Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Deputy First Minister of Scotland handed petition against equal marriage by her own constituents

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Another day, another story, another reason to loathe religion and the imbeciles that follow it with every fibre of my being.

    Just for today – Find a catholic, tell them that their whole moronic faith is based on the fact that a man called Joseph was too stupid to realise that Mary was a sl@g. Son of god? Drivel. Nonsense. Cr@p. Mary was just the local bike.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Apr 2012, 8:11pm

      And the roman cult is foreign. It’s hierarchy bow to a foreign potentate (actually a monarch by definition) in Rome first and foremost. What they are doing is trying to subvert government. In another time that would have been construed as treason and we all know what the penalty for that was. They’d better watch it. And they wonder why there is so much anti-catholicism and anti-religion sentiment in the UK. They should keep ther noses out of civil matters that are none of their damned business, just as government keeps its nose out of theirs.

    2. I always thought if the gospel nativity story happened today it would result in Mary, Joseph and God on Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer airing their dirty laundry in public with the traditional round of pointing and shouting, lie detector tests and DNA tests.
      “My wife is two-timing me with an omnipotent deity” would be the title.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Apr 2012, 8:08pm

    Here we go! Brian Henry’s cult does not speak for the rest of of the UK. The Anglican church does not even consider marriage to be a sacrament. Civil marriage is definitely NOT a sacrament either. Why is this cult and others trying to inject their religion into a civil matter? Maybe we should start a movement calling for a revisitation of the Catholic Emancipation Act. Give them a dose of their own medicine for a change. They want us banned from civil marriage, we want their religion banned from the UK, fair is fair.

    1. Yes but why promote any form of injustice to further our own fight against it?

      And the way Anglicans view marriage varies from one the same as Rome to the very Protestant one.

      1. johnny33308 16 Apr 2012, 12:28am

        It is NOT injustice to fight those who claim to be your enemy. Remember Osama bin Ladin? One cannot reason with closed minds and so one must do what one must to eliminate those who would injure us….it is us or them…they started the war, we MUST end it! If they win, we will be destroyed, all of us. Remember this when you feel sympathy for them…they have no mercy for any of us.

  3. Sturgeon is a tough cookie. She’s no pushover. I wouldn’t worry about this so called petition.

  4. bobbleobble 14 Apr 2012, 8:30pm

    If someone was canny enough they’d be out on the street and making sure that they organise a petition with 2000 or more signatures in favoure of marriage equality. Still I doubt Sturgeon will be swayed by this one way or the other.

    1. Signed under what pretense? I imagine a “they want to make us do it” would be in there somewhere to get the signatures up.

      Be interested to see what age range the signatories were too because I can’t say I know too many young folk who do religion that seriously up here

      1. No idea why that’s shown up as a reply :S

  5. They said a decision will made by late spring, but now they are, apparently, extending spring this year by several months.

    1. I always regard April as a Spring month, so there’s still time.

      Sturgeon will not yield to the homophobia of these people. I am sure she will continue to recognise the importance of equality and fairness and be minded to ensure equal marriage occurs.

    2. I noticed this too when a newspaper last week said it would be announced in the summer. I’ve e-mailed both the Scottish Government website and my own local SNP MSP asking when it will be announced and have heard nothing back from either after 6 days, so far.

      1. I’ve just received a reply from my MSP who said that it will take longer than expected to analyse the responses to the consultation as there were much more than expected.

        However, in this Scottish Parliament Information Centre briefing, which was written in January 2012 after the consultation had closed, the intention was still to announce their response in the spring even after knowing how many responses there were. Read the paragraph headed Scottish Government action which starts half-way down page 2.

        http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/Petitions%20briefings%20S4/PB12-1413.pdf

        1. I should also have said that my MSP gave me no indication of when the decision will me made.

          1. And, I’d also asked my MSP (who’s an SNP member) about Bill Walker. I asked why nothing was said by the SNP about his homophobia yet they took swift action against him when his violence towards his ex-wives was revealed. She replied,

            “Personal opinions provided during a consultation do no constitute discrimination.”

            Nice to know there’s a get-out clause when you want to be a bigot! Does this mean an MSP in the SNP can make openly racist comments if there’s ever a consultation on hate-crime and get away with it?

            Pity for Bil Walker that the information about him battering his wives didn’t come out during a consultation on domestic violence!

