Reader comments · Mail on Sunday: Tory Chief Whip says equal marriage proposals will ‘not come to a vote’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Mail on Sunday: Tory Chief Whip says equal marriage proposals will ‘not come to a vote’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Pi** off you old hag! Why do you come on this site?

    1. To get a reaction so just ignore her/him even though it’s so tempting not to.

  2. Stuart Neyton 29 Apr 2012, 6:15pm

    We all need to put pressure on our MPs then, write letters to them, go to their surgeries to say just how important this is to us.

    I’m a student so have been in contact with both my home (Graham Evans) and uni (Anna Soubry) MPs, both Tories with tiny majorities, who’ve both confirmed their support for gender-neutral marriage.

    I already have enough reason to despise the Conservative Party without them ditching human rights because of a tiny vocal minority too.

    1. Michael Carré 29 Apr 2012, 8:43pm

      Anna Soubry is also my MP and I wrote her an email last night. According to her newsletter today, she is in favour but has so far received about 60 emails, with just over the majority against. She’s asking for constituents’ opinions, so I suggest you ask as many of our fellow Broxtowe residents as you can to email her too!

      1. Stuart Neyton 29 Apr 2012, 11:54pm

        I’m spreading it :)

        1. Locus Solus 30 Apr 2012, 10:24am

          LOL! Oh dear… Where did all the witty Trolls go? Only to be replaced by this? I remember when people who used computers were well educated.

          People like you, with bargain basement laptops infected with every wildtype virus on the net, are the ones I worry about “spreading” anything (including genetic information). hehe ^_^

          1. Yeah, He’ll be deleted soon enough…. its his lot in life, a rant followed by oblivion. Obviously can’t afford a doctor for his mental health issues.

            (I think its been deleted already :) )

          2. Will – I’m not sure if you’re referring to my post (which does seem to have been deleted.)

            But this is besides the point – my post has been removed, and I’m wondering as to the reason.

            It contained no inflammatory language, no libellous statements, no factual untruths and no personal insults.

            It merely stated that this battle for ‘equality’ is not about ‘equality’ – or if it is, it cares about equality for some (those who wish to marry a member of the same sex,) but not about equality for others (those who wish to marry a parent, for instance.)

            When someone starts censoring a debate by not allowing their opponents to make their points, we get into an incredibly dangerous area.

            (BTW: I’m not acccusing you of this, it’s clearly down to the moderators.)

        2. Hetero-pride. You ignorant fool.

        3. as if her moral stance depended on numbers !

          Does she have any principles ?

  3. Whilst MPs of ALL parties should bear their constituents’ expressed views in mind, they should also remember that, if given the chance, many of their constituents might also urge them to vote to bring back hanging and/or birching, possibly in public.
    Sadly it is all too often that it is ONLY extremists who feel sufficiently moved, threateningly to give vent to their feelings on ANY matter.

    1. What’s wrong with hanging and / or birching?

  4. Gemma Gillon 29 Apr 2012, 6:20pm

    Parliamentary democracy has never been true democracy, take a leaf out of Switzerland’s book I say, then we can all vote in a direct referendum and kick this buffoon into the long grass.

    1. In a referendum we would probably lose because honestly most people don’t care whether gay people have the right to marry, it doesn’t bother them either way, so they just wouldn’t turn up to vote (loads of them don’t even bother to vote about things that do impact them directly), however the homophobes are incredibly organised and well funded they would turn out. In droves.

      Besides which why the hell should the rest of the country get to decide whether homosexuals are allowed equal marriage rights? It’s none of their business.

      1. “Besides which why the hell should the rest of the country get to decide whether homosexuals are allowed equal marriage rights? It’s none of their business.”

        Herein is where gay political campaigners fail to understand a) the true nature of democracy and b) how any proposed redefinition of marriage will affect every single person in this country who is either marriage or who wants to get married. The proposed legislation will change the meaning of marriage from that of an estate that exists between a man and a women for the establishing of natural family life, to just state sanctioning of a love affair between any two people. Therefore, this legislation is not only the business of homosexuals, but is rightfully the business of all in the UK.

        This is why it is disgusting to try and tar opponents of gay marriage as ‘homophobes’, when in fact, what the vast majority are trying to do is protect the legal definition of marriage that they themselves chose to enter into.

        1. That There Other David 30 Apr 2012, 1:54pm

          “..what the vast majority are trying to do is protect the legal definition of marriage that they themselves chose to enter into.”

