Reader comments · UK Catholic cardinal: Gay marriage is ‘a grotesque madness proposed by a disingenuous government’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK Catholic cardinal: Gay marriage is ‘a grotesque madness proposed by a disingenuous government’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. To paraphrase many other commenters on various outlets, it is a bit much for the Catholic Church to complain about “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right” when so many senior clergy hushed up child abuse allegations – actions which really do constitute, er, grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.

    1. bravo well put

    2. Bravo, indeed!!!

    3. He’s trying to play the old game of “if you tella lie often enough and outrageous enough, it will be seen as the truth”

      Sorry , We heard that one before. Courtesy of another catholic named Paul Joseph Goebbels.

      the guy who got old adolph elected in 1933 in germany.

  2. Read the comments section below these news articles (the BBC for example) and you’ll see something like 95% of all responses slapping this oaf down.

    A dinosaur wailing in the dark.

  3. Garry Cassell 4 Mar 2012, 12:41pm

    Yes…this is rather rich coming from the bloody Catholic church..against gay marriage..yet they don’t mind all the f***king priest up behind the altar frigging the daylights out of little boys…

  4. A universally accepted human right – which must be denied to same-sex couples.
    Truly desperate stuff, and in reality a sign of progress.
    He is a bit amnesiac about Christian attitudes to slavery. If gay marriage is equivalent to legalising slavery, then the history of his Church suggests that he should heartily approve of it.
    But I think there are some friends we can well do without.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Mar 2012, 1:01pm

      “A universally accepted human right – which must be denied to same-sex couples.”

      His implication is that gay people are not human.

      1. HIs implication is that gay people are sub human and mentally ill. He also in a speech to MSPs compared gay people to sexual deviants in HMP Edinburgh!

        1. I don’t agree with his comments, but that is exactly what he said

  5. I wonder if the Cardinal has read this book? “For a very long period, formal amatory unions, conjugal, elective and indissoluble, between two members of the same sex were made in Europe, publicly recognised and consecrated in churches through Christian ritual.”

  6. bearshaped 4 Mar 2012, 12:47pm

    Yes it will redifine marriage. And it will impact what will be taught in schools. And about bloody time too.

  7. I think it’s good that he expressed his opinion. I prefer to have my homophobes out in the open where we can show the ignorance, intolerance and poor logic of their beliefs.
    And I really wish that you all would be just as outraged by the RC abuse of women and girls as you are their abuse of young boys. The RC is one of the biggest threats to women’s reproductive health and freedom in this world.
    Lesbians came forward and worked side by side with gay men even when AID was not threatening lesbian women’s health- where are the gay men in this current struggle for women’s health?

    1. David Myers 6 Mar 2012, 10:49am

      In the US and Canada at least, many gay men including myself are strongly supporting women’s demands for the Republicans to cease usurping and limiting women’s reproductive rights, and I predict that support will grow during the 2012 US election campaign.

    2. I am right here supporting women in these attacks on them

  8. Cardinal who?

    1. Cardinal O’Brien, pseudo-religious bigot and doyenne of West End theatrical costumiers no less.

  9. No, the church is a grotesque madness – Celibate cloistered crusty old virgins trying to school everyone else in love and life. All based on a bronze age bundle of scrolls that have campfire tales of talking snakes, talking donkeys, women turned to salt, guys living in whales, satyrs, dragons, sea monsters and unicorns. Oh, and at what point shall we point out that the odious drivel he has based his life on has been used to excuse slavery, and endorses it by containing many instructions on how one may and may not treat your slave.

    1. I tried to post a thumbs up to this, but accidentally hit the thumbs down button. I heartily agree with this comment!

      1. Have put this right for you, the sooner we have Same-Sex marriage the better, Pete

      2. Mary Marriott 4 Mar 2012, 7:19pm

        oops ! easily done !

  10. Craig Denney 4 Mar 2012, 12:53pm

    The ‘Coalition for Marriage’ petition is being made-up!
    It’s riddled with inconsistencies!
    Check out this news story for the Truth:

    The Police in Scotland did not carry out an investigation, Why Not? I’m calling for an investigation down here, if they are breaking the law then they should be sent to jail for it after the fair trial.

    1. This MUST be made public!!

    2. Great link. This must be investigated. And it makes a bit of a bloody mockery of all their “not bearing false witness” cr@p.

      1. Craig Denney 4 Mar 2012, 3:12pm

        Firstly I don’t think the site is automated I have been monitoring the numbers of people signing the petition every 15 min’s and the same number people are signing every 15 min’s. It’s to perfect and if it was automated then the numbers joining would be all over the place. So it looks as if someone is manually adding the names to the list, probably random names from the phone book. It’s also quite possible they’ve purchased mailing lists and are using those names to bolster their numbers.

        1. Ben Foster 4 Mar 2012, 4:17pm

          “disingenuous government”

          Quite possibly, but a democratically elected government. Who voted for the Cardinal?

          1. Ratzenburger 5 Mar 2012, 1:09am

            Only me!

    3. Unfortunately that link no longer works.

  11. Singapore Sam 4 Mar 2012, 12:58pm

    One of the best tonics after reading what such people as this cleric says is to go and view Clooney, Pitt and co re-enacting the prop 8 trial, where all these opponents are totally debunked, and even their own expert comes down on our side under cross-examination . It’s very moving.

    We’ve watched it twice in our house, it begins 30 mins into the feed at the moment, just google prop8 Clooney.

  12. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Mar 2012, 12:59pm

    Here is O’Brien’s original article in the Sunday Telegraph:

    Well worth reading in full. Jumping-the-shark stark-raving bonkers.

  13. “Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved…” So basically this apologist for kiddy fiddlers is saying “We were TOTALL:Y wrong about this”, isn’t he? And anyway, WHY are they being allowed to deliberately confuse Sacred and Secular MARRIAGE without anyone pointing out that they are two totally different things!?!? As my parents married in a registry office, according to this out-of-date freak I must be a bastard…funny how the STATE wouldn’t say that, isn’t it?!

