Reader comments · Kent MP: If gays marry, will Shakespeare be in danger? · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Kent MP: If gays marry, will Shakespeare be in danger?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2012, 11:05am

    A bit desperate don’t you think.

    What a ridiculous argument and way to make there argument even more irrelevant.

    1. I think hes got a point. It makes so much sense im amazed we never thought of this.

      Ok ill start editing every tv program and movie for re-release and you start on music and literature.

      This could take a while, someone put the kettle on.

  2. Oh bugger off you ignorant cock!

    1. I agree! And Shakespeare couldn’t have said it better himself!

      1. Hmm, I’m sure Shakespeare could have said it better – being Shakespeare & all – *&* he would have a few words for this hypocrite’s DIVORCES! Bet this anal orifice didn’t even think of how greatly society had to change to accommodate HIS FOUL-UP – oops, foul-upS, PLURAL!!

    2. ‘Cock’ might be a little too complimentary in this instance …

    3. Kettle and pot come to mind here following this comment. Surely a more intelligent response is called for when Shakespeare’s works are involved. Me thinks!.

  3. Ignorant comment by a dribbling simpleton.

  4. This man is obviously nuts. He shouldn’t be allowed to be an MP.

    1. It does rather beg the question what kind of an idiot votes for a person like this

      1. The people of North Thanet!

        1. Not all of them though… I hope

          1. No but enough to keep him as an MP for almost 30 years!

      2. In North Thanet, as in a lot of rural English constituencies, the voters would elect a donkey if you put a blue rosette on it.

        1. Clearly they have kept that donkey here for 30 years

        2. much as urban England would vote for a Labour donkey. At least the rural voters are at least likely to know what a donkey is.

          1. So are you saying Sir Roger Gale could count on your vote then Ian – if you were in his constituency?

            I live in a rural area which has been plagued by an ineffective, Tory, homophobic, |\|ob jockey for decades. I don’t vote for him but apparently my fellow constituents are for the most part serially stupid. It’s odd really because they all seem so nice.

          2. At least the rural voters are at least likely to know what a donkey is.

            So much so that they’d vote one into office? Not much of a recommendation really, is it?

          3. As opposed to an Ass?

  5. I really wish someone would put all these lunatics in a rocket and launch them into the sun. We can’t get married because it will damage society; we can’t get married because children will suffer; we can’t get married because we will have to change every single bit of literature to keep the PC brigade happy.

    If I remember my history correctly, women could not act in Shakespeare’s time so men played the female roles…is that not a bit gay?

    1. Yes, all the love scenes in Shakespeare were in fact acted by two men.

      It got complex when the characters cross-dressed too. A man playing a woman playing a man.

      In Opera, woman often play male roles, so you get love scenes between two women.

      But this former DJ is a total nutter and has come up with the wildest slippery slope argument yet. Apart from that he has already deleted the “for life” bit from the supposed definition by getting divorced.

      He also undermines his own church wedding fear-mongering by pointing out he can’t get remarried in church. So allowing divorce did not lead to that happening, did it?

      I also can’t help wondering if the ” other Equalities ” he’s referring to in children’s literature is the anachronistic racism. Poor guy, he seems to be dreaming of a lost golden age when people knew their place.

    2. theotherone 23 Mar 2012, 2:09pm

      and ‘the bard’ was bisexual…

    3. From my understanding, this is where the term “drag” comes from, the marquees posted at plays would say the actors name “DRessed As Girl” (aka drag)

  6. ‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
    Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
    What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
    Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
    Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
    What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet;
    So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
    Retain that dear perfection which he owes
    Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
    And for that name which is no part of thee
    Take all myself.
    Obviously the ‘lady doth protest too much’ and has never actually read any Shakespeare.
    A husband is husband a wife is a wife no matter if it is gay or straight. Love is all.

    1. ? how can my husband be my wife? or my wife my husband? or am I missing your point?

      1. a male spouse is a husband.
        a female spouse is a wife.

        what is complicated?

        my legally married spouse is my husband.
        and I, in return, am his husband.

      2. or am I missing your point?

        Yes, I think you are.

  7. “…and it is not a term or a status that I wish to see hijacked in the false name of “equality”.”
    Yes, that’s because he doesn’t believe in equality for gay people, it’s pretty obvious.

  8. What a prat. Was Othello re-written when they abolished slavery?

    1. (Yes, but Othello wasn’t a slave.)

