Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UKIP: Marriage belongs to religion, not government

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert Brown 7 Mar 2012, 11:01am

    What about ‘religious’ people like myself . . . an SGI Nichiren Buddhist who wants to get ‘married’ in our National Centre? . . . surely one religion should not have special superiority over another one . . .

    1. No, sorry, that’s not how religion works for these people. It’s not about personal belief or conviction, it’s about adherence to a narrow-minded traditionalistic patriarchy in order to prop up established systems of privilege. It’s about promoting conformity to pre-approved norms that support vested interests. If religion were only about personal conviction it wouldn’t be nearly as useful a tool to the hierarchs and social conservatives. That’s why they will do everything in their power to frame the term in any other way.

      Fortunately for us, however, they’re losing. And looking utterly pathetic while they do.

  2. Because straight atheist and agnostic couples have never, ever gotten married.

    1. Spanner1960 8 Mar 2012, 9:49am

      Bullsh|t. Many get married in registry offices. That is still defined as a marriage even if no omniscient deity happens to be watching. The difference is merely one is a civil marriage, the other a religious one, but a civil partnership is neither. That is the crux of the argument.

      1. @Spanner

        I think (hope) weetzie had a hint of sarcasm in their comment!

        1. Spanner1960 9 Mar 2012, 12:56pm

          Oh sorry. I thought I was on the Daily Mail forum again…

  3. When are these idiots going to stop waffling on about marraige being religious? Marriage was never religious until the middle ages when religions hijacked it!

    1. And now gays are highjacking it.

      1. Father Ted 7 Mar 2012, 4:24pm

        No we will simply officially be using the word like everyone else, as we have been doing unofficially for years. It doesn’t stop or detract from anyone else’s marriage. In fact our desire to get married, which contrary to the trend of heterosexuals, has had the effect of encouraging more heteros to get married again – States that have allowed equality in marriage have seen the decline in straight marriages reversing. It’s as if straights are starting to value it again because we want it so much.

    2. Raymond A. Weaver 7 Mar 2012, 7:34pm

      You’re asking them to pursue something more than News of the World.

      They might also discover that gay marriage is not a new idea. The Church had same-sex unions exactly akin to those it had for hetero-sexual unions. The only diffences were a psalm or two and the Saints invoked.

  4. So atheists/agnostics/ Buddhists have no say? These same words could just as well have been uttered by Anjem Choudray or any Islamic fundamentalist group?

  5. “it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths – and it is none of government’s business to meddle with it.”

    Really? We let religion have a go once, and we ended up burning innocent people as witches and trying to suppress the truth of the universe around us by insisting we swallow the sun went around the earth and it was 6,000 years old.

    And I think it odd a party would want to be democratically elected but maintain the proven uselessness of a theocracy.

  6. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Mar 2012, 11:07am

    You will find that the most vocal religious do not know their own history.

    A recent study actually shows that atheists are more knowledgeable on these peoples religions than the religious are themselves.

    They are just windbags spouting baseless sound-bites.

    1. that is very true – in order to argue a point of logic with the superstitious I have read – the various story books and have on many occasions baffled these bigots with their own texts –
      As David Attenborough says – there are all manner of religious stories around the world – all different, all contradicting the last – the only consistent knowledge of our past is to be found in the ground – in fossils and sediment that tell a global story.

      It’s time to evolve and cast off these dangerous superstitions that the hateful and monstrous use to justify hatred.

      1. I wonder if there lies the difference. Atheists possibly tend to fully read something to see whether they believe it or not – where as believers ‘just believe’. It is a learning style.

        You can understand why faith based schools dislike teaching critical thinking skills.

    2. Religious people treat their dogmas and faith traditions like a computer software agreement. They don’t actually read any of it, they just scroll to the bottom and click “I agree”.

  7. Dave North 7 Mar 2012, 11:09am

    “UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage said Helmer’s defection “sends a message that people are taking UKIP very seriously”.

    No. It sends the message that UKIP will let any old bigot on board.

    1. It sends the message that the UKIP are arrogant scum who support dehumanising people on the basis of their orientation.

  8. I once considered voting UKIP as I hate the LIB-LAB-CON.

    I certainly will NOT vote for them now.

    1. The words frying pan and fire spring to mind. Glad you caught yourself in time.

    2. Protest votes are never a good idea. It’s a dangerous business because it makes these lunatics think that someone agrees with them.