  6. “The organiser of the petition, Brian Henry told the BBC: “We don’t see any reason for a change in the law. ”

    No they never do!

    1. They don’t want the law changed because it would upset their homophobia.

      Changes in marriage law would not change their ability to marry – nor force them to marry someone of the same sex.

      Its pure bigotry.

    2. Is that their argument? Idiots.

      The people who owned slaves never saw a reason to change the law.

      The people who opposed universal suffrage never saw a reason to change the law.

      Those who oppress never see a reason to change, why would they, it means losing their power over others.

    3. Pity in a way more people didn’t feel like that before the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829!

  7. Haven’t the Scottish govt already put on hold the “preserving marriage” epetition put forward a few months ago pending the results of the consultation?

    What is the utter pointlessness of another petition saying the same predicable nonsense for the same predictable homophobic groups…

    1. It was the Petitions Committee that put the e-petition on hold, not the Scot Gov.

  8. No doubt if I were a good little catholic girl and the Knights of St Columba got me cornered in a pew & waived their big weapons at me I’d sign anything they put in front of me. I’m not a very brave person myself.

  9. I call on Nicola Sturgeon to disregard any signatures provided by females. They would have been asked, in Church, if they wished to sign the petition.

    1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states:

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

    And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

    They therefore could not have given authority for their name to be added to the petition.

  10. Can’t wait to see this culminate in another humiliation for shrieking, narrow-minded twats.

  11. Hugh Robson 14 Apr 2012, 10:03pm

    I suspect Nicola Sturgeon is made of sterner stuff and will not be swayed by a few thousand signatures on a petition sponsored by a secretive society that is vehemently men-only and which is sectarian in nature. The initiation ceremonies are very secretive but believed to include the words:
    “I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or State, named Protestant or Liberals, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates, or officers. I do further declare that the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same.”

    Clearly this secretive group is anti-establishment, against religious freedom (if non-Catholic) and subversive.

    Their views are homophobic and illegitimate in modern society.

  12. Catholics are just following their history oppression, centuries of murder in the Holy Wars, death and suffering in the Inquisitions, killing women in the Witch Hunts, destruction of children and their families by pedophile priest and persecution of gays to name a few. Why should the Catholic mad men stop destroying millions of lives now?

  13. I really hope that Nicola Sturgeon throws this petition straight into the (recycling!) bin.

    She has already met with the Catholic Church, Glasgow Mosque and the Church of Scotland during the consultation to hear their views on same-sex marriage. Surely she’s knows what they think of it by now.

    I’m still disappointed that the Scot Gov are still only deciding whether to introduce it and didn’t take a firm stand from the outset.

    1. Hugh Robson 14 Apr 2012, 10:15pm

      I am disappointed too. Nonetheless remain confident that Sturgeon will bring forward proposals to ensure that Scots gay men and women can marry.

      I am certain she will not be influenced by a secretive and harmful group like the Knights They make promises such as “I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatsoever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war

    2. Hugh Robson 14 Apr 2012, 10:16pm

      secretly and openly against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex, or condition, and that will hang, bum, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants’ heads against the wails in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same can not be done openly, I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. That I will in voting always vote for K. of C, in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do

    3. Hugh Robson 14 Apr 2012, 10:19pm

      that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope.”

      http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesuits.htm

      She is taking a petition from sectarians who refuse to accept civil authority and who are prepared to bear arms.

      She will not be held to ransom by such an organisation.

  14. We had a case in the USA where there were thoughts the Knights might be linked to terrorism (they are linked to your Scottish group too):

    http://nightlight.typepad.com/nightlight/2005/06/do_the_knights_.html

    There are reports that they have been instumental in persuading police not to pursue child abuse investigations e.g. In one case reported in the headlines of the Irish Press, one priest using an altar as a bed systematically raped at least 10 little girls aged 6 dressed as little brides on their First Communion. The senior detective investigating these crimes was approached through “The Catholic Knights of Columbus” according to the investigation and the evidence envelop subsequently disappeared. The detective then received a medal from the pope – all covered in the front page Dublin headlines.

    1. Evidence envelope disappearing? Sounds a bit like the case of the disappearing laptop!

  15. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 14 Apr 2012, 10:40pm

    Nice article, though what’s with the dead links? Last I heard, it was Scotland who was planning it as “when” and not “if”, while England and Wales were lagging behind.

