Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Petition against equal marriage reaches 300,000 signatures

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The simple solution would be to abolish civil marriage and make anyone who doesn’t want, or cannot get, a church wedding have a civil partnership.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Mar 2012, 7:47pm

      And how on earth are you going to abolish civil marriage? Are you for real? That would take an Act of Parliament and it’s never going to happen. Civil Partnerships are NOT the universal gold standard for same-sex legal unions and never will be. Only 2 countries have them, although Ireland’s doesn’t quite confer all of the rights of the British version. So forget about that.

      1. I was being sarcastic, nice to see people have a total sense of humour fail.

    2. History demonstrates that separate but equal never is – the new, secondary mechanism is always inferior.

      And there is no reason to capitulate to religion when no modern (ie not extinct) religion is responsible for the creation of marriage as a concept nor has a right to stewardship over it.

      You are married in this country when you signed a bloody document – It doesn’t matter if you do that in a cathedral with a bishop, or on the centre spot at Old Trafford with a celebrant dressed as Gandalf. Religion is nothing but frippery, only of relevance to the participants, and utterly meaningless to the legal mechanism and the rights that are granted.

      1. Agree wholeheartedly. Also, good use of “frippery”. Such an underused word.

    3. Simple to consider, but never going to happen. And that’s no way to make allies when we’re that close, to say no one can get married.

    4. Marriage does not belong to religion, and I for one refuse to hand it to them. Marriage belongs to society. The state administers it, religion can bless it, but marriage belongs to US the people, NOT an institution.

      So if the religious want to feel special for their version of marriage they can go and pick another term. How about something they already use, such as “Holy Matrimony”? That way the rest of us can get on with our lives whatever a bunch of people who so lack an ingrained moral compass they need a book to tell them what’s right may think.

      No more pandering to them. Equality is the goal. Nothing short of that is acceptable.

    5. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:19am

      Too decisive Sevrin!

  2. Jennie Kermode 24 Mar 2012, 7:08pm

    Given what happened with the Scottish equivalent, how much credibility can we attach to those signatures?

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:21am

      Exactly, there have already been claims of fraudulent signatures. How many of those are from England and Wales and how many aren’t?

  3. No surprise, really. We know there are loads of homophobes out there.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:22am

      Indeed plus they all gone on complete lies and deliberate misinformation. What does that say about the church and religion?

    2. Hodge Podge 25 Mar 2012, 1:00pm

      Not this many… I feel they’ve had a better marketing machine

  4. i think they mean the coalition for marriage, not the coalition for equal marriage??
    big difference….

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Mar 2012, 7:42pm

    I just checked C4M, its exceeded 301,000 and growing steadily. The problem with C4EM is that it planned too late, no strategy, not aggressive enough or persistent and terribly disorganised. Have you checked those sites that have joined the campaign?. I don’t see any petition on their homepages, where it should be. If C4EM doesn’t get its act together, Anne Widdecombe’s statement that there are far more people in opposition than those who support us may well come to fruition if these figures are anything to go by. This doesn’t bode well at all, in fact it’s downright embarrassing and only fuels more opposition.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:27am

      Indeed when the church peddles it’s lies to all it’s followers through misinformation on a Sunday, we should be doing the same by whatever means possible.
      -
      Is this country going to cave in to these bigots when they expect us to pay taxes equally?
      -
      Trouble we also face is too many thinking this subject isn’t an important issue. Of course when they have all the equality and don’t have to fight for it they would think that. We need to make people see this is of high importance and need to be supported appropriately… and Now!

      1. Spanner1960 26 Mar 2012, 11:24am

        Why do we have to lower ourselves to their level?
        The truth will always out and they will eventually be seen for the liars they are, whilst we will be seen to be honourable. That will a considerably more damaging effect on their public image.

        1. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2012, 2:57pm

          gotta say I agree with that. What worries me is the people that follow these crocks though and believe in every lie they sell.

    2. Can I just defend C4EM? It’s run by 2 normal guys who have day jobs, with no money behind it. It doesn’t have a church network to peddle the petition, nor can it fund 2 national newspaper ads.

      The only thing I agree on is that they need to utilise the mailing lists of the groups supporting it, which must be 1000s of people, and ask them to share the petition on their facebook and twitter.

  6. I find myself wondering how many people signed the petition, not because they actively think its wrong for Equal Marriage, but because they went to church on Sunday and were lectured about how their eternal soul’s salvation relied on them opposing equal marriage.

    Not that religious dogma is any excuse for bigotry and homophobia but I cant help but pity those people so influenced by the church, who have so much faith in their religion, that they allow their opinions to be made for them.

    The constant abuse of power by the self a pointed guardians of morality is grotesque… an abuse of a fundamentally established human right for a person to draw their own opinions without being told by a religious leader they will be punished for it (either by sermon or through the media).