      I have a friend who wanted to vote BNP for “the lolz” and because they thought the three major parties where all the same. Thankfully there wasn’t a candidate in their constituency.

    3. Staircase2 7 Mar 2012, 4:57pm

      Well thank fcvk for that!

      (personally I’ve never understood the ‘I’ll vote for them just to teach a lesson to those people I don’t want to vote for!’

      Bloody insane…

  9. Andrew Paul Landells 7 Mar 2012, 11:10am

    If marriage really does belong to religion, which faith does it belong to? Christians and Muslims don’t necessarily agree on a single definition of marriage, just because people who believe in equal marriage rights have yet another perspective on the subject, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Oh, and I’m sick and tired of hearing the same old “slippery slope” argument. We’re talking about legalising same-sex unions as marriage, nothing else. Why people insist on pretending that this will lead to incest/bestiality/whatever never ceases to amaze me!

    1. Keith Farrell 7 Mar 2012, 5:27pm

      because they are stupid and dont know their own history, at one time the church agreed with people like hittler, and the apartheit goverment and slavery, they found words in their bibe to justify their actions, and they always will try, hopefully as people realise that they can think for themselves, they will stop following the church like sheep to the slagter

  10. Oh dear god (if you’ll pardon the irony of saying that), all the bigots are being dragged out of the woodwork now, aren’t they?

  11. So *civil* marriage is also the property of religion? Will UKIP still allow folk to have humanist funerals or has that now become the property of the church?

    This is a party that keeps banging on about democracy??

  12. But which religion guys? Perhaps you could select from this short list?

  13. Andrew Goodall 7 Mar 2012, 11:17am

    Marriage belongs to people not organisations.

  14. If this is what UKIP thinks, then UKIP merely demonstrate that they are unfit for office as their educational standard is pitiful. We can PROVE definitively that their statement is wrong and, in terms of common law, has ALWAYS been bloody wrong. So they do not understand history, or jurisprudence, or civil rights or anything else. UKIP – the political party of simple-minded cretins (I’m sure this comes as no surprise to most).

  15. Since this is UKIP’s policy, they had better campaign against the Marriage Act (1836) permitting civil weddings.

    I look forward to them making this clear and adding agnostics, people in mixed-faith relationships and divorcees to the list of those who will never vote UKIP.

    No doubt Mr Coburn agrees with Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter in 1836 who called the civil marriage bill “…a disgrace to British legislation… Not solemnized by the church of England, [a marriage] may be celebrated without entering into a consecrated building, may be contracted by anybody, and will be equally valid, whether it takes place in the house of God, or in the house of a registering clerk, one of the lowest functionaries of the state… No blessing sought; no solemn vows of mutual fidelity; no religious solemnity whatever.”

    Does Nigel Farage agree? He married for the second time in 1999, having divorced his first wife. May we have a list of UKIP politicians who married outside church?

    1. Father Ted 7 Mar 2012, 4:07pm

      If he’s divorced he has already failed the definition of marriage as being for life, as stated in the CI petition.

    2. Rashid Karapiet 7 Mar 2012, 7:14pm

      UKIP – ‘Independence’ – even their name is a misnomer since they fail to recognise the extent to which the UK has been sold to high bidders: Rolls Royce; all our water suppliers; most of our gas and electricity suppliers; the Royal Train; Jaguar cars; a large part of ourr railways; Cadbury’s – this is not an exhaustive list. Still, they’re making lots of lovely Euro-dosh from the Parliament they want to abolish so that’s okay – innit?

  16. Squalid people who do not deserve dignifying

  17. Socrates- I was also considering voting for them- and they never really got involved with gay issues in the past -but now they have come down against gays- well I certainly won’t be casting a vote in their direction.

  18. All the crazies are coming out of the woodwork I see …

    Marriage is an inate human right. Its not owned by state, religion or any organisation.

  19. Paddyswurds 7 Mar 2012, 11:38am

    Well, it is UKIP after all. Talk about getting something wrong….may as well do it spectacularly. ……………So now, according to UKIP, when you go to the registry office to get married under the Law, it’s actually some religion or other that’s marrying you really. What an utter heap of illiterate crap.