  14. Paul Halsall 4 Mar 2012, 1:11pm

    I would like to see full nuptial masses for Catholic gay couples myself.

    But that is not what is being proposed by the government, which simply intends to make a change to the civil law on marriage – as it has done before, for example, when it allowed civil registration of marriages (still not possible in Israel!), civil divorce (opposed by the Catholic hierarchy in Malta even last year), and changed the age of consent (*traditional* Catholic canon law allowed girls to marry at 12 and boys at 14).

    1. I would like “Catholic gay couples” to realise that r=the Church of Rome holds nothing for them and get the H@@@ out of the ghastly insitution.

  15. the only same sex relationship the catholic church are ok with are between grown men and the boys in their care.

    these people shouldnt be allowed to comment on morality. ever again. the organisation should be figuratively put down

  16. Keith Farrell 4 Mar 2012, 1:35pm

    I wish this idiot would just die, that way will not have to hear any more of his misguided ideas, My god loves me as a gay person, he has no problem with homosexuality, and in fact he feels the same about hetroseuality. now you might complain and debate this, but slow down, How could you have the audacity to speak on behalf of god….exactly, that is an excelent point and I pray you remember it.
    this is Ted Alexandro’s words not mine, but I think they are good to remember

  17. Helen Wilson 4 Mar 2012, 1:51pm

    I hope Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O’Brien keeps up his rantings. Nothing will bring about gay marriage sooner than the bigots like O’Brien irrationally ranting on against it.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Mar 2012, 1:57pm

      “Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.”

      Really, O’Brien. So, where is the evidence for that. Do tell us. Have you contacted the governments of the ten countries where it is legal for us to marry. What were your findings.

      As for three way marriages…hmmm, excuse me, ignoramous, but polygamy and open marriages have long been the bailiwick of heterosexuals throughout the history of marriage.

      Well said, Margot James, lets hear more support from our MPs, not our opponents. This moron O’Brien is trying to impose his religious beliefs on what is purely a civil matter, inappropriate and unacceptable. How would he like it if we called for a ban on catholicism as intrinsically evil and inapproriate in a modern 21st century society?

  18. Keith Farrell 4 Mar 2012, 1:55pm

    be careful unless you have proof of his actions. yes many older and possible some of the younger priest are guilty and yes some of us have suffered because of their actions, most of us have just tried to heal, we will never get a proper sorry from the church esp if you are like me gay. maybe one day

    1. Robin Evans 4 Mar 2012, 8:03pm

      I wouldn’t want their apology, religion is a fantasy that these priest and clerics use as reason to feed on society and do no productive work.

      They have lived in luxury on the backs of populations in every country for centuries.

      They have raped our children and kept us in ignorance… Why we still even take their opinions into account is beyond me.

      Bring back burning at the stake for the god-men in black, I say….

      1. I actually read this and shook in anger, even cried tears. I don’t understand how someone like this could say such things and not bat an eyelid. I truly believe that these people are dangerous to the progression of mankind and it hurts me to know I can’t say a damned word against them the way they say things about us. Ordinary people who want equality. I don’t see why in 2012, this is still an issue.

        I have a counter argument for absolutely everything this disease of a person spits out but no one cares for about what we, the minority think.

        1. GingerlyColors 5 Mar 2012, 12:52am

          Any yet the Catholics are happy to kick off when THEY are the minority. Just look at the situation in Northern Ireland. The difference between the Catholic minority in NI and the gay minority throughout the world is that us gays didn’t need anything like the IRA and never will. I was once arguing with some IRA supporters from Ireland once. The cause of my argument was why is it they were happy to live over here in spite of the fact that they hate us so such that they want to kill us – can you imagine me going to live in Zimbabwe? When I raised the subject of a school bus being bombed by the IRA, the attack being carried out using a timed device set to go off after the driver had picked up all the children, they justified it on the grounds that the driver was a part time soldier. Child-murdering scum! Where’s my flute?

          1. From Homophobia to Racism. Thanks for making this Irish Catholic Gay man feel so welcomed, and then made light of by your last remark…like you thought that was funny?? It was about as funny as ‘ All Gay men are paedophiles and AIDS carriers’. No doubt the good Cardinal can provide similar evidence and conversations which would justify his barely covered hatred for the L.G.B.T community. Perhaps you might read up on Irish/British History before you condemn the whole Catholic (Nationalist) population of Northern Ireland. Members of the security forces were also found guilty of Murder in Northern Ireland, as were the Police Force (then the RUC now the PSNI)
            “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that”.
            Martin Luther King, Jr.

        2. this made me feel very sad too, but people like him with his views are in a minority even amongst other Catholics. Most people I know who would loosely describe themselves as catholic would not agree with him.

  19. My 2cents 4 Mar 2012, 1:56pm

    The morally disordered & politically corrupt catholic church once again has trotted out one of its “boys” in a dress, to shake a finger in public. Perhaps he’s grown tired of merely sitting on it. These tired old farts just won’t give up, holding on to a bankrupt morality which they know is down for the count.

  20. Andrea Woelke 4 Mar 2012, 2:06pm

    The assertion by Christians against same-sex marriage that marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman is a fallacy. The reference here is to the definition by Lord Penzance in Hyde v Hyde (1866) LR 1 &D 130 at 133: “I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may … be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

    200 years ago marriage was the union of an Anglican man and an Anglican woman (and Jews and Quakers were allowed to get married through their own rites). It excluded any other religions, non-religious marriages and marriage of two people of different religions, which were only legalised in 1836. Even in 1866 when Lord Penzance defined marriage, it was quite different to what we know as marriage today:

    1. Andrea Woelke 4 Mar 2012, 2:07pm

      1. Women had no legal personality, could not keep their wages, own property or make a will without their husband’s consent. All their property was their husband’s. This only changed through the Married Women’s Property Acts 1870-1882.
      2. Civil marriage is no longer for life: people can get divorced.
      3. On divorce, courts can now redistribute assets. This only came in during the 1960s.