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:29am

      Indeed the true dictatorship of the church that tells it’s followers that they well be force to perform such ceremonies even though they know they are speaks utter lies. This is clearly how the church works…. by lying.

  7. I wonder how many of those signatures are catholic bishops signing over and over and over again, just to make their bigotry look popular when it clearly isn’t?

    It’s not like they have anything else to do these days after all…

    1. Personally, I wonder how many of those signatures, if examined, would turn out to have addresses in the local cemeteries as their current “permanent address”!

    2. Does anyone know the exact wording of the C4M petition? Something like “Approving of SS marriage will damn your soul to never-ending, all-encompassing, quite-painful torment. Do you approve or disapprove?” could be a bit biased and cause religious-minded folk to hedge their bets. Just wondering how it was presented to these 300K+ signers.

      1. I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 24 Mar 2012, 9:50pm

          Does “D” stand for Dunce.

          1. Why because I provided the words of the actual petition? Pay attention idiot

        2. Whoa… What’s with all the thumb downs? He was only answering a question. At least read what he’s replying to before writing him of as a bigot…

        3. Thank you D.

        4. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:44am

          Course you do but here’s the thing Religion redefined it in the first place. Hijacked if you will. So why oppose it going back to it’s original meaning?
          -
          Is it because you’d prefer to keep thinking all Gay people sleep around in you somewhat limited, small brain you have?
          -
          Get over yourself. Stop judging people and start opening your eyes.

      2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:37am

        Many signed based on lies and misinformation that they would be forced to perform such marriages.
        -
        It’s totally shameful for a religion to tell bare faced lies to try and win a very discriminating argument.

  8. Evidence of other petitions indicate that this one will be just as questionable. And petitions are irrelevant, we do not live in a direct democracy, and the law is not designed to do what is popular but what is right. As there is no cogent legitimate secular argument to deny marriage equality, marriage equality is the right thing to do.

    And to think we have to go through all this cr@p because some jerk called Joseph didn’t realise that his missus was a bloody slag.

    1. Oh, and before anyone wets their pants and has a good cry because I’m being a big meanie to religion again – When they conspire and collaborate to force their dogma in to my life and, through force of law, demand that I comply, they lose any right to be expected to be treated with courtesy or respect.

      Their putrid faith DEMANDS of them that they obey the golden rule (a concept they didn’t invent, Confucius wrote the same rule 600 years before their sodding Messiah). Their actions with regard to marriage equality betray that key principle.

      They don’t respect their own most important damned rules, and yet demand that we all obey some vague bloody clause buried in the old testament (while eating prawns, wearing poly cotton and shaving their bloody beards) or a line or two that some demented tosser wrote hundreds of years after the death of a man he never met.

  9. So when can we abolish religion? It’s starting to get a bit old.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:46am

      Remember there are some religions that are supportive and Do actually wish to perform marriages to same sex couple.

  10. “,,,33,400 signatures so far, despite being backed by the British Humanist Association and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement”

    Surely it must be backed by more organisations than this. I was surprised when I received an email on marriage equality from Stonewall that they weren’t encouraging us to sign it but surely student unions, trade unions and other LGBT orgs would be telling us to sign it. And the unitarians, quakers etc, why aren’t they asking their members to sign.

    I know it’s difficult to compete with the money buying power of the C4M coalition and the catholic church but I think we could do better.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:48am

      Of course the big problem is that we’re being told how it is whilst the Church leaders are peddling lies like a dictatorship and not may are publically correcting them.

  11. Polly Conroy 24 Mar 2012, 8:13pm

    “. I don’t see any petition on their homepages, where it should be. If C4EM doesn’t get its act together, ”

    In addition to which, the campaign such as it is does nothing promote getting involved. Go to their Facebook page, sign petition, leave. Same with their website. All very clinical, no feedback, no sense of involvement.

    Very poor. Should we be wondering why?

    Very disappointed in it.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 1:16pm

      Absolutely. C4EM should have contacted the universities, a lot of students support marriage equality and what about those gay friendly corporations that it hasn’t even tapped? There’s no way we’re going to get as many signatures as C4M with this absolutely dismally disorganised petition. Not even StonewallUK has it on its homepage, and we’re expected to win this battle? C4M is clearly going to be the winner.

  12. Well, for a start Pink News should have a LARGE banner at the top of the home page linking to C4EM !

    1. And you still wouldn’t get 300,000 signatures. The BHA Has only got 28,000 members. More people go to Soul Survivor than that every year. You might think Christianity is on the slide but it’s not.

      1. At least it would be a start. C4EM needs to get banners on the top of all popular gay websites and get the large companies who support equal marriage on board too!

  13. Robert White 24 Mar 2012, 8:35pm

    Oh my gosh, are you guys petitioning to become part ot the U.S.A. sothern states block?