      1. No, but following Gale’s silly logic, we would have to rewrite the play with race-neutral language.

    2. Othello was a black military leader married to a white woman ( played by a man).

      1. Ben foster 23 Mar 2012, 2:17pm

        A white man until the second half of thje 20th century.

  9. He helpfully sabotaged his own (non-)argument by pointing out that faiths already refuse to conduct weddings for divorcees and no-one is taking them to court.

    And in just the same way, when same-sex religious weddings are permitted (whether than is in 2015 or 2025), no-one will be suing faiths that refuse to conduct them.

    Faiths can control their own rites. But they can’t control people’s civil rights.

    Not that hard to understand – but this fellow apparently can’t distinguish between Shakespeare and a government form, so his confusion is unsurprising.

    1. atalanta: “He helpfully sabotaged his own (non-)argument by pointing out that faiths already refuse to conduct weddings for divorcees and no-one is taking them to court”

      Indeed, but he’s too stupid to realise that. Just like the half-wits who think that equal marriage will suddenly mean we’ll have incestuous marriage yet haven’t the brain to realise that a man being able to marry a woman hasn’t meant he suddenly wants to marry his sister.

      As for the husband and wife thing, I can’t see the problem really. A ‘wife’ is female spouse, a husband a male one. Neither word depends on the gender of the person whose wife or husband it is.

  10. how can these people go on and on about marriage , when they are divorced, THREE TIMES. What a tosser

    1. Mary Marriott 23 Mar 2012, 2:19pm

      Gale obviously does NOT believe in or u hold marriage to one person for life.

      SO he doesnt support traditional marriage.

  11. Note to Sir Roger Gale; get a life you sad pedantic old fool.

  12. This is so ridiculous it seems at first like a wind-up.

    Does he not think his ability to marry more than once hasn’t resulted in Shakespeare needing to be rewritten, so why should equal marriage?


  13. Does he not know that The sonnets, some historians say, may have been written to Shakespeare’s lover Mr W H ?

  14. What is the LGBTory group saying about this? I can hear the sound of crickets …

    1. Keith Farrell 23 Mar 2012, 12:24pm

      what do you mean, do we need to go for the balls. hehehe

      1. Do not release and press them as hardly as we can …

  15. Julian:
    O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
    Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
    Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
    And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

    [Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

    ‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy:
    Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

    1. Hmmm. This is getting good!

  16. The homophobes are truly clutching at straws now! Can see this type of story in the Daily Mail.

    1. Rudehamster 26 Mar 2012, 11:15pm

      Oh you can…often. You don’t even have to buy the Mail to be outraged nowadays, you can look on their website as well.

  17. The only think I am amazed at is how voted this obviously stupid person to a position of representation?

    A man who marries another man can still call themselves husband, and the same for same sex female couples referring to each other was wife – where’s the change? And when slavery was abolished, did we rewrite Uncle Toms’ Cabin, or Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address?

    What an idiot.

    1. The desperation of these idiots is so gratifying. Don’t they realise just how utterly pathetic they sound and how transparent their bigotry and homophobia. One is particularly amazed by the homophobia of these Ivy league types as most of them were gays as the flowers in May when they were at Uni…..

      1. Yep, I totally agree. More like this degenerate, the more moderate sane people see them or the bumbling fools they are.

  18. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2012, 11:47am

    What a bloody hypocrite, 3 times married of all things. This goes to show the lengths to which these desperate religious conservatives are prepared to go. Does he have any factual evidence to support his ridiculous claims? Fodder for the Daily Mail and Telegraph for sure. He’s an embarrassment to himself and his party. A bit rich coming from a serial marriage defender.

  19. it was once tradition to keep slaves and to burn women as witches. Does this ignorant bigot suggest we restart those traditions too. Talk about desperation….

  20. Will these idiots ever stop?

    The quote “As a divorcee I may not re-marry in my church” but he is able to get his next marriage blessed in one!

    Someone needs to teach these people the difference betweent Church and State cos he is clearly confusing the two

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 3:50pm

      I very much doubt it. In fact, sit back and get ready for even more wild ‘out there’ accusations that’ll be ever so more irrelevant.

  21. auntie babs 23 Mar 2012, 12:00pm

    Oh please half of them have already been turned into major Broadway Musiclas….what could be gayer than that?

    These people trying to stop marriage equality are really clutching at straws now.