    “Decisions will be taken in due course and, as the government has always made clear, if the decision is to legislate for same-sex marriage then there will be protections to ensure that no religious group is compelled to take part in same-sex marriage.”

    Hah, great retort. I’m glad to see she’s spotted that religious institutions have no right to interfere with civil marriages.

    1. The Scottish Government consultation has always been “if” while the one by the UK Government for England and Wales is “when” they will introduce marriage equality.

      The Scot Gov have not yet made a decision if they are going to go ahead with it and won’t do so until they’ve analysed the consultation reponses.

      This is why I’m still a wee bit worried that it won’t go ahead in the end.

      I’ve just been checking the election results from last year and Nicola Sturgeon had a majority of 4,349 – so hopefully this 1000+ petition won’t sway her, especially as she also has a large muslim population in her constituency. She wouldn’t be the first politicial to put their onw needs ahead of what’s right.

      1. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 14 Apr 2012, 11:09pm

        Out of curiosity, does anyone know of an instance when any religious institution has managed to stop something as major as this in recent British history? Because while various religions are foaming at the mouth, and the media are lapping it up (and deliberately ignoring the religions which support equal marriage – I actually have an email from the BBC confirming this), I don’t think they really have any power.

        1. Have you considered forwarding that e-mail to PN? Seems there might be a story in there for them

          1. I agree there is a definite story there, PN could follow if they had the email.

          2. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 15 Apr 2012, 12:36am

            PN is already putting up articles by the clergy who do support equal marriage, which I think is the main thing. I’m concerned that I could be letting myself in for trouble if I were to publicise those emails.

        2. I think it depends on the politicians themselves and how they react to stuff like this which ultimately determines how much power these religous bigots have.

          If they get scared enough by these kind of threats, then they may drop or ammend legislation to appease the religious nutters which gives them power and they’ll keep doing it in future.

          On the other hand, if the politicians didn’t pander to them at all (and that includes holding meetings with them to find out their views) then these religions would eventually realise that they have no power at all and their threats won’t change anything so gradually wouldn’t even bother in future.

          But as I said in an earlier comment, there’s nothing like the fear of losing their seat to help make up a politician’s mind on an issue! Let’s hope that won’t be the case here.

  16. Out of interest, why are people thumbing down Hugh and Chet?

    It seems to me they are trying to warn us of some serious issues regarding the group arranging this petition.

    Links to terrorism, sectarianism and refusal to comply with civil authority – not a surprise they are homophobic then?

    1. We seem to have a regular army of trolls who just mark down comments, or up if it’s the idiots

      1. I don’t like this thumbs down, thumbs up thing either. I’d much rather someone replied to me if they don’t like what I’m saying and say why they disagree.

  17. Gosh, 0.02% of Scotland’s population? Better forget equal marriage!

    1. Well, let’s do some arithmetic here, James.

      So far, Pink News (which is of course totally impartial) tells us that 50,000 people across Scotland have responded to the consultation. This represents 0.9% of the Scottish population.

      Ms Sturgeon represents an urban constituency in Glasgow where just 43% (22,000 people) turned out to vote in the Scottish election last year. By comparing the below average turnout in her constituency with average turnout across Scotland, we can estimate that 0.75% of people in her constituency will respond to the petition – which would equate to just under 395 people.

      This specific collection of signatories mentioned in the article to Ms. Sturgeon is only from 5 churches within her constituency – so of course there may well be many more in her constituency who respond to the consultation who oppose plans to redefine marriage.

    2. And, all we are told is that this petition contains at least 1,000 signatories – of course there is the possibility that it contains more than this number. If we do assume there are 1,000, then remember, using turnout averages, 395 people in this constituency would bother responding.
      So to put it into perspective, yes ‘at least 1,000 signatures’ is insignificant when you compare it to the U.K. population. But then look a little deeper and you’ll realise that it is in fact one specific collection of signatures coming from a few churches in one small urban constituency with below-average turnout.

      1. Nick

        Two issues:

        i) No matter how you present it 1000 signatures is insignificant and in this instance only demonstrates that a secretive and subvertive organisation that has been associated with civil disobedience, calls to arms and links to sectarianism and terrorism has been able to perhaps “influence/pressurise/manipulate” around 1000 people into signing a petition.

        ii) In issues of equality and fairness to minorities; the only purpose of petitions is to allow some people to raise their concerns. The number of signatures are not treated as some kind of unofficial referendum. Responsible will reflect and consider and ensure that they act to ensure equality and fairness. In this instance ensuring that both equal marriage is introduced and that no religious body is compelled to do anything that they feel they ideologically can not support.