    These petition results are so very new-world of you…

    1. Staircase2 25 Mar 2012, 8:01pm

      er…
      eh?

  14. “There is no democratic mandate to redefine marriage, and to do so is a huge mistake.

    “If it is argued that homosexuals must be allowed to marry as a matter of equality, then the same logic will dictate that they should be allowed to marry in churches also, which is no doubt the next planned move.

    “This would have severe repercussions for freedom of belief and freedom of speech which can’t be underestimated.”

    1. But we all voted for a party at the last general election and apart from UKIP (who don’t have a MP in parliament) all party leaders and the majority of their MPs are in favour of marriage equality. Isn’t that a democratic process? The govt doesn’t go back to the public each time it makes a decision on something. Why should it with this one. We have 60 million people living in the UK, what percentage of that is 300,000?

      Yes, of course we wil be asking for religious marriages next. Some of us are religious and some religious orgs want to perform SS marriages. No-one is expecting the CofE , the muslims or the catholic church to join in. They still have a huge problem accepting we exist in the first place.

      If Cardinal o’Brian can say the outrageous things about SS marriages that he already says then I doubt very much if we have any problem with freedom of speech.

    2. There is plenty of precedent to show that religious exemptions are drafted in to law. Example – Under the Equality Act 2010 I can sue a business that denies me a job due to my gender, but there is an institutional exemption that means I could not sue when there is specific dogma that allows a denomination to be sexist.

      The CoE and the RCC in particular will sob and wet their pants and have an exemption – and that’s fine by me, it’s up to the conscience of their believers to decide if they want to stay with a bigoted institution.

      But it IS a smokescreen and it IS a lie to claim that LGBT citizens want to kick down the doors of churches and demand that they have their marriage there. Your “logical” argument can be debunked as cr@p.

    3. If a church decides they want to allow same-sex marriages, then that’s their personal decision, but the majority of us don’t want to force any religious people or buildings to marry us. Most of us want a civil marriage in fact.

    4. I don’t want any religious organization anywhere near my marriage. I won’t be knocking on your chapel door to let me in, nor do I want you knocking at my bedroom door,,,unless, of course, you’re bringing the wine and chocolates.

    5. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:51am

      Religion = Fear, paranoia and discrimination to all but it’s own.

  15. Marriage is not owned by any religion. If a religious person or building chooses not to perform a marriage because it’s same-sex that’s fine, but if people of any faiths can get married, I as a woman should be able to completely legally marry a woman and have it be equal to an opposite-sex marriage.

  16. It’s disheartening to see that there are still at least 300,000 openly bigoted people in this country. But it is an organised campaign by religious organisations, and most of the signatures I expect came from those groups. But England is not made up of religious organisations. There are still more than 6 million people in this country. In my opinion, the Coalition For Equal Marriage campaign is very poorly orchestrated in comparison. They need to up the game, get more advertising, more visibility and reach out to people who we know support us or are on the fence about the issue. If more people knew about the petition, we’d have way more signatures.

    1. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2012, 9:20pm

      @Kale…
      …”There are still more than 6 million people in this country.” don’t you mean 54 million.

      1. Yeah sorry I meant to say 60 million.

        1. Even 60 million was just a rough estimate, I don’t know the exact number, but now that I think about it, 54 million seems to be closer.

  17. I’d also like to compliment the Humanist website

    http://campaign.publicaffairsbriefing.co.uk/emailsupport.aspx?cid=529bde1a-608c-4dcc-9495-d6f1861c38af

    It has links on the left hand side to the consultation , petitions and then goes off and writes a standard letter for you to post off to your MP. The only thing you need to do is put your postcode in.

    I suggest stonewall and other orgs should be following this type of format. It’s so easy to follow.

  18. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2012, 9:17pm

    Such a pity most of the signatures are fake and all generated by the c4m…so I wouldn’t be too concerned. It will just make our victory all the sweeter.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:09pm

      Lets hope most people see through it.

  19. The homophobes’ petition is well organised through the church networks. Read today’s article in the Guardian about how parents taking their children to a playgroup in a church hall were asked to sign it. It is an attemot at mob rule.

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:02pm

        Absolutely shameful.

    1. check out Newsround Blog tomorrow

  20. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/gay-marriage-bigotry-lucy-mangan

    These people are organised. Are we? Have you asked all your friends on FB to sign the pro marriage equality petition and spread the message to all your family?

    If you haven’t please do it. It’s not that the support isn’t there. It’s that we lack the organisation (regardless of their underhand means I’m sure we can find more than 300,000 people to support our cause).

  21. saynotommmmm 24 Mar 2012, 9:51pm

    All this pitition does is confirm that equilty is needed more than ever

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:12pm

      Indeed it does.