          …by denying it to other groups who also wish to enter into marriages. The very definition of discrimination. Hence the accusations of “homophobia”.

          Individuals can choose to think what they like. The State, however, has a responsibility to act on behalf of all of its citizens. Unless they are going to give me a substantial tax break for being gay I will continue to demand equal treatment under the law. Not separate-but-equal, fully equal. Nothing else will suffice.

        2. “Therefore, this legislation is not only the business of homosexuals, but is rightfully the business of all in the UK. ”

          It’s absolutely none of your business if a complete stranger marries another complete stranger. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. You will not be forced to have a homosexual marriage and YOUR CHURCH WILL NOT BE FORCED TO MARRY ANYONE. No one will be forced to marry a cow, a chicken or their mother.

          Until you have actual evidence that there will be any impact on your day to day existence, then you have no reason to get involved.

  5. They might lose votes – who to ? Both Labour and Lib Dems support this even more than the tories and if they really think there will be a mass exodus to UKIP or the BNP over this then they need to have a think about why this is the defining issue which separates the tories from those parties.

    This kind of threat is rarely a reality but reacting to it is what the bigots want – MPs need to have the cojones to face this fearmongering down and challenge it for what it is – desperate bigots with no other argument that to threaten a politician with the only currency they fear namely votes.

    1. Ever heard of protest votes? Even if – in some areas – 5% of Conservative voters switch their votes to another party – UKIP, CPA, Inds, BNP, whatever – then several Conservative MPs could lose their seats to the main opposition. No one wants to lose their seats, so Cons MPs will be shi**ing themselves at present – especially as it seems many have received tens of thousands of letters against same sex marriage and hardly any coherent / rational ones in favour. (And even those in favour tend not to be Cons voters anyway.)

      1. That There Other David 30 Apr 2012, 1:58pm

        I’ll be surprised if MPs have received ANY coherent or rational letters against the introduction of marriage equality, since nobody has yet put forward any coherent or rational arguments against it. The best the anti- crowd can come up with is contradictory arguments pretending the word “marriage” has never been redefined mixed up with appeals to religion or tradition.

  6. bobbleobble 29 Apr 2012, 6:25pm

    This doesn’t ring true particularly. If there were plans to drop the move then why would IDS have come out in favour?

    However, if there is any truth to this, it is absolutely outrageous that they have already started talking about dropping the plans before the consultation has even concluded.

  7. Benjamin Cohen 29 Apr 2012, 6:34pm

    I’ve just checked in on this story, the Government remains committed to tabling legislation and taking it into law.

    I think the argument that votes could be lost are illogical. Frankly they can only be lost to UKIP or the BNP as the other mainstream parties in England and Wales will support this measure.

    I’d like to read what the Chief Whip actually says when asked about this on the record. Although he was not contactable today. He can’t be for the whole of next week and I’m sure PinkNews will contact his office every day until there is confirmation of his position

    1. Craig Denney 29 Apr 2012, 7:07pm

      Naa, the Tories are backtracking in the run up to the council elections, they know they will be for a good kicking and they are being slightly vague on the issue to attract votes.

      It would be political suicide for DC to make a U-turn on marriage equality!

    2. It’s less a question of losing votes than of gaining or most times keeping or re-gaining them. This is an appeal to their basic ellectorate, some of which they’ve been losing to the extreme right. This will prompt those voters to go out and vote. It’s not just a few votes…. the number could reach seven figures, or at least hundreds of thousands.

    3. Thanks Ben. There should be ‘Caveat lector’ warning here. The source of this story is the Daily Mail, which has an agenda on this matter.

      That said, why does the Coalition for Equal Marriage only feature the logos of the mainstream parties’ LGBT factions, rather than those of the parties proper? That would be an important measure of commitment to the change in law.

  8. I have heard people grumbling about their pensions, jobs, immigration but I haven’t heard anyone worrying about same sex marriage. I hope that they aren’t taking the comments sections in the Daily Mail too seriously, the green arrows for negative comments are hacked in as are the red comments for positive comments.

    Equality is equality, and it seems some need reminding that we did not vote for a theocracy. It would set a dangerous precedent if a small but busy religious group influence the law on a civil matter. Additionally the tories would never recover credibility with LGBT.

