Reader comments · Anti-equality petition reaches 500,000 signatures · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Anti-equality petition reaches 500,000 signatures

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. And due to their questionable methods each and every one of those signatures is suspect.

    And we don’t have direct democracy in the UK. They have no skin in the game, nothing to either gain or lose, so their opinion is meaningless.

    1. C4M opinion is ‘meaningless’, yet PN is so scared that it stays awake all night staring at the petition!

      1. Are you stalking PN offices to see what they are doing, or are you using infantile rhetoric?

        1. Obviously, you did not read the news you are commenting on

          According to PN
          “This morning, between 6.30 and 6.40 in the morning, within the span of ten minutes…”

          What does that tell you?

          1. It tells me that someone went onto a site which reviews internet hits on the C4M website and audited what had happened at those particular times.

            Now, you might not be technically savvy and unable to understand the complexities of these simple tasks – but auditing internet hits does not require someone to watch a screen continually!

          2. It tells me that web metrics provide insight and proper research is necessary before drawing a conclusion. Which a reasonable person would know without having to be told.

          3. You had better ready the read the PN report again.The report mentioned a ten minute period when the signatures increased to over 500,000.

            If you are saying that the jump in numbers tally with the internet hits(a point not made by PN) then thats great and you have nothing to worry about!

          4. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 1:32pm

            Vincent, and simply opening a website technically a ‘hit’, can be manipulated as an actual signature. It wouldn’t surprise me if mailing lists were purchased and the names and addresses used and entered into their database as bona fide signatures.

          5. Ken

            No, internet hits do not tally with the jumps reported from analysis of web metrics.

            Or to put it in laymans language C4M are lying about the tally of signatures on the petition and have been caught out!

          6. Paddyswurds 7 May 2012, 3:58pm

            …they don’t even need to buy anything, they use the physical phone book and online phone books….

    2. So the insane mob rule applies? Give me a break no group on planet earth is completely sane enough to be given the vote over minorities. The minority will always lose in the end. Individual rights should not be subjected to public votes in the case of minorities. That is not real justice but a perversion of justice. No justice no peace!

    3. The C4M petition is tragetted to a devout, anti-gay audience who are mostly Christian. It’s being pushed hard by the Cathoic church and other churches. It’s well financed, well publicised in the media and well tragetted to an audience who will sign the petition etc etc.

      I agree , many of the signatures are suspect, but it’s obviously going to get a fair amount of signatures from it’s targetted audience. It doesn’t reflect the general public’s view, we are over 55 million people in the UK. It reflects the Churches view which we already know.

      If the C4EM petition had the same coverage etc then I suspect the figures would be a lot higher on this petition as well.

      I don’t think the govt are daft enough not to realise all this.

    4. Very suspect methods as one Guardian commenter pointed out and I’m surprised not more is made of this. But try this out:

      1) Log on to
      2) Click on to page 2.

      3) In the URL address it will say something like this:
      The “1000” on the end is how many signatures to display per page, so if you change that to “1” it will put one signature per page.

      The number of pages = the number of signatures. So currently they have 174,900 listed signatures not the 502,113 they’ve shown above.

  2. How many of those are from Catholic school children, pressurized by their schools (who were in turn manipulated by the “Catholic Education Service”)?

  3. How many of those were pressurized to sign by indoctrinated grotesque religions?

    1. Avalokiteshvara 8 May 2012, 9:45am

      The ones from faith school pupils for a start!

  4. Was it just me, or did a UK newspaper publish a poll yesterday that showed 6 out of ten people in the UK support allowing gay couples to marry in civil and/or religious ceremonies?

  5. How many of the signatories are from outside England & Wales?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:12pm

      Probably quite a number from America. It’s not difficult to figure out how to sign it from outside the country. They can go to any UK site and swipe a postcode and fictitious address, many times over.

    2. I’m sure the Catholic churches or even the C4M would allow outsiders to use their postal codes…

      1. Probably a certainty that the RC church would be involved in deception

  6. Paula Thomas 7 May 2012, 11:59am

    You mean they’ve pushed this hard and only got less than 1% of the UK population to sign? Come to that how do we know that all the signatories are from the UK? Or that people haven’t signed multiple times?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:11pm

      That’s what I’ve been saying for weeks. If you have several computers, you can sign several times and of course providing a bogus name and a different email address as well as writing letters using different names and bogus addresses. That’s why Comres who conducted the poll on C4M’s behalf refused to provide PN with the methodology. Foreigners could also attempt to sign it.

      In spite of the numbers, less than 1%, actually 0.0083%, they’d need at least a few million to have any significance. Polls mean NOTHING. There are approximately 60 million people in the UK. less than 1% of the population is a drop in the sea.

    2. 1% of the UK population is a ‘significant’ number considering the fact that the entire LGBT population in the UK is less than 1%

      1. According to official government figures the figure is 6% of the population who are gay in the UK.

        Even the right wing Telegraph are happy with the figure of 6%

        1. Wrong. The Office of National Statistics have – over a number of years now – considerately revealed that only about 1% of the UK population consider themselves homosexual. Some gay rights activists claim that those who ‘prefer not to say’ what their sexuality is (about 3%) must be ‘gay’… But this is pure assumption. These people, as far as we know, just don’t want to answer personal questions.