  20. It is worth remembering that Mr. Coburn is actually gay, UKIP certainly is not a party prejudiced against the LGBT community. Although I do not personally agree with this stance on marriage, I hav seen that younger members of the party are much more open-minded and libertarian. So we can expect a change of policy not so far down the line.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Mar 2012, 11:50am

      If this despicable man is gay, why would he oppose
      gay people having the right to a CIVIL marriage? Just because he doesn’t believe in it, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t support it for those who want it. Not too bright if you ask me, in fact, downright bigoted. I don’t like religious bigots and hypocrites, in fact I detest them and treat them with the contempt they deserve, but I wouldn’t oppose their right to marry in a religious building. Get it, Coburn? Oh, I suppose not.

    2. If he is genuinely gay then he is a disgrace to LGBT people promoting such treatment of LGBT people and supporting dehumanizing gay people

      He and UKIP should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves

    3. Gay people can still be homophobic, some of the worst homophobes I’ve known were gay.

  21. Farage pretended that his party was progressive but UKIP has now come out against equal rights. He’s bound to pick up a vote or two from disgruntled Tories

    1. Spanner1960 8 Mar 2012, 9:51am

      But he has certainly lost any gay eurosceptics such as myself.

  22. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Mar 2012, 11:45am

    I hope those denominations who want to recognise same-sex marriage, the Quakers, Unitarians, Reformed Judaism and others start their own campaign to counter the bigots on the wrong side of history. That would shut the idiots up once they see some religious denominations support us.

  23. DJ Sheepiesheep 7 Mar 2012, 11:51am

    UKIP, as usual, are wrong both in law and in practice. To begin with, marriage is presently governed by an Act of Parliament. Only Anglican, Quaker and Jewish ministers can conduct a marriage ceremony that will be recognised at law. All other religious marriage ceremonies, including Catholic weddings, are not recognised as legal marriages. They require a further non religous ceremony conducted by a Marriage Registrar. Accordingly, in practice it would seem conclusive that marriage is already controlled by Parliament, and not by religious bodies. So there!

  24. A libertarian party attacking a civil libertarian approach to marriage? Only when it suits, right UKIP?

    Guess they’re fine with whatever you believe unless you wear a burkha or are a Quaker or Universalist Church wanting to marry gays, lesbians, transexuals or bisexuals. Then the government should get involved.

  25. You can have the most religious wedding in the world, get personally blessed by the pope and Jesus himself.

    But fail to file a bit of paper with the government and you are not married.

  26. “”it is none of government’s business to meddle with it.””

    CIVIL marriage is, you dumb homophobes.

    1. Exactly. If they want the government to not meddle, then lets drop all the government benefits that come with marriage. Certainly the corporations and businesses that might be employing these folk will breathe a sigh of relief when they don’t have to provide any marriage-related benefits. And think of how pensions and government benefits won’t have to be paid out to spouses when a poor bloke moves from this mortal coil. I can see the budgets resting easier and easier. If the widow needs some support, stop on by the church. Good F’ng Luck!!

  27. Watt Tyler 7 Mar 2012, 12:21pm

    Marriage belongs to the people, not government and not religion. If they don’t keep this in mind people will stop bothering to get married – and Oh! look what’s happening….

  28. I think they are just being outrageous for publicity purposes.

  29. So if a couple get married in, for example, a Baptist church where the minister is not approved by the state to register weddings and do not arrange either a registry office ceremony or for a registrar to attend then would that officially be a marriage? Not in the eyes of the law.

    Of course, there is matrimony in churches and that is recognised by the church. Marriage does not require a religious involvement as the thousands of registry office weddings demonstrate.

    The UKIP are wrong legally, factually and morally – but then its not surprising given that it is UKIP.

  30. UKIP have a big following don’t they, as their success in the last general election shows :-)
    I reckon this whole anti-gay marriage thing has been whipped up by the religious nutters to give the impression that the churches are somehow still relevant and have more support than they actually do.

  31. Their ignorance of history – and indeed other parts of the world — is astounding, and so extreme it’s barely worth engaging with. I’d guess they’re just trying to whip up a bit of publicity for themselves.

  32. Katherine Griffiths 7 Mar 2012, 12:58pm

    I have emailed both UKIP and Nigel Farage pointing out how incorrect their points are. If what they say is true then HRH Prince of Wales’s marriage, along with those of thousands others, is not valid since that marriage was done in a Registary Office

    1. Do they get stupider by the minute?! How can civil marriage be owned by religion?? That’s like saying that the cat that belongs to Pete is owned by Mary. It makes no sense whatsoever.

