Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Home Secretary Theresa May: Government will introduce same sex marriage whatever the Church says

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dennis Battler 14 Mar 2012, 10:35pm

    very clearly a non-church issue

  2. Good to see this strong statement of intent. There must be no embarrassing backing down or caving in to the negative propaganda. There is still the issue of religious marriage for those religions that support it, but it seems that a policy decision has been made not to rock the boat by including this at this point. It will inevitably be followed up on at some point. Perhaps if the consultation goes well and the gay-friendly faiths speak out loudly enough it will get added now, but if not it can quietly be added later.

  3. Well, with sparkling intellects like hers on board, the movement to redefine marriage is assured victory!

    1. Paddyswurds 14 Mar 2012, 11:16pm

      TROLL ALERT…DON’T FEED THE TROLL

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 15 Mar 2012, 12:23am

      I’ll fee it …. Jim, I think you’ll find it you look back over the history of Christianity, same sex couples were married for about 1700 years and only in recent history was marriage ‘redefined’ to be solely for a man and a woman.

      St Bacchus and St Sergius, to gay roman soldiers were canonised by the Christian Church – I’m kind of thinking if the church was up tight about two men marrying they wouldn’t have allowed icons of the two boys getting married to adorn various churches across Christendom

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 15 Mar 2012, 9:19am

        oops – ‘feed it’ even

  4. Theresa May is far from my favourite Conservative.

    However, that is a powerful, strong and unashamed support of LGBT people.

    It deals full on with the rhetoric and lies of the Atchbishops and Cardinals and the disinformation and deceptions of the Anti Gay Institute and its off shoot the Coalition for Marriage.

    It says very clearly not giving equal civil marriage to same sex partners is reprehensible.

    It speaks my language and I thank Theresa May from the depth of my heart for her empassioned statement supporting gay rights in The Times and opposing the bigotry of some in the establishment and church. (Those are words I never thought I would say!)

  5. Could be fun. Amy Lame is reviewing the papers on Sky News channel shortly, with someone who looks uncomfortable sitting next to her. With Mays piece in The Times and Amy – this could be fun.

    1. My mistake its Iain Dale. Thats two LGBT people on the panel! Go Sky News!

      1. iain dale i can understand but lame on Murdochs sky? sellout

    2. Great from both Amy Lame and Iain Dale.

      “Its insulting to heterosexual couples who are unable to or choose not to have children to say marriage is just about procreation”

      “What threat are two gay people celebrating their love to any heterosexuals?”

      “Cardinal O’Brien offended many people and mislead”

  6. HAS SHE A CHILD THAT OR WHOM IS GAY?

    1. Paddyswurds 14 Mar 2012, 11:24pm

      @CLARE..
      …how is that relevant, Clare. One doesn’t need to be or have a Gay child in order to do what is clearly, in all instances, the right thing. 40 years overdue in my opinion. Never thought it would be the Tories though!

    2. Jock S. Trap 15 Mar 2012, 10:33am

      What have religious people got against a stable, loving society/. How exactly does it threaten them?

      A pathetic comment Clare.

    3. soapbubblequeen 16 Mar 2012, 5:12pm

      Stupid cow.

  7. Hmm yes this is good news, but I can’t shake the feeling that the conservatives (upper or lower case or whatever?!?) are actually only just realising the power of the ‘gay’ vote and that their previous stance of abstaining or voting against gay rights in the past has proved unpopular and are willing to do anything to be seen as doing the right thing. It just doesn’t feel authentic to me, however if it get gay marriage legalised then this isn’t really the main issue…just hurry up Ms May!

    1. Let’s just go with it. We can be cynical at our leisure afterwards.

      1. Exactly.

        I don’t particularly care if they are trying to court my vote – as long as they give me equality.

        I might vote them next election. I might not. My decision will be based on a wide range of issues.

        I am extremely pleased to see equality moving a stage nearer though. Why they are doling it doesnt bother me all that much.

        1. Jock S. Trap 15 Mar 2012, 10:37am

          Here! Here! Max

      2. Jock S. Trap 15 Mar 2012, 10:36am

        Indeed. It seems some would prefer to do away with equality depending on which party gives it but lets not forget that the last Labour government were not in favour of marriage saying CP’s were adequate.

        Personally I don’t care who bring Equality in, if we want it know why bitch about whose doing it?

    2. A government that does whatever the majority of people want just to get votes is nonetheless still a government that does what the majority of people want, and that doesn’t sound like a bad thing to me. In fact, that’s surely how democracy works (or should!).

  8. ““Under our plans no church, mosque, temple, synagogue or other religious premises will be forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies. — in fact, they won’t be allowed to even if they want to. Religious marriage between a gay couple will remain illegal.” ”

    Civil marriage equality suits me as a secular atheist.

    Religious same sex couples will totally be able to have a civil marriage and then go get a religious blessing afterwards in a friendly church.

    It’s not quite the full marriage equality that Denmark is introducing in June but it is the pragmatic penultimate step on the way to full UK marriage equality.