        The petition is largely irrelevant..

        1. “in this instance only demonstrates that a secretive and subvertive organisation that has been associated with civil disobedience, calls to arms and links to sectarianism and terrorism has been able to perhaps “influence/pressurise/manipulate” around 1000 people into signing a petition.”

          Gosh – you want to be careful – point i) of your post is potentially libellous.

          And please read my post again – the point is that this particular collection of (at least) 1,000 signatories comes from just a few churches in a TINY constituency where almost 60% of the population didn’t bother to vote in the Parliamentary election last year!

          1. Sue me then. I have plenty of information to back up my comments.

            The petition means nothing at all.

            Other than bigots trying to make a noise because they can’t have their own way.

  18. Please remember that no one has voted for a theocracy. Or is likely to.

    Leaving this to religion would be an abdication of responsibility.

  19. “Catholic Knights of St Columba collected signatures at five churches …”

    and they had the rack and the hot irons ready in the vestry for those that didn’t sign!

    1. Come to think of it, 1000 signatures from 5 churches isn’t really all that much. I’d have thought each church would have had a congregation of at least a few hundred.

  20. Seriously, please don’t listen to those religious people! Let civil marriage for same sex couples be legal and let religious people/buildings choose whether they want to allow to marry same sex couples (and they should be required to pay taxes if they want to discriminate maybe)

    The UK has freedom of religion, so there’s no excuse as to why same sex marriages can’t be legal in Scotland.

    1. Same sex marriage won’t lead to polygamy, just like blacks being able to marry and interracial marriage didn’t. Same sex marriage is between two people.

      1. What’s your reason for believing that people in poly relationships should be discriminated against? If, say, 4 people want the right to get married, it’s no business of yours to deny this to them.

        You’re just as bigoted as those who believe marriage should stay as being between 1 man and 1 woman.

        1. I believe marriage should be between two consenting adult humans not related to each other

        2. What’s you reason then for not allowing 4 people to get married?

          Surely that’s a question open for debate whether we get same sex marriage or not ie why ask the question now? If you accept that marriage is between one man and one woman then why are you saying it should be limited to only that?

          SS marriage is a different issue. We already have a form of marriage for SS couples in the UK which is discriminatory in its nature. Moving from that to equal civil marriage is not the same as bringing in marriage between humans and animals, marriage between brothers and sister , polygamy etc.. Surely even you can see that!

        3. Nick

          How would you define marriage?

          Are you bigoted?

  21. A pettion of a mere 1000 or so signatures from the Catholics and this gets printed as a news worthy story for the BBC? Are they now in the habit of printing stories on every tiny petition sent to a govt minister?

    I think this story might have got onto the local papers but why the BBC?

    I do wonder if a petition from a LGBT group would have got any BBC coverage..

    1. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 15 Apr 2012, 12:38am

      It’s called media bias! They’re deliberately reporting every time a Christian or Catholic attacks equal marriage, but ignoring the faiths which actually support equal marriage.

    2. No, it wouldn’t. And it doesn’t take much research to see why there is a bias at the BBC. Just more evidence of why the BBC charter should be ripped up or used as khazi paper.

  22. and why does religion get a say in CIVIL marriage? The state doesn’t get a say in religious matters. why the other way around?

  23. Catholic Knights of St Columba sounds like something out of some kind of bad sic-fi movie!

    These people are so backward and I really do hope that the Nicola Sturgeon does not take any notice of them and and stands by the Scottish Governments pledge to change the law to allow same sex marriage

  24. At the start of the consultation Sturgeon said:
    “The Scottish Government is choosing to make its initial views clear at the outset of this consultation. We tend towards the view that religious ceremonies for civil partnerships should no longer be prohibited and that same sex marriage should be introduced so that same sex couples have the option of getting married if that is how they wish to demonstrate their commitment to each other. We also believe that no religious body or its celebrants should be required to carry out same sex marriages or civil partnership ceremonies.”

