Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MEP begs David Cameron not to contintue his ‘bizarre attempt to redefine marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. *rolls eyes*

    *watches the swivel-eyed loon*

    *wonders when people will grow up and act in a mature way*

  2. Dr Robin Guthrie 29 Mar 2012, 9:25am

    Isn’t it lovely how wishing for equality is always branded as “militant”.

    If you do not like it “Giles” f off and join the BNP or UKIP.

    1. It’s just one of those buzz words they throw around. Just a cheap way to discredit them, by making them sound crazy.

      1. But what he does not seem to understand is that the words of vilification such as “Militant”, are also double edged.

        I suspect some one will fall on their sword before dawn . . .

        1. I would argue his stance on seeking to ensure that LGBT people are treated with inequality and treated with segregation is militant. I would argue his intention to seek to restrict the freedom of religion of Quakers, Liberal Jews, Unitarians and others in other denominations.

          I would argue his either intentional or latent homophobia is militant.

          I take my definition of militant as being “Combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause.” This seems to be precisely the combative and aggressive sort of behaviour demonstrated by Mr Chichester that seeks to undermine and dehumanise LGBT people.

  3. Another homophobe
    Same old language and ignorance
    Marriage has been redefined before e.g. when same-sex couples were denied marriage

    1. I don’t see marriage equality as a redefinition. And I wonder why people like this guy keep trying to say so. Just saying something doesn’t make it true.
      It is still only couples who can get married and no other laws will change which regulate which people can get married. Extending marriage to same-sex couples does not redefine marriage, just like the vote didn’t become redefined when women were first allowed to vote. It’s still the same vote as it was before, it will remain the same marriage as it was before.

      1. Go back a century and I’m sure Giles would have been voicing his outrage at granting women the vote.

        1. He obviously doesn’t agree with them having a career. This is “untraditional”.

          He is a total dinosaur.

          1. One provider and one carer the traditional way? Darn women being untraditional.

      2. de Villiers 29 Mar 2012, 12:00pm

        It does re-define marriage insofar as marriage is defined in English (and French) law as being between one man and one woman. We should not pretend that it is not a re-definition but we should also not shrink from arguing that a re-definition is necessary.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Mar 2012, 12:24pm

          The only time traditional (religious) marriage was re-defined was when civil marriage was introduced for heterosexual couples by a secular government. Marriage has always been evolving and will continue to do so. It doesn’t change anything in any way shape or form. It will still be marriage. It won’t deter or have any negative impact on heterosexuals marrying, procreating for those who choose to do so or not. It’s not so much about re-definition but more about expanding a CIVIL right already enjoyed by the majority. In a democracy rights are expanded not contracted to exclude anyone. This MEP clearly cannot comprehend that simple fact. As to his claim that many of his gay friends are not supportive of civil marriage equality is rather disingenuous. Bigots always claim they have gay friends as if that gives them an exemption from being accused of homophobia.

          1. Spanner1960 29 Mar 2012, 4:04pm

            Oh really?
            What the hell was the Reformation then? Chopped liver?

        2. yes, but redefinition in itself wont affect heterosexual marriage in any way so therefore it is irrelevant to them, redefinition will only be relevant to those who at the moment are not allowed to marry

        3. This is exactly the sort of semantic argument the likes of Chichester want us to get bogged down with.

          Whether it is a redefinition or not (and technically I think it is – but no more than many others that have gone before) is irrelevant. Its about honesty, fairness, integrity, equality and humanity. All traits clearly lacking in Mr Chichesters letter.

  4. Dear Mr Chichester,

    As an MEP I’m sure you must regularly have contact with MEPs of other countries who have introduced equal marriage for same sex couples.

    Might I suggest you invite them for lunch one day and educate yourself to avoid further embarrassment through idiotic statements.

    Sincerely

    PN users

  5. The bigots are really crawling out of the woodwork. This is who we have representing us in Europe? Oh great.
    If he absolutely desperately has to chuck the procreation argument in there: when will people like him realise that same-sex couples are also bringing up children? How “bizarre” is it that if he got his way some children would not be able to that their parents are married? Yes: equal means equal and anyone who tries to make a case for separate and equal fools themselves. Only marriage for all couples is equal.

  6. He appears to be encouraging incestuous CPs. Funny that.

    The letter contains all the standard bullet points of opponents to SSM, and he’s signed the NOM petition. Sorry, I mean the C4M petition. Rather suspicious.