    1. Its well thought out. Its pragmatic. Its speaking the right language.

      There is the option of a blessing after civil marriage for couples who wish to engage in this. Nothing prevents a religious gay couple having a civil marriage followed by a blessing (or vice versa).

      History is going to change for the better and make Britain a more equal and representative place to be

      1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 7:16am

        Sorry Stu, not good enough.
        It still compartmentalises us. There should never be a situation where straights take the door to the left, and LGBT to the right. I appreciate religious establishments should not be forced to accept us, but to actually make it illegal for them to do so is frankly, fcking outrageous.

    2. Prefer Lord Ali ‘s plan!

      Marriage equality means equal marriage rights.

      The church doesn’t have to do a marriage if it doesn’t want to already. So what’s new. Getting the govt to do make a law which explicity rules out religious marriage seems wrong to me. It’s inconsistent with religious CP sand we’ve already gone thru that whole process with them. Surely it can’t be rocket science to add opt outs to make everyone happy and legally airtight for all concerned. With the avoidance of doubt…that’s a good clause they can use in their wording!

      I understand where she’s coming from but it’s not right…

      1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 7:04am

        I agree that it is not down to the government to prevent any religious establishment from carrying out the service should they wish to.

        Equally, they should not be forced to accept it if they do not.

      2. Jock S. Trap 15 Mar 2012, 10:41am

        So prehaps we should wait til the churches finally agree then yeah?

        Surely anyone can see that stepping up equality is a good one. It stops religion butting in and continuously putting blocks up. Civil MArriage has nothing to do with religion and if this is the way to get it, so be it, I fully support.

        We could go for the all or nothing approach but ultimately where does that get us… nowhere thats where.

        Whereas if we do in stages thinking improve and all those who wish to choose civl marriage can do so.

        Your way excludes all. Hardly progressive equality. Ideal? maybe not but nevertheless it is progressive.

    3. At the moment isn’t their some stipulation that ONLY the Church of England is able to perform marriage ceremonies without a registrar being present anyway? What if a church or synagogue that is friendly towards us simply invites a Registrar into a non-consecrated side room, where the legal paperwork can be completed either before or after the main ceremony? Will that be permitted?

      1. There are a small number of individual ministers other than those from the Church of England or Church of Wales who are able to perform marriages recognised by the state – but predominantly it is Church of England and Church of Wales.

        Therefore, the difference between a Baptist same sex wedding and a Baptist heterosexual wedding (in most cases) is how the Baptist church perceive it. They would require either a registry office ceremony or registrar in any event – likewise Quakers, Liberal Jews, United Reformed, etc etc

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 15 Mar 2012, 12:07pm

      I believe the article mentions Lord Ali who intends to add an amendment allowing the Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal and Reformed Judaism to participate in same-sex marriages. Maybe i read it wrong.

  9. A very sensible and pragmatic lady – well done Teresa May.

  10. Paddyswurds 14 Mar 2012, 11:27pm

    .

    1. Lost your voice, Paddyswurds? ;-)

      1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 7:05am

        That’s the most intelligent thing he’s said all week.

        1. Paddyswurds 15 Mar 2012, 12:27pm

          @spanner….
          …like you’d know what was intelligent, you ignorant racist buffoon……….

      2. Paddyswurds 15 Mar 2012, 12:33pm

        @Bobby…
        ….no, I was using the ploy to force a comment I had made appear. I discovered that quite often ones comment won’t appear until you make another. BTW, does anyone have any idea what the reason for having to click on the little tics beside replies to expand them is all about. They are a total pain. Why don’t they just leave them all expanded all the time. It is a pain trying to find comments and any subsequent replies..grr.

  11. Conor McGahon 14 Mar 2012, 11:38pm

    It is a shame that this whole debate has been hijacked by church leaders who appear to believe they should still be able to dictate as opposed to guide. Thankfully the days when they could successfully control public opinion with fear and moral duress are over but the temptation to try, appears to linger.

    The air play and media exposure that opponents of this proposed consultation have received is astonishing. I am amazed that prosecutions for Incitement, on a large scale have not been considered or even suggested.

    Theresa May, considering her brief at the Cabinet table has shown a huge degree of courage in speaking so directly to the detractors of this proposal and the scaremongering that has reached hysteria level todate.

    I applaud her.

    Perhaps other politicians from across the spectrum will follow her mark and show some leadership in diffusing the wanton paranoia that is being peddled.

    1. Was it just me or when Theresa May said “I am worried that at times that debate is in danger of spilling over into hyperbole, with many myths prevailing on both sides.”; was that her using er “diplomatic” language to say to the likes of the Archbishops “You’ve been telling lies and I’m not standing for it!”?

      1. Conor MCGahon 15 Mar 2012, 11:18am

        Astutely put and I agree with you Stu. We are watching quite an interesting development in the evolution of Equality law and gay rights in particular I think. If this legislation is passed undiluted, then the UK will be at the forefront of some of the most progressive Equality Laws in the world. A techtonic shift is perhaps emerging when senior politicians such a Theresa May are putting that intention into words with this kind of guided statement.