  9. This story about the Chief Whip does not ring true to me.

    It sounds like the Daily Fail misrepresenting the facts. They have previous for that!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Apr 2012, 10:44pm

      I wouldn’t put anything past Tory MPs. Very few have come forward to pledge support for equal marriage, other than David Cameron of course, Theresa May, Francis Maude, Iain Duncan Smith and that other young chap who appeared on PN some days ago, I can’t think of his name. Where are the 23 openly gay Tory MPs?

      C4M now has 473,000 signatures? C4M barely 51,000. Pitiful!

      1. There are at least 40 odd Tory MPs who have said they are in favour openly.

        Many more who are avoiding the publicity and are in favour.

        1. Why would a politician avoid publicity?

          1. Perhaps because they support the proposal for equal marriage but are aware leading members of their constituency party are not?

            Perhaps because they do not support the proposal but are aware that leading members of their constituency party are?

            Perhaps because they have changed their opinion from a formerly homophobic opinion and do not wish to face criticism from antagonists who claim that politicians can not change?

            Perhaps because they think their vote has more integrity if they do not debate it actively in the media, but with those in their own constituency who are concerned (on either side of the argument)?

            Perhaps because they value human rights and recognise this is not about majority view in terms of the population – and about fairness and honesty?

          2. … and supposedly you know what happens to MPs when they go against their constituents wishes don’t you?

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 1:11pm

          I hope that is true. It might also be that many are not commenting which could indicate they will vote for equal marriage, hopefully, and face the consequences after the fact. If McCloughlin believes this won’t come to a vote, then he needs to provide us with the evidence and names of the MPs opposing us. Is he conspiring behind Cameron’s back I wonder? Catholics throughout history are notorious for that, treasonous unscrupulous traitors.

  10. Further to my comment of some 30mins ago, surely it is not beyond the wit, intelligence or resourcefulness of LGBT and/or Human Rights organisations to draft a simple questionnaire to be sent to Every MP at Westminster, be they from England, Wales, Scotland or Ulster, along the lines of:

    In the event of a Bill being brought before Parliament to remove any impediment to same-sex couples getting civilly married in registry offices, how are you CURRENTLY minded to vote?
    In favour
    Not yet decided.

    I’d do it myself, but it would be improper as I do not live in the UK and hence have no vote.

    1. Ian, it wouldn’t be improper to ask a straightforward question. Each MP can choose whether to answer it or not.

      However, it might be expensive ! If you send letters, each one has to be individually addressed, and they have to be posted because they can’t be delivered in person.

      You might be able to e-mail them, but MPs’ websites vary as to whether non-constituents are allowed through.

      1. Forgive me, Gerry. It most certainly NOT improper for anyone to pose a straightforward question: but it WOULD BE improper for me an electoral total ousider to question UK MPs as to their putative voting intentions, which are, quite properly, none of MY business.
        Surely each one of the 600 hundred or so westminster MPs must have at least ONE articulate constituent possessed of the nous to put such an inquiry to their MP.
        It would also, at the very least, be of public interest to discover those MPs who daigned not to answer a constituent’s legitimate question.
        Throughout the debates via these pages it has seemed to me, an outsider to the UK, that the nay-sayers need no outsider to stir them into action; the yea-sayers seem, to this outsider at least, to need considerable invigoration.

        1. Well, I’ll certainly be dropping a line to my Tory MP, pointing out that he needs to support David Cameron’s bid to de-toxify the Tory brand.

    2. If you’re not a MPs constitutent then they generally won’t answer you.

      They’ll answer an org I’m sure but not an individual unless he/she is a constitutent. An org would be better and that info should be made public so we know who to lobby.

      if you’re an ex-pat, then you’re represented for 15yrs after leaving and you have to use the MP where you last lived in the UK.

      1. Thanks for the information, John. In fact my work took me out of the UK some decades ago.

  11. It says Patrick McLoughlin is the most senior catholic Tory- but surely Ian Duncan Smith is? Maybe Mr Smith is aware of this secret plan to quietly ditch the idea and toss it into the long grass where it will be “quietly forgotten” NOT.
    That’s why he is on record as supporting it- because he knows it’s going to be quietly (NOT) ditched!

    1. Butterburr 29 Apr 2012, 9:03pm

      Patrick McLoughlin is the most senior ROMAN Catholic. Iain Duncan Smith is the most senior CATHOLIC.

      1. I think they are for what it is worth both Roman Catholics (Ie not Anglo-Catholics)

      2. LOL – Back to school.

        IDS knows that nothing will come of this, which is why he’s pretending to support it.

