Like man make fire! I think this is roughly right, roman freeborn men would have anal sex with underage boy-slaves to proclaim masculinity. It was no big deal in Rome, although it was better to be the penetrator than the penetrated. You couldn’t be a freeman and do it with another freeman – this was frowned upon. It wasn’t until the the Pauline heresy took hold (350AD-ish (can’t be bothered looking this up!)) that such ‘greek’ sex was frowned upon. Freeman boys would have to wear an amulet around their necks to proclaim to other men that he was off-limits. Also Nero (I’m sure) married his anal sex slave. Something like that, anyway!

  66. Scott Lovely 20 Feb 2012, 4:05pm

    This man was the most reviled Archbp of Canterbury in history, and it was a relief when he retired.

    Now we are forced once again to endure his inanities. Will the real Archbp kindly tell him to behave himself.

    1. ..he never got over the ‘indignity’ of being the second candidate that was chosen in spite by Mrs Thatcher. He has woven a narrative of victimhood ever since.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 10:04pm

      Scott, make no mistake, Rowan Williams will be putting his oar in and stirring up trouble. He will probably back up Carey’s view in deference to the bigots in the House of Lords and Tory party in particular and of course his big sister roman cult.

  67. Carl Rowlands 20 Feb 2012, 4:23pm

    He hasn’t read the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882! I am getting annoyed with Rowan because he should tell him to shut up and get back in a box. Or is Rowan just waiting to become a voice-over artist in 2015?

  68. I get what Lard Careless is trying to say. After Dave CaMoron accused Argentina of colonialism, his accusation of “power grab” makes all sense. The world really is upside down.

  69. Given that religion is becoming less and less important to the majority of people, and the numbers attending church have been in decline for years, I don’t think I can quite understand why people from the LGBTQ community would want to put themselves through the indignity of having to jump through hoops that are laid down by an exclusive and un-inviting church, to become “married” in the eyes of the Lord, who’s followers apparently abhor the LGBTQ community?
    Might I suggest that the civil partnership should be amended to allow all couples, LGBTQ and heterosexual, to wed in the eyes of the law, and to grant the exact same rights in law as a religiously wedded couples have. This would create an all inclusive institution that is open to everyone who wants to become a legally wedded couple, and leave the church to wallow in its own demise.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 10:01pm

      Mandy, it isn’t realistic even though some might prefer it. Nobody in the LGBT community is demanding recognition of or marriages performed by a religious denomination. Civil marriage has no religious element or mandate. There is a huge disconnect in the minds of people like Carey who are not able or capable of distinguishing between the two. He admits the church does not own marriage, the only sensible thing he has said thus far, but doesn’t quite get it when it comes to same-sex marriage. By advocating for CPs only for both orientations would be playing right into his hands. I can just hear the rantings that CPs are destroying marriage, no thanks to gays who would be construed as the sole instigators. We don’t need that headache, it’s bad enough he’s meddling in matters that are none of his concern. We are not meddling in ecclesiastic affairs or telling them what to believe or what not to believe, big difference.

  70. Christine McQueen 20 Feb 2012, 6:41pm

    “…he argues that gay should not be able to marry because equality does not “mean being the same”. ”

    This is about the only thing he said that has even a tiny bit of truth to it. Equality doesn’t mean being the same; it means being TREATED the same as all others.

  71. GingerlyColors 20 Feb 2012, 6:44pm

    It’s up to the electorate to decide whether a government get’s re-elected – not the church. A recent survey shows that over 3 out of 5 Christians would be happy to see marriage equality and I am sure that the rest of society have bigger fish to fry such as the NHS, economy, Europe, race-relations, etc.

  72. Daily Mail drivel – when is the old hypocrite going after divorce, a sin actually named and targeted by his imaginary friend?

  73. There are two Labour MPs on the list of signatories (admittedly fairly undistinguished ones). How about withdrawal of the whip?

    1. ..and they are both old school catholics.

  74. Joseph Carmel Chetcuti 20 Feb 2012, 7:00pm

    Paganism (and homosexuality) both predated Catholicism and Christianity. So what, Lord Carey? Was not Christianity then a grab for power from paganism?

  75. Craig Denney 20 Feb 2012, 7:23pm

    “Lord Carey, said they were sending 175,000 emails out this week inviting people to sign a petition”

    They’ve not got 10,000 yet!

    1. Fortunately I won’t be getting one of them… one of the bonuses of SPAM control! hopefully this makes “their” mass mailing an exercise in futility.

    2. Paddyswurds 20 Feb 2012, 11:17pm

      Hope I get one so I can sue for harassment and uninvited e.mails…..

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Feb 2012, 12:20pm

      If they get half, they’ll be lucky. Perish the thought if they receive all 175,000 in support of his hate mongering. Wait until Rowan Williams puts his oar in and stirs the pot into a frenzy. We’ve seen nothing yet. Then there’s that other moron in Westminster Cathedral waiting to pounce.

  76. Wait! Are you telling me that the school is teaching my kids about marriage? When did that happen? I thought school was for teaching basic skills and socializing. Hmmm…maybe I went to the wrong school. All they taught me was math, English, social studies, science, and that lunchroom pizza is not edible.