    Its interesting to note that Sturgeon was chosen to lead this process, some have commented that it should have been either Kenny MacAskill or Roseanna Cunningham and that Sturgeon was brought in due to Cunninghams opposition to allow same sex marriage. It could be seen that having the Dep First Minister leading it is showing that the leadership take the issue seriously.

    Shes unlikely to be taken in by the Knights

    1. As far as I am aware, marriage law of any kind is the responsibility of the CommunitySafety & Legal Affairs Minister, who happens to be Roseanna Cunningham.

      During the Scottish Parliament term 2007-2011, the Community Safety & Legal Affairs Minister was Fergus Ewing who DID handle the matter of same-sex marriage when 2 petitions were submitted to the Public Petitions Committee. So the precedent is there.

      You say that it shows the SNP leadership taking the issue seriously having Nicola Sturgeon handle it. Or it could be that Roseanna Cunningham refused to do so and Nicola Sturgeon was either told to do it or volunteered.

      If they really did take marriage equality seriously, then why not take a firm stand on the issue from the start? They STILL haven’t decided!

      If you ask me, “tend towards the view” is hardly unequivical support. Look how enthusiastic and determined they are on other policies like independence or minimum pricing for alcohol and their support for this seems muted.

      1. BennieM

        You might be right about the reason that Sturgeon is fronting the handling of the same sex marriage debate – or then again, I might. At this stage, both of us are simply guessing.

        I perceive “tend towards the view” as merely being cautious.

        Clearly it is not the language you would have chosen – nor I; nonetheless I do believe Scots gay couples will be able to marry in the near future.

        1. You say we are merely guessing, but let’s look at the facts.

          It is a fact that the previous Community Safety & Legal Affairs Minister, Fergus Ewing, handled the issue of same-sex marriage in the term 2007-2011. Why would he have done so if he wasn’t the minister responsible?

          Newspapers reported that it IS the responsibility of the Community Safety & Legal Affairs Minister, as is all marriage legislation of any kind, and that Roseanna Cunningham had refused to have anything to do with it.

          Roseanna Cunningham is well known for her homophobic views – “goes against 1000 years of nature’s design.” She is a practising Catholic. She tabled an ammendment in 2006 which would have made it illegal for gay couples to adopt.

          The real question is why is she still in her job when she refused to carry out her duties? Remember, Salmond made her a minister in his government AFTER her comments during the gay adoption deabte, so he must not think being a homophobe is a bar to ministerial off

          1. While I am glad that the SNP government are taking steps towards legalising same-sex marriage, it doesn’t negate their past record on gay equality such as takig money from people like SIR Brian Souter and SIR Tom Farmer, who have publicly spoken out against same-sex marriage, or that they have people in government who not only have spoken out and voted in favour of discrimination against gay people, they refuse to do their ministerial duties because of their own bigotry. 2 other ministers in the Scot Gov voted for Roseanna Cunningham’s adoption ammendment – Michael Matheson and Brian Adam.

            Finally, I am NOT going to be grateful that the SNP are merely THINKING about equality for gay people. Their whole attitude to this has been muted – one journalist in the Herald recently described it as “soto voce”, and it’s true. Nicola Sturgeon said about minimum alcohol pricing “it WILL happen.” She is nowhere near as enthusiastic about marriage equality.

          2. I am not saying that the SNP are some utopia in terms of politics for LGBT people in Scotland. They are not.

            Cunninghams approach to the gay adoption proposals was calculated and, at times, offensive. It betrayed her internal homophobia.

            I do wonder (and have heard rumours to suggest this) if Salmond and Sturgeon decided to relieve Cunningham from this particular role – before she tried to make a political stunt out of refusing to lead it – and as a quiet slap in the face to her.

          3. If they did decide to pre-empt Roseanna Cunningham, like you suggest, then they would only have done so to prevent any embarrassment for them if she had made it into a political stunt. But I admit that I can’t discount it, although if they truly felt like that then she wouldn’t even be in the government, would she? Salmond is First Minister and leader of the SNP, it’s up to him to decide who gets the jobs.

            And if they do know what she’s like, then why was she ever made a governemnt minister and even still in the party? She was NEVER disciplined for her comments yet if she’d said the same things about Asian, Black or Jewish people then she’d have been kicked out of the party.

            As I say, there are 2 other minister’s in Salmond’s government who voted for her adoption ammendment and Fergus Ewing has also been discriminatory against LGBT people in the past, so being a homophobe is obviously not a bar to being in the SNP, being an SNP MSP and even being an SNP government minister.