    His idea of traditional marriage is one where the wife is not permitted to go to work. Says it all really.

    1. PinkPolitico 29 Mar 2012, 9:49am

      Yes, and the plea for recognition of brothers and sisters living together or even friends sharing a flat (I have seen that too!) is raised by anti-gay campaigners in every country debating the issue. It’s nothing more than a red herring. This MEP appears to have simply taken all the anti-gay talking points on the web he could find. I bet he does not have an original thought in his head – a typical Tory backwoodsman (They haven’t gone away you know)

      1. Shouldn’t that be backwards man.

  7. PinkPolitico 29 Mar 2012, 9:39am

    I always find it hilarious when homophobes try to make their bigoted views appear more respectable by quoting annoymous ‘friends’ in the gay community who agree with their views. Funny how you rarely if ever hear from these gay people apparently opposed to equality. Of course these claims are utter rubbish. The largest poll of gay opinion on the issue I have seen showed a near consensus on the issue of marriage equality – 98% in favour.

    And furthermore, while I have many friends who I disagree with about economic issues, foreign policy and so on, I do not count homophobes among them. Some things are too fundamental to “agree to disagree” about.

    1. Amen to your comment… nothing to add. :)

  8. The same tired bogus arguments. “Marriage is about one man and one woman for the production of children.” Clearly not the case since not being able to have children, or not having children, or clearly stating an intent at the outset not to have children, doesn’t render a marriage null and void or prevent mixed sex couples from marrying.
    There is talk of undermining marriage, but no explanation as to how. What effect will granting same sex couples the equal right to marry have on existing or future mixed sex couples’ marriages? The answer is none.
    The only thing that’s bizarre about Cameron’s behaviour in supporting marriage equality is that he’s a senior Tory politician who is fighting for an issue in favour of equality. It seems other members of his party are still happy to stay true to form and oppose equality, though. That is when they’re not busy channeling public funds through companies of which they “forgot” they are directors.

  9. The man is an idiot – NEXT!

  10. Isn’t the PS on his letter brilliant? It seems it’s OK for him to change policy when a matter arises that he feels is important, but not for other politicians to behave the same way.

  11. Another tedious hetero wanting to stamp off and take his ball with him, although it isn’t his bloody ball.

    Marriage as concept has been evolving and changing for many years. A loving, equal relationship between two fully consenting adults is a very modern iteration. Marriage has been redefined many times already – women are no longer property, women no longer surrender their rights, women can no longer be beaten or raped at will just because they got married and everyone gets to choose that relationship for themselves.

    Those who harp on antiquity always do so because they don’t bloody understand it.

  12. Father Dougal 29 Mar 2012, 9:52am

    What is this strange link between SW England, and religious extremism/ homophobia? Is there something in the Taunton water?

    And why was this man not fired after the expenses scandal? See the reports in the Telegraph.

  13. Some Conservatives don’t get it do they?

    They are quick to want limited state interference in people’s lives when making economic choices but fancy a big state interfering in people’s lives when it comes to social issues. It’s completely contradictory.

    1. Poor things. Like fundies of all types they dream of a lost golden age when men were men and women knew their place. And buggers got hanged.

    2. Mumbo Jumbo 29 Mar 2012, 10:36am

      Indeed. They wish to shrink the state until it is just small enough to get into bed with you.

  14. Time for him to resign or be removed

    1. Cameron needs to take strong action against this sort of nonsense or his position will be undermined. Time to ask, if she had Cameron’s views, what would Thatcher do?

      1. I agree. I do hope Cameron will not forget how these homophobes are stabbing him in the back. He should not tolerate them,

  15. LOL @ “militant” Stonewall :-D

    Does Giles know what militant actually means?

    1. I was thinking much the same – I searched Stonewall’s website for information about equal marriage and their ‘militant’ campaign – sadly I have yet find any evidence of its existence.

  16. Spanner1960 29 Mar 2012, 10:16am

    Well he’s a Euro-MP, so come the revolution, his type will be the first up against the wall.

    The man is a totally impotent irrelevance.

  17. Strange that they always have “gay friends” who agree with them. Which probably means they once saw Christopher Biggins on TV

  18. It amazes me how these people claim their gay friends don’t want equal marriage. Can you please showme your gay friends who have stated this?

    Many of my friends both gay and straight don’t believe in marriage itself but are supporters of the equal marriage campaign.

    Also, the fact he is spouting on about procreation. How many times must we say marriage is not about procreation, it is about love. Those who want to have children will do so and that will be a by product of their love for one another!