  12. Robert (Kettering) 29 Apr 2012, 7:22pm

    Same old Tory Party run by the same old homophobes – end of. Just completed the Home Office survey encourage others to do the same before it’s too late.

  13. I think we’ll all have a pretty good idea whether the government is serious from the Queen’s speech on 9th May 2012. If nothing is said, I think we can expect the worst.

    1. Hate to disappoint you Dave- but it was never intended to be in THIS year’s Queens Speech anyway. Even it’s supporters are saying “by 2015”

      1. Let’s face the truth shall we? The reality is that equality was never intended. For Tories this is just a leverage gimmick. They are already conceding to a possible economic “recovery” after 2017. If they don’t scrap the equality “plans” altogether, they’re highly likely to push equality legislation to 2017 and beyond, possibly 2020, (to coincide with their economic expectations)… We could build a totally new underground system in every town and have pigs flying before that date. That’s how engaged with equality they are.

        1. Lets face the truth shall we eh?

          Beberts doesnt care about equality – all he cares about is making Conservatives look bad – and he doesnt care whether his comments are honest and true or complete fabrications. For him, his rose tinted view of Labour is more important than equality.

          1. The Tories don’t need me babe. They are doing a jolly good job to slump in the polls.

    2. It won’t be in the Queen’s Speech – I can assure you of that.

      If it won’t be in the 2013 QS, if the coalition is still in power by then, then you can be assured that same-sex marriage will not go to a vote – as no Cons led govt will want to force this through in 2014/15 just before an election

  14. It should not be the Vatican that dictates the laws of a sovereign UK State. It is up to the government to tell the Vatican to butt out of British politics. The Vatican is already stirring up trouble in the US over gay marriage, and the UK seems to be following suit.

    1. Manley sure you save the 15th September this year. There will be a rally in London for a Secular Europe.

      1. Sorry, my touch type has gone a bit crazy there. Should have read ‘make sure’….

  15. mcLoughlin’s voting record is one of the most anti-gay in the House. Voting against change on every piece of legislation since 1988, except the SOR legislation of 2007

  16. The guide at has a link for everybody to contact their MP to encourage them to support equal marriage.

    It’d also be good if LGBT Labour and LGBTory can push the issue within their parties – having more than one of the major parties onside would be a great step forward.

    1. Labour has a facebook campaign but don’t know how effective it is

      Couldn’t see a link or a mention to the C4M petition though

  17. Well, he would say this wouldn’t he?

    Given McLoughlin’s abysmal record on gay issues, it’s hardly surprising.

    Nevertheless, we must redouble our efforts just in case the RCC, the CofE and the C4M bigots get their way.

  18. McLoughlin also admitted accepting a free trip to the Vatican to mark a year since the Pope’s visit !

  19. Sue Northover 29 Apr 2012, 9:07pm

    How can people even get away with saying things like this….if I wore a T shirt that stated a similar sentiment about a minority group I would be arrested and yet this cow ‘Pat’ can say this to millions of people publically and get away wi…th it!!!! I am fed up of the negative rants of politicians who nothing of our struggles being lesbian, gay, bi or transgender and the meaning of true love and commitment we share. We will have our civil partnership and when, and that is when and not if we can marry, we will renew our vows with a couple if witnesses, to make our marriage legal and then I will nail a copy of our certificate to what little manhood he has….in addition…should have gone to Specsavers!

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Apr 2012, 9:14pm

    I’ll stick with Francis Maude’s prediction. If the Tories don’t support equal marriage, then they’ll become unelectable in 2015. Are those Tory MPs opposed really prepared to see their party defeated over this one issue? If the Tory party is in fact going to support it, why aren’t more of them coming forward or have they caught the Ben Bradshaw syndrome? Where are the 23 openly gay Tory MPs? Why the silence?

    1. If it’s “quietly forgotten” and “kicked into the long grass” and never ever comes to a vote- they aren’t going to get blamed are they?

  21. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Apr 2012, 9:17pm

    51,000 signatures is rather dismal Has anyone seen or heard of any reaction to the video that was released last wednesday? I haven’t. Why has StonewallUK been so silent since those controversial bus ads? Hasn’t done much in gathering signatures either.

    1. I agree.

      I often think many gay people are their own second worst enemies. After all, even the most ludicrous underestimates put the gay population of the UK at more than half a million, added to which we all, surely have several friends and relations who would stand up for us if asked.