          The ONS survey comprises over 400,000 respondents, which it the most reliable source of statistical information on British society. (Most surveys / polls only survey about 1,000 – 5,000 respondents).

          1. The ONS have accepted that the methodology used in that study is unreliable

          2. The ONS accepted that this is the first time that people were asked these questions and data collection happened on doorsteps or over the phone, which may deter people from giving accurate responses – particularly if someone isn’t openly gay at home.

            The ONS accepted that they do not have any definite indication as to what the error margin is due to this being the first occasion that the survey has asked these questions. Reported margins of error of 7% have been said by ONS to not be “unreasonable”.

            Thus if true there is the possibility 8.5% of the population could be LGBT.

            ONS stated that they would expect to see the population of LGBT people revealed in these surveys to rise over time as confidence in the survey grows and sexual orientation becomes a regular part of monitoring information.

      2. Pulling ridiculous claims out of your ass doesn’t make it a fact, Ken.

      3. But nothing compared to how many people support equal marriage, therefore its meaningless, they may have well signed a piece of toilet paper for all anyone will care about it.

        1. 60% of the UK population supported equal marriage (either civil or religious) in a UK newspaper poll published yesterday.

          1. ..And the 60% refused to sign the C4EM petition.

            We have learnt from the United states how the militant gay ‘marriage’ lobby manipulate opinion polls and how EVERY referendum to ban gay ‘marriage’ has succeeded!

          2. Petitions are largely meaningless in my opinion – particularly when relating to issues of equality, fairness and human rights.

            In such cases it is incumbant on government to act in a manner which ensures fairness, equality and rights.

            Its clear that those who do not regard marriage as a right (which the UN convention disagrees with) are those whom wish to prevent others marrying – strange that they do not consider it to be a human right!

            Marriage is coming – this weekend the right wing extremists have tried to kick off a bit, but their link of election results to gay couples marrying is laughable – its the economy stupid!

            Soon dozens of countries will have marriage for gay couples.

      4. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 6:44pm

        Idiot, the 2005 government census reports 6%, 3 million or more are gay. Get your facts right, obviously you don’t read or do any research.

    3. Going on the C4EM petition, less than 0.08% of the UK population are for ‘gay marriage’!

      1. Going by a newspaper poll yesterday 60% of the UK are in favour of gay couples marrying.

      2. how much exactly have the C4M spent on their negative campaign? I’m sure it’s a milliion times more than the C4EM. I would suggest that the amount of cash and effort wasted on the C4M campaign would be better used on doing the good things that Christians are supposed to do.

        Perhaps we should conduct a poll on how unpopular the catholic church and the christians are since they started their nasty pointless campaign against LGBT people.

  7. Craig Denney 7 May 2012, 12:02pm

    The Government is supposedly investigating the anti-gay marriage petition or is this now going to be another string along?

  8. The petition is a distraction regardless… equality issues should never be decided by the tyranny of the majority, even if they are a majority which is doubtful.
    If you’d asked the population of Alabama in the 1930s whether they wanted racial equality, the majority would’ve been against, and the reasons sited would’ve been almost identical.

    1. I know what you mean; ironic and sad at the same time. Especially when we consider that so many of them claim to be Christians and show a distinct lack of love for other people.

  9. Easily done, I suppose, when you conscript children in schools to sign it.
    These people have creditability.

  10. Where are the paper sigs collected from?
    You can easily manipulate a petition by carefully choosing the areas you canvas.
    PN has already proven how the e-petition is flawed.

  11. Pink News has become paranoid and fixated on the C4M petition. The petition scares them so much that the spend their nights staring at it

    1. No, we point and we laugh

      1. I guess that is because there is nothing in C4EM petition to ‘point at’?
        No wonder Boris Johnson did not bother to provide the LGBT manifesto that he promised. According to sources, he was ‘pointed’ to the C4EM petition and their meagre numbers.

        1. Exactly, nothing in the C4EM to point out because it has been organised and managed with integrity and propriety – unlike the grotesque campaign and deceptions and manipulation of children by the C4M, Christian Institute and RC church.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 1:29pm

        0.083% = 500,000 signatures out of a population of 60 million is risible. They’d need quite a a few million to have any relevance and that’s NOT going to happen. Point, click, laugh into the recycle bin.

        1. Well, it has already happened. Even Vince Cable has confirmed that ALL that they are interested in doing is to have a consultation and that introducing gay marriage legislation would not happen in the ‘immediate future’.

          1. Strange how it was never intended to be in this years Queens Speech anyway – the PM, Chancellor and Equality Minister have all confirmed this.

            Anyone with any understanding of politics would have seen that equal marriage would never have been in this years Queens speech.

            So, Ken have your 5 minutes of spite and froth, but neither the PM, Chancellor, Vince Cable, Equality Minsiter, Home Secretary and many others involved in this process have said that they will not introduce equal marriage – just that there are no plans to have it in the Queens speech, but given that there never were plans for this year – thats hardly the “victory” you are trying to insinuate!