  12. An equally strong interview in The Independent with Lynne Featherstone:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lynne-featherstone-church-leaders-are-fanning-the-flames-of-homophobia-7570363.html

    “Ms Featherstone made clear that her mind is already made up, giving a “cast-iron guarantee” that civil gay marriage would become law by the next general election in 2015. “There is no rolling back whatsoever,” she said. “The essential question is not whether we are going to introduce same-sex civil marriage but how.”

    “I totally respect all of the religious views and understand they are strong and genuinely felt. But to use such inflammatory language does not help the debate and does not help their cause.”

    “She dismissed a claim by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, that the Government could not change the law on marriage without the backing of the Church of England’s General Synod: “My understanding is that Parliament can legislate to do what it wishes.”

    1. “But she insisted the “genuine ask” in the gay community was to stop marriage being an “unattainable standard” from which they were excluded – such as making their public vows.

      “It is about recognising that love is equal whatever your gender, about two people declaring their love for each other and saying ’till death us do part’,” she said. “All politicians say they want to make the world a better place. I think this will do so.””

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 1:45am

        Call me an old cynic.

        Knowing this politicians history from the Thatcher government.

        I am on the “wait and see” side of the equation.

        1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 7:06am

          You’re an old cynic.
          Join the club.

  13. I hope we don’t have to wait until 2015 though for marriage equality!

    I don’t think I could bear the hate speeches from the so called “chistians” for another 3 years….

  14. chris lowercase 15 Mar 2012, 12:37am

    yes i guess i feel a bit sorry for all those times i said she looked like dr evil.

    well said tess!

  15. Yes, it’s very good news that Marriage Equality will go ahead whether the churches like it or not.

    However, I wish that Theresa May would show similar backbone by refusing unjustified extraditions to the USA, e.g. that of Richard O’Dwyer whom the UK authorities have chosen not to prosecute.

    At this rate it won’t be long before she happily agrees to extradite a UK Pink News commenter to St. Petersburg or Iran because they don’t like what’s been written !

  16. so churches who want to perform wont be able to do them?

    NOT GOOD ENOUGH

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 15 Mar 2012, 9:22am

      Small steps …. I’m sure progress will continue

      1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 12:39pm

        Bugger steps. Either do it right or don’t do it at all.

        1. Since the law makes little difference to most denominations (ie they still require a registry office wedding or are not prepared to marry same sex couples anyway) then I would rather a law was proposed that parliament is likely to support rather than risk one which makes little difference.

      2. steps are what got us saddled with civil partnership for years when we shoulda had marriage.

        1. You are getting marriage though. Civil marriage.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 15 Mar 2012, 12:10pm

      If you read the article, I believer Lord Ali is proposing an amendment to allow Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal and Reformed Judaism to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies. Apparently many in government agree.

  17. Great progress but a bitter sweet victory at most because denominations that wish to solemnize same-sex marriages would be still be prohibited. This is kind of a half-equality, an incremental gain, much like civil partnerships were in 2005. We should celebrate every victory, but it still sucks being a second-class citizen.

  18. Great News . . . Well done Teresa May for ignoring religous hysteria on the issue !!!

  19. Only the Full Monty will do, Mrs Dismay! I don’t care what your religion is. I’m sorry but you are one person who cannot err anymore on this issue. Your record on gay rights is totally dismal and if you want to redeem yourself you need to work harder, much much harder. We don’t need anymore apartheids, especially coming from your nasty party. No need for useless and delayed consultations and other political cards. No need to drag the issue to 2015. A religious apartheid is not acceptable. You say there are sides on this issue. What side are you on? It appears to be both at the moment. Are you really dismissing our arguments as hyperboles and myths? Is that the best you can do to redeem yourself? I can understand that for a homophobe to make progress is hard work, but it would help if you stopped listening to other homophobes, and instead start condemning and naming them, particularly those in your own backyard. That’s your job.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 1:57am

      I agree entirely, however punctuation and presentation of a good rant is best.

      All I see is a jumble of words.

      1. Its a forum post not a PhD study

    2. James Incer 15 Mar 2012, 2:18am

      What is wrong with you people? Just rejoice!

      1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 7:13am

        Because half a loaf is better than none at all?

    3. Didn’t you say that Conservatives would never introduce proposals to introduce any form of same sex marriage, Beberts

      Didn’t you say Theresa May did not support gay rights?

      How wrong you were and are

      1. St, you are right and also, I think the government is legislating marriage equality in a pragmatic sense, which always provails and helps to change people’s perceptions on LGBT people. Full marks to Mrs May here!

      2. Sister Mary Clarence 15 Mar 2012, 9:46am

        Stu, I recall very much the same thing from Beberts around the time of the last election. He foretold of all sorts of terribleness as I remember, but same sex marriage wasn’t included as I recall.

        1. Sister, may I remind you are not out of the woods yet….

      3. Politicians and political parties propose/promise things all the time. How many things do they manage to implement? that’s a different story. We know there are many Tories actively campagning to block legislation …. and IF these current “proposals” somehow come to fruition, we’ll live under a different form of apartheid. The party who gave us section 28 is now proposing an apartheid.