      This could be a sign of a combination of complacency and apathy which a small minority group, still vehemently disliked by a much larger minority of the population, simply can’t afford.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:58pm

        Government census statistics estimate there are 3 million of us out of a population of 60 million which would translate into 5% of the population. There are 350,000+ gay voters in London alone, so half a million is way off the mark I think.

        The low turnout for C4EM is due to bad organisation and should have been planned months before with a strategy to reach as many people as possible in all forms of media. I can’t believe a religious backlash of the scale we are now seeing wasn’t anticipated, even by StonewallUK who’ve really not been proactive in any way shape or form. That useless bus ad did nothing to get more signatures and the recent video hasn’t done much either. Plus, we have a lot of Bradshaws who are content with CPs and who don’t think marriage is necessary, therefore the rest of us shouldn’t want it either. Some of them even signed C4M’s petition. Our own kind betraying us. A case of “I’m alright Jack and to hell with the rest of us”. Self-serving bastar_s.

  22. Is anyone REALLY shocked or surprised by this revelation?

  23. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Apr 2012, 9:26pm

    If this idiot has assured backbenchers it won’t come to a vote, has he asked every Tory MP? Where is the evidence? David Cameron ought to step in and read him the riot act. McLoughlin isn’t the PM.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:55am

      If this clown persists, the Tory party can kiss re-election goodbye! I won’t vote for them a second time.

  24. I don’t know that many of the readers of these pages would include the Archers in their habitual listening.
    For those who don’t, may I suggest the following?
    click on Thursday’s, Friday’s and today’s (Sunday’s) episodes for a depiction of crisis within a same-sex partnership.

    Is this a way, do you think, of someone in the BBC trying to ‘get through’ to the hearts & minds of Middle England?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Apr 2012, 10:37pm

      Aren’t there more crises within opposite sex marriages? Almost 50% of marriages ending in divorce. What is so special about a sex-sex partnership in crisis? How many have ended compared to the number of hetero marriages?

      1. The point, Robert-in-S.-Kensington, that I was making, WITHOUT wishing to thump the tub with every syllable, was that CONTRARY to the likely average of public opinion, the Archer scriptwriters and storeylines, frequently decried derided by various detractors in the media, actually set forth quite a number of thought-provoking storylines, each fictionally based in the middle English shires.
        The inference you appear to have drawn, judging by the tenor of your comment, [hetero v. homo] is facile.
        There have been plenty of ‘hetero’ crises treated in the scripts. The point is that the scriptwriters seem to be trying to depict the crisis within the partnership qua partnership, orientationally irrelevant.
        Before making further comment, one must, of course, listen to the episodes concerned – but even then, not with cloth ears.

    2. do – sadly- listen to the Archers – what exactly is your point?

      1. please read my response above

  25. Dave Cameron is caught on a hook here. If he caves in to pressure and abandons support then:

    (1) He will look weak, and with good reason
    (2) The Tories will again be seen as the “anti gay” party, far more so than if they had never agreed to propose the legislation in the first place

    While this may please the most repressive wing of the party and its supporters, they have nowhere else to go – except UKIP and the BNP or abstention.

    Apart from gay voters there will be a lot of mainstream voters who may not care that much about marriage equality per se but will see this as a party still in thrall to the nastier and less rational elements in UK society, and who may look on Labour, Greens and Lib Dems more favourably.

  26. GingerlyColors 29 Apr 2012, 10:31pm

    So the Conservatives are worried that they are going to lose votes if they introduce gay marriage so it looks like the whole issue is now on the back-burner until after the next election. Labour did not lose votes when they lowered the age of consent to 16, repealed Section 28, allowed gays to serve in the armed forces, introduced Civil Partnerships and brought in legislation to protect people from being fired from their job for being gay. Labour only lost the last election because they nearly bankrupted this country by bailing out the greedy banks, dithered over Europe and brought in this stupid Human Rights Act which panders to homophobic, Islamofascist terrorists.
    Marriage equality is a side issue as far as 90% of the population are concerned. What the Tories really need to do is pull the rabbit out of the hat by doing something that most people want, say giving us a referendum on Britain’s future in Europe which will virtually wipe out UKIP’s share of the vote.

  27. If this story is really true and the Tories are in mass doing a U-turn it’s disappointing that they don’t realise that the letters they are receiving are generally coming from a well organised, well financed campaign from the C4M group and in particular from the Catholic church.