      The concept of marriage has dramatically changed over the last 200 years. For opponents of same-sex marriage to claim a right to define marriage is ludicrous: if it was up to churches, marriage would still be the enslavement of women it was 200 years go.

  21. David Wainwright 4 Mar 2012, 2:20pm

    The posturing for next Pope begins in earnest .

    1. britain is not very significant in terms of future of RC, so i doubt there will be british pope any time soon, its likely to be an italian or south american cardinal

    2. Yes – one has to remember that the Catholic Churhc has lurched to the right in ast decades and all this is precisely that – posturing for more senior positions in a church that has an appalling history (over centuries) for the abuse of children in its care. I appaud the sentiments expressed here.

    3. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 4 Mar 2012, 6:48pm

      The cardinal was, laughably, excluded from a jolly to the vatican by baroness wopsee 2 weeks ago! It was hugely funny and satisfying!

  22. David Wainwright 4 Mar 2012, 2:34pm


    1. I’d argue that Spain is not a Catholic country.
      Spain is a country of loosely joined autonomous states, most with their own parliaments and at least one with their own separate tax system and police.
      As an entity Spain has probably the most far reaching and inclusive human rights and equality legislation in the world.
      There is legal separation between the church and state; unlike the UK which has legal inclusion.
      Their head of state is not head of the accepted church, nor is there any accepted church.
      The UK and many other countries lag seriously behind.

      1. @Paul

        You are correct

        There has traditionally been an acceptance of Catholic teaching in Spain and regular public ceremonies with RC involvement. So whilst it may not be Catholic in the sense of the Vatican, nor is Italy (and many would describe Italy as a Catholic country)

      2. Exactly. In fact these constitutional developments in Spain since the end of the Franco era have in part been inspired by a Church which has remained reactionary even by RC standards. Also an attempt to persuade King Juan Carlos not to sign the inclusive marriage bill by a papal representative – blatant clerical interference in the duties of a constitutional monarch – caused outrage.
        Y, aunque sólo sea a un nivel personal, España nos encanta a mí y a mi cara mitad y nunca hemos experimentado ninguna homophobia viajando allí abiertamente como una pareja.
        (And, although it might be only at a personal level, my other half and I adore Spain and have never experienced homophobia travelling there openly as a couple.)

        1. @Riondo

          Absolutely. I have never experienced homophobia in the many times I have been in Spain (whether large city or rural).

          I think there is still a stronger propensity to Catholicism than in Scotland or England though.

  23. Dennis Battler 4 Mar 2012, 2:49pm

    The “arrogance of government” spoken of by the article’s author is the real upset here. The age old power struggle between church and state. Let’s look at the author’s arrogance, the catholic church’s arrogance, and the arrogance of the opponents of same sex marriage. Are any of these sources able or qualified to speak for what is good for society? The church’s scandalous history and ongoing lies and the opponents prejudice and ignorance speaks for itself as being sufficient to ignore both sources. Stop with the original intents arguments for marriage. Marriage was devised as a social contract invented to delineate property including, in its original construction, the wife being property of the husband. Do us a favour and shut your arrogant cake hole.

  24. Does anyone find it amusing to watch a self-hating gay man fighting his own demons? If so, just keep watching the O’Brien saga …

    1. @Beberts

      For once I entirely agree with you!!

    2. Stay tuned for next weeks episode, in which Cardinal KMPOB again attempts, poorly, to disrupt the marriage equality plan. Find out how it went after the 1pm sermon.

  25. Bill (Scotland) 4 Mar 2012, 2:58pm

    And if you thought that the late much-unlamented Cardinal Thomas Winning was an old bigot, it is of course no surprise at all that the current heid-yin of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, has the same outdated views on human sexuality and basic human rights. As many others have already commented, I am likewise heartily sick of these child-abuse covering-up monsters (NOT too strong a word) having the infernal gall to preach morality to anyone. A parent sending a child to one of their ‘indoctrination centres’ (aka schools) must have bizarre, not to mention lax, notions about that child’s physical and moral safety.

  26. one would expect RC church to make some noises, after all thats their job. cardinal relays on emotions to get the point across rather then logic and facts.

  27. Maryland became the 8th state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage.

    Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont plus Washington D.C. and Oregon’s Coquille and Washington state’s Susquamish Indian tribes. The states of Washington and Maryland have passed same sex marriage laws.

    10 countries Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. have already introduced same sex marriage equality nationwide since 2001 and a further 10 countries have proposals in place to follow suit.

    The definition of who has access to marriage has already changed in today’s world although marriage remains exactly the same for opposite sex couples, the only change being same sex couples are no longer excluded.

    Time for UK to update it’s obsolete and discriminatory marriage laws to reflect present reality and the balance of 21st Century human rights.

    Time the Cardinal respected the religious freedoms of others.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Mar 2012, 4:51pm

      Don’t forget, Denmark legalises it I believe this month or maybe April.

    2. Mary Marriott 4 Mar 2012, 7:26pm

      A marvelous post ~Pavlos. Useful to have a list of all those states and countries.

      Very very encouraging !


  28. Just as an aside, it’s good to see the unanimity of response this idiot cardinal’s frothing has generated on this thread!

    1. and pretty much elsewhere too

  29. The simple solution to the whole problem would be to take away the right of any organised religion in the UK, the right to register marriages.

    Make all marriages a civil ceremony (as in other European countries) and if people want a religious element they can have a blessing afterwards. At the end of the day all marriages have to be registered on a civil register somewhere, and only the state has the right to grant a divorce, so surely only the state should be able to grant a marriage.

    1. This is the way forward, I agree !

  30. I was reading the comment section of the guardian earlier and came across the following:

    I’m going to mentally retreat to it whenever a ‘religious lunatic hates “the gays”‘ story comes up, and rofl.

    Laughter is the best medicine after all.

  31. I’m curious, why refer to him as Mr O’Brien. We wouldn’t refer to someone with a doctorate or a professorship as Mr.

    1. Doctorates and professorships are worthy of respect

      1. Mr O’Brien is not worthy of respect

      2. Well Cardinal O’Brien has a doctorate so perhaps Dr. O’Brien then. And the title of Cardinal is no different to that of a doctorate.