    I think this man has spent too much time at the top of the rock with the other baboons!

  19. Mumbo Jumbo 29 Mar 2012, 10:32am

    “Stonewall militant gay agenda”

    I would have thought that a man claiming to have so many gay best friends would know Stonewall’s less than stellar record on the subject of pushing for marriage equality.

    1. Exactly!

  20. Utter ignorance! He makes himself look so stupid by what he says. He is on th wrong side of history.

  21. Why is Giles Chichester signing a petition got together by religious extremists with very close links to US dominionist anti-gay hate groups?
    Coalition for Marriage is the UK version of the US organisation NOM which has recently been in the news for pitting bigotry’s victims against other victims.

    “The Human Rights Campaign this week revealed internal documents it obtained from the anti-gay group National Organization for Marriage that reveal a strategy to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks.”

  22. Could Mr Chichester please explain why gay marriage redefines marriages whereas heterosexual divorce does not?

    How about banning all forms of ‘marriage redefenition’. Why not put making divorce illegal on the old Tory manifesto. But we all know that would be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas and make the Conservative Party totally unelectable. Better to scapegoat a minority then Mr Chichester for the sins of the majority.

    1. Excellent comment. . .

      I agree the re-definition argument appears to be nothing more then a defelection of the many important prior revisions.

      Interesting how divorce continues to be ignored as one of those central revisions.

    2. Spanner1960 29 Mar 2012, 12:34pm

      Actually, that was the primary reason for the reformation and the creation of the Church of England in the first place, as Henry VIII wanted to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon but the Pope and the Catholic church refused, so he set up his own.

      Maybe it’s about time some churches might want to consider breaking away again.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Mar 2012, 2:14pm

      Serial adulterers such as Chichester are hardly in a position to oppose civil marriage equality. Heterosexual adultery and divorce aren’t traditional either and are indeed the real threat to marriage. So this only proves his argument is deeply flawed and irrelevant. If anything, HE is a threat to marriage, 3 wives and who knows if this third will be his last? Hypocrites of the worst kind. I do wish supportive MPs would point this out to them, hopefully Cameron will.

      1. I would argue that adultery and divorce are very traditional.

        His happily ever after *mummy daddy children labrador and volvo estate* concept is the untraditional one

  23. This ‘traditional’ family only exists in the middle classes he prefers to represent. Upper class women have nannies to mind their kids. Working class women have to go out to work to make ends meet. This has been true for centuries. Do you imagine all the women in the cotton mills of Lancashire were single? Until laws were passed, their children would be working alongside them. where was the traditional family carer and provider there?

  24. “Tests of common sense”? I would have thought common sense would be to respect and treat people equally. Discrimination is not common sense and never will be. Seriously, it’s just one bigot after another, all with the same or similar arguments. It seems the consultation has brought all these ignorant, prejudiced neanderthals out of the woodwork. I wish I had a TARDIS, so I could round them all up and transport them back in time to the Dark Ages. They’d feel much more at home there, I think.

  25. Paddyswurds 29 Mar 2012, 11:15am

    I am really getting bored of these dinosaurs now and we are just getting repetitive with the comments, so what i said about all the rest of them, ditto for this idiot……

    1. The reason they are getting so repetitive is because they are all being prompted to speak by the same source. The American anti-gay movements know that marriage equality for the UK would shift opinion in their own country far more than marriage equality in other European countries. That’s why they are desperately trying to stop it, whilst hiding in the shadows lest they be accused of doing exactly what they are doing.

      However, the language parallels give the game away to anyone watching closely.

  26. when ever somone goes on about ‘tradtition’ im always reminded of that quote from Buddha, ‘Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.’

  27. Has Pink News been in touch with either Matthew Sephton or LGBTory to see if they support the expulsion of Giles Chichester from the Tory Party for his BNP sympathies.

    if not then why not.

  28. Where are lgbtory

    1. Hiding – Matthew Sephton and his worthless group of quisling Uncle Toms are only allowed to have an opinion on issues relating to the LGBT population when Tory HQ grants persmission to them.

      LGBTory really is a sorry, worthless little excuse for a group.

      it is blatanty obvious that the Tory Party remains the nasty party and that no LGBT person in their right mind should ever even consider voting Tory.

      1. They’re far far too busy pickpocketing the old, sick and poor to bother about what they view as lower class gays …

  29. Spain can use this extremist BNP sympathiser to argue for the return of Gibralter to Spain.

    Chichester is the MP for Gibraltar after all.