    1. They seem to be thinking up novel ways to scare people, as they realise people are not falling for their fear mongering.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2012, 12:30pm

        Yes indeed, utter desperation. What they don’t realise is the more outrageous their statements send one more decent straight man and women over to our side by their sheer stupidity and ignorance. They’re incapable of rational debate but then their brains haven’t evolved over time, poor things. What is even more revealing is their inability to discern civil from religious. They are to be pitied as they slowly confine themselves voluntarily to the dustbin of history where they belong.

  22. Keith Farrell 23 Mar 2012, 12:19pm

    this man needs to be a comedian, yes I do agree that the bible needs rewriting because woman are excluded from the bible, woman had no rights in those times. also maybe while the are at the writing they can fix all the incorrect translations and drop all the fairy tale sections. as for the great english works, well from what I have been told most of the female parts were played by young men, dont tell me there were no gay guys playing woman, every queen wants to dress up at some time during their life.

  23. Maybe he’d be happier if us gays just didn’t have a voice in society – oh wait, weren’t we talking about Shakespeare, all of whose love poems where written to another man?

    1. Steady on, not all – though certainly some of the best-known, like Sonnet 18 Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?.

      1. Still, can we agree his best work was inspired by a boy he was in love with? Of course some people actually insist he wasn’t gay…

        1. Yes, though I suspect he was probably what we would categorise as a bisexual.

  24. Paddyswurds 23 Mar 2012, 12:30pm

    What a dinosaur. I wonder do these idiots read their own stuff before submitting it. Thought this old duffer was gone to the old spitoon in the sky long ago.

  25. The amazing thing is that this buffoon was once a DJ on a pirate radio station. Still, I suppose a number of these presenters are deeply conservative at heart – think of the loathsome Chris Moyles.

    1. Paddyswurds 23 Mar 2012, 1:41pm

      “– think of the loathsome Chris Moyles.” i just can’t without being violently sick. Moyles is loathsome to say the least and a illiterate thug to boot.

  26. What a complete idiot! Official government documents SURE, but literature can stay exactly as it is, I’m sure no ones going to be marching on downing street demanding all shakespear plays and children’s stories are changed to “spouse”

  27. since when a change/update in reality forced anyone to rewrite the fiction?

    1. Possibly it has happened in despotic regimes and didn’t the Bishop of wherever say that David Cameron is a dictator?

      So you see it actually makes perfect sense, if you’re an idiot following the logic of an ignoramus.

    2. Very occasionally it can. One of Agatha Christie’s novels, for example, is not now published under its original title. But it’s very rare, and not relevant to this case.

  28. Charles Bayliss 23 Mar 2012, 12:43pm

    Some of your MPs are becoming to ABSURD like our Maltese Roman Catholic politicians. When they have no evidence of proof, they try to take the mickey out of people. Why should marriage rights have to change the course of past history? This MP does not deserve to be in the Commons but in a Metal Hospital.

    1. He’s doesn’t have a mental illness so lets spare the patients the hassle of sharing a space with him.

      He’s just a complete and utter moron, after education fails, there is no known cure.

  29. “Will Shakespeare be rewritten?”

    File under “stupid questions to which the answer is obviously ‘no’.”

  30. Looks like Roger was in charge of BBC children’s TV and was probably responsible for introducing the iconic “Grange Hill” series, which dealt with big issues such as bullying, racism, rape and teen pregnancy. In the 1990’s and early 2000’s Grange Hill included lesbian & gay characters and dealt with issues of homophobia etc.

    He was once a radical force for good. Pity he’s come to this.

  31. OH DEAR! shakespear in trouble, more than that- it means the end of civilisation – oops! sorry! thats the popes mantra isnt it?
    oh well nothing new there then.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 3:54pm

      Indeed… oh the silly religious fruitloops.

    2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 3:55pm

      Indeed… oh the silly religious fruitloops!!!

  32. Mr Ripley's Asscrack 23 Mar 2012, 1:02pm

    Yawn. Repeat to yourself, god exists and I have not been wasting my time…

  33. What an idiot! Pathetic argument!

  34. The spelling might turn into husbande and wyffe if same sex marriage is introduced. Where will it stop? how will anyone know if they are Arthur or Martha on the slippery slope that same sex marriage will send us hurtling down?

    How can people read and understand Shakespeare and his complicated themes anyway if they can’t even grasp a simple concept like equality?

    1. enjoying the quoteathon 23 Mar 2012, 4:15pm

      I’ll go out an a limb here and say he probably hasn’t read a great deal of Shakespeare (or, er, any Milton whatsoever, as he’s a pretty odd choice for this topic). Someone needs to sit him down with a cup of tea and a copy of As You Like It for a quiet chat.