        1. respect is a two way street

          1. @Kane

            Absolutely respect is a two way street.

            Respect can both be earned and lost.

            The Cardinal may have “earned” his doctorate and thus rightly be proud of his academic achievements.

            His actions to demean a minority group and to seek to promote prejudice mean he lost all respect from me.

  32. Is this Keith O’Brien our Keith? Just wondering…..

  33. Is Keith O’Brien our Keith? Just wondering…..

  34. John Lameck 4 Mar 2012, 3:49pm

    “Render onto Caeser that which is Caesrers, render unto God that which is Gods”
    The Catholic Church doesn’t practice what the bible teaches.

    I was sexually abused by the STAFF (Christian Brothers) of a Catholic School for Boys here in Canada 1960-1964 They have NO place to tell us how to live our lives.

  35. Jant Lameck 4 Mar 2012, 3:55pm

    And the Catholic Church wonders why the youth of today are abandoning it in numbers.

  36. Aryugaetu 4 Mar 2012, 3:57pm

    Why are all of these religious radicals angry at me for eating a doughnut when they are the ones on a diet? I still can’t make the connection other than the pure evil of power and control.

    By the way, Mr. Pope and minions, it’s not “Gay marriage” any more than I can Gay park my car or Gay walk the dog. Two people get married, not Gay married. It is called marriage equality; it actually sounds like the right thing to do when it has the correct title not warped by an evil PR department.

    Personally, I think these religious leaders are spending far too much time thinking about what two men do after they marry. They already know the world is not coming to an end, so why do they want to dwell on the idea of two guys in bed so much?

  37. Raymond A. Weaver 4 Mar 2012, 4:18pm

    First- Nick is right about same-sex conjugal unions. There are liturgies buried in the Vatican, among other places, that show this.

    Second, the dear Archbishop does nothing but repeat the silliness that has already been proven to be silliness as his argument.

    1. “There are liturgies buried in the Vatican, among other places, that show this.”

      Er, how do you know this? They’re BURIED in the Vatican where few mortals are allowed access. Unless you have actual proof its probably better not to make statements like that.

      1. There are liturgies for same sex marriage in the Vatican

  38. Many roman catholic are known for raping children, the church tries to cover things up.
    When two men or two women love eachother the roman catholic church is on the barrcades AGAINST gay love.
    It´s beyond me and I think it´s easy to preach hate and hide beyond a perhaps non existing god.
    No wonder the church loses believers…

  39. This is slightly off-topic, but not completely.

    The Coalition for Marriage website:

    states that 97,392 have signed their petition. Yet infact, only 33,959 names appear on the signatories page. Of course, it’s possible that 63,433 people have signed paper versions, but I’m a little skeptical.

    1. Ratzenburger 5 Mar 2012, 1:23am

      Maybe they all have three hats like Andrea?

      1. Actually more than 33, 959 have signed the paper petition but most are yet to turn it in. In my church, it was passed round the adult section yesterday and everybody signed

        1. Its still a fake and manipulation and the C4M is duplicitous and denying is religious rootings. Plenty of evidence to demonstrate how much murky dealings there are with C4M.

          Thats not forgetting to say that the entire proposal and proposition is as demented and inhumane as racism.

  40. I have prepared a lengthy response to the Cardinal which I have forwarded to him. I do not expect him to have the decency to respond.

    I also intend publzing this as widely as I can. Anyone else who agrees with the comment feel free to either distribute a link to the blog or quote from it.

    The blog response is here:

    1. Mary Marriott 4 Mar 2012, 7:33pm

      That is terrific !

      Really good piece

      1. Thank You.

  41. Well there’s a smart comparison if ever there wasn’t one.

  42. Man in silly hat and also wearing a frock and too much bling…

    And he is calling others odd?

    1. Samuel B. 6 Mar 2012, 8:47pm

      Too true! Love it!!!!

  43. If this sad old man had made similar comments about interracial marriage, he would have been arrested. I think the same rules about racism should be applied to homophobia so it is effectively squeezed out of public discourse, will full force of the law. I long for that day. Perhaps when we have full marriage equality, this should be put on the agenda.

  44. Samuel B. 4 Mar 2012, 5:07pm

    I have not a religious bone in my body but I am all for equal rights and gay marriage in churches for those who see value in doing so.

    I don’t for the very reason that I am areligious and see no merit in having my union blessed in a ceremony that has no meaning or relevance to me.

    Therefore, what I CAN’T understand nor get my head around is the clamour for gay marriage in churches among many of the same voices on here who vent their spleen and hurl bile at Christianity at every given opportunity!

    Any of you, particularly the more militant left-wingers who are trying their damnest to persecute Christians – even though most Christians were found in a recent poll to SUPPORT gay equality – care to explain this rank hypocrisy and double standard of the highest order?

    1. Yours is a typical false argument. No gay person lookin for equality demands anything from the irrational religionists. They have been assured over and over that they can keep their irrational phobic attitudes safe from the blinding light of reason and 21st Century law. But that is never enought for them. They want civil marriage only for the ‘straights;. As for persecuting Christians, they are masters of persecution they have had two thousand years of practice. Hypocrisy runs like tap water through the religionists of all the different expressions.

    2. I want equal civil marriage, Samuel

      The Cardinal doesnt want any gay person (whether they have a religious belief or not) to have either civil or religious marriage.

      NB for the benefit of you, I also have less time to be on PN these days, my structured return to work should start in 2 weeks.

    3. Ben Foster 4 Mar 2012, 6:23pm

      I don’t think you get it Samuel. NOBODY has mentioned gay
      marriage in church, Not even the Cardinal. We are talking about civil marriage for all.

    4. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 4 Mar 2012, 7:04pm

      I, too, have no need for this – but others, do and would. Would you denigrate others for what you yourself do not desire? And what persecution of those of faith do you imply? Care to name a few? Please exclude those cases where the cathole involved weren’t employed as a cathole to fulfil their public duty or those that flouted laws.