          4. As I said, the SNP certainly are not a utopia for the LGBT electorate in Scotland.

            I do think Cunningham has some dirt on Salmond, because there are a number of things she could have been removed for (not just LGBT issues) and has not.

            It might not be that she has dirt on Salmond, it may be that she attracts funding (Souter?) given some of her unpleasant views.

            I agree there is a lot about the SNP which does not sit right in terms of LGBT issues. That said, I believe that they will introduce equal marriage.

          5. Even after all I’ve said, I do think you’re right about marriage equality going ahead, although we can’t say with 100% certainty that it will, and that’s what gets me so angry and worried about it.

            You could be right about Cunningham but I tend to think it’s just because she’s quite popular in the party (despite her homophobia, especially when the party membership is generally pro-gay) and Salmond is too feart to get rid of her – which is typical of politicians in general.

            I still feel they would have got rid of her if she’d been racist or anti-semitic rather than been homophobic, though which does show a willingness within the SNP to tolerate homophobia.

            Look how quickly they got rid of Bill Walker over his violence towards women while saying nothing about his homophobia, and they suspended that council candidate in Lanarkshire for his “inappropriate” comments about the catholic midwives. So there ARE double standards in the SNP

  25. The churches need to be attacked ! They are used to having their own way! There needs to be an organisation started that examines EVERY aspect of religious organisations! What tax benefits they have , who supports them etc etc.! Everything about these religious thugs needed to be exposed, reported and acted on, especially in the courts! Enough is enough. It is about time to CLOSE them DOWN and their hideous discrimination!

    1. johnny33308 16 Apr 2012, 12:20am

      Yes, it is past time to be rid of their evil, once and for all…they should be destroyed, everything taken from them and banned forever! They have parasitized Humanity for far too long already! Humanity likely could have been to the stars by now if it wasn’t for their holding us back….they are backwards organizations holding humanity back only so that they can continue to parasitize us with their ludicrous superstitions!

  26. Spanner1960 15 Apr 2012, 10:56am

    So maybe Scottish LGBT people need to do the same and give her an even bigger petition. If they want a war, give them one.

    Unfortunately gay people are so ineffectual and disorganised it is unlikely that anything will happen.

    And before you red arrow me, go ahead and prove me wrong.

    1. Tim Hopkins 16 Apr 2012, 3:20am

      More than 20,000 Scots responded in favour of the Scottish Govt’s equal marriage consultation – a more effective action than a petition. But of course more campaigning is needed. Let’s hope at least an equivalent proportion of people in England and Wales reply positively to the UK Govt one – that would be over 200,000 which would be great.

      1. @ Tim

        Do you know exactly how many repsonses their were to the consultation? Officially, it’s always given as 50,000 but I’ve read several news reports, including once on Pink News, which put the figures at 70,000.

        1. Tim Hopkins 16 Apr 2012, 4:37pm

          Don’t know if you’ll see this. I think it may depend on what you count as a consultation response. If you count each signature on a petition as an individual consultation response, then you would include the 28,000 petition names that the Catholic Church said they delivered. But really a consultation response is supposed to be answers to one or more consultation questions, accompanied by a respondent information form (as in the row over the referendum consultation), so arguably only those should be counted. There’s also an issue about whether responses from outwith Scotland count in the same way, or are counted separately. So both numbers might be true!

          1. Thanks, Tim! I really hope the SNP govt hold their nerve on this and won’t back down at the last minute because of things like this happening – which is my main worry.

      2. Spanner1960 16 Apr 2012, 4:54pm

        That’s all well and good, but it’s rather obscured by the whole process- No official figures are being claimed.

        If a group could show a petition with provable figures, I’m sure they would blow C4M’s figures out of the water. The problem is, nobody is willing to get up off their backsides and do it. Whatever one may say about C4M, they have a formidable marketing campaign and they know just where and how to score points, and we need to at least match them, and so far we don’t even come close. Al we have is Stonewall’s pathetic puffing and posturing which amounts to very little.

  27. “The sanctity of marriage is one of our sacraments within the Catholic church and that is something that we, as a faith, hold very strongly to.” Fine with me and lots of other people, but we don’t belong to your club, Brian Henry, so we don’t feel your silly rules apply to us. If you want to meddle in people’s lives, mind the child-abusing priests within your ranks, and the bishops who didn’t do anything to stop them.