    Surely these MP should be politically aware enough to realise that this is happenning. People who are being asked to sign the C4M petition are also being asked to write to their MPs. The objection is from religious groups and surely the MPs aren’t daft enough not to realise this. The change is for same sex CIVIL marriage.

    I would be interested if anyone on here has recent reply from Philip Lee and Patrick Mcloughlin on marriage equality.

    I’ve had 3 replies from 3 mps and they are ALL towing partiy lines.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:54am

      All towing party lines doesn’t bode well. Has anyone notice the silence of StonewallUK? Not a word since that useless bus ad. And what about the video released last week. No more to be seen or heard, anywhere. If it’s not on the airwaves, forget about it.

      1. I have a big problem with bus ads and videos where the title doesn’t scream out Equal marriage or same sex marriage.

        I love the video but the punch line isn’t until the end. I only noticed the video running on the right hand side of the PN website because I saw the preview. Most of us see commercial videos running on websites all the time and we avert our eyes usually. By the time the video has come to the punch line I’ve clicked into an article and then clicked again into the comments page. I never get to the punch line.

        It’s also not really that appearent that if you click the wording on top of the video that it would take you to the C4EM website which tells you to sign a petition, write a letter to your MP and to respond to the consultation. ALL 3 KEY COMPONENTS!

        Again I love the video but I would prefer a simple bold banner saying support marriage equality with a clear link to the C4EM website.

  28. GingerlyColors 29 Apr 2012, 10:34pm

    Yeah, p**s off!

  29. Ignorant sow.

  30. I’m sorry, but LGBT people need to work together and get off their backsides. I am seeing so much complacency and so much focus on meaningless shallow drivel (really? Britain’s got friggin Talent? Who gives an airborne copulation). Have we forgotten how to be be activists? Have we forgotten how to fight?

    Those of us who are writing (I prefer proper written letters to emails) and are getting involved and asking questions cannot do this without a concerted effort. When people can’t even be bothered to sign a sodding online petition, I despair.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:51am

      Agreed! I’ve written several letters already, most of them favourable from the responses I received.

      1. I have written to 30 or 40 MPs, and despite them usually only responding to people within their own constituency around 20 have responded. ALL have been supportive bar one. The one who is not supportive said he has not made his decision yet and is seeking meetings with LGBT groups and religious groups in his constituency before then discussing it with Featherstone. He said he is minded to support the proposal but believes it is right to ensure he is acting representatively. All the others said they had no doubt that supporting equal marriage was the right thing to do.
        3 Lib Dems, 5 Conservatives and the remainder Labour.

  31. I’m not exactly slim myself – but one has to ask why are all these homophobic Tories always big fat ugly bastards?

  32. It’s true to say that the vast majority of the population are seemingly apathetic as to whether or not we have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

    A small minority are actively supporting redefinition, whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum, we have another small minority who want to retain the status quo.

    My view – ditch marriage completely.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 30 Apr 2012, 12:12am

      Already done………..

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:50am

      Done deal! Thanks, Mckie!

    3. Already done, but I would encourage everyone who has not to do so!

  33. This is to those who support making marriage ‘gender-neutral:’

    Do you believe that only those who identify as gay should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 29 Apr 2012, 11:41pm

      What a stupid statement.

      Why would a heterosexual man wish to marry another man that he is not sexually attracted to?

      Or a heterosexual woman marry another woman that she is not sexually attracted to.

      What is your point with such a silly statement?

      1. For a British Passport? For the money? For a laugh?

        People do mixed-sex marriages for those reasons all the time. It’s not illegal!

      2. Why’s it a silly statement? If you believe that all people marry someone they’re sexually attracted to, then I’m afraid you’re about as deluded as a Young Earth Creationist.

        Many folk marry people they’re sexually attracted to, it’s true, but others marry for a plethora of reasons – money, novelty etc…

        You haven’t responded to the point, so I’ll ask again – should two men who identify as ‘straight’ be allowed to wed each other?

        1. Moron. Absolute moron.

          If a man and a woman who don’t love each other be allowed to marry?
          They already can get married if they are
          Prepared to lie about it. No different with same sex marriage.

          Why anyone would lie about that I don’t know. Marriage is already open to certain abuses of the privilege.

          1. Paul, retorting to playground insults isn’t a typical way of articulating a point.

            But this is besides the point – your post at the moment is just incoherent waffle – but if you’ve got any valid points, I’d be delighted if you’d attempt to express them in an adult-like manner.