      1. Samuel B. 5 Mar 2012, 1:16am

        All fair and reasonable points, one and all. Thank you.

  45. dear mr cardinal sir, ann widdecombe would like you to shut up because you are making the anti-gay-marriage lobby look even sillier

  46. The more these bigots say, the deeper the pit they fall into, because the transparency of their hate is easy to see for anyone not indoctrinated into their ‘grotesque subversion’ of reality.

  47. “….represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”

    So we are not human?

  48. Ben Foster 4 Mar 2012, 6:17pm

    “disingenuous government”

    Quite possibly, but a democratically elected government. Who voted for the Cardinal?

    (This comment got lost in a sub-thread by mistake earlier)

  49. Daniel de Culla 4 Mar 2012, 7:26pm

    Uk catholic cardinal speaks with his Arsehole. Look in his hand a bastard paedophilus prick¡

  50. Daniel de Culla 4 Mar 2012, 7:45pm

    UK Catholic Cardinal speaks with his Arsehole. Look in his hand a pig paedophilus prick¡

  51. Robin Evans 4 Mar 2012, 7:54pm

    Why you Brits even put up with these old farts… Intelligent people everywhere have realized now that religion if a fantasy so who listen to these superstitious homophobes???

    1. you can dismiss religion but you cant dismiss the influence it has in political life

  52. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 4 Mar 2012, 7:55pm

    So your fake-grace, equality in marriage for gay couples would mean threeway marriages?! Is this a typical cardinal’s wet-dream? It certainly isn’t to my mind. Tell me your fake-grace, like the catholes’ use of the bestial marriage argument and the apocalyptic end of the world is nigh scenario they envisage in such matters of equality, can you spell the word ‘desperate’? Because if it looks like, reads like it and spoken like it, it usually is it – desperate. So if it comes to pass that in matters of civil law that equality in marriage for same sex couples is enacted into law and that I actually meet someone that I want to marry, I’ll see you at the ensuing gay apocalypse – I’ll be the one scoffing a veggie burger with some chips and lashings and lashings of shiraz. Bottoms up, so to speak.

  53. Har Davids 4 Mar 2012, 7:56pm

    I don’t mind guys wearing dresses, as long as they talk sense ;). Anyway, wasn’t it the the Church that approved slavery, as their ‘scientists’ proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that only white people possessed souls, making the rest of mankind far lesser beings, equal to so-called animals?

  54. I don’t like the Catholic Church but the Cardinal makes a lot of sense. I think marriages should be left for heteros. Gays can’t be fighting to be like heteros while at the same time arguing that they are born different!

    1. Why are you on a gay website then Ken?

    2. Gays can’t be fighting to be like heteros while at the same time arguing that they are born different!

      Why not? Women are born different from men, that doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to the same rights, does it?

      Incidentally, we’re not fighting to ‘be like heteros’ we’re fighting for equal rights.

    3. Well said, Rehan!

  55. “Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, ….”

    Unbelievable ! CPs and even more so marriages have been proven to be good for the wellbeing of LGBT people

    He really has gone “nuts” this time.

  56. The main reason for denying equal marriage to same sex couples is either explicitly given as (or driven by) an understanding from some religious people that homosexuality is a sin. Granting equal marriage does not change the religious conviction of those people who hold this view. The only change achieved by ensuring marriage is equal is that gay people get married. Society in England is not a theocracy; it is (at least in theory) a democracy. It is a multi faith society where people hold a wide range of beliefs (and none). Some people who do hold faith beliefs have differing opinions on a wide range of issues including homosexuality. England does not have a society where religion dictates how the law should be drafted, enacted or interpreted. The rights of individuals (and couples) are granted irrespective of religious belief or what that belief may be. Marriage by the state is not a religious activity (in fact marriage law is extremely clear that religion should not …

    1. … interfere with civil marriage). Government should neither be instructed by religions which laws they should make nor which they should not make. Of course, in a democracy religious people are entitled to make their views known – but that is the limit, making views known.

  57. I found this quote today and was impressed by it:

    “It is because I value marriage so much that I have come to believe it should be extended to gay people and not kept exclusive. Because it is so beneficial an institution it should be enlarged rather than fossilised. Whereas some people see the gay marriage issue as primarily about equal rights, I see it as about social solidarity and stability. Marriage is, for want of a better word, conservatising. I don’t mean in a party political sense. I mean it is one of the key social institutions that conservatives admire. It is about drawing people together. Not just the couple but also their extended family and other friends and loved ones. It is a deeply important social act that draws others to the care of the couple and draws the couple to the care of others, not least ageing …

    1. … parents:

  58. The Cardinal acknowledges that when civil partnerships were introduced that he did not support them.
    If we look at what he actually said at the time of the debate about civil partnerships we can see that he said that introducing law to legalise civil partnerships were “unjust and immoral laws” that have no “natural or rational basis” and are “destroying Christian culture”. He predicted at the time that it would lead to a destruction of marriage and the fabric of society. Was he right? Clearly not. Why should he be right about same sex marriage then?
    This is the same man who told Scottish MP’s that homosexual people are “captives of sexual aberrations” and compared gay men and lesbians to prisoners in the Scottish Saughton prison (official name HMP Edinburgh). Clearly, the Cardinal views LGBT people as criminals and sexual deviants. Helpful language to use.

    1. He stated when civil partnerships were introduced that they were harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved. The reality is that creating a committed relationship and stable, publically recognised relationship which can be celebrated improved the mental well being of many people who have engaged in civil partnerships. There is no evidence to demonstrate any deterioration of physical or spiritual health due to civil partnerships, nor is there any evidence to suggest the same in nations where legal same sex marriage does occur. The propaganda that the cardinal uses is identical to that he used to try (fortunately in vain) to prevent civil partnerships.