            The Chancellor, PM, equality minister and others have all made it perfectly clear that they support gay couples marrying.

            Queens speech 2013/14 – thats when you will see it happen. Look forward to seeing that demented smirk wiped off your face then – and when I marry my boyfriend.

  12. Craig Denney 7 May 2012, 12:33pm

    When is DC going to denounce the petition as fraudulent?

    Or dose he think the petition is valid?

  13. A petition is only relevant if it’s for the protection or enhancement of someone’s own rights (or, say, the rights of those who can not speak for themselves, such as children, seriously disabled people or even our cruelly treated animal brethren). A petition barring somebody ELSE’S rights means nothing. It just tells us about the collective character of the petitioners.

  14. Sounds like one for “The Daily Mash” as Catholic Church announces anti-equality marriage Petition reaches 6.8 billion signatures via their website portal with another bag of post expected today with the remaining postal votes likely to take it to a total approximating the current live population of the planet with the notable exception of a small minority of so called ‘gay extremists’ (about 12 if you include Nigel who kind of swings both ways to be honest). The Pope in a press statement announced something in Latin but as our reporter went to a state comprehensive so only did GCSE French (just managing a D-grade) we’re not sure what it actually said but the closing paragraph in answering the question about the need for marriage equality said “Ursi voluntas stercore in silvis”.

    1. Last I heard it was up to 10 billion and rising fast! :)

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 6:42pm

      6.8 billion signatures eh? Out of world population of 7 billion? Dream on.

  15. Doesn’t the consultation on equal civil marriage state that it is not interested in the number of responses received and that it is about how and not if civil marriage will be introduced.

    If the consultation is not interested in the number of responses it receives then why would the government concern itself with the number of signatures on a petition.

    I wish we could get a response from someone in govt on what they are going to do with the C4M petition. What does LF , for instance , say about it? What does DC/No 10 say about it?

    1. Thats exactly what it says John.

      Human rights do not depend on a majority of a petition – they depend on humanity, fairness and decency – all words the C4M, CARE, CI, RC church, Lord Carey, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Karl McCartney, Nadine Dorries, George Howarth, Ken, Keith, Aiden and others seem totally ignorant of.

      1. Both UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights has ruled repeatedly that gay marriage is NOT a human right. It seems you are the ‘totally ignorant’ one here . Try following the news!

        1. bobbleobble 7 May 2012, 1:20pm

          Actually the ECHR didn’t say that at all. What they said was that there is no current consensus about whether gay people should be allowed to marry since in only 7 (soon to be 8) of the 40+ jurisidictions of the Council of Europe are gay people allowed to marry. They said it was therefore up to each individual state to decide. The ECHR does not comment on human rights generally, only upon what is contained within the European Convention. So it’s not incorrect to say that gay marriage is a human right.

          In effect they said that the European Convention on Human Rights does not YET provide a right for gay people to marry but that position will change over time. It’s a pragmatic approach more than anything, if they found a right for gay people to marry then it would apply everywhere in the Council of Europe including Russia, Turkey, Armenia etc. That would be a hard sell by anyone’s estimation and would probably damage the court irrevocably. It’s self preservation more than anything.

          1. bobbleobble 7 May 2012, 1:21pm

            that should have said ‘soon to be 8’ I have no idea where the smiley face came from!

        2. Ken

          Did they not teach you that lying is a sin?

          Oh, I forgot a few weeks back, you proved you are unaware of the ten commandments! We laughed and pointed then too!

          The European courts made no such decision that you claim. There are further cases coming which may allow them to come to a conclusion on this issue – in the most recent case, the future cases were pointed at as being likely to resolve the issue, but there was no consensus.

    2. DC and No. 10 have alread made their position clear. i.e they have kicked the proposals into the grass so that the can ‘focus on the things that matter’ to everybody

      1. Perhaps in the bizarro world you inhabit.
        I’ve always found the “If we debate marriage equality, there’ll be no parliamentary time to debate anything else” argument to be a thin excuse for bigotry.

      2. Rant all you like delusional one, troll, provoke, have all the hissy fits you like, and it won’t make one bit of difference. Equal Marriage is going to happen either under a Conservative Government or a Labour one, it will still happen. So, now is the time for you to roll on the floor, bite the carpet, froth, bite and scratch the lino on your bathroom floor, strip off smear yourself with your own waste products and ask your mythical gawd for help. Paint your arse blue or ‘pray’ till you have lockjaw but know this, equal marriage is inevitable, and you and your fellow religiously inclined delusionals are irrelevant to that happening.

      3. Ken, all that has happened is DC has not included equal marriage [or Lord’s reform] in the Queen’s speech; they have not been scrapped. Are you the same Ken who trolls the Freethinker site?

      4. Downing Street made a statement yesterday stating that the Prime Minister is clearly in support of equal marriage and that nothing has changed this.

        The Chancellor said on BBC TV yesterday that he supports equal marriage.

        Every minister making comment yesterday said that equal marriage was never intended to be in this years Queens Speech.

        Nothing has changed other than some right wing extremists and some fundamentalist Christians thinking that if its not in the Queens speech this year then its never going to happen.