  22. And if implemented, indeed IF.

    I signed the Coalition for Marriage Petition, I am proud to say I am one of those 300,000 people and I actively support the Organisation too.

    Marriage is a man and a woman, homosexuals have Civil Parterships, but as usual are never satisfied so bully, using every exuse in the book, well 300,00 are not standing for it any longer.

    I contacted my MP and was most pleased when they told me that they supported The Coalition for Marrriage! They will certainly get my vote next time!

    1. How bout we ban you from getting married, you can be second class for a change.

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:12pm

        Yep and you can bet that would change things too. Bet suddenly thed’d be all hard done by and protesting.

    2. Keith Farrell 24 Mar 2012, 10:26pm

      I wonder how you can justify being a bigot. we are not talking about christain marrage but a civil marrage, there is a diffrence you know. and anyway are you still married to your first wife, you know the bible tell you that you are married until death and that although you may divorse you may not remarry. please tell us who your MP is so that we can vote them out. fares fare, one law for all of us because we are equal, (I think gay people are better that straight people because we know how to be fare and treat others with respect, we dont ask for any discrimatary laws, just equal treatment

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:13pm

        Unfortunately these people have no interest in facts just lies to satisfy their need to discriminate.

    3. I want a civil marriage, complete with being able to call a woman my wife and have it be true and the 1000+ benefits that civil marriages have over civil partnerships too. It’s a lifelong commitment that I should be able to make.

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:14pm

        Indeed, a choice we should All have.

    4. I wonder who your MP is? Let me guess, David Burrowes or perhaps one of the handful of MPs that do support the C4M? Unless you vote for the UKIP party then no other party supports the C4M.

    5. wow your a fruitcake for signing this petition you shouldnt have signed it though because it will lose

    6. Jean in another guise here clearly. Please don’t feed the troll folks!

    7. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:11pm

      Er Bully? It’s not us being dictated to by lies and misinformation telling you what you should think and say.
      -
      Take your projection and shove it somewhere the sun don’t shine.
      =
      Give me freedom anyday.

  23. Keith Farrell 24 Mar 2012, 10:21pm

    I wonder how many false signatures are on their campain, Im sure if it is examined we will find a lot of people have signed on it with out their knowledge

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:17pm

      Many I expect.

  24. Well if 45% of Americans don’t believe in evolution, that explains where some of the signatures came from :P.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:18pm

      I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

    2. Staircase2 25 Mar 2012, 8:03pm

      I think you’ll find its a British Movement…

      1. Ah, I noticed now, well 30% of British people don’t believe in it I think. Still very sad!

      2. Spanner1960 26 Mar 2012, 11:31am

        Why would that stop anybody else?
        A lot of the homophobic comments I see on the DT and DM forums are Americans.

  25. 300K – is that all?

    This “coalition” (in reality, just the Christian Institute and a few other fascist friends) having sent out 500K copies of their petition, each with 20 spaces for signatures. That’s 10 *million* sigs they were hoping for! 3% of their target!

    And of course it’s all nonsense. If the petition were legitimate, it would have been posted on the government’s official, much-harder to manipulate web site.

    Alas, the pro-equal marriage petition is well-meaning but the idea itself is childish. And, no disrespect to the two lads who cobbled it together, it’s embarrassingly naff.

  26. “despite being backed by the British Humanist Association and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.”

    I love that line in the article. The way it is phrased makes it seem like those groups are actually significant! Lol.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 12:19pm

      And what makes you think You are?

    2. More significant than NOM, but most groups are!

  27. With the free and repeated advertising of the C4M petition in the Daily Mail and Telegraph 30,000 signatures isn’t that brilliant.

    We know that 2500 catholic churches were asked to sign it , even if all the signatures came from them that would only mean they have 120 people in each church.

    Lets face it they have the free advertising and the cash to put adverts out. The pro marriage equality petition is set up 2 ordinary blokes with very little cash I suspect, 34,000 is pretty good.

    Ultimtely the C4M are going to rely on that undemocatic, unelected House of Lords and the equally undemocratic CofE and the Catholic Church to scupper marriage equality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 12:43pm

      The only way the HoL could scupper it would be to issue a suspensory veto. If the bill is introduced and passed in Parliament and the HoL votes against it. the government could and rightly so invoke the Parliament Act of 1911 which would mean marriage equality would be legal without consent of the bigots. It’s been done several times before.

  28. how many non uk resident are there on the C4M petition

  29. You can bet your sweet asses that more than half of the signatures of American!

  30. It should read:
    “… MOST Tory MPs and several religious groups stand opposed to the proposed changes…”

  31. I bet they’re all from Alabama, apart from the three from the CI.

  32. I’m not very good at maths but on my very rough calculations:

    The number of MPs that have signed the C4M petition is around 2% of the commons, the number of peers is around 2% of the HoL, the number of “religious” people who tick the consensus box is around 75% of the pop (of say 60 million) so around 0.6% of religious people have signed the C4M (assuming all those who have signed are religious) and around 0.5% of the total pop has signed it.