        2. equal marriage is designed for LGB people, straight man marrying another man would be treated as by-product in the same way as gay man marrying woman

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:49am

      Moron! Get back under the rock from which you crawled, cretin!

      1. Lovely insightful response, Robert.

        I can only assume from this that you suffer from typographic tourettes.

    3. Do you believe that only those who identify as liking Vanilla ice cream should be allowed to buy it in shops?

      1. Slight attempt at misrepresentation here.

        Many people don’t marry out of love – some marry for the ‘kicks,’ to make a statement etc…

        At present, marriage is available regardless of your sexual identity. So, any one man (whether he considers himself gay, straight, paedosexual etc) may join in matrimony with any one woman – assuming mutual consent of course.

        Do you believe that the right to wed a member of the same-sex should only be available exclusively to those who consider themselves ‘gay?’

        1. What an absolutely moronic question…… No one asks a man and woman wishing to marry if they are straight. No different for same sex couples. Nobodys business but theirs.

          What a complete moron.

        2. What is a paedosexual?

          Would your bringing up this concept be a clear indication of your religious indoctrination (that undoubtedly you will lie about!)?

    4. Marriage equality means what it says.

      I support marriage equality. End of.

    5. “Do you believe that only those who identify as gay should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?”

      This is ridiculous statement.

      Think about this:- those who identify as gay are already allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

      Figure it out and get back to us on where you think the problem is.

    6. Ben Foster 30 Apr 2012, 2:13pm

      give us equal marriage and the question won’t have to be asked. Consenting adults will be able to marry who they wish for whatever reason they choose. What does it matter?

  34. ps – Ian Petch – you obviously and sadly do listen to the Archers!

  35. simon bellord 30 Apr 2012, 12:01am

    Mariadge is between a man and a woman…full stop… no chance for a change it simply is impossible

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:47am

      You’re an idiot. 11 countries have legalised it, more will follow. Get used to it, neanderthal.

    2. Who is this Mariadge you speak of?

    3. “Mariadge is between a man and a woman…full stop… no chance for a change it simply is impossible”

      Ah, bless. Not too sure of the meaning of the word “impossible”, are we thicko? I bet there was one of you in Holland and South Africa and Canada when they did the same…. the war cry of the fallen, eh?

  36. Ryan Briggs 30 Apr 2012, 12:28am

    I think this guy and most of the Conservative Party are really out of touch with most of the important issues in this country.

  37. I suggest David Cameron use some phrases from past Tory policitians here and use the following phrases:

    “I’ve got a little list,I’ve got a little list” of a few Toy homophes (mostly RC) “they’ll none of them be missed”


    “U-turn if you want to” this gentleman “is not for turning”


    “if it isn’t hurting (the old homophobes) it isn’t working”

  38. My uncle has been living with the same fella for 26 years and has suffered appalling discrimination and hatred from the Roman Catholic church and many Tory politcians but he didn’t sit there moaning , he got on his bike and got a campaign going….

  39. These right-wing conservatives are actually doing our cause a great deal of good! Just like the ‘Church’, everytime they open their bigotted mouths, they dig thier own homophobic graves that bit deeper!

  40. “He is the very model of a Roman Catholic Tory” ….

  41. This whole campaign is really nothing more than attempting to make a pithy political point.

    It has nothing do with ‘equality’ – ‘equality’ is about giving identical rights to identical entitites – i.e. all people have exactly the same right.

    If allowing people to marry a member of the same-sex is in the name of ‘equality’, then surely allowing someone to marry their parent would also be ‘equality.’

    Why not just ditch this pathetic idea and tackle the serious issues at hand, such as the kids who commit suicide because of anti-gay bullying?

    1. and the arguments put forward against marriage equality aren’t anti-gay bullying?

      Tackling this issue will only break down the prejudices against gay people. In the same way as CPs brought more accpetance of gay people so will marriage.

      What exactly are your plans to tackle ant-gay bulying at schools? Talking about marriage equality in schools and tackling the nasty commens from Tory MPs and chuches will surely help in the long run. I don’t think there will be any significant improvement in bullying until we get rid of the legal differences.

      This “pathetic idea” is about ending the discrimination against gay people in the marriage law not about redefining it.

    2. Greg, your logic seems to have gone off the rails …

      You say “It has nothing to do with equality ….. equality is about all people hav(ing) exactly the same right”

      The government proposals are to give all people exactly the same rights in civil marriage = your definition of equality. No one, straight or gay will be able to marry their parent or any other close relative.