      Also, from Milton’s ‘On Shakespeare’:

      What needs my Shakespeare for his honoured bones,
      The labor of an age in pilèd stones,
      Or that his hallowed relics should be hid
      Under a star-y-pointing pyramid?
      Dear son of memory, great heir of fame,
      What need’st thou such weak witness of thy name?

      In other words: Sir Roger, Shakespeare doesn’t need you help, ta very much, please shut up about literature.

  35. That’s so ridiculous. No reason to rewrite Shakespeare if the words already exist. How can you not imagine the beautiful man he is describing or the love (lust?) he is feeling in “Sonnet 20”?


    -Sonnet 20-

    A woman’s face with nature’s own hand painted,
    Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion;
    A woman’s gentle heart, but not acquainted
    With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion:
    An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling,
    Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth;
    A man in hue all hues in his controlling,
    Which steals men’s eyes and women’s souls amazeth.
    And for a woman wert thou first created;
    Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
    And by addition me of thee defeated,
    By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
    But since she prick’d thee out for women’s pleasure,
    Mine be thy love and thy love’s use their treasure.


    I have never “swooned” for a man so lovely, but this could do it!

  36. The premise that this awful antediluvian bigot suggests is obviously nonsense. It doesn’t bear dignifying with a response.

    But you know what? Even if it WERE true, even if introducing marriage equality DID lead inexorably to the editing of sixteenth century literature, it would still be the right thing to do. What Mr. Gale is saying here is that, if it did come to it, the equality of his fellow human beings is less important to him than textual authenticity in historical documents. That speaks of massively warped priorities to me.

    And this is perhaps the most blatant statement I have yet heard of the religious position that they should be free to discriminate if they wish. Concerned that “Equality will not stop at the church door”? Why SHOULD equality stop at the church door? It doesn’t stop at the shop door or the employer’s door or the school door. There’s nothing special about religious groups – they should be forced to get in line with equality laws like everyone else.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2012, 2:21pm

      Exactly right and further, NOBODY, not even religious denominations should be above the law when it’s a matter of civil laws without any exception. Maybe if enough of us made noise about that, they’d back off. They get away with this because they’ll play the “abuse of religious freedom” victim card every time when it’s something they don’t like or are opposed to. They want everything their way and that is not going to happen, rant as they want. I hope a movement grows out of this calling for the disestablishment of state religion as a first step to a true democracy.

    2. “There’s nothing special about religious groups….” Shhh!! Oh yes there is. They talk to snakes!!

  37. To show really show you like and respect marriage and want to protect it then why not try it twice or even three times like Sir Roger himself.

  38. Carl Rowlands 23 Mar 2012, 1:32pm

    Really, what a silly twat! But why does he feel he can talk about relationships when he has 3 failed marriages before him. If marriage is between one man and one woman he has broken his own rules!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2012, 2:17pm

      It’s called serial marriage, serial divorce, serial adultery, an heterosexual phenomenon I might add available only to straights, you know….those sanctity of marriage, family values and procreation hypocrites.

    2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 3:56pm

      This is the right of the Freedom of Religion and religious beliefs…. you can change them at will to suit one’s own goals…. apparently!

  39. With such tinfoil hat indulgences, he sounds more like an American Republican.

    1. I think we’ve been naive in assuming that all the religious nut jobs in the English speaking world, live in the US.

      That being said your comment made me smile.

    2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 3:57pm

      Indeed… Personally I think Shakespeare himself would be supporter of marriage Equality.

  40. THIS is why they’re losing. This kind of nonsense is all they have. It’s failing all over the developed world.

  41. No, the Merry Wives of Windsor will not become the Gay Spouses of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, nor will Chaucer’s Wife of Bath become the Divorceé of Ensuite Bathroom and Shower. These increasingly desperate objections to marriage equality are really cries for help from the bigoted, the retarded, and the plain thick.

  42. I really dont understand what the issues is. Its quite simple really. In a gay marriage there is no wife, there is two husbands. In a lesbain marriage there is no husband, there are two wives. In a straight marriage there is one of each.

    Its a bit like saying that allowing transgenders to legally change their gender means we would have to remove references to male and female from throughout our society!

    1. Exactly. A simple point that seems inordinately difficult for these simpletons to understand.

    2. Well said!

    3. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 3:53pm

      It is just that simple unless your the Church who feels you need to through in pointless irrelevant arguments simply to block progress.

      Think they’d rather think of us by stereotype… you know all up the Heath looking for shags with whoever we find. It’s just insulting to the core and they call it religion.