    So it wouldn’t be a very democatic practice to base anything on a petition of 300,000 anyway.

    I wonder if the sponsors of the C4M are actually quite disappointed? But that’s no excuse for us trying o get more signatures for the C4EM petition.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 1:09pm

      They’ll probably get 400 to 500,000 before the end of April. We’ll be lucky if we get 100,000 seeing how late C4EM got into the game without any carefully thought out strategy and planning. We’re never going to beat them.

  33. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1826

    Just signed this government e petion.

    Please sign.

    1. I think the govt epetition with the greatest support is

      http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2797

      but nothing like the support the C4EM has

      1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2012, 12:51pm

        …However c4c’s support is false, signed by a half dozen or so people as a perusal of the petition will clearly demonstrate.There are signatures from all over Europe and the Us How is that a valid petition, and will be exposed when delivered to the Government. Then this crowd of haters will be exposed for what they are; bigoted, homophobic liars………

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 1:00pm

        4835 signatures is laughable, more than poor and it closes on May 8. It certainly does make one think that public opinion is opposed looking at C4M.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 12:58pm

      I signed it but did you see there were only 659 signatures, very disturbing. It closes on May 8, 2012. There’s no way it will get as many as C4M, the winners in all this.

  34. I would doubt the validity of all the signatories, last thing I hear was there was a lot less hits to the website than there were signatures. I really don’t think their claim can be trusted what-so-ever

  35. 300.000 bigots can be wrong and are this time. Anyway It seems to me to be a petition against polygamy. It is a dishonest petition.

  36. And we now know there are 300,000 evangelical reactionary dimwits who have signed a petition against changing the definition of marriage to allow polygamy.

  37. johnny33308 25 Mar 2012, 10:29am

    The ‘petition’ was probably worded in such a way that the “religious” felt it necessary to sign it. I’d bet those signing were self-identified ‘religious’ people. most ordinary people understand this issue will not affect them personally in any way at all and so care little one way or the other about it. Only the
    self-identified ‘religious’ get worked up over this because most of them do not even realize that it is CIVIL MARRIAGE that is coming and will not affect them since their leaders lie to them about this distinction. Make no mistake, the religious leaders are making a naked grab for power in our secular societies where they continue to lose status. Still, they are bigots, which makes them evil by their own measure…..

  38. Craig Denney 25 Mar 2012, 11:07am

    299,000 are foreigners!

    I only looked a little bit but I found French and a Irish people who have signed the petition.

    So therefore it’s invalid.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 12:54pm

      If that were true, where do the French people get the postcodes from that they have to complete before submitting their signatures?

      1. You can be resident in the UK (ie have a postcode) but not necessarily be a British citizen or have voting rights here.

  39. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:12am

    300,000 bigots who wish to treat others like second class citizens but of course they’re against discrimination.
    -
    Absolutely shameful. I’d like to know what they fear from a stronger stable society? Could it be that they’re not in control of it? but then wouldn’t that be their choose. Shame we don’t have any choose over marriage due to bigoted discriminating religious idiots.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:16am

      Maybe the answer would be to reduce how much tax the LGBT community pay if these people wish us to remain unequal. Bet the numbers of ‘Gay’, ‘Lesbians’ etc would go up dramatically though through fraudulent means to capitalize on tax reduction ie they oppose us being equal but willing to lie to get tax cuts.

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2012, 11:18am

        That would prove unworkable so they would have to accept marriage equality.
        -
        Question for these 300,000 people. If you don’t wish to marry a lover of the same sex what has such a marriage got to do with you and how exactly does it affect you?
        -
        The way I see it…. it doesn’t!
        -
        This isn’t a religious decision and they should be reminded of that.

    2. And here is evidence Jock indulges in the blame game …

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2012, 3:01pm

        Erm, crazy says what now?

  40. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 25 Mar 2012, 12:37pm

    0.45% of the UK have signed a bigotted petition. Woo, I’m so scared of that 0.45%! (If my maths is wrong please correct me! Being an artist, etc!) Sorry I am not disheartened by what I already knew to be true – that these bigots and vulnerable people with the hots for god have let their own desire for an equal and just society be bested by the ghosts of long dead bones of a long forgotten society. Good for them that they can waste their time. But it only makes me want to fight harder. The licking of wounds is all very well (as evidence in some of the comments above) but it is too early yet. Perhaps when it reaches a whole percentage the good, people-loving christians and those other peddlers of a bygone era therein will congratulate themselves on a job well done for je$us, but it even then it won’t affect me one bit.

  41. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 12:52pm

    You would think with roughly 3 million gay people in the UK, we would have surpassed C4M within hours, not to mention the millions of straight people who support us. Where are they?