    2. It is also very similar rhetoric that was used in the USA when inter racial marriage was proposed. Does the cardinal really endorse policy that is similar to that adopted by the Ku Klux Klan? He states there will be a redefinition of marriage. There would be no more of a redefinition (if that is the correct word, although I would dispute the vocabulary used) than when marriage was “redefined” to allow inter racial marriage. Has marriage died since interracial marriages were allowed? Does any reasonable person really think interracial marriage was a bad development? Marriage is principally about love; surely the love of two men deserves to be celebrated in a way identical to a man and a woman? In any event as Scottish QC and former head of the Scottish Sex Crimes Unit states “… there isn’t a single reason in the world why a willing minister shouldn’t be able to conduct a service to marry two gay people. This change of law is not changing the Catholic definition of marriage …

    3. … the Church of Scotland’s ­definition of marriage or the Wee Frees’. I respect their right to that definition but it is the right of other churches to have their definition and act upon it. The Government has no business allying itself with one doctrine over another.”
      One presumed the Cardinal was an intelligent man to have reached the lofty position that he holds. So either he is deliberately trying to mislead or he lacks the level of intelligence that one might presume when he states that article 16 of the Universal declaration of human rights defines marriage as a relationship between men and women only.

    4. The article does not specify that men must marry women, nor does it prohibit men marrying men or women marrying women. In fact if the second clause is considered it appears to adopt non gender specific descriptors of partners in a marriage.
      So whilst the Cardinal may seek to suggest that same sex marriage is “jettisoning the established understanding”. The reality is that it is seeking to eliminate discredited, prejudiced and indoctrinated understanding of what marriage is. It is being humane and being true to the letter and spirit of the entire Universal declaration of human rights. The Cardinals spurious and unintelligent use of article 16 is a red herring. He describes what he calls subverting article 16 as “grotesque”. The reality is the grotesque nature of his comment is the untruth of what he says. If a man of God has to lie to win his argument, then the argument is clearly lost

    5. The Cardinal rightly states that marriage predates any state or government. It also predates the Roman Catholic Church.
      The Cardinal tries to scaremonger about polygamy. Where is this appetite for polygamy that he talks of? Surely polygamy would need to be decriminalised in any event. Homosexuality is not illegal. Polygamy is. His connection of the two is illogical, inhumane and disingenuous.

    6. The Cardinal states that it is astonishingly arrogant that the Westminster government would introduce same sex marriage, and allow churches not to conduct it as this would dismantle the “universally understood meaning of marriage”. Firstly, marriage is about love and commitment of two people. Many nations and US states already understand it to include same sex partners. The UN declaration does not state what he tries to twist it to state. I believe it is astonishingly arrogant that any church leader believes that a government should acquiesce to the ideological rhetoric of a particular religious doctrine and expect law to be formulated to benefit that one doctrine. Marriage is not owned by state or church. Marriage is a celebration of two peoples love.

    7. The Cardinal then has the audacity to extend his argument to slavery. He tries to suggest that if the government had tried to “redefine” slavery etc etc. Abolition of slavery (which many churches supported – but some battled to prevent!) was about freeing people from restriction, giving them equal rights and ensuring they had freedoms others enjoyed. That’s exactly what happens to gay people when same sex marriage is introduced.
      The Cardinal uses his world view to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and tries to fit this to his own definition of marriage and family. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is blind to doctrine, ideology, orientation, race etc etc. The Universal Declaration is about fairness, integrity, honesty and impartiality. The dishonesty used by the Cardinal in twisting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an anathema to fairness and integrity and is deviant in itself.

    8. In reality the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in article one “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” There is no suggestion that there is only equality if one is heterosexual or married to the opposite sex, although this is exactly what is implied in the Cardinals comments.
      Whilst the declaration does not specifically mention orientation there has been inference that this is implied in article two where it states “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” The use of the language “such as” implies that the examples given are not the limit of considerations

    9. It is therefore entirely reasonable to extrapolate from article two that orientation should not be used as a distinction to any of the rights set forth in the declaration. The Cardinal does seek to impose a restriction on rights of LGBT people and that is unfair, unjust and inhumane.
      States have a responsibility to ensure the rights of all of their citizens regardless of difference. That includes ensuring them for those with and without religious conviction or regardless of race, gender, age, disability or orientation. The right to be considered as an individual and respected as an individual is innate. It is not granted by church, government or individual. It can be crushed by church, organisation, government or individual. The right still remains. Governments who act responsibly reflect the spirit and reality of the UN declaration of Human Rights. They do not acquiesce to indoctrination from any individual or group of religious leaders or organisations.

    10. The Cardinal states that if same sex marriage is introduced that the Westminster government will have forfeited the trust that society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the UK in the eyes of the world. The intolerance here is that of the Cardinal seeking to perpetuate homophobia and prejudice. He is seeking to root society in discrimination and unfairness. It is the Cardinal who shames the United Kingdom by his bigoted and outrageous comments seeking to undermine and dehumanise a minority in society.
      The Cardinal will see the respect society has for him when the consultation shows beyond any doubt (as the recent opinion polls have shown) that his opinions are unfair, discriminatory and out of place. Much like many of the other aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. His belligerence does him no favours.

      1. Samuel B. 6 Mar 2012, 8:46pm


        1. Thats normally the effect you have on me Samuel

  59. Ben Summerskill responding to this story on the BBC News Channel earlier this evening

  60. Ben Summerskill mentioned the Catholic Church child abuse when he spoke on BBC News earlier this evening. (YouTube link below)

  61. “…the purpose of marriage is to procreate.”

    So does this guy believe that infertile people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, either? Idiot.

  62. “When these arrangements (ie CPs) were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage…”

    I remember Lord Lester saying that he wanted SS marriages but the UK wasn’t ready for them at that time ie that some time in the future, like right now, we would be ready and wanting SS marriages in the UK.

    CPs were always a stepping stone, just like civil SS marriages can only be a stepping stone to full marriage equality ie religious SS marriages as well.

    I don’t care if we don’t have religious marriages straight away but marriage equality means equal marriage rights for all.