  43. Katie-Kool eyes 23 Mar 2012, 2:16pm

    NO!!!!! Don’t be so stupid!!!!! Nobody is asking to change the names husband and wife.

    When will these people get it into their skulls that equal marrage does NOT effect anything like calling people husband and wife, nor will it damage any marrage what so ever.

    If I ever get married, we’ll call each other wife and wife. It’s THAT simple!!!

    Nothing bug ignorance and scaremongering, idiot!!!!!!

    anyway, lovely weather x

    1. Katie-Kool eyes 23 Mar 2012, 2:16pm


    2. Mary Marriott 23 Mar 2012, 2:30pm

      yes lovely weather !


  44. Nutjobsareeverywhere 23 Mar 2012, 2:17pm

    And he’s an MP!! Get a grip!

  45. Staircase2 23 Mar 2012, 2:43pm

    What a bloody idiot…

  46. This sounds like something the nut jobs in our republican party could come up with. I bet soon they will be using this in the US.

  47. I’m sorry, WHAT? How, exactly, does this have anything to do with marriage equality? Of all the things equality opponents have been using against us, this guy picks Shakespeare? Clutching at straws, much? Quite frankly, I’m ashamed that this idiotic berk comes from my county.

  48. Galadriel1010 23 Mar 2012, 4:15pm

    I offer my services to start with a rewriting of Lord of the Rings in which Arwen marries Eowyn instead, and Aragorn marries Faramir. After that I can move on to Sherlock Holmes and… Oh look, that’s already done.

    I think Sir Roger just needs to discover fanfiction, if he wants canonically straight characters in gay relationships. I’ve been doing it for years.

    1. David Myers 24 Mar 2012, 8:58am

      Don’t forget Samwise and Frodo!

      1. Galadriel1010 25 Mar 2012, 6:47pm

        Yeah, but I don’t need to do any rewriting there, do I? Even Tolkein reunited them at the end

  49. Janet Lameck 23 Mar 2012, 4:34pm

    Since most of Shakespeares stuff was plagerized in the first place does it really matter???????????

  50. Myles MacLean 23 Mar 2012, 4:44pm

    Perhaps,this idiot,has not read much of Shkesphere if he thinks this.The sonnets were my introduction to the love that dare not speak it’s name.

  51. When he was one wife 2 and 3 he didn’t worry about the Bible being changed to refer to ex-wives, first wives, or the like.

    1. ON wife 2 and 3. I can’t keep his numbered marriages straight!

  52. Stuart Neyton 23 Mar 2012, 5:00pm

    legal divorce clearly hasn’t forced his church to marry divorcees against its wishes, so why would legal gender-neutral force his church to marry two people of the same sex? This argument is ludicrous.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2012, 5:52pm

      Exactly right, you raised an important point.

  53. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2012, 5:09pm

    It always amazes me that idiots like this can say the silliest things but can never provide any factual evidence to support their claims. There are 10 countries where SSM is legal, has he bothered to find out if there is any evidence for his ludicrous predictions? That goes for all the religious nutters.

  54. Quite the most pathetic thing I’ve heard in a long time.

    Frankly it’s embarrassing for him.

  55. It always worries me when I hear things like this because I realise that the country is run by imbeciles.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2012, 6:42pm

      This too is worrying. C4M has over 300,555 signatures, while C4EM only 33,500. Scary! Why are we so terribly disorganised? We should have beaten them to it months ago with careful planning and a strategy. Our opponents did just that and look at the result.

      1. Why can’t gaga and madna get their twitter millions to sign the C4EM petition? Doesn’t anyone know them?

        1. Dave North 23 Mar 2012, 8:31pm

          What about Stephen Fry.

    2. GingerlyColors 24 Mar 2012, 2:04am

      I could say that this country is run by cretins – but that will be insulting to the people from the Greek isle of Crete! After all, we wouldn’t say anything derogatory about people from Lesbos on this site!!!
      Or Mykonos for that matter . . .

  56. What a moron! Marriage equality will merely mean that husbands and wives can have wives or husbands. If will NOT invalidate or remove the needs for these terms.

  57. Sir Roger Gale sounds like a character from Shakespeare — I imagine a rather pompous and florid individual who farts a lot.

  58. If you look at “Sir Roger Gale”‘s record:

    turns out he’s strongly against gay rights. No surprize of course.