        Dream on. Its coming and the only cabinet minister not in support is the Chief Whip.

        1. “Dream on”? Why should I when I have the reality? I’m married. I’m allowed to marry and my marriage is recognized in EVERY country in the world.

          The ‘dreamers’ are actually you and your co-militants in the gay ‘marriage’ lobby who ‘dream’ that one day they can become heterosexuals and marry. Keep on dreaming and pls no suicides before then(yeah, I heard the gay community are fond of it).

          1. Why would I want to be heterosexual?

            Thats something you clearly have wrong – there are few gay people I know who wish to be heterosexual.

          2. “that one day they can become heterosexuals and marry.”

            LOL! WTF???? You really thing that? Seriously?


      5. “DC and No. 10 have alread made their position clear. i.e they have kicked the proposals into the grass so that the can ‘focus on the things that matter’ to everybody”

        Can’t read?

        No surprise, you seem stupid.

  16. Aryugaetu 7 May 2012, 1:14pm

    Human rights are never subject to the whims of the majority; that would be mob-rule.

    The feelings and beliefs of a million people cannot erase the rights of one person. To do so would be in the belief of second-class, non-human, citizens.

    How does this differ from the human rights atrocities against Gays in the Middle East and Africa? Rather than killing Gays, you just make their life Hell in the same lame attempt to make your own prejudices somehow morally better?

    In short, you don’t “poll” to determine the truth of human rights, not any more than you would poll to determine if the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    1. The UK Courts and the European Court of Human Rights have repeatedl ruled that gay ‘marriage’ is NOT a human right. Which part of their rulings do you not understand?

      1. bobbleobble 7 May 2012, 1:54pm

        Actually Ken it’s you that doesn’t understand them. Read my post above for the reasons why.

      2. Repeating the lies often does not make them true, Ken

        1. If you think the ‘truth’ is that gay marriage is a human right, you can go to court and challenge the ban rather than waiting on Cameron to ‘give’ gay ‘marriage’ to you.

          1. Just out of interest Ken, why are you so opposed to gay marriage? You seem to argue against it without reason, but there must be some underlying reason. You don’t have to say if you don’t want to though :)

          2. “you can go to court and challenge the ban”

            Like poor little demented Rosemary Bull did?


        2. Well, others are already pursuing that course. I will support them in their endeavours but avoid muddying the water by adding additional cases at this time.

          Particularly given the fact that equal marriage will happen in the Uk within the next few years.

    2. Brilliantly put, though I bet some people would believe that you could vote on planetary rotation.

    3. de Villiers 7 May 2012, 10:07pm

      Human rights are defined by the majority. Fortunately, sexuality is properly recognised in English law as being a protected ground in matters of discrimination.

  17. GulliverUK 7 May 2012, 1:17pm

    I pointed out to PN weeks ago that there are only around 170,000 ONLINE signatures. You can see the names of all those who have signed online, and it counts them also.
    Go here at the bottom it says page 1 of 174, and with “ipp” (in the address bar set at 1000, that means 1000 names per page). Set it to 1 and then go (several times, to the last page) and you get
    “Page 173005 of 173005”

    If they have another 330,000 signs from elsewhere, that’s probably around 20+ large boxes of signatures. Very unlikely. I think they’re a bunch of liars who are manipulating the figures for political purposes.

    1. Certainly C4M are a coalition of anti-gay hate groups and individuals who have shown themselves prone to deliberate misrepresention of facts and any distortion of reality in their eagerness to block gay equality.

  18. Actually that is not what has happened at all. DC has reconfirmed his commitment to marriage equality and the Lib Dems see this as one of their core aims to achieve. Add to this the overwhelming support of the Labour Party and one sees how rhis issue is even contentious.

  19. Its just spin from people like C4M, Dorries and McCartney.

    Listen to what the senior ministers themselves are saying

    1. GulliverUK 7 May 2012, 2:29pm

      There is a lot of spin around. I think you’re right, they’re just trying to coerce undecided people to jump their way by pretending that everyone else is going that way.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 2:35pm

      Yes, Stu. But I wonder who was responsible for actually saying what Cameron is alledged to have said? Whoever it is, needs to explain. I’m surprised that the Sunday Times would even print something unless it vouched for its accuracy. It’s the sort of thing I’d expect from the Daily Mail or Telegraph.

  20. GulliverUK 7 May 2012, 2:25pm
    This shows the article, but my understanding is that No.10 said that those words weren’t correct. The article was from yesterday. It’s quite confusing as to what their position is now.

    Either way Cameron will DO it before 2015, or will be out after May 2015 and Labour will do it in the next parliament. The only thing people need to be concerned about is how long they’ll have to wait to get it, not whether they will ever get it. If Cameron was to abandon this now he’ll have doomed the Tories to election defeat – he can’t survive without some measure of support from voters who are gay. Remember that all their gaffes before the last election caused their support from people who are gay to jump off a cliff. Subsequently, when they should probably have been able to get enough votes to govern all by themselves, they couldn’t even manage a majority.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 2:42pm

      I hope you’re right Gulliver. I think the Tory party is in a catch 22 situation, damned if it does or doesn’t, irrespective of the economy doing badly or doing good. I just don’t understand why the Tory backbenchers are prepared to see its party defeated over this one issue, do you? Are they that willing to have a Labour government get back into No. 10? Seriously though. It makes no sense why they’d go that far just to be mean spirited and vindictive given the result of the 2010 general election.