    1. Equality Network 5 Mar 2012, 9:14am

      Pure dishonesty by the Scottish Catholic leadership here. They know very well that Scottish national LGBT organisations, giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament when CPs were introduced, said that we supported CP but that only marriage would be full equality and that we would continue to work for that.

  63. What qualifies supposedly celibate, unmarried Catholic priests/cardinals without any legitimate children to preach what marriage is all about anyway?

  64. Meanwhile, at a packed Soho Catholic church, we celebrated the 5th anniversary of the establishment of Masses welcoming LGBT Catholics by the Catholic Diocese of Westminster –

  65. church – a deluded organisation based on scriptures that are deluded, contradictory, hateful and absurd. I would say that is grotesque – they should think themself lucky that those same protective laws they abuse also allows them to pray to thin air and to pass that delusion onto their children

  66. I open my bible at random & find :
    “1 Samuel 1 ~ Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah …And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children”

    I note Keith O’Brien is suggesting three in a marriage as the next likely step – but in fact we’d just be going back to the good old days …

  67. I’m not someone who’s good with politics and such but as a young gay, I find it hilarious that someone who walks around in a glorified dress all day turning a blind eye while priests get with the choir boys etc. Can be so opinionated when it comes to sexuality.

    I also can’t believe people live their lives based on the ‘wise words’ (bull sh*t) that comes out of his mouth!!

    Absolutely pathetic!!

  68. I’m not sure saying the Catholic Church has been persecuting lesbian and gay people for the last 2000 years is really a valid justification to continuing so to do!!!

    I think the words of his Holiness Sir Elton John “may be helpful” here “just F$#k Off”

  69. Peter Bone has just done a blog titled

    “Peter Bone MP: Redefining marriage threatens the liberties of Christians, teachers and parents”

    He goes on about gay marriage being taught in schools becuase of the requirement to teach “about the importance of marriage” to bringing up children and for family life.

    I really hope that the Govt has the balls to stand up to this argument and to say that YES, “gay” marriage wil be taught and has exactly the same meaning /importance as “straight” marriage.

    I’m sick of this argument. Why should talking about being gay be only spoken of at an adult level.

  70. …. other critics of Mr O’Brian

    Alan Duncan: Gay marriage proposals should be no cause for religious upset

    Stephen Gilbert: O’Brien’s comments were quite distasteful

    Labour strongly agrees that gay and lesbian couples should have an equal right to marry – Cooper

  71. GingerlyColors 5 Mar 2012, 12:31am

    Yawn! Boring! Please change the record you Catholic Priests. Even some Catholic countries such as Spain and Argentina are fed up of your blatant homophobia. Here in Britain we ditched the Pope almost 500 years ago so what jurisdiction do they have in our affairs.

  72. Perhaps the Cardinal should actually READ the UDHR, because Article 16 certainly DOESN’T define marriage “as a relationship between men and women”

    “Article 16.
    •(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”

    1. Abolutely and then later goes on the refer to non gender specific spouses.

      Marriage is not defined by gender.

      Marriage in not owned by any organisation, state or individual.

    2. Marriage required no definition in 1948. The use of the words ‘men and women’ merely confirms the understanding. Furthermore, at that time, there were no gay marriages yet the UDHR did only stated that men and women can marry without limitation as to race, nationality and religion BUT did not mention gender. In other words,, the UDHR endorsed the already existing limitation on gay marriages.

      1. @Ken

        Ah how gullable you are, taken in by the Cardinals twisting of the declaration.

        Yes, the declaration mentions men and women in marriage. It does not mention that a man is married to a woman. In fact later it is non gender specific as to spouses. If you had three married couples, one male/female, one male/male and one female/female then you would have men and women who were married ….

        The declaration does not show prejudice on the grounds of orientation in marriage. Elsewhere it argues that such characteristics should not be used as prejudice and to deny rights to people.

        Either the Cardinal is losing his mind, is so wrapped in indoctrination that he is blind to the real words or he deliberately seeks to mislead. Given the offensive nature of his words, I suspect he is deliberately lying and being duplicitous. Since you associate yourself with such words and there has been ample explanation of the UN declaration in these discussions I presume you also seek to lie.

      2. Ken, respectfully, you are wrong. The UDHR leaves it open for marriage to be between same sex partners. It states “men and women” not ‘men to women only’

  73. No one seems to want to tackle the question of if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, what next? Is anyone naive enough to believe that it stops there? Probably, but they would be wrong. No sooner will gay “marriage” be legalized than there will be another group right behind wanting their “rights.” If gays are “born that way,” then one would have to assume that bisexuals are also “born that way.” If you are bisexual, and want to marry, must you make a choice or can you have one of each? Just curious.

    1. being bisexual means you are attracted to men and women but does not mean you’re into threesomes any more than straight or gay people are. I don’t have any knowledge of groups of 3 people who live together long term so can’t comment on what they may want. knowing how hard it is to sustain a long term relationship with 2 people I image with 3 people it would be much more difficult.

      1. Yes it is difficult to sustain a long term relationship with more than 2 people but not impossible.

  74. this fool is so outdated nobody will ever forget catholic priests abuse children. no point fighting us you old fool we are nearly to victory 21st century people have spoken

  75. Have anybody noticed that the robes and hats that the cardinals are wearing are the replicas of the kkk klan do anyone pay attention to this, do anyone look closley at some of the religious builiding at the satanic pentagram order of accultism and the inscribes satan sculpters of gothic satanic witchcrafts, and foreignn african withcraft symbols, can you not detect what is really taking place in some of these building people are calling churches,they are satan occults, religious satan occults, of withchery an abuses , thats what is encompassed in all of these sex crimes by these cardinals like this same insane twisted creep, have you every looked at the top roof and penticles of some of the religiousn buildings its looks like dens an house of witches, because it is, pay attention, people, look closley, the world is blind, except for a few, its in the devinci code as well, where do you think all of this evil , will somebody sit this ignorant hypocrite of a cardinal down, an reprimand