    C4EM as I said in my first post are extremely disorganised, no strategy. What it needs to do is get every gay friendly corporation to join the campaign, universities are nother good place to pitch (young people are far more supportive than the the older generation). This entire campaign is poorly conceived. It’s not aggressive enough and I don’t think it will succeed going by the extremely low number of signatures. It’s beyond embarrassing and should have started months before the consultation began, the way that C4M planned theirs.

    Not one of the organisations that have joined the campaign has the petition on their homepages, not even StonewallUK. It’s appalling and we wonder why we’re losing public opinion as our opponents get all the credit and coverage.

  42. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 1:07pm

    Still only 35,000 signatures, pitiful. Let’s face it, we don’t stand a chance of surpassing C4M. I can’t imagine C4EM didn’t realise that our opponents would be planning a massive campaign far ahead of us. Ours should have been underway a year ago at least. We’re never going to match or surpass C4M.

  43. Wub Folfsky 25 Mar 2012, 1:20pm

    I don’t understand why there’s even an argument in the first place… Talking of all things civil… It doesn’t seem that there’s many civilised people out there.

    Personally I don’t care much for marriage of any sort, a basic civil contract to cover the legal stuff is enough. But I support the legitimate aspirations of those that want to marry.

  44. So other words less than 0.5% of the UK population has signed this. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the signatories are also from outside the UK.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 4:03pm

      How would they get access to the post codes if they’re signing from outside the UK, unless they’re UK residents living overseas?

      1. Spanner1960 26 Mar 2012, 11:35am

        Ever heard of lying?

  45. Jamie Wake 25 Mar 2012, 5:18pm

    I’m really surprised at the bashing C4EM are getting – these are two guys trying to make a difference for all of us – whether you agree with marriage equality or not. In Reading, we’re writing to local papers, our Pride Organisation has made Marriage Equality one of its campaigns this year and we’re bombarding people as much as we can. If every LGBT person commenting on this site got pushing the petition on Facebook, Twitter and other Social Networking sites, at their local bars etc; we could really start to demonstrate that equality is very much needed. Yes Stonewall hasn’t promoted the petition on their webpage but I’m sure they’ve tweeted it! Why not contact them to ask to promote it – we have. It takes longer to write a negative comment on here than it does to share the petition on facebook!

    Again, I salute the guys behind C4EM.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 8:01pm

      Nobody is bashing them. They should have made sure the petition was ready months before the consultation began. Do you mean to say they were that naive not to imagine the religious bigots would not retaliate? This should have been well thought out, a strategy in place ready to meet the challenge. Go check all of the supportive sites who’ve joine the campaign. You won’t find the petition on the homepages, maybe a link but nothing specific. Poorly executed in my view. C4EM didn’t even approach the universities, many of the younger generation are strong supporters of equality. A missed opportunity. I’ve actually contacted C4EM about this and it will bed interesting to see what their next move is.

  46. Craig Nelson 25 Mar 2012, 7:16pm

    I think I am right in saying the first recorded marriages were either incestuous or polygamous (that’s if we’re going by the Bible)

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 7:55pm

      So, if the mytical characters Adam & Eve had children, explain how the planet became populated if incest hadn’t taken place, moron? Abraham also married his sister, Lamech had several wives, Solomon had many wives. The list is endless.

    2. PN. Get this f***cker out of here.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Mar 2012, 10:06pm

      …”you certainly avoided answering as to why marriage should only be between two people if marriage is to be redefined.”

      Point to where I said marriage shouldn’t be between two people please? Nobody is redefining marriage, so quit trotting out the red herring. Marriage has continuously changed and evolved and it will continue to change. There was no such thing as divorce in the christian tradition and look what happened. Women are no longer chattel, there are no longer arranged marriages. Nobody called it a redefinition of marriage. People marry as many times as they wish, they divorce as many times as they wish. It doesn’t affect anybody else’s marriage, religious or civil. Meanwhile, people continue to marry in spite of it and ten countries where same-sex civil marriage is legal hasn’t deterred any heterosexual from marrying nor has it had any detrimental affect on their marriages, civil or religious.

      1. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 9:56am

        Since you see marriage as undefined, are you opposed to polygamy? There any studies that show that same sex marriages is beneficial neither are there any that show polygamy is beneficial to society.
        Therefore, since you are happy to proceed with same sex marriage regardless of the lack of studies, do you apply the same view regarding polygamy? If not, why not?
        You are wrong to say that divorce was not in the Christian tradition. Christ himself stated that fornication was grounds for divorce.

        1. Spanner1960 26 Mar 2012, 11:32am

          *Yawn.*

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Mar 2012, 1:10pm

          I do NOT support polygamy. I don’t see the point in it and those who do, that’s their view, but it’s never going to be legal nor should it be, it serves no purpose.