      If you can’t see that maintaining legal inferiority for LGBTI people (and the pseudo-religious theories that are use to justify it) has any connection with suicide and anti-gay bullying then what would you see as the causal factors?

    3. Sadly Greg, your very comments fail to recognise the ‘long term’ relationships that same-sex couples have! I suggest you get off your bigotted arse and go and get a know a few same-sex couples that exist in their thousands in society and the wider community!

      1. “Sadly Greg, your very comments fail to recognise the ‘long term’ relationships that same-sex couples have!”

        I’m guessing he’s not in one, anyone that was would understand the need to protect and respect ones relationship.

    4. “It has nothing do with ‘equality’ – ‘equality’ is about giving identical rights to identical entitites – i.e. all people have exactly the same right.”

      This logic is not only wrong, its twisted. Equality is not defined as giving the same rights to “identical entities”, its about giving the same rights to different people.

      And a child marrying its parent is not the same as marriage, the suggestion that this is a similar situation is preposterous – the law already protects the relationship between a parent and child, and their relationship is not one based on loving sexually intimate relationship that is similar to a heterosexual marriage, is it? Same sex relationships are comparable to opposite sex relationships, ergo, they are NOT comparable to polygamy, incest, parental/child relationship, etc.

      I suggest you rethink the nonsense you just said, and come back to us when you’ve figured it out.

      1. Well said. You do wonder how certain people get to walk around the planet and pull off the impression that they have a brain when in fact they don’t.

    5. Greg,

      There is no single issue more likely to diminish anti-gay bullying and suicide (save for the abolition of organised religion). Nothing causes misery at school more than being outcast and alone, misunderstood and reviled. That’s what leads to suicide. This issue goes far beyond two people getting married; it’s about the message of absolute acceptance and understanding it sends to those who desperately need to hear it. You internalise the messages you receive from the adult world; equal marriage and an accepting society sends the right message and will help to prevent these deaths.

  42. Really Jean, you know as well as I do its going to happen. One way or another. That is the only certainty.

    And that, my dear troll, is the excellent news.

  43. Lets not forget that it was Labour that gave us more rights and civil partnerships. Conservatives gave us section 28 and tried to shove us underground. What Camaron says and what he does are two different things. He says what we want to hear but won’t carry it through. Tories cant ever be trusted.

    1. Prejudice is ugly in all its forms. Even anti-Tory prejudice.

  44. We must lobby ALL our MPs.
    Any Gay couple wanting a Civil Partnership should go through the motions then withdraw at the last minute,citing the gross inequality of the current law.
    Why don’t we also claim the Pink Balloon,or 2 together, as a symbol of equal marriage and get them floating and hanging everywhere, from trees,lamposts, public buildings or just floating across your town or city…the world over, as a symbol of Marriage equality for all? Just an idea. Whatever lets keep the pressure on! Our enemy will be doing the same against us!

  45. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 12:39pm

    Meanwhile, in Scotland…..

  46. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 1:05pm

    If you’re straight, which I doubt, what are you doing trolling a gay site almost every day, closeted self-loather? No self-respecting well adjusted heterosexual would bother coming here. You’re one of those who protests too much which really is quite revealing. Now crawl back to the cave from whence you came, neanderthal.

    1. Is this a news site or a gay site?

      If it’s primarily the latter, then can we assume it therefore lacks in objectivity? If that’s the case, why was it – as far as I know – founded by a man whose journalistic career depends, one assumes, on the need to seem to be objective, at least.

      This website comes up in Google News searches as a news media provider.

      1. Ben Foster 30 Apr 2012, 2:16pm

        it’s a gay news site. What’s the problem?

      2. Hodge Podge 30 Apr 2012, 8:01pm

        Journalists are entitled to an opinion. Where has the editorial policy of Pink News used untruths?

  47. Ultra-right-wing bilge cooked up to alarm a slightly less right-wing Prime Minister who could not have nailed his colours more clearly to the mast in favour of equal marriage faced with a Parliament overwhelmingly in favour.
    Who can take it seriously?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 2:07pm

      Riondo, I only hope Parliament is overhwelmingly in favour! Someone said on here several days ago that even if 100 Tory MPs opposed it, it would still pass. I hope he’s right.

  48. Ben Foster 30 Apr 2012, 2:14pm

    It’s not news. It’s one man’s opinion.

  49. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Apr 2012, 3:16pm

    Maybe you’d care to read this article Jean, you might learn something about yourself.

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.