    2. Boris Johnson promised too produce an LGBT manifesto BEFORE the mayoral elections but did not produce it and yet he won. David Cameron has promised gay ‘marriage’ BEFORE the general elections and would NOT push it through yet would still win the election if he can turn around the economy.
      LGBT votes are completely insignificant to elections. What matters is the economy. Get it right and win, get it wrong and lose.

      1. Much more significant to elections than the church going population are.

        In any event, maybe Boris did not produce his manifesto – but he felt a very strong need to seek support from LGBT people, and he clearly has stated he favours gay couples marrying.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 6:38pm

        Then why would conservatives pander to the gay vote? If they don’t need them, then there would be no equal marriage consultation underway. There are more than 3 million (6% of the population) gay people in the UK according to the 2005 government census. That’s a huge number of potential voters to ignore. There wouldn’t be a coalition government if more gay voters supported the Tories, so it’s obvious to them that our votes do count. Even if the economy were to gain steam and jobs created, dropping marriage equality won’t win them another election, guaranteed.

  21. Petition should be null and void and is probably not even legal. They pressured Cathoic schoolchildren into signing it. God knows where they got most of the rest of the signatures.

    These folks are fast turning to the UK equivalent of the extreme homophobic National Organization for Marriage.

    1. Absolutely!

  22. Get out of the closet.

    1. btw. You make us all laugh. You’re a pathetic idiot who spends his time trolling a gay news website. Get a life you moron.

  23. Well if C4M can produce these pages(and pages) of signatures then they can easily refute any claims of these discrepancies can’t they?

    1. GulliverUK 7 May 2012, 4:20pm

      They only have 173,000 ONLINE signatures, not 490,000.

      There have been very suspicious sudden increases in numbers, at odd times of the day. Besides, The Christian Institute, which is running the site, and overseeing the whole campaign, are known liars — they’ve been lying for years, they’re expert liars.

  24. GingerlyColors 7 May 2012, 3:56pm

    Less than 1% say no to marriage equality.

  25. Points and laughs at the closet case called Aiden!

    Petitions are irrelevant in issues of human rights.

    Right wing extremists wouldn’t understand that though – they are too thick to understand fairness or integrity!

    What happened to BNP in the local elections – oh yes, they were wiped out!

    What happened to UKIP – no significant gains.

    Where was the shift of vote – to a party that strongly supports equality!


    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 4:09pm

      Yes, indeed!

    2. What happened to the Lib Dems – the party behind the gay marriage proposals? Their councillors have been reduced to their lowest level since they were formed!

      I’m sure thats a vote of confidence on Lynne Featherstone?

      1. A large number of votes have gone to Labour. And tell us Ken what is Labour’s view on marriage equality?

        So how do you equate the equal marriage proposals to the reduction in vote numbers when the big gains were made by a party also in favour of marriage equality?

    3. “The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.”

      But individual governments in the EU have, and will continue to do so when the UK follow suit.

      You entire comment is the equivalent of putting your hands over our ears, shutting your eyes, and shouting I can’t hear you – its rather pathetic.

    4. Laughs and points – BNP supporter quotes the ECHR – hypocrite!

      Laughs and points – BNP supporter quotes ECHR inaccurately.

      If you are going to quote an organisation (especially one you disagree with) then try and get it correct! Although to do that having more than one brain cell is usually advantageous.

      The court was very divided on the issue of discrimination and stated that other cases to come may help it to come to a clearer view on this matter in the coming year.

    5. The ruling in the ECHR case earlier this year stated that the court:

      “would no longer consider that the right to marry enshrined in article 12 must in all circumstances be limited to marriage between two persons of the opposite sex. Consequently, it cannot be said that article 12 is inapplicable to the applicants’ complaint. However, as matters stand, the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law of the contracting state.” (para. 61)

  26. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 4:06pm

    And you are a ‘normal’ person. Really? I thought ‘normal’ people wouldn’t troll gay sites. Not the behaviour of a normal straight person is it? You spend a lot of time in here too. Idiot!

  27. In order to get many of these signatures the church has manipulated children into signing a petition that they really have little understanding off.
    Funny it’s not like the church to abuse the innocence of children for their own perverted activities.

  28. I’ll eat my hat if 300,000+ of those signatures aren’t AMERICAN! Anti-gay and fundamentalist Christian American websites have been promoting this petition from the get-go!

    I sincerely hope that this petition will be reviewed and the signatures will be verified by an independent investigation. C4M will be humiliated when the results come back. GUARANTEED!

    This is yet another tactic straight out of the anti-gay American playbook.