          Your argument that you need a study to demonstrate how beneficial same-sex civil marriages are to society is yet another red herring. I might as well turn the red herring question on you. Name one government endorsed study from any of the of the 10 governments that have legalised it to prove that it is detrimental? Why would one need a study in the first place makes no sense? All I know is, it hasn’t heralded polygamy, incest, bestiality as many in your camp always rant about. Where is the evidence and where are the statistics country by country? The same nonsensical claims were raised during the Civil Partnership consultation and where is the evidence to the contrary? If you don’t like same-sex civil marriage, don’t marry a gay person, it’s not going to affect yours.

          1. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 1:27pm

            You don’t support polygamy but you support same sex marriage. Since both are prohibited, plese explain the inconsistency. Why do you support the call for a change in the law regarding same sex marriage but woud oppose any change in the law regarding polygamy. The same applies to consensual male incest. Do you agree in principle with the current prohibition, if so why do you agree with the prohibition on (male) incest yet not agree with the prohibition on same sex marriage?
            I see you concede that there are no studies that show me sex marriage is beneficial for society yet you accept the case for same sex marrige regardless. It follows then that you would not require similar studies to support the case for polygamy and same sex incest.
            So why do you wish to see an exception made for same sex marriage but not polygamous or male incestuous marriage?

          2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Mar 2012, 2:06pm

            You’re playing games. I can see nobody can get through to you and with a vile, disgustingly perverse user name and yet you still persist in refusing to come forward with the factual evidence support your claims against civil marriage equality. There is NO such thing as male or even female incestuous marriage you idiot. Stop twisting the argument to avoid answering my questions. You started this entire debate but you can’t even provide one shred of factual evidence of the harm that you alledge will be caused by allowing civil marriage equality. I’ll say it for the last time and then I’m done with you. Please provide the factual evidence of a controlled study conducted by any of the ten governments where same-sex marriage is legal to prove that polgyamy, incest and bestiality have occurred. over the past ten years? How many heterosexuals are demanding incestuous and polygamous marriages, how many are demanding marriages to animals and who is prepared to conduct such marriages?

          3. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 5:04pm

            I am not avoiding answring any questions. Fire away! There is no such thing in this country as incestuous marriage as you say, neither is there same sex marriage but you will ny comment on same sex marriage or volunteer your views on it. You are also unwilling to answer as answer as to why you supourt the prohibition of polygamy.

            “Please provide the factual evidence of a controlled study conducted by any of the ten governments where same-sex marriage is legal to prove that polgyamy, incest and bestiality have occurred. over the past ten years”
            I am not saying that there have been any studies to show same sex marriage is harmful but studies do show that homosexual relationships fail disproportionately to heterosexual ones. My opposition to same sex marriage is not baed on any study but is based on moral grounds. However , you will not divuge the grounds on which you oppose polygamy. Why not?

          4. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Mar 2012, 2:09pm

            And lastly, what about heterosexual incest and heterosexual rape? Polygamy I might add is an heterosexual phenomenon predating the bible and continued throught the biblical era and was wide spread, but only among heterosexuals.

          5. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 5:45pm

            Robert in S. Kensington about 4 hours ago

            “And lastly, what about heterosexual incest and heterosexual rape?”

            What about them???

            “Polygamy I might add is an heterosexual phenomenon predating the bible and continued throught the biblical era and was wide spread, but only among heterosexuals.”

            Your claim that polygamy is a heterosexual phenomena supports the assertion that marriage has always been between men and women and not same sex. You just shot yourself in the foot! Even so, what are you suggesting by that?
            I challenge you to produce historical evidence of polygamy that predates the bible’s historical record, as you claim. This should be fun!

          6. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Mar 2012, 2:24pm

            The American Psychatiric Association on same-sex civil marriage. http://www.psych.org/lib_archives/archives/200417.pdf

        3. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Mar 2012, 1:16pm

          Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:4-6).

  47. Staircase2 25 Mar 2012, 7:59pm

    …the bloody idiots…!

  48. Don’t take this alleged petition signatory figure for granted.
    When New Zealand debated homosexual law reform back in ’86, our Christian Right also circulated an antigay petition, alleging 800, 000 signatures. On closer inspection, they included ineligible children, falsified signatures, cartoon characters, coerced employees and other forms of malfeasance.

    1. Craig Denney 25 Mar 2012, 8:49pm

      Craig, They only have 500 followers out of 300,000 signatures. Don’t you think that looks a bit odd?
      https://twitter.com/#!/c4mtweets

      1. Craig Denney 25 Mar 2012, 8:55pm

        Also the website only gets 500 hit per day when it should be getting 9,000 per day?