        1. No, Beberts

          The party that gave us apartheid was Labour

          1. The leaders of the ConDemned coalition of Tories and LibDems are clearly proposing an apartheid. One cannot deny this. What makes a person condemn one apartheid but praise another? That’s a fundamental question to answer.

          2. I think equal civil marriage is a better standard than a half way house which is perceived as lower in value than marriage. Thats what Labour did with regards the marriage status question for LGBT people. This achieves equal civil marriage. You resent that of course (but purely on a biased party political perspective).

          3. Where are your condemnations for the appalling nature of this proposed apartheid Stu? The ConDemned coalition is proposing a ban on religious marriages for gay couples. You’re keeping very quiet and (perhaps conveniently) ignoring this important issue. Such posturing is bound to backfire and hurt your narrative … Have you been indoctrinated or is it just pure unadulterated hypocrisy? In any case, it is rich coming from someone who frequently accuses others of party political bias.

          4. I have clearly said it is not perfect but ensures equal civil marriage (something labour never even proposed let alone introduce!) It was labour who brought in the apartheid different standard of relationship recognition where CPs were the sub standard set for LGBT people.
            You are remarkably quiet about that., Beberts. Where is your condemnation of the Labour apartheid? Your posturing and political narrative always backfires on you. Your political posturing and indoctrination is blatantly obvious.
            I have no political allegiance to any party. I stand up for the good things labour did. I support the coalition in the good things they do. I speak out against the wrongs on both sides. You are blind in your support of labour and your perception of Conservatives of some circa 1980 (32 years agoi). You’re out of date, out of touch – someone should clear you from your shelf – you’re past your best before date!

          5. You? Neutral? You can only fool yourself darling… your behaviour shows the real bias behind the mask. So far you’ve been orbiting Toryland. You’re still refusing to use the word apartheid referring to their new proposals, avoiding the subject like the plague.

    4. Yep u r right, she is proposing controlled equality, some people on here think that it is not a problem

    5. Jock S. Trap 18 Mar 2012, 10:26am

      Only an idiot would bash and slate progress.

  20. This is a good thing. Marriage does not and should not belong to the church. Civil marriage /=/ holy matrimony. I can’t wait until the US follows suit.

    1. Except that in the UK we have both civil and religious marriages and if both are ok for straights then why not for gays? I thought we were fighting for full marriage equality.

      If this is a first step to that then ok but until we’re allowed legally to have the same marriage rights as straights then we can’t really call it marriage equality in the UK. We can’t force a church to accept us but we shouldn’t put artificial legal barriers in front of churces we do accept us.

      1. Because the Bible is against homosexuality, and you can’t force somebody to go against their holy book (I’m talking about the New Testament)

        1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 7:07am

          Who is forcing anybody?
          That was never an option.

        2. bible is against many things and has been used to by the churches and religious to justify their worst kind of abuses against humanity

      2. If a church wants to let you get married there though that is very much fine

        1. Paddyswurds 15 Mar 2012, 8:44pm

          @..
          …not once civil marriage equality is signed into law. It will then be illegal for churches and such yto perform marriages for gay couples. Read the story, ffs!

  21. In almost the same breath she says, “Under our plans no church, mosque, temple, synagogue or other religious premises will be forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies. — in fact, they won’t be allowed to even if they want to. Religious marriage between a gay couple will remain illegal.” and then “the Church can only decide who marries within its own premises and who utilise its services”.

    Unless they are Quaker, Unitarian, MCC or Reformed or Liberal Judaism who will continue to have no right to decide who marries within their own premises and who utilises their services.

    In one breath she brags about how churches get to decide who and how they marry and in the very next she emphatically states that churches can’t marry gays even if they want to.

    1. I suspect we need to watch this space with this one….I’m hoping that if Lord Ali , or someone else, eventually puts in a further amendment to allow Quakers etc to do religious marriages then after all the fuss has settled about “gay” marriages then it will just go thru…It’s bound to I suspect…

    2. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 7:11am

      I agree, this is totally wrong. They have kind of slipped this under the radar to try and stifle any religious tantrums by actually making religious same-sex marriage illegal, so any subsequent government would have to actually overturn the bill in order to allow it, which would cause yet more bleats and squeals from the Bible Bashers.

      In what is considered a free society I find this totally unacceptable. Nobody should force religions to marry us, but nobody should prevent them doing so either.

      1. How can providing civil marriage equality be TOTALLY wrong?

        I do agree I would prefer those religious organisations who wish to engage in marriage to be able to do so. However, those religious organisations which do wish to do so do not currently have rights toregister marriages of heterosexual couples and require a registrar or registry office ceremony in addition to fulfil legal registration.

        Whilst I would prefer a minor amendment to what it appears proposals are (although lets wait till the consultation is ACTUALLY published before presuming everything – I know what May says in her article, but the article is short and I presume the consultation document is much longer!, before reaching a full conclusion); I do think what I understand is being proposed is very pragmatic.

        1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 9:17am

          Yeah, Stu, it was you and your kind that leapt up and down whooping when they brought in Civil Partnerships in the first place by telling the rest of us to accept our lot and be happy with the crumbs that they throw at us.