    If Chicester supports the CP Apartheid regime, while at the same time that Spain offers full legal equality for the LGBT population then Spain has a strong and reasonable arguement that the British CP Apartheid regime is discriminatory and bigotted and that the Spanish equality laws mean that Gibralter would be better off under Spainish control.

    1. Chichester is the MEP for Gibraltar, not MP. And Gibraltar as a British Overseas Territory can and does set its own laws for LGBT people, due to it being self-governing. For instance, there are no Civil Partnerships there, and it was only last year that the age of consent was equalised.

      1. Wikipedia to the rescue!!!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Gibraltar

        Warning : it’s not particularly happy reading.

        1. As i said – Gibraltar would be far better off under Spanish rule.

          That much is obvious to everyone the Spanish folk living on Gibraltar who for some unfathomable reason believe they are British.

  30. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 12:39pm

    What an idiot.

    “Equal yes, same no”? What the hell… then it’s not equal then is it?

    And how exactly does allowing same sex couple to marry change “the tradition family” does their own belief change? I very much doubt it!

    This is just another creep, trying to ride roughshod over any form of equality and he should be ashamed.

    I don’t see them thinking it’s fair to cut taxes for the LGBT community so how can they think it’s fair to stop equality through marriage.

    The man’s a disgrace. Really has no idea which does beg the question… how do these people get in position of power… worrying.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Mar 2012, 1:25pm

      They get into power with the help of their like-minded bigoted constituents and supporters.

      1. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 2:23pm

        Actually they got into power because people were sick of the last government. People like this do not come into the equation it’s how people feel at the time and who they believe is better at getting the country back on it’s feet.

        1. Don’t you think nasty people like these are attracted to the Tories because they are, well, nasties? Guys like these can do as they please and their “leader” will either agree with them or at most ignore their bad behaviour, as is the case in hand. “Getting the country back on its feet” is nothing more than an excuse to give tax breaks for the rich, increases for the poor, rich donors parties, etc etc… remember “we are all in this together”, “big society” blah dee blah ….

          1. Spanner1960 29 Mar 2012, 4:01pm

            Oh yes of course.
            We vote for them because they eat babies.

            FFS, stop seeing everything in such polarised extremes.

          2. Did you vote for them Spanner? If so that means blaming them would be like blaming yourself. That would hurt wouldn’t it? Do you believe you’re more like a sadist rather than a masochist?

          3. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 5:46pm

            Good grief Bebert, grow up and get to understand democracy. Yes the Tories have homophobes maybe more than the other 2 parties but the other parties have them too. We aren’t talking about the budget and your ‘interpretation’ of it. Typical Labourite to focus on small parts and not the bigger picture though. There are many reasons to vote for a party. For me it’s who speaks to me at an election so I have never been loyal to any party but I want whats best for this country not your communist wants and wishes.

            It goes without saying that with this current consultation people with all views will come out and speak. It’s unfortunate that we have these vile people but we do and you live in fantasy land if you think differently.

            Just because not everyone doesn’t vote your way or agree with your communist ways doesn’t make them wrong or sadist etc thats just you and shows how immature You really are.
            -

          4. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 5:48pm

            What this vile man, this story is about, needs to be reminded of is that it was religion that redefined marriage, so in fact it wouldn’t be redefined but going back to what it was originally…. two people wanting to commit in a loving relationship.

          5. Jock darling, your convenient interpretation of democracy is a vile twisted one. It’s not a coincidence the Tories have more homophobes and are known as the nasty party. Did you vote for them? Do you really think it’s “best for this country” to give tax breaks for multimillionaires and tax incresases for the poor, old and sick of our society? Do you think it’s best for this country to be nasty? How do you explain CallMeDave and the LGBTory’s silence when their twisted friends are having homophobic field parties in their own backyards? I’ve got one word for you: money. For Tories, the money card trumps everything, even your so beloved gay one. They’ll walk over anything and anyone for money.

    2. He doesn’t seem to get that people may be different in all sorts of ways but they can and should be be given exactly the same and equal treatment under the law.

    3. I suspect Tory HQ might be suggesting new candidates for that constituency come the next round of Euro elections. He’s just handed supporters of the other parties a reason to get out and vote whilst embarrassing the Tories. Not a good combination.