    2. Sounds quite biblical.

  49. Robin Evans 25 Mar 2012, 9:05pm

    Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

    The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli…

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

  50. I’m for equal rites & a monarchist , but people have to understand something quite fundamental to English & Welsh law, in that there is an established religion/church that of the Church of England (this is why the Bishops sit in the Lords – Lords Spiritual) now we have come a long way from when Princess Margaret tried to marry Peter Townsend, but the church is still and integral part of the politics of this. Give it time a new Archbishop of Canterbury will have to wrestle with this and he (no she yet) will need time to bring the church round.

  51. Change comes with time and education. Eventually, people will come to realise that same sex marriage will not destroy society.

  52. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 9:55am

    Since you see marriage as undefined, are you opposed to polygamy? There any studies that show that same sex marriages is beneficial neither are there any that show polygamy is beneficial to society.
    Therefore, since you are happy to proceed with same sex marriage regardless of the lack of studies, do you apply the same view regarding polygamy?
    You are wrong to say that divorce was not in the Christian tradition. Christ himself stated that fornication was ground for divorce.

    1. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 10:02am

      You appear to be saying that homophobic men are more likely to be aroused by homosexuality. This arousal confirms that they are latent homosexuals or closet homosexuals. Therefore, the conclusion of the matter is that homophobia is peculiar to homosexuality. Homophobics are homosexual. Since homophobia (or any phobia) is a mental disease, and homophobia is disproportionately homosexual, homosexuality is therefore linkd to a mental disorder…as we knew all along. Treat the homophobia and you will treat the homosexualitis component.
      PS. Thanks for the study, it was helpful

  53. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 10:01am

    Robin Evans about 13 hours ago
    Thumb up Thumb down 0

    Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

    The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli…
    My reply folllows below.

    1. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 10:03am

      You appear to be saying that homophobic men are more likely to be aroused by homosexuality. This arousal confirms that they are latent homosexuals or closet homosexuals. Therefore, the conclusion of the matter is that homophobia is peculiar to homosexuality. Homophobics are homosexual. Since homophobia (or any phobia) is a mental disease, and homophobia is disproportionately homosexual, homosexuality is therefore linkd to a mental disorder…as we knew all along. Treat the homophobia and you will treat the homosexualitis component.
      PS. Thanks for the study, it was helpful…

  54. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 5:09pm

    Robert S Kensington said
    “How many heterosexuals are demanding incestuous and polygamous marriages, how many are demanding marriages to animals and who is prepared to conduct such marriages?”

    How is this relvant to the case for polygamy? Proportionately, very few people want to marry someone of the same sex either. Perhaps if polygamy were legalized, it would be popular, ho knows. Laws are there to protect the minoritis rights, however small. If there is no good reason to prohibit polygamy, it should be legal, whether 13 people require it or 3 million. Since you hold that marriage is undefined, would you be in favour of any move to legalize polygamy? If not, why not?

  55. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 5:12pm

    Robert S Kensington said
    “”I do NOT support polygamy. I don’t see the point in it and those who do, that’s their view, but it’s never going to be legal nor should it be, it serves no purpose”

    My reply
    The same could be said of same sex marriage could it not but you ae supporting that. Why the prejudice toward a harmless consenting adult community?

  56. .excement on the penis. That's anal sex 4u 26 Mar 2012, 5:17pm

    Robert S Kensington said
    “”I do NOT support polygamy. I don’t see the point in it and those who do, that’s their view, but it’s never going to be legal nor should it be, it serves no purpose”

    My reply
    The same could be said of same sex marriage could it not but you ae supporting that. Why the prejudice toward a harmless consenting adult community?.

  57. .excement on the penis. That's anal sex 4u 26 Mar 2012, 5:18pm

    Robert S Kensington said
    “”I do NOT support polygamy. I don’t see the point in it and those who do, that’s their view, but it’s never going to be legal nor should it be, it serves no purpose”

    My reply
    The same could be said of same sex marriage could it not but you ae supporting that. Why the prejudice toward a harmless consenting adult community?

  58. excement on the penis. 26 Mar 2012, 5:47pm

    Robert in S. Kensington about 4 hours ago
    Thumb up Thumb down 0

    You’re playing games. I can see nobody can get through to you and with a vile, disgustingly perverse user name.

    Is this a concession that anal sex is in fact perverse?

  59. excement on the penis... 26 Mar 2012, 5:48pm

    Robert in S. Kensington about 4 hours ago
    Thumb up Thumb down 0

    You’re playing games. I can see nobody can get through to you and with a vile, disgustingly perverse user name.

    Is this a concession that anal sex is in fact perverse?

  60. Why is there such intolerance and nasty name-calling by those in favour of civil partnerships being called ‘marriage’ and those who see a distinct difference between marriage which almost always results in biological offspring from the union who have to be protected by law, and civil partnership which is between two same sex consenting adults? By the way, most of us who do see the difference aren’t at all religious, but do strongly believe that children must be put first.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all