          Sorry, but this is STILL another fudge and a compromise!
          Either they do it properly or not at all.

          1. @Spanner

            No you are wrong when CPs came in I said that we should be seeking civil marriage equality.

            So, whatever me and my type might be … you are wrong with my stance on CPs.

            What difference does it make. The CofE are just about the only church entitled to conduct a marriage without need for a registrar or separate registry office ceremony. The CofE refuse to conduct same sex marriages. So even if you permit the Quakers, Unitarians, Methodists, Baptists or whoever to conduct a same sex wedding – it will not be a formal civil marriage because they are not legally permitted to register them.

        2. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 9:19am

          Whilst I applaud this I still think an apartheid is being created by preventing religious marriage to those religions that do not have an issue with same sex marriage.

          It still encompasses a sense of otherness. Difference. Not like us.

          1. I think it’s an expedient compromise to stop the Catholics and C of E Archbishops screaming blue murder.
            Whilst I think it fudges the issue and panders to the vocal bigots at the expense of progressive denominations I’m hoping this is just a temporary glitch.
            I’m trying to look on the bright side of this one… could be better, but could be worse.

          2. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 1:08pm

            @flapjack: I totally agree, which is the self-same reason why the last government brought in CP’s in the first place. They have actually made it ILLEGAL which I find obstructive in the extreme, and it is obvious it has only been put there in order to placate the Bible Bashers.

  22. smell my bum off

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 9:11am

      Have a wash then you stinking cretin.

    2. Find some one else to change your nappy!!!

  23. Peter & Michael 15 Mar 2012, 6:32am

    We have been together 32 years this year, nearly 7 years in a Civil Partnership, we personally know other Gay couples whom have been in longer relationships than ours. What this act of Same-Sex Marriage does, is put our relationship on par with the majority hetrosexual community. We only wish for a Civil Marriage, although many would opt for a Same-Sex church wedding, the church must realise that love is the bedrock of Marriage between two consenting adults, the church in our opinion has lost their credibility on this issue and the pews are emptying more quickly these days, the church should be made to pay their taxes, just like the rest of us, as the church in the Vatican has been made to do.

  24. She’s certainly changed since she appeared on Question Time in 2001 and staunchley defended Lady Young when she was galvanising fellow peers to vot against the repeal of Section 28. As I remember she was totally against gay adopts too.

    1. So she’s changed her mind – fantastic!

    2. A huge number of people in this country and others have also changed their mind since 2001. The momentum is building for marriage equality across the entire developed world (barring Italy of course :-/). Good on Theresa May for realising her mistake and being brave enough to very publicly show that her opinion has changed.

  25. A fair few people saying ‘not enough’ as religious marriage is still illegal for us. I think their approach is quite intelligent: jumping in the deep end with completely full marriage equality brought a lot of vile creatures into the sunlight where they have kicked up a fuss to stop gay marriage completely. Throwing them a bone such as ONLY doing civil marriage will shut them up for long enough to get this law passed without too much resistance. Give it a year or two to show the world hasn’t ended and their repetitive rhetoric will seem even more ridiculous than it is now, and religious establishments can come into the fold.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 9:14am

      Personally I would not want a religious element to my marriage, however I fail to see why others who wish it should be prevented via those religions that wish to offer it.

      Indeed. As I see it. Preventing those religions who wish to offer such a service are being denied their “freedom of religion”, therefore this “half measure” although welcome, will ultimately fail in the euro courts.

    2. de Villiers 15 Mar 2012, 7:46pm

      Many on this board have said that thy want civil marriage and not religious marriage. Here it is.

      1. Exactly.

        Its also not preventing those churches who already have to seek support from a registrar in a separate registry office ceremony (because their ministers can not register a marriage) from conducting the same ceremony for a same sex couple that they would for an opposite sex couple. Nor does it stop those churches that wish to from engaging in a blessing (or matrimony ceremony) that can also be dealt with as a civil marriage in a separate ceremony.

        Its not perfect but its a hell of a step towards complete equality.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 9:08am

      And this freedom of speech he parps on about will be his so called “right” to call us derogatory names no doubt.

      Sorry mate.

      That day has gone.

      Call me something offensive and I will see you in court.

      1. Death threat to him? Why would anyone bother with such an insignificant individual such as him? The christian cultist plays the victim card again for all it’s worth. The little soldier for the christ cult struts and swells his tiny chest, all hail the defender of the faith. What a repulsive creature?

        1. I suspect he took the death threat so seriously that he has not bothered to report it to the police. Certainly there is no media information to suggest an active police investigation.

    2. Makes me laugh, never been invited to a civil or religious wedding? That’s because it is only now that people are being told of the difference!

      He wants to be careful, where is MP, there is Middlesex University which has two campuses in the borough. THey will remember this come election time!

  26. This move is about bringing in full marriage equality in a pragmatioc sense to stop the religious loonatics thinking it’s attacking them and their beliefs when they are absoltuely entitled to think what they like about same sex marriage. However, they have no right to determine my life. Thank you Mrs May.