    His contact details are here:

  59. Andrew in Oz 23 Mar 2012, 6:11pm

    If I was in his electorate I would be very worried about his ability to represent his constituants! Living out side of his electorate all I can think is what a loony bin!

  60. He was probably bisexual. ( WS, not Sir Roger “Gale”:

    Sir Roger Gale I imagine is completely comfortable with his sexuality.

    1. Rudehamster 26 Mar 2012, 11:17pm

      It’s just his sexual partners he can’t seem to hold on to.

  61. Bible was already re-writen several times btw.

  62. Cat Howard 23 Mar 2012, 6:51pm

    I find it difficult to believe this man has been able to act normally long enough to get himself re-elected so often.

    As for Shakespeare, these works reflect the social mores of the time in which they were written and should NOT be “amended:. If someone were to write something similar now (impossible) it would, or could reflect SSM and future generations would no doubt clamour for it to be changed.

  63. Ah, Sir Roger has discovered our plan to alter Shakespeare. Damn, can’t get away with anything.

  64. It’s interesting this one because I know of Roger Gale rather well as we are connected by a very close friend of mine.

    I think we have to consider that the area is strongly Tory and has been for years…even beofe Roger Gale won the seat.

    Despite his stupid comment and idiotic outlook he is however a very good MP and the reason for his success is because he actually does throw himself into helping anyone in his constituency.

    I personally feel the comment is really stupid but as I said it is really interesting to see this.

    1. So because he makes this idiotic comment that immediately makes him a bad MP?

      I am certainly not defending him but I am clued up enough not to allow myself to be swept up into a “he’s homophobic, he’s evil” type fervour. I’ve actually spoken to the person I mentioned and they are adamant that although his voting record in the past has been shambolic he has treated all of his contituents fairly and equally.

      Also, the article omitted lots of info. which would have meant the story never would have made it to PN anyhow.

      To be fair, what really gets on my nerves here is that everyone is an activist. Pink News is really clever at one thing…whipping up anti-religious and anti-person fervour….and sometimes this is REALLY unjustified.

      Like every other news site, or channel or paper they also have an agenda and many of you buy straight into it without question.Did no-one ever tell you not to believe everything you read.

      1. Would he throw himself into helping two gay constituents who want to get married to each other but can’t because of the country’s discriminatory laws?

        No, he wouldn’t, because it might endanger Shakespeare, a dead bisexual bard.

        I once met a really nice old German man who was a little senile and harmless. It turns out he was virulently racist in his day and a Naz¡, holocaust denier.

        I didn’t try and rationalise and excuse the fact that he was a massive dick because he wasn’t that bad when I met him.

        1. To be honest I am tired of this website anyhow. Since starting to read it years ago all I have seen is people whipped up into a frenzy.

          PN has consistently misreported news stories to get everyone on here incredibly upset and feeling isolated and politicised.

          Nine out of then stories are about injustice against the LGBT community (and some of them aren’t that truthful when you do a little digging) and to be honest I’d prefer a more balanced pink news site.

          Combined with the fact that they let cocks like Keith and others make others upset and angry I have decided that I am moving to the Huffington post.

          The irony is that many of you are Daily Mail readers…the pink Daily Mail and sadly are becoming as intolerant as them.

          It’s not about Roger Gale. As I said, the man is a fool. It’s about people’s unquestioning faith in dodgy and misreported news.

          Bye bye PN.

  65. He says: “As a divorcee I may not re-marry in my church. Those are the laws of my faith…..”

    Well exactly, those are the laws of your particular faith not the LAW OF THE LAND…and in anycase it’s not the law of my faith!!!!

  66. Sir Roger is really rather foolish, nay stupid, methinks. The whole point of marriage is that one gains a husband or a wife. I am fortunate to have been blessed with a much-loved gay guy in my family. He calls his (civilly partnered) other half his husband. They are each other’s husbands and rightfully proud of their beautiful and fulfilling relationship. Gay female friends are wives to each other. I have a husband and I’m his wife (for thirty years this year!) So, where’s the difference? Love is love, and all should be entitled to share in the amazing institution of marriage, and refer to their other halves as the wives or husbands that they truly are. LGBT rights = civil rights = human rights. Best wishes, everyone! “A change is gonna come, oh yes it will”. xx

  67. Given his record of serial marriages and divorces he appears to be doing enough to undermine the institution of marriage all by himself.

    He doesn’t seem to have any problem challenging the laws of his church when it comes to his personal marriage status.

    What did he think he was doing when he made his marriage vows? Or was it all the faults of his wives, on each occasion?