      All I can think is that UKIP are trying to scoop up the votes of the bigots who’re annoyed with the Tories. It seems it hasn’t occurred to them that they might LOSE more votes than they gain by appearing regressive and rabidly prejudiced – not to mention ‘stupid’ again.

  33. Friend of Dorothy 7 Mar 2012, 1:01pm

    But… but… isn’t the UKIP merely the BNP but for people with mortgages?

    1. ROFL

      Its the BNP trying to look respectable. Maybe the BNP after its gone through a CRB check?

      Immoral, intolerant, hateful and seeking to foment hatred … thats UKIP.

    2. Someone said it perfectly on one of these threads the other day, BNP Lite lol

    3. That is the finest zinger I have heard in ages.

  34. Chuckster 7 Mar 2012, 1:12pm

    There’s a large and growing contingent of young libertarian UKIP members these days and I know they certainly do not share these views on the policy.

    Like this lady, Alexandra Swann: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/06/leaving-tories-ukip-alexandra-swann

    They are for marriage equality, and they are the future of the party.

    1. If they’re libertarian then they are in the wrong party!

  35. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Mar 2012, 1:23pm

    This is the question that has never been put to the opponents of same-sex civil marriage.

    “If CPs were available to straight couples, would you enter into such a union and if not, why not? If they were the only vehicle available for heterosexuals and gay people, would you refuse to have one?”

  36. ‘the issue is in the domain of the church and other faiths’.
    This shows as much historical knowledge as the bishop who said he resented pagans turning Christmas into winter festivals…aaah..um..
    I used to think the UKIP was the Tory Right in exile. But actually I don’t think the Tory Right is that thick.
    Our enemies have rarely been so entertaining.

    1. Staircase2 7 Mar 2012, 5:03pm

      …Yes it is…

  37. I don’t think UKIP quite understands that civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage. If the government want to introduce equality in civil marriage, there isn’t a damn thing religions can do about it.

  38. If marriage belongs to religion then there should be no associated legal rights that come with it… oh… wait…

    And if it belongs to religion why are UKIP presumably in favour of banning Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal and Reform Jews from performing gay marriage ceremonies?

    Can’t wait for the Caveats and loopholes that are required to make principle support the anti-gay marriage position!

  39. I honestly welcome this statement from a UK member, and, believe it to be well overdue.
    Why? Because it has finally shown to all but the weak minded exactly what that party is. Plus, if it ever got into power sets a footprint for the sharp and decisive turn to the extreme right (or left) it would take – right or left make no difference in my book when they become extreme.
    Well done UKIP you’ve helped a lot of people make their minds up.

  40. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Mar 2012, 2:38pm

    I’m hoping the Quakers, Unitarians and Reformed Judaism all band together and contribute to the consultation in support of us. I also hope that when a paper is finally drafted after the conclusion of the consultation, that provision will be made for denominations to participate in same-sex marriages if they so wish. Freedom of choice and freedom of religion nicely packaged. These idiots opposing us just don’t get it. Nobody is restricting their freedom to practice their faith or beliefs. There is a huge disconnect in all this and refusal to concede that they are free to do as they please whether they agree with it or not. It’s not going to stop them from worshipping, it’s not going to force them to shut down their churches or whatever. This is clearly a civil matter, nothing more. If they want a backlash, they’re going the right way about it.

  41. Aint voting for them ever.

  42. UKIP is one of the stupid political parties in Europe (and ignorant). Marriage started as a civil contract between two parties, so it is not a religious thing. What happens with people who do not believe in any religion??? Shouldn’t be allowed to marry, then? Or should they marry in a church when they don’t have religious belief?? Ignorance is the mother of stupidity and intolerance!!

  43. Father Ted 7 Mar 2012, 3:22pm

    I think it’s time we had a register of hate groups, using the same strict criteria that the SPLC use in the USA. It would interesting to see which parties, “institutes” and “research councils” matched the criteria.

  44. Võ Đông Cung 7 Mar 2012, 3:34pm

    A Stupid Political Party

  45. Father Ted 7 Mar 2012, 3:39pm

    This is from the SPLC website:

    “Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. “

  46. Spanner1960 7 Mar 2012, 3:42pm

    Ah well. UKIP had my vote until about 5 mins ago when I read that crap.

    Even the BNP support gay marriage.

    1. Father Ted 7 Mar 2012, 4:15pm

      No they don’t .

  47. I wish some people would stop calling it ‘gay marriage’. It’s not it is ‘same sex marriage’ and people of who have the same sex will get married for many of the diverse reasons opposite sex couples do.
    eg Not always for love, not always to produce children, not always having taken onboard all that is involved.