    1. Gay marriage is part of the coalition agreement. Lynne Featherstone, Equalities Minister, has worked tirelessly to make sure this happens. With the strong support of the Home Secretary this has taken a giant leap forward. I wish Lord Ali well in his amendment but, if the legislation goes through without allowing those faiths who wish to conduct marriages to do so, I am sure this can be put right later. Also, thanks to the Times for its positive support.

  27. Jock S. Trap 15 Mar 2012, 8:53am

    Well done Theresa May!!

    It’s about time some one stood up to the Churches and their dictator attitude and put Them right. Remind them that Civil Marriage has nothing to do with the Church and they should keep their discriminating conks out of it.

    The good thing, of course, is that not everyone in the Church agrees with the Catholic position and wish to perform and support marriage equality. They will be the ones who will in the end make the difference.

    Either that or the Church will become more and more irrelevent and why should the state pay for that when clearly it needs to be a private members club whose member are the only ones who should be paying.

  28. jim about 10 hours ago
    “Should four people who care deeply for each other, who love each other and who want to spend the rest of their lives together be allowed to marry? Why are the cowards not answering this question?”

    I don’t personally see a problem with polygamy and I would vote for it to be allowed. I myself love one person but there are those that love a few or a couple and who are we to say they do not? Love is not a requirement for marriage anyway, just mutual adult consent. Full marriage equality should include all those legal adult consensaul groups which are currently barred. This means the LGBT community and those with multiple partners.
    The LGBT community have long argued that what consenting adults do in private is their own business if it harms nobody, so I agree, why should they be discriminated against and barred from marriage?

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 9:10am

      Indeed.

      When the Christian churches warble on about “traditional marriage”, they fail to mention that biblically polygamy is the default.

      More cherry picking from the Christians.

      1. Tank Girl. 15 Mar 2012, 9:24am

        Are yuo saying yo are in favour of polygamy?

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 11:02am

          No.

          I am pointing out that it is the Christian bibles default position despite the bishops stating that the nuclear family is the traditional default which is patently a lie.

          1. “I am pointing out that it is the Christian bibles default position despite the bishops stating that the nuclear family is the traditional default which is patently a lie.
            Why do you opposes polygamy?”

            Why are you against polygamy? Surely our equal marriage rights should extend to all consenting adults. What is it about harmless consenting multiple adults that should bar them from marriage in your opinion?

          2. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 1:17pm

            Did I say I opposed it. No I did not.

    2. don’t tag that onto gay marriage it has nothing to do with it you sneaky person. I know your type you probably want to try and justiy some other unsavory behaviour

    3. Jock S. Trap 15 Mar 2012, 10:53am

      Trouble is desperate people will continuously try to put spanners in spokes with irrelevence arguements.

      This isn’t about polygamy. This isn’t about people marrying their sister, brother or horse. These are just sick people who will stop at nothing to divert attention to them and away from what the real issue is…. TWO people loving each other and wanting to commit into a stable loving relationship.marriage.

      Why do reliigious extremists and fruitloops have such a problem with a strong, commited, Stable society? It’s them that are sick to refuse to accept a better society. They clearly prefer the hate that goes on in the world.

    4. There is a difference between sexuality and sexual activity. What we argue here is the discrimination of sexuality not sexual activity (as in you dont need marriage to have sex). Other forms of marriage like poly or incest would not discriminate ones sexuality, so they cannot be argued using gay marriage arguments.

      1. typo ‘Ban on’ Other forms of marriage..

  29. While I welcome her comments, the fact that it will still be illegal for a religious marriage for those who want it is still not full equality or am I missing something here?

    I am not religious, but I have many gay friends who are and who would love to be able to have a religious marriage were it possible.

    1. I want to be paitent but i can’t anymore.

      TOUGH

      The church does not want you get over it. The mosques won’t have you either and I can’t see muslims demanding weddings

      1. Just as well, I don’t want the church either, full of self righteous freaks who live in cloud cuckoo land!

      2. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 11:00am

        We are not asking for the Churches.

        They can rot in their own ignorance as far as I am concerned.

        The day that every church is a Costa Coffee or Tesco Express cannot come to soon.

        1. Or a Little Waitrose would be even better ;-)

    1. Its propaganda. Issues of “conscience” as this matter will be regarded ALWAYS have a free vote. For the Mail to suggest that this is a special case by having a free vote is disingenuous and allying itself with the anti-gay Institute (strrange that ….!)

  30. It is not surprising that this is possibly the age of the anti-Christ, where the church itself is its own worst enemy. Any system which refuses to adapt to actual and discovered reality will fall as society become more knowledgeable and intouch with their intelligence. Good ridence to any belifes in illusions, lies and religion itself. This is the only beginning of people giving no credit to religious instutions – ignoring them.

    1. Every Age has been the Age of the Anti-Christ. Ever since someone dreamed up the concept of the Anti-Christ.

      The world is going to keep turning whatever human being do. This is not the End Times, whatever the Evangelists would try and have you believe.

      1. Dave North 15 Mar 2012, 1:15pm

        “This is not the End Times, whatever the Evangelists would try and have you believe.”

        You must remember that this is what they desire. As their messiah will appear at that time. So they stupidly think.