    See the above link, this guy is also trying (with others) to trash the marriage equality consultation by bringing up the issue of straight CPs…you know exactly where he and others are going to…

  69. chris lowcase 23 Mar 2012, 9:08pm

    did they rewrite the adventures of sherlock holmes, bleak house, the magna carta because of modernisation, the advent of the internet, or the automotive industry?

    in some cases yeah, its called a “modern adaptation.”

    1. GingerlyColors 24 Mar 2012, 1:59am

      The current editions of the Noddy books are modern adaptions – they do not include the golliwogs which featured in the original versions.

    2. GingerlyColors 24 Mar 2012, 2:00am

      But having said that, Noddy no longer shares his bed with Big Ears!

  70. Roger Gale

    It’s usually worth checking out what politicians say about themselves.

    In the Thanet Extra, Roger Gale says “I did not vote on the Civil Partnerships Bill because, as the person who chaired the legislation through its committee stage, I was barred by parliamentary convention from doing so. But because I presided over the management of the Bill through its committee stage I also heard rather more of the debate than most.”

    The truth is that Roger Gale was one of the two people to chair the committee; the other person being Frank Cook, who died early this year. Also, although Roger Gale seems to imply he wan’t against the Civil Partnership Act, he was one of 49 MPs who voted against its second reading. Anything he learned as a result of involvement at committee stage would have been after that vote.

    So it seems his piece in Thanet Extra might well have misled his constituents.

  71. chris lowcase 23 Mar 2012, 10:09pm

    is he talking about civil partnerships? all the civil partnerships will have to be changed to marriages?

    how many refferences to cilvil partnerships appear in shakespear’s work?

    i still dont understand.

    is this not a brilliant attempt at dry wit? i sure as hell cant take it seriously.

  72. Dr. Charles 23 Mar 2012, 10:16pm

    Does this fool not realize that Shakespeare would act like Falstaff? He would be at the head and core of any “mischief” possible in favor of gay and female “rights.” — a retired professor of Shakespeare at an American ivy league university.

  73. One VERY simple word…..IDIOT!!!!!

  74. Michael Eckstorm 24 Mar 2012, 1:08am

    Failing big time at being married yourself several times, and then lecturing about it? Come on, Sir! Are you that desparately in need of publicity? Well, obviously. Sad life you’re leading …

  75. GingerlyColors 24 Mar 2012, 1:55am

    That’s rich coming from somebody who couldn’t get his own personal life in order – and broke the law by working for an illegal radio station!
    If there is one thing I hate it is people who try to live other people’s lives for them and interfere in their personal affairs just because their own lives are in a mess.
    Should gay marriage fail to become legal then we should campaign to ban divorce and adultery – that should bugger Roger Gale up! After all they are banned by the Bible. In the Phillipines (where homosexuality is legal) adultery is punishable by a seven year prison sentence.
    I was once told that ‘Rules are for the guidence of men and the obedience of fools’. I have nothing against Christians turning to the Holy Bible for guidence but I do object to the many fools among them who are preparded to quote rules and regulations saying that we are dammed to Hell while breaking a few Biblical rules themselves.

  76. as its been said before if the tories dont introduce equal marriage they can say goodbye at the next election as for this bigot roger gale he is a brainwashed twat that is beyond repair the brainwashed cant be helped

  77. Lets hope the Thanet council support gay marriage and give this idiot the Vs…

    “THE issue of gay marriage will be debated by Thanet council at its meeting next month.

    Councillors will have the chance to express their views on the Government consultation on proposals to change the law to allow homosexual couples to wed.

    Independent councillor Ian Driver has submitted a motion that the council supports the proposals.

    He said: “If two people love each other and want to make a commitment through marriage why shouldn’t they?”

    Cllr Driver has set up a Facebook group, Thanet Loves Equal Marriage.


  78. David Myers 24 Mar 2012, 8:43am

    Two words: “disingenuous nonsense”!