    1. Father Ted 7 Mar 2012, 4:18pm

      Actually it’s just marriage. We will simply be able to officially use the word, as we do unofficially already.

      1. I understand the use of the label same sex marriage as a lazy shorthand when explaining about achieving equality in marriage. It is laziness though and should refer to same sex partners who marry.

        Ultimately when, thats WHEN, the law is changed there will be no gay marriage, no same sex marriage, – it will just be marriage. There is no heterosexual or straight marriage at the moment, why should that change when marriage becomes fair and representative? It will just be marriage.

        1. Paddyswurds 8 Mar 2012, 11:26am

          @…………….
          .. I always refer to Marriage Equality, because anything else isn’t…………..

          1. Thats why I prefer marriage equality or just plain simple marriage …

    2. Staircase2 7 Mar 2012, 4:52pm

      Its called ‘Gay Marriage’ because THATS the issue which is currently being debated…
      not WHY people get married – in essence WHY people get married is irrelevant – the point is that any two people in a relationship should be able to choose to declare that relationship contractually – ie ‘MARRIAGE’

      Effectively a Civil Partnership IS a marriage anyway. (And the same jumping up and down ‘hell & damnation’ bollocks was spouted at the time about that too in an effort to stop it happening…)

      The reason this GAY MARRIAGE campaign is important is SIMPLY because its only right that ALL of us are equal under the law (as we are by definition already – its just that our LAWS stop this legal right from fully taking place)

      1. Keith Farrell 7 Mar 2012, 5:19pm

        well Staircase2, Im glad you tried to put a spin on Civil parnership, a civil partneship is not the same as a marrage, it does not give us the same rights and tax is higher as a gay couple, we have a lot of extra problems I suppose some people might feal segragation (apartheit) is also ok. we are all the same and deserve the same recognision, why the hell must I call my marrage a civil partnership, we are married as far as I am concerned and I hate being corrected all the time, this is my husband and I am his husband and if we did have children, one of us will be dad and the other daddy,

  48. UKIP are like the Daily Mail columnists, Nadine Dorries and Dianne Abbott, the only purpose they serve is to make Question Time more entertaining, beyond that they serve absolutely no purpose.

    1. Nadine is just bloody annoying not entertaining!

      Dianne and UKIP are very entertaining on QT though!

      1. I think she’s hilarious but I absolutely see how irritating she is.

        1. Also I’d like to add David Starkey to the list.

          1. He certainly was entertaining (and irritating at times) last week). As someone once said – when he’s good – he’s very very good and when he’s bad, he’s rotten!

      2. Don’t get me going about Mr Starkey . . .

  49. Staircase2 7 Mar 2012, 4:48pm

    No – ‘marriage’ belongs to PEOPLE

    Religion just jumped on the bandwagon and used it as yet another way to control the masses….it DOESN’T BELONG TO THEM…

  50. Wrong again, marriage belongs to the people, gay and straight people get married not religions or governments.

  51. Keith Farrell 7 Mar 2012, 5:08pm

    You arragent asshole, how dare you claim amrrage as church property, (it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths)
    You are saying that anyone who is not a member of a church, is not married. There is a sacrament called ‘matrimony’ which is quite different to marrage. you need to learn your bible before you tell anyone else what to do. How would you like it if it because law in this country that all members of your party were not entitled to be married, are you on your first marrage, does your wife vote,do you wear poly-cotton shirts, f so you are going against this very fairytale you profess the be the only way you are allowed to live, I supose you also have slaves at home.

  52. If marriage really is just within the “domain of the Church”, then why is the Church campaigning for Society as a whole to reject Equal Marriage? The can’t have it both ways, although it seems that they’d like to have it every way!

  53. Uh, this isn’t “holy matrimony” we’re talking about dude. It’s “marriage”. Can atheists, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc get married? Can people who have had sex before marriage get married? Etc. Yes, so stop acting like it’s some Christian ceremony, I support allowing religious buildings/clergy not to marry couples for various reasons, it’s not like they’re being forced to marry us. Someone needs to grow up and stop following 2000 year old laws.

  54. So what do atheists do when they get married, honestly if you are a political party in this country at least know how it works

  55. radical53 7 Mar 2012, 9:36pm

    A I have said before, Marriage is an OUTDATED INSTITUTION.