    1. GulliverUK 7 May 2012, 4:50pm

      Nobody can tell from the email address because most people on the planet can get a hotmail or gmail account, and nobody can tell which country they live in. The only way would be to see match IP addresses of the person signing the petition. The fact is many of those fundies have no ethics and will sign petitions even if they say UK residents only.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 5:38pm

        The C4EM petition requests a UK postal code, not that it would be difficult to find one for non-Brits or residents, but I’m not sure if the C4M requests the same, probably doesn’t.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 5:41pm

        I know for a fact that C4EM’s petition doesn’t allow more than one signature and IP addresses are checked in case people with more than one account sign using different names on the same computer. I doubt if C4M’s has that much integrity to do the same. Is it no wonder C4M doesn’t allow its methodology to be explained? Obviously something to hide. Honesty is not one of their so called ‘christian’ values.

  29. C4M is “an alliance of faith groups”…

    Actually, a few of the Coalition’s main backers are atheists and secularists.

    Why not mention this?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 5:35pm

      So what? There are people of faith, including clergy, who support equal marriage as well as atheists and secularists such as myself. Your point?

    2. Every director of C4M is allied to a fundamentalist or extremist Christian organisation.

      The initial registered office is the same office as that of the CI

      Their London office is the same office as a number of other Christian extremist groups.

      Its a Christian extremist organisation that is ashamed to admit it publically.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 6:18pm

        Extremist organisations in my view are nothing more than hate groups, end of. They not only want to make sure equal marriage never happens but they want to remove CPs too. They want to turn the UK back to theocracy. They are not just religious hate groups but political groups too.

    3. C’mon John…the C4M petition is being pushed by an alliance of faith groups, any old idiot knows that. Of course, any old homophobe would sign the petition. Homophobes aren’t just limited to faith groups you know.

  30. @Aiden

    Whatever. I notice your Twitter picture:

    has been lifted from a stock photo site:

    though it’s nice the way you’ve altered the image to add a British Freedom Party badge. Presumably the picture you’ve chosen is how you think you look; in reality, I suspect this:

    is closer to the truth. Why don’t you stop making yourself a laughing stock, and consider this:

    1. Hahaha So we are being lectured on honesty and not making false claims by an “individual” who doesn’t have the balls to put a picture of himself to his “own” twitter page.

      What would your Church say about such bearing of false witness lies Aiden?

    2. Fantastic scoop, Harry.

      So Aiden has been bullying at least one person on here – yet “Aiden” is lying about his own identity – the hypocrite!

      As for the British Freedom Party, they are worse than the BNP and are affiliated to the EDL

      Check this out:

      1. Thanks Grant !

        It’s not just us “Aiden” is lying to, I imagine he’s also convinced himself that he’s straight. And he’s doing manly straight things like spending a lot of time on gay sites.

        I would love to hear the conversation that he’s just had with his wife:

        “Take a picture of me”

        “Why ?”

        “Someone on Pink New has discovered my Twitter pic is a stock photo”

        “Why were you on Pink News ?”

    3. Come out of the sodding closet!

    4. You really think we’re interested ?

      You’ve just been caught lying twice, (you claim) you’re a member of a fascist organization. You claim your married yet you spend an incredible amount of time on a gay website. This is so not normal.

      Instead of getting your “wife” (is it Skinner ? not Keith surely ? is it both ?) to take a blurred picture of you inside a closet, why not step out of it ?

      (PS Love the tan, white tee shirt and jeans look – classic gay !)

      (PPS why aren’t you looking at the camera ?)

      (PPPS What’s your real name “Aiden” ?)

      1. Well said, Harry

        He claims to be affiliated to a group which is linked to violent extremists and he looks like someone I could beat in an arm wrestle!

      2. Harry, I love the line on this muppets twitter: “Free views, thoughts, opinions & facts.”

        Since when is being religious having a free mind? LOL! And yet he’s here whining about his right to persecute others! What a hypocritical little b!tch he is.

    5. Who’s your make up artist, sweetie?

    6. Where’d you find this pic? Oh don’t tell us. It’s actually you now. Of course it is

  31. Taking the general rule of the Gay to straight ratio of population of about 1:12, then their 500,000 signatures, (albeit rather dubious one’s :Under age school kids etc) then to equal that we would need to achieve 41666 votes. Hey! We have over 53000! WE ARE IN THE LEAD!!!

    1. If their claims of 1.5% of the population being LGBT was true (which I dispute – but hey its the figure they want to use, so let them use it) then we are MASSIVELY in the lead

      1. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 1:53am

        Based on the proportion of gays willing to sign a petition to advance their own cause vs. the proportion of the overall population that’s for or against.

        So, according to your logic, a party should win the next election on the basis of the proportion of their own supporters who vote for them.


        1. “Based on the proportion of gays willing to sign a petition to advance their own cause vs. the proportion of the overall population that’s for or against.”

          You stick to that line when marriage equality gets brought in, there’s a good boy. We have seen your delusional kind saying the saying when Civil Partnerships came in.

          Its why we’re winning – You keep believing the rest of society follows your archaic bigotry….. we work with reality.

          1. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 2:13pm

            Hasten the day when the perpetual ‘victim’ status is abandoned.