  76. Ellen degenese. an rosie od, they need to get on the road and take their talk show into the face of biggots with a microphone for human rights, the people need to no who their real enemies are, and who is harming all of these children and human an civil rights of their famlies, put the microphone in the face of secret basing envasive hidden clinics like the bachmans, abusing people an telling lies about false gay people being ex gays, these places must all be sued and shut down, get up their in tennessee where and put the microphone in the face of officials an school admistrations for abusing chiidren out of hate crimes, and trying to harras gay teenagers trying to put in a gay alliance a saftey net for gay children who have been abused an bullied, get your asses down there and help them open up their gay alliances, and camp out there with your talk show until you take out and down the abusers of these children with the aclu, help open lgbt centers for kids an adults like chely wright

  77. The republican adminstration is in the media, for other republicans coming forward about the horrific abuses that the prior republican adminstration was the cause of including human rights violations of women and gay communities headed by hate groups and religions headed by Bush , including the abusive invasive clinics findings, all tied into the republican and hate religions satan klan orders under skeleltans a skull occultism with petagrams socery, that bush belongs to and other senators, you reasearch this this is very true, hate klans, connected across the nations,to this white house hate bigots mostly republicans, the south people, Get the media and talk shows going undercover and letting the public now he truth, The nation must be overhauled, to human rights goodwill abassadors of officals everywhere, as a plaform of rainbow democrocies of people governments of liberty to safe harmonic lives, like tunsia is adapting to for the betterment of their country, and famlies,

  78. What’s the point????? Are Catholics unable to think for themselves ???Why are they so brainwashed by the Catholic anti-gay agenda???

    The Roman Catholic Church is planning to enlist the support of more than a million regular worshippers in opposition to Government plans for same-sex marriage.

    Senior bishops are preparing to draw up a letter to be read at Masses across England and Wales when the Government consultation on plans to redefine marriage gets under way later this month, it is understood.

    1. Whatare you afraid of?

      1. Dave North 5 Mar 2012, 9:28am

        You cannot reason with a brainwashed mass of ignorance.

      2. @Ken

        Blind indoctrination that seeks to subvert democracy and seeks to treat a significant minority of the population as subhuman, is pretty much what I fear …

        However, it will fail.

  79. Religions are grotesque madness proposed by a disingenuous old perverts

  80. Davis Mac-Iyalla 5 Mar 2012, 7:13am

    David Cameroon, please don’t rule me with statement and views from religious leaders , religious leaders are living in a different planet and comparing gay marriage to slavery just went on to show that religious leaders are dangerous and don’t realise that some of their statements are inflammatory , Civil Partnership is not Equality and not good enough, open Marriage to all people.

  81. I be the Catholic church thought they’d be in for an easy ride when the coalition came into government.
    That church has always sided with right wing governments and leaders: Franco, Pinochet, and no doubt quite a few others!
    Hypocritical and obnoxious b’stards the lot of them.

  82. Marriage required no definition in 1948 when UDHR was signed . The use of the words ‘men and women’ merely confirms the understanding. Furthermore, at that time, there were no gay marriages yet the UDHR only stated that men and women can marry without limitation as to ‘race, nationality and religion’ BUT did not mention gender. In other words,, the UDHR endorsed the already existing limitation on gay marriages. The Cardinal is therefore right to argue that the UDHR did not recognize gay marriages

    1. ‘…Marriage required no definition in 1948 when UDHR was signed…’

      what was an official universal definition of marriage before 1948?

      what was universal limitation on gay marriage that existed prior to 1948 i.e. where did it say gay people cannot marry each other?

    2. Ken

      I have already responded to your lies about the UN declaration above.

      Constantly repeating the lies does not make them true!

    3. That was then. In 1948 in many parts of the USA you’d have taken your life in your hands if you were black and wanted to marry a white person. Divorced Christians couldn’t remarry in church.

      This is now. Things have changed, as you might have noticed – and I hope will continue to change.

    4. Copy of my reply to Ken (above) on the wording of Article 16

      Ken, respectfully, you are wrong. The UDHR leaves it open for marriage to be between same sex partners. It states “men and women” not ‘men to women only’

  83. “UK Catholic cardinal: Gay marriage is ‘a grotesque madness proposed by a disingenuous government’ ”


    “UK government: opposition to Gay marriage is ‘a grotesque madness proposed by a disingenuous Catholic cardinal”

    1. The first is a deflection of the truth. The second is an honest appraisal of the facts!

  84. Gay marriage has already been legalised in no fewer than 10 countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands and a host of states accross the USA! Where exactly is the evidence of this undermining of society, the breakdown of family, the degeneration into immorality? Don’t see or hear anything of the sort! This type of scaremongering is typical of a church that lives its daily life on spreading fear and hatred in those that do not comply with its belief. A shocking way to conduct itself. With Cameron,Clegg,Ed Milliband and SNP leader Alex Salmond backing Gay
    Marriage Equality his pathetic defence is up against the wall. The last shouts of a desparate homophobic faith ,so silent when it comes to covering up those child abuse clergy and moving them around in desparate measures to hide its own failings. Its not just their buildings that are crumbling. Their faith is!

  85. Surely the Cardinal is aware that “since the sixth century and right up to the twentieth century it has been common Catholic teaching that the social, economic and legal institution of slavery is morally legitimate provided that the master’s title of ownership is valid and provided that the slave is properly looked after and cared for both materially and spiritually. This institution of genuine slavery … was not merely tolerated but was commonly approved of in the Western Latin Church for over 1400 years.”
    I’m quoting from Father J F Maxwell’s “Slavery and the Catholic Church”, which was given his imprimatur by the Archbishop of Southwark in October 1973.

  86. How can same-sex marriage eliminate a basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. When the facts of centuries pass, has proven, by actions, that fatherless or motherless or even both parents being absent, is right now a reality to a lot of children.
    To my view, it seems the Catholic Church aims to continue holding children in parent-less institutions as the only home of acceptance; this idea has for centuries deprived a child.
    Just look at the facts of history.

  87. Gay marriage is the grotesque madness – agree!

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.