  31. It’s started, people! Get answering! OH, and no: the church was lying again – there is NOT mention of “if” just “how”

    https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/v.asp?i=48356xhlqw

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 10:58am

      Done.

    2. Jock S. Trap 15 Mar 2012, 11:02am

      Have done and completed!!!

      Equal Marriage here we come… WooHoo!!

    3. Peter & Michael 15 Mar 2012, 11:27am

      Many Thanks !! MacSasha have done !

    4. Completed and submitted

      Copy of link sent to various people (and surprisingly even my parents have agreed to complete the survey to voice agreement with equality and fairness!)

  32. Too right

  33. Controlled equality by Conservatives garnished with attack on religious freedom to preform gay marriages.

  34. With one breath she says that its important to stamp out discrimination where-ever its found, and then with another says that religious marriage will remain as only open to a man and a woman.
    That line “People of faith have nothing to fear from our proposals” further cements this inaccurate idea that there is ‘them’ (religious people) and ‘us’ (gay people). What about gay religious people who want to get married in their place of worship and their place of worship wants this also?
    Places of worship should have the right to opt into providing same sex marriage. THATS what this whole fight is about and anything other (like this proposal) is just some half way house that just isnt good enough!

    1. Her statement can most likely be interpreted as referring to GAYS versus RELIGION, but it can also be interpreted as referring to PRO or AGAINST the issue. Either interpretation places her in the shoes of a double faced twwat. After all the bigotry she inflicted on us in the past, this is an opportunity for her to get things right. But not everything is lost, her half way offer just confirms she can now be perceived as half a bigot…

      1. @Beberts

        So you only see her as half evil then?

        Sheesh you are indoctrinated aren’t ya, Beberts!

    2. de Villiers 15 Mar 2012, 7:48pm

      She is proposing civil marriage. The state should treat us equally. Private religions can do as they wish – behind their own closed doors.

  35. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 11:09am

    I found this comment in “thisislondon.co.uk” rather telling as to how civil partnerships are perceived.

    “what is needed before this law is brought in is some statistics on the rleative length and stability of homosexual marriage v heterosexual. Matt Luca stayed ‘married’ for juts a few month befor ehis mate went off cruising again so how complicated will proper marriages make it compared to a simple civil ceremony which can be dissolved at a moments’ notice when one of the pair of gays or lesbians wants to go cruising again?

    Note the “Proper Marriages” comment.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/politics/no-rolling-back-on-gay-marriage-7573059.html

    1. Just from your brief description, I can see that the commentary is dripping with the usual stereotypes about our sexuality, and imagined sex lives . . .

  36. Keith is just going to cr@p himself at this.

    At least he can busy himself playing with it given his anal obsessions.

  37. To which floodgates are you refering?

    Marriage was always a civil matter until it was highjacked by the churches in the middle ages. There is also evidence of same sex unions in ancient Egypt.

    If you are so opposed to gay marriage and lifestyle, why are you constanly posting on a gay news website? Or are you so uneasy in your own life that you have nothing better to do?

    1. “As the homosexualite community constantly reminds us, what business is it of others what goes on in he bedroom of consenting adults?”

      No, as the community on here have to remind YOU due to your total fixation on sexual activities. Equal marriage is not just about what goes on in peoples bedrooms. Numerous studies, research and experience shows that 2 people can form a healthy relationship whether they be same or opposite sex. I know of no such evidence to prove the same of polygamous/incestusous relationships. however, if this evidence exists then let it be presented so that society can view it and make it’s own conclusions rather than this idiotic argument to try and be clever by going well if one gets it, they all get it

      1. You call me a bigot yet I have never stated whether I am for or against that which you accuse me of bigotry towards. As I have said, if the polygamist/incestuous communities wish to be considered for equal marriage then let them present their case and I will make an informed decision.

        And speaking of informed. Can you explain how this makes sense

        “There is also evidence that HIV is disproprtionate in the homosexualite community. Marriage wold perpetuate this problem.”

        Surely if any individual who does happen to be HIV positive makes a commitment to be faithful to another individual then that woudl prevent the problem from spreading, rather than encouraging it no?

  38. Troll!

  39. Your comment stinks. You should try to not talk out of your ass.

    1. Gay marriage is about providing equality with regards to sexuality, poly or incest marriages go beyond whats equal, they request special status so not introducing them wouldn’t constitute discrimination

      1. Gay marriages are for homosexuals not for genders you idiot

      2. they are for two gay men or two gay woman, i don’t think that two heterosexual men or women will take opportunity to have same sex marriage you idiot

      3. So where is the stinky idiot now, I thought he wanted to “debate”

      4. Dr Robin Guthrie 15 Mar 2012, 2:18pm

        “So where is the stinky idiot now, I thought he wanted to “debate””

        Rolling around in his own faeces no doubt.

  40. Anthony Wright 15 Mar 2012, 12:22pm

    It’s just about the definition of the word. There may be nothing wrong with increased tolerance of whatever sexual partnerships people want to have, but it doesn’t seem too much to ask in return that one should be able to keep the meaning of a word.I think that millions of people who have nothing against tolerance are feeling put-upon because of that. “Gay” had a different meaning once as well. However it doesn’t matter anything like as much as being vulnerable to being carted off to America without a prima facie case against you, which our government also supports. The words do not come so easily for how I feel about that.