            Until then, I think your last paragraph should begin, ‘it’s why we’re whining…’

          2. LOL! Pathetic. I’ll just that that as admission of how correct I was in the first place. And coming from you who is espousing bigotry on a gay site, how wonderfully predictable.

            What delightful hypocrisy you display, a wonder of the religiously indoctrinated and the small minded.

  32. @Aiden

    “I already signed it on-line months ago.”

    Really ? There is no Aiden Russell amongst the signatories as of today (Monday 7 May 2012, 6:15pm).

    1. Could that be because he is also lying about his name?

      More hypocracy from “Aiden” – what a shocker! lol

    2. @Grant

      How could you think such a thing ? I’m shocked and disgusted with you !

      “Aiden” lying is no more likely than “Aiden” being a hypocrite. There must a simple explanation …

      1. I do apologise, Harry

        I must not rush to conclusions. I should sit and contemplate the evidence and make rational judgements on the facts that present themselves.

        Ok – thinking …..

        Ok – thought – “Aiden” lies and is a hypocrite!



        1. I cannot think of any other explanation !

    3. “I called at their office today”


      Aiden LIES again.

      When the petition closes and all the names are published will the name Aiden Russell appear – no – he’s a fictitious troll.

      He doesnt really exist.

      He’s less than nothing.

  33. Aiden come out come out the suspense is just boring us to death. Come out of the sodding closet and stop with the trolling. We all know you are a big ol cock loving gayboy, no shame in that love, better get a real man’s arms around you than the make believe jepus, you know it makes sense. Anyway love, we are all laughing our dicks off at you everytime you troll this site, just so you know.

  34. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 8:25pm

    I believe most parliamentary sessions last less than a year. So it’s quite feasible it could be in 2013. The third year of his premiership.

  35. David Shepherd 7 May 2012, 9:24pm

    So the c4m petition numbers are described by some here as suspect and meaningless.

    On what basis, then, are the c4em petition numbers credible and meaningful? Oh, of course, unlike c4m, those signatures were not demanded with menaces, but validly represent public opinion. Yeah, right!

    1. By all means you are free to raise any issues you have with the C4EM petition. If the C4Em is above board then any allegations can be refuted exactly as the C4M should be able to do as well.

    2. Don’t mind the militatnt gay marriage lobby. C4M petition numbers is scaring them stiff!

      1. Possible dodgy signatures, possible non UK signatures, possible signatures of under 16 children. All of which total what percentage of the UK population(after we exclude any non UK signatures)?

        All of which against a measure which a number of ministers have said WILL happen. I don’t know how I’m going to sleep tonight without having nightmares.

        1. David Shepherd 7 May 2012, 11:40pm

          The c4m petition is reflective of the British Social Attitudes Survey 2008.

          Even a cursory review of that survey (see Civil Partnerships Five Years On by The Office of National Statistics) confirms that while the majority of over-30s accept the parallel institution of Civil Partnership as a fair measure, the majority in the UK not in support of gay marriage.

          1. And what’s been the trend of surveys on the matter a bit more recently?

          2. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 1:38am

            The 2010 survey only reported on whether the participants felt that homosexual relationship were mostly/always/never right or wrong. That says nothing about the morality of gay marriage.

            You may find the Euro Barometer survey useful in respect of the more pertinent question, ‘homosexual marriages should be allowed throughout Europe’. Even the ILGA accepts these stats as valid:

          3. Would that the the survey the ONS said they said that there could be a significant margin of error in?

            I think so.

          4. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 1:48pm

            Fortunately, in ‘Ben’s world’ only the ONS survey and the C4M petition have that unacceptable margin of error.

            In fact, you might even believe that a survey’s accuracy is in direct proportion to the number of gays who accept it as valid.

            So, how is it that the International Lesbian and Gay Alliance accepts the Euro Barometer findings as valid proof that the tide here hasn’t turned?

    3. Personally as its an issue of equality and fairness, I think both petitions are largely irrelevant.

      As for running scared accusations from ken – in your dreams matey.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 8 May 2012, 12:20am

      Then explain why, the organisation responsible for the poll hired by C4M refuses to divulge it’s methodology? If C4M has NOTHING to hide, then why doesn’t it provide the information for transparency? It stubbornly refuses to do so. Obviously, it does have something to hide. Yet another idiot.

      1. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 12:25am

        Another conspiracy theorist. I reckon Dan Brown’s Illuminati are lurking somewhere in the shadows, don’t you?

        1. Better that than be in denial about most of the population support your bigotry, isn’t it?

    5. “Oh, of course, unlike c4m, those signatures were not demanded with menaces, but validly represent public opinion. Yeah, right!”

      You mean the way the catholic church extorted signatures from children, and now there’s an investigation under way? Yeah, very valid petition you have there….. real “honest” christians doing “honest” work.

  36. How many Catholic schoolchildren were coerced into signing this? How many intellectually disabled people were deceived into signing this? How many bogus signatures using pseudonyms?
    Because in New Zealand, that is exactly what happened when ‘phobes opposed homosexual law reform and circulated an antigay peitition here…

    1. GulliverUK 7 May 2012, 10:24pm

      How many people have been misled by religious leaders and lobby organisations who have claimed that if this goes through all churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples, and any priests who refuse will be arrested and sent to prison. I’ve seen that in papers several times. And if you look back (Google search on “Civil Partnerships”, with custom date range 2004-2006) you’ll find they said exactly the same would happen when Civil Partnerships were introduced. All this scaremongering by distorting the truth, and bold-faced lies.