  77. Robin Evans 20 Feb 2012, 8:36pm

    Lord Carey:
    “Writing in the Daily Mail, Lord Carey said marriage was not ‘owned’ by the state or any religion but pre-dated both as a cultural institution.

    As a result, he argued, no one should be allowed to alter it.”

    Doh… You come to that conclusion through sheer ignorance pal, obviously…

    Evolution, which is our blueprint, doesn’t stay the same it EVOLVES and changes all the time…

    No wonder you folk in the church still ware dresses, catch up, your religions and your ideas are already redundant in your own life time…

  78. Everyone knows that allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t affect straight couples in the slightest. All the religious homophobes know that, their experts admitted it in the prop 8 trial in California.

    They had to invent a way to wrap up their objections that didn’t sound, on the face of it, homophobic. So they came up with “redefining” marriage and “preserving traditional marriage” for the unthinking knee-jerk response in certain fearful conservative folk. It’s all tosh.

  79. Paddyswurds 20 Feb 2012, 11:21pm

    Cant believe all these comments because some old man who runs around in dresses and funny hats and believes men can walk on water said Gay people were beneath equality. Who cares what he says except maybe the mental health authorities. He is now and always was an irellevance to be scorned.

  80. You can go on there and see all the signatories. Just found my dad’s name… thanks dad

    1. Grim, that would suck!

  81. Robbie Cargill 21 Feb 2012, 5:28pm

    Have to laugh a bit at how clearly absurd and contradictory his comments are… not that that’s anything new: Leading his argument by saying marriage equality would be “undemocratic” (despite polls consistently showing the majority in favour), then saying “no one should be allowed to alter it” whether the majority want it or not. He couldn’t care less about democracy, unless majority opinion would appear to suit his own bigoted views.

  82. Off topic slightly, but could I remind you of the petition to grant a pardon to Alan Turing, the gay war hero ?

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23526

    1. Good cause – it is absolutely scandalous that gay sex was not legalised until 1967.

  83. I’m in a same-sex relationship and am opposed to same-sex marriage, as are many others I know.

    Here’s why – marriage is as it is (and has been for thousands of years) because the combination of one male human being and one female human being is the only means out of which procreation has taken place naturally. So to put it simply a typical opposite-sex couple can have a child whereas a typical same-sex couple cannot and neither can those in a polygamous relationship.

    This has nothing to do with being ‘homophobic’ or ‘hating’ anyone – it’s just common sense!

    And before anyone tries to draw up a comparison between this and the prohibition on inter-racial marriage – don’t bother. Race does not affect typical fertility.

    In fact, ‘sexuality’ is not taken into account when it comes to marriage – a man who identifies as gay has just as much right to marry one woman as one who identifies as straight has.

    1. Your logic, as per usual, would deny marriage to the sterile and the elderly. Reproduction is a total red herring. No marriage certificate has ever been issued on condition that the couple produce children.
      It is also about protecting and recognising love and commitment. I think it is very sad if you don’t think your relationship with your partner worthy of this.

      1. Nope – the point here is that a combination of one male human being and one female human being is the only way procreation is ever known to have occured. It has never occured as a result of two men having anal sex for instance. If in future it did, then I would be fully in favour of making marriage accessible to any combination of two men.

        And the comparison between those unfortunate enough to be infertile is flawed. These people are ‘anomalies’ as such – they do not alter the fact that a typical opposite-sex couple can pro-create.

        As I’ve said before, I identify as gay, am in a same-sex relationship, and am an atheist. My views (along with those of many others) have absolutely nothing to do with ‘hating’ gays or agreeing with the piffle in Leviticus.

        1. @Jonny — not relevant. Marriage is not a ceremony two people go through prior to having children. It is a ceremony they go through to declare publically their love and commitment to each other.

          What possible reason would any decent person have to extending that ability, that right to two men or two women ?

        2. “Marriage is not a ceremony two people go through prior to having children. It is a ceremony they go through to declare publically their love and commitment to each other.”

          Absolutely right. Harry! CIVIL marriage has NO requirement to reproduce, Jonny, so your argument isn’t relevant to it. Would you like to be compelled by law to marry your partner just because I want to marry mine? No, of course, not. So allow me the choice to marry if I wish or not if I don’t wish, and you’ll have that same choice – fair and just.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 26 Feb 2012, 1:16pm

      “marriage is as it is (and has been for thousands of years) because the combination of one male human being and one female human being is the only means out of which procreation has taken place naturally.”

      One simple look-up of the word marriage on Wikipedia begs to differ from your naive opinion.

  84. And if marital law is redefined by removing the requirement for both participants to be of opposite sexes, then there is no logical reason to not change it further in future by removing the requirement for there to be two participants. When we have people in polygamous relationships pressurising the government into allowing them to collectively marry (such as is going on in Canada currently,) what logical reason is there not to change the law further? Surely anyone who supports one, but not the other is a ‘bigot’ and ‘polyphobe?’

    1. There is no reason to object. If uncoerced adults want to do it, let them and get over it. And try to think logically – heterosexual monogamy more logically implies the possibility of polygamy than homosexual coupledom. Slippery slope arguments don’t work – the trick consists in imagining arbitrary links between things you happen not to like.