    1. Spanner1960 15 Mar 2012, 12:43pm

      it is precisely that very meaning of the word that most of us find so offensive.
      It segregates and splits groups of people. One would not expect to see “blacks only” or “whites only” signs, and likewise we feel the same way about this. Marriage should be a fundamental right of all people. As to where and how it is performed is irrelevant.

    2. People who’re generally tolerant really should have more to worry about than the shifting meaning of words. Leave aside the fact that it’s hardly a major alteration to define marriage as to being between two people, the words ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ have taken on new meanings, and the word ‘presently’ completely reversed meaning, all within the last 50 years. Most people seem to cope well enough.

  41. You have lost. F OFF loser.

    1. Yeah but you do live in an imaginary world

  42. Use a spell checker you drooling vegetable.

    1. He can’t even make a convincing arguement, how on earth can you expect the imbecile to spell correctly?

  43. Gay marriage is about providing equality with regards to sexuality, poly or incest marriages go beyond whats equal, they request special status so not introducing them wouldn’t constitute discrimination

  44. There is a difference between sexuality and sexual activity. What we argue here is the discrimination of sexuality not sexual activity (as in you dont need marriage to have sex). Ban on other forms of marriage like poly or incest would not discriminate ones sexuality, so they cannot be argued using gay marriage arguments. fans of poly or incest should introduce their own arguments

  45. Paddyswurds 15 Mar 2012, 12:51pm

    @…
    …I can’t for the life of me work out why she had to make it illegal to marry in an Abrahamic cults establishment at the same time as giving marriage equality. Is it so the state reaps all the monetary rewards exclusively or what. why not just leave it up to these cults as to whether or not they perform a marriage for a gay couple. Is it a back hand swipe at the religious, being that if they have been so anti, well now suck it up sort of thing, we wont let you reap some of the financial rewards when the droves of gay peeps line up to be married… Umm On seconds thoughts….. Who would want to be married by such ignorant evil homophobic and paedo dinosaurs in frocks and pointy hats. Any marriage performed by such evil would be doomed from the off…..

  46. As a 47 yr old hetrosexual woman I can only hope this goes ahead. Its shameful that gay people are discriminated against in this way. The church should stick to what they know best, controlling those who want to be controlled. Good luck everyone.

    1. Thanks Andrea!

    2. soapbubblequeen 15 Mar 2012, 5:20pm

      Thanks for your support Andrea.x

  47. More pseudo arguments from pseudo intellectual

    Same sex marriages are for the people of homosexual orientation and not for the people of heterosexual orientation as heterosexuals already have mixed sex marriages you moron, its about equality of sexual orientations not about equality of genders, but since your thick scull cant process simple facts, I’m not expecting to make any progress with you.

    Incest and poly marriages are about special status not equality

  48. Of course same sex marriage is designed for homosexuals, non homosexuals are not discriminated by its exclusivity, because;
    a)non homosexuals don’t want to have a same sex marriage
    b) non homosexuals have a choice of non homosexual marriage

    And can you do some work on coherency of you insults, at the moment they are random and irrelevant, thus heavily missing the target

  49. ‘You are currently legally allowed to marry someone of the sme sexual orientation, as long as they are not the same gender.’

    You just perfectly captured whats wrong with Status Que

  50. soapbubblequeen 15 Mar 2012, 5:19pm

    I didn’t vote Tory in the last election but Labour, predominantly because I always believed that the Tories were the party of unemployment. But I say good for her, and for David Cameron, for their support. I think we need to move on from remembering the bad old Tory party of the 1980s. Times have indeed changed, although I still think a lot of work needs to be done to address homophobic, and other kinds of bullying, in schools.

  51. Has our least favourite troll and stalker been deleted by PN again – fantastic – keep up the good work!

  52. The church think they own the term ‘marriage’, they don’t. It predates religion. The more the church protests about it the more they are seen as bigoted, insular and controlling. What I do with my life is NONE of their business.

  53. Justice will prevail … :o))))

  54. PLEASE VOTE HERE TOO:

    Within the midst of an offensive report in the Telegraph there is a poll being run on marriage (please vote and demonstrate the strength of feeling!).

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9147559/Gay-couples-are-just-lifelong-friends-says-Catholic-leader.html?

    Within the article, the RC church are at it again and saying gay relationships are merely friendships. Devalue, dehumanise, substandard treatment – the usual rhetoric of the Archbishops.

    PLEASE VOTE IN THEIR POLL FOR EQUAL MARRIAGE!

  55. I’m not sure how Gay Religious people would feel about this? I cant help but feel that strict religious opinions will be claiming that the church and its beliefs are being discriminated against by allowing gay marriage. Homosexuality to me is not a choice, I not sure about religion, I would say it is a choice. I’m sure those homosexuals who choose to follow religion, want to to have a religious marriage but are denied the religious marriage service will be pissed. Any one care to clear this up for me?

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