      1. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 12:45am

        In contrast, run another web search to ascertain whether the campaigners for civil partnership promoted it as a parallel institution in its own right with no plans to introduce gay marriage, rather than, as we now realise, a provisional political expedient exploited to ‘sell’ gay marriage to electorate that remains unconvinced (see Civil Partnerships Five Years On and British Social Attitudes Survey 2008).

        1. Well, the electorate seem convince to me. You seen, most normal people (ones without obsession of all things homosexual, that is) do not see this as anything other then allowing two people in love who wish to avail of marriage.

          Just a few bigots, they’ll never be convinced of anything, so they’re of no consequence.

          1. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 9:07am

            And a lot of disingenuous gay pressure groups and lobbyists using the pink pound to sway politicians. Some achievement!

          2. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 9:07am

            And a lot of disingenuous gay pressure groups and lobbyists using the pink pound to sway politicians. Startling achievement!

          3. And a lot of disingenuous “christian” pressure groups and lobbyists using the schools to sway politicians. Some achievement!

          4. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 1:34pm

            Your ‘echo chamber’ response doesn’t even count as a parody

          5. “Your ‘echo chamber’ response doesn’t even count as a parody”

            Funny that, I was thinking YOUR response was borderline delusional with a fleeting grasp of the reality – typically egocentric of the religious.

            The very fact you HERE on this site, enthuses me enormously – it means if delusional bigots like you have to resort to this, then we’ve already won the equality battle.

          6. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 3:22pm

            Yes, I confess it was delusional to think that Civil Partnership was anything more than a temporary ruse. Strange that those you deem delusional weren’t actually taken in.

            I love debating those who confound liberty rights (freedom of association, speech, etc.) and claim rights (demands for State recognition, validation and support). On this site, the supply of those claiming all they can on account of their interminable victimhood, including yourself, is endless! Game on, then, I’m hooked.

          7. “Yes, I confess it was delusional to think that Civil Partnership was anything more than a temporary ruse.”

            Oh, yes, you’re on to us. Yes, we’re also planning world domination by re-programming children with “gay propaganda”

            I see you’re as paranoid as you are stupid. What a marvellous achievement.

            “Game on, then, I’m hooked.”

            Grow up, you muppet.You’re excellent proof the more religious you are, the lower your IQ.

          8. David Shepherd 8 May 2012, 4:42pm

            ‘Muppet’. That’s it? Your scintillating wit and rapier-like repartee amounts to that as a coup-de-grace

            You might employ a thesaurus next time. Oh and try to tame that temper as well. Your parry and thrust tactics will be far more effective if you do!

          9. LOL! You’re pent up anger and frustration is a delight to watch! Ahhhh, did the queers upset you again? Bless.

  37. Spanner1960 8 May 2012, 12:03am

    So much for petitions.
    Even in the right wing Telegraph it is 23% against, 77% for out of over 12,000 people. I think that says a lot.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 May 2012, 12:16pm

      Yes, that was quite a nice surprise, who would have thought, and in the Telegraph?

    2. It was a great poll in the Telegraph

      I also found this Populus poll illuminating:

      The Populus poll shows that 65% of people in the UK support gay couples being able to marry.

  38. Avalokiteshvara 8 May 2012, 9:50am

    By which time the NHS will be broken up and sold to the City.

  39. Calum McSwiggan 8 May 2012, 10:26am

    I wrote an article last week about how the contrast in signatures on c4em and c4m was very worrying, and indicated how homophobic Britain really is. (

    Although it is shocking and appauling that signatures are being got unfairly, I find it a bit of a relief, maybe Britain isn’t quite as homophobic as I thought. At least I hope not.


  40. Chris Hall 8 May 2012, 8:22pm

    Well Closetman, if it’s not a human right then the European courts can’t force churches to perform equal marriages can they? What’s you objection again?

  41. Thats not what the ECHR have said.

    Don’t you want to withdraw from the ECHR? Yet, you use lies about its judgements to form your argument – thats almost as bizarre as a supposedly straight man, using false photographs about themselves, and repeatedly visiting a site targetting LGBT people.

  42. Gay & Happy 9 May 2012, 3:03am

    You’re wrong, you’re being dishonest and you’re indulging in pathetic wishful thinking, as always with your predictable backward lowlife lot.

    Also, FOAD. I really have had it lately with arsewipes like you and your crazed determination to make certain people’s lives as difficult as possible just for being who they are. For god’s sake get a life and do something that contributes to society. The homophobes really have made themselves look especially bad with this marriage business, and those looking back from the coming centuries will no doubt be speechless at just how incredibly unreasonable the bigots were being about this issue. On and on, screeching desperately against equality. Do something useful!

  43. I’m glad Aiden, as that’s all you lot have to be happy about, bless….. I mean we’re winning everything else.

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.