      1. Firstly, it’s already being argued about in Canada less than 7 years since Canada made same-sex marriage legal!

        What we have to remember is that the views of human beings do not remain static, they evolve over time. And (as I’ve stated countless times already,) by supporting making marriage accessible to two men (a unit which cannot procreate,) there is absolutely no reason (aside from ‘bigotry’ and polyphobia) to not support making it accessible collectively to 3 men or 4 women etc…

        Also, what I believe you’re trying to get at with your 2nd sentence is the idea that it’s more common for those in polyamorous relationships to be of mixed sexes, as opposed to all of the same sex. Well you’re right – but it doesn’t matter at all. It’s still concerning a model of relationship out of which procreation has never taken place.

        I’ll stress – retain marriage for the combination of one man and one woman – the only known means of forming a human child.

        I say this as a gay atheist.

        1. And clearly you’re not a gay athiest.

        2. Why do you keep using the CHRISTIAN definition of marriage if you’re an atheist, Jonny?

  85. “Schools will be forced to teach children the new definition of marriage – which will run counter to the wishes of many parents”. Carey is scaremongering over Gay Marriage just like the opponents did over the repeal of Section 28. Indeed Marriage is not owned by state or religion Mr Carey! Nor is it owned by sexuality! You and your signatorys can not be allowed to create a two tier state of the have and have nots. We are not going to be second class citizens for no one! Let alone a bunch of unelected 2nd house religious bigots, who’s block vote on gay rights is an affront to democracy in itself!

  86. Sign the counter coalition website now, All equal marriage for all….
    http://www.c4em.org.uk/

    1. At the present time, there is no bar on gay people marrying. In fact the law is clear, any man (regardless of whether he is gay, straight, bi etc) may marry one woman (regardless of whether she is straight, lesbian, bi etc.)

      What there is a bar on, however, is two men marrying each other (whether these men are gay, straight or bi is irrelevant.) The reason for this is that no two men have ever naturally produced human offspring.

      I’m curious – will the C4EM also be pushing for allowing those in polyamorous relationships to marry? If not, it is ‘bigoted’ and polyphobic.

      P.S. Love the username – I’m an atheist too!

    2. I’ve just had a look at the ‘C4EM’ – the ‘arguments’ used there are laughable, as is their use of the term ‘bigotry.’ They seem to think ‘bigotry’ means someone who disagrees with their view.

      However it in fact means intolerance/hostility towards the opinions of others. What exactly makes the C4M ‘bigoted?’

      Let’s just remind ourselves – we are in favour of keeping marriage exclusively for the only relationship model which can procreate. However, the C4EM supports allowing one non-procreating relationship model to marry (two men/two women) yet restricting those in polyamorous relationships from marrying collectively.

      Now you tell me which of these petition groups is ‘bigoted.!’

      On another note, the statistics speak for themselves…
      The C4M has been live since Monday and has attracted almost 30,000 (had around 16,000 by the end of the first day) yet the C4EM launched two days later and has a smidgeon above 2,000! They may as well give up now.

      1. For someone that claims to be an atheist you seem awfully preoccupied with the whole “marriage is for procreation” theme. By your standards we should therefore annul all heterosexual marriages where the couples are infertile or choose not to have children. After all, no procreation, no marriage!

        1. As for the number of signatures, I wouldn’t worry too much about that, the Coalition Government WILL introduce equal CIVIL marriage for gay couples because it is the RIGHT thing to do. ;)

      2. @Jonny

        For some one who claims to be an atheist, why have you chosen “Heterosexuality” as your onto-epistemological yard stick, so to speak?

      3. “… However it (bigotry) in fact means intolerance/hostility towards the opinions of others.”

        That’s news to me.

        I thought bigotry was intolerance/hostility towards the rights of others.

      4. Procreation, procreation……!! The religious have been messing with your brain, Jonny ;) They appear to have filled it with religio-speak and have brainwashed you into ‘inadvertently’ spreading their propaganda for them…

      5. Jonny: “At the present time, there is no bar on gay people marrying”

        My god – watch out! The Christian Right fundies are in your head too. That was a word for word quote from their warped reasoning! Reclaim your mind quickly!

  87. Patrick Mc Crossan 12 Mar 2012, 8:21pm

    As a gay man and as a gay catholic I have problems with Stonewall’s Draft Marriage Bill

    I think they have deliberately chosen words and phrases to assist me as part of a minority that will offend the majority.

    I believe Stonewall who have done and who do great work have chosen to upset the majority by removing Husband & Wife by amendments completely from the marriage bill. ( see )

    Extension of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Bill 2012 [HC] a husband and wife” substitute “parties to a marriage”.

    For those who have been married and see it as an institution, and as Husband & Wife are part of the worlds accepted married status I feel it will create far too much upset to achieve marriage rights for gay people by removing the majority’s right to continue to be called Husband & Wife.

    Stonewall should achieve equal marriage rights without upsetting the majority.

    It is issues like this that gets people to believe we are going too far when we denigrate others rights to achieve our own right

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all