    Even straights don’t want to get married any more.

    Trouble is you queers are so short-sighted and visionless.

    If you want marriage so badly, create your own. One that you can be proud of and is legally recognised.

    You don’t have to go down this heterosexual path of marriage and it’s way of life. BE DIFFERENT and be proud of it.

    Open your eyes to different possibilities, look beyond the square.

    1. It’s not a heterosexual path any more than having a bank account is aping straight people. Some people – gay and straight – want to get married and that desire isn’t relevant to their sexuality at all.

      Your choice, I presume, is not to marry, but why not recognise that other people would make a DIFFERENT choice? Marriages have involved human beings for centuries – both same sex couples and opposite sex ones. I personally would like to marry, and I personally don’t see it as any different than women now being able to vote – ie in my opinion, it’s not ‘going down the male path’ to vote, any more than it’s going down the straight path to marry.

      Having the option to marry would please as both surely? It would just add another choice and right for LGBT people.

    2. Please tell ‘us queers’ what your visionary and different possibility to marriage is. Open our eyes. We are all so blind.

    3. Ah yes, because nothing says “I’ve made a positive and iconoclastic social choice of my very own” like having no legal option to do otherwise…

  56. UKIP’s logo looks like a sign for one of those pound shops.

  57. and yet on 24th Jan 2012 the UKIP were supporting gay marriage!!!!!

    http://cranmercurate.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/ukip-shirks-battle-for-traditional.html

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Mar 2012, 3:39pm

      Yep I think the word ‘Bandwagon’ springs to mind.

  58. Its probably been said already but worth saying again. If marriage belongs to religions then to be frank I’m fine with that in principle, as it implies that religious organisations that want to offer gay marriage can and it will be as legally binding as straight marriage is. I think we know this wouldn’t be the case though.

    As it is though, I don’t believe a religious organisation should have any right to perform any sort of legal ceremonies, no matter what they’ve been allowed to do historically. I sort of like the way it is in France: you legally get married at the registrar and if you choose to have a ceremony after that’s up to you.

    Just take marriage out of the hands of religious organisations and let them bless what ever they want.

  59. johnny33308 8 Mar 2012, 3:42am

    What a buch of idiots! Civil marriage is a CIVIL matter not a religious matter…religious marriage is a religious matter not a Civil matter…how stupid can people be when the words describe EXACTLY what is what, and which is which. UKIP idiots! The party of stupid, apparently. It’s nice we don’t have a monopoly on ‘stupid’ here in the US.

  60. GingerlyColors 8 Mar 2012, 6:03am

    UKIP are shooting themselves in the foot by coming out with statements like that. That party was set up to seek British independence from the European Union, something which I personally want and with Greece just about to default on it’s debts and start the break-up of the Euro, I am sure that apart from our political rejects riding on the Euro gravey train, most people here want UK Independence. What I do not want is for the churches to start running this country instead. Given a choice of living in a religious theocracy or Europe I much rather have the latter. Frying pans and fires come to mind here. b Norway didn’t need the EU to introduce gay marriages. UKIP should concentrate on what it was set up to do originally and get Britain out of Europe.

  61. Dr Robin Guthrie 8 Mar 2012, 8:01am

    I see that the Daily Terrorgraph is claiming that 70% oppose gay marriage in a recent poll.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9129750/Poll-suggests-70pc-oppose-gay-marriage.html

    A poll I notice carried out by Catholics for Catholics and only 2004 respondents.

    How dare they claim this is representative,

  62. marriage pre-dates religion and therefore the religious ownership if marriage is false!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

  63. Jock S. Trap 9 Mar 2012, 5:46pm

    Can’t help thinking they’re just jumping on the bandwagon for votes without a single belief. Just think they win votes nothing else.

  64. I used to support a lot of ukips values but their lack of understanding and equality are unnaceptable to me.

    They dont understand that marriage isnt religious in nature. It preceeds christianity goin back to cavemen who would mate for life commiting to each other.

    Marriage has oly hijacked marriage die to the state allowing it to.

  65. Revd. Paul Burrows-Gibson 13 Mar 2012, 11:45am

    Marriage doesn’t have to be religious at all. its down to choice. People opting for Civil Weddings decline the choice of religion in the ceremony. The same applies to partnerships. Out of all marriages in the UK the majority are Civil rather than religious, and hence churches have no say on this. I am an independent and offer religious or non -religious ceremonies for all people and its down to their personal choice

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all