      1. And by that I mean in the context of wanting to keep your job as a Tory MEP.

  31. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Mar 2012, 12:45pm

    Exactly who are his gay friends? Why didn’t they publicly speak up in support of their “friend” or better yet, co-sign his letter to Cameron? It always amazes me when bigots claim they have gay friends as if that exempts them from being accused of homophobia which is what this really is all about.

    I hope Cameron stands his ground. Has anyone read any more about the Telegraph’s claim that Cameron took money to water down the marriage consultation? I haven’t seen or heard anything. Nothing from Cameron either.

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 2:27pm

      It’s usually these people who come out with… I’m not homophobic, I have nothing against Gays, some of my best friends are gay”…. always a doubtful comment and usually means they are try to convince themselves.

      1. You have to wonder if the gays people like Giles consider to be their “friends” consider people like Giles to be theirs. Most likely the answer is that they don’t.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Mar 2012, 3:35pm

          He’s parroting Anne Widdecombe’s statement that there are gays who’ve signed the C4M petition.

          Last time I checked, civil marriage isn’t traditional marriage at all. If anything “redefined” it as these bigots like to chant, it was civil marriage that has only been around in the UK since the 19th century, a fairly recent phenomenon. The only threats to marriage both religious and civil are currently heterosexual serial adulterers and those who divorced, sometimes more than once, like that Tory chap Sir Roger Gale, on his third and who knows if there will be a fourth? Their hypocrisy is astounding.

        2. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 5:50pm

          Yeah I think that David hits the mark perfectly.

    2. That old line “I have friends who are gay …” (with the implication – this means I am not a homophobe, well some of those who are alleged to have murdered Stephen Lawrence have claimed to have had Asian Black friends (does this mean they are not racist?)).

  32. “He accuses the prime minister of pandering to the “Stonewall militant gay agenda””

    Lets see now…
    Pandering – TICK
    Militant – TICK
    Gay agenda – TICK.

    Yep, another paranoid fool with delusions of persecution.

    1. And when they get really hot under the collar about “equality” . . .

      There is always the “F” or the “N” word

      To step up further their persecution complex!!!

    2. Spanner1960 29 Mar 2012, 3:59pm

      Plus, if he understood the argument properly he would have realised by now what a bunch of chocolate teapots Stonewall really are.

      Militant? Stonewall couldn’t knock the skin off a cold rice pudding.

  33. the Stonewall militant gay agenda

    The minute the words ‘militant gay agenda’ are mentioned, the argument becomes worthy of nothing more than contempt.

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 2:28pm

      Indeed!!! Well said!

    2. CallMeDave and LGBTory nowhere to be seen … they are either too busy trying to divert the country’s attention away from their latest blunders, or they really can’t care less about it, or both… Why would they sweat if they have grannies do the work for them?

  34. What *exactly* does an MEP do anyway?

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Mar 2012, 5:51pm

      usually spends loads of taxpayers money on a lavish unnecessary lifestyle.

  35. johnny33308 29 Mar 2012, 6:16pm

    This bigoted person uses all of the terminology used by churches and others opposed to equality for LGBTIQ people. Such terminology is directly responsible for promoting misconceptions about LGBTIQ people to the general public; it is often used to incite violence against LGBTIQ people, as well as prejudice and even more bigotry…the public needs to be made aware that all we wish are the EXACT SAME rights as every heterosexual already has and has had for hundreds of years. There is nothing that we want that could possibly be ‘special’ or ‘more than heteros have’, merely the SAME rights. ALL citizens deserve and are due THE SAME RIGHTS….the bigots like to label our struggle for ‘SPECIAL’ rights when that clearly and unambiguously is certainly NOT the case at all. Marriage is not being redefined, equality is being created where there was none before. These homophobes and bigots are quite tiresome with the same old, tired lies and stupidity, singing the same old ‘song’…

    1. Mr Chichester is simply saying what very many people – but not the regular readers of Pink News – think and are afraid to say. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. End of story. Quite where the BNP fit into this is a mystery as he is a not a member, and nor is he homophobic neither am I – just honest and has the courage to say what he thinks. So keep to the topic and leave the cheap slurs behind in the playground. Spain may have gay marriage but still tortures animals for fun and is bankrupt so Britain should not follow their example.

  36. Around 3 yrs ago I asked this guy to sign an EU petition set up by the greens/lib dems to allow the mutual recognition of CPs and marriages within th EU and the guy replied that he would have signed it if the petition hadn’t included marriages.

    Once a homophobe always a homophobe it seems…sad he’s totally incapable of accepting LGBT people here and in the EU…he’s 65, time for him to go!

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