  28. I am sick and tired of the Roman Catholic Church dictating to the world what it should or should not do! We are no longer living in the Dark & Middle Ages.Even Henry, II too say nothing of Henry VIII had their fill with its meddling in legal ,secular and personal affairs.

  29. THE FIRST MINISTER OF SCOTLAND, HAD BETTER FOCUS ON WHERE HERE HEART AN LOYALTY SHOULD ALWAYS BE FOR FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY, AND SAFTEY FOR ALL OF THE COUNTRIES FAMILIES, YOU DO NOT AID AN ABED . TERRORISM , WHICH IS FROM BIGOTRY AND RACISM, YOU DO NOT BE A COWARD TO HATEMONGERS WHO HAVE CAUSED CHILDREN SUICIDES AND COMMTED HORRIFIC ATROCITIES AND UNFAIR ABUSIVE ACTS TO ALSO WOMEN AND MINORITES AS WELL AS LGBT, BIGOTS HARM 90% OF ALL NATIONS FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES , THEIR LIVES , THE MORAL AND THE NATIONAL SEC;URITY , IT CAUSES UNWARRANTED KAOS AND WARS, THAT DAMAGE KIDS EMOTIONALLY ABND PHYSICALLY, IT RUINS ANS STAINS THE PEACE AND STABILITY OF ANY ORGANIZATIONS AN COMMUNITY, WHEN YOU CANNOT BE TR;USTED BY THE PEOPLE AND THIER FAMILIES, TO UPHOLD FAIR EQUALITY ACTS FOR THEIR WELL BEING, AND KIDS, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS IN OFFICE AS A COWARD , A MOTHER SHOULD LOVE PEOPLE AND CHILDREN JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A REAL MOTHER, OR GRANDMOTHER AND WOULD NOT DARE THINK TO HARM

  30. THIS NATION MUST BE STANDING UP AGAINST TERROISM, AND WRONGFUL MISTREATMENT OF OTHERS, THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF OTHERS, BY STANDING UP AGAINST ANYONE IN HER TOWN AND THE PEOPLES TOWN THAT WOULD WANT TO HARM THE MASSES OF THE FAMILIES, BECAUSE WHEN YOU MENTIONS MINORITIES THAT INCLUDES LGBT, WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF ALL COLORS AND ALL OF THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE WHICH COVERS THE MAJORITY OF ANY MAKE UP OF TOWN, IS ABUSED AN MISTREATED WHEN YOU ALLOW BIGOTORY , KIDS MURDERS, AND RAPES, BUSINESS CORRUPTIONS , GLASS CELINGS, THAT THE PRIME MINISTER OF SCOTLAND SHOULD BE AWARE OF , ALL OF THESE HORRIBLE THINGS COMES FROM BIGOTRY, AND RACISM , ITS AN EVIL CHARACTER, EVERY COUNTRY MUST START REPRIMANDING HATE RELIGIONS, IN HIGHEST FORMS, BECAUSE OF THEIR ABUSES, OF FAMIIES, THEY ARE GUILTY OF SEX CRIMES THEMSELVES, WHILE TRYING TO TEAR OF THE RAINBOW FABRIC OF FAMILIES AND KIDS EVERY WHERE, INSTAGING VIOLENCE, DEFAMATIONS, HATE HIDDEN CLINICS, MAINE FINDINGS ON NOMS, HATE

    1. Spanner1960 16 Apr 2012, 4:56pm

      CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE GET ME SOME EAR DEFENDERS!

  31. It’s so odd that I originally misread both headline and the first line as being Catholics FOR gay marriage. Damn, I’d have been so proud.

  32. johnny33308 16 Apr 2012, 12:12am

    Neither the Catholics, nor the Protestants, nor the Jews, nor the Muslims are in charge of our SECULAR Societies….our CIVIL Societies belong to ALL citizens, not just the cranky religious ones…..they need to Get Over It and STFU! Their constant whining is more than annoying….they should be punished.

  33. S McDonald 17 Apr 2012, 8:14am

    It is not as the article states, the
    ‘Scottish Nationalist Party’.

    It is the Scottish National Party. It has been around with the same freaking name since the 1930’s so there’s no excuse.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all