  79. Rashid Karapiet 24 Mar 2012, 11:35am

    One positive outcome: Shakespeare quoted in PinkNews blogs! Not what Sir Roger had in mind. Spolled, alas, by the ubiquitous Mr.Jockstrap…

    1. Rashid Karapiet 24 Mar 2012, 11:40am

      This was supposed to be elsewhere –

    2. Unfortunately your unnecessary vendetta against Jock S Trap tends to undermine your points elsewhere.

    3. Poor comment; fighting amongst ourselves isn’t going to get us anywhere.

  80. Rashid Karapiet 24 Mar 2012, 11:39am

    An unexpected bonus: Shakespeare on the PinkNews blogs…should delight Sir Roger – but omg it’s that wretched Jockstrap lowering the tone again…

    1. Rashid Karapiet 24 Mar 2012, 11:42am

      This should have been entered elsewhere –

    2. Poor comment; fighting amongst ourselves isn’t going to get us anywhere.

  81. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Mar 2012, 12:44pm

    To digress, I’ve noticed that C4EM’s petition is not on the homepage of PN and really should be. No wonder the number of signatories is dismally low, thus far only 33,770 compared to C4M’s almost 301,000. I can’t understand why our petition wasn’t planned months before. We’re so disorganised unlike our opponents. I don’t see our side surpassing the opposition’s numbers if this continues. The petition should be on the home page of all supportive sites at all times. If we don’t become more proactive, the opposition will win and who knows, the House of Lords may even issue a suspensory veto killing any chance of a bill coming before parliament. We can’t afford to be indifferent whether we don’t want to marry or not. Don’t let our opponents win this most important of all equality battles. There’s far too much to lose.

  82. StraightButNotIgnorant 25 Mar 2012, 7:55am

    Ridiculous, preposterous and ignorant.

    1. Rudehamster 26 Mar 2012, 11:19pm

      Sounds like the perfect qualities for a Tory Candidate.

  83. Tad Davison 25 Mar 2012, 10:47am

    It’s too easy to say what each one of you might think of Roger Gale’s views, but it is another to engage in serious debate, so ponder this.

    I love my Border Collie. I’d like to marry her and have a long and happy life together, but I fear it would not be permitted. So where does one draw the line, if it must be drawn somewhere?

    My dog is more intelligent and a lot more faithful than most humans, and would make an ideal partner. Why should she be excluded?

    1. Galadriel1010 25 Mar 2012, 6:40pm

      Your Border Collie, as lovely as I’m sure she is, cannot give consent. One day we may be able to communicate fully with her and I’m sure she would agree to marry you, but until that day we can’t assume consent.

      My girlfriend, on the other hand, can give consent, because she’s a human being who speaks the same language as me and has grown up with the cultural understanding of marriage.

      I hope that’s cleared that matter up for you/ It is very simple after all. Maybe get your dog to explain it to you if you’re still not getting it.

    2. It is unlikely that your dog is more intelligent than any human being on the planet. She should be protected from marriage from you because 1) in the eyes of the law she is not able to give consent to marry you; 2) in spite of your insistence as to her intelligence, it is unlikely that, as a dog, she would understand the concept of marriage in the same terms as a human being; 3) the imbalance of power in your existing relationship with her (she is your property and she regards you as her pack leader) is such that even were she mentally competent to consent, that consent is compromised by a pre-existing relationship.
      That you would even consider wanting to marry under any of those circumstances calls your motives into question.

    3. Craig Nelson 25 Mar 2012, 7:37pm

      Is that what Roger Gale is talking about? He wants to marry his boarder Collie – after being married 3 times? I thought it was about worrying about Shakespeare being rewritten not about an MP wanting to marry a dog.

      The objection is located in a view that same sex relationships are radically inferior to heterosexual relationships. But to take the step of comparing same sex relationships to bestiality etc is disgusting and shows the sort of attitudes that people out there still harbour.

      Serious debate? You’re ‘avin a laugh surely. To answer the question the line should be drawn as it is proposed it will be – to two individuals (human ones – you’re the only one to declare undying love to your pet).

    4. Rudehamster 26 Mar 2012, 11:21pm

      ….and, given the quality of your reasoning, undoubtedly several times more intelligent than you are.

  84. Personally I don’t see ‘wife’ or ‘husband’ as gender specific. I have many gay friends who swap them freely.

  85. Yes, Shakespeare will need to be rewritten. As will any other literature, song, film or media article that uses the terms “husband” and “wife” in the context of a mixed marriage couple – “husband” and “wife” will only be allowed when it refers to a male-male female-female marriages. All great artworks depicting marriage between a man and a woman will have to be destroyed because the new definition of marriage will only apply to same sex couples and mixed sex couples will no longer be considered married.

  86. My dear man if you can’t differentiate between Hamlet and a tax return form, you clearly have more pressing problems that need to be adressed. . .

  87. Christine Tongue 13 Apr 2012, 12:30pm

    This is the link to a film of John Worrow, Thanet Councillor, confronting Nigel Farage on the subject